"A question for flag (and heraldry) experts." Topic

Greetings, all.

In the spring of 1330, Sir James, Lord of Douglas in Scotland (as he was styled) set sail for the Mediterranean, heading intially for Spain.

His ultimate mission, we are told in one source, was to travel as proxy to the late king Robert I of Scotland in order to fulfil the Bruce's vow, once the kingdom was secure, to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, by then firmly back under Muslim control.

As requested, Douglas carried with him the late king's embalmed heart, suspended in a silver casket around his neck, as a symbol of both of the heart that made the vow and the body that could not fulfil the promise.

Douglas was instructed to conduct his mission with maximum pomp as if the late king himself was present so that in the course of the voyage all should know that the King of Scotland's heart was being carried where his body could not go. Thus Douglas and his party arrived at the court of King alfonso XI of Castile and offered their services in his wars against the 'Saracens' of Granada.

It must be a matter of speculation but what I should like to work out if possible is what banners would Douglas have been likely to carry on his mission?

In rank he was still either knight bachelor or at most a banneret. He styled himself Lord of Douglas from the barony of Douglas held directly from the Crown, and he travelled as the King's proxy, a fairly common practice, and bore himself as if (in the form of the embalmed heart- also a common practice) the King himself was there.

Would he have marched solely under a royal banner; or under his own banner, or both? There were strict rules were there not? And if the former what status might the Castilian king, his nobles and knights have accorded this common knight bearing himself in the person of his dead lord – (whether or not Douglas' individual reputation as a knight against the English travelled before him, as tradition tells us)?

All we know is that the Spanish chronicles make no mention of such a party joining Alfonso's army and the one possible reference to Douglas' presence and his subsequent death in battle refers to an anonymous 'foreign count' who came to test his body against the enemies of the Cross'and who died through his own carelessness. If this was Douglas, as seems likely, the chroniclers were certainly confused about his rank, which is perhaps hardly surprising, under the circumstances.

Any advice greatly welcome.

Yeah, well, best of luck with that. He sounds like a bit of a nutter!

The original Douglas arms (supposedly adopted by James' grandfather) are

argent, on a chief azure, three stars of the field

The heart or crowned heart was only added after James' death, when his successors became Earls

James was the heir so would have borne the arms undifferenced.

He led a small company that included Knights and had been a regent of Scotland but, not uncommon in Scots history, he gained no specific titles that we can be certain of.

He was important enough to fly his own banner, possibly even a standard though definitely not any royal arms (at least not officially). He may have just carried the saltire of Scotland in battle.

Considering his status it isn't that surprising that the Castillians labelled him a Count rather than any Scots title.

He was important enough to fly his own banner, possibly even a standard though definitely not any royal arms (at least not officially). He may have just carried the saltire of Scotland in battle.

Well that's the key question: whether in light of Douglas' mission and instructions, as related by Le Bel and Froissart, in addition to his personal arms of three mullets etc., he would have borne a royal banner or standard to proclaim the presence of the late King Robert, the embalmed heart representing the whole (This was also requested by King Edward I of England in his will- but not honoured by his son).

Considering his status it isn't that surprising that the Castillians labelled him a Count rather than any Scots title.

It is noteworthy that despite his extensive lands along the border, his role as one of King Robert's chief lieutenants and co-regent of the realm, Sir James Douglas was never granted a noble title. His unconventional style as 'Lord of Douglas,' taken from his baronial holding, was perhaps intended to reflect his standing in the kingdom beyond that of plain knight bachelor.

What the nobility in Cordoba would have made of this in reality (as opposed to John Barbour's celebratory account), is open to question. King Alfonso's senior knights were identified by territorial titles: 'de Castro'; 'de Asturias,' etc., so 'Don Iacobo de Douglas' would have seemed respectable enough, but his status would have been ambiguous,and his rank must have been made apparent at some point. These things were important. Perhaps the difference would have been between being treated with polite respect and with deference, similar to the status of a modern ambassador today. This would have become more apparent in relation to decisions on the battlefield.

It seems likely the title of 'count' was attached later when the story hsd become hazy, rather than at the time, so that Douglas became "That foreign knight. Seemed quite important. Bit of a fuss when he got himself killed as I recall. Must have been a count at least. Yeah, put that."

Barons are lords. Douglas held very extensive lands in addition to his Lanarkshire barony – the fruits of a very successful career – and the properties were scattered all over the country, not just in the border areas. He was massively rich by the time of his death and had a major international reputation as a paladin and commander. Banneret is a kind of wonky term in the 14C – it can mean a variety of things – but that's probably the best way to see him, and for sure a whopping great banner….he wanted people to know where he was and to seek him out.

Forgive me, UFB. I missed your response above and, in the dreamlike manner that time has assumed in the last year, I moved and let fall the reins, only recently picking them up again.

When you say 'barons are lords,' are you referring to the question of Douglas not being titled?

As I understand it, in an Anglo-Norman context there is/was a significant difference between being "Sir James, Lord of Douglas" as he styled himself, and Lord James of Douglas.

That is to say, he held barony lands from the crown, but was not a baron in rank; or to put it another way- all barons are indeed lords, but not all lords are barons.

If that is pertinent and correct, what interests me is how Sir James' status would have been read by the nobility in the Castilian camp. Even if Douglas's credentials as regent wealthy landowner and Royal proxy were impeccable, "Don Iacobo, Señor de Douglas," might not have had quite the same ring as don Pero Fernandez de Castro or Rodrigo Alvarez de Asturias, and by these subtle nuances, the Castilian nobles would have judged whether Douglas was their equal or not.

I wonder how much this would have mitigated his reception, even if Alfonso XI honored his letters of introduction from Edward III and extended a hand of welcome(I have to admit to being slightly sceptical about the extent of Douglas' international reputation).

And yes, agreed he might well have deployed a 'whopping great banner' but, as I asked originally, what devices were displayed upon it and how would they have been read?

Slightly out of my period but – given the exceptional nature of his mission and the presence of the king's heart – the royal banner of Scotland is NOT out of the question.

link

The other obvious one is the Scottish white saltire or St Andrew's cross but not necessarily on a blue banner. Other colours are known. As with the cross of St George for England and the white cross of St Denis for the French, it is the cross which is important, not the background colour.

link

Barry

Thanks, Barry. The Lion Rampant borne on a Royal standard with Douglas and his company in attendance would be an obvious consideration. That would have been the most pronounced statement that could have been made. As I understand it, the 'owner' did not need to be present- although in a sense, by virtue of the reliquary containing Bruce's embalmed heart, he was; the mission being predicsted on thst perception.

I gather that until the later C14th the St Andrew's cross if borne (or worn) was a saltire gules. I've seen no mention of what colour the ground might have been.

@42flanker:
In the original post it states:
"maximum pomp as if the late king himself was present" so that almost screams the presence of the royal banner.
Nice to see a meeting of minds on TMP!
Barry

Well, indeed. I hope to learn if there is an evidential basis that underpins that assumption.

Given the nuances of heraldic protocol and the number of mistaken assumptions and careless readings that this episode has inspired down the years, I am treading carefully.

I am relieved that there is still evidence of mind at work!

Slàinte

Douglas held his chief property – Douglas – 'in baroniam', so he was a baron, as was his father before him. If we take Barbour at face value he was made a banneret ( a knight in his degree') on the eve of Bannockburn when many other people were made knights. He also held a great many other properties some of which were also baronies so his title was James Lord of Douglas. Lord James of Douglas would be hi as well. and there was no greater title he could be given. The next step up was 'earl' or 'count'. In England after 1066 the title 'earl' was simply an honorific – being Earl of Lincoln' did not make you lord of Lincolnshire -- you might not have any property there at all. In France, Scotland etc it meant regional lordship – as it had in pre-conquest England and….well….everywhere else really.
I can sell you a copy volume 1 of the Great Seal Register if you like? Douglas had a massive international reputation – think in terms of George Best or Pele. Try Chapter 1 & 2 of Michael Brown's 'The Black Douglases'. There is an earlier book of the same title by I.M. Davies which I expect would make adequate papier mache but is not worth opening, let alone reading.
Also…the term 'Anglo-Norman' is not really very useful for medieval Scotland at any time and not useful for anywhere at all after the early to mid 1100s, by which time even the greatest lords on England think of themselves – and describe themselves – as being English.

Thanks UFB. Some time later.

As I said previously, my interest relates to how an ambiguity in status might have affected Douglas' standing amongst the Castilian nobility, et al, during his last campaign.

My understanding is that since Douglas, for all his lands and his place in the King's counsels, remained at most a knight banneret until the end of his life, his use of 'Lord of Douglas' was a style rather than a title. That is, it not an indicator of noble rank, although it seems this ambiguity was not a matter of pretension on Douglas' part.

Perhaps the distinction between 'James, Lord of Douglas' and 'Lord James Douglas' was not as clear cut as it would later become. At any rate, John Barbour writing forty years after Douglas' demise, used the terms ‘lord Dowglas'/‘lord of Douglas' interchangeably but always wrote ‘Schir James,' and never as far as I can make out, 'Lord James'.

The rich display with which (according to le Bel) Douglas and his company proceeded, ‘as if the King of Scotland himself were there' reflected his mission as King Robert's proxy and may have enhanced the ambiguity of Douglas' rank when he arrived in Spain.

It is interesting that in the two letters that Edward III issued for Sir James's benefit, a safe conduct through Edward's realm, and a letter of introduction to the king's cousin, Alfonso XI of Castile, he is described in the former as 'Nobilis vir jacobus dominus de Douglas in Scotia but in the second, and argably more important document, he is merely described as 'Nobilis vir jacobus douglas de scocia.' 'Sir James Douglas of Scotland-with the reference to ‘lord of Douglas' omitted.

These are only archival copies, so whether this was simply a scribal omission or Edward III's intention, subtly undermining Douglas' status in the eyes of his cousin King Alfonso by emphasising his true ‘estate' beneath the pomp of his mission, we cannot tell.

There is also the question of the ambiguity between English and Spanish (Castilian) terms: ‘Sir' & ‘Lord' ‘don' & ‘señor' that may be worth exploring further. The international language of heraldry as it had evolved by the 14th may have had some bearing on these questions. It would be interesting to know more.

The status accorded, for instance, to ‘don Iacobo Duglas de escocia' in the Christian army at Teba would have some bearing on why for instance Douglas was evidently not privy to royal battle plans in le Bel's version of events, or whether it is likely that- by contrast- Sir James would have been given command of a third of the Christian army as asserted by Barbour, and indeed it would clarify why the Spanish should, in recollection, have promoted Douglas to noble rank, even if an anonymous ‘foreign count.' Of course, the degree to which we regard any of the above as reliable sources is a whole other matter.

Douglas' international status as a knight and commander was made much of by John Barbour, but while chroniclers on the continent numbered him among the "plus grans barons et maistres d'Escoce or "les plus haults barons de tout le royaume d'Escoce", they did tend to get his name wrong, often calling him John, while the chronicler Jean Le Bel, who had been present when Douglas swept through the English camp in Weardale, and ‘only wrote what he saw or heard from trusted witnesses', referred to Sir James as ‘gentle Sir William' throughout.

A generation later, Jean Froissart, even with the benefit of hindsight and claiming aquaintance with the Douglas family, when adapting Le Bel's account repeated his error and called Douglas ‘Sir William.' Meanwhile, Castilian cronistas compiling their histories over that same timespan could not remember Douglas' name at all, it would seem, but at least honoured him with the rank of conde i.e.‘Count' (it is possible an element of royal propaganda was in play whereby they minimised Douglas' presence while emphasising the role the nameless ‘conde estraño' played in his untimely end- ‘through his own fault, may God have mercy on him.').

These examples suggest at least the possibility that while Douglas and his company, royal standard and all, very likely made an impact in the Christian camp and while his unfortunate death- however it occurred- caused a brief stir, when the ‘douchty Lord' went abroad he did not perhaps enjoy quite the status that Barbour states.

There are many conflicting elements in this story, with facts hard to pin down, and we should probably be careful not to ‘overthink it,' as Clint Eastwood would say.

However, Douglas has certainly kept people confused down the years. It's worth remembering that Sir Walter Scott also referred to Sir James as 'the Earl.' Even today, the information panel at Teba castle still refers to ‘el famoso conde escoces.'

The rest is history.

Lords are nobles, they need not be earls. Earl as a purely honorific title was still pretty much limited to England AFAIK. Getting names wiring is not that uncommon and also people writing a generation or more later could well confuse James with William Douglas of Lothian. Le Bel is not entirely trustworthy – he had an agenda and he was very. very miserable, which – understandably – can affect one's view.

Lords are nobles, they need not be earls. Earl as a purely honorific title was still pretty much limited to England AFAIK.

I'm not sure I grasped your meaning there.

However, that Sir James Douglas by virtue of his land holdings and offices in the land ranked as having been enobled is an assertion I have not seen elsewhere but perhaps I have misunderstood.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the earliest French language chronicles that reported Douglas' death were being compiled within ten years or so of the event and I doubt that Le Bel, who in 1327 had been almost within bowshot of Douglas, got  Sir James' name wrong out of pique.

As it stands, the key questions regarding the nuances of chivalric rank in the 1330s and the extent to which Douglas' commanded the status at the court of Alfonso XI that Barbour asserts, remain to be explored. Ongoing Spanish studies may prove more fruitful.

Clearly Douglas's death in Spain was reported in England and northern France, perhaps conveyed by soldiers returning from Spain, but it would seem at a level that was little more than gossip. The facts were elusive. In an age when news in the main travelled via the spoken word that is perhaps hardly surprising.

Nonetheless, whether many men furth of Scotland or England were really clear as to who Douglas was seems open to question. The fact that at the royal court in whose service he fought his last campaign, it seems he was remembered only as ‘that foreign count' is eloquent, and raises the possibility that el conde estraño may simply have been one of many foreign knights on the campaign, about whose presence it is known King Alfonso was not particularly keen.

It is also possible that the grandiose mission of the Scots company and Douglas' inopportune death threatened to overshadow Alfonso's own role in the narrative as a hero of Christendom and scourge of the infidel. Perhaps.

As it stands, there seems to be no overwhelming amount of evidence in surviving C14th texts for Douglas' enjoying international stardom other than Barbour's assertion that it was so- and, of course, Barbour also had his own agenda.