Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

sandmountainslim

http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/artefac.htm
Taken from the webpage of Michael of Albany (Michel LaFosse), this is
a request from Sir David Ross of the Society of William Wallace
requesting help in having a letter that was on Wallace's person when
he was arrested returned to Scotland where it belongs, it is claimed
that this letter is the only remaining personal possession of
Scotland's greatest hero.
Deo Vindice
WP

Campaign for the Return of the Last Surviving Wallace artefact.

There is only one item that we know of that still exists that we can
connect directly to William Wallace. Although the Wallace Sword is on
display at the National Wallace Monument near Stirling in Scotland ,
we know that some changes have been made to it over the centuries. For
example, a new pommel was added in the time of King James IV
(1488-1513) So there is always going to be some debate over how much
of it is original, although I believe that it is at least the "ghost"
of the sword of our national hero.
William Wallace

There is the famous "Lubeck Letter" which bears the seal of Wallace,
that was sent to the German town of that name after the victory at
Stirling Bridge in 1297, stating that Scotland had been cleansed of
the invader and was again ready to trade with the ports of the
Hanseatic League . This letter is currently on show at the Scottish
Parliament building. Although this letter bears Wallace's seal, it was
probably written by a scribe, and although it is possible that Wallace
sealed it himself, we have no way of knowing this. Plus, the letter
was sent to Lubeck so officially it is the property of Lubeck itself.

When Wallace was captured he had several documents on his person that
were taken south to his trial. These are recorded as being letters
between Wallace and magnates of the Scottish realm, a letter from the
King of Norway, and a letter given to Wallace by the King of France in
1300. All but one of these have disappeared or been purloined over the
centuries- a great loss, as we could have learned so much from them.
The letter from the King of Norway was still on record in the 1830s,
but has disappeared since that time.

The letter from the King of France still exists and is kept behind
closed doors at the Records Office in Kew in England (as are many
other Scottish related documents- but that is another story!) This
document was taken from Scotland , and it was a document that belonged
to a Scot, so it should rightfully be on display in Scotland where the
public can look upon the only known personal possession of Scotland 's
national hero, Sir William Wallace.

I want to see this letter on show in, say, the Museum of Scotland,
where ordinary Scots can take their children and show them something
that Wallace himself once looked upon in his own hand. The one article
we know was a personal possession, and we can look upon it as he did.

It was given to him in November 1300, and it was on his person when he
was captured in August 1305, so he carried it for almost 5 years.

Wallace visited the King of France trying to elicit help for little
Scotland , whose very existence was under threat from the deprivations
of the English king. Wallace also wanted to visit the Pope, then the
most powerful man in Christendom, to see if he would bring pressure to
bear on Longshanks.

The King of France gave Wallace a letter of introduction to his agents
at the Vatican , to see if an audience could be granted. It is only a
little thing, just a small rectangle with a few lines written upon it
in Norman French.

A fair translation is….

"Phillip (IV), King of France to his lieges at the Roman Court .
Commands them to request the Pope's favour for his beloved William le
Wallace of Scotland, Knight, in the matters which he wishes to forward
with His Holiness, Monday after All Saints, Pierrefonds".

You can see Wallace's name in the middle line, just on the crease. In
Norman French, he is of course, called Guillaume.

This letter must be brought back to Scotland . It is important to the
Scottish people. I have already managed to get the story published in
6 Scottish newspapers, and this publicity caused it to be a matter
raised in parliament by Jim Mathers MSP. It has been mentioned on the
BBC News too.

You can help if you wish, by writing to an MSP, saying that you back
this move to restore to Scotland the only surviving Wallace possession.

You can find them by typing in….

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/index.htm

Or you can write requesting its return, to…

Senior Curator,

National Museum of Scotland ,

Chambers Street , Edinburgh , Scotland

EH1 1JF

As a patriot, I would appreciate any patriotic help out there!

Sir David R. Ross, Convenor,

Society of William Wallace.

_________________
William Potter
ScotWatch International
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scotwatch/
Jefferson Republican Party
http://jeffersonrepublicanparty.com
http://jeffersonrepublican.blogspot.com/

RFM · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:58 am Post subject:

There seems to be some questions about the facts of the letter.
First, there seems to be no evidence at all that the letter was ever in the possession of Wallace at any time. The document at the Kew archives is supposed to be a copy of a letter made by agents, possibly of King Edward and not the authentic letter itself. Second, with all due respect to Mr. Ross, the name in the letter is also put forth (according to the sources that claim to have examined the text) as "le Waleis" and not "Guilliame". Guilliame would be a French or Norman name and there seems to be no source that imputes Norman heritage to Wallace. Clearly a copy of the text should be posted, but originating from the Court of Philip the Fair as a legal document of the 13-14th century to the Court at Rome, the language should have been Latin not French. Third the suggested text of the letter by all those who seem to speak of having seen the text or a translation does not confer any notion of safe conduct, nor as to where it was intended to be effective. Edward was an acknowledged vassal of Philip, so a safe conduct letter in Wallace's possession would have raised questions about Edward's right to try Wallace in 1305, given that the letter is supposedly dated November 1300.
More facts are needed before we raise the claim.
RFM

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3792

.............I don't really know much about this, but isn't 'Guilliame' an early French version of William?

and I'm Wallace's name at the time was not spelt in exactly the same way.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

RFM · Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject:

It might very well be. However that merely begs the question of whether it is the Wallace of Scotland that is being referred to. It would be something like looking in a telephone directory 700 years from now and wondering which Tony Blair is the person who became or was English prime minister out of several entries.
If you look at the Kew Archives website catalog however you can readily see that Edward often granted letters of safe conduct as did other monarchs. These were carefully controlled legal documents and not exactly something jotted down on a scrap of paper; they would have to be for the obvious reason of possible forgery. That is if someone shows up requesting protection and safe conduct there would have to have been a mechanism in place to know if it were really a genuine document and whether the person holding it is the person the document refers to. That would seem to suggest that a safe conduct document would be something akin to a diplomatic appointment document which would be transmitted to the receiving country to await the appearance of the persons named who would have to have had some means of authenticating themselves when they arrived.
This is not to say that we should be discouraged from making inquiries as to the authenticity of a part of Scotland's history, but at the same time it would be foolish to be drawn into another Shroud of Turin argument.
RFM