Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 9:26 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject:

What a total arsehole. 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.
_________________
"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

RFM wrote:

RFM · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:13 am Post subject:

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.
_________________
"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

Hi RFM

Holebender · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject:

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.
_________________
"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

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 · Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:25 pm Post subject:

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

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:10 am Post subject:

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 · Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:19 am Post subject:

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

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 · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject:

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 · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:

RFM:

did you ever discover a single reputable source to back up your Hollywood fantasy that Wallace was a claimant to the throne?
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject:

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