Fact or Fiction

Following my post on propaganda I thought this was a classic example of what I meant. When the Braveheart film came out it was reported/misreported that polls rightly or wrongly had indicated a swing of Scottish Nationalism to the SNP. The comment from Mr Hall and the slight correction from Mr Christian, courtesy of Quora says it all.


Content from Philip Brian Hall and Ed Christian:

"I can tell you what one English resident of Scotland thinks of Sir William Wallace, since I was inspired by the alleged biopic to write him the following letter:

Dear William,

Let me reassure you no historically-knowledgeable person ever took seriously your so-called biopic.

We know that you did not wear a kilt, paint your face, shoot arrows, attack stockades or meet the Queen of England. In fact William, it was Sitting Bull, a more modern person than you, who did all of these (except wear a kilt.)

Your name was not really Wallace either. It was le Walys. You were descended from a travelling companion of the French knight Walter Fitzallan, later known as Stewart, who arrived in Scotland in 1136. Your home at Elderslie was a quite presentable manor house, not a peat-roofed shack. You were well educated and spoke Latin as well as French, though you probably did not quote Calgacus’ speech from Tacitus’ life of Agricola before battle as in the film.

To be fair, though, you weren’t above the odd public relations fairy tale yourself, were you? I mean, you wouldn't really expect anyone these days to believe that the same general who won the brilliantly-planned Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 also contrived to lose the disastrously-botched Battle of Falkirk in 1298?

We also know you were not called Braveheart; that was a turncoat French contemporary of yours. You probably know about Bannockburn, don't you? It was after your death when your successor as Guardian, Robert 'Braveheart' de Brus, the French usurper of the Scottish throne and the earldom of Carrick, defeated another bunch of French-led invaders in 1314 near Stirling.

You may find it ridiculous, William, but nowadays it is generally believed that Bannockburn was fought between the Scots and the English. They call your era 'The Scottish Wars of Independence' when what was really going on was a struggle to decide which Frenchman should rule what. French was still the language of the London court and administration for almost a century after Bannockburn.

William, they want us to believe you and de Brus were both Scottish patriots despite neither of you being from Scottish families. Most ridiculous of all, they want us to believe these things have even the slightest relevance to how we should govern ourselves today.

You see, William, the problem is that the truth is rarely politically correct. History needs to be viewed through a strongly coloured glass that makes it allegorically relevant to today's political agenda. Given that you encountered a fair bit of revisionism in your own struggles, I am sure you understand that history, first written by the winners, is then re-written by those with an axe to grind."

 AND

"May I quibble and say that while you are generally right, with the Bruce family and the Wallace family both being newcomers to Scotland, rather than actual native Scots, whether lowland or highland, the Brus Family were not French but Norman, a combination of Scandinavian Viking stock with Norman stock. Their dialect was different from that spoken in Paris, and they did a lot of things differently from the French. They would not appreciate being called French. They looked different from most French people. The higher the rank, the more they married other nobles with a lot of Scandinavian ancestry or people from other countries. As best I can tell, the first few generations of the Brus family in Scotland, the lords of Annandale, married few or no Scots. Also, Wallace’s background may have been Welsh rather than Norman."