Grant (1992) acknowledges that Robert II's reign in terms of foreign and domestic policy was "not so unsuccessful". As far as William, Earl of Douglas's reaction was concerned when he staged an armed demonstration before Robert's coronation, Grant does not hold to the view that Douglas was in some way demonstrating against Robert's legitimate right to the throne, but more an assertion that royal patronage should not continue as in the time of David II. Grant also advocates that the demonstration was aimed at father and son Robert and Thomas Erskine, who held the castles of Edinburgh, Stirling and Dumbarton from Robert's predecessor. Grant seriously called into question the dependability of Froissart's writings as an effective source for Robert II's reign. Influential magnate coalitions headed by Carrick, having undermined the king's position, manipulated the Council of November 1384 to effectively oust Robert II from any real power. Grant gives little weight to the asserted senility of Robert, and suggests that the deposition of Carrick in 1388, and then the resolution to join the Anglo-French truce of 1389, were both at the instigation of Robert II. Yet power was not handed back to Robert II but to Carrick's younger brother, Robert, earl of Fife which once again saw the king at the disposition of one of his sons. Despite this, the now unknown source whom both Wyntoun and Bower relied on made the point that Fife deferred to his father on affairs of state emphasising the difference in styles in the guardianships of his two sons.