Talk:Robert the Bruce

message: When did Robert the Bruce start incorporating the schiltron, as originally devised by Wallace?  He definitely used this tactic in the Battle of Bannockburn, but did he use it in ordinary guerilla warfare?
A shiltrom was not any particular shape - it might be circular, rectangular or linear depending on need. There is no reason to assume that the schiltrom was an invention of Willima Wallace - it was the manner of fighting for all spear-armed infantry units throughout the middle ages.
In response to the above question, first of all I believe the formation was called a "Shiltrom," with an 'm.'  I'm not sure if the n is an acceptable variation or not.  To directly address the above question, John Fordun in his Scottish Chronical described the battle of Falkirk where William Wallace was defeated and he describes Wallace's shiltrom as having been flanked (possibly by Robert Bruce himself, but this was only speculation).  So the shiltrom was definitely not designed by Bruce.  This is the earliest use of the word that I can think of off the top of my head, so I am not sure whether or not Wallace was the creator of the formation.
::Would it really be possible to use that formation in guerilla warfare anyway?  Seems a bit unlikey. - Tulloch Gorum  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.212.48 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Schiltron

message: Is it Robert THE Bruce, or is it just Robert Bruce?
* Technically it's both. Robert Bruce, hence Robert of the Bruce family!
** my understanding is that when the definite article "The" is used, you are referring to the head of the family and/or laird of the region. The MacKenzie, The Bruce, etc.
* I'm afraid that there may not be a clear answer to this question, since most contemporary records may describe him in Norman French as Robert le Brus.  It would be interesting to know how Barbour describes him.
***The style "The MacIntosh" or "The MacArthur" or 
what have you indicates that the   person so designated 
is Chief of the indicated Name or Clan.  Robert the Bruce 
was Chief of the Name of Bruce.  The style is still used today.
In the case of Robert the Bruce, long usage has reinforced 
the style.  Barbour refers to King Robert I in several different
ways, including as "The Bruce," as well as "the lord Bruce" and 
as "The King." 
* What is the relationship between the Bruce family and the Stewarts? I have seen on the House of Stuart page that Robert the Bruce was listed as Robert Stewart (Stuart?). Would that be the same person?
***The daughter of King Robert I married Walter Stuart, 
and their son became Robert II, the first of the Stuart Kings
of Scots.  The Monarch of Scotland was always referred to as 
"King of Scots" rather than "King of Scotland," the idea being 
that the Scottish Monarch was first Chief among many Chiefs, 
rather than an absolute Monarch.
Not so simple as that; Medievla kings of Scotland, France and England (at least) are desrcibed in medieval documents as 'KIng of Scots' or 'King of Scotland' or 'France/the French' of England/the Englsih' in a pretty abtirary manner. The idea that Scottsih kings were the 'first chief among chiefs' is a product of nationalist romance. Medieval Scottish kings were just as absloute in their kingship as their French or Englsih counterparts.81.155.35.252 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bruce? Or Bruce? Or Bruys? Or Brus? 

message: Y-DNA seems to suggest that Bruce male DNA is of the same ancient stock as Fergus of Galloway Male DNA.  This  would make him Gall-Ghaidhil stock, not Norman.
???? Not sure if this is correct.
Prince Fergus --> Gille-Brighde of Galloway --> Donnchadh Earl of Carrick --> Niall, Earl of Carrick --> Marjorie marries Robert VI de Brus --> Robert the Bruce 
????
from ysearch.com
Compare	User ID	Pedigree	Last Name	Origin	Haplogroup	Tested With	Markers Compared	Genetic Distance
	CC7N8	Show	Ferguson	Scotland 	R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	0
	Y48QE	 	Ferguson	Virginia, USA 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	67	2
	ZKTE9	 	ferguson	Unknown 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	67	1
	BPHVR	 	Bruce	Scotland 	R1b1a2 (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	2
	2CX2X	 	Bruce	Unknown 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	67	2
	7X268	 	Ferguson	USA 	R1b1a2 (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	2
	BKY6M	 	Ferguson	Scotland 	R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	3
	F6FPK 	        Ferguson	Murfreesboro, Scotland 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	67	3
	JCJF2       	Bruce	North Carolina, USA 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	67	4
	RX7CS		Ferguson	ooltewah, USA 	R1b1a2a1a1b4 (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	3
	QP7VV	 	Bruce	Scotland 	R1b1a2a1a1b (tested) 	Family Tree DNA 	67	5
	A2HJU	 	Ferguson	Virginia, USA 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	42	0
	8D7DQ	 	Ferguson	America 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	1
	TZAC4	 	Ferguson	Unknown 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	2
	JGTTM	 	Bruce	Scotland 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	2
	C2UR7	 	Furgerson II	Scotland 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	3
	249T8	 	kidd	Virginia, USA 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	3
	M9VBC	 	Ferguson	Kentucky, USA 	Unknown 	Family Tree DNA 	37	4
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Fergusson
Fergussons from both Galloway and Carrick alike claim descent from Fergus of Galloway. The grandfather of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick and in turn great-great-grandfather to Robert Bruce, Fergus, restored the see of Whithorn and founded Dundrennan Abbey during the reign of David I and Malcolm IV. He died as a monk at Holyrood in 1161. Through Robert Bruce passes the line of the Royal Family of Britain. It was the 1st Earl of Carrick's signature that might suggest the origins of the Fergusson surname, Duncan, son of Gilbert, the son of Fergus, hence MacFhearguis.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Bruce
It has long been written that the ancestor of the family was Robert de Brus, a knight of Normandy who came to England with William the Conqueror[4]. But this was an invention taken from totally unreliable medieval lists of those who fought at Hastings[4].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.20.107 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Y-DNA 

message: Has anyone seen / compiled a record of the lands held by the Bruce family, prior to the ex-communication?  I ask as looking through the National Archives there are numerous references to estates forfeited in England, Scotland and Ireland, but how complete the record is I don't know. For starters the archive mention estates forfeited in:
* Ayrshire
* Bedfordshire
* Cambridgeshire
* Couny Durham
* Dumfries and Galloway
* Essex
* Huntingdonshire
* Hampshire
* Gloucestershire
* Leicestershire
* Lincolnshire
* Middlesex
* Rutland
* Somerset
* Surrey
* Yorkshire
* Ireland
With a few references:
*  Annandale castle, Dumfries and Galloway
*  Lochmaban castle, Dumfries and Galloway
* Carrick, Ayrshire.
*  Manor of Hart, County Durham]
* Writtle, Essex
*  Baddow, Essex
*  Tottenham, Middlesex
*   Hatfield Broadoak, Essex
*  Broomshawbury, Essex
*  Manor of Bellister
* Guisborough, Yorkshire
* More generally: 
**  Bedfordshire, Rutland, Lincolnshire, Leicestershire, Essex, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire
**  Hampshire, Gloucestershire, Surrey, Somerset
There's also mention in Edward I's attempted quo warranto land grab of: Ireby, Glassanby and Gambledby
Possibly also via his grand mother Isabel of Gloucester and Hertford: Ripe, East Sussex  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce Lands & Posession?

message: The Monarchs of Scotland were styled as "Kings of Scots," not "Kings of Scotland." - unsigned comment by: 66.156.107.108)
: Not really true. Both titles were always in use, and in fact, King of Scotland is older - i.e. ri Alban 900; rex Scotiae 1034; Basileus/Rex Scottorum, late 11th century. I don't mind King of Scots instead of King of Scotland - but "King of Scots, the traditional style of the Monarch of Scotland" is useless, cumbersome and misleading. - Calgacus 05:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: King of Scots, the traditional style of the Monarch of [[Scotland]]

message: Did any of these sons of Robert I have any descendants? Indeed, are there any Bruce families still living in Scotland descended in male line from the Bruce family? What about the children of his brothers, uncles, cousions? Fergananim 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all probably had bastards, if you accept that they were all of aristocratic status and that all had experienced sexual relations before their deaths. I don't know though if any of their bastards are known. Given the cultural background of guys like Niall, their bastards probably faded into the Gaelic society of Carrick. - Calgacus 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this the Thomas Bruce who married Marjorie Charteris? What is the common historical view regarding his parentage? Is he considered an illegitimate son of Robert I? Or of another member of the family? Or even a legitimate son of one of Robert's younger siblings (and therefore junior by primogeniture to Robert II)? Michaelsanders 19:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert, Walter and Niall Bruce

message: "Precious little is known of his youth."  Rather than make up facts for this section, would it not be better to describe in more general terms the lifestyle and learning that would be expected for someone of his stature?  (I believe that is the intent of the section.)  If specific information is to be asserted, reasons should be given.  If we know that all of his playmates spoke French, English, and Latin, that should be mentioned.  If we know that he spent time alone with a king who spoke only English, that is worth specifying.  If traditional accounts can be dated to three hundred years after the fact, they may be worth repeating as long as their origin is divulged.  If evidence is more tenuous than this, maybe it should be left out.--bkm pdx,or,usa
: I don't think many of his "playmates" would have spoken English or Latin, certainly not if he was brought up in Carrick. It's not mentioned in the article, but Robert's first appearance in history is witnessing a charter of Alasdair MacDomhnaill, Lord of Islay, in the company of the Bishop of Argyll, the vicar of Arran, a Kintyre clerk, his father and a host of Gaelic notaries from Carrick. One historian, I think it may be Sean Duffy, suggests the idea that Robert may have been fostered in Argyll, but I don't think there is much evidence for this. The only languages we know for certain he spoke were Gaelic and French. If he did spend time at the court of the English king (i don't know what this idea is based on, since I've never encountered it in serious literature), he would have used the language the English king used, French! Regards. - Calgacus 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background and early life

message: I know that myth can make a powerful contribution to history, but it is important not to lose sight of the facts, or to allow judgement to be clouded by emotion. The cult of Wallace really only dates from Blind Harry's fanciful fifteenth century epic, which reveals much more about the attitudes and politics of his own time than those of the Wars of Independence.  There is no contemporary evidence that the execution of Wallace in 1305 had any immediate effect, or that, by itself, it created any lasting emnity towards Edward I.
I've made one small change to this article: to my knowledge Edward II never 'sued for peace', which would have meant abandoning his claim to Scotland.  Temporary truces, of course, were a different thing.
I've now removed the 'Wallace the Martyr' section for the above reasons.  My argument is set out more fully in the article on the First War of Scottish Independence.
Rcpaterson 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Immediate effect? Wallace said something the English would do one or a half century later: Support the Balliol claim to the Scottish throne. It seems that someone (in Scotland) was successful at toning down Wallace's last words. Was Robert the Bruce and Wallace good friends? If I would live in a fairyland, I would watch Braveheart repeatedly. I would then say that they were....imediate effect indeed.--Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallace the Martyr. 

message: "Under the rule of the one who was later to be known as 'Good King Robert,' Scotland had become the first nation state in Europe, the first to have territorial unity under a single king."
:From the last paragraph of 
:"Robert I, the Bruce (1274-1329)"
:http://www.britannia.com/bios/robertbruce.html
Can anyone elaborate on this? Is it true? --Timeshifter 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using that definition, wouldn't England have been a nation-state already? 68.40.65.164 22:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, such a statement is simply rubbish. It always fascinates me how this 'Scottish' hero was, genealogically, overwhelmingly non-Scottish. He was born in Essex and his father was buried in a family crypt in England. My own family fought with Wallace and Bruce but if anyone to start writing about them, an almost purely Norman family at that time, as 'heroic Scots' I would say they were demented. David Lauder 19:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is untrue. You seem to be forgetting that Robert's mother was the countess of Carrick ... no Norman, but a Gaelic Scot; in simple biological terms, that immediately makes him half Scottish before you even start counting the "Scottish" wives taken by the Annandale Bruces since they settled in Scotland 2 centuries before. Robert (the King) had more biological connection with Fergus of Galloway than with the first de Brus to hold territory from the King of Scots, and if you believe the new theory of G. W. S. Barrow was generationally and biologically closer to Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, High King of Ireland, than to Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale. Also, King Robert was produced by the union between the Carrick family and de Brus and intended later to fulfill the position of Mormaer of Carrick, so was fostered (probably in Carrick or Argyll, maybe Ireland) probably for that purpose. Portraying him as some foreigner foreign to Scotland is nonsense; he was as "Scottish" as anyone else in the Scotland of the time. And he wasn't born in Essex, that's a bunch of crap. There's no evidence that I'm aware of that his mother ever left Scotland. Also, you said in the edit summary that Robert I's father held more land in England than Scotland ... again, that is not true. Robert sr's primary land holding was the large semi-sovereign territorial lordship of Annandale, along with de jure use of the title to Carrick, the rulership of which was held by his wife. So David, I recommend you start reading books written after the Victorian era. ;) All the best. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, his mother's mother was Margaret, daughter of Walter, the High Steward, and the Stewards were not Scots. His father has few Scots in his lineage. Yes, they held Annandale, but they were not Scots. Even Isabella of Huntingdon's family is only Scots in the direct male line back from her. All her other ancestors are non-Scots. I have had this discussion with you before: please do not tell good scholars their knowledge is rubbish because YOU disagree with it or with virtually all of the ancient chroniclers whom you so arrogantly refer to as "crap". David Lauder 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you've just admitted that biologically speaking, they were mostly Scots (for whatever that's worth - not much!) and that most of their territory and most important territory was in Scotland; whether you think Bruces were Scottish or not is neither here nor there unless you start trying to put such BS in articles, in which case you'll have to actually defend yourself rather than just calling people "arrogant". Victorian popular writers, btw, neither count as "ancient chronicles" nor "good scholars"; they did not have access to most sources, and even when one or two of them could access or understand one or two sources, they were too infected with Teutonism, Whiggism and other such creeds to make any use of them. The Stewarts, btw, were Scottish ... whether or not they could trace their paternal line a few generations back to France is irrelevant; Walter Stewart, who was called "Walter Og" (Gaelic for "Little Walter") in the Anglosphere-based Melrose Chronicle and whose own mother was the "pure" Scottish Alesta (daughter of the Mormaer of Mar), could not have been anything other than "Scottish". Why is he not Scottish, yet Michael Portillo is British? Strange ideas you've got there if you don't mind me saying. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that modern concepts of nationalism may somewhat be clouding the understanding of the nobility at this time. A look back at the relitively recent clashes between Scotland and England provide an intresting incite. Most noteworthy is the Battle of the Standard at which some nobles passed on their lands in Scotland to their sons. By doing such they were able to ensure the family honored its feudal duties to both kings. The father fighting for the sothern lands, and the child for the northern. At that date at least; retention of the familys land was far more important than any concepts of nationalism. Remmembering that any form of centralised government was centuries away, it is hard to see how much this attitude changed over 100 years. Contentious claims about the behaviour of the nobility at Falkirk seem to add weight to this as well as the fact that one of Robert 1st large policies when the nation was secured was to ensure nobility did not continue to hold land in England. Most protaginists from the nobility acted throughout the campaign through personal motivation, taking on the Scottish cause when it suited them. Fortunately for the said cause, this was relitively regular as the English kings required to grant land to there supporters so as to gain such continuing support. The church in this period was the true nationalists, but how much this was driven by a fear of becoming part of the Archbishopric of York is hard to gauge. The huge costs put into the building of the Cathedral at St Andrews would suggest this was a large issue for the nation at a whole. In conclusion, at least in regards the nobility that owned land in both nations (I use the term losely) the priority lay with retention of land; those whom owed fealty to two different kings found themselves in a difficult situation. Even the landowners whom only had title in Scotland were in danger of being forced to decide between Comyn and Bruce factions. Thus I would suggest attempts to establish the 'nationality' of any protaginist falling within the nobility category will prove to be a fully fruitless labour.Dthecat 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First nation state in Europe?

message: It's worth noting that this story is a trope in royal biographical writing. A similar story is told in Persian history about Timur/Tamerlane and an ant (see http://www.silkroaddestinations.com/uzbekistan.html and do a search on "ant"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.31.221 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bruce and the spider

message: I have tried to harmonise the naming on "Bruce" (replacing "Robert", "Robert the Bruce", "Robert Bruce"), except where necessary in references or to distinguish from his father or brother. Grafen (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty standard in wikipedia articles to refer to monarchs by their forenames - no article refers to Charles I as 'Stuart'. Michael  Sanders 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: naming (again)

message: A recent attempt to add Writtle in Essex as a serious contender for his birthplace quotes 2 late 19th century sources, completely ignores 20th century scholarship.  The most serious examination of his birthplace was a biography I borrowed once from Coventry City Library, it also put forward syphilis as the possible cause of his death.  Barrow, the definitive biography, also goes for Turnberry. PatGallacher (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Writtle thing is based on confusion with his father/grandfather. These guys tend to forget that little Robert had to come out of his mother, who being countess of Carrick and socially Robert senior's superior isn't likely to have went anywhere near Essex. Do we have any evidence she ever left Scotland? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollo is from Norway, not Denmark- I made the change RMB  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.29.20 (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Birthplace issues

message: Should it not be mentioned in the intro that it was the Black Douglas that set off with Roberts heart to the Holy Land? Titch Tucker (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Black Douglas 

message: In his novels, the historian Nigel Tranter always referred to the Bruces up to Robert as "Lords of Cleveland and Annandale", the Cleveland being in North Yorkshire, including Guisborough and the nearby manor of Acklam. Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the Bruces as being Anglo-Norman rather than the new and controversial "Scoto-Norman". The founder of the family was Robert_de_Brus,_1st_Lord_of_Annandale. Its certainly true that there was much cross-border ownership of land by these Norman Hybrid families prior to the Wars of Independence. Barnard Castle was owned by and named after Bernard de Balliol, an ancestor of King John Balliol.   Sasha (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland and Annandale 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Robert I of Scotland → Robert the Bruce — I think we are moving towards using common names of monarchs more often, so this stands out.  He should also be treated as the primary meaning of "Robert Bruce". PatGallacher (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Blasted all, I missed this one too. I would've opposed the move. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Me too. A bit too "demotic" for my liking. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much of a consensus to move, with only 5 editors participating. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. There seems to be no moves to change James II of Scotland to James of the Fiery Face; or William I of Scotland to William the Lion etc. Brendandh (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true in the case of the second. It all depends how well known (widely used) the cognomen is, compared with the numeral version. Not all cognomens ought to be used, but not all possible numeral versions ought to be used either.--Kotniski (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what would happen to William I's elder brother, as he is widely known as Malcolm the Maiden, but what then about the Canmore name confusion with Malcolm III? Regnal numbers should the norm for the title, and cognomens explained in the intros to articles, no? Brendandh (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to a point, I agree, but Wikipedia's general practice is to use commonest, or most recognizable, names as article titles. If it isn't clear what the most recognizable name is, or if questions of ambiguity arise, we can consider other factors like consistency. But when one name is overwhelmingly better known (as I suspect it is in this case) and not ambiguous, it would be inconsistent with Wikipedia's norms to reject it.--Kotniski (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there was no consensus at this article to move to Robert the Bruce. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes there was GoodDay. I don't like this name; it's both too demotic and pointlessly ambiguous, but there was consensus to move it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A meager 5, isn't very convincing. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it was 6 with no opposes. That's as convincing as you'll get w/out a WP:SNOW close. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. That's seven. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This article contradicts itself when talking about Matilda Bruce, (daughter of Elisabeth)
In one of the body paragraphs talking about his marriages, It says Robert and Elisabeth had 3 children, one of which was Matilda, who married Thomas Isaac. 
Later, in the section about his descendants, It says Matilda married Richard de Kelso, fifth feudal lord of the Free Barony of Kelsoland. This is a direct contradiction. I have tried to research it, but the sources can't seem to agree. They all say she married either Richard de Kelso, or Thomas Isaac. 
This needs to be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.7.129 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction about Matilda Bruce 

message: whoever wrote that Wallace was shown as a complete supporter of Robert the Bruce, has never seen the movie. Wallace in fact(in the movie) refuses to support any one's claim, although he offers advice on the topic to Robert, and suggests possible conditional support. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Movie? WTF? This article is not about an anodyne film made with financial backing from a western American state and with an Australian director. This article is about Robert le Brus, King of Scots. Please leave Randall whateverhispantsisnameis scriptwritershite's awful film out of it? Brendandh (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braveheart supporting Bruce 

message: Hello I believe the name of this article is inappropriate. It should be named Robert I of Scotland. His nickname should be mentioned in the article but he was a king of Scotland and like all the other Scottish kings his official title should be the name of the article should it not ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Titles of articles on monarchs don't have to be 'official' names. For example, one of Bruce's predecessors lives under the article title 'William the Lion'. See a couple sections above your post where editors voted to move this article to 'Robert the Bruce', and see this section of the talkpage of William the Lion where some editors attempted to move that article to 'William I of Scotland'. Any editor can make a case to move an article, and then others can voice their opinions. If there is consensus to move it under a certain name it'll get moved in the end. That's how Wikipedia pretty much works.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article 

message: Aren't these two ethnicities identical to each other ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply, no. Scoto-Norman describes those invited into the Kingdom of Scots by 11th/12th c. Scots monarchs, whereas Franco-Gaelic can be used to describe those of the diaspora that ended up in France following the usurpation of the Stewart throne by William of Orange. Brendandh (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "the usurpation of the Stewart throne by William of Orange." - begs the question somewhat. William of Orange was married to Mary Stuart, after all. How does deposition of a yet another hapless, autocratic Stuart monarch, replaced by his daughter and her Dutch husband at the invitation of a dissident faction at the heart of the English establishment become usurpation by the King of Holland?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoto-Norman and Franco-Gaelic the same ? 

message: Didn't he die a bit early to have died of Syphillis? --209.193.52.78 (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syphillis as cause of death 

message: I can't help thinking that a radical review of the Bruce may be due from revisionist historians. Looked at another way the Bruce was a successful rebellious Anglo-Norman baron with estates in southern and northern england, AND he was only secondly the 'petty king' of the still-tribal Scots in the far north of Britain. Taking advantage of political chaos in England he carved out a seperate kingdom for himself from northern England and the Scot-lands, giving the whole the name of the Kingdom of Scotland. From the 7th century until then England, and the Anglo-sphere, had extended to the Forth of Forth. The Bruce's birthplace, Annnandale, was therefore in England. Like King David before him the Bruce continued the process of turning his now extended kingdom into a 'modern' Anglo-Norman state and, despite continuing the name Scotland, thereafter he  marginalised the Gaelic speaking highland Scots and their primitive culture whilst concentrating his rule in 'civilised' lowland 'Scotland' - lands which were formerly northern England, and whose population was ethnically and culturally English. Thus in a supreme irony of history the 'Scots' hero Robert the Bruce's victories in reality destroyed the Kingdom of the Scots and replaced it with an independant north-British second Anglo-Norman Kingdom. The 'independence' being fought for was of course never for Scots or their Scot-land anyway, but rather just simple independence for Robert the Bruce from the feudal duties he owed to his lords and fellow Anglo-Normans, the English Monarchs.  Is this cynical view any less likely to be true than the legend and the romance? Given that much of this Wiki 'history' is actually not much more than speculation and political spin I'd say it's rather more likely. Cassandra  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.159 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did the Bruce In Fact Destroy Scot-land? 

message: Bruce was not a Gael, he was a Norman by ethnicity and part of the Franco-Norman culture. That his mother was a Gael is a different topic entirely. I would say it is fair enough to put the "Medieval Gaels" category on her article, but not on Bruce's as he was not a Gael in any real sense. Claíomh Solais (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of along the same lines... I was surprised that Robert wasn't already in :Category:Scoto-Normans prior to my adding it yesterday. daintalk   17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't think the Medi-eval Gaels category applies to Robert the Bruce. The Bruces were of Norman origin.QuintusPetillius (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruce was not a Gael 

message: No Robert was never crowned by Lamberton instead Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan Sister to the earl of Fife that gave her the authority to crown Robert the Bruce. (I do wish people would get their facts correct before they try to type lies on Scottish history)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifer1314 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Crowned twice? I confess I don't know a great deal on the subject. But I just wanted to point out that the entries as they stand are quite confusing. --86.163.136.104 (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who crowned him? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert the Bruce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090918092404/http://www.longlongtimeago.com:80/llta_history_bruce.html to http://www.longlongtimeago.com/llta_history_bruce.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Robert's sternum and viscera were interred in the chapel of Saint Serf near Cardross"
This cannot be correct, and indeed does not make sense. Not least because the divided sternum was a principal means of identifying the skeleton discovered at Dunfermline Abbey as that of Bruce. How, or why a sternum should be separated from the rest of the body is hard to picture.
What the editor meant when he or she wrote this, I can't make out. I assume it was an error. I shall remove 'sternum' and leave the sentence to stand as "Robert's viscera were interred in the chapel of Saint Serf near Cardross." 
If this leaves a piece of the late King's cadaver unaccounted for, I trust someone can redress that omission.
JF42 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert's sternum  

message: Do we really need to have six versions of his name (in five languages) before telling the reader who he was? Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 name versions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Robert the Bruce. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711203416/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/elizabethdeburgh/index.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/elizabethdeburgh/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201191517/http://historyofdentistry.co.uk/index_htm_files/2001Apr5.pdf to http://www.historyofdentistry.co.uk/index_htm_files/2001Apr5.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120730104401/http://www.silkroaddestinations.com/uzbekistan.html to http://www.silkroaddestinations.com/uzbekistan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100721024820/http://www.robertthebruceheritagecentre.co.uk/ to http://www.robertthebruceheritagecentre.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems the lead here is particularly detailed -- overly so, in this editor's opinion. I refrained from adding the "Lead too long" template, since it specifically includes the line "too long for the length of this article" which doesn't exactly fit... still, the introduction overall is overfull with historical specifics (e.g., all the dates in graphs 2-4). Suggest paring it down to big picture significance only.  Brhiba (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is excessive for the subject matter. What specific information do you think should be removed? Mediatech492 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too long 

message: "In 1920, the heart was discovered by archaeologists and was reburied, but the location was not marked"
Can this be stated as fact? The cited source merely states a BBC article from 1998, "When archaeologists located the heart in 1920,"  with no qualification. Have the contents of the lead container ever been identified as anything more than probable human tissue?
JF42 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In 1920, the heart was discovered by archaeologists"