Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject:

PS:

In a quick google search I found this rather scathing indictment of MacKay's work
on Wallace:
"MacKay's biographies are not quite as balanced as they should be. He tends to have a somewhat slanted view of Bruce, I noticed, more so than a good modern chronicler ought, i.e. he injects his opinion too much. MacKay also neglects to use McNair-Scott's book as a source when writing 'Wallace' which is now considered the definitive biography of Bruce, while McNair-Scott did use MacKay's.

And one of MacKay's sources is questionable. A Welsh poem which chronicles Wallace's career. While many of these biographical epic poems have their basis in fact, they should not be used as a primary source, but as a reference to popular opinion of the time. MacKay does this, after a fashion, checking facts and stripping away the poem's mythology - still, he relies on it too much. Note: This poem was written nearly 200 years after Wallace’s death. Not exactly a comtemporary account."

The quote is taken from "How historically correct is the fim BRAVEHEART?" at:
http://www.geocities.com/chronic_nail_biter/braveheart.html

The author also goes on to say some unpleasant things about Andrew Fisher:
"The other two biographies of Wallace by Fisher and Gray repeat most of what’s in MacKay’s book. It is also more up to date then the these two. Fisher’s is particularly suspect since he relies more on the myth than either MacKay or Gray and tries to pass it off as fact, his objectivity out the window. Prestwich’s biography on King Edward serves as a welcome counterpoint to those who wish to make Willace more than he actually was by pointing out the relative unimportance of the man and his rebellion, which was more the work of Andrew Murray, in any case, a fact that Edward was aware of."

Anyway, thank-you again for the sources, and we will se what they have to say about why Wallace was purportedly indicted for Treason.

RFM · Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject:

Hello to all;

The book is "William Wallace" by Andrew Fisher, Birlinn Ltd (2007)Edinburgh:

Describing the execution of Wallace at Westminster Hall:

"Inside the hall at the south end, a scaffold had been erected and there Wallace was made to stand. On his head his captors 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". At page 233.

Speaking of the indictment which was read to Wallace concerning the charge of Treason:

"...his covening of Parliaments, his seduction of the people of Scotland into seeking an alliance with France, at that time England's enemy..." and "Wallace displayed banners while in the filed against the English...: At page 240.

Convening a Parliament was the exclusive right of the Monarch.

Fisher goes on to explain at page 241, that the display of banners was a right reserved to the sovereign, nor does Fisher say exactly whose banners Wallace displayed, but the practice according to Fisher was the exclusive right of the King. That practice was codified in the subsequent Treason Act. The war with Phillip of France had to do with who was the rightful sovereign. Phillip II had allied with Henry II's two sons against Henry and that struggle continued on.

(More to follow)

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject:

RFM · Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject:

I apologize agentmancuso,

Some days are just not good days at all.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Hi RFM,

RFM · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject:

Thank-you Jimbo,

There is more:

"The best known parliament of John's reign held at 1295. Detailed in Lanercost, the meeting is generally the removal of King John from active government, magnates prelates and other nobles of the kingdom of bled, a solemn parliament was held at Stirling, where by commons was decreed that their King would do no act by himself, instead they (sic) a council of twelve peers to rule for him"......"the council of appointed four bishops, four earls and four barons to rule ..."
- The History of the Scottish Parliament, Vol.1, edited by Kieth M Brown and Roland J Tanner at page 46.

In other words Wallace was not appointed guardian at all. He may well have assumed the role of guardian, but the above book makes it very clear by 1296 the Scots nobles were negotiating with Edward for peace as the government of Scotland.
There is also a reference I am looking for that states Wallace was ruling, or attempting to rule by issuing decrees under King John's Great Seal. A great Seal was the document which authenticated the royal signature. Under the Treason Act, forging the seal was defined as Treason because it attempted to usurp the royal prerogative as sovereign.

Also from Micheal Prestwich "Edward I" at page 503 (Google books):

" Wallace's end was horrific. He was made to wear a crown of laurel leaves, because it was claimed he had said he would wear a crown at Westminster".

RFM · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:16 pm Post subject:

Also, note well the charge in the indictment according to MacKay:

".....Had made his writs run throughout the land as if he were the Lord Superior of that land..." (Line 11).

A writ was the King's order, issued under his seal commanding the Sheriff or other magnate to do or refrain from doing.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Hi RFM,

RFM · Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject:

Hi Jimbo,

According to Wikepedia, that questionable source, under guardians of Scotland, no listing whatever for a William Wallace.

The problem with issuing a Writ is that it is done in the name and with the Seal of the King. I found a source yesterday that noted Wallace was using King John's Great Seal, and I am now trying to locate it again.

Fiona Watson, "Under the Hammer; Edward I and Scotland", East Luton, (1998) says at page 183, Fraser and Wallace were operating alone outside the government of Scotland as of Feb. 1304. At page 147 she details the submission of the Scottish magnates and the Parliament at St.Andrews in 1302. If Wallace was issuing Writs using King John's Great Seal, that would put him at odds with the Parliament of 1302 that recognized the authority of, and made submission to, Edward. After the battle of Falkirk 1292, subsequent to Stirling Bridge, it was not clear at all who was the government of Scotland or who had the authority to issue Writs. Perhaps Wallace thought he did, but the nobility of Scotland would not have thought so.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Hi RFM,

how's the weather in Chicago?

I'm just back from Falkirk, where I went to see the The Red Hot Chilli Pipers. A first class act I have to say.

RFM · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:53 am Post subject:

The weather is sunny and hot for the first time this year, 86 degrees on the Farenheit scale.

The question is, of course, when exactly was Wallace issuing Writs under King John's seal. No information.

The parliament of 1304 was actually summoned by Edward, according to Fiona Watson. The summons made it clear that refusal or failure to attend would be regarded as treason, because the crime carried the penalty of forfeiture
of all lands. Even those who ignored the summons, like Fraser, were subsequently forgiven, but not Wallace. (Watson).

Andrew Fisher was of the view that the declaration of outlawry as to Wallace was legal and regular, namely his failure to appear. Given that the parliament of 1302 was comprised of nobles and prelates, all of whom wanted the war to end, perhaps Wallace felt it would be a wasted effort to appear and demad trial.

RFM · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:57 am Post subject:

We occasionally get motion picture s on cable which have been made in Scotland; all of them excellent.

That is an industry that should be developed with more attention in Scotland.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Hi RFM,

RFM · Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject:

Well he certainly had good lawyers.

Note the agency designation that the writs are issued "in the name of the excellent prince lord John...". If he had King John's authority to issue the writs it would seem that he was on safe ground. If he did not, it probably would have been regarded as forgery.
Forging the great seal was treason.

But we digress. The point I made initially was that it was unlikely Wallace was willing to risk forfeiture of his land and corruption of the blood of his children for the mere sake of leading an army, which were the penalties for High Treason. That seemed to me to point to the possibility he intended some claims to the throne of Scotland, if not England as well.
While High Treason did include such matters as killing a King's officer (Hugh DeCressingham comes to mind), the substance of the offense was essentially attempting the overthrow of the monarch with the eye to taking his place. Mere disloyalty was not sufficient or even regarded as very important then. That is what generated the current controversy.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

HI RFM.

Was Wallace a contender for the throne? Absolutely not

Did he have some kind of claim to the throne? Absolutely not.

When I said I see where you're coming from, I took/take it that you had couched your words wrongly.

Did he covet the throne? Did he think he he could take it and hold it?

Perhaps at some point in his military career when he had an army at his back he may have flirted with the idea. Short of asking him we'll never know.

I have read a great many books on this period of Scottish history and nowhere have I read that Wallace intimated this thought to anyone. On the contrary, everything I have read points out that from the start of his rebelling against the English invaders, the only causes he espoused were that of King John and a free and independent Scotland.

If the Lanercost Chronicles are to be believed, the man behind Wallace, and who they accredit with inciting his revolt, was Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow.

"Hardly had a period of six months passed since the Scots had bound themselves by the above-mentioned solemn oath of fidelity and subjection to the king of the English, when the reviving malice of that perfidious race excited their minds to fresh sedition. For the bishop of the church of Glasgow, whose personal name was Robert Wishart, ever foremost in treason, conspired with the Steward of the realm, named James, for a new piece of insolence, yea, for a new chapter of ruin. Not daring openly to break their pledged faith to the king, they caused a certain bloody man, William Wallace, who had formerly been a chief of brigands in Scotland, to revolt against the king and assemble the people in his support."

This takes us into a totally different sphere of the politics at the time. Wishart was engaging in the politics of the church in relation to the affect English rule would have on the church in Scotland. It would require quite a lengthy post and may I suggest you should read up on the great lengths the church in Scotland went to to stop them coming under the thumb of the archbishops of York over a great many years.

For a minor noble like Wallace to try and take the throne, far less hold it, IMO would be nigh impossible. There would have been a great many consequences to that kind of action, not least of which would have been an all-out civil war.

I think Wallace would have been well aware of all the consequences and I doubt very much if the thought even crossed his mind.

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject:

Hi Jimbo

Your opinion is certainly within the realm of possibilities, indeed it could be said that your opinion reflects the orthodox view.

As the reviewer I posted above has noted, modern historical thought follows the poem of Blind Harry who sought to glamorize Wallace, and any notions that he had his own interests in mind would be contrary to the present image of a selfless nationalist hero.

Having said that, there are three pieces of evidence which contradict that image. Two are found in the reference of 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. The third is a reference in Watson "Edward I, Under the Hammer" page 31: "The other important officer at the chancery was William Beverton, appointed 5 October 1296 to 'keep. collect and deliver writs sealed with the seal used by the King in Scotland. This was a new seal presumably struck in the same year of the conquest..." and at page 50, " According to one of the charges laid against Wallace at his trial, he had been audacious enough to issue writs in the name of King John, which carried sovereign authority. This included the letter written by both Murray and Wallace to the mayors and communes of Lubeck and Hamburg re-establishing trading links with the new kingdom of Scotland". The important point being that Wallace failed to answer the indictment and as a result was outlawed by the Scots in the parliament called by Edward at St. Andrew's. In simple terms the accusation and the indictment was made by Scottish nobles.

Watson goes on to point out that there was simmering discontent with King Edward in England, both as a result of his loss of Gascony and which his conscription for the war in Flanders. Watson at page 51, "So far as regency government in London was concerned, Stirling Bridge did wonders to halt the drift towards civil war as England united in outrage and consternation at this unthinkable defeat". It is very likely Wallace knew of the current political trends in England and was counting on a degree of support, direct and indirect if he could start an army towards London. He had after all been quite successful in raiding England south of the border with Scotland.

The strange thing is why did not Wallace accept Edward's several offers of amnesty? Every body else was forgiven, including Bishop Wisert, the so-called instigator, as well as Murray, Wallace's partner in the rebellion, not to mention Comyn, Bruce and all the others. Did he really think giving up his life at that point would make any difference when the whole of the Scottish nobility had abandoned the cause? Or did he really consider that he had a chance at overthrowing the monarchy? Once he became outlawed it became much more difficult, but Murray was outlawed at the same time and was forgiven. That should have made some impact on Wallace.

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

Hi RFM,

Jimbo · Our Scotland = 2nd Job! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 1086

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject:

To Jimbo:

Well no, Fisher does say that.
Read carefully the first sentence. Fisher attributes the description of the execution scene to Rothwell, "Chronicles of Walter of Guisborough", London 1957 at page 127. It is after that description that Fisher goes on to opine that it is unlikely that Wallace would ever make such a remark, but then in the next breath says "although he was not above the use of a title when he felt it justified", whatever that means, but it certainly seems to be a concession to Rothwell. Rothwell reports from the English point of view, and his work appeared 50 years before Fisher.

Well no again the Scots were not at all convinced Scotland was free and independent kingdom in 1304-1302.
The parliament which outlawed Wallace and several others was called by Edward, but the call went out to the Scottish nobles to appear at St. Andrew to consider means and methods for running the newly conquered territories. See Fiona Watson. She is quite clear that the Scots nobility wanted the war to end and were very concerned about the fact that several of them had forfeited their lands and estates. Fisher says, some pages just beyond his description of the execution scene, that Wallace was outlawed at St.Andrews and under the law at the time not entitled to a trial at Westminister. Fisher explains all of that at page 243 on.
He also says: "Wallace's relations with the ruling elite had rarely been easy, to them he represented a threat to the established order. In this they shared a characteristic of Edward, with whom they were at the time of Wallace's death, formulating a new policy for the governance of Scotland. It was obvious to the Scots, having failed to defeat Edward since 1296 they had to accept what he offered them. If the price was complicity in the execution of their erstwhile colleague, now perhaps an embarrassment, they seemed to have accepted it...." (page 243).

RFM · Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject:

To Jimbo,

As to the why and wherefore there was national discontent with Edward's rule in England, that is a question to be answered by reading the history of England. I have reported what Fiona Watson, "Under the Hammer, Edward I and Scotland 1286-1306", Tuckwell, 1998, has to say. Given that he seems to have been a difficult person as well as a ruler, it should come as no surprise that the English were not too thrilled with him either.

One of Edward's conditions for the release of captured Scottish nobles was service in Flanders, as well as a call for conscripts in England and Scotland. I do not know the details of all of Edward's travails on the continent, but he appears to have been a pretty ambitious sort of person.

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. I suspect that in those days, a fast moving army could accomplish things greatly out of proportion to its size. Wallace apparently had built a reputation as skillful in rapid movement and skirmishing in counties south of the Tweed.