King James I and the Grahams

King James I and the Grahams –

Royal grovelling

Grovelling to kings in times past was probably a wise, rather than a pitiful thing to do. Displease his or her royal majesty and it was ‘off with his head’. Or off to the local dungeon, or stake, or…

And even if the king or queen was the merciful sort, their ‘agents’ – local earls, wardens, commissioners etc – were quite happy to take offence on their royal person’s behalf. With similar consequences.

And King James I of England, VI of Scotland, wasn’t really the merciful sort. 

King James

James was the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. Darnley was, all sources seem to concur, a repellant individual. His murder, in 1567, may have caused shockwaves, but it seems unlikely anyone was actually sad at his demise.

Young James was just a baby when his father was murdered and his mother forced to abdicate and give him up. 

James was crowned king, but as an infant monarch, he was – as his mother had been – merely a useful object for powerful interests. In James’ case, a succession of regents ruled ‘on his behalf’. The first was assassinated; the second killed in an attack; the third survived to see James take the reins and reign in his own right, only to be executed two years later.

James united the English and Scottish crowns – and died in his own bed, of natural causes. But he was not a popular king. 

He surrounded himself with favourites, and lavished them with (other people’s) wealth and honours. He once knighted 700 men in one week. 

His legacy is the United Kingdom, the King James Bible – and Bonfire Night, which he insisted be held every year, after the failure of the Gunpowder plot.

He is also remembered as a witch-hunter, and as an autocrat – he believed in the divine right of kings. It really wasn’t wise to get on his wrong side.

Pacification of the borders

With the crowns united, attention turned to an old thorny problem: the lawlessness of the Anglo-Scottish border. Efforts to control it had always been hampered by the conflicting interests of the two nations. It suited both countries to have a buffer zone between them of armed outlaws who answered to neither side, but who would block any invading army. 

But now we were ‘all on the same side,’ the borders were seen as a blot on the landscape. And the continual raids, burnings, thefts, killings etc, were a hindrance to the prosperity of the kingdom. 

King James did seem to want to secure peace in the borders. Though as he himself had taken part in expeditions to ‘pacify’ the border in the past, which had largely been indiscriminate slaughter…

He’d had people rounded up because of their name and hanged, and their cattle, food and belongings seized. 

This included farmers, as if farms were destroyed, the raiders would starve.

The result was famine, desolation, and an increase in disorder.

He also broke his word. A lot. And folk were too busy laughing at him to pay attention to the destruction and confiscations.

King James – royal grovelling

In a previous post, I transcribed one of the Pacification of the Borders documents from the Pennington Archive.

I have also ‘had a go’ (with gaps and queries) at page 21.

You can see a copy of the original here:

‘Your majesty’s sacred foot’

Yes, the document reads very much like royal grovelling. And with good cause.

The Grahams of Mote and Brackenhill had for years had it much their own way – a powerful reiving clan, notorious for their exploits. But once James united England and Scotland, their ‘rule’ came to a sudden end. And as James’ agents set out to ‘pacify’ the borders, they found themselves at risk of all the horrors of the time, including execution.

It’s possible someone wrote the document and obliged them to sign it. But it’s also possible they felt a bit of royal grovelling was the only way save their necks and protect their families.

ill Week: March 1603

The period after Elizabeth died before James was crowned was a free-for-all in the borders: partly because the raiders thought ‘no laws apply in the inter-regnum,’ but also; ‘this is our last chance to settle scores’.

It was to give the Grahams’ enemies justification for what followed. Everyone had been at it, but Lord Cumberland made out it was only the Grahams at fault. A free pardon was issued to all, but the Grahams weren’t to benefit. 

What was to follow was a kind of ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Grahams from the borders, with Lord Cumberland the primary beneficiary.

The Earl of Cumberland 

A favourite of King James I, George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland, was Lord Lieutenant of Cumberland, and the English warden. And seeing the suppression of the clans would lead to confiscations of land, he was determined to have the lion’s share. 

He therefore bad-mouthed all the Eskdale landowners to the Privy Council, as thieves, murderers, beyond redemption. And his friend the Earl of Northumberland, lord of the manor of Cockermouth and a Cumbrian landowner, joined in.

Pacification document pg21

Here is my transcription:

The effect of the content/concent of the same.

First these bewailings that- have offended his sacred majesty and therefore (in all humilitie) wa-e- p’don for the same, with a joyfull acceptance for their employment in his majesty’s service,

Secondly a whe-fall of my lord of Cumberland promise as from his majesty that (if they were transported) the should have as good l-w nigt provided for them as they enjoy on Esk, and to remayne with their own h-dmyes until that promise was performed,

and lastly a submiss- offer for the better advancement of his highness’ service

Willm Graham of Mote

Richard of Brackenhill

Anthonie of Mote

Robert Graham Howend

Francis Graham Loggan?

George G Milhill

Wm G Langtown

Willm G, Mickle’s Wylly

with others now employed in his majesty’s service

We on the behalf of the ?king of all kings do pray you, his majesty’s commission with the teares of our hartes to present this our most humble petition to his royall majesty.

To the king’s most excellent and sacred majesty 

Most gracious and merciful ?sovereign, we your highness’ poore and obedient subjects

do fall and prostrate our selves before your majesty’s sacred foot, bewailing our former

lewd lives that – it shall have been a hard mishappe to have offened so gracious and merciful 

a p’—, yet we think our selves most happie ?weat-es, that since it hath pleased your sacred

majesty ?any w- to employ us in your highness’ service, which God be our witness, we do most

wilingly embrace and shall do our best endeavours to perform the same (as becomes dutiful and

obedient subjects) to the glorie of God, contentment to your majesty and commanders to our countrie

for rather than the least sparks of disobedience should any way appear in us, we would

enter into the galleys and to work as galley slaves, all the days of our lives an and we

do most humblie crave at your most sacred majesty’s hands (?even for the king of king’s sake)

to ha-d grace, merrie pity and compassion of our many poor distressed ?-wines and mis—y

?w-stmye? and this in fact, as in the sate? of youre -ydo-s and o-pha-th and we hand

no doubt but your sacred majesty (being known to be the most gracious, goldy and benign

person? that liveth at this day, upon the face of the earth) will not suffer so many poor

?subjects of women and widows to be suppressed from their livings and to put 1000

?vyi- soules to beg and pser-, if it might ?sand with your highness’ pleasure

One thought on “King James I and the Grahams

Comments are closed.