Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:14 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 11:50 am Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject:

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

Aventinian · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:46 am Post subject:

Aventinian · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:47 am Post subject:

Holebender · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 11:40 am Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

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

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 · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1091

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 · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 5:20 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

RFM · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

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

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 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:46 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 1:54 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:05 am Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 1091

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.