[232] _Malm. Hist Nov._, l. 1, sec. 1–3. _Chron. Sax._ 1126–7. The chroniclers of that age call the empress Alicia, oftener than Matilda; perhaps to distinguish her from Stephen’s queen. [233] _Vide_ preceding chapter, p.184, note. [234] _Chron. Sax._, _Chron. St. Crucis_, _Chron. Mel._, and _An. Ult._ 1130. _Ord. Vit._, l. 8, p. 701–3. The Saxon Chronicler declares Angus to have been “all forsworn.” The account of Orderic is, as usual, a strange mixture of truth and error. As Heth witnessed the first Dunfermlyn charter in company with Constantine Earl of Fife, who died in 1128, he must have survived David’s accession; and it was possibly on the death of the Moray chieftain that his sons broke out into rebellion. [235] _Ailred de Bel. Stand._ p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. “Deinde cum cohortibus suis jam triumpho elatis fugientes avidé insecutus est, et Morafiam defensore dominoque vacantem ingressus est, totumque regionis spaciosæ Ducatum, Deo auxiliante nactus est.” Such are the expressions of Orderic relating to the course pursued by David after Stickathrow. There is no allusion to Malcolm suffering the usual barbarities inflicted on state prisoners, so it is to be hoped, for David’s credit, that he escaped all such tortures. [236] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222. _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 12. Lingard has no authority for saying that “David claimed Cumberland as having formerly belonged to the heir-apparent of the Scottish kings,” c. 11, note 13. There is no allusion to any claim except upon Northumberland (in right of his wife), and this was waived at the time for the fiefs of Carlisle and Doncaster. Strictly speaking, the Scottish royal family never appear to have held the _Earldom_--or rather perhaps _Comitatus_--but the _Honour_ of Huntingdon. A grant of the “_tertius denarius de placitis_,” seems generally to have entitled its holder to the earldom at this period, whilst the holder of an honour was “overlord”--or constable--of a number of knights and barons; for all the tenants of an honour held by military service, and with manorial rights. It was in the power of the king, however, to grant the dignity of an earl, or attach the dignity to any fief, without reference to the “tertius denarius.” _Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2. [237] _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 13. There is some uncertainty about David’s age, and Lord Hailes, a little rashly, finds fault with Malmesbury for writing about “the approach of age.” But as David _survived_ Malmesbury, the latter would hardly have written what was not true, in such a trifling point, about one who was then living. Neither Alexander nor David appear to have taken any prominent part in the events immediately occurring after the death of their father; but David was old enough to assist his brother Edgar in 1097 by his _astutia_ (_Gesta Regum_, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been nearer sixty than fifty.