In contrast, the historians Stephen Boardman (2007), Alexander Grant (1984 & 1992) and Michael Lynch (1992) give a more even-handed appraisal of Robert II's life. Modern historians show a kingdom that had become wealthier and more stable particularly during the first decade of his rule. Boardman explains that Robert II was subjected to negative propaganda while he was High Steward—David II's followers denigrated his conduct during his lieutenancies and described them as "tyranny"—and again later as king when the supporters of his son John, Earl of Carrick said that Robert was a king lacking drive and accomplishments, weighed down by age and unfit to govern. Robert II's association with Gaelic Scotland also drew criticism. He grew up in his ancestral lands in the west and was completely at ease with the Gaelic language and culture and possessed a potent relationship with the Gaelic lords in the Hebrides, upper Perthshire and Argyll. Throughout his reign, Robert spent long periods in his Gaelic heartlands and complaints at the time in Lowland Scotland seem to have been influenced by the view that the king was too much involved in Gaelic concerns. Boardman also asserts that much of the negative views held of Robert II find their origins in the writings of the French chronicler Jean Froissart who recorded that 'king had red bleared eyes, of the colour of sandalwood, which clearly showed that he was no valiant man, but one who would remain at home than march to the field'. Contrary to Froissart's view, the early Scottish chroniclers—Andrew of Wyntoun and Walter Bower (who both utilised a source that was nearly contemporary with Robert II)—and later 15th and 16th-century Scottish chroniclers and poets showed 'Robert II as a Scottish patriotic hero, a defender of the integrity of the Scottish kingdom, and as the direct heir to Robert I'.