Historiography
The reign of Robert II has undergone a re-appraisal since the works of historians Gordon Donaldson (1967) and Ranald Nicholson (1974). Donaldson admits to a paucity of knowledge (at the time that he was writing) regarding Robert's reign and accepts that the early chroniclers writing near to his reign found little to criticise. Robert's career before and after he succeeded to the throne is described by Donaldson as "to say the least, undistinguished, and his reign did nothing to add lustre to it." Donaldson goes further and debates the legality of the canon law marriage of Robert and Elizabeth Mure following the papal dispensation but acknowledges that the acts of succession in 1371 and 1372 although sealing the matter in the eyes of Parliament did not end the generational feud of the descendants of Elizabeth Mure and of those of Euphemia Ross. Robert's earlier participation in combat at the battles of Halidon and Neville's Cross, according to Donaldson, had made him wary of sanctioning military expeditions against the English and that any such actions by his barons were concealed from him. Similarly, Nicholson described Robert's reign as deficient and that his lack of the skills of governance led to internal strife. Nicholson asserts that the Earl of Douglas was bought off following his armed demonstration just before Robert's coronation and associates this with the doubt surrounding the legitimacy of Robert's sons with Elizabeth Mure.
In contrast, the historians Stephen Boardman (2007), Alexander Grant (1984 & 1992) and Michael Lynch (1992) give a more even-handed appraisal of Robert II's life. Modern historians show a kingdom that had become wealthier and more stable particularly during the first decade of his rule. Boardman explains that Robert II was subjected to negative propaganda while he was High Steward—David II's followers denigrated his conduct during his lieutenancies and described them as "tyranny"—and again later as king when the supporters of his son John, Earl of Carrick said that Robert was a king lacking drive and accomplishments, weighed down by age and unfit to govern. Robert II's association with Gaelic Scotland also drew criticism. He grew up in his ancestral lands in the west and was completely at ease with the Gaelic language and culture and possessed a potent relationship with the Gaelic lords in the Hebrides, upper Perthshire and Argyll. Throughout his reign, Robert spent long periods in his Gaelic heartlands and complaints at the time in Lowland Scotland seem to have been influenced by the view that the king was too much involved in Gaelic concerns. Boardman also asserts that much of the negative views held of Robert II find their origins in the writings of the French chronicler Jean Froissart who recorded that ' had red bleared eyes, of the colour of sandalwood, which clearly showed that he was no valiant man, but one who would remain at home than march to the field'. Contrary to Froissart's view, the early Scottish chroniclers—Andrew of Wyntoun and Walter Bower (who both utilised a source that was nearly contemporary with Robert II)—and later 15th and 16th century Scottish chroniclers and poets showed 'Robert II as a Scottish patriotic hero, a defender of the integrity of the Scottish kingdom, and as the direct heir to Robert I'.
Grant (1992) acknowledges that Robert II's reign in terms of foreign and domestic policy was "not so unsuccessful". As far as William, Earl of Douglas's reaction was concerned when he staged an armed demonstration before Robert's coronation, Grant does not hold to the view that Douglas was in some way demonstrating against Robert's legitimate right to the throne but more an assertion that royal patronage should not continue as in the time of David II. Grant also advocates that the demonstration was aimed at father and son Robert and Thomas Erskine who held the castles of Edinburgh, Stirling and Dumbarton from Robert's predecessor. Grant seriously called into question the dependability of Froissart's writings as an effective source for Robert II's reign. Influential magnate coalitions headed by Carrick, having undermined the king's position, manipulated the Council of November 1384 to effectively oust Robert II from any real power. Grant gives little weight to the asserted senility of Robert and suggests that the deposition of Carrick in 1388 and then the resolution to join the Anglo-French truce of 1389 were both at the instigation of Robert II. Yet power was not handed back to Robert II but to Carrick's younger brother, Robert, earl of Fife which once again saw the king at the disposition of one of his sons. Despite this, the now unknown source whom both Wyntoun and Bower relied on made the point that Fife deferred to his father on affairs of state emphasising the difference in styles in the guardianships of his two sons.
Michael Lynch points out that Robert II's reign from 1371 until the lieutenancy of Carrick in 1384 had been one exemplified by continued prosperity and stability and which Abbot Bower described as a period of "tranquility, prosperity and peace". Lynch suggests that the troubles of the 1450s between James II and the Douglases which have been interpreted by some historians as the legacy of Robert II's policy of encouraging powerful lordships was in fact a continuation of David II's build up of local lords in the Marches and Galloway—Robert was satisfied with government to leave alone the Douglas and the Stewart earls in their fiefdoms. The weakening of government if anything, Lynch suggests, came not before the 1384 coup but after it despite the fact that the coup had at its root Robert II's favouring of his third son, Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan (known as the Wolf of Badenoch).
Read more about this topic: Robert II Of Scotland