William Wallace, murdering thug.

Jimbo · William Wallace, murdering thug.

Someone calling him/herself AM, Glasgow has just posted this link on The Scotsman website calling William Wallace a murdering thug.

http://www.waichung.demon.co.uk/william/guerrilla.htm

Neo Labour voter I suspect. Laughing

azzuri

Well he was undoubtedly a bit of a psychopath and a bit of a thug - he did skin the Sheriff of Lanark alive then use his skin to make a belt from! And I suppose technically he was also a murderer - it's all about perspectives.

It really doesn't matter what people say about Wallace, a murdering thug is certainly not how he has been or will be remembered.

Jimbo

Corby Boy

And Edward I wasn't a murdering thug? Gotta be viewed in the context of the time.

Wallace knew what he was about and his actions helped shape our nation.

William Wallace = Top Bloke.

fiferjohn

he did what he had to so Scotland good be free. what about all the kings and queens are they murderers as well as they put a lot off people to death and quite long and tourgerous at that .that was what time required then and you have to take that into context. the duke of Sutherland i think it was kill every man woman and child in the highlands that they could find after culloden but i suppose that was being done for the union so it was ok i take it.

FreedomNow

Although the Scots may have commited atrocities in the war, as did the English, they were fighting for a cause and these things happen in all wars.

Morph

I dont think it is fair to be judging these acts, of the Scottish or English with a modern perspective. The acts carried out during this period were the ways wars were faught. Peasants were regarded as an underclass, this is why the sacking of Berwick was ok for Edward ( in his mind) and if Wallace wanted to get his point across he couldnt take it to an international court he had to do the same, eg skinning Lanark.

Jimbo

Sir William Heselrig, English Sheriff of Lanark was killed in his bed by Wallace. Wallace smashed into his house in the middle of night, rushed upstairs where Heselrig was abed and 'with a single downward stroke of his great sword, cleaving his skull right down to the collar bone.'
It was Hugh De Cressingham, Edward's hated and grossly obese treasurer in Scotland who the Scots skinned after the battle of Stirling Bridge. The Lanercost Chronicle states the Scots dried and cured his hide and 'of his skin William Wallace caused a broad strip to be taken from the head to the heel, to make therewith a baldrick for his sword.'
The Scalacronica merely states that 'the Scots caused him to be flayed, and in token of their hatred made thongs of his skin.'
Walter of Hemingburgh recorded 'The Scots flayed him and divided his skin among themselves in moderate-sized pieces, certainly not as relics, but for hatred of him.'

RFM

Hi Jimbo,
A great posting. Would you be so kind as to give the sources for the chronicles?
Thank-you!

Jimbo

FreedomNow

Just down the road from where my gran lives is the reputed spot where Wallace and his men burned the English garrison while all the soldiers were inside. Can't get much more brutal than that. Aparently it was in retaliation for the hanging of many Scots at the same garrison.

crazydaisy

"Braveheart" is the only movie I have only ever seen my boyfriend cry at, the bit at the end where the Scottish guys win the battle Very Happy

azzuri

Aventinian

Having been on this website for a considerable time, I probably shouldn't be shocked on my return to see the casual acceptance and defence of crimes that would turn any right-thinking person's stomach. Par for the course, so long as they're committed by a fellow Jock against the English, eh?

Holebender

You have to look at them in context, not judge them by the standards of our peaceful home lives.

Was Wallace any different from a French Resistance fighter in 1943? Do we think badly of the French Resistance or do we believe they fought against an occupying army with whatever means available?

RFM

Not really Adventinian, killing in the 14th century was not a crime. In fact the term "murder" comes from the Old English "murdrum" which meant to kill a Frenchman. If you look at the Assize of Clarendon 1166, presentment of Englishry was abolished, which essentially meant that a killing was presumed to be the killing of an Norman and the hundred was required to pay a fine. If he was proven to be an Englishman, no fine. In fact right down to the 19th century, a member of the nobility could not be tried for killing in the King's Courts. He had to be tried by the House of Lords, and unless the matter concerned treason or an offense against the realm, he was not likely to be condemned by his peers.

In Scotland, I am told, that the criminal court, the High Court of Justiciary, was formed in 1632, some time after the formation of the Court of Sessions in the reign of James V (1546?). Which seems to suggest two things: first there was no statute book defining what was crime and what was not, second that killing someone was regarded as a civil loss to the family and not to the community, payable by a fine according to status of the deceased. So in the time of William Wallace, taking a sword to somebody was probably regarded as an acceptable form of dispute resolution.

But your larger point remains. William Wallace was a guardian of the realm of Scotland and a high government official, not some bar room brawler and goon which unfortunately modern historical protrayals make him out to be (See the William Wallace website for an example). It is indeed sad that the obvious contributions as statesman, contender for the throne of Scotland, high government official are all overlooked and emphasis is placed on his fighting ability instead.

Holebender

Never let your ignorance get in the way of opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble, eh RFM?

I'll leave someone else to deal with your silliness about killing not being a crime.

I'll just correct a couple of points about Wallace. Wallace only became Guardian after the Battle of Stirling Bridge, so how would his acts before then have been judged?

Wallace never ever contended for the throne of Scotland. He always, to his dying day, fought in the name of King John; it is one of the things which make him truly a hero, that he never fought for personal gain but for a higher cause. He fought for his country and (as he saw it) her lawful leader.

RFM

Speak of ignorance and look who appears.

You have some authority as to what crimes were and how they were defined in 14th century Scotland Mr. Holebender? Of course not! Snide and snarky commentary is the best you are able to do.

Wallace was a Guardian of Scotland, not the only one by the way at the time, and your point is what exactly? That Guardians were chosen for their fighting ability? Please, enough stupidity!

King John, you may or may not know (most likely the latter) was resident in England enjoying the hospitality of Good King Edward. One of the reasons Scotland had Guardians for the throne.

One of the most likely reasons the Scottish nobility arrested Wallace and delivered him to Good King Edward was Wallace's popularity and his proven ability as a general, or if you prefer military leader. That was deemed a desirable quality in Kings at that time. Wallace was supposed to have been descended from Welsh nobility, but he was a knight, a landlowner and is supposed to have signed at least one Treaty in behalf of Scotland. Seems to me he would have been an excellent candidate for the throne. The "bar room" history of Scotland contends that he had no such aspirations, that he risked life limb and property for his King and not for any personal benefit. Nice story but very difficult for anybody with a little brains to believe. That would apparently include you.

Holebender

OK, RFM, find me one reputable historical reference to Wallace ever having any ambition for the Throne of Scotland. He could have taken it with ease at any time from 1297.

Of course John was a prisoner in England, otherwise there'd be no need for Guardians. Did I say otherwise? I said Wallace fought and acted in the name of King John, not that he fought under his direct command or orders.

As for the rest of your post, you didn't address anything I said so I'll ignore it.

RFM

Yes, yes, I see that reading the English language is not one of your strong points either.

If you go read my posting you will notice the personal pronoun is conspicuously absent. What that means to you Sir, is the sentence can not be read to say that he contended for anything, rather that he would have been an obvious choice for a possible candidate. Why do you think the Scottish nobility delivered him to Edward? Because they thought he was doing too good a job at liberating Scotland?

It was not very long before the reign of King John that Scotland elected their Kings according to the Scandinavian custom. It was King David who brought the Norman custom of hereditary right to Scotland. Given a choice between characters like John Comyn who defected to the English after the Battle of Sterling or Robert DeBrus, who couldn't make up his mind whether he was on Edward's side or not, depending on which day of the week it was, Wallace would have been an outstanding choice. But that would result in a really free and independent Scotland and people like DeBrus did not want to see that happen under the leadership of someone like Wallace.

RFM

By the way Holebender, there were no less than 13 official candidates for John's throne, maybe more. If you want to believe Wallace was risking his neck and his children's future just because he liked to fight, be my guest. But, as the local author Warshawski said, don't piss on my shoe and try to tell me it is raining.

Holebender

RFM

I will do just that.

The subjects of the sentence are stateman, contender and government official; the possessive pronoun (genitive case "his") comes after the conjunction (separate sentence) "and" and refers to fighting ability. Notice that the first part of the sentence before the conjunction, the subject of the sentence is "It". That does not mean "he" or "his". Sorry you spent all your time sleeping in English grammar classes.

Over one hundred years ago, 19th century that is, there were a number of publications written about Wallace's arrest by the Earl of Montieth and Wallace's trial at Stirling Castle by the nobility before he was delivered to Edward. Look it up!

Holebender

I take it you are unable to supply references then.

As for the rest, the evidence is there for all to see. I'll let the general readership decide which of us can read and write.

RFM

No I will supply references. Unfortunately the issue can not be answered by looking at the internet.

Aventinian

Aventinian

Holebender

Guardian was equivalent to Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Wallace's knighthood (Sir William Wallace) was equivalent to a knighthood, although Wallace was awarded his for feats of arms, not for being a popular actor or a senior civil servant.

Wallace did not skin anyone for goodness sake! The English chroniclers reported that the dead body of Lord Cressingham was skinned after the Battle of Stirling Bridge and that some of that skin was used to make a balrdick for Wallace's sword. We can dismiss that part about the baldrick as pure propaganda, but even the chroniclers with an obvious agenda to demonise Wallace never accused Wallace personally of skinning Cressingham.

Cressingham was Edward's taxman in Scotland and he was grossly obese while those he taxed suffered privations. He was universally reviled in Scotland and it would be little surprise is the victorious troops at Stirling Bridge mutilated his body post mortem. The story of the flaying and making of mementos from his skin arose from this.

Dave Coull

RFM writes “By the way Holebender, there were no less than 13 official candidates for John's throne, maybe more”.

Irrelevant.

The point is, although Bruce was one of these candidates, Wallace was not.

All of Wallace’s activities were carried out in the name of King John, even after that king became a prisoner of the English.

Aventinian wrote “I am aware he was a Guardian, which I understood to basically be the equivalent of a knighthood”.

Wrong.

William Wallace and Andrew Murray were the joint Guardians of Scotland. This title meant that they were claiming (with sufficiently widespread support to make the claim believable) to act as commanders-in-chief on behalf of their absent and imprisoned king. As well as being military commanders, the Guardians also acted as political regents on behalf of King John. The “Lubeck Letter”, signed by both Wallace and Murray (on behalf of the absent and imprisoned King John), informs the merchants of that north German port on the Baltic Sea, and, through them, the other ports of the Baltic and of Europe in general, that, following a period when Edward of England had made things difficult, Scotland is now back in business, and wants to trade with them. As it turned out, trade continued to be difficult, but the point is what this letter says about the Guardians and their intentions.

RFM

The great problem in determining Wallace’s history is that so much of it is obscured by nationalist sentiment and propaganda which is offered as fact although so much is contradicted by known historical facts.

First it is not known what crime exactly Wallace was indicted and tried for. We are told generally that it was treason, but in fact medieval English law provided for two offenses of treason: Petty treason and High Treason. Petty treason was the killing of a man by a wife, the killing of certain judges, the killing of a prelate by a subject, secular or religious or the killing of a feudal lord. High Treason was the levying of war against the King or adhering and giving aid to his enemies, but in both instance only within his realm. Medieval Treason was not simply any act of disloyalty to the Crown in the modern sense.
This distinction is important where Wallace is concerned, because Great Treason was the act of attempting to overthrow or usurp the royal power, that is to replace the King. As we are now told that Wallace had no ambitions to the Kingship of Scotland and was merely a loyal foot soldier who fought for his Lord King John, the question becomes how could he possibly have been indicted for Great Treason? If it was Great Treason he was indicted for at all?

The nationalist sentiment is to portray King Edward and medieval England as a rough and lawless sort of place, but the truth is otherwise. The English were then, and to a great extent subsequently a very litigious and legal minded society. Many of Scotland’s laws and institutions are a direct copy ( but certainly not all). Subsequent to the conquest of 1066 the first notable instance of Norman rule is the keeping of legal records (Domesday Book), court records and written laws (Magna Charta). Wallace would have been indicted and he would have had a jury trial, whatever the offense was. The only exception would have been the possibility that Wallace had already been tried in Scotland and was delivered to Edward to carry out sentence. But if that were true, why should King Edward concern himself with executing Scots criminals?

Petty treason, the killing of a feudal lord or prelate, required a feudal obligation of loyalty. Feudal loyalty was essentially conditional and could be withdrawn at any time by renunciation. “The Law of Treason in England” J.G.Bellamy (1969), Cambridge Press. Had Wallace killed a feudal lord, that would explain why he was tried in Scotland first, but the question remains why should King Edward care?

Great Treason, on the other hand was the unlawful usurpation of the King’s power or prerogative, in hs realm. Magna Carta, Chapter 61 (1264) states the duty of the realm to use force collectively against the King in the cause of justice. However that duty was interpreted as legalizing the use of force to regain what they perceived as just rights and could not be condemned as “self interest and greed”. "The Theory and Practice of Revolt in Medieval England", Claire Valente, Ashgate Publishing, 2003, page 40. Stated another way, attempting to recover lost rights was not treason, but attempting to overthrow the royal power for greed or self interest was. In this context Sir John Fortescu noted that that the King may not rule his people by laws other than such as the assent to, that the doctrine of “what pleases the Prince” has no force or application in England. The core of the offense of Great Treason is waging war to dethrone the King. “Australian Law Journal” Graham McBain, Abolish the crime of treason,

It is well known that Wallace was one of the guardians of Scotland at that time, that is a person designated by the nobility of the realm to act in place of and with legal authority for, the King who was under some disability. He had lawful power to wage war against King Edward, but the question becomes it done to regain lost rights? And if so, why were not the other 13 Guardians also charged with High Treason? Certainly Scotland was not within the realm of England as the argument that King Edward was making was that King John was a vassal, and as such still King of his own realm, Scotland. If on the other hand Wallace had put himself forward as a possible contender to the throne of Scotland by right of conquest, and in order to secure that throne would have to levy war against King Edward to secure the borders and safety of the realm.

Dave Coull

RFM asks "If on the other hand Wallace had put himself forward as a possible contender to the throne of Scotland by right of conquest, and in order to secure that throne would have to levy war against King Edward to secure the borders and safety of the realm."

This is sheer fantasy. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Wallace ever put himself forward as a "contender" for the throne of Scotland, and there is plenty of documentary evidence that he acted in the name of King John. Face it, RFM. you got this wrong, and you are now clutching at straws to try to justify your original completely unsubstantiated claim about Wallace being a "contender".

RFM

As I ponited out Mr. Coull, there is very little historical record about William Wallace at all. There is certainly as little evidence for your contention that he was not a contender for the throne as he was, might have been or could have been.

If you accept the nationalist propaganda that he was the ideal patriot, risking his life, his property and the rights of his children, just to be a good soldier, you are welcome to do so; but the question remains: Why was he the only one who was supposedly executed for High Treason?

Holebender

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

There is history, there is documentation. RFM, on the other hand, formulates a theory and tries to justify it with ideas plucked from the air.

Fact: King John Balliol was stripped of his titles by Edward of England at Stracathro in 1296. Edward then ruled Scotland directly as part of his realm. This then leads on to the justification for charging Wallace with High Treason in 1305. All the other guff about Petty treason, trials in Scotland, etc. are just guff.

Fact: Sir William Wallace served as Guardian of Scotland from his victory at Stirling Bridge in 1297 until his defeat at Falkirk in 1298. When he lost that battle he resigned the Guardianship. Subsequently he served a diplomatic role on the European continent. Therefore, again, he was not Guardian when captured and taken for trial in England.

Fact: Even if Wallace had been Guardian at the time of his capture, Edward regarded Scotland as his legitimate realm and anyone who made war against his peace within his Realm would have been regarded as a Traitor.

Fact: The trial, such as it was, in the Great Hall of Westminster Palace is fully documented. Courts kept records then, as they do now. There was no trial in any meaningful sense; there was a reading of charges and a passing of sentence with nothing in between except for the briefest of statements by Wallace. He was silent throughout the procedings except when it came to being accused of Treason which Wallace denied on the grounds that Edward was not his King and he had never sworn an oath of loyalty to Edward (the charges also included various murders which Wallace did not deny).

None of this is "nationalist propaganda" but documented fact.

RFM

SO there are facts, Mr. Holebender? And where are they exactly? You have some official records to cite, or some scholarly treatises you rely on or you just make this stuff up and call it "fact"?

1.Instead of spouting off words like "guff", "pure guff" ( and I notice that you like David Coull, who also has nothing to offer in rebuttal but disparagment ) does not address the point that the scholars make about Treason. But that would detract from the question I raised and since you have no answer or no sources to point to it you come up with your own silly ideas of treason. Try reading what the experts say it was, not what you think it might have been.

2.Where exactly does this time line about his guardianship, his resignation and his diplomatic role come from. The local pub and the boys?

3. Don't bore me with your silly interpretations of Treason. Trying reading what the scholars say it was, not what you surmise and speculate. That is a child's game.

4. There was no law court in Westminster in the reign of Edward I, there was the curia regis. Since anything you do not understand is "irrelevant" or "guff" I don't expect you to know the difference, but if you have any interest in reading about history from sources other than what you can make up, try Plucknetts Concise History of the Common Law, Fifth Edition, page157-170. I fail to understand where you come up with this notion of "no trial in any meaningful sense" when the books I cited to you above, both give examples of several lords and prelates who were indicted for High Treason and were acquitted. I guess this is some more of the nationalist "bar room" history. Make it up to suit your arguments and support the nationalist cause.
The scholars say that High Treason was a specific offense, whether Wallace ever pledged loyalty to Edward had noting to do with it and if Wallace were not a member of the nobility, Edward would not want or seek any pledge of loyalty in the first place.

Facts, Mr. Holebender do no consist in spinning up fanciful fables.

Holebender

I asked you to cite references, but you didn't. You have a damned cheek demanding them now!

I precisely addressed your guff about Treason by telling you the facts that Edward regarded Scotland as part of his Realm and therefore regarded anyone making war against the King's peace within his Realm as guilty of High Treason. I did not give you my interpretation of Treason, I used yours. You can't seem to understand what you yourself wrote, let alone what anyone else has written! Edward regarded himself as the rightful ruler of Scotland. (To be specific, he asserted his suzereignty over Scotland.) The Throne of Scotland was vacant since Edward had stripped John of his titles in 1296 and Edward ruled directly rather than through a client King since then. Wallace was attempting to overthrow Edward by force of arms. That is your definition of High (or Great) Treason and Edward certainly felt justified in bringing those very charges.

Anyway, there is no need to speculate about the charges because, as I have already told you, the trial proceedings were recorded. They are a matter of public record. Wallace was charged with High Treason (which he denied in his only words spoken to the court) and multiple murders.

Next time you happen to be passing the Palace of Westminster, where the UK Parliament currently sits, why don't you pop into the Great Hall and ask someone there to show you the plaque which commemorates the trial of Sir William Wallace? I shall reproduce a copy of it for you here, so you know what to look for:

Face it, RFM, you know nothing of Wallace or his history and the more you flounder with your speculative posts the bigger a fool you make of yourself. All you have posted is fanciful nonsense based on your own baseless theories. You have posted very little which you can verify and yet you stick to your fantasy rather than accept a more accurate version of events. You are a fool and you are wasting my time so I will have nothing more to do with you unless or until you acknowledge that you know nothing of these events and that you stand corrected.

I won't hold my breath.

Try actually reading a book about Sir William Wallace and the Wars of Independence and you will find the timeline I refer to.

Dave Coull

RFM refers to Holebender as "like David Coull, who also has nothing to offer" and says I do not "address the point that the scholars make about Treason".

Following the deaths of both Alexander the Third, and his only undisputed successor, there were numerous "competitors" for the Scottish throne. In preference to a multi-way civil war, these competitors asked Edward the First of England (well known internationally, in Europe, for his legal expertise) to judge the case. Edward said he would do so, but he asked ALL of the competitors to swear an oath of loyalty to himself. This they all agreed to do (including Robert Bruce). Edward then considered all of the evidence, and decided that John Balliol had the best case. On strictly legal grounds, he probably did.

But when, later on, Edward's demands on Scotland became completely unreasonable, and King John opposed the English king, Edward marched north with an army which defeated the Scots. He then decided that King John had broken his oath of fealty, and was therefore automatically deposed. Since Edward was himself descended in one of his lines of descent from Scottish royalty, and probably had as good a case in strictly legal terms as at least some of the other competitors, he decided to cut out the middle man and declare himself king of Scotland. His justification for this was, well, they did ask me to decide, and I do have a reasonable claim, and they have all sworn oaths of loyalty to me anyway, and I know that I'm not going to break my oath.

All of your waffle about different kinds of treason was irrelevant, because, so far as Edward the First of England was concerned, Wallace was guilty of the worst kind of treason - he had taken up arms against his rightfull king, namely himself, Edward the First of England.

As for your reference to finding out what "the scholars" say, what some scholars have to say about the significance of different kinds of treason is irrelevant, in this particular case, because there is no doubt which kind was intended.

"Try reading what the experts say" - I spent quite a few years reading the opinions of many of my fellow historians. Well, if you are studying for an honours degree in history, that is rather expected of you. But of course, like any true historian, I read history long before my formal studies, and continue to do so on a daily basis.

RFM

Face it yourself, Holebender, your concept of history is that of a fundamentalist preacher trying to interpret scripture. Any story you think your audience will swallow is what you offer up. You call it cheek for me to ask you for authorities? If you think you are using my authorites you might at least try reading them first. All of them are unanimous about the definition of medieval Treason. It is not disloyalty or fighting against the King. It is attempting to replace the King with one's self. Under your view of Treason, Bruce, Comyn and any and most of the 13 guardians would have been guilty of Treason. Only Wallace gets indicted? Please! You can't be that inept. Maybe you are, and the name calling is your way of trying to hide it.

As far as a plaque on a wall, if you were to go around the corner and down the street you would find another just like it which commemorates the Embassy of the Republic of the Independent Nation of Texas. Never mind that Texas was never an independent nation, it just seems that the English are not very particular about what people stick up on walls. It is a shame the person who paid for that plaque did not spend his money looking for the record of the trial. But that would require some work and thought. Better just stick up a plaque and let the country hicks from Scotland, people like yourself in a word, ooh and aah about it.

I notice that you too follow Dave Coull's method of disparaging the author of an argument you are not able to answer. I call it the "loud mouth" method of argument. When you have nothing to reply by reason or citation to authoritative publication you tell your opponent that he does not know what he is talking about, or that he is making "speculative posts" or he is a fool. But an intelligent answer is not within your ability or style. Just more of the "bar room" style of history. Just keep looking for plaques stuck up on walls, I am certain you will find all of yor lifes answers there.

RFM

To Dave Coull,

I am so flattered to read that you actually read books, and not just nationalist websites.
Why don't you tell us about one (a book I mean) that supports your hackneyed theory of the history and trial of William Wallace. And I do not mean comic books or nationalist propaganda.

For a so-called honors history student you too seems unable to credit your own professors ( the one's I cited above). Stop with this inane ranting about what you think medeival Treason was about and go and read.

William_Cleland

According to wikipedia, admittedly not the most authoritative source, prior to 1351 treason in an England and Wales context, which I suspect is what probably would have guided Edward I, was basically whatever the King and/or the judiciary wanted to define it to be:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High...ingdom#History:_England_and_Wales

In England the common law knew no clear definition of treason. Instead, it was for the King and his judges to determine if an offence constituted treason. Thus, the process became open to abuse, and decisions were often arbitrary. For instance, during the reign of Edward III, a knight was convicted of treason because he assaulted one of the King's subjects and held him for a ransom of £90. It was only in 1351 that Parliament passed legislation on the subject of treason. Under the Treason Act 1351, or “Statute of Treasons,” which distinguished between high and petty treason, several distinct offences constitute high treason; most of them continue to do so, while those relating to forgery have been relegated to ordinary offences.

Can you provide sources for your claim that it had the very narrow and fixed definition of attempting to replace the king with one's self?

Dave Coull

Some folk can get very agitated when discussing history, because they can see parallels between some aspects of past history and present day politics. I have even been known to get a wee bit agitated about history myself. But I don't understand why anybody is getting agitated in this particular case. I recognise William Wallace was a significant figure in Scottish history, but I don’t regard him as a “giant” of Scottish history. I am no hero-worshipper. As for whether he supported John Balliol or some other would-be king, I really couldn’t care less about this, since I am not a fan of ANY king. My only interest in this matter is in knowing the truth about history for its own sake.

For some reason which I haven’t figured out, RFM does get very heated about William Wallace. He tells Holebender “your concept of history is that of a fundamentalist preacher trying to interpret scripture”. I know Holebender, and, so far as I'm aware, that isn't true, but the very fact that RFM would make such an accusation suggests that HE has an axe to grind.

The interesting subject of the independent Republic of Texas has been raised. RFM says:

“As far as a plaque on a wall, if you were to go around the corner and down the street you would find another just like it which commemorates the Embassy of the Republic of the Independent Nation of Texas. Never mind that Texas was never an independent nation, it just seems that the English are not very particular about what people stick up on walls.”

Well, again, this is a matter where I really have no axe to grind, but it is a fact that Texas was at one point independent, and it is a fact that during that period they did have an embassy in London. Texas never actually WANTED to be independent. They wanted to be part of the USA. However, this created a problem. The USA at that time was finely balanced between “free” states and “slave” states. Politicians in the “North” were very wary of allowing another “slave” state to join because it would upset this very delicate balance. Also, they wanted to keep slavery out of the "West". For racist reasons, mind you - basically, they wanted to keep blacks out of the West. So, for a period of about 8 years, Texas had separated from Mexico, but had not been admitted to the USA. During this period of rather-unwelcome independence, Texas established diplomatic relations with both Britain and France. Both of these European powers were very interested in the possibility of adding a new “protectorate” to their empires. Britain promised Texas very favourable terms. However, the British pointed out that, since slavery had been abolished throughout the British Empire, it would have to be abolished in Texas also. Nevertheless, in the USA, even a small possibility of the British flag flying on BOTH their northern AND their southern borders rang alarm bells, concentrated minds in Washington DC, and, despite continuing misgivings, Texas was admitted to the USA as a “slave” state.

Not long after that, you got the Mexican-American War, partly about the borders of Texas, but also partly because the USA wanted to expand all the way to California and the Pacific Ocean. And not long after that, Texas and the other “Southern” states seceded from the USA, as the “Confederacy”. But yes, there was a time when Texas was independent, and had an embassy in London.

Dave Coull

RFM, for some reason which perhaps makes some kind of sense in his own mind, gets extremely heated when discussing William Wallace. He accuses those who think him wrong of “the ‘bar room’ style of history”, and, when I pointed out how far off the mark that is in my own particular case, he describes me as “a so-called honors history student”.

I note RFM uses the American spelling. Here in Scotland, it is spelled “honours”. And while, in one sense, the study of history is a life-long pursuit, in the formal sense I ceased being an “honours history student” when I graduated.

Dave Coull

Some folk can get very agitated when discussing history, because they can see parallels between some aspects of past history and present day politics. I have even been known to get a wee bit agitated about history myself. But never about William Wallace. I recognise William Wallace was a significant figure in Scottish history, but I don’t regard him as a “giant” of Scottish history, I am no hero-worshipper. As for whether he supported John Balliol or some other would-be king, I really couldn’t care less about this, since I am not a fan of ANY king. My only interest in this matter is in knowing the truth about history for its own sake. But for some reason which I haven’t figured out, RFM does get very heated about William Wallace. He wrote "Stop with this inane ranting about what you think medeival Treason was about".

YOU are the one who is going on about the definition of medieval treason, not me. I'm really not all that interested in getting into the finer points of medieval legal terminology. What I am disputing is YOUR unsubstantiated claim that William Wallace was a "contender" for the throne of Scotland. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that. There is plenty of evidence that Wallace claimed to act in the name of King John of Scotland. But as far as Edward of England was concerned, John had been quite rightly deposed, for breaking his oath of fealty. So, when Wallace was executed, there is really no doubt about who, in the opinion of King Edward the First of England, Wallace was supposed to have "betrayed". From Edward's point of view, after John Balliol was deposed, he himself became the rightful king of Scotland, and opposing HIM was a betrayal.

RFM

I already have done so Mr. Cleland; if you, like Mr. Coull and Mr. Holebender choose not to read them there is nothing I can do.

The case Wikepedia refers to is the well known case of Gerberge, found at P.R.O KB 27/349, which had to do with the taking of a hostage for ransom. The taking of hostages for ranson was an exclusive prerogative of the King and he was judged to have usurped that prerogative, gulity of High Treason.

I am frankly appalled by the lack of intellectual acumen and laziness which some of the people here have displayed; no shortage of vituperation though. It seems to me that it is below stupidity to not understand that a loyal foot soldier could not be tried and convicted of High Treason. The soldier's duty was to follow his lord's orders. Whose orders was Wallace following? If he was following his Lord, that made the lord guilty of High Treason, not him. If he was on his own, leading an army to overthrow King Edward, that was something different. But that makes nonsense of the oft repeated declaration he was following King John, the purportedly non-official King. Feudalism was based on the notion of dual obligation, and loyalty could be and often was, renounced at any time. Look at the history of Robert De Brus.

Instead I read these continual rantings that High Treason was merely disloyalty. Not so.

RFM

To Mr. Coull;

Let me see if I can put this in words you are likely to understand. No evidence means just that, no evidence. You are stuck with that, I am stuck with that.

I realize that you are unwilling or unable to sit down and read what your own professors have to say about medieval history and how the definition of High Treason has changed. If you want to believe it is the same today as it was seven hundred years ago, I wonder at your claim to be an honors history student. In some online university, I guess.

My point was that convicting Wallace of High Treason is clearly at odds with the historical evidence of what High Treason was then, but clearly within the possibilities if the evidence was that he was leading an amy to overthrow King Edward. The points directly to kingship by right of conquest, exactly how the Normans came to rule England.

Sheesh!

Dave Coull

RFM wrote "I wonder at your claim to be an honors history student". - I never claimed to be "an honors history student". At one time, I used to be an HONOURS history student (note the spelling used at Scottish universities), but not now.

"In some online university, I guess."

You guess wrong. I graduated from the University of Dundee, MA with Honours in History. This is, of course, a matter of easily verifiable public record, here in Scotland.

Now it's YOUR turn to tell us a bit about yourself...............

RFM asks "Whose orders was Wallace following?"

Nobody's. However, it is widely accepted that he claimed to be acting in the name of King John. This is from James Mackay's book "William Wallace", published by Mainstream publishing of Edinburgh in 1995, page 172: "Technically he was a regent or viceroy, always scrupulous in claiming to be acting on behalf of King John (still enjoying easy captivity in the south of England); in fact he had dictatorial powers".

"I realize that you are unwilling or unable to sit down and read what your own professors have to say"

The days when anybody could be said to be "my own professors" are long gone. There are only my fellow historians. Like every historian, I recognise that it is physically and intellectually impossible to read every work of history ever written or currently appearing. Therefore, like every historian, I make decisions about what I choose to read. I am under no obligation to follow your recommendations, and you have given me no good reason why I should choose to do so. Frankly, I think following your recommendations would be a waste of my valuable time.

Dave Coull

RFM wrote "My point was that convicting Wallace of High Treason is clearly at odds with the historical evidence of what High Treason was then".

You are obsessed with legality. For me, it is a secondary matter. From my point of view, when the political reality changes, you can always find a lawyer who will explain that the new political reality is in keeping with the law.

When Edward Heath was Prime Minister of the UK, five London dockers were imprisoned in Pentonville Prison. Their offence was that, in the course of an industrial dispute, they had conducted illegal "secondary picketing" (the picketing of an establishment which was not their own place of employment) despite a court injunction ordering them to desist. They were sent to prison for "contempt of court". This meant they had to stay there until they "purged their contempt" by giving an assurance they would not continue with secondary picketing. This they refused to do. The original industrial dispute spread. Workers in other industries in London (printing, London Transport, etc) came out on strike in sympathy with the dockers. It even began to spread beyond London. If the dockers were not released, the British government could be facing a serious crisis. But it was up to the judge who sent them to prison whether they should be released or not, and he wouldn't let them out until they "purged their contempt".

The new reality was that these dockers HAD to be released, because the consequences of not doing so could be far worse than the consequences of doing so. So an obscure government legal official, "The Official Solicitor" was found, who gave the order for their release from prison without purging their contempt.

Like I said, you can always find a lawyer who will justify the new political reality.

In the case of William Wallace, the political reality was that he was in the hands of Edward, the Hammer Of The Scots, who considered himself the rightful king of Scotland. So far as he was concerned, King John had been deposed, therefore Wallace's claim to act in the name of King John was no defense. Wallace had betrayed HIM.

Dave Coull

History is a very, very big subject, and it is impossible for any historian to be an expert on every aspect of this very, very big subject. In fact, most historians have particular expertise in quite a narrow field. This is especially true of legal historians. I have twice studied courses where I had tutors who were lawyers and legal historians. Those courses were not without interest, but it was obvious those two tutors had very limited knowledge outside of their own field. They were very good at things like precedent, and case law, but actually knew surprisingly little about what was happening in the world at the time of these legal events. To be fair to them, they were willing to learn. On both courses, I had occasion to point out matters of significance which had been overlooked, and both of these tutors said something like "I didn't know that, thank you for pointing it out". In a real university, the learning process is a mutual experience.

RFM sees history in ludicrously legalistic terms. He is obsessed with the various possible meanings of "treason" in medieval times. But from my point of view this is all rather beside the point. There really is no question that William Wallace claimed to act on behalf of King John. He was not himself a candidate for the throne of Scotland. Even if he had, for one fleeting moment, considered any such ambition, he knew perfectly well that, coming from a relatively middling sort of background, he would never be acceptable to the grand aristocracy such as the Comyns, Balliols, Stewarts, and Bruces. THAT was the political reality.

agentmancuso

RFM

Because?

William_Cleland

....because although tanistry wasn't strictly based on primogeniture you still had to be reasonably close in primogeniture terms to be taken seriously as a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comp...Crown_of_Scotland#The_competitors

RFM

Just like the Normans in 1066?

Or the Angles or the Saxons before them?

agentmancuso

William_Cleland

RFM

To agentmacuso;

zero=zero. Quite frankly I have yet to see anything close to a serious historian write anything about Wallace. Lots of fairy tales and wool gathering though.

Mr. Cleland;

Just like Bonny Prince Charlie, 1745, once you have a successful army in the field, anything can happen.

William_Cleland

Unlike Wallace the Young Pretender had a claim to the throne based on ancestry and the only reason he wound up with an army was because of that. You do realise don't you that he was actually the strongest candidate in strict primogeniture terms? Britain had moved onto the era of constitutional monarchy by then so there were other job requirements by that point, however.

Dave Coull

William said about Bonnie Prince Charlie "You do realise don't you that he was actually the strongest candidate in strict primogeniture terms?"

That's not quite true. The strongest candidate in strict primogeniture terms was his father. Charlie carried out his campaign in the name of his father, King James the Umpteenth. What HE claimed to be was the Prince of Wales, and next in line.

But of course you are right that even under the tanistry system which preceded primogeniture you had to have a fairly close royal connection, so that ruled Wallace out.

RFM

So you think if Wallace had chased Edward all the way back to London and maybe grabbed off a good slice of England in the process he would have given it all up because he was not related to the heir presumptive to the throne? I don't think so! Like the Declaration of Arbroath has the nobles saying they will kick Bruce out if he doesn't do the job?
Please!

Dave Coull

RFM wrote "the Declaration of Arbroath has the nobles saying they will kick Bruce out if he doesn't do the job?" - yes, it does say that. The implication was that they could choose somebody else from amongst the extended royal family, the tanis righ. As you yourself pointed out, there were about thirteen with a plausible claim to the throne.

"So you think if Wallace had chased Edward all the way back to London and maybe grabbed off a good slice of England in the process he would have given it all up because he was not related to the heir presumptive to the throne?"

This is a totally nonsensical scenario.

First of all, it is nonsensical because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Wallace ever sought to claim the throne. You say "no evidence" doesn't mean he didn't. By that standard, although there is no evidence that aliens from other worlds landed their spaceships in Egypt and taught the Egyptians how to build pyramids, they might have done, in fact, they probably did.

Secondly, the idea of Wallace holding on to the north of England by right of conquest is just plain crazy. Edward the First declaring himself king of a conquered Scotland was the very thing which ignited a widespread, and initially more or less leaderless, until Murray and Wallace emerged, rebellion. The same thing would have happened to Wallace in the North of England.

Furthermore, although England had been conquered before, by William of Normandy, Duke William actually had a plausible claim to the English throne, and, what's more, he had the backing of the Pope, who had declared the Norman invasion a Holy Crusade, and any man who died in it would go straight to Heaven. Just like later Crusades, this promise brought in a lot of mercenaries who figured they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Wallace did not have the Pope on his side.

Thirdly, if we take the example of Bonnie Prince Charlie, there were two reasons why his invasion of England failed.

The first reason is that, for the most part, the English didn't support him. Oh, a few did, but the large army of English Jacobite supporters on which he had been counting simply didn't materialse.

The second reason was that a lot of the Scots took the view that they had never signed up for extended campaigning in England and there were things that needed doing back home.

Both of these things would have applied, only even more so, in the case of Wallace.

Where Charlie was scrupulous about always claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne of the United Kingdom, and never uttered a single anti-English word or anti-English action, Wallace was well known for both of these. He was feared in England, but could never have won even the limited English support which BPC got.

In the second case, although there were a lot of desertions from BPC's army, most of them, while grumbling that they never signed up for this, stuck by him, partly because they had sworn an oath to him as their rightful chief. Wallace wouldn't even have had that going for him. Even if he'd made it as far as Derby, he would definitely have been forced into turning back, and, once he had done so, his mystique as a successful general would have been gone, just like BPC's. Only he wouldn't even have retained the residual loyalty some saw as being due to royalty.

agentmancuso

RFM

To agentmancuso;

Cite the book and page

agentmancuso

RFM

Look agentmancuso,

I said it to Holebender and I say it to you: There is damn near no historical evidence at all about William Wallace other the battle of Stirling Bridge and some other skirmishes. As to his role as one of the guardians of Scotland, with almost nothing at all concerning his official acts in office, and nothing whatever about his role in the politics of Scotland, it is something of an anomaly for a man charged with running the kingdom for a period of a year or so. But in 13th century Scotland, keeping records was apparently left to the monasteries and not regarded as a function of government or the records have been destroyed as an embarrassment to certain interests about his arrest and execution.

Sadly enough it is only his qualities as a military leader that are lauded; but it is very clear to me that he may certainly have had greater ambitions, including the throne. I point at the fact that he was allegedly tried and executed for treason. I suppose that one day some scholar will find the trial records of Wallace's indictment and trial and we will know more, but until that happens your guesses are as good as mine.

I think we do a great disservice to the history of Scotland by not considering that the man was much more than "a bonny fighter" to quote Robert Louis Stevenson's description of Rob Roy. Almost everything published from his Clan's website to Mel Gibson's silly and anachronistic epic focuses exclusively on those qualities.

Holebender

What a total A***hole. You demand references, some people indulge you and actually go to the trouble of citing them, and what do you do? Ignore them and stick to your own fantasy version.

Provide just one citation to back your speculative story, just one.

You're back on my ignore list.

Jimbo

RFM wrote:

RFM

You are still an idiot Holebender.
Apparently too stupid to grasp a few fundamentals. See Jimbo's post above and see if that penetrates that block between your ears.

Stick to comic books.

RFM

Hi Jimbo,

Always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank-you for the references; I will look them up and see what they have to say beyond the anecdotal.

RFM

To Jimbo;

No there is no confusion. If Wallace had been indicted and tried in England, the Court would have applied English Law. Wallace's lawyers may well have argued that if committed any crimes, there were committed in Scotland and therefore Scottish Law should be applied. Laying aside for the moment that I have no information how Treason was defined in medieval Scotland, the application of Scot's Law would lend credibility to the novels written in the 19th century that say Wallace was tried at Stirling Castle before he was delivered to Edward for execution.

The reference to Geberge is found in "The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages" by J.G. Bellamy, Cambridge University Press (2002) at page 62. High Treason according to Professor Bellamy consisted in usurping the King's authority (difficult to see how Wallace might have done that), attacking and killing a prelate or an English Judge (possible), or attempting the overthrow of the King. Mere disloyalty or fighting on the other side against the King's army would not be sufficient, unless of course one was leading the army for the overthrow of the King. Hugh Despenser comes to mind.

Holebender

Will someone tell this idiot Wallace was declared an outlaw and all the legal niceties did not apply! His lawyers??? Good to start the day with a laugh.

He clearly has no idea of Edward's pathological hatred of Wallace.

Jimbo

Hi RFM

Holebender

As I said, however long ago, a reading of the charges, one interjection by Wallace, and straight to sentence. No trial, no defence counsel.

I must have read it in a comic book!

Unlike the fantasist from Chicago I have read and learned from many books on all periods of Scotland's history and I am able to tell the difference between Scotland and England. I presume the rest of you engage with him out of some sort of sense of charitable duty, as he never learns or acknowledges mistakes or misconceptions.

Jimbo

The Sentence:

That the said William, for the manifest sedition that he practised against the Lord King himself, by feloniously contriving and acting with a view to his death and to the abasement and subversion of his crown and royal dignity, by bearing a hostile banner against his liege lord in war to the death, shall be drawn from the Palace of Westminster to the Tower of London, and from the Tower to Aldgate, and so through the midst of the City to the Elms.

And that for the robberies, homicides and felonies he committed in the realm of England and in the land of Scotland, he be there hanged, and afterwards taken down from the gallows. And that inasmuch as he was an outlaw, and was not afterwards restored to the peace of the Lord King, he be decollated and decapitated.

And that thereafter, for the measureless turpitude of his deeds towards God and Holy Church in burning down churches, with the vessels and litters wherein and whereon the body of Christ and the bodies of saints and other relics of these were placed, that the heart, the liver, the lungs as well as all the other intestines of the said William, from which perverted thoughts proceeded, be cast into the fire and burnt. And further, that inasmuch as it was not only against the Lord King himself, but against the whole community of England and Scotland, that he committed the aforesaid acts of sedition, spoliation, arson, and homicide, the body of the said William be cut up and divided into four parts, and that the head, so cut off, be set on London Bridge, in the sight of such as pass by, whether by land or by water: and that one quarter be hung on a gibbet at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, another quarter at Berwick, a third quarter at Stirling, and the fourth at St Johnston (Perth), as a warning and a deterrent to all that pass by and behold them.

Holebender

OMG! You're not trying to tell us there's a record of the verdict are you? And of the trial too? Surely not! The highest authority in the universe (Chicago branch), on the strength of some Nineteenth Century novels has told us it is unknown and unknowable.

I am so shocked I am rendered practically speechless.

RFM

To Jimbo,

As far as anyone knows, unless McKay is prepared to give the citation, no record of the trial in the English court has ever been uncovered. While he may have had access to anecdotal evidence and legend, that is vastly different.

To Holebender,

I thought you were going to ignore my postings. Why don't you do that?

RFM

To Jimbo;

Outlawry was the penalty, right up to the 19th century in Scotland, for failure to appear in court to answer a summons. What court was Wallace summoned to, and what King of Scotland declared him an outlaw?

In England, the penalty for outlawry, or fugitation, was the execution of sentence. By failing to appear, judgement was deemed to have been confessed. If Wallace was summoned by Edward, how and when did Edward deliver summons to him?

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

Andrew Fisher (William Wallace - Andrew Fisher - ISBN 184158) cites: Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and II, vol I pages 139-142 as showing the complete indictment.

James Mackay also cites the same chronicles but also cites: Wallace Papers - Arundel MS - pages 189-193.

Apparently they exist somewhere. But I so far haven't been able to track them down.

Dave Coull is a historian. Perhaps he could point us in the right direction.

Wallace was definitely declared outlaw at the St. Andrews Parliament of 1304. At this time Edward was having his way as Lord Paramount and his remit ran in both Scotland and England so he was the king who had him declared outlaw.

He was also possibly declared outlaw in 1292, after the Selby incident. A court of inquiry was held then in Dundee but Wallace had fled by then and according to some, but no record of it survives, had been declared outlaw. At that time John Balliol was King.

Hope this helps.

RFM

HI Jimbo,

Yes it does, thank-you.

I am making efforts to secure a copy of the indictment in that book. It will certainly explain the basis for the charge of treason.

Unfortunate indeed that Wallace failed to appear to the summons, both to the St. Andrews Parliament and to the 1292 inquiry. It suggests that he felt he would not recieve a fair trial if he did appear, for whatever reason. But perhaps the indictment will explain that.

Failing to appear under English law and apparently under the law of Scotland as well, resulted in the indictment being confessed as true; so that when and if the accused was captured the court merely imposed the sentence.

RFM

Hi Jimbo,

Could you recheck the ISBN on Andrew Fisher?
It comes up as invalid for me. I think it may be missing some digits.

agentmancuso

RFM:

did you ever discover a single reputable source to back up your Hollywood fantasy that Wallace was a claimant to the throne?

RFM

Be calm agentmancuso,

It is not my fault that you appear you share the same mental weakness that afflicts Holebender, namely the inability to read what is written.

I hate to keep repeating myself over and over ad nauseam; I am convinced that when a person's political ideals conflict with anything that calls them into question, that person undergoes a sort of psychosis, resorts first to attacking the messenger rather than the message, progresses rapidly to name calling and vituparation, and finally goes off into a corner babbling to themselves. Spare yourself. Just read along with what Jimbo is saying; I have little doubt he will accurately and quickly help us resolve this matter.

.

Jimbo

RFM

PS:

In a quick google search I found this rather scathing indictment of MacKay's work
on Wallace:
"MacKay's biographies are not quite as balanced as they should be. He tends to have a somewhat slanted view of Bruce, I noticed, more so than a good modern chronicler ought, i.e. he injects his opinion too much. MacKay also neglects to use McNair-Scott's book as a source when writing 'Wallace' which is now considered the definitive biography of Bruce, while McNair-Scott did use MacKay's.

And one of MacKay's sources is questionable. A Welsh poem which chronicles Wallace's career. While many of these biographical epic poems have their basis in fact, they should not be used as a primary source, but as a reference to popular opinion of the time. MacKay does this, after a fashion, checking facts and stripping away the poem's mythology - still, he relies on it too much. Note: This poem was written nearly 200 years after Wallace’s death. Not exactly a comtemporary account."

The quote is taken from "How historically correct is the fim BRAVEHEART?" at:
http://www.geocities.com/chronic_nail_biter/braveheart.html

The author also goes on to say some unpleasant things about Andrew Fisher:
"The other two biographies of Wallace by Fisher and Gray repeat most of what’s in MacKay’s book. It is also more up to date then the these two. Fisher’s is particularly suspect since he relies more on the myth than either MacKay or Gray and tries to pass it off as fact, his objectivity out the window. Prestwich’s biography on King Edward serves as a welcome counterpoint to those who wish to make Willace more than he actually was by pointing out the relative unimportance of the man and his rebellion, which was more the work of Andrew Murray, in any case, a fact that Edward was aware of."

Anyway, thank-you again for the sources, and we will se what they have to say about why Wallace was purportedly indicted for Treason.

RFM

Hello to all;

The book is "William Wallace" by Andrew Fisher, Birlinn Ltd (2007)Edinburgh:

Describing the execution of Wallace at Westminster Hall:

"Inside the hall at the south end, a scaffold had been erected and there Wallace was made to stand. On his head his captors placed a crown of laurel to mock him, it was said for his boast that one day he would wear a crown in this place". At page 233.

Speaking of the indictment which was read to Wallace concerning the charge of Treason:

"...his covening of Parliaments, his seduction of the people of Scotland into seeking an alliance with France, at that time England's enemy..." and "Wallace displayed banners while in the filed against the English...: At page 240.

Convening a Parliament was the exclusive right of the Monarch.

Fisher goes on to explain at page 241, that the display of banners was a right reserved to the sovereign, nor does Fisher say exactly whose banners Wallace displayed, but the practice according to Fisher was the exclusive right of the King. That practice was codified in the subsequent Treason Act. The war with Phillip of France had to do with who was the rightful sovereign. Phillip II had allied with Henry II's two sons against Henry and that struggle continued on.

(More to follow)

agentmancuso

RFM

I apologize agentmancuso,

Some days are just not good days at all.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

RFM

Thank-you Jimbo,

There is more:

"The best known parliament of John's reign held at 1295. Detailed in Lanercost, the meeting is generally the removal of King John from active government, magnates prelates and other nobles of the kingdom of bled, a solemn parliament was held at Stirling, where by commons was decreed that their King would do no act by himself, instead they (sic) a council of twelve peers to rule for him"......"the council of appointed four bishops, four earls and four barons to rule ..."
- The History of the Scottish Parliament, Vol.1, edited by Kieth M Brown and Roland J Tanner at page 46.

In other words Wallace was not appointed guardian at all. He may well have assumed the role of guardian, but the above book makes it very clear by 1296 the Scots nobles were negotiating with Edward for peace as the government of Scotland.
There is also a reference I am looking for that states Wallace was ruling, or attempting to rule by issuing decrees under King John's Great Seal. A great Seal was the document which authenticated the royal signature. Under the Treason Act, forging the seal was defined as Treason because it attempted to usurp the royal prerogative as sovereign.

Also from Micheal Prestwich "Edward I" at page 503 (Google books):

" Wallace's end was horrific. He was made to wear a crown of laurel leaves, because it was claimed he had said he would wear a crown at Westminster".

RFM

Also, note well the charge in the indictment according to MacKay:

".....Had made his writs run throughout the land as if he were the Lord Superior of that land..." (Line 11).

A writ was the King's order, issued under his seal commanding the Sheriff or other magnate to do or refrain from doing.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

RFM

Hi Jimbo,

According to Wikepedia, that questionable source, under guardians of Scotland, no listing whatever for a William Wallace.

The problem with issuing a Writ is that it is done in the name and with the Seal of the King. I found a source yesterday that noted Wallace was using King John's Great Seal, and I am now trying to locate it again.

Fiona Watson, "Under the Hammer; Edward I and Scotland", East Luton, (1998) says at page 183, Fraser and Wallace were operating alone outside the government of Scotland as of Feb. 1304. At page 147 she details the submission of the Scottish magnates and the Parliament at St.Andrews in 1302. If Wallace was issuing Writs using King John's Great Seal, that would put him at odds with the Parliament of 1302 that recognized the authority of, and made submission to, Edward. After the battle of Falkirk 1292, subsequent to Stirling Bridge, it was not clear at all who was the government of Scotland or who had the authority to issue Writs. Perhaps Wallace thought he did, but the nobility of Scotland would not have thought so.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

how's the weather in Chicago?

I'm just back from Falkirk, where I went to see the The Red Hot Chilli Pipers. A first class act I have to say.

RFM

The weather is sunny and hot for the first time this year, 86 degrees on the Farenheit scale.

The question is, of course, when exactly was Wallace issuing Writs under King John's seal. No information.

The parliament of 1304 was actually summoned by Edward, according to Fiona Watson. The summons made it clear that refusal or failure to attend would be regarded as treason, because the crime carried the penalty of forfeiture
of all lands. Even those who ignored the summons, like Fraser, were subsequently forgiven, but not Wallace. (Watson).

Andrew Fisher was of the view that the declaration of outlawry as to Wallace was legal and regular, namely his failure to appear. Given that the parliament of 1302 was comprised of nobles and prelates, all of whom wanted the war to end, perhaps Wallace felt it would be a wasted effort to appear and demad trial.

RFM

We occasionally get motion picture s on cable which have been made in Scotland; all of them excellent.

That is an industry that should be developed with more attention in Scotland.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

RFM

Well he certainly had good lawyers.

Note the agency designation that the writs are issued "in the name of the excellent prince lord John...". If he had King John's authority to issue the writs it would seem that he was on safe ground. If he did not, it probably would have been regarded as forgery.
Forging the great seal was treason.

But we digress. The point I made initially was that it was unlikely Wallace was willing to risk forfeiture of his land and corruption of the blood of his children for the mere sake of leading an army, which were the penalties for High Treason. That seemed to me to point to the possibility he intended some claims to the throne of Scotland, if not England as well.
While High Treason did include such matters as killing a King's officer (Hugh DeCressingham comes to mind), the substance of the offense was essentially attempting the overthrow of the monarch with the eye to taking his place. Mere disloyalty was not sufficient or even regarded as very important then. That is what generated the current controversy.

Jimbo

HI RFM.

Was Wallace a contender for the throne? Absolutely not

Did he have some kind of claim to the throne? Absolutely not.

When I said I see where you're coming from, I took/take it that you had couched your words wrongly.

Did he covet the throne? Did he think he he could take it and hold it?

Perhaps at some point in his military career when he had an army at his back he may have flirted with the idea. Short of asking him we'll never know.

I have read a great many books on this period of Scottish history and nowhere have I read that Wallace intimated this thought to anyone. On the contrary, everything I have read points out that from the start of his rebelling against the English invaders, the only causes he espoused were that of King John and a free and independent Scotland.

If the Lanercost Chronicles are to be believed, the man behind Wallace, and who they accredit with inciting his revolt, was Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow.

"Hardly had a period of six months passed since the Scots had bound themselves by the above-mentioned solemn oath of fidelity and subjection to the king of the English, when the reviving malice of that perfidious race excited their minds to fresh sedition. For the bishop of the church of Glasgow, whose personal name was Robert Wishart, ever foremost in treason, conspired with the Steward of the realm, named James, for a new piece of insolence, yea, for a new chapter of ruin. Not daring openly to break their pledged faith to the king, they caused a certain bloody man, William Wallace, who had formerly been a chief of brigands in Scotland, to revolt against the king and assemble the people in his support."

This takes us into a totally different sphere of the politics at the time. Wishart was engaging in the politics of the church in relation to the affect English rule would have on the church in Scotland. It would require quite a lengthy post and may I suggest you should read up on the great lengths the church in Scotland went to to stop them coming under the thumb of the archbishops of York over a great many years.

For a minor noble like Wallace to try and take the throne, far less hold it, IMO would be nigh impossible. There would have been a great many consequences to that kind of action, not least of which would have been an all-out civil war.

I think Wallace would have been well aware of all the consequences and I doubt very much if the thought even crossed his mind.

RFM

Hi Jimbo

Your opinion is certainly within the realm of possibilities, indeed it could be said that your opinion reflects the orthodox view.

As the reviewer I posted above has noted, modern historical thought follows the poem of Blind Harry who sought to glamorize Wallace, and any notions that he had his own interests in mind would be contrary to the present image of a selfless nationalist hero.

Having said that, there are three pieces of evidence which contradict that image. Two are found in the reference of Fisher and Watson, each discussing the execution of Wallace from the Scots perspective and the English perspective. Both say that he frequently boasted of wearing the crown in Westminster Hall. The third is a reference in Watson "Edward I, Under the Hammer" page 31: "The other important officer at the chancery was William Beverton, appointed 5 October 1296 to 'keep. collect and deliver writs sealed with the seal used by the King in Scotland. This was a new seal presumably struck in the same year of the conquest..." and at page 50, " According to one of the charges laid against Wallace at his trial, he had been audacious enough to issue writs in the name of King John, which carried sovereign authority. This included the letter written by both Murray and Wallace to the mayors and communes of Lubeck and Hamburg re-establishing trading links with the new kingdom of Scotland". The important point being that Wallace failed to answer the indictment and as a result was outlawed by the Scots in the parliament called by Edward at St. Andrew's. In simple terms the accusation and the indictment was made by Scottish nobles.

Watson goes on to point out that there was simmering discontent with King Edward in England, both as a result of his loss of Gascony and which his conscription for the war in Flanders. Watson at page 51, "So far as regency government in London was concerned, Stirling Bridge did wonders to halt the drift towards civil war as England united in outrage and consternation at this unthinkable defeat". It is very likely Wallace knew of the current political trends in England and was counting on a degree of support, direct and indirect if he could start an army towards London. He had after all been quite successful in raiding England south of the border with Scotland.

The strange thing is why did not Wallace accept Edward's several offers of amnesty? Every body else was forgiven, including Bishop Wisert, the so-called instigator, as well as Murray, Wallace's partner in the rebellion, not to mention Comyn, Bruce and all the others. Did he really think giving up his life at that point would make any difference when the whole of the Scottish nobility had abandoned the cause? Or did he really consider that he had a chance at overthrowing the monarchy? Once he became outlawed it became much more difficult, but Murray was outlawed at the same time and was forgiven. That should have made some impact on Wallace.

Jimbo

Hi RFM,

Jimbo

RFM

To Jimbo:

Well no, Fisher does say that.
Read carefully the first sentence. Fisher attributes the description of the execution scene to Rothwell, "Chronicles of Walter of Guisborough", London 1957 at page 127. It is after that description that Fisher goes on to opine that it is unlikely that Wallace would ever make such a remark, but then in the next breath says "although he was not above the use of a title when he felt it justified", whatever that means, but it certainly seems to be a concession to Rothwell. Rothwell reports from the English point of view, and his work appeared 50 years before Fisher.

Well no again the Scots were not at all convinced Scotland was free and independent kingdom in 1304-1302.
The parliament which outlawed Wallace and several others was called by Edward, but the call went out to the Scottish nobles to appear at St. Andrew to consider means and methods for running the newly conquered territories. See Fiona Watson. She is quite clear that the Scots nobility wanted the war to end and were very concerned about the fact that several of them had forfeited their lands and estates. Fisher says, some pages just beyond his description of the execution scene, that Wallace was outlawed at St.Andrews and under the law at the time not entitled to a trial at Westminister. Fisher explains all of that at page 243 on.
He also says: "Wallace's relations with the ruling elite had rarely been easy, to them he represented a threat to the established order. In this they shared a characteristic of Edward, with whom they were at the time of Wallace's death, formulating a new policy for the governance of Scotland. It was obvious to the Scots, having failed to defeat Edward since 1296 they had to accept what he offered them. If the price was complicity in the execution of their erstwhile colleague, now perhaps an embarrassment, they seemed to have accepted it...." (page 243).

RFM

To Jimbo,

As to the why and wherefore there was national discontent with Edward's rule in England, that is a question to be answered by reading the history of England. I have reported what Fiona Watson, "Under the Hammer, Edward I and Scotland 1286-1306", Tuckwell, 1998, has to say. Given that he seems to have been a difficult person as well as a ruler, it should come as no surprise that the English were not too thrilled with him either.

One of Edward's conditions for the release of captured Scottish nobles was service in Flanders, as well as a call for conscripts in England and Scotland. I do not know the details of all of Edward's travails on the continent, but he appears to have been a pretty ambitious sort of person.

The present Prince of Wales, Charles, was recently quoted in the American press as saying that if Bonnie Prince Charlie had not stopped at Derby for reasons unknown to history, he would not be here now. I suspect that in those days, a fast moving army could accomplish things greatly out of proportion to its size. Wallace apparently had built a reputation as skillful in rapid movement and skirmishing in counties south of the Tweed.