Talk:William Wallace/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wallace with origins in Kyle

Another little-known controversy regarding Wallace's origins concerns his proposed residence in Kyle (Blackcraig, Strathclyde).Adraeus 22:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Tradition offers evidence that William Wallace was a Kyle resident:

Bot efter he made his dwelling in Comnok in his owen contrie, wheir he was borne, altho the Englishmen as yitt was masteris thaire. ... Then William Wallace keiping a royall howse in Comnok withe a garisone of michtie men.

— Alexander Brunton

The first extract refers to Wallace's return to his dwelling in Cumnock, after the murder of his wife by the Sheriff of Lanark. Brunton appears to suggest that Wallace was born at this dwelling. However, 'his owen contrie, wheir he was borne' is probably a general reference to the "contrie" of Kyle. The second extract reinforces Dr. Watson's observations that Brunton's story is similar to that of Blind Harry, with Wallace and his bodyguard returning to Wallace's crown lands at Cumnock, i.e. to Harry's Black Crag.When and how William Wallace came to have his home at the Blackcraig, New Cumnock is unknown. If Blackcraig is the crown property of his father's tenancy then the possibility of Wallace being born there cannot be dismissed, despite the list of assumptions growing, i.e. Alan was William's father; Alan was a crown tenant at Black Crag, Cumnock; Black Crag is Blackcraig; Blackcraig was crown land and not part of Earl of Dunbar's barony of Cumnock in the late 13th century. The last assumption suffers a 16th century setback. For at this time the four-merk land of Blackcraig along with a host of other properties in Glen Afton, was in the barony of Cumnock, and was held by the Dunbars of Cumnock and Mochrum, descendants of Patrick, Earl of Dunbar.

Following the re-discovery of William Wallace's seal in 1999, the Ayrshire case has began to gather momentum. The seal identifies Wallace as the son of Alan Wallace and not Malcolm and Alan Wallace appears in the Ragman Roll of 1296 as a 'crown tenant in Ayrshire'.Dr. Fiona Watson in 'A Report into Sir William Wallace's connections with Ayrshire' (March 1999), carries out a detailed reassessment of William Wallace's early years and concludes 'Sir William Wallace was a younger son of Alan Wallace, a crown tenant in Ayrshire'. On reading this report the renowned Wallace historian, Andrew Fisher, concedes 'If the Alan of the Ragman Roll was indeed the patriot's father, then the current argument in favour of an Ayrshire rather than a Renfrewshire origin for Wallace can be settled' . The historian John Major referred to Wallace - albeit more than 200 years after this death - as the "King of Kyle."

The name Wallace, or Wallensis, derives from the Welsh speaking people of Strathclyde (an area which included Kyle).

When Robert Bruce reestablished Scottish independence, in part through the great battle of Bannockburn in 1314, histories relate that great numbers of his soldiers were from nearby Ayr, Kyle being the third district to join his cause after Carrick and Galloway, Bruce’s native home. On 26th April 1315, Ayr saw the first meeting of a Scottish Parliament since the battle of Bannockburn in 1314. As part of the struggle, Thomas Bruce, who claimed close kinship with the royal house, organized with Robert the Steward (later Robert II) a rising in Kyle against the English in 1334. He received in recompense part of the Crown lands of Clackmannan.

---

Source: http://www.kylesociety.org/Kyle_NameHistory.htm

---

Wallace's Sword

The last section in the article talks about Wallace's sword being moved from Englad for a display in 2005. Is this the same discredited sword (ie: not Wallace's sword) mentioned previously in the article? Or is it the real sword that somehow escaped mentioned in the body of the article? Some clarification would probably be good. The various two-handed swords asociated with Wallace are much later artifacts; such weapons did not become popular until the nlater part of the 15th century. In Wallace's time fighting on horseback with lance and shield was the normal practice.

Was William Wallace a giant?

According to the Scotichronicon c. 1445, Wallace was a man "with the body of a giant." Though no height is given.

I've heard different claims made that he was over 6 feet 7 inches tall; partially based upon the fact that his "alleged" sword was 5 1/2 feet long--hence only a person of gigantic size could wield it. Certainly 140 years is enough time for politically inspired myths such as the Scotichronicon to develop. But I am truly curious as to how tall the man really was. Any thoughts?

Indeed. I'm very sceptical about this myself. Our knowledge of Wallace is rather limited, I don't see how we can know how tall he was. Even with the Scottish kings, who are rather better documented than Wallace, the first king who we know what he looked like is James II of Scotland, 5 generations after Wallace, of who we have a rather crude drawing. PatGallacher 02:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) There is no depiction of Wallace from his own lifetime, regardless of the 'crude drawing'. CsinC

• I was once at a Highland Festival. They had an exact reproduction of Uncle Will's sword. The sword and I were exactly the same height 5 ft 6 inches. I got the opportunity to wield it. There is no way I could fight with a sword of that size. It would be impossible. Uncle Will was at least 6 feet 6 inches in height to use such a sword in battle. Anyone who is familiar with Pro Wrestling of today, I suspect Uncle Will was about the size of Kane or The Undertaker. They are both about 6 feet 10 inches in height and both go just over 300 pounds. That is how I picture Uncle Will. --Bookofsecrets 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no historical record of either Wallace's height of his sword, but we can be confident that he carried a weapon typical of his time. Scottish claymores did not come into use until Wallace had ben dead for 200 years.

Well, we can assume he was not overly small, because of such legends. He was a Highland Scot, so he was probably over 6 feet. His sword was probably bigger than normal, though maybe not 5 1/2 ft. I know some Wallaces today, and they are rather big fellows, though they bear much more resemblance to Williams Axe-wielding friend from Braveheart. The Wallaces were/are known for their red hair, as well. Canaen 07:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Wallace was from Ayrshire or Renfrewshire, neither of which is remotely 'highland'.

• One of my relatives from Scotland has seen his claymore many times on display and it is 66 inches in length. Many Wallace's, even today, have redish hair. One of my 2nd cousins is 7 ft tall and may go 325 pounds. I'd say he's pretty close to being the size of Uncle Will.--Bookofsecrets 02:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your realticve has never seen Wallace's sword, however many times he has been to the Wallace monument. The weapon on display there is of 16th century provenance, CsinC.

additional comment on the wallace monument sword: as mentioned by CsinC, the sword is notable for having complex quillions characteristic of the mid 16th century, and similar sword proportions are found in the mid 16th century among the Germanic landschnechts, among whom such weapons, both straight bladed and flamboyant were used in close-knit formation against opposing pikes. Furthermore, comments that "only a giant could wield such a sword" are entirely unfounded. Western European martial arts, from lichtenaur school onwards have shown in the last 2 decades that the body mechanics for the use of such weapons are perfectly practical for people of average height - for the type of use the sword was used for - that of close-knit pike defence in formation. While it is *possible* that the Wallace sword was the original blade, re-hilted in the mid 16th century, the hilt proportions - specifically the length of tang to fit hilt and pommel, if referenced against the studies of sword typography by the late Ewart Oakeshott, suggest that the blade has probably not been remounted. (JE. not a registered user,sorry, 20:44, 27Jan 2009 (GMT))

He was a Highland Scot, so he was probably over 6 feet. Were Highlanders actually especially tall? Anyway, he was a lowlander, wasn't he?garik 00:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

He was, yes, but there are always exceptions. Augustulus 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wallace was not a Highlander, but lowland. May I suggest that "highlander be avoided as it is a very loaded connotation, thanks to hollywood... Technically, he was'nt even lowlander, as his family were norman knights invited to settle scotland a few generations earlier. (JE. not a registered user,sorry, 20:46, 27Jan 2009 (GMT))

I know just one Wallace, he is football player Ross Wallace, has black hair and is about 5feet and 5 inches, normal height of Wallace family.YESYESandmanygoals 09:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical your 'uncle' was likeable to a 7'0" 300lb 'roid fiend. It was, after all, the 1200s. People were smaller. The average male in northern europe was around 170cm (5'7) in the 13th century (which is the average male height in China today). Today the average male in the UK is about 9cm taller, in the 178-179 range. There's a good academic article linked on the human height page about historic average heights. So even if Scotish men grow over 6' today on average, they probably weren't as tall back then. His armour would be way more helpful than his sword, they should've kept that instead. —Precedingunsignedcomment added by 69.168.144.142 (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Execution

If no one has any objections, I will change "He was strangled by hanging, but released near death, emasculated, drawn and quartered, and beheaded, rendering..." to "He was then drawn and quartered..." If you refer to the drawing and quartering wiki article, you will learn that the drawing and quartering process entails the hanging, emasculation, the quartering, and the beheading, and this would therefore simplify the description of the execution. Any objections? --Mccluret 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The average reader won't expect drawing and quartering to include all of those things, so I think we might as well leave most of it in.Canaen 07:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• The purpose of this form of execution came about through the old beliefs that if a person isn't laid to rest in one piece, they cannot cross over into Summerland or Nirvana. It is too keep their spirit here on the Earth plain. --Bookofsecrets 03:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Did they have summerland and nirvana back then? Or the "Earth plain"? --AimeeLee 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. They may have had a different name for it but the end result is the same.--Bookofsecrets 04:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the different name was "Heaven". The Scots and English at the time were steeped in hundreds of years of Christianity, so the idea of quartering the body would be couched in "Christian" terms.Camillus (talk) 10:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One thought - the use of 'evisceration' is not entirely accurate. Evisceration implies removal of the skin. Disembowelment is the correct termUser:ThadRyan

Evisceration refers to the removal of the viscera which are the internal organs. Removal of the skin is flaying. I would say that evisceration and disembowelment are near enough to be synonymous.

There is evidence to suggest that he was tall that is stated in James Mackays book (Wallaces Biography)that the gallows built for Wallace were larger than normal due to his exceptional height, this being from contemporary Engilsh chroniclers.

Aberdeen?

An anon added Aberdeen as one of the locations where Wallace's body parts where displayed. I may be wrong, but as his body was "quartered", I suspect that the addition of this fifth place may be questionable? Camillus (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably. Adraeus 11:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, after someone was 'quartered' there would be five body parts to display - you're forgetting that the head was kept whole and separated from the body, so there are four body 'pieces' plus the head.195.188.208.251 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

His head was put on display on London Bridge, as a warning. Wakata —Precedingunsigned comment added by 76.174.114.228 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Great Cause and Other Matters.

As elsewhere- ((Robert Bruce, 5th Lord of Annandale)-I've corrected here a serious-and all too common-misconception about the Great Cause. Although Edward insisted that he be recognized as Lord Paramount of Scotland, the feudal court at Berwick was conducted in a fair, open and legal manner. Both John Balliol and Robert Bruce, as the leading claimants, were allowed to appoint forty arbiters each, to which number Edward added twenty-four of his own. It was these arbiters who decided in favour of John Balliol, because he had the superior claim as the descendant of the eldest daughter of David of Huntingdon: even twenty-nine of Bruce's own arbiters voted in his favour. Edward then gave judgement in Balliol's favour. The English King's later use -and misuse- of the feudal concessions he had gained in the whole process should not detract from these simple facts.

There are some other matters of fact with which to take issue.

Did Pope Boniface really give Edward a medal for the massacre at Berwick? If so, this is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing. I've removed the reference because, quite frankly, I believe it to be absurd. The Vatican has been responsible for many crimes and misdemeanours throughout its long history; but I do not believe that any pope, even a pope as controversial as Boniface, would have awarded a medal for a wholesale massacre. Please cite your source for this piece of information; otherwise leave well alone. Also where in Gascony, I would be interested to know, did Boniface keep his court?

Edward was not present at the battle of Dunbar.

There seems to be a serious failure to grasp the key to the Scottish victory at Stirling Bridge. I know of no reliable account of the battle which says the Scots fought the English on both banks of the River Forth; if they had their army would almost certainly have been destroyed. The Bridge was a bottleneck which slowed the progress of the English army to a trickle. Wallace and Moray won because Surrey was unable to deploy his whole army: those on the south bank could not cross the bridge fast enough to aid those under attack in the north. That portion of Surrey's army unaffected by the attack later retired in good order. The Scots victory, impressive as it was, remained partial rather than 'overwhelming.'

I have little doubt that Wallace's 'pride' did suffer as a result of the defeat at Falkirk, but I don't think it is objective or historical to make reference to this; unless, of course, his diary notes are in safe keeping, along with Pope Boniface's Massacre Award?

Rcpaterson 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wallace sword.

There is confusion on the length of Wallaces supposed sword because of the modern concept of sword fighting and the influence of far eastern movies etc. The sword was either used in conjunction with the shield i. blows were accepted or parried by the shield and the sword then wielded to strike at the opponent, they rarely 'fenced', often the sheer volume of people around the swordsman made thius impossible and so the weapon was used to stab around the shiled which held back the opponent, the short roman swoord is an ideal weapon for this. The leaders would often be back from the press and they would have a 'two handed' sword. This is a very lonf weapon which is held in both hands and it is simply swung around the body in great arcs to keep the enemy away out of stabbing distance. It was often ceremonial, oversized to represent power and this can be seen at the opening of the British Parliament when the Queens Champion enters holding a hugetwo handed sword in front of him. The size of the sword therefore does not mean neccessarily that the person was of any great height. Though tall people were around in the 1200,s they were rare, stone coffins, the height of doorways in old buildings etc would duggest the norm to have been nearer to 5ft 4 to 5ft 6ins.

Major John Huggins Royal Anglian Regiment (retrd)

While I tend to agree with the majority of this, I know from experience that a 5'5" man carrying around a 5'5" (or thereabouts) sword is pretty silly looking, not to mention awkward, and incredibly inconvenient. The back-scabbards were used to make this more convenient. Nevertheless, a man and sword of the same length still allows the tip to interfere with the heels when walking. Mounting the scabbard high on one's back only makes it more difficult to remove the sword from the scabbard. The only resolution is to just be a taller man, the taller the better. BTW, the two-handed broadswords were used not only to keep the enemy at swords length, but they served wonderfully in taking the legs from beneath cavalry.

A couple of points here....Two-handed swords were not part of the armoury of 13/14th century men-at-arms - how would you deap with your horse and your shiled if both hands were needed for your sword? Also; the primary battlefield weapon was the spear or lance regradless of class or station. If there had been a practice of 'rear=rank' men wielding massive swords we can be pretty confidentr that medieval writers would have mentioned it, but they do not, so where does the suggestion come from in the first place? Historical novels? As for 'taking out' horses legs from under them? Againd, we should expect that medieval sources would mention this. Finally, has anyone seen a 13/14th century depiction of a man with a 'back-scabbard'? Or read a 13/14th century description of one?

An essay about the puported Wallace sword can be found at [1]. It also claims that men of 5'7" can wield swords longer than Wallace's. Gwinva 11:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Just another thing to add to the melting pot regarding Wallace's height. Medieval men were not significantly shorter than modern men. A study of a London urban skeletons puts the average at 5'8" for a man, and 5'2" for a woman (ref: John Clark, The Medieval Horse and its Equipment The Boydell Press, 2004, quoting a 1988 study by WJ White; to be fair, the source gives no specific date within the medieval period). A well-nourished, athletic knight would probably exceed the average. Compare this with the modern man. Discussions of doorway heights are irrelevant: low doorways were an architectural custom, arising out of defensive structures (ie. ducking ones head to enter a room puts you at a disadvantage). Forget late medieval beds, also: they were shortened when it became custom to sleep sitting up. Gwinva 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"...at first cleansing the countryside"

"In the six months following Stirling Bridge, Wallace led a force to York, at first cleansing the countryside..."

This is such a touching reference to genocide that I cannot let it pass. If you're going to write history then you're going to have to stop making weasel comments excusing wanton killing of civilians whose only crime was to be born English. If I remember rightly, Mel Gibson's "Braveheart" did the same trick of mentioning this ethnic cleansing as a segue between scenes. It's just as morally reprehensible as the English doing this to the Scots, or Serbs doing this to Croats or CROATS DOING THIS TO SERBS...you get the idea.

On the other hand, if you're writing blatent propaganda then this is as good a place as any. I'm sure that Wikipedia's admins will support you, because they don't know any better. --86.138.65.171 16:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Mel Gibson was supportive of the massacre of innocent people ... and I'm not sure Wallace went all the way to York. BY THE WAY I AM A COMPLETE DICKHEAD -Augustulus

You clearly don't think at all. The line was clearly in the film, and Gibson has never mentioned his beliefs on what it meant one way or the other.

By the way, don't edit other people's discussion as you did with the CAPITALIZED part above, and then it won't happen to you. Just sayin'--86.131.103.166 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Article Itself!

Would it be possible to find someone, who not only knows Scottish history, but who also knows how to write English, and ask that person to rewrite the page? The structure, as it stands, is positively Byzantine; words like "cowardly," "outrage" and "underhand tactics" do not belong in an encyclopedia; and indeed, the writer could be suspected of anti-Scottish, or at least anti-Wallace, prejudice by some of his sentences. Many of these represent his own value-judgements rather than facts disclosed by scholarly research! Also, a better distinction could be made between Blind Harry's literary work and the fruits of that scholarly research.PeadarMaguidhir 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

My December 2005 rewrite was probably the most significant edition of this article.

• Regarding your claims that the writer is "anti-Scottish", let me set the record straight. I'm a fifth-generation Scottish-American who professionally composes original Scottish Celtic music. As part of my cultural identity, I have a great deal of respect and love for Scotland, and so I study the history of Scotland in depth to connect with, at least, the spirit of my family's origins.
• The sources listed in the bibliography were used, which includes several scholarly research materials.
• While the myth of William Wallace pervades popular fancy as Scotland's hero, the reality is that William Wallace was a thug. Wallace was most certainly Scotland's Robin Hood.
• That said, I didn't use the words you mentioned in my edition I've actually been quite impressed with the article since my rewrite. I think you read this article after it was anonymously vandalized.

Adraeus 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting read, but I think that the Blind Harry legend needs to be seperated from known fact.—Precedingunsigned comment added by 65.28.73.217 (talk)

Intro

How about an intro paragraph?? --Fang Aili ^talk 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest "Born in Blood" by John J. Robinson Just a Traveling Man 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Anti-Catholic Bigotry or Mere Oversight?

Wallace’s religion is not listed. Why not? I tried to add it but Wikipedia isn’t allowing it. What’s this about? Ancilla Indigna of Wallace (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Religion is no longer listed in most personal infoboxes. It's only included in infoboxes where religion is of particular, obvious and unambiguous relevance. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth noting in the 1200s catholic was the only christian option in western Europe as there was no such thing as Protestantism then and christianity was the only religion around in the British Isles so. Mtpaley (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Language

The article gives a Gaelic and a Norman form of Wallace's name, but otherwise nothing is said about Wallace's own language(s ?) or cultural background, level of education, etc. Surely something can be said on this point? It ought to have attracted scholarly attention. GPinkerton (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

According to one popular history "Who Are the Scots?", albeit written a while ago and some parts may have been superseded, Wallace and his men would have spoken Lowland Scots. We probably just don't know much about his education etc.. PatGallacher (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

That was my thinking, but at present the article is very coy about languages and plonks Gaelic and Norman at the first and then breathes no more about them, and we get some vague allusions to Cumbric in the dim mists of the before-time. Shouldn't there at least be a Scots version of his name, as used in his own millieu, and couldn't we add a sentence of two about the general cultural situation of Scotland in Wallace's day? GPinkerton (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look at this, Andrew of Wyntoun, a relatively contemporary source, calls him Willame Walays, Blind Harry isn't even consistent, calling him Wilyham Wallas, Wilyhame, Willyham Wallace. Might need expert attention, but this doesn't suggest a pronunciation very different from modern English. It would also be interesting to see the version of his name on the Lubeck letter, could be Norman French version. PatGallacher (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

If there're international letters to his name, isn't Latin a likely candidate? (I don't know much about this.) Gulielmus? And who wrote the letter? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly his (actual) contemporary Gaelic name 'Uilleam Breathnach' literally translates as 'William the Briton/Welshman/Foreigner'. I'm curious as to why that isn't included instead of the rather erroneous modern Gaelic term. I guess we all know the reason.

Do you have a source for that? PatGallacher (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@PatGallacher: this book states his surname as Uallas with Breatnach being how his warriors identified him, but I'm seeing sources from the 19th century that list his name as Uilleam Uallas book from 1867 CiphriusKane (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

Meerkat67 (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Historians believe William Wallace was imprisoned at Dumbarton Castle after his arrest at Robroysten by Sir John Menteith before being sent to London to be executed in 1305

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

=============

Historians believe William Wallace was imprisoned at Dumbarton Castle after his arrest at Robroysten by Sir John Menteith before being sent to London to be executed in 1305

=============

Hi,, the line above has been documented by historians rigorously...namely here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/dumbarton-castles-new-links-wallace-2553438

It is of course not fact but kinda makes sense he was taken to Dumbarton Castle first considering the long journey and organisation of his journey to smithfield and also fact his apparant sword was also kept at Dumbarton castle,i am a little sceptical of this myself to be ohnest as Longshanks may have asked for Wallace to be taken straight to Smithfield once captured to avoid an uprising or being saved from English custody on route to smithfield.

It would sit somewhere in the Capture and Execution section if allowed

There is also the wallace oak debate where Wallace was chained to an oak tree before his final journey to smithfield but i wont go there..

Many thanks

Stephen

We cannot rule out the possibility that he was held in Dumbarton Castle, but we cannot just say it "kinda makes sense". This source from 2012 strikes me as highly speculative, if there was much in it we would have heard more about it by now. PatGallacher (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022

William Wallace is also a general in the online game Evony - The Kings Return. https://www.evonytkrguide.com/generals/william-wallace Thefuzz322 (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs independent, secondary sourcing to show that it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Heads

So I found some new info on whose heads were displayed on London Bridge with Wallace's. The original (unsourced) content included "his brother John" which is supported by the source I cite, and i initially removed the name, but other sources seems vague on their relationship. I did reinsert it. Matuko (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

William the Briton

Can there really be a doubt that William was perceived as 'Welsh' (in the modern understanding, or in contemporary terms, 'British') in his time due to his Gaelic name (and his English name). It seems like William's struggle was more about the distinct Brittonic identity of Strathclyde (which seems to have still existed at the time of his uprising, albeit greatly diminished) exercising a last stand as their language and culture continued to decline all around them. 89.242.67.94 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

No, this is pseudohistorical nonsense, show us some reliable sources. PatGallacher (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

How is it pseudohistorical nonsense exactly. His contemporary Gaelic name is literally 'Uilleam Breatnach' (William the Briton). Wallace as a surname literally comes from the same root word as modern 'Welsh' (Proto-Germanic Walhaz). Forgive my attempt at spelling Proto-Germanic and Gaelic words, I'm doing it based off of recall right now and not bothering to look up the exact spelling.

Seriously what exactly are you calling pseudohistorical nonsense here? The fact that Strathclyde was a distinct Brittonic region right into the 12th ans 13th centuries? Or that Wallace's recorded names all translate as 'Briton/Welsh/' etc.? 89.242.67.94 (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that your surname literally means 'Foreigner' in Gaelic itself. So while I'm sure you think you're Irish or at least of Irish or Gaelic descent today... the historical Gaels clearly considered your ancestors anything but. 89.242.67.94 (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Information in the Clan Crawford Association website indicates that William Wallace’s mother was Margaret Crawford of Ayrshire [a Scot]. If William’s father, Adam Wallace [not Alan], was Welsh, William was born and raised in Scotland. Please refer to the Early Crawford Lineage family tree on the Clan Crawford Association website. JanisCrawfordPollard (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

Approval to use this information would be obtained by contacting the Clan Crawford Association at info@clancrawfordassoc.org.

The Wikipedia article on William Wallace currently states that little is known about his family background. I would like to share that the Clan Crawford Association, on their webpage clancrawfordassoc.org indicates that William Wallace’s mother was a Margaret Crawford, sister to Reginald Crawford the 4th Sheriff of Ayr appointed in 1296 by King Edward I of England. Margaret was the daughter of Hugh Crawford the third Sheriff of Ayr. His father was also called Hugh and was second Sheriff of Ayr. The first Sheriff of Ayr was Hugh’s father, Reginald Crawford who married Margaret Loudon. The Clan website family tree of the Early Crawford Lineage also shows that Reginald’s father was also called Hugh. He was the son of Galfridus Crawford who was the son on John of Crawfordjohn. John’s father was Reginald of Crawfordjohn. His father was Galfridus Swanson of Crawford who was the son of Swene Thorson of Swinton. Scene’s father was Thorlongus of the Merse (Ednam). The Clan indicates that their family tree of the Early Crawford Lineage was reconstructed by Kevan Crawford, “mostly deriving from George Crawford’s “Laura’s Crawfordiana”, abbey donation documents, and secondary sources.” Records from more recent times, especially those surrounding the Sheriffs of Ayr are likely more accurate. According to the Clan Crawford, “Reginald was the brother of Margaret, the mother of William Wallace. He risked his life and the lives of his family to provide protection from the English to his nephew, William Wallace. After years of running interference as the situation spun out of control, his lands were forfeited, and a year later he was captured and according to Blind Hary, paid with his life….” - clancrawfordassoc.org

Regarding William Wallace’s mother, the Clan states “Margaret Crauford (~1250 – 1296?)

Margaret Crauford, great granddaughter of Sir Reginald Crawford (the 1st Sheriff of Ayr), daughter of Hugh Crauford (3rd in the Loudoun Crawford line), sister of Sir Reginald (the 1296 Sheriff of Ayr), was the mother of William Wallace, the great Scottish patriot. We know little of her life, except that she married Adam (not Alan) Wallace and gave birth to the hero — at least that is the tradition. The fullest treatment of her life and Wallace’s Crauford relations is found in Blind Hary’s “The Wallace”. Little is found in historical documents, and we do not know how accurate is Blind Hary’s account. Thus a well loved heroine, she is an enigmatic but vibrant figure of Scottish folklore.”- clancrawfordassoc.org excerpt made 3/5/2023

I hope this information is helpful. It is certainly more complete than what is currently in the Wikipedia article on William Wallace.

- Janis Crawford Pollard

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I would not regard clan websites as a reliable source in this context. I am aware that there is a tradition that Wallace's mother was a Crawford, but there's a lot of legends of doubtful historicity surrounding Wallace. PatGallacher (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Burial

William Wallace was hung drawn and quartered and the different Body parts were taken to different locations.

King Edward saw to it that no worship would take place for Wallace’s body, and therefore had his head put on display at London Bridge, and the four quarters placed in Stirling, Aberdeen, Berwick and Newcastle as a threat to any other opponents

ChefBear01 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Marion Braidfute in infobox

As Braidfute's existence has long since been disputed, with even the infobox generously saying "supposed" in parentheses, is it even worth mentioning her in the infobox? BOTTO _(T•C) 03:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Dispute this 2600:6C40:5E00:777:15EB:80B7:30DD:B943 (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Miss you 2600:6C40:5E00:777:15EB:80B7:30DD:B943 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

semi-protected edit request on April 12 2023

In "In popular culture" under "gaming", add: Wallace is a role playing adventure written by Jason Duff and published in 2020 by Earl of Fife Games for their tabletop game system Heroes and Hardships. Players take on roles as supporters of Scotland's war for independence.

Source: Game is sold online here: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/323627/Heroes--Hardships-Wallace ColoradoGM (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"The nobles surrendered at Irvine"

The implications, or possibly more than an implication, that all nobles surrendered at Irvine is simply false. Andrew de Moray for one did not capitulate. Several of the nobles who were at Irvine, principally Bruce and Douglas, immediately violated the terms of the capitulation, hiding their children whom the English demanded as hostages. It is not clear from the records where Marjory Bruce was hidden, but William the Hardi sent his eldest son, James, to France. A more accurate passage would be something along the lines of "Some nobles, including Robert the Bruce and William Douglas, capitulated at Irvine after lengthy negations. However, they immediately violated the terms of the capitulation, sending into hiding their children who would have been hostages for their good behaviour." There is a fairly widespread belief that they were merely delaying the English and buying time for Moray and Wallace, but there is no way to be sure what their motivations were. 50.38.12.191 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It says Moray and Wallace didn't submit. Your text is an unnecessary and unsourced digression. This article is about Wallace. DeCausa (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate information

It has been proven that William Wallace was born not in Elderslie but Elerslie in Ayrshire. 46.64.21.235 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that? DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)