In Defense of the Church:Episcopal Involvement in the Scottish War of Independence

Thomas Bailey, OSBHS 517: England from Stonehenge to Versailles

December 8, 2009

The death of King Alexander III in 1286 inaugurated an uneasy period in Scottish

history; only the begrudged acceptance of the three-year-old Margaret, the Maid of Norway, as

their queen averted civil war. Tension reignited however upon her death in 1290 as the Bruce

(Robert V) and Comyn (John Balliol) clans staked their claims to the now vacant throne. In an

attempt to avoid civil war, the Guardians of Scotland–those charged with ruling the realm during

the interregnum–pleaded with King Edward I of England to arbitrate the dispute, known in

Scotland as the Great Cause.

The intentions of Edward I are not to be argued here, but the judgment for John Balliol

resulted in the acceptance of the realm of Scotland from Edward I of England with the

accompanying oaths of fealty. Hostility grew rapidly as Scotland chaffed under their vassal

status. The nobility of Scotland took effective power away from King John Balliol and

concluded the Auld Alliance with France in 1295. King Edward I wasted no time in squashing

what he saw as a rebellion at the Battle of Dunbar in 1296. Thereafter he decided to rule

Scotland directly himself.

King Edward I did not receive a passive Scotland. Small revolts sprang up almost

immediately; most were just as quickly crushed until the William Wallace’s Lanark revolt in

May 1297. After achieving small victories, Wallace combined his forces with those of Sir

Andrew Murray and through unorthodox methods took advantage of the situation at Stirling

Bridge in September of 1297–defeating a superior army led by King Edward’s representatives in

Scotland, Earl John Warenne and Bishop Hugh Cressingham. The Scottish victory ignited the

nationalist cause that did not end until King Edward III of England’s (grandson of Edward I)

recognition of Robert I of Scotland’s (Grandson of Robert V) crown in 1328.

Bailey 2

The modern notions of the separation of church and state were completely unknown to

the English and the Scots. As such, it was expected that the Church support the state in its

battles, be they internal or external. The English bishops participated as either councilors to the

king or as generals in battle. The Scottish bishops also involved themselves in similar ways, but

there was more zeal in their work. As an example, the Scottish ecclesial passion was so

vehement that Pope Boniface VIII later charged Bishop Wishart of Glasgow for instigating the

war between England and Scotland. Other bishops in Scotland were to go so far as to declare a

crusade against the English and that the killing of Englishmen was superior to the killing of the

Saracens in the Holy Land–something no English bishop claimed against the Scots.

Certainly the Scottish bishops were motivated like many of their fellow Scotsmen to

maintain a political separation from England, but they also fought for their ecclesial separation

from York. The Scottish episcopacy fought since the Norman Invasion to maintain their

independence from the Archbishopric of York, acknowledged by the Papal Bull Cum Universi of

Celestine III in 1192. If Scotland were a vassal-state of England, or worse yet after 1296 no

longer a realm, then their argument for separation would be mute. The existence of the Scotia

Ecclesiae1 was at stake. The Scottish hierarchy therefore supported the Scottish War of

Independence for both political and ecclesial independence in Scotland. It’s generations of

struggle and victories were lost of the field at Dunbar. The war for independence, during both

the Wallace and Bruce stages, was an opportunity to regain its separate identity.

Scotland was an ecclesial province without an archbishop–though the See of St. Andrews

was traditionally, since the eleventh century, the premier diocese in Scotland. The lack of an

archbishop was not a major concern to the Scottish episcopacy until William the Conqueror’s

1 The Scotia Ecclesiae is a Latin term that translates to “Church of Scotland.” It encompasses however the idea of a church that is free from foreign, save Papal, influence.

Bailey 3

appointments to the Archiepiscopal Sees of York (Thomas of York) and Canterbury (Lanfranc)

began struggling over their jurisdiction in England. The spring of 1072 brought an English

compromise in which York gained authority over all northern territories, this included Durham

and the Kingdom of Scotland. It was further complicated because the agreement was ratified in

the presence not only of the King of England but also a papal legate.2

The Archbishops of York never summoned the Scottish bishops to the provincial

councils, but there was increased demand for Scottish bishops to swear fealty to their new

metropolitan. Initially the requests for fealty were encouraged by the Scottish King, Malcom III,

however, as D.E.R. Watt suggests, Scottish bishops made the oaths early in the period of the

Gregorian reforms (c. 1050-80) when “the implications of the offices of ‘primate’ and

‘metropolitan’ were not precisely appreciated.”3 Most Scottish bishops resisted making

obeisance once the understanding of York’s authority was clarified, despite papal mandates to

the contrary.4 The Archbishops of York felt compelled to press the issue in order to maintain

their own independence from Canterbury. Besides the Diocese of Durham, no other bishoprics

except those in Scotland belonged to the Province of York. Three bishops were required for the

consecration of another bishop; as such Scotland was essential in order not to appeal to

Canterbury for co-consecrators. The archbishop maintained two titular bishops in residence at

York (Orkney and the Isles). Eventually the Diocese of Glasgow submitted in the 1120s and the

newly created Diocese of Carlisle in the 1130s.5

2 D.E.R. Watt, Medieval Church Councils in Scotland (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), 9-11.3 Ibid., 11.4 See Pope Callistus II to the Bishops of Scotland, 1119, as found in Gordon Donaldson, trans., Scottish Historical Documents (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970), 18.5 Alan Macquarrie, Medieval Scotland: Kingship and Nation (Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2004), 109-110.

Bailey 4

The reign of King David I of Scotland (1124-1153) brought much royal centralization to

Scotland, including the Scottish Church. David I saw royal control over the Church as aiding his

plan to exert royal influence throughout the Kingdom of Scotland and as such wished to limit

external control.6 He was repeatedly denied his request to elevate the See of St. Andrews to an

archbishopric, which would have assured Scottish ecclesial independence. Despite the papal

denial, he was able to have his brother’s (Alexander I) appointment to St. Andrews, Prior Robert

of Scone, consecrated by Archbishop Thurstan of York without swearing fealty to York, and he

was also able to have the new bishop of Glasgow, Herbert, consecrated by the pope in 1147.

David I’s grandson and heir, Malcom IV, continued the policy of requesting the archbishop’s

status for St. Andrews. Again Pope Alexander III denied it, but the pope allowed to stand the

consecrations of Bishop Ingram to Glasgow (1164) and Bishop Richard to St. Andrews (1165)

without York’s approval.7 In effect, these actions established a truce that continued until King

William I’s capitulations in the Treaty of Falaise (1175).

William I of Scotland (1165-1214) backed Richard, Geoffrey, John, and Eleanor of

Aquitaine in their revolt against Henry II in 1173-1174, which they subsequently lost. After

being captured at the Battle of Alnwick, William I agreed to terms of peace, the Treaty of

Falaise, which explicitly included the Scottish Church’s submission to the English Church.8

Pope Alexander III was concerned about the rising power of Henry II over the Church, as the

recent Becket affair demonstrated, and he issued a papal bull on April 30, 1175, granting unto

perpetuity the Diocese of Glasgow the special protection of the Roman See. The six bishops of

Scotland used the ambiguity of Glasgow’s special status in August of 1175 to postpone their

6 A.D.M. Barrell, Medieval Scotland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 45.7 Macquarrie, 110-111.8 Charles Duggan, “From the Conquest to the Death of John,” in The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages, edited by C.H. Lawrence (New York: Fordham University Press, 1965), 104.

Bailey 5

swearing of fealty to Henry II of England. Again in January 1176, when asked to make

obeisance, they employed the papal bull; this time however, they also had the objection of

Archbishop Richard of Canterbury, who worried that Scottish ecclesial submission would raise

York’s status above that of Canterbury as the premier episcopal see in England.9

Pope Alexander III therefore stepped-in and issued Super anxietatibus on August 3, 1176.

In the papal bull he claimed jurisdiction over deciding the issue, which was subsequently decided

by Cum universi (1192).10 However, in 1189, Richard the Lion-Hearted absolved William I from

the Treaty of Falaise in exchange for help in financing Richard’s participation in the Third

Crusade.11 Cum Universi, issued by Pope Celestine III and ratified by his successors, Innocent

III and Honorius III, decreed that the Scottish Church, except the Diocese of Whithorn, was

independent of York and “should be subject, with no intermediary to the apostolic see, whose

special daughter she is.”12 It would remain the foundation of the Scottish Church’s independence

until the defeat at Dunbar (1296).

York was not willing to concede the loss of the province so easily because it was now

placed in a dependent position with Canterbury, having only two dioceses in its jurisdiction

(Durham and Whithorn). Whithorn since its re-establishment by Fergus, Lord of Galloway, in

1128 had been an enthusiastic suffragan of York. Its establishment, according to R.D. Oran, was

in direct defiance of David I’s desire to assert royal authority throughout Scotland.13 As such,

the fervent recognition of subordination made to York by the first two bishops, Gilla-Aldan

(1128-1154) and Christian (1154-1186), aided both Galloway’s desire for independence and

9 Watt, 22-23.10 See Pope Alexander III to the Bishops of Scotland, 1176, as found in Donaldson, Historical Documents, 28.11 Donaldson, Historical Documents, 29.12 Pope Celestine III, Cum universi, as quoted in Paul Ferguson,Medieval Papal Representatives in Scotland: Legates, nuncios, and Judges-Delegate, 1125-1286 (Edinburgh: The Stair Society, 1997), 193.13 R.D. Oran, “In Obedience and Reverence: Whithorn and York, 1128-1250,” Innes Review 42 (1991): 86-88.

Bailey 6

boosted York’s claims to have jurisdiction in Scotland.14 Both Walter Gray (1216-1255) and

John the Roman (1286-1296) exercised their metropolitan power over Whithorn in the disputed

episcopal elections of 1235, 1253, and 1293.

Tied to all of York’s demands was the need for York to maintain independence from

Canterbury. The plan originally envisioned by Pope Gregory the Great for Canterbury and York

never materialized, as Northern Britain was not able to create or sustain a true province. The

present problems began, however, with the Norman conquest of England. William the

Conqueror established Frenchman in both metropolitan sees in 1070. Lanfranc’s goal was to

establish an ecclesial unity throughout the British Isles (England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales),

which included the submission of York. The precedent for Canterbury’s dominance began when

Thomas of Bayeux was consecrated by Lanfranc and promised personal obedience. A legatine

council, in conjunction with a royal court, confirmed the subservience of York in Easter 1072.15

The appointment of Thurstan to York in 1119 reopened the issue as King Henry I (1100-

1135) began to support Ralph of Canterbury–initially Henry I backed Thurstan’s claim of

independence. With a lack of support in England, Thurstan turned to papal aid. Popes Paschal

II, Gelasius II, and Callistus II granted their assistance, but Thurstan was in a precarious position.

His greatest weakness, evoked by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a letter to Pope Callistus II,

was that Thurstan lacked suffragan bishops. (A metropolitan by definition is one who has other

bishops under his jurisdiction.)16 Undeterred, Thurstan secured in 1128 several papal bulls that

supported his position, including the submission of Whithorn and Glasgow.17

14 Oran, 90.15 Roy Martin Haines,“Canterbury versus York: Fluctuating Fortunes in a Perennial Conflict,” in Ecclesia anglicana: Studies in the English Church in the Later Middle Ages, 69-105 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), 70-71.16 Ibid., 75.17 Ibid., 77.

Bailey 7

Under the tensions between Thomas Becket and Henry II, Henry II attempted to raise the

status of York above that of Canterbury; he hoped to secure the legatine power for Archbishop

Roger de Pont L'Evêque. The papacy granted the privilege in 1164, except it could not be used

in the King’s dispute with Thomas Becket, and was therefore unacceptable to Henry II. In a

further attempt to discredit Canterbury, King Henry II called upon Archbishop Roger to

consecrate Prince Henry as Henry III. For his participation in the coronation, Pope Alexander III

excommunicated Archbishop Roger and his suffragan Hugh de Puiset of Durham, and the

dignity of Canterbury was exalted as Roger of Dover was consecrated as Archbishop of

Canterbury “at the hands of Alexander [III] who in the vaguest terms confirmed to him the

fullness of authority enjoyed by his predecessors Lanfranc and Anselm.”18 The disputes

continued throughout the Scottish War of Independence, but effectively became an issue of

precedence–the archbishops fighting over who sat in the higher place of honor or the carrying of

the archiepiscopal cross in the other’s province. The rivalry even stopped York, Walter Giffard,

from attending the coronation of Edward I (1272) because he refused to proceed without his

cross before him.

As noted earlier, medieval monarchs saw control over the Church as an issue of domestic

policy. The crown perennially wanted his man chosen to lead dioceses because it ensured royal

policies were enforced in those districts and, more importantly, control of vast wealth and lands

remained out of the hands of the crown’s enemies–at least in theory. The control of the

temporalities of a diocese was a major component of the Investiture Controversy.

The papacy and the monarchs worked out a compromise that upheld the principle that

monarchs should have a voice in the selection of bishops; the crown dispensed the temporalities

of the diocese (i.e. fiefdom); and the Church bestowed the spiritualities and rights of leadership.

18 Ibid., 80-82.

Bailey 8

The vacancy of a bishopric caused by the death of its occupant was a practical component of this

arrangement often exploited by the crown. Medieval bishops did not legally have heirs and

therefore the normal feudal custom of primogeniture in inheritance was not in effect. In the case

of episcopal fiefs, just as with their secular counterparts, they devolved to the crown with the

extinction of the line. As long as the vacancy continued, the crown enjoyed the revenues of the

diocese’s lands and, with the monarch influencing the choice of successor, substantial periods of

time elapsed before a new bishop was selected. The process was similar in both England and

Scotland, but with a major exception. The Scottish monarchs (David I, Malcom IV, and William

I) often worked to fill the vacancies faster because of the royal policy of centralization that

allowed them to control territory through their bishops. The bishop was the king’s man and

helped to bring unruly clans, especially in the farther reaches of Scotland, under the direction of

the crown. The kings of England had no such threat to their own authority and could afford to

allow some bishoprics to remain unfilled for decades.

The relationship between the crown and the bishops was necessary for the smooth

operation of royal policies and when political regime changes occurred, so did ecclesial ones. As

mentioned previously, the Norman Conquest also brought in the continental system of Church

governance. Shortly after the Battle of Hastings and the deaths of the Archbishops of Canterbury

and York, William the Conqueror appointed Lanfranc and Thomas of Bayeux to those

archiepiscopal sees. The same applied for Scotland; English monarchs had no qualms with

changing Scottish bishops, which seemed to be the case with Edward after his direct involvement

in Scottish affairs. Edward I began instituting a policy after 1296, similar to that of William the

Conqueror after 1066, in which vacant sees were filled with the king’s countrymen–Scottish

diocese were led by Englishmen. If left unchecked, Scottish clerics feared that Edward I would

Bailey 9

drive them into poverty.19 Nevertheless, Edward I was only able to impress upon the Scottish

episcopacy two of his own men, Andrew de Buchan as Bishop of Caithness in 1296 and Alan of

Galloway as Bishop of Sodor and Man in 1305. Both of these dioceses were in the far extremes

of Scotland–Alan of Galloway even possibly being consecrated in Norway–and could not exert

much influence on Scottish politics.20 That these appointments occurred at a time when Edward

I was in firmer control of Scotland suggests that had Scotland acquiesced to English suzerainty

more Edwardian appointments would have occurred. Fortunately for Scottish independence,

King Alexander III and William Wallace, in his role as Guardian, filled the primary sees of

Scotland (Glasgow and St. Andrews) with ardent supporters of the Scottish cause.

Besides the two Edwardian appointees, the Scottish episcopacy as a whole sided with the

nationalist cause. The principle exceptions being Henry Cheyne, Bishop of Aberdeen (1282-

1328), and Thomas Dalton, Bishop of Whithorn (1294-1324/6).21 Historians are uncertain of the

exact role of Whithorn’s involvement in the war. Robert V Bruce had requested Dalton’s

appointment, and Whithorn did little to aid the nationalist cause while it supported the exiled

John Balliol. Robert VII Bruce’s coronation in 1305, however, did not stop Whithorn’s frequent

association with York.22

The Scottish episcopal involvement in the War of Independence can be divided into

national or ecclesial roles. Bishop William Fraser was Bishop of St. Andrews from 1279 until

his death in 1297. He was a prominent churchmen as well as politician. Prior to his appointment

as bishop, Fraser was Alexander III’s chancellor and upon the king’s death was one of six men

19 G. W. S. Barrow, “The Scottish Clergy in the War of Independence,” Scottish Historical Review 41, no. 131 (April 1962): 2-3.20 Ibid., 4.21 Ibid., 8.22 Ibid., 4.

Bailey 10

chosen to be Guardians of the Realm during the interregnum.23 Bishop Fraser, as one of the four

remaining Guardians, was responsible for requesting Edward I’s intervention in the Great Cause.

Later he was also part of the deputation sent to France in the fall of 1295 to conclude the Auld

Alliance. As Marinell Ash pointed out, his death in 1297 at the beginning of the war robbed him

of an opportunity to redeem his actions of involving Edward I in Scottish affairs for he had been

a zealous supporter of Scotland his entire life.24

Fraser’s successor at St. Andrews, William Lamberton, was also a strong supporter of the

patriotic cause. His family was supporters of John Balliol and later King Robert I, for whom

Lamberton’s nephew, Sir Alexander Lamberton, was imprisoned by Edward I in 1304. Having

been under the tutelage of Bishop Wishart of Glasgow, the future-bishop Lamberton was

wrapped-up in the Scottish cause. Despite his fealty to Edward I after John Balliol abdication,

Lamberton supported Wallace’s rebellion. When Bishop Fraser died in Paris, Wallace returned

Lamberton’s support by confirming his election and placing a valuable ally in an important see.25

Politically, Lamberton became Guardian along with John Comyn and Robert VII Bruce after the

resignation of William Wallace. Lamberton’s role was to be the peacemaker between Comyn

and Bruce, who were the bitterest of enemies and also the strongest men in Scotland–a

potentially explosive situation that could have undermined the war effort. St. Andrews’s mission

to Pope Boniface VIII in 1299 won papal support for the Scottish cause. The papacy issued

Scimus Filii, which ordered Edward I to make peace with Scotland and to protect its

independence and customs.26 When the war was turning against Scotland, the new Guardian,

23 Marinell Ash, The Administration of the Diocese of St. Andrews, 1202-1328, Ph.D. thesis (University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1972), 88-89.24 Ibid., 83, 97.25 Marinell Ash, “William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, 1297-1328.” In The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of Ronald Gordon Cant, 44-55. Edited by G.W.S. Barrow (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974), 44-45.26 Colm McNamee, Robert Bruce: Our Most Valiant Prince, King and Lord (Edinburgh: Berlinn, 2006), 82.

Bailey 11

John de Soules, sent the Bishop of St. Andrews to Paris (Autumn 1302) in order to forestall a

separate peace between England and France. It was a fool’s errand because France had no

choice but to sue for peace after their defeat at Courtrai. The Scots soon capitulated, including

William Lamberton in May 1304, however, he urged William Wallace to continue to resist and

pledge Wallace his support.27

The circumstances had certainly changed, but St. Andrews was not giving up on the

cause. Lamberton concluded with Robert VII Bruce a secret pact of mutual aid and support in

1304/5. It was a peculiar arrangement in that it did not carry the customary exclusion saving the

dignities of the crown. The pact was put into effect in the spring of 1305, when William

Lamberton slipped away from the King’s Council, at which he was presiding, in order to

participate at the coronation of Robert Bruce, King of the Scots.28 King Edward I quickly

arrested Lamberton in June and only papal intervention in 1308 secured his release from

captivity. After swearing fealty to Edward II upon his release, he was able to act on behalf of the

English and Scots, attempting to move both towards a peace settlement.29

Bishops Robert Wishart of Glasgow (1271-1316) and David Murray of Moray (1299-

1326) were not afraid to use the powers that their episcopal offices provided in order to advance

the cause of Scotland, especially after Robert I’s coronation. Bishop Wishart’s activity began

before 1305. In 1302/3 when papal favor turned against Scotland and favored the English cause,

Pope Boniface VIII placed the cause of the Scottish War of Independence at the feet of Robert

Wishart. English envoys persuaded the papacy that it was at the instigation of the Bishop of

Glasgow that Wallace had begun his campaign in 1297. Wallace, however, was an independent

27 Ash, “Lamberton,” 46-47.28 G.W.S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), 94; McNamee, 88.29 Ash, “Lamberton,” 49-50.

Bailey 12

man, who took orders from no one. His displeasure at Wishart was shown in the destruction of

Glasgow’s episcopal residence following Wishart, Bruce, and Stewart’s capitulation at Irvine in

July 1297.

February 10, 1305, became a pivotal day in the Scottish cause and an opportunity to seal

the Scottish Church’s whole-hearted commitment to the patriot cause. In a meeting at Dumfries

Abbey, during an argument between John Comyn and Robert VII Bruce, Robert killed John in

the Greyfriars Kirk. The murder was a violation of the Peace of God, which granted sanctuary to

those inside churches, and resulted in the immediate excommunication of the perpetrator. Robert

Bruce was now an excommunicant and broke the king’s peace; his only recourse was in rebellion

to Edward I. In order for that to happen, he needed the support of a major faction and the Church

seemed the easiest.

Robert Bruce journeyed to Glasgow to hold council with Bishop Wishart. Following the

meeting, Wishart proclaimed his full support for Robert and preached a crusade on behalf of the

recently crowned King Robert I against England. He also presented to Robert the Scottish royal

banner, which he had saved for just such an occasion. Wishart absolved the indignities

committed against the Church with the murder of John Comyn. In exchange, Robert I, King of

Scots, swore to protect the liberties of the Scottish Church and to abide by the council offered

from the clergy.30

Though Bruce was willing to make any compromise to obtain the necessary absolution,

he struck the right chord with Scottish episcopacy. His pledge guaranteed the independence of

the Scottish Church from York, but also conferred even more power. The Two-Swords theory,

exemplified by the papacy of Innocent III, proclaimed the subservience of the secular power to

the spiritual. Robert’s oath guaranteed, at least in precedence, the Scottish Church’s authority

30 Barrow, Robert Bruce, 193-194.

Bailey 13

over the crown. Nothing seemed to dissuade the Scot churchmen, except those already

mentioned, from embracing independence for it secured their own power.

The enthusiasm of David, Bishop of Moray, King Edward I considered so excessive that

he complained about it to the papacy. He described it in these terms:

The flock of the Bishop of Moray, who assembled to help of the said Robert, and still hold themselves with him, have done this owing to the incitement, preaching and exhorting of the said bishop, because he told them that they who rebelled with Sir Robert to help him against the king of England and took the part of the said Sir Robert, were not less deserving of merit than if they would fight in the Holy Land against pagans and Saracens.31

The entirety of the Scottish hierarchy professed their submission and opinion on the veracity of

Robert I’s royal claim in 1309/10.32

The stubbornness of Edward II prevented the final recognition of peace between England

and Scotland to occur until the usurpation of Edward III, even though the war was essentially

over after the Battle of Bannockburn (1314). The support of the hierarchy was essential for

Robert’s cause, especially in the dark days following his coronation when he was in exile and

many of his compatriots were imprisoned. The clergy of Scotland fought hard since the eleventh

century to maintain their independence from York and they saw the failure of Bruce to be the

end of the Scotia Ecclesia–something that must not happen.

31 As quoted in McNamee, 108.32 Declaration by the Clergy of Scotland, February 24, 1310?, as found in E.L.G. Stones, trans., Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1174-1328: Some Selected Documents (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965), 140-143.

Bailey 14

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Anderson, A. O., trans. Scottish Annals from English Chroniclers, A.D. 500 to 1286. 1908. Reprint, Stamford, UK: Paul Watkins, 1991.

Bain, Joseph, ed. Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland. vol. 2. Edinburgh: H.M. General Register House, 1884.

Barbour, John. The Bruce: Being the Metrical History of Robert the Bruce King of Scots, Compiled A.D. 1375. Translated by George Eyre-Todd. Glasgow: Gowans & Gray, 1907.

The Chronicle of Lanercost, 1272-1346. Translated by Herbert Maxwell. Glasgow: James Maclehose and Sons, 1913.

Donaldson, Gordon, trans. Scottish Historical Documents. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1970.

Douglas, David, ed. English Historical Document, 1189-1327. vol. 3. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Malmesbury, William of. Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: The History of the English Bishops. Edited and translated by M. Winterbottom. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Rothwell, Harry, ed. English Historical Documents, 1189-1327. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Rymer, Thomas. Foedera, conventiones, literæ, et cujuscunque generis acta publica, inter reges Angliæ, et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, ... ab anno 1101, ad nostra usque tempora, habita aut tractata; ... In lucem missa de mandato nuperæ Reginæ. Accurante Thoma Rymer, ... Editio secunda, ad originales chartas in Turri Londinensi denuo summa fide collata & emendata, studio Georgii Holmes. vol. 2. Londini, 1726-35. 20 vols. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale Group.

Sayers, Jane, trans. Original Papal Documents in England and Wales from the Accession of Pope Innocent III to the Death of Pope Benedict XI (1198-1304). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Stones, E.L.G., trans. Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1174-1328: Some Selected Documents. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965.

Bailey 15

Stones, E.L.G. and Grant G. Simpson, trans. Edward I and the Throne of Scotland, 1290 – 1296: An Edition of the Record Sources for the Great Cause. 2 vols. Oxford: Glasgow University Publications, 1978.

Secondary Sources:

Anderson, A. O. “The Bull Cum Universi,” Scottish Historical Review, 25 (1928): 335-341.

Anderson, Marjorie. “St Andrews before Alexander I.” In The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of Ronald Gordon Cant, 1-13. Edited by G.W.S. Barrow. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974.

Ash, Marinell. The Administration of the Diocese of St. Andrews, 1202-1328. Ph.D. thesis, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 1972.

___________. “William Lamberton, Bishop of St. Andrews, 1297-1328.” In The Scottish Tradition: Essays in Honour of Ronald Gordon Cant, 44-55. Edited by G.W.S. Barrow. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1974.

Barrell, A.D.M. “The background of Cum Universi: Scoto-Papal Relations, 1159-1192.” Innes Review 46 (1995): 116-38.

____________. The Papacy, Scotland, and Northern England, 1342-1378. vol. 30 of Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. 4th Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

____________. Medieval Scotland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Barrow, G. W. S. “The Scottish Clergy in the War of Independence.” Scottish Historical Review 41, no. 131 (April 1962): 1-22.

_____________, ed. The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

_____________. Kingship and Unity: Scotland 1000-1306. 2nd ed. vol. 2 of The New History of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003.

_____________. Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm of Scotland. 4th ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.

Brown, Michael. The Wars of Scotland: 1214-1371. vol. 4 of The New Edinburgh History of Scotland. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004.

Bailey 16

Cowan, Ian. The Medieval Church in Scotland. Edited by James Kirk. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1995.

Denton, Jeffrey. Robert Winchelsey and the Crown, 1294-1313: A Study in the Defense of Ecclesiastical Liberty. vol. 14 of Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. 3rd Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Donaldson, Gordon. “The Pope's Reply to the Scottish Barons in 1320.” Scottish Historical Review 29 (1950): 119-120.

________________. “The Struggle for Independence.” In Scotland: Church & Nation through Sixteen Centuries, 24-35. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1972.

________________. Scottish Church History. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1985.

Ferguson, Paul. Medieval Papal Representatives in Scotland: Legates, nuncios, and Judges-Delegate, 1125-1286. Edinburgh: The Stair Society, 1997.

Haines, Roy Martin. “Canterbury versus York: Fluctuating Fortunes in a Perennial Conflict.” In Ecclesia anglicana: Studies in the English Church in the Later Middle Ages, 69-105. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989.

Harding, Alan. England in the Thirteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Lawrence, C.H., ed. The English Church and the Papacy in the Middle Ages. New York: Fordham University Press, 1965.

Leyser, Henrietta. “Piety, Religion, and the Church.” In The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England, 174-206. Edited by Nigel Saul. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Mackenzie, W. Mackay. “A Prelude to the War of Independence.” Scottish Historical Review 27 (1948): 105-113.

Macquarrie, Alan. Medieval Scotland: Kingship and Nation. Gloucestershire, UK: Sutton Publishing, 2004.

McNamee, Colm. Robert Bruce: Our Most Valiant Prince, King and Lord. Edinburgh: Berlinn, 2006.

Oran, R.D. “In Obedience and Reverence: Whithorn and York, 1128-1250.” Innes Review 42 (1991): 83-100.

Bailey 17

Pantin, W.A. The English Church in the Fourteenth Century 1955. Reprint, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980.

Rodes, Robert E. Ecclesiastical Administration in Medieval England: The Anglo-Saxons to the Reformation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977.

Sayers, Jane. “Curial Relations with England.” In Papal Government and England During the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216-1227), 162-192. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Swanson, R.N. Church and Society in Late Medieval England. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989.

Watt, D.E.R. Medieval Church Councils in Scotland. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000.

Webster, Bruce. Medieval Scotland: The Making of an Identity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997.