Accident at Roxburgh Castle

A freak accident took the life of Scottish King James II, on August 3, 1460.  Sir Walter Scott has the story in “The History of Scotland”.

‘..The truce with England was prolonged for nine years. James, however, seems to have deemed the period favourable for recovering such Scottish possessions as were still held by the English; accordingly we find him breaking through the truce.

It was with this view that the king collected a numerous army, and laid siege to Roxburgh, 'which had now been in possession of the English since the captivity of David II., and, as a military post, was of the greatest importance, being very strongly situated between the Tweed and Teviot, and not far from their confluence, in the most fertile part of the Scottish frontier. John the Lord of the Isles appeared in the royal camp, to atone for former errors and treasonable actions by zeal on the present occasion. He led a select body of Highlanders and islesmen armed with shirts of mail, two-handed swords, bows, and battle-axes, with which he offered to take the vanguard of the army should it be necessary to enter England, and to march a mile before the main body, so as to encounter the first brunt of the onset. Invasion, however, made no part of James's purpose on this occasion. He was desirous to recover possession of Roxburgh, and not being apprehensive of relief from England, resolved to proceed in the siege according to formal rule. He beleaguered the castle on every side, and battered it from the north of the Tweed; his cannon bring placed in the Duke of Roxburgh's park of Fleurs. James was proud of his train of cannon, and of the skill of a French engineer, who could level them so truly as to hit within a fathom of the place he aimed at, which, in those days, was held extraordinary practice. The siege had not continued many days when the arrival of the Earl of Huntley, to whose valour and fidelity the king had been so much indebted, with a gallant body of forces from the north, increased the king's hopes of succeeding in his enterprise. He received his noble and faithful adherent with the greatest marks of respect and regard, and conducted him to see his batteries.

Unhappily, standing in the vicinity of a gun which was about to be discharged, the rude mass, composed of ribs of iron, bound together by hoops of the same metal, burst asunder, and a fragment striking the king on the thigh, broke it asunder, and killed him on the spot. The Earl of Angus was severely wounded on the same occasion.

Thus fell James the second of Scotland, in the twenty-ninth year of his age, and the twenty-fourth of his reign. His person was strong and well put together, and he was reckoned excellent at all exercises…’

Mons Meg

On December 10, 1825, Sir Walter Scott is ruminating over Wallace's Sword and the cannon Mons Meg: 'A third rogue writes to tell me—rather of the latest, if the matter was of consequence—that he approves of the first three volumes of the H[eart] of Midlothian, but totally condemns the fourth. Doubtless he thinks his opinion worth the sevenpence sterling which his letter costs. However, authors should be reasonably well pleased when three-fourths of their work are acceptable to the reader. The knave demands of me in a postscript, to get back the sword of Sir W[illiam] Wallace from England, where it was carried from Dumbarton Castle. I am not Master-General of the Ordnance, that I know. It was wrong, however, to take away that and Mons Meg. If I go to town this spring, I will renew my negotiation with the Great Duke for recovery of Mons Meg.'

Mons Meg was originally a gift from Burgundian Duke Philip the Good to James II of Scotland.  It was taken from Edinburgh Castle to Woolwich England in 1757.  Scott's efforts to secure its return were eventually successful, and Mons Meg was returned to Edinburgh Castle in 1829.  Scott included Mons Meg in "Rob Roy": 'Andrew Fairservice was far from acquiescing in these arguments of expedience, and even ventured to enter a grumbling protest, "That it was an unco change to hae Scotland's laws made in England; and that, for his share, he wadna for a' the herring-barrels in Glasgow, and a' the tobacco-casks to boot, hae gien up the riding o' the Scots Parliament, or sent awa' our crown, and our sword, and our sceptre, and Mons Meg, to be keep it by thae English pock-puddings in the Tower o' Lunnon.'

James II of Scotland Born

'Robert Grahame,

That killed our king, God give him shame.
 
James I. had two sons ; but one dying in infancy, he left behind him only James II., who in his childhood succeeded to his father's throne. The late king had five daughters, who were married, four of them into noble families abroad, while the youngest was wedded to the earl of Angus.'

As Sir Walter Scott tells us in his "The History of Scotland", the future James II of Scotland inherited his father's throne at an early age.  James was born on October 16, 1430, and was coronated following his father's assassination on February 21, 1437.  James II was 7 years old at the time.

James' reign, which began with the violent murder of his father, was itself marred by a murder which James himself committed.  Fifteen years after his father's death, nearly to the day (February 22, 1452), James slew William, the 8th Earl of Douglas (son of James the 7th Earl and Beatrice Sinclair) at Stirling Castle.  William traveled to Stirling when James offered safe conduct so that the two could repair their relations.  The main dispute concerned an alliance William made with Alexander Lindsay.  William refused to dissolve the alliance, and James stabbed him numerous times before throwing him out a castle window.  As Scott conjectures:

'...But the reader may demand, what could be the purpose of James, if not to rid himself of his turbulent subject by death. If we are to substitute conjecture where certainty is not to be had, we may suggest the probability that the king had determined to arrest Douglas in case he was found intractable, and to detain him a hostage for the quiet demeanour of his family, until his league with the northern earls was broken, and the height of his dangerous power was in some degree diminished. There might be in this device some part of the policy, as well as the unscrupulous breach of faith, which characterised the politics of such a statesman as Crichton; and considering the vehement character of James II. and the stubborn and presumptuous disposition of the earl, it is easy to conceive how, in a personal interview betwixt two such hot and passionate spirits, the intended purpose of arrest should have been changed for one of a more bloody and decisive character.'

James II of Scotland Crowned

On March 25, 1437, James the Fiery Face was crowned King of Scotland.  James was only 6 when he became king.  He was crowned in Holyrood House, which represented a switch from the past nearly 600 years (from Kenneth MacAlpin), during which monarchs were crowned at Scone.

Walter Scott covers James II in his History of Scotland:

"A war with England was the next object of interest during the active reign of James II. He invaded England with six thousand men, burned and plundered the country for twenty miles inland, and destroyed eighteen towers and fortalices. The Scottish army remained on English ground six days, without battle being offered, and returned home without loss, and with worship and honour. On James's retreat, the duke of York and earl Salisbury, with other English nobles, led to the border a body of about four or five thousand men; but having differed in opinion of the plan of the campaign, they quarrelled among themselves, and retired with disgrace. The cause of these internal discords in the English camp probably arose out of the dissensions concerning the red and white roses, which were now engrossing the nation. The truce with England was prolonged for nine years. James, however, seems to have deemed the period favourable for recovering such Scottish possessions as were still held by the English; accordingly we find him breaking through the truce.

It was with this view that the king collected a numerous army, and laid siege to Roxburgh, which had now been in possession of the English since the captivity of David II., and, as a military post, was of the greatest importance, being very strongly situated between the Tweed and Teviot, and not far from their confluence, in the most fertile part of the Scottish frontier. John the lord of the isles appeared in the royal camp, to atone for former errors and treasonable actions by zeal on the present occasion. He led a select body of Highlanders and islesmen armed with shirts of mail, two-handed swords, bows, and battle-axes, with which he offered to take the vanguard of the army should it be necessary to enter England, and to march a mile before the main body, so as to encounter the first brunt of the onset. Invasion, however, made no part of James's purpose on this occasion. He was desirous to recover possession of Roxburgh, and not being apprehensive of relief from England, resolved to proceed in the siege accoming to formal rule. He beleaguered the castle on every side, and battered it from the north of the Tweed, his cannon being placed in the duke of Roxburgh's park of Fleurs. James was proud of his train of cannon, and of the skill of a French engineer, who could level them so truly as to hit within a fathom of the place he aimed at, which, in these days, was held extraordinary practice. The siege had not continued many days when the arrival of the earl of Huntley, to whose valour and fidelity the king had been so much indebted with a gallant body of forces from the north, increased the king's hopes of succeeding in his enterprise. He received his noble and faithful adherent with the greatest marks of respect and regard, and conducted him to see his batteries.

Unhappily, standing in the vicinity of a gun which was about to be discharged, the rude mass, composed of ribs of iron, bound together by hoops of the same metal, burst asunder, and a fragment striking the king on the thigh, broke it asunder, and killed him on the spot. The earl of Angus was severely wounded on the same occasion.

Thus fell James the second of Scotland, in the twentyninth year of his age, and the twenty-fourth of his reign. His person was strong and well put together, and he was reckoned excellent at all exercises. His face would have been handsome, had it not been partly disfigured by a red spot, which procured him from his subjects the name of James with the fiery face. Of the natural violence of his temper he had given an unfortunate proof, by suffering himself to be surprised into a violation of faith towards Douglas. His subjects seem, however, to have considered this as the act of momentary passion; and James's clemency to Crawford, who, in the words of the chronicler, had been " right dangerous to the king," after that earl was entirely in his power, as well as the small number of persons who suffered for rebellions which shook the very throne, made his temper appear merciful, compared to that of his father, James I. He possessed the gift of being able to choose wise counsellors, and had the sense to follow their advice when chosen. In the display which James II. was called on to make of his military talents he showed both courage and conduct. His death was an inexpressible loss to his country, which was again plunged into the miseries of a long minority...."