Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1091

RFM wrote "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".

The reasons may be unknown to Prince Charles, but, let's face it, he has never exactly been noted as the brightest of scholars of history (or anything else, for that matter).

But in any case, this analogy is completely irrelevant.

Although he is nowadays almost always pictured in highland dress, in actual fact BPC rarely wore this, because he was well aware that it would not endear him to his English subjects. And although he spoke English with a very strong Italian accent, he was always scrupulous about claiming to be the rightful heir to the throne of the United Kingdom (not Scotland) and he was counting on far more support from English Jacobites than he actually got.

William of Orange invaded England with a substantial army, but he had a LOT of support amongst the English, and, more particularly, amongst folk in London.

In fact, I think the last person whose army actually took London WITHOUT the support of a significant number of Londoners was Queen Boudicca of the Iceni. But her army took the city at a time when it was just the second biggest city in the country, after Colchester, which was the Roman capital.

The idea of Wallace seeking to take control of England, and particularly of London, is just the maddest of fantasies. Unlike Bonnie Prince Charlie, who could actually count on SOME support, Wallace was widely seen as being anti-English, a fierce enemy of the English, and he had zero support amongst the English. Wallace himself was well aware of this, and, even if he had had ambitions to be king of Scotland (and there is absolutely zero evidence for THAT fantasy) the idea of him trying to rule the English is sheer looney tunes.

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 786

Hi RFM,

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 786

Hi RFM,

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:05 am Post subject:

To Jimbo:

You can discredit the evidence if you so desire, but the fact remains that at least two independent historians credit Wallace with claiming that he would one day wear the crown in Westminister.

Nor can you explain away the fact that independent historians put the responsibility for the indictment for treason directly on the Scots nobility. Everybody wants to bend over backwards to lay the blame on Edward and make excuses, but the facts are the facts, pesky little things.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1091

RFM wrote, regarding the complicity of the Scots nobility in Wallace's death, "Everybody wants to bend over backwards to lay the blame on Edward and make excuses".

Who is this "everybody" to whom you refer? I personally wouldn't make excuses for the Scots nobility, they were a crew of unprincipled opportunists. But so what? What else is new? Their complicity in Wallace's fate doesn't absolve Edward of HIS responsibility.

RFM wrote "at least two independent historians credit Wallace with claiming that he would one day wear the crown in Westminister".

No, it is not true that two independent historians have said such a thing. The quotes which have been produced from historians say no such thing.

RFM also wrote "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".

No they don't.

As Jimbo pointed out, "Fisher says no such thing. His exact words are: 'On his head his captors had 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. It is unlikely that Wallace would ever make such a remark.'"

In other words, Fisher says that "his captors" alleged that Wallace had made such a boast, but Fisher thinks this allegation untrue. OF COURSE the allegation that Wallace had claimed that he would one day wear a crown in London was untrue. Plain common sense, for those of us who have any at all, tells us that. Nobody has ever worn the crown in London without the support and/or acquiescence of at least some of the people of influence who live in London. Even William the Conqueror had supporters in London, the Catholic Church, for a start, since the Pope had declared William the rightful king of England and the Norman Conquest a holy crusade. As a notoriously anti-English outlaw Wallace could never have had any such support. This is so obvious the real question is why do you, RFM, persist in making such truly loony claims? In other words, it's fairly obvious why Edward and co made such false allegations at the time, but what is YOUR motivation for giving such nonsense any credence NOW? Is it just a question of a personal obsession which has taken on a life of its own, or do you have some ulterior motive which you (mistakenly) imagine gives your allegations in this matter some sort of connection to present day politics?

Holebender · Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:57 am Post subject:

I don't know why several of you persist in feeding the troll. His posts are riddled with inaccuracies and are easily discredited. Whatever his motives are, why bother? Leave him to his fantasy world.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject:

I would gladly match wits with your Mr. Coull, but it has never been my habit to attack defenseless persons.

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 786

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:03 pm Post subject:

To Jimbo;

If we were going to insist that evidence to the standard required in a court of law be produced to support historical contentions more than seven hundred years old, there would be as little evidence for your position as there is for mine.

The quote of wearing a crown comes from, among others, Andrew Fisher, a respected historian. After making the quote he discredits it as unlikely, but that simply begs the question of why he should quote Wallace as having said it at all if he thought it was not trust worthy. Likewise Barrow and Reese. It was Wallace's words that I point to, not his awareness of impending death or the practice (you say) of placing a crown on a condemned man's head; surely they can not all be said to have boasted of wearing a crown in Westminster Hall?

Fiona Watson and Andrew Fisher both agree that Wallace was outlawed at the St. Andrew's parliament. I have given the references and the page citations. There are numerous references, from Wikepedia on down, as to what outlawry was and how one came to be outlawed. You seem to suggest he was oulawed at St.Andrews for refusing to submit to Edward's peace, but was charged with High Treason at Westminster. Again all the sources we have discussed so far make clear that the indictment was read out to Wallace and sentence executed as would have been required by the legal procedures of the time. There is no reference anywhere to support the allegation that there were two indictments or that the St. Andrews indictment was supeceded. If nothing else the English were sticklers for legal procedure despite the efforts of some historian, Fisher notably, to portray the execution as a legal lynching.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1091

RFM wrote "The quote of wearing a crown comes from, among others, Andrew Fisher, a respected historian. After making the quote he discredits it as unlikely, but that simply begs the question of why he should quote Wallace as having said it at all"

Fisher did not quote Wallace as having said this at all.

What he quoted was what was said by Wallace's captors : "On his head HIS CAPTORS had 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. It is unlikely that Wallace would ever make such a remark".

Holebender wrote "I don't know why several of you persist in feeding the troll."

I suppose the answer is, because, if falsification of history isn't challenged, then, no matter how little basis the falsification may have, a casual observer might think there is something to it.

"His posts are riddled with inaccuracies and are easily discredited."

But if nobody makes any effort to discredit them, then a casual observer might not be aware of this.

"Whatever his motives are"

As far as I can see, RFM seems to have some sort of strange desire to "convict" the Scottish aristocracy, and exonerate Edward the First, apparently because he believes this has got something to do with some stance on present day politics which he supports. Personally, I couldn't care less about the reputations of the Scottish aristocracy, I don't think anything could possibly retrieve the reputation of Edward the First, and I think the relevance of all this to present day politics is zero, so it looks to me like RFM is wasting his time.

"why bother?"

For the reasons stated above. However, yes, there does come a point at which you start to wonder if it's worth the bother.

"Leave him to his fantasy world".

He will probably insist on having the last word, despite his fantasies having been exposed as just that; but okay, so we should just let him have the last word.

mairead · Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:16 am Post subject:

Wallace fought to free Scotland from English tyranny and did not seek the crown of Scotland for himself, but for the man he saw as the true king, John Baliol.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Blackleaf

Holebender · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject:

I suppose you regard Alfred the Great as a murdering thug for killing all those Danes?

If Wallace had been English and had invaded Scotland and killed lots of Scots he would have been a murdering thug. If Wallace had been Scottish and had invaded England and killed lots of Englishmen he would have been a murdering thug.

Killing an army of occupation in your own land, fighting a war against an aggressor, either at home or in his own country, makes you a legitimate combatant, not a murdering thug. Self defence is internationally recognised as a legitimate causus belli.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Blackleaf · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:11 pm Post subject:

I read in today's Sunday Post, which is available here in England, about a Scottish author who has just published his new book: "Scotland: 1000 things you need to know."

In the article, the author, Edwin Moore, says that Scots should start ignoring all the mythical, short-bread tin Scottish history and start looking at the truth about Scottish history. He says that Scots tend to ignore the bad parts about their history and only concentrate on those that put Scotland in a good light, or they re-write their history to a more favourable one to do this.

In the book he claims that Wallace was no hero, as modern Scots like to portray him as, but a warmongering thug whose army invaded Northern England and destroyed many of its towns and villages and killing thousands of men, women and children. It took centuries for many of those towns to recover. In the modern day, we would call this genocide.

Another one he singled out was Robert Burns, who once said that if he wasn't an author he would have liked to have worked in the transatlantic slave trade. This is not something mentioned that often by Scots.
_________________
[img]http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/black_sabbath/black-sabbath-1970.jpg
[/img]
Black Sabbath - 1970

Holebender · Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject:

He's obviously a very learned historian. Where did he study? Who was his tutor?

Let's face it, he's an author, not an historian. He is entitled to an opinion but don't try and kid us on he's some sort of authority.

btw, the Scots are, of course, unique in being the only people on the planet who pick and choose the best bits of their history and downplay the less savoury parts. You'd never catch a Frenchman or a German or, dare I say it, an Englishman doing that, would you Blackleaf? You, for example, would be only too happy to expound upon something nasty from England's past, wouldn't you? Perhaps you could tell us about the unmarked and neglected mass grave at Durham Cathedral, for instance.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 786

Blackleaf wrote: