Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject:

By the bye; Wikepedia, that great universal source of the general and the particular has an interesting discussion in English, pardon me, British, about Bavaria.

You Mr. Highlander, British-type, may want to read the subtitles, "Bavarian Citizenship" and "Relations between Germany and Bavaria".(Rather all of you may want to read it.)Try to pay particular attention to the discussion about the fact that Bavarians do not consider themselves to be a part of Germany.

RFM · Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject:

Well Mr. Highlander, I am delighted to hear you have studied German, hopefully with somewhat more diligence than you have studied the history of Scotland or the grammar of the British (English) language.
In any case I see that you obtained your "urban myth" version from the English, pardon me British, version of Wikapedia. Why don't you read the German language Wikapedia version of that speech; they even have a recording of the simultaneous translation at the time the speech was made. Start at "Misverstaendnis im englischsprachigen Raum".

Highlander · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 298

What does wikipedia have to do with anything? I haven't got any of my information from there regarding your lack of ability to use the correct terms for countries/states/nations/kingdoms and the people inhabiting them. And I find it quite funny that you laugh at the idea that someone can get information from there and believe it to be true and then go and use it to back up your arguement!!! Laughing

RFM · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:38 am Post subject:

Well Sir, you copied the term "urban myth" directly from Wikapedia without understanding what it was about. If you were able to read basic German, the German language website for Wikapedia would have told you so. I had hoped you would not disappoint me, but unfortunately you have managed to do that.

The article's title is "Misunderstanding in the English language section" and it goes on to explain some basics. First, the definite article is never used in German before profession or nationality. You might ask your so-called German friends about that, since you obviously do not know. Secondly the article goes on to explain why the English version, your "urban myth" is mistaken. It even provides a recording of the Kennedy speech and the simultaneous translation which was given with the speech so you could compare it yourself; that is if you did happen to have studied a little German.

Study consists in something more than bluff and bulls**t, which seems to be the only thing at which you excel. But I have observed in my lifetime that people who run about calling themselves "British" usually are not capable of much more.

IF Convenor · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:18 am Post subject:

Pip · Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:32 am Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:

Actually assassination or regicide is the only alternative once your system of government is based on divine right.
Consider the problem of James II, who was so deceitful and stubborn about his royal priviledges; long after it was clear he would have to go the Parlament dithered about deposing a monarch who was anointed by God. If it had been a matter of a referendum England would have been spared a lot of trouble.
Blackleaf raises the interesting point that the Declaration of Arbroath was actually signed by a number of Norman nobility and the indigeonous Scots nobility. The Normans were all in favor of devine right, the Scots to the extent they would have known about kingship by election, but they would also have known kingship by election does nothing for your children. Devine right on the other hand secures the position as long as you have male heirs. The best explanation for the document seems to be that De Brys, or Bruce, was trying to explain to Pope John XXII that he had no choice but to oppose Edward, God's anointed, because Scotland still elected its kings and if he opposed the popular wishes of the people he might find himself elected out. In other words he too was very much on the side of the Pope and the devine right of kings, but at that time he was in a position that was very much temporary.
As history turned out, once Bruce was ordained, the system of election of kings in Scotland disappeared for ever.

IF Convenor · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:56 am Post subject:

It was long gone in Bruce's time too. Bruce claimed the throne by hereditary right and he secured his position by right of conquest, which was a recognised legitimate method of gaining territory at the time. People believed that God decided the outcome of battles and wars so if God had granted victory it was self-evident that God wanted the victor to have whatever he gained by warfare.

No-one ever elected Bruce.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

RFM · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject:

If I am not mistaken Bruce claimed his right to the throne of Scotland through his father, the Lord of Annandale, but his rival John Comyn was preferred by King Edward. Bruce assassinated Comyn in a church, which removed the rival, but created problems with King Edward and the Pope. Bruce also had the strange habit of pledging loyalty to Edward and then siding with the Scots against him; which was probably not too strange when one realizes Bruce held large estates in both England and Scotland.

Bruce does seal up his right to kingship at Bannockburn, where he achieves some prominence as a warrior, but what is very clear is that Bruce was also trying very hard to retain King Edward's favor and thereby concede Edward's right to nominate the King of Scotland. Wallace, you may recall would have none of that. Wallace was also Guardian of Scotland for a period of time, which effectively made him chief executive of Scotland, a spledid position for election to kingship.

Viewed against that background the Declaration of Arbroath is a puzzling document, particularly since it was addressed to the Pope. Unless it was intended as an apology for waging war against Edward and killing off rivals in churches.

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3792

Almost correct RFM.

Bruce stabbed John Comyn in a church, and got the Black Douglas to finish him off.

Bruce didn't want it to get back to the pope that he'd killed a man in a church, so his best pal Douglas finished him off to save him the hassle...
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

IF Convenor · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject:

The Declaration of Arbroath makes perfect sense in its own context. It was written some 23 years after the start of the Wars of Independence, 6 years after the victory at Bannockburn. Scotland was free and unassailable and yet the English still persisted in acting as if Scotland was theirs to rule, and the Pope was still siding with England.

Read the Declaration: it is addressed to the Pope, the most powerful man on the planet at the time and it's telling him to stop backing the unjust claims of the English and to do the right thing. It even, in an almost inconceivably brazen way, tells him that if he doesn't do the right thing all blood spilled in future conflict with England will be on his hands and he'd have to answer to God for it. Can you imagine the Scots actually sending that to the Pope? This is a people wearied but hardened by a generation of warfare, a united people which had endured so much and, by their own hands, secured their own future. They weren't about to take any crap off anybody and they were saying so.

They were also saying that they had won the right to determine their own destiny, and that included the right to turn out their own King if he turned against them. This letter may have been written by Bruce's clerk, but the content is not his alone; it is clear that the signatories had a major say in what went into that document. There's no way a King would include that stuff about driving out the King if he betrayed the cause unless it was as a means of persuading any doubters among his own nobles that he was a true King and they could trust him to finish the job.

It has f*** all to do with apologising for waging a war which was not of their choosing. As I said before, people believed that God decided the outcome of warfare so they're hardly likely to apologise to the Pope for being on the winning side, God's side in their view.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

RFM · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

That is pretty well written IF;
However, not to be nitpicking, Pope John XXII was at Avignon, under the thumb of King Phillip of France, who once referred to John as, "Your venerable stupidness". Any communication to John XXII would almost certainly have been seen by King Phillip first.

And King Edward did have a legitimate claim of sorts. Remember that it was the request of the Scots nobility that Edward arbitrate the next king of Scotland after the death of Margret, Maid of Norway. Edward supposedly demanded as a condition for his services (intervention?) that he be named feudal overlord of Scotland.

In the light of these facts and the ever shifting loyalty of Bruce, I suggest to you that it would be doubtful Bruce would commit or even acknowledge a system of choosing kings that might well exclude him or his children. And if Bruce was commited to devine right and God's selection why should he risk killing Edward's nominee and doing it in a church? Certainly some fences would have had to be mended.

To Azzuri;
Much obliged for the details, but by all accounts it seems to have been an impulsive act rather than a premeditated killing. Or maybe it was a planned killing and Douglas was standing by to take the blame? WHat do you think?

IF Convenor · Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject:

I think you're a bit confused about your kings.

Edward I of England chose John Balliol to be King John of Scots.

Robert I killed John Comyn.

Edward II was King of England by the time of Bannockburn, let alone the Declaration of Arbroath.
_________________
The man o independent mind,
He looks and laughs at aa that.

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3792

As far as I know it was certainly impulsive rather than premeditated,

....maybe the Black Douglas just took the blame rather than actually finish John Comyn off?

One thing I am pretty sure of though is that the Black Douglas either actually finished him off or just took the blame for the killing to help Robert the Bruce out. I doubt the pope would have been best pleased to find out Robert killed someone in a church.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Babygael · Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject:

Wot ever! These giants of Alba ie Lord James Douglas the good, stood and died for Freedom aka Independence.

Ermhighlander, dinnae confuse yer englantshire masters wae Gaelic Higlanders!! OK???

WE ARE NOT ENGLISH!!
_________________
Pict Quine.

Here is where I come to water my roots.

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:55 pm Post subject:

Any confusion probably arises from imprecise writing on my part.
To review the time line, 1292 Edward I is invited to arbitrate the kingship of Scotland. He does so choosing Balliol, who becomes King John who ends up a captive guest of Edward's at Westminister. Edward rightfully claims overlordship of Scotland through the arbitration agreement.
Scotland has successive Guardians,or regents, because John is unable to govern from Westminister. William Wallace, not of the Norman nobility, then Bruce and Comyn, then Lamberton, De Umfraville and finally Comyn again. Edward I invades Scotland again in 1303, and all Scottish nobles
pledge loyalty except Wallace. That costs him his life. Many nobles still support John Balliol. Comyn is still Guardian of Scotland.
Bruce hits on the idea of assassinating Comyn in 1306 removing his main competitor. Bruce then makes claim to the throne of Scotland that same year. Edward I dies in 1307.
His son Edward II comes north to Scotland in 1314 and loses at Bannockburn. The son has his own problems at home, notably his sexual preferences which flout the religious ordinances.
By 1320, Edward II is under the thumb of the Despensers, unable to govern, the kingdom is unstable. This year the Declaration of Arbroath is written and sent to John XXII.

Freedom was not at all what Bruce had in mind, he was thinking about feudalism which assigned every man under the king his place in life and his obligations, which were basically to support the king. He was also worried about a number of Scots nobles who did not trust him and with good reason. He needed to consolidate his hold on Scotland and one of the ways to do it was to let the King of France know he was repentant. Hence Arbroath.

mairead · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:27 am Post subject:

Blackleaf
Was Edward 2nd of England not also done in, and in a very violent and horrific manner.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Corby Boy · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:50 am Post subject:

mairead - Up the jacksy with a red hot poker. Ouch..