Talk:William Wallace/Archive 1

"Richard" Longoville
Leaving aside the question of whether "Red Reiver" Longoville existed, which is very dubious: where on earth did the name "Richard Longoville" come from? Our ONLY source for the Reiver is Blind Harry, who states that his name was Thomas. I've changed the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by82.10.100.97 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wallace
"20th century Nigel Tranter authored an intended fiction titled The Wallace, which is academically suggested more accurate than its literary predecessors, and was published in 1996. The most recent account of the life of William Wallace is the 1995 film, Braveheart, directed by Mel Gibson and written by Randall Wallace."

How is Braveheart the most recent if The Wallace was published in 1996? Either the date is wrong or something needs to be clarified.

"The Wallace" was first published in 1977 by Hodder and Stoughton.

What in the world is an "intended fiction"? Are we talking about a novel? Clarityfiend 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Fiction, you know, the opposite of non-fiction. As in not factual.  Sandwiches99 01:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood
Just who exactly knighted wallace?--Duane 12:12, May 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to one account, this is not clear, but by a process of elimination it must have been 1 of 3 earls, Carrick (Bruce) and 2 others.PatGallacher 08:59, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
 * Whatever the truth of this story, it appears that Wallace had a long-standing hatred of the English, partially based on his father's death at their hands in 1291.

Can someone explain this? How did his father die, and why? Or did I somehow miss it? --Feitclub 20:08, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This is part of the Blind Harry fiction - Harry, and therefore 'Bravehaeart' refer to a war in the 1280s-1290s in which - or as a consequence of which - Wallace's father (called Malcolm for the purposes of Blind HArry and Braveheart) was executed, however this war never took place. In the 200 years preceding the Wars of Independence the Scot and the Englsih were alomst always at peace and generally on good terms. CsinC¬¬¬¬ I revised the section claiming that Robert the Bruce knighted Wallace. It's not certain, as explained above, just who actually did the knighting. I also removed the statement there concerning the legitimacy of that move. In reality the issue of whether or not Robert the Bruce was king had not come up yet and had nothing to do with the situation of Wallace being knighted and made Guardian. 66.156.107.108

William's Father
I’m not comfortable with the phrase “It seems certain he was the son of Sir Malcolm Wallace of Riccarton.” In fact this is a matter of considerable debate. The seal on a surviving letter of William’s, the Lubeck letter, (rediscovered in the 1990s and one of the few pieces of direct evidence about the man that survives) states, "William filius Alan" ( William son of Alan) William was the son of Alan Wallace who had lands in the Renfrew area. --Great Scott 19:55, April 12, 2005 (UTC) FItzalan clan..... The 'Clan' as we might think of it was a feature of Highland/Gaelic society, no medieval lord saw himself as a 'clan' leader, though they might well be the effective head of their family. Neither the Stewart, nor his family, would have described themselves as members of the 'Fitzalan' clan. The seal in question is perfectly clear about the paternity of WIlliam Wallace - he was the son (younger) of Alan Wallace.

Comments about the film Braveheart should be shifted to that article. PatGallacher 08:59, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

The 'Wallace clan' is an invention of modern times - in the later middle ages the Wallace family were asscoiated with the Stewarts - of whom they were vassals - and with the Bruces. If 'bookofsecrets' is a direct descedant of Alan Wallace, he must - presumably - be descended from Malcolm, but does he have any provenance for that? CsinC¬¬¬¬
 * Being a direct descent of Alan Wallace I wish to make a comment or two. Alan or Allen is a common name in the Wallace clan even today.  William and John are both very commonly used names within the Wallace clan.  So there is a great chance that this seal is correct.  It has been handed down through generations that there were several sons of which William, Malcolm (my ancestor), and John are a part.  After doing years of research I'd say if there were any other sons their names could be George, Richard, Robert, James, and Thomas.  These are commonly used names within the Wallace's today as well.  If there were any daughters one might find names like Sarah, Charlotte, Amy, Mary, Nola, and Agnes.  I'm merely sharing my many years of genealogy research which this family is a vital part.  --Bookofsecrets 19:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PatGallacher suggests large-scale revert
The recent large batch of changes by Adraeus are a dog's breakfast. While no Wikpedia article is sacred, an important and relatively stable article like this should not be subjected to large-scale edits without serious discussion. I feel a bit like reverting to the previous version. PatGallacher 23:56, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * The article may have been "stable" but it was incredibly flawed. I've corrected many factual and grammatical errors, added a lot of new information, and increased the size of the bibliography. Every edit I've made is supported by current, factual, and academic research. You can revert it if you like, but I'd accurately describe that as vandalism and seek administrative action against you. You really don't have a case so I recommend against such behavior; however, if you disagree with any section of the article as it stands now, you are encouraged to bring whatever section to discussion. Adraeus 00:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wallace's Seal Found in 1999

 * The 1999 rediscovery of William Wallace's seal further enshrouds Wallace's early history in mystery.

I would appreciate if someone could flesh out the details of rediscovering the seal. Thanks in advance. Ayeroxor 20:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.nas.gov.uk/education/ffa/lubeck.asp Adraeus 22:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Modern portrayal
Why is Braveheart not linked, with a comment "Computer and video games do not belong here or anywhere else in this article"?Ojw 21:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I just saw the article and was wondering the same thing, braveheart should probably be linked. Jtkiefer  T - 00:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Braveheart is linked once. The problem was that editors were adding Braveheart links in every possible section as the film is somehow important to the history of William Wallace. Adraeus 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition notable differences from Braveheart should be noted, probably in a subsection of their own. When you say William Wallace most people respond with, "oh that guy from braveheart?" I came here to find out how much of the movie was true and how much was hollywood.

Fictional portrayals
I've moved fiction to the bottom of the article, to bring this into line with other Wikipedia articles on historical topics. Also removed this;

Loved in America and Scotland, English audiences reacted with amusement at the film, although most praised the exciting battle sequences.

Yes I remember it well, the people of England stood smirking smugly outside cinemas, chortling at our poor undereducated Scottish and American cousins (sarcasm). This kind of comment is stupid and deosn't belong in an encyclopedia. Coyote-37 15:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Scotland in Wallace's time
I have removed the comment that Scotland is 'effectively ruled by England'. This statement is completely outrageous. England does not 'rule' anywhere as:
 * 1) England is not a country in its own right, but is an administrative region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, along with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
 * 2) As part of the British Parliament, Scotland actually has a disproportionate number of MPs in the House of Commons- a larger number than it should have considering its smaller population in relation to England.
 * 3) Any control over the Scottish parliament's powers- as referred to in the comment on devolution- is goverened by Westminster- the parliament of the United Kingdom, NOT England. Furthermore, if Scotland, or any other administrative region, wanted to become a separate entity from the United Kingdom, then it is perfectly feasible for a referrendum to be held within the region to decide its fate. It so happens that the majority of Scotland is reasonably happy with the current arrangement, presumably because the Scottish population have a say in what happens to their country- a complete contradiction to the 'rule by England' aforementioned.

Posted by J Swanson
 * Who cares? The article concerns a time before the United Kingdom even existed. Adraeus 22:
 * I think the "who cares?" comment is pretty flippant, 'effectively ruled by England' it is an outrageously erroneous quote for any "encyclopaedia". Although why the structure of the government in the UK is mentioned in an article about a 700 year old national hero maybe leaves it a bit open to "who cares" style criticism.


 * 1) who was the womman from the movie that warned wallace and gave birth to his child???????

Blind Harry

 * Blind Harry misread a line from an earlier poem about Robert the Bruce...

I think perhaps this should be rephrased. Flapdragon 00:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Adraeus 22:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The clue is in the word "blind". 62.252.132.31 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Blind Harry does not mention Wallace's departure from Scotland or that Wallace had combat experience prior to 1297.

This sentence appears well before any mention is made of Blind Harry, so the reader will not have a clue who he is. It is also in the "Family" section, and the sentence doesn't really have much to do with family.

I added a mention of Blind Harry in the summary of the article, so readers were prepared for later references to his work.


 * I have studied the unadulterated Blind Harry in excruciating detail. In reading these Wallace articles I had to cringe at mis-references to the work. Also, Blind Harry is much more detailed than is indicated here, so I had to add additional information to the articles. But in doing so I did not touch a previous editor's work. I did notice that there were several places in the articles that contained anti-Harry comments. I thought them inapropriate for an encylcopedia article and so I at least balanced those comments with equivalent comments to make the statement neutral as wiki recommends. And finally, if someone doesn't add a Blind Harry referral book source before I return home from this trip, then I will get my Blind Harry book and add it to the list.

Just a suggestion, but could someone think about splitting the Blind Harry stories into a separate article? The article's rather confusing, as it's too easy to read a section and miss that it's a Blind Harry story and not an actual fact.

I agree with the suggestion; the article does need to been split more effectively into what we actually know about William Wallace (the man of history) and what Blind Harry claims of him (the story that went on to become Braveheart). At the moment, these mix together and it makes for a very confusing article. --Jaygtee 11:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link Robroyston.org
Can you tell me exactly why the external link robroyston.org was removed?

The link was relevant, has no advertising, and contributes to the contemporary understanding of the Wallace legend.

WJT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weejocktamson (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The site is not an information resource for readers, it is an advocacy site with a "mission" (from the Objectives section: it is time to try to raise the profile of the Robroyston Wallace Monument. The objective of this modest website is to stimulate interest).  The site was added here just to raise its own traffic, not to help Wikipedia readers.  External links are only supposed to be added when the link helps the article, not the other way around. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never read so much contrived nonsense presented in such a petulant, petty manner. WJT seems to think that the objective of the site and the objective of Wikipedia are, by WJT's limited interpretation, mutually exclusive. Raising awareness of the monument encompasses helping Wikipedia readers help understand the nature of the article. Perhaps if WJT bothered to read part of the linked website then WJT would recognise errors in the reference to William Wallace in the article, but what's the point of correcting these when sanctimonious contributers spend their time wasting the time of others. -- A concerned reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.8.77 (talk • contribs) 4 May 2009


 * To 'A concerned reader'. Actually I think you'll find that your comments should be directed towards 'Rjanag', as it is the comments by that contributor that you refer to (not mine, WJT). I do though happen to agree with you that Rjanag's comments, and the original removal of the link, are both "petty" and "petulant". Indicative perhaps of someone with too much time on their hands! One wonders what Rjanag's "mission" is... it is certainly NOT to promote knowledge, understanding and debate. Weejocktamson (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia policy on links to be avoided. Particularly items 1 and 4. If there is information on this website that would be of value to the article, why not cite it within the article? The website appears to be a well researched collection of information about the Robroyston Wallace Monument.  Some of which could be cited comfortably on this article without the need for an intermediate website.
 * It seems curious that this website was created on the 8th of April, then linked in number of Wikipedia articles by a new editor one week later. The reason for adding external links should not be to promote a new website. I'd also ask Weejocktamson to read Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest on external links, and consider if it might apply here. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rjanag that the insertion of the link was to promote the website. Escape Orbit's note that the site was added as an external link right after it was finished seems to confirm this. Just google "Robroyston.org" and the top hits are postings on various message boards and blogs in the months of April and May promoting the new website. (a few examples: ). Spam.--Celtus (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Scottish Gaelic perception of Wallace
Ive added a paragraph from a lecture by John Macinnes because the perception amongst modern Gaelic poets and in the Gaelic oral tradition regarding the ethnic/linguistic status of William Wallace is an important, and all to often overlooked aspect of the subject of the Scottish Wars of Independance and the view, even within Scotland of Wallace as an individual. 92.235.178.44 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're adding it in the middle of the section about Wallace's background. This revolves around the facts that are known, few that they are.  It is not the place to go into a discussion about Gaelic perceptions of Wallace. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This file is on the commons should you want to include a picture of the the Smithfield plaque... Merlin-UK (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wallace's capture and execution
This sentence fragment is nonsensical:

"...where he was tried for treason, and the execution of civilians and prisoners, and was crowned..."

Are there no Scots who care enough to correct it?

Royal Wulff (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fixed to me. 12.41.255.10 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Trial
Is there not a little more that could be said about Wallaces trial as it would be interesting if anyone has any knowledge of the transcripts. I know it was a show trial and the verdict was never in doubt. I've read in many accounts that when accused of treason Wallace replied "How can I commit treason when England is foreign to me". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.86.71.241 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

excecution
i deleted the following sentence from the execution part as william called no one king. in the legends of old he was loyal only to his family and clan. while he may of helped the supposed throne of scotland, it only suggests his loyalty but is no fact.

With this, Wallace asserted that the absent John Balliol was officially his king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

anglo/english terminology
things such as knight being used. explanation needed as to why he is being called such. in the legends of my family he was a barbarian assasan and a brilliant one. scotland had not knighthood back then as far as i know as its an english term/word. alot of the info here seems taken from english history. english history is wrong. the only true histories about scotland are scottish histories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Knight" does not need to be explained here; those who don't know the meaning of the word can follow the link. Your family legends sound fascinating, however, Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its information.  If you have any specific, verifiable, reliable Scottish sources, then perhaps you can direct us to them.  Gwinva (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The term 'knight' had been in use in Scotland for well over 100 years before Wallace was born; not many people were knighted (much the proportion same as in France or England), but there were still several hundred knights at any one time. It is a word of German derivation, originally meaning an inferior or young lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.182.232 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Video Game Character
There's a William Wallace playable character in the PS3/360 downloadable game Deadliest Warrior Legends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.171.234 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Background of the Wallace name
Within the background section the Wallace family background and Surname orgin could be elaboated on; a paragraph from another wiki page could be cited( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbric_language ).

'A more controversial point is the surname Wallace. It means “Welshman”. It is possible that all the Wallaces in the Clyde area were medieval immigrants from Wales, but given that the term was also used for local Cumbric speaking Strathclyde Welsh it seems equally if not more likely that the surname refers to people who were seen as being "Welsh" due to their Cumbric language. Surnames in Scotland were not inherited before 1200 and not regularly until 1400. William Wallace (known in Gaelic as Uilleam Breatnach – namely William the Briton or Welshman) came from the Renfrew area – itself a Cumbric name. Wallace slew the sheriff of Lanark (also a Cumbric name) in 1297. Even if he had inherited the surname from his father it is possible that the family spoke Cumbric within memory in order to be thus named.' I've not encountered any Scottish or English figures in the 13/14th Century who did not have surnames; not one. Chris Brown

This may be a interesting point but may need to be edited quite a bit as this paragraph is far too chunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioni27 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite
This is a poor quality article which in places finds it difficult to separate fact from fiction, too much uncritical regurgiation of Blind Harry and other legendary material. If anyone knows of a good recent biography of Wallace I will use it, but otherwise I propose to significantly rewrite it using Peter Traquair's "Freedom's Sword" as my main source. PatGallacher (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do. An article which relies on an Angelfire page as a source is in desperate need of careful attention. This article is terrible. Lara  01:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

God almighty rewrite it. It is awful.87.114.229.119 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pat, email me. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A separation of the Blind Harry fiction from what is actually known would be a great start. Perhaps make a section for the BH texts alone. I have added a little explanation for BH's work in the intro, an attempt to inform readers between now and your rewrite.87.114.229.119 (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I have now don a significant rewrite of the article. However the independent page counter shows that this is a very widely viewed article, os is it worth doing more work? Can someone do a check to see if it is now B class? PatGallacher (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I read I think in Froissart's chronicles, the single sentence that Wallace said in the mock trial before execution - something on the lines of 'I was never a traitor, you were never my king and while the breath breathes in my body you never shall be' Unfortunately, i can't find the source anymore - anyone know it? Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Patriot?
(William was not a patriot. he was loyal to him family and clan chief. He done was he was told to do and not for the love of 'scotland' while during the independance wars scotland pulled together there was and still is a riff dividing the clans. how there for can one be a patriot if there is no love for the nation as a whole? -AileyAngel64) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AileyAngel64 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You bet your bloody boots he was a patriot!!!! He saved all of Scotland let us not forget! Well yeah, maybe his first act might have been revenge for his father but he is a patriot. First of all I am Scottish by heritage but I admire William Wallace.You should check your definition of patriot. Scotlax20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.84.53 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC) <!-hello the name is william wallacethere nothing to do so go away'''

Rather than begin an edit war with The monkeyhate over this issue, I bring it here for discussion. Is the use of the word "patriot" appropriate in describing Wallace? The monkeyhate says "The concept of patriotism didn't exist at the time, so Wallace cannot be called a patriot." I think this reasoning is flawed. It does not matter whether Wallace would have referred to himself as a patriot, it is simply the most appropriate word for us to use to describe him. Anyone have any thoughts? --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  14:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Patriotism can only be applied to the love of a nation, and the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century. Calling William Wallace a patriot makes as little sense as calling Plato a Marxist. --The monkeyhate (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read in a couple books things along the same lines as what monkeyhate is saying. But i'm pretty sure Wallace is described as a patriot in bios more often than not. I dunno what should be done. Could we say something like 'today he's considered a patriot and national hero'? There's a book called William Wallace : Man and Myth by Graeme Morton at my library which assaults the romanticised Wallace that exits in popular culture today - not sure if it should be used as a reference though.--Celtus (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Monkey Hate said "...the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century..." and I would like him to explain what he means and provide some evidence for it. 78.52.232.51 (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought that was common knowledge. Read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state --The monkeyhate (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BBC's History Of Scotland has just finished an episode about Wallace. It concluded by saying that many regard him as Scotland's greatest patriot.  Whether this is reliant on there existing a nation (rather than just country), and whether Wallace can therefore be called a patriot, appears to be firstly The monkeyhate's definition of the word, and secondly The monkeyhate's opinion.  Neither is good enough to determine what the lead on the article is.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 22:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The wiki article is on nation states. I am well informed about these. What is your evidence that the "nation as a political entity" didn't arise until the 19th century? 78.52.231.132 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've restored mention of patriot. The monkeyhate has so far not explained his edit, and indeed it appears to only be based on his opinion.  The status of the nation state at the time is an irrelevant red herring unrelated to the lead's description. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also a significant changing of goal posts. Monkey first said that the Nation didn't exist until the 19th century. Now he changes it to "nation state" a more modern concept. In comparison, Scotland was one of the first nations. 78.52.224.80 (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's quite evident for anybody who has ever studied history at graduate level that the word Nation applies with som sense only from the 19th century onwards. If you really want to use it in a broad sense, than maybe you can stick back to the 26th (But the majority of scholars would not agree with that). Even if one agrees with the slightly untouchable difference between Nation and Nation-state - that makes no concrete sense to me, and Wikipedia pages are not so clear nor so well informed - still I find very, very hard to apply the term to the medieval period. I'm just going to give you some bibliographical reference and quick quotation from the most influent and important scholars of the subject: than you can evaluate the problem. So, the three main authors that dealed seriously with that in recent times are Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawn and Ernst Geller. Respectively, the most important books are "Imagined communities", "The Invention of Tradition" and "Nations and Nationalism": they do not always agree, nor give a simple or straightforward explanation. But all of them, and easily the entire serious work that followed, agree on the point that a nation is NOT something naturally (i.e. biologically, geographically, ethnically and so on) existing, but something that is created and acknowledged by people: and that this acknowledgment started at most at the end of the 18th century. About the possibility to apply the term to the middle ages, once again medievalists stands on monkeyhate side: Just look at Professor Geary's work (for example: "Before France and Germany", or more recently "Nations and Nationalism"), or to the whole amount of Walter Pohl studies, or to Walter Goffart's ones. Here again, there is not a consensus about what went on in the medieval period. About who were the "people" (natioes, latin word) that inhabiteted Europe and that we find in contemporary - but more oftem more recent - sources. But we have a strong, very strong consensus about the total inhexistence of Nations of any sort. So, Nation makes no sense here, and more the less patriot. Spree85 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This sort of dogmatism is inherently contestable. It's not cut and dried. The Oxford English Dictionary shows the word 'nation' was already in use in English by the early fourteenth century, adding: 'In early examples notions of race and common descent predominate.' That Scots already had a strong sense of collective identity is obvious from fourteenth-century literature, such as John Barbour and Fordun's Chronicle. British historians of the dominant Whig tradition have long regarded Scotland as historically precocious in its sense of nationhood, partly because of the Wars of Independence.  Similarly, English patriotism is said to have been aroused in the latter stages in the Hundred Years War, and is abundantly attested to a century later in Shakespeare. Michael Lynch, Professor of Scottish History at the University of Edinburgh, writing in The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (2005), describes Wallace as a 'patriot', but also comments on the idea of national identity in the middle ages: 'Such collective self-awareness, however, is not necessarily the same as national consciousness and identity.  In so far as the latter presupposes, not just a shared sense of the past, but also a community of language, culture, custom, and law, late medieval Scotland was only just beginning to acquire the defining characteristics of nationhood.' Lachrie (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who questions the notion of nationhood & patriotism in Scotland at this time should read the Declaration of Arbroath.Waterwynd (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

To suggest 14th century chronicles give an accurate representation of the sense of "nationhood" in 13th century Scotland is seriously questionable. The chroniclers were frequently in pay of someone whom it would of benefit to to create such a fiction, notably Bruce. Bruce's propaganda machine is also entirely relevant to the last, throwaway remark regarding the Declaration of Arbroath. Before any discussion of medieval Scottish identity can proceed, it is imperative that claims of Brucean propaganda be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.9.65 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If we apply the innocent until proven guilty concept here nobody should tar Wallace's good name with a slanderous word like patriot. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Monkeyhate wrote: "Patriotism can only be applied to the love of a nation, and the nation as a political entity as we all know didn't arise until the 19th century." The word patriot was (at least) used to describe Wallace throughout the 18th century, so MH's reasoning is not quite correct. 109.151.41.17 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC) -- Not to mention the fact that "patriot" in the context of being a patriot for one's native country, was being used to describe certsin Scotsmen before 1640. Just because Monkey doesn't think so, doesn't make him a useful scholar in the conversation. 109.151.41.17 (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Painting


Anybody knows where this painting comes from? Who made it? Where is the original now? Has the painter ever seen William Wallace alive or is it based on stories?Nico (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know myself, but I think that maybe we should only use an image that we are certain about for the infobox. We don't even know what year it dates to.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search and found this one . It's very similar. IMO a better image for the article at least. This link shows that the painting was recently purchased by a museum of sorts .--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Image states © Stirling Smith Art Gallery and Museum -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The painting dates to the 17th century, that means that the original painter died hundreds of years ago, and that it is out of copyright. A mere photo of it is in public domain. See Template:PD-Art (to quote the template: The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain"). When you have the creation-date of something, it's a lot easier to determine its copyright status. I'm just guessing, but I think that the black and white image might be some sort of interpretation of the painting that appeared in a Victorian book of some sort.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The section on physical strength seems speculative and poorly sourced, and has been bunged in at an incongruous point in tne article. PatGallacher (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is a fictional painting really worth putting in this article? I know it is a problem that no genuine images exist but surely including this 'idea' of what he looked like is pointless. The chances are that he looked nothing like this. Mtpaley (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC). On a purely non scientific basis this photo does not look very Scottish. Mtpaley (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On a similar theme the is height of 1.96m. I have been trying to find a source for this and so far come up with nothing more that he was tall. Mtpaley (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Is this a Citation needed case? Mtpaley (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not remove this photo? I admit that it is clearly labelled as fictional but surely it does not belong on the page of the actual person. Mtpaley (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe use this one: File:William Wallace.jpg It's from the Library of Congress. Or any random Mel Gibson &#9786; JMOprof (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the few absolute facts is that the statue of Mel Gibson in Stirling is a disaster. Mtpaley (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly POV! &#9786; For the curious, here's the LOC image:



JMOprof (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That is a perfectly good picture of someone with the words "William Wallace" written underneath it but it is still just a work of fiction. Nobody knows what he looked like so how can there be a picture in the infobox? I am perfectly happy with the assorted statues, stained glass and such like in the body of the article which nobody would expect to be realistic but IMHO (is there a WP: policy on this?) the infobox should just contain facts. Mtpaley (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another totally unscientific and totally personal opinion is that the photo could be much worse. Look at "Edward I of England" for a genuine painting that sadly seems to have been done by a 10 year old.  I suspect that at some point some amateur decided to 'improve' that painting. Mtpaley (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the distinction you are drawing between an engraving and "a statue or stained glass". What's the difference when it comes to being realistic?  Besides, Wikipedia is full of examples of portraits of historical figures based on little or no proven factual basis.  I think it's enough for the portrayal to be notable, rather than discounting it because it's not 100% factual.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that this is 0% factual. From everything I have been able to find nobody has any idea what WW looked like. What is the value of a picture created centuries later? All we will see is that eras idealistic view of a figure, the image is purely a artifact of that point in history and tells us nothing of the actual person. Mtpaley (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * On the statues/stained glass comment I don't think that anyone actually looks at these as accurate representations. They are generally far more generic than a painting/woodcut. As a example the "Statue of Wallace at Edinburgh Castle" in the article is a totally generic knight from that era - he actually looks like a archetypal crusader. Mtpaley (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * My thought is that we are trying to draw too fine a point. The articles on Adam, Christ, and Ghengis Khan, as three examples, are all on personages of unknown visage, yet they have images.  The images used there are historical in their own right, and we should seek one similar.  JMOprof (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The National Portrait Gallery, London has eight Wallaces. JMOprof (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2014
Knighted in December of 1297.

74.70.235.237 (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 04:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Birth place
I noticed that the side bar says that the birth place is "Elderslie, Renfrewshire, Scotland" but the main article says: William's birthplace was at Elderslie in Renfrewshire, and this is still the view of some historians,[7] but Williams own seal, suggesting his father was Alan Wallace, has given rise to a counter claim of Ellerslie in Ayrshire. How to we update the side bar to mention that his birth place is not really agreed on? -- OoberMick (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A.j.roberts (talk • contribs) 15:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heraldry
Zacwill16, William Wallace's arms are unknown, as are the arms of his family. The earliest heraldry known of the Wallaces in general are an early thirteenth century seal displaying a bend surmounted by a lion rampant and a late fourteenth-century seal displaying a lion rampant. That's it. No tinctures. No contemporary blazons. No nothing. See: McAndrew, BA (2006). Scotland's Historic Heraldry. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. ISBN 9781843832614

The arms you added are the modern arms of the chief of the name, gules, a lion rampant Argent within a bordure countercompony of the last and azure. These arms devolve from the arms of the Wallaces of Elderslie, who descend from a late fourteenth-century John Wallace of Elderslie. This arms of the Wallaces of Elderslie, first recorded in the sixteenth century, were azure, a lion rampant argent within a bordure compony azure and argent.

John Wallace was a cadet of the Wallaces of Riccartoun. In the mid fourteenth century, the main line of this family married the heiress of the Lindsays of Craigie. The senior descendants of this union were the Wallaces of Craigie (whilst the aforesaid John Wallace was a younger son). The arms of the Wallaces of Craigie are first recorded in the fifteenth century, where they quarter the Lindsay arms gules a fess chequy argent and azure with gules, a lion rampant argent, armed and langued or.

So you can see that the heraldry of the thirteenth-century Wallaces unknown. I wonder if the compony and tinctures of the modern chiefly arms represent the Lindsay marriage that postdated William Wallace's death. Whatever the case, the almost three hundred year-old A System of Heraldry is nowhere near a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia. I suppose in certain circumstances it could be used as a primary source for what Nesbitt claimed, if you had a good modern source noting such a claim. Otherwise it'd being giving undue weight to a long outdated book.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015
Death of a King, by Andrew H. Vanderwal, provides a fictional account of William Wallace as a teenager as well as key events in Wallace’s later life including the Battle of Stirling Bridge and Wallace being proclaimed guardian of Scotland.

Avanderwalh (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  17:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cowan
This article and others associated with Wallace should be revised with the help of Edward Cowan's "The Wallace Book". There is a copy in the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, it looks like a very useful source, although I have only looked at it fairly quickly. PatGallacher (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Did William Wallace really have childern? And was he really a born and bred Welshman?
In my research of Wallace nothing seems historically right. We don't know what town bears the honour of his birth place. We're not sure whether or not his wife Marion even existed, so why should it surprise any of us when historical records don't mention childern. Can anyone give me a soild document thzt indicates he really did have kids? There's another thing that dumbfounded me, a historian now proclaims Wallace wasn't a Scottish born hero. But a born and bred Welshman. What do y'all think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.82.162 (talk • contribs) 27 October 2012‎


 * Who is the historian who thinks Wallace was born in Wales? What evidence is there for that? From what I've read, it is suspected that William's family may have been related to the Wallaces who were recorded as tenants of the Stewarts in Scotland. In the 12th century, the family of the Stewarts came to Scotland from Shropshire (which borders Wales); and a Richard Wallace is recorded as a Shropshire tenant of Walter fitz Alan (ancestor of the Stewarts). So the theory is that the Wallace tenants in Scotland may have been related to the Wallace tenants in Shropshire. But the actual Shropshire connection was long before William Wallace's time.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to remember that Scotland was a patchwork of Clans, not only split by families, but also language, you had the Scots (Gaelic speakers), The Picts (Probably spoke a P Celtic language similar to Cumbric), Cumbrians (Britons,Brythons,Welsh, or whatever you want to call them), and Angles (speaking an English variant), William Wallace was a Cumbrian, if not Cumbric speaking, then his clan were recent converts to speaking Gaelic, or maybe he knew both languages, and even some english, this area was a melting pot, and his name reflects his origin as a Cumbrian "Wallace", the English called all (Cumbric,Britons, Welsh) by this name, Wall, or welsh, or walsh, or Welsch. My Opinion he was a Native Cumbrian of this area of Scotland, Over time the Cumbric Crown of the Cumbrian, was passed onto King David I of Scotland, and peoples knowledge of the Cumbrians faded. very few people know that this area of Scotland was Cumbric speaking, it seems to be edited out of history for some reason. 'Clans' really is n't a terribly useful term in this context generally, but particularly in relation of lowland Scots. Late medical Scotland was just as much a unified 'nation' (and just as little too) as England or France. My understanding is that the last king of Cumbria died much more than a century before David I. I'm not aware of anyone at all who 'knows' that'this area of Scotland was Cumbric speaking'..if there's a source let's see it - I'd be genuinely very interested. One thing we can be sure of is that Wallce's famuily was firmly rooted - in a rather minor way - in the political community of Scotland in the 1290s...William's father was a knight and a 'King's tenant' after all. Also, given that the Wallace family was firmly rooted in Ayrshire (hertiage/kings' tenancy) it would be very odd indeed if they spoke anything other than Scots; the 'Pict' thing is just nonsense. The Pictish society had disappeared centuries before Wallace was born. If the view that Wallace had been destined for the church as a career (and as a younger - possibly 3rd - son that would not be surprising) it would be fair to guess that he could read Latin, but very few Latin readers (even among serious scholars) can really speak it. OTH, as an educated man it's not impossible that he might have learned to read French, but whether he could speak it is a different matter - I can read Latin and French quite well, but I can't speak either to save myself. The same sort of thing would apply to a lot of English and Scottish nobles. It's not a million miles away fro the situation of well-educated people in the 19th C.....lots of them could read Latin and/or Greek, but that did n't mean they could speak in those languages. Chris Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Two antagonistic nations?
Did the Battle of Stirling really lead to "embittered relations between the two antagonistic nations". There may well have been bitterness, but the idea of nationhood in this period is an anachronism, it's a much later concept being wrongly applied to the past. Scotland may have been a kingdom but it was a multi-ethnic multi-territorial subordinate kingdom not a nation; and, in common with England, it had a self-described 'French' aristocracy. Because of subsequent events and perceptions it is hard to now fully understand how a 'typical' peasants' revolt and a 'typical' Barons' revolt morphed into a successful war of independence. Perhaps it would be better simply to write "embittered relations between the antagonists". Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Scimus, Sanctissime Pater et Domine, et ex antiquorum gestis et libris Colligimus quod inter Ceteras naciones egregias nostra scilicet Scottorum nacio multis preconijs fuerit insignita... Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be useful to know in what manner the Scottish (or English) aristocracy described themselves as French? Medeival historians would find that interesting I'm sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the Declaration of Abroath does indeed use the Latin word 'naciones'. The nearest Latin words which might suggest the modern concept of a 'nation' might however rather be 'gentem' or perhaps 'respublica'. The word 'naciones' is not the Latin equivalent of our modern concept of a nation-state but rather a reference, as its roots suggest, to a common place of birth rather than common ethnicity. Given that people at this time in Scotland self-categorised themselves as French, English, Scots and Gallowegians the idea that they conceived of themselves as a single 'Scots' nation in the modern sense is clearly misleading. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Medieval English and Scottish people were well-aware of their national identity and that awareness was a significant, perhaps crucial, aspect of the conflict. It is true that medieval Kingdoms were not exactly the same thing as the modern notion of the nation state, but the 'community of the realm' was a very important concept. Moreover, the practise of addressing charters etc to linguistic groups was no longer used by the time of the Wars of Independence; they were addressed to 'all worthy men' who were Scottish subjects. Chris Brown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Signing in for a change (though still not signing your posts after all these years)?! Thought you'd returned to IP-socking for the long term. This tenuous attempt to WP:COATRACK your POVs on a perfectly straightforward wording is typically contrived and unsupported. The contended wording in the article is not discussing or implying any of the matters you are trying to force upon it. Natio. Mutt Lunker (talk)

Offspring to William Wallace
In your picture of William Wallace you have that he had offspring. In my researches it is as follows:

Wiiliam de Baliol, 2nd son of Sir Alexander of Cavers Baliol, was owner of the lands of Penston, Haddingtonshire, and Carnbrue Lanacshaire, both in the Barony of Bothwell, the ancient possession of the Baillies of Lamington. The parish of Lamington was founded by a Saxon named Lambinus, who fled with his brothers from England to escape the cruelties of William the Conquerer. Lamington subsequently fell into the hands of a person named Braidfast, who, together with his son was killed in the seige of Lamington Tower by the English.

His daughter Marion was taken prisoner, carried to Lanark Castle and brought up as ward of the crown by Lady Hazelrig, wife of Sir William Hazelrig, English governor of Lanark. William Hazelrig designed Marion Baidfoot to be the wife of his son Arthur, but she escaped from the Lanark Castle and was married at Lanark Church to the celebrated WILLIAM WALLACE. On this marriage there was only one daughter who became the wife of William de Baliol and so brought the land of Lamington into the Baillie family. This is, however a tale with no evidence to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.246.79 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

William de Baliol accompanied WILLIAM WALLACE in his expeditions for the relief of Scotland and rendered himself obnoxious to Edward 1 in defense of Scotland against the invasion that he was fined 4 years rent of his estates in 1297.

He obtained a character of confirmation of his lands on Penston from King Robert Bruce. He was succeeded by his son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.168.1.250 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Mtpaley (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014
Sir William Wallace was born in Elerslie, a small village situated west of Kilmarnock, Ayrshire between Kilmarnock and Crosshouse. This area is known as Wallace Land and includes Riccarton the Anscetral Home of the Wallace Clan in Ayrshire which is also recorded in the Ragman Rolls. There is no mention of the surname Wallace anywhere else in Scotland at that time.His mother was a Cruiford from Loudoun castle and his sword used to hang above the Fire place in the great hall until it was removed by the family prior to the Castle burning down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.76.135 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC) There was no such thing as the 'Wallace Clan' - being a lowland family - but Sir Alan Wallace most certainly did have a heritable estate in Ayrshire and was also a King's Tenant in that region. - as recorded in the Ragman Roll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.246.79 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

No mention of the atrocities he committed
I'm surprised the numerous atrocities he committed aren't mentioned, I mean they were so severe that his fellow Scots considered his barbarism a liability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.112.107 (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to understand your edits. You criticize the article as being "written by someone who has based their history on the hollywood film", right after adding an opinion sourced to an article, where someone criticises the fictional occurrences within a Hollywood film.
 * Did you even read what you were referencing? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Free Beer?
Are there any reliable sources linking William with the one accused, by Christina of Perth on the 1296 Plea Roll, of stealing a keg of beer? Not really, though it is quite possible, however Wallace and William were both fairly common names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the view of historians is that there is a possibility that this was him, but this is far from certain or even probable. PatGallacher (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2017
In the Gaming section of William Wallace, Rock of Ages 2: Bigger and Boulder depicts two William Wallaces a fake William Wallace and the real William Wallace, I would like for who edits this article to add that in, please and thank you. 216.125.211.33 (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Background
In Norman Davies' book Vanished Kingdoms, subtitled The History of Half-Forgotten Europe, in the chapter detailing the historic Kingdom of Strathclyde (Alt Clud), Davies makes the claim that Wallace's ancestors were probably Brythonic noblemen from around Alt Clud. The evidence he uses to support this is the Wallace being translated as "The Briton" (related to the word "Wales"). Can someone please add this to the article?--90.222.110.194 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, this looks too much like speculation. PatGallacher (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

William Wallace is a fictional character
For what reason there is no mention of the entirely fictitious aspect of William Wallace's film character.

The true legend behind him is William II Earl of Ross (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_II,_Earl_of_Ross), descendant of  fearchar mac Tsagirt .

William II Earl of Ross was taken prisoner at the accession to the throne of Robert I who plotted under the influence of Edward I of England to the assassination of John III Comyn and dismissed the rivals from the throne.

The descent of the Comyns has become mixed with that of the Rosss. Robert of Bruce has never been protector of Scotland any more than William Wallace who never existed.

...fearchar mac Tsagirt written as is in Gaelic means sovereign son of the kingdoms. https://translate.google.ca/#auto/en/fearchar%20mac%20Tsagirt

Why is it not clear in the English version of wikipedia that William Wallace is just a fictional character? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entheos29 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because this idea is total nonsense. PatGallacher (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Braveheart
The film was criticised for inaccuracies regarding Wallace's title, love interests, and attire.

And his actions, his motivations, his family, and just about everything else aside from his name. Can't this line just be changed to say "criticised for its numerous inaccuracies"? 108.34.206.74 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018
I would like to see a reference to the Iron Maiden song, "The Clansman", which is inspired by William Wallace, under "in popular culture". Evidence of this is present in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_XI#cite_ref-13.

Iron Maiden recorded the song "The Clansman", a reference to William Wallace, on their album Virtual XI.

2604:6000:1112:C029:0:358D:BD82:78AE (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 06:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2018
I added cittaions

In April 1298, Edward ordered a second invasion of Scotland. Two days prior to the battle 25,781 foot soldiers were paid. More than half of them would have been Welsh. There are no clear cut sources for the presence of cavalry, but it is safe to assume that Edward had roughly 1500 horse under his command.[21] They plundered Lothian and regained some castles, but failed to bring William Wallace to combat; the Scots shadowed the English army, intending to avoid battle until shortages of supplies and money forced Edward to withdraw, at which point the Scots would harass his retreat. The English quartermasters' failure to prepare for the expedition left morale and food supplies low, and a resulting riot within Edward's own army had to be put down by his cavalry. In July, while planning a return to Edinburgh for supplies, Edward received intelligence that the Scots were encamped nearby at Falkirk, and he moved quickly to engage them in the pitched battle he had long hoped for.[citation needed]

Wallace arranged his spearmen in four schiltrons—circular, defensive hedgehog formations, probably surrounded by wooden stakes connected with ropes, to keep the infantry in formation. The English, however, employed Welsh longbowmen, who swung strategic superiority in their favour. The English proceeded to attack with cavalry and put the Scottish archers to flight. The Scottish cavalry withdrew as well, due to its inferiority to the English heavy horses.[citation needed] Edward's men began to attack the schiltrons, which were still able to inflict heavy casualties on the English cavalry. It remains unclear whether the infantry shooting bolts, arrows and stones at the spearmen proved the deciding factor, although it is very likely that it was the arrows of Edward's bowmen. Gaps in the schiltrons soon appeared, and the English exploited these to crush the remaining resistance. The Scots lost many men, including John de Graham. Wallace escaped, though his military reputation suffered badly.[citation needed]

By September 1298, Wallace resigned as Guardian of Scotland in favour of Robert the Bruce, Earl of Carrick and future king, and John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, King John Balliol's nephew.[citation needed]

Details of Wallace's activities after this are vague, but there is some evidence that he left on a mission to the court of King Philip IV of France to plead the case for assistance in the Scottish struggle for independence. There is a surviving letter from the French king dated 7 November 1300 to his envoys in Rome demanding that they should help Sir William.[22] It also suggests that Wallace may have intended to travel to Rome, although it is not known if he did.[23] There is also a report from an English spy at a meeting of Scottish leaders, where they said Wallace was in France.[24]

By 1304 Wallace was back in Scotland, and involved in skirmishes at Happrew and Earnside.[citation needed] Bmwal (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I've added the references, but it would be appreciated if you could provide page numbers for each individual citation. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

warlike
sold me.

the concept of money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.163.70 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2020
There's a tiny mistake in Latin inscription: where it is written "nunqual" - it should be "nunquam": see e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_biographical_dictionary_of_eminent_Scotsmen,_vol_7.djvu/261 149.156.94.142 (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 16:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in William Wallace
I check pages listed in Category: Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in the wiki linked articles. I have found content for some of William Wallace's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dunbar116": From Stirling Castle: Dunbar, Sir Archibald H.,Bt., Scottish Kings – A Revised Chronology of Scottish History 1005–1625, Edinburgh, 1899: p. 116 From Berwick-upon-Tweed:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

War Criminal
Should 'war criminal' be added to the description. He was also charged with 'atrocities against civilians in war, sparing neither age nor sex, monk nor nun'. Those who did this during World War 2 e.t.c. have war criminal in their description so should this be added to the top line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.147.199.31 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * He was so charged, but he hardly received a fair trial. PatGallacher (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)