In 1031, according to The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle King Cnut ‘went to Scotland and the king of the Scots surrendered to him, Malcolm and two other kings Macbeth and Eachmargach’. It also reports that Malcolm ‘became his man, but he observed it but a little time.’ As so often before in the Chronicle, this represents an English view of the event, which offers a specific interpretation of what happened. The court poet of King Cnut, Sighvat the Skald also records this event: ‘The most famous princes in the North from the midst of Fife have brought their heads to Cnut; that was to buy peace.’13
This probably represents a renewal of the earlier alliance between Alba and England by Malcolm and Cnut. It probably focused once again on the agreement of respective borders and spheres of influence. It seems likely that Cnut accepted Malcolm’s direct rule over Strathclyde, including Cumberland, and his occupation of former English Northumbria north of the River Tweed. In response, Malcolm probably recognised Cnut as King of England, Denmark and Norway, including English Northumbria south of the Tweed. The presence at this meeting of Macbeth, who was not mormaer of Moray at this point but only a claimant to that title, and Eachmargach, King of Dublin and the Isles suggests some interesting wider possibilities.
The current rivalry between Malcolm II and the rulers of Moray was probably reaching a head at this time. The death of Malcolm, Mormaer of Moray in 1029 and the maturity of Macbeth surely meant that an invasion of Moray by King Malcolm was increasingly likely. The fortuitous opportunity of a meeting with Cnut in 1031 was possibly utilised to complete the preparations for this planned invasion. The presence of Eachmargach might then be explained by Malcolm’s desire to secure naval allies, who could attack Moray from the north or west. The meeting with Cnut would then provide an opportunity to secure Cnut’s neutrality in the contest and reassure him that this action would not disrupt his wider rule across the North Sea. On his side, Cnut was possibly pleased to find a safe outlet for the aggression of the Vikings of Dublin outside his own empire.
In the wake of his success in absorbing Strathclyde and English Northumbria as far as the Tweed and following the agreement with Cnut, Malcolm was now ready to deal with Moray. In 1032 the Annals of Ulster report that Gillacomgain, son of Maelbrigte, mormaer of Moray was burned along with fifty of his men. This was surely the successful outcome of Malcolm’s sponsorship of Macbeth and invasion of Moray. The burning was most likely carried out by Macbeth himself or on his command but with the support and endorsement of King Malcolm. It eliminated a dangerous threat from Gillacomgain’s son Lulach and restored Macbeth to his father’s office of mormaer of Moray. It probably also placed the candidate of Malcolm, King of Alba in charge of this important northern province and, at least for the immediate future, secured its loyalty to the southern king. If this interpretation of these events is correct, it represents the first time that the kings of Alba secured control of this important region. It may also explain Macbeth’s later appearance as dux or ‘commander’ of King Duncan of Alba. This must have been the crowning achievement of King Malcolm’s reign. He had been triumphant in the south by 1020 and was now similarly triumphant in the north.
King Malcolm II was now getting old. He had been born some time before 995 and was therefore at least 40 and probably much older in 1032. He certainly had a brother active as early as 999. He now had to consider the future of his greatly enlarged kingdom. He had secured his expanded southern borders in treaties with Cnut and extended his lordship northwards into Moray. He was friendly with the rulers of Dublin and the Isles and possibly Orkney. This was a real achievement by Malcolm which built on the successes of his predecessors. The one real question mark that remained concerned the succession to the kingship on his death. King Malcolm had no surviving sons but Duncan, a young grandson through his daughter Bethoc. He had had to fight hard against the adult members of no less than two rival lines to secure his own succession. This problem would be all the more acute for his own young successor. There is no evidence that such a succession had previously been acceptable. It seemed highly likely that Duncan would be pushed aside by rival adult claimants, who considered their own claims to be superior. It was therefore essential and increasingly urgent for Malcolm to act to prevent this.
In 1033 the Annals of Ulster report that the unnamed grandson or ‘son of a son’ of Boite, son of Kenneth III was killed by King Malcolm. It is also possible that this entry relates to a person referred to as ‘M’, perhaps standing for Malcolm, son of Boite rather than to a grandson. This appears to have been part of Malcolm’s efforts to eliminate rival claimants. He was almost certainly attempting to clear the way for the succession of his own grandson Duncan. If the assumption made above is correct, namely that Suibne, son of Malcolm was a member of a rival line, then this might reflect another aspect of the same process. Malcolm may have persuaded Suibne not to claim the throne itself by handing him rule over Galloway. In either case it appears that Malcolm’s actions were sufficient to neutralise any rival claimants from the other royal lineages. Contrary to previous custom he would indeed be succeeded by his own grandson.
Malcolm II, son of Kenneth, King of Alba finally died peacefully on 25 November 1034 apparently at Glamis. The precise date is provided by Marianus Scotus, a contemporary Irish or Scottish monk who was living in Germany but who appears to have been well informed about events in Scotland. The Annals of Tigernach describe King Malcolm II as ‘the honour of Western Europe’. He had certainly had a long and highly successful reign of almost thirty years. He had finally completed the absorption of the sub-kingdom of Strathclyde after the demise of its last ruler, Owain, in 1016. He had secured the control of English Northumbria as far as the Tweed, following his victory at Carham in the same year. He had successfully installed his own candidate, Macbeth, in the northern mormaerdom of Moray in 1032. He had worked hard to secure, to eliminate or to buy out rival claimants from other royal lineages and hence limit the succession to his own line. Finally, he had managed to pass his kingdom on to his own grandson, Duncan in 1034. This was the first case of direct succession since the time of Kenneth MacAlpin himself and it would set an important precedent for the future.
On 30 November 1034, according to Marianus Scotus, Duncan I, son of Crinan or Donnchad mac Crinain was enthroned as King of Alba, probably at Scone, in succession to his maternal grandfather only five days after the latter’s death. Duncan was not the kindly old man portrayed by Shakespeare, who has badly distorted the popular view of eleventh-century Scottish history. He was in fact a much younger man who had a lot to prove as successor to his successful grandfather. Against customary practice he had been promoted to the kingship by the actions of his grandfather, King Malcolm II and probably enjoyed the active support of his father Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld. In spite of this, the haste with which he had been enthroned, only five short days after his grandfather’s demise, suggests a certain amount of anxiety about whether his succession might be opposed. It appears, however, that the enthronement went smoothly and there are no signs in the sources of any immediate opposition. There exists an assumption, based largely on Shakespeare, that Duncan was a weak king but the sources suggest otherwise. He ruled without recorded incident for more than five years before encountering difficulties.
In 1040, the twelfth-century History of the Church of Durham reports that ‘Duncan, King of Scots, came with enormous forces and besieged Durham and laboured greatly to reduce it, but in vain. For a great part of his cavalry was slain by those who were besieged; and he fled away in confusion, and in his flight lost all his infantry killed. And their heads were carried into the market-place, and set up on stakes.’ This event is dated to 1040, by reference to the regnal year of King Harold I of England and the episcopal year of Bishop Edmund of Durham, although a set of late Durham annals places it in 1039. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to resolve this discrepancy satisfactorily, but the allegation of The History of the Church of Durham that Duncan’s death, which is firmly dated to August 1040, followe
d ‘not long afterwards’ perhaps points to 1040. It is possible that this attack was not unprovoked since The History of the Kings reports that Eadwulf, son of Uhtred, Ealdorman of Northumbria raided Cumberland shortly after his succession in 1038.
The twelfth-century account of this second disaster at Durham contains some points of similarity with that which befell Duncan’s grandfather, King Malcolm II in 1006. On that previous occasion, Malcolm also besieged Durham and suffered a severe reverse. In both cases the Scots lost many men and the heads of their dead were impaled on stakes. The similarities suggest the possibility that subsequent memories of these events have perhaps become somewhat confused or conflated. This does not necessarily mean, however, that there were not indeed two separate attacks on Durham since there are also differences between the two accounts. There is no doubt that Durham and its wealthy church of St Cuthbert presented an attractive target for the kings of Alba and a potential source of rich plunder. In addition, the capture of this important fortified position on the winding course of the River Wear might also secure the surrender of the surrounding region, later known as St Cuthbert’s land. The failure of Malcolm before Durham in 1006 may even have encouraged Duncan to attempt its capture to avenge his grandfather’s defeat.
There was another more important difference between the two Scottish defeats at Durham. In 1006 Malcolm survived his disastrous defeat and went on to rule with great success for a further twenty-eight years. In contrast, Duncan was not to be so fortunate and, not long after his humiliation at Durham, he would be dead. In 1040 the Annals of Ulster report that ‘Duncan, son of Crinan, King of Alba was killed by his own people.’ This was a familiar tale and customarily referred to the outcome of a violent dispute over the succession between rival royal lineages. If this had indeed been the case, then King Malcolm’s efforts to clear a path for his grandson had clearly come to nothing. In fact, the contemporary account of Marianus Scotus reveals that this was not the case. He reports that King Duncan was slain, possibly at Pitgaveny near Elgin, on 14 August 1040 by his dux Macbeth, son of Findlaech. The Latin word dux used by Marianus usually signifies a military commander of some sort and, if used in this specific sense, might imply that Macbeth held a senior position in Duncan’s court. In this particular context, it may, however, simply represent a translation of the Gaelic term mormaer, a position that also involved military leadership.
The precise circumstances of this killing are unclear. It is possible that Duncan was killed in battle while invading Moray. He may have turned against Moray in an effort to expunge his recent defeat in the south with a victory in the north. It is equally possible that he was murdered during a tour of the region, possibly made at Macbeth’s invitation. Macbeth may have chosen to exploit an opportunity to challenge the King and improve his own position. It is, however, possible to trace the likely source of tension between Macbeth and King Duncan, the son of his former mentor and ally Malcolm II. It undoubtedly lies in the recent marriage of Macbeth to Gruoch, the widow of his cousin and rival Gillacomgain. This happened at some point after 1032 and most probably after Malcolm’s death in 1034. Gruoch is another figure who, as ‘Lady Macbeth’, has suffered at the hands of Shakespeare. The marriage appears to have produced no children but it brought Macbeth a stepson, in the person of Lulach. The action of Macbeth in offering refuge and support to this young boy was a direct challenge that Duncan could not ignore. It resulted in a clash between these former allies and led Duncan to his fate.
The murder of a king by one of his mormaers was not an unknown event in this or earlier periods. What is unique on this occasion is that Marianus goes on to state that Macbeth then ‘succeeded to the kingdom’. This was the first time that someone from outside the rival royal lineages succeeded to the kingship. One or two of Macbeth’s predecessors in Moray were titled ‘King of Alba’ in some of the Irish sources, but there is absolutely no evidence to assume that any of them ever held the throne of Alba. The succession of Macbeth therefore calls for some explanation. This has usually revolved around theories that Macbeth was related in some fashion to one or other of the royal lines, the most common suggestion being that Macbeth had a claim through his mother, Donada, supposedly a daughter of Malcolm II. There is, however, absolutely no contemporary evidence for this and it only appears in much later sources. It seems likely that it was an invention of later writers, who sought to explain Macbeth’s otherwise inexplicable succession. If this suggestion is correct then Macbeth had no personal claim to the throne of Alba.
It was in fact Lulach, Gruoch’s son by her previous marriage to Gillacomgain, who possessed a claim to the throne. It was a claim at least as credible as that held by King Duncan himself. Lulach was the nepos, i.e. the nephew or grandson – in this case almost certainly the grandson – of Boite, and so a descendant of Kenneth III. In this context, Macbeth might be regarded as acting on behalf of his young stepson Lulach, who was probably too young to claim the throne himself. Macbeth may even have adopted Lulach to facilitate his action. There is, however, a wider possible explanation for this unusual succession and it reflects the success of Malcolm II in eliminating or excluding alternative lineages. In 1040 there were simply no suitable adult males in any of the three royal lineages capable of succeeding to the throne. It is well known that King Duncan left behind two infant sons, Malcolm and Donald, who were incapable of rule. But what about the other two lineages?
The adult male descendants of Dub and Kenneth III had been eliminated with the killing of Boite’s son or grandson in 1033 and, possibly, the death of Suibne in 1034. In 1040, no adult members of this line were available to claim the throne, with Lulach being a child of around eight or nine years. There were apparently other descendants of Dub in existence although they were probably not adults in 1040. It is now generally accepted that the later MacDuff earls of Fife were descendants of this royal line. It is presumed that they surrendered their claim to the kingship in return for rich lands in Fife, a position of primacy among the other Scottish mormaers or earls and the right to enthrone the king at Scone. It is not known exactly when this transition might have occurred but presumably before the first recorded appearance of Constantine MacDuff, Earl of Fife in 1095. The abandonment of their claim, if it did occur at this time, effectively removed one line of this rival royal lineage from the competition for the throne.
The other rival lineage, the descendants of King Aed, are usually assumed to have died out with the killing of Constantine III in 997. There is no evidence to support this assumption but there is some, admittedly meagre, evidence to suggest otherwise. This relates to the appearance in the twelfth century of a family known as the MacHeths, who fairly consistently challenged the descendants of Malcolm II for the kingship. There has been a great deal of speculation about their origins and the nature of their claim, much of it highly inventive. The reality is surely much more straightforward – that they were indeed the descendants of King Aed or Heth – and it is a mystery that this connection has not been widely accepted. It provides the simplest reason for their frequent challenges to the descendants of King Malcolm II. The fact that there is no mention in the sources of this lineage between Constantine III in 997 and the first mention of the MacHeths in 1157 seems to have discouraged the adoption of this solution. This is certainly a long gap but the sources for this period are so thin that it is probably less significant than it seems. It is possible that the MacHeths simply had no adult males ready to challenge for the kingship at crucial moments in the succession, including in 1040. It is also possible that an attempt was made to buy them off on the model of the MacDuffs. If so, it was on this occasion only partially successful. The later association of the MacHeths with Ross might suggest a location where they were offered lands and authority in return for a surrender of their claim. There is, however, no evidence for this suggestion and it certainly did not prevent the MacHeths from challenging for the kingship. It may of course be that subsequent descendants regretted the choice of their ance
stors or were disappointed by the position and wealth obtained and decided to revive their rights.
If this scenario is correct, it appears that Macbeth successfully exploited the absence of adult candidates from the three royal lineages to seize the kingship. This was in itself a significant achievement but he also went on to hold onto it for nearly seventeen years. He was clearly a remarkable man who managed to persuade the mormaers and nobles of the kingdom to accept his usurpation. If he had been the dux of Duncan’s armies, he might have established precisely the kind of close connections with these men that would have smoothed his path to the throne. A slightly later contemporary, Earl Harold Godwineson, who had been the dux of King Edward the Confessor, would similarly exploit his wide connections to secure the throne of England. It was not impossible for a powerful and determined individual with no recognised claim to exploit the absence of recognised adult claimants to seize the kingship. It may be that the later accounts used by Shakespeare, which suggest that Macbeth was a usurper, were not entirely without foundation.
It is clear from the sources that Macbeth, son of Findlaech or Macbethad mac Finnlaech, became King of Alba in 1040. What is far from clear, however, is how far his authority actually extended and what happened to the young sons of King Duncan. It is generally assumed that Macbeth controlled the whole of the kingdom of Alba, including its new southern territories of Strathclyde and Lothian. In fact, it is only possible to establish for certain from the sources that survive that he controlled the old core of the kingdom north of the Forth–Clyde line. He was presumably enthroned at Scone although no source confirms this. He is otherwise associated with Dunkeld, Loch Leven, Dunsinane and, finally, Lumphanan, all of them located within the original kingdom. He is never found in association with the southern regions of Strathclyde or Lothian. This may simply be a consequence of the shortage of sources, but it may also be because these areas were outwith his control. If this assumption is correct, the question of who did control this area remains open and will be discussed further.
Lords of Alba Page 14