The relationship between the Kingdom of England and King David I, who was King of Scotland between 1124 and 1153, was partly shaped by David's relationship with the particular King of England, and partly by David's own ambition. David had a good relationship with and was an ally of Henry I of England, the King who was largely responsible for David's early career. After Henry's death, David upheld his support for his niece, the former Empress-consort, Matilda, and expanded his power in northern England in the process, despite his defeat at the Battle of the Standard in 1138.
Overview
David's relationship with England and the English crown in these years is usually interpreted in either or both of two ways. Firstly, his actions are understood in relation to his connections with the King of England. No historian is likely to deny that David's early career was largely manufactured for him by King Henry I of England. David was the latter's "greatest protégé",Oram, Lordship of Galloway, pp. 59, 63. one of Henry's "new men",Kapelle, Norman Conquest, pp. 202-3. Henry's influence had brought David his English marriage and lands, and Henry's military power had allowed David to take up his Scottish lands. David's early career can be understood as part of Henry's frontier policy, which included marriage of two daughters to the kings of Scotland and Galloway, consolidation of royal control in the north-west coast of England and the quelling of the Montgomeries, marcher lords on the Welsh borders who had been allied to Muirchertach Ua Briain, High King of Ireland (1101–19).Oram, Lordship of Galloway, p. 59 et passim. The world of peace which David had enjoyed in England ended after the death of Henry I, just as it did for most other English magnates. His hostility to Stephen can be interpreted as an effort to uphold the intended inheritance of Henry I, the succession of his daughter, the former empress-consort Matilda. David indeed carried out his wars in her name, joined her when she arrived in England, and later knighted her son, the future Henry II.Stringer, Reign of Stephen, 28-37; Stringer, "State-Building in Twelfth-Century Britain", pp. 40-62; Green, "Anglo-Scottish Relations," pp. 53-72; Kapelle, Norman Conquest of the North, pp. 141ff; Blanchard, "Lothian and Beyond", pp. 23-46.
However, David's policy towards England can be interpreted another way. David is the independence-loving king trying to build a "Scoto-Northumbrian" realm by seizing the most northerly parts of the English kingdom. In this perspective, David's support for Matilda is used as a pretext for land grabbing. David's maternal descent from the House of Wessex and his son Henry's maternal descent from the Saxon earls of Northumberland is thought to have further encouraged such a project, a project which only came to an end after Henry II ordered David's child successor Máel Coluim IV to hand over the most important of David's gains. It is clear that neither one of these interpretations can be taken without some weight being given to the other.Most historians take this view to some extent, including Stringer, Kapelle, Green and Blanchard (see previous note); the quest for a "Scoto-Northumbrian realm is stressed in Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 121-44, 167-89.
Usurpation of Stephen and 1st Treaty of Durham
Henry I had arranged his inheritance to pass to his daughter Matilda, but the latter's support amongst the English and Norman magnates and barons was compromised by her marriage to Geoffrey V, count of Anjou, as the Angevins were the traditional rivals of the Normans. Instead Stephen, younger brother of Theobald, count of Blois, seized the throne.M.T. Clancy, England and its Rulers, (Malden, MA, 1998), pp. 84-5; Robert Bartlett, England under the Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225, (Oxford, 2000), p. 10. David however had been the first lay person to take the oath to uphold the succession of Matilda in 1127, and when Stephen was crowned on 22 December, David decided to make war.Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 121-3. Before December was over, David marched into northern England, and by the end of January he had occupied the castles of Carlisle, Wark, Alnwick, Norham and Newcastle. By February David was at Durham, but was met there by an army assembled and led by King Stephen. However, rather than fight a pitched battle, a treaty was agreed whereby David would retain Carlisle while David's son Henry was re-granted the title and half the lands of the earldom of Huntingdon, which had been confiscated during David's revolt, as well as the lordship of Doncaster. On Stephen's side he received back the other castles; and while David himself would do no homage, Stephen was to receive the homage of Henry for both Carlisle and the other English territories. Stephen also gave the rather worthless but for David face-saving promise that if he ever chose to resurrect the defunct earldom of Northumberland, Henry would be given first consideration. Importantly, the issue of Matilda was not mentioned. However, the first Durham treaty quickly broke down after David took insult at the treatment of his son Henry at Stephen's court.Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 122-5.
Renewal of war and Clitheroe
When the winter of 1136-37 was over, David once again invaded England. The King of Scots confronted a northern English army waiting for him at Newcastle. Once again, pitched battle was avoided, and a truce agreed until November. Charter evidence shows that David had gathered in Strathclyde the four most powerful magnates in Scotland, William fitz Duncan, now lord of Moray, Máel Ísu, mormaer of Strathearn, Donnchad, mormaer of Fife and Fergus, king of Galloway, along with lesser figures such as "Dufoter" of Callendar, Máel Domnaich of Scone and Gillebrígte of Stirling, probably the toísechs or "thanes" of their respective royal demesne locations.Lawrie, Early Scottish Charters, no. x. Such a huge gathering could only have been made for a military campaign. When November fell, David demanded that Stephen hand over the whole of the old earldom of Northumberland. Stephen's predictable refusal led to David's third invasion, this time in January 1138.Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 126-7.
David advanced into the English lands taking blackmail payments from settlements and establishments that paid and plundering and burning those that did not. The army which invaded England in the January and February 1138 shocked the English chroniclers, and the shock was compounded even more by the fact that it was led by "their" David.Michael Lynch, in his single-volume Scotland: A New History, explains the initial hatred displayed in the northern English chroniclers not in terms of the brutality shown during David’s invasions of northern England, but in terms of what might be called cultural treason. Michael Lynch, Scotland: A New History, p. 83; R. R. Davies, First English Empire, p. 11, offers a slightly different, but not incompatible, explanation: "The outrage with which the contemporary chronicles responded to what they termed the barbarism of the Scots…is surely to be explained in part by the shock of the Anglo-Normans on realizing that their economic and cultural superiority and civility as well as their military dominance were being challenged for the first time in three generations. Empire-builders are distressed by challenges to their right to build empires". Richard of Hexham called it "an execrable army, savager than any race of heathen yielding honour to neither God nor man" and that it "harried the whole province and slaughtered everywhere folk of either sex, of every age and condition, destroying, pillaging and burning the vills, churches and houses". Several doubtful stories of cannibalism entered the chronicle records.e.g. accounts of Richard of Hexham and Ailred of Rievaulx in A.O. Anderson, Scottish Annals, p. 180, & n. 4. as well as routine enslavings and killings of churchmen, women and infants.e.g. Richard of Hexham, John of Worcester and John of Hexham at A.O. Anderson, Scottish Annals, p. 181. Henry of Huntingdon wrote that the Scots: “cleft open pregnant women, and took out the unborn babes; they tossed children upon the spear-points, and beheaded priests on altars: they cut the head of crucifixes, and placed them on the trunks of the slain; and placed the heads of the dead upon the crucifixes. Thus wherever the Scots arrived, all was full of horror and full of savagery”.A.O. Anderson, Scottish Annals, p. 179. By February, King Stephen had mustered an army which marched north to deal with David. The two armies avoided each other, and Stephen was soon on the road back into the south. In the summer, David split his army into two forces, sending William fitz Duncan to march into Lancashire, where he harried Furness and Craven. On 10 June, William fitz Duncan was met by force of knights and men-at-arms. A pitched battle took place, the battle of Clitheroe, and the result was that the English army was routed.Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 132-3.
Battle of the Standard
By later July the two Scottish armies had reunited on the far side of the river Tyne in "St Cuthbert's land", that is, in the lands controlled by the Bishop of Durham. Another English army had mustered to meet the Scots, led by William, Earl of Aumale. The victory at Clitheroe was probably what inspired David to risk battle. David's force, apparently 26,000 strong and several times larger than the English army, met the English on 22 August on Cowdon Moor near Northallerton, North Yorkshire.Oram, David: The King Who Made Scotland, pp. 136-7; A. O. Anderson, Early Sources, p. 190. Many of David's Norman vassals abandoned him at this point, perhaps shocked by the king's huge "barbarian" army, but more likely compromised by dual loyalty to King Stephen and David. Robert de Brus and Bernard de Balliol, two of these men, approached the king's camp and tried to plead with him. According to Ailred of Rievaulx, Robert de Brus protested to David, "Against whom today dost thou bear arms today and lead this huge army? Against the English, truly, and the Normans. O King, are not these they with whom, thou hast ever found useful counsel and ready help, and willing obedience besides? Since when, my lord, I ask thee hast thou found such faith in Scots that thou dost with such confidence divest and deprive thyself and thine of the counsel of the English, and the help of the Normans, as if the Scots would suffice alone for thee even against the Scots? New to thee is this confidence in Galwegians, attacking with arms today those by whose aid hitherto thou hast ruled the Scots with affection [and] the Galwegians with terror".A. O. Anderson, Scottish Annals, p. 193.