Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 12:25 am Post subject:

Because?

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 777

....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 · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

Just like the Normans in 1066?

Or the Angles or the Saxons before them?

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject:

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 777

RFM · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:02 am Post subject:

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 · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 777

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 8:46 pm Post subject:

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 · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 998

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 · Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 12:09 am Post subject:

To agentmancuso;

Cite the book and page