by Alan Young
Standing at a height of 113 ft, the Wallace Tower in Ayr was built in Gothic style in the 1830s and contains a statue of Wallace high up on the front. This is one of two statues of Wallace in the town, the other one being placed in a niche in a building in Newmarket Street in 1819.
Nationalism and Unionism could go hand in hand. According to this view, a Union profitable to Scotland had been achieved partly as a result of Wallace’s contribution to the resistance movement, which ultimately prevented the English conquest of Scotland. The names of prominent men who supported the Union and the building of Wallace memorials included the Earl of Elgin, who was to the fore when the movement to build the Wallace Monument started in 1856. His views expressed the opinion of many: ‘. . . that it is the successful struggle carried on under Bruce and Wallace, that it is that the Union between Scotland and England has not only been honourable to the former but profitable to the latter . . . that if the whole truth were to be told in this matter, we might show that England owes to Wallace and Bruce a debt of obligation only second to that which is due to them by Scotland’. (quoted by G. Morton, as cited in David McCrone, ‘Scotland – the Brand’, p. 45 in Images of Scotland, Journal of Scottish Education Occasional Paper No. 1). This notion of nationalism within the political framework of the United Kingdom remains a viewpoint supported by mainstream politics in the twentieth century. Both Bruce and Wallace are incorporated. In 1993, the Conservative ex-Secretary of State, Ian Lang, claimed that the Union of the nations of Scotland and England in 1707 was a legacy of Bannockburn. In 1997, the date 11 September (undoubtedly chosen to stir memories of William Wallace and his victory on that date at Stirling Bridge) was deemed appropriate for the great majority of the Scottish people to vote for a Scottish parliament (which they did).
This statue of William Wallace stands above the doorway of St Nicholas’ Church in Lanark. It dates from about 1820.
Detail from the Elderslie Wallace Monument, completed in 1912. This memorial celebrates the traditional birthplace of William Wallace and has often been the focus of rallies held by the Scottish Nationalist Party.
William Wallace has become a national symbol for Scotland and this has been acknowledged by political parties in general. From the nineteenth century to the present, Wallace has had widespread support across political parties and across class. To the working classes in nineteenth-century Scotland he came to represent the ‘common man’ fighting for freedom against oppression, while to the middle classes he came to personify a ‘middle-class’ hero who had saved the country from the folly of the aristocratic governing class. The legend and image of William Wallace have evolved from the fifteenth century and are still developing. In this context the film Braveheart (1995) represents not so much a twentieth-century expansion of the legend, a ‘Hollywood history’ version of William Wallace’s life, but a reversion to Blind Harry’s character, a late fifteenth-century two-dimensional Wallace. Based on Randall Wallace’s novel Braveheart (London, Signet, 1995), which in turn used Blind Harry’s The Wallace as its main source, Mel Gibson’s film Braveheart follows closely the legend created by Blind Harry. Not all details are the same though there are some significant similarities – the bridge at Stirling that played such a major role in the Scottish victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge did not feature in either Blind Harry’s poem or the film Braveheart. In general, however, the film represents a rather less exaggerated portrait of its hero than Blind Harry does. In the poem Wallace’s invasion of England reaches St Albans, whereas Braveheart’s Wallace only reaches York. Nevertheless, both accounts have strayed a long way from the footsteps of the real William Wallace.
The widespread success of Blind Harry’s The Wallace from the 1470s and the popular acclaim of the film Braveheart from 1995 to the present have combined to produce a very powerful image of one basic interpretation of William Wallace. It is very difficult, therefore, to reach beyond this to understand the many and varied layers of the legend and the complexities of a multi-faceted hero. Only an integrated study of Wallace that incorporates the views of thirteenth-century English chroniclers, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Scottish nationalist writers (where fact first starts to blend with legend), nineteenth-century nationalists and twentieth- and twenty-first-century commentators on William Wallace and his legend can hope to achieve a more complete picture of Wallace in history and legend.
Taking its name from the nearby abbey ruins at Cambuskenneth, the National Wallace Monument at Abbey Craig has become the focal point of both ‘Wallace tourism’ and Scottish nationalism since its opening in 1869.
2
PEASANT RASCAL OR NOBLE HERO?
Little is known about William Wallace’s family background and life before his sudden and dramatic appearance on the military and political stage in the summer of 1297. Lack of detail in the respected account of John of Fordun has led to much speculation about Wallace’s origins and, by implication, his motivation in 1297. According to Fordun:
The same year [1297], William Wallace lifted up his head from his den – as it were – and slew the English sheriff of Lanark . . . in the town of Lanark.
The chronicler goes on to make a brief but interesting comment about Wallace’s family:
. . . and, though, among the earls and lords of the kingdom, he was looked upon as low-born, yet his fathers rejoiced in the honour of knighthood.
Fordun later implied that William Wallace was a younger son and that his father was dead by 1297:
His elder brother, also, was girded with the knightly belt, and inherited a landed estate which was large enough for his station.
Andrew Wyntoun, writing in about 1420, also did little to conceal the relatively humble origins of William Wallace:
For he wes cummyn of gentilmen
In sympel state set he wes then.
Hys fadyre wes a manly knycht;
Hys modyre wes a lady brycht
Wallace’s own status, as well as that of his family, was given a boost by Walter Bower, which is hardly surprising given Bower’s role in the origins and development of the Wallace legend. According to Bower, William Wallace was already a knight when he first burst onto the political scene by killing the English Sheriff of Lanark: he came from ‘a distinguished family, with relatives who shone with knightly honour’. Bower also adds that William Wallace was ‘the son of the noble knight [Malcolm Wallace]’ and that he had an older brother called Andrew. The name ‘Malcolm’, however, was inserted after Bower’s time and may have been confused with the name of an older brother who was recorded as being present at a baronial council in 1299. The author of the Book of Pluscarden thought that William Wallace’s father was another William Wallace, while a later version of Bower recorded Andrew Wallace, Lord of Craigie (Ayrshire), as his father’s name. Recent discussion has centred on the legend surrounding the seal William Wallace attached to his (and Andrew Moray’s) letter to Lübeck and Hamburg (1297). The seal seems to read ‘Willelmi le Walays filii Alani’, i.e. William Wallace, son of Alan. The more contemporary English Lanercost chronicler records the fact that a brother of William Wallace, named John, met the same fate as his brother at the hands of the English. Confusion about the name of William Wallace’s father highlights, perhaps, the fact that members of his family were not major landowners and not part of the aristocratic governing class of Scotland. It is probably for this reason that Bower elevates the Wallace family’s status as far as he can but chooses rather to distract attention from its origins to describe, in great detail, William Wallace’s personal and physical qualities.
The traditional birthplace of Wallace’s father at Riccarton, Ayrshire, is marked by this plaque just outside the fire station. However, the name of Wallace’s father is disputed.
Following on from Bower, Blind Harry further bolstered William Wallace’s family origins:
Sir William Wallace, much renown’d in war;
Whose bold progenitors have long time stood,
Of honourable and true Scott
ish blood
And in first rank of ancient barons go
Old knights of Craigy, baronets [bannerets] also . . .
So much for the brave Wallace’s father’s side,
Nor will I here his mother’s kindred hide:
She was a lady most complete and bright,
The daughter of that honourable knight,
Sir Ronald Crawford, high sheriff of Ayr,
Who fondly doted on his charming fair,
Soon wedded was the lovely blooming she,
To Malcolm Wallace then of Ellerslie.
Thus in the development of John of Fordun’s comments that William Wallace was ‘looked upon as low-born’ among the earls and lords of the kingdom, by the end of the fifteenth century William Wallace had been raised to an acceptably aristocratic status.
By contrast, contemporary English sources emphasise his non-nobility. A song cited in the Lanercost Chronicle triumphs in the English success against Wallace at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) and draws attention to Wallace’s lowly origins: ‘The Scottish nation, basely led, hath fallen in the dust’. Another song from the same source rejoices in Wallace’s death in 1305 and contains a similar message: ‘Scotland! be wise, and choose a nobler chief’.
As has already been mentioned, the most extreme anti-Wallace sentiments have tended to originate in southern England and this also applies to English comments about William Wallace’s family background. According to the Rishanger Chronicle William Wallace was ‘sprung from low-born stock . . . an expert archer who made his living by bow and quiver’ (this view is corroborated by William Wallace’s use of a bow symbol in his 1297 seal – see p. 31). This was hardly a noble pursuit, and an extract from the Royal Manuscript complements this view and describes Wallace as a ‘peasant rascal from nowhere’. Both fifteenth-century Scottish nationalist writers and biased contemporary English chroniclers produce exaggerated propagandist stances. There is, however, some common ground between Fordun and the English chroniclers – the nearest to contemporary Scottish source (Fordun) and English concurrent writers agree that William Wallace did not belong to the aristocratic governing elites, which controlled political offices in both England and Scotland.
A great many details about the Wallaces are missing because of the limited land they held. Property transactions provide historians with valuable clues about family relationships and the extent of noble landowning. Therefore, the most obvious next step is to examine the family who were overlords to the Wallaces, the Stewarts. This clan became a major noble family in Scotland during the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Originally the Stewarts were a Breton family – Walter Fitz Alan, the first of the Stewarts of Scotland was the third son of Alan, son of Flaald, son of Alan, son of Flaald. They had been stewards of the lords of Dol in Brittany. The Fitz Alans were closely attached to the household of Henry, youngest son of William the Conqueror, who became King of England in 1100, reigning until 1135. The family benefited from Henry I’s patronage, just as the Wallaces did from the support of the Stewarts. The eldest member of the Fitz Alan family, Jordan, inherited the lands in Brittany, the second, William, gained much land in England, especially in Shropshire and Sussex. The third and youngest son, Walter, held the least land, some in Shropshire some near Arundel, but like many younger sons moved to seek his fortune elsewhere – in his case, Scotland.
Dumbarton Castle on the north shore of the Clyde.
THE STEWARTS
The Stewart family, like the Comyns and Morays, benefited from Scottish royal patronage in the twelfth century. With their hereditary position as Steward of Scotland and large estates, especially in western Scotland (Renfrewshire, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire), derived from royal grants to Walter Fitz Alan, first ‘Steward’ of Scotland c. 1136–77, the Stewarts were a powerful group by 1200. The Scottish crown in the thirteenth century continued to be dependent on its magnates for wielding royal power and authority in the provinces – the Stewarts were at the forefront of the Scottish monarchy’s attempt to extend, consolidate and define royal authority in the west of the country.
Paisley Abbey. It was only raised to the rank of an abbey in 1245, and its promotion mirrors the ascendancy of the Stewart family, the founders of the abbey in about 1163, during the thirteenth century. The abbey was burnt by the English in 1307.
Alexander Stewart, the head of the main branch of the family, command-ed the Scottish army against the Norwegian forces of Hakon IV at the Battle of Largs in 1263. Walter Stewart gained the earldom of Menteith in 1260–1 and by 1262 had extended his influence, through royal authority, into Knapdale and Arran, at the expense of the MacSweens. He probably also ousted the Bissets from Arran. The Stewarts controlled the sheriffdoms of Ayr and Dumbarton for much of the period from the 1260s to the 1280s. The Stewarts would be greatly disadvantaged if Scottish kingship lost independence and, therefore, its powers of patronage. The Stewarts were not ready, however, during William Wallace’s lifetime, to back the dynastic ambitions of the Bruces to whom they were linked through locality (south-west Scotland) and marriage (by 1261). They did eventually (by 1307) support Robert Bruce’s coup of 1306. Their alliance with the Bruces was further consolidated by the marriage, in 1315, of Marjorie, Robert Bruce’s daughter, to Walter Stewart. The Stewart dynasty originated from this union in 1371.
Dundonald Castle. Little survives of this thirteenth-century castle of the Stewarts. The present remains, the tower house, date mainly from the fourteenth century. When Robert II (Stewart) became King in 1371 he had it rebuilt. Dundonald was probably the head of the Kyle Stewart group of estates in Ayrshire.
David I, King of Scots (1124–53), had been a close friend of Henry I and between 1093 and 1107 he had spent much time at the courts of William Rufus and Henry I. The influence of the Anglo-Norman court and Anglo-Norman society, according to the rather prejudiced southern commentary of William of Malmesbury, ‘rubbed off all the tarnish of Scottish barbarism’. David was, in fact, knighted by Henry I. What is especially significant for the history of the Fitz Alans and, in turn, the Wallace family was that David I ‘naturally identified improvement with adaptation to the Norman institutions he knew so well’ (R.L.G. Ritchie, The Normans in Scotland [Edinburgh University, 1954]). His reign saw the introduction of Norman-French families into key positions in the Scottish royal household, and as a result Walter Fitz Alan was given the office of Steward as a hereditary position in about 1136. William Cumin became Chancellor of Scotland at about the same time after training as a clerk in Henry I’s royal chancery. By 1140 Hugh Moreville had become royal Constable in Scotland. Other Norman families were brought into Scotland to fulfil specific roles. The Bruces, in the person of the first Robert Bruce, were presented by David I with the lordship of Annandale in south-west Scotland as early as 1124. This was to help the Scottish king define his authority in this area of Scotland, a notoriously separatist region. All of these Norman-French families were well rewarded with extensive landed possessions for their respective roles.
Walter Fitz Alan, being the first ‘Stewart’ in Scotland, was the originator of the Stewart ‘empire’ in Scotland. He served three successive Scottish kings, David I, Malcolm IV and William I, until his death in 1177. Professor G.W.S. Barrow has meticulously charted the build-up of this ‘empire’ in his books The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980) and The Kingdom of the Scots: Government, Church and Society from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century (London, Edward Arnold, 1973), and much of the following section is derived from his work.
The chief base for the early Stewarts was Renfrewshire with Renfrew, its castle and burgh, at its heart. The Stewart presence here was consolidated in 1163 when Walter the Stewart founded a religious house of Cluniac monks brought from the Fitz Alan family’s monastic foundation at Much Wenlock in Shropshire. In 1169, this religious community moved from Renfrew to the valley of the River Cart at Paisley. Paisley Abbey became the special ‘family’ monastery of the Stewarts. Walte
r the first Stewart possessed a large part of the parish of Paisley. Apart from land in Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, the early Stewarts had property in Ayrshire, especially Kyle Stewart. The main headquarters here was probably Dundonald with its castle. Other important centres in Ayrshire were Prestwick, Sanquhar, Tarbolton, Craigie and Riccarton. Other Stewart lands included territory in East Lothian, Roxburghshire and Berwickshire. Just as the Fitz Alans had benefited from the patronage of Henry I, so the new Scottish ‘empire’ of the Scottish branch of the Fitz Alan family (who became known as the Stewarts) was in turn able to give better prospects to a large number of their dependants and tenants. Professor Barrow has noted that a sizeable number of Fitz Alan henchmen came to Scotland from Shropshire and the Welsh marcher area – these included the Hosés from Albright Hussey, Robert of ‘Montgomery’, Robert Hunald from Marchamley, Stephen Kinnerley from Great or Little Ness and the Constantine family from Eaton Constantine. Within this group of Stewart dependants were the Wallace family.
The origins of the Wallace family are not known but the number of Wallaces to be found in twelfth-century Shropshire suggests that the investigation should begin there. The name is not a territorial name but a nickname meaning ‘the Welshman’. It was written ‘Walays’ by William Wallace himself, ‘le Waleys’ by contemporaries. This does not, necessarily, indicate that the Wallaces were Welsh; it probably has a more general meaning ‘from the Welsh marches’. Professor Barrow has tentatively suggested that the Wallace family may have been the same as the Ness family, i.e. the family called ‘of Ness’ (Great or Little Ness, Salop). There are strong resemblances between the personal names of the two families, both came to Scotland from Shropshire and were under the patronage of the early Stewarts. Such proof is not conclusive, however, and perhaps attention should focus more closely on the known links between the Wallaces and the Fitz Alans.