Westminster Stone theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Westminster Stone theory refers to the belief held by some historians and scholars that the stone which traditionally rests under the Coronation Chair is not the true Stone of Destiny but a thirteenth century substitute. Since the chair has been located in Westminster Abbey since that time, adherents to this theory have created the title 'Westminster Stone' to avoid confusion with the 'real' stone (sometimes referred to as the Stone of Scone).

One of the most vocal proponents of this theory was writer and historian Nigel Tranter, who consistently presented the theory throughout his non-fiction books and historical novels. Other historians have held this view, including Dr James S Richardson, who was an Inspector of Ancient Monuments in the mid-twentieth century. Richardson produced a monograph on the subject.[1]

Contents

[edit] History of the Stone of Destiny

Main article: Stone of Scone

The Stone of Destiny was the traditional Coronation Stone of the Kings of Scotland and, before that, the Kings of Dalriada. Legends associate it with Saint Columba, who might have brought it from Ireland as a portable altar.[2] In AD 574, the Stone was used as a coronation chair when Columba anointed and crowned Aedan King of Dalriada.

The Stone of Destiny was kept by the monks of Iona, the traditional headquarters of the Scottish Celtic church, until Viking raiding caused them to move to the mainland, first to Dunkeld, Atholl, and then to Scone. Here it continued to be used in coronations, as a symbol of Scottish Kingship.

[edit] Edward I and the Stone

In his attempts to conquer Scotland, Edward I of England invaded in 1296 at the head of an army. Sacking Berwick, beating the Scots at Dunbar, and laying siege to Edinburgh Castle, Edward then proceeded to Scone, intending to steal the Stone of Destiny, which was kept at Scone Abbey. He had already stolen the Scottish regalia from Edinburgh, which included Saint Margaret's Black Rood relic, but to confiscate an object so precious to the Scots, and so symbolic of their independence, would be a final humiliation. He found a lump of sandstone, which he removed and carried back to Westminster Abbey. By placing it within the throne of England, he had a potent symbol of his claim for Overlordship. It is this stone which sat in Westminster until 1996, when it was returned to Scotland.

[edit] The Substitution

According to the Westminster Stone theory, the stone Edward removed was not the real Stone of Destiny, but a substitute. The English army was at the Scottish border in mid-March, 1296, and did not reach Scone until June. With three months to anticipate Edward's arrival, there was ample time and incentive for a switch to be made, in order to protect the original relic. Such a substitution could have been instigated by the Abbot of Scone, who stood as custodian. The 'Stone of Destiny' could therefore have been transported to a place of safety, and Edward fobbed off with a piece of worthless sandstone.

[edit] Hiding the 'True Stone'

There are many theories regarding the possible resting place of the 'True Stone' since, inspired by logical deduction and, in some cases, fantastical, wishful thinking.

Nigel Tranter believed the True Stone was originally hidden by the Abbot of Scone, and eventually entrusted to the care of Angus Og MacDonald, Lord of the Isles, by Robert the Bruce. Angus Og hid it in his native Hebrides, where the stone probably remains.[3]

One legend records that after the True Stone was given into the keeping of the Angus Og Macdonald, its keepership passed into the branch of the clan who settled in Sleat. A descendant of this line, C. Iain Alasdair Macdonald, wrote to Tranter, claiming he was now the custodian of the Stone, which was hidden on Skye.[4]

It has also been suggested that the stone was hidden by the monks in the River Tay. One rumour claims that the stone is held by the Knights Templar.[citation needed] However, this rumour might apply to the '1950 substitution'.

[edit] Evidence to suggest the Stone was substituted

  • The Westminster Stone is a lump of roughly-dressed sandstone, of proportions appropriate for use in building. As such, it is not remarkable or unique, which makes it an unlikely choice for a coronation stone. Edward I would not have been fobbed off by anything newly-hewn, but a piece long-since rejected by builders would look suitably ancient, especially if abandoned outside and consequently weathered. That the Westminster Stone has a fault (weak point) is demonstrated by the fact it broke in half when removed from Westminster Abbey in 1950.
  • The Westminster Stone is certainly not the stone of Iona mentioned in early documents and traditions. Geologists confirm that the Stone is 'lower Old Red Sandstone' and was quarried in the vicinity of Scone.[5]
  • Early seals and documentary descriptions suggest a stone that is larger than the Westminster Stone, darker in colour (possibly basalt or marble), with elaborate carvings.
  • There is no record to show the Scots ever requested the return of the Westminster Stone in the century after its theft -which they would surely have done if it were an important relic. The absence of a request is quite marked in the Treaty of Northampton. The Scots had been harrying England for some years, and in 1328 the English sued for peace. The Treaty is drawn in Scotland's favour, for they were in the position to make demands. The Treaty stipulates the return of the Scottish regalia and St Margaret's Black Rood, but there is no mention of the Stone of Scone.[6] Such an oversight, if it were indeed the real one, should have caused an outcry. Tranter claims that the English offered to return the stone, but the Scots were not interested.[7]
  • Reports of the coronation of Robert Bruce in 1306 record that it was done according to the full tradition, which must have required use of the True Stone.[citation needed]
  • Edward I returned to Scone Abbey in 1298, two years after he stole the Westminster Stone. This time, he ransacked the abbey and pulled much of it apart. He was either searching for the stone, or wreaking revenge.

[edit] Counter-arguments

The Westminster Stone theory is not accepted by many historians, or those responsible for the care of the Stone. There are many strong arguments against the theory.

  • If Edward I did not remove the true stone, yet claimed to have done so, the Scots easiest refutation of his claims would be to produce the True Stone. However, there is no record of them doing so.
  • Hiding the stone might have been a sensible precaution while the English remained a threat, but it was never produced once the threat was removed.
  • Despite its importance as a symbol of Kingship, the stone was not used for subsequent coronations, which it surely would have if still in Scots possession.
  • Legends and theories abound, but no proof has been found to indicate there is another stone.
  • If there was warning enough of Edward's intention to remove the Stone, why were the other relics (the regalia, documents and Black Rood) not hidden also?
  • A number of English knights attended the coronation of King John of Scotland only a few years earlier, and would have seen the true stone, but none of them told Edward that his stone was a fake.

[edit] A second theory: the 1950 substitution

On Christmas Day 1950, the Westminster Stone was retrieved from the abbey by four Scottish students. It remained hidden until April 1951, when a stone was left in Arbroath Abbey. Some speculate that this stone is not the one stolen from the Abbey, but merely a copy.

The stone left in Arbroath was damaged, for the Westminster Stone had broken in half when removed from the Coronation Chair, but had been repaired by Glasgow stonemason Robert Gray. However, Gray had made replicas of the Stone in the 1930s, and further fuelled speculation by declaring later that he did not know which stone had been sent back to London as "there were so many copies lying around".[8]

This scenario receives support from a plaque placed in St Columba's Parish Church in Dundee, which claims to mark the site of the 'Stone of Scone', given to them in 1972 by 'Baillie Robert Gray'.

The apparent disrespect shown towards the Stone by Gray and the students is explained by Nigel Tranter, who had some claim to knowledge, as the students asked him to act as an intermediary after the removal of the stone. Tranter later stated that Gray inserted a note inside the Westminster Stone, when repairing it, to the effect that it was 'a block of Old Red Sandstone of no value to anyone'.[9] This demonstrates that Gray, at least, believed it was not the True Stone.

[edit] The 'Edward I conspiracy'

The apparent absence of thirteenth and fourteenth century Scottish mentions of the Stone of Scone, and their lack of reaction to Edward's theft, compared with the wealth of legends developed in later centuries, have given rise to the theory that the Stone of Scone was never a relic of great significance to the Scots, but 'talked up' by Edward as useful propaganda. By creating a relic which, in the popular eye of the English, endorsed his claim as 'Lord Paramount', he was making a shrewd political statement. By continuing to flaunt the stone in front of later generations of Scots, the hoax became a self-fulfilling taunt.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Bradfield, Ray, Nigel Tranter: Scotland's Storyteller, p 121
  2. ^ Tranter, Nigel, The Story of Scotland, p 11
  3. ^ Tranter, Nigel, The Story of Scotland, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987
  4. ^ Bradfield, Ray, Nigel Tranter: Scotland's Storyteller, p 130
  5. ^ Prebble, John, The Lion in the North
  6. ^ Prebble, John, The Lion in the North
  7. ^ Tranter, Nigel, The Story of Scotland, p 77
  8. ^ Bradfield, Ray, Nigel Tranter: Scotland's Storyteller, p 122
  9. ^ Bradfield, Ray, Nigel Tranter:Scotland's Storyteller, p 122

[edit] External links

Nigel Tranter, Scots Magazine, 1960