Robert the Bruce's heart
sa...@inforamp.net
LONDON (AP) _ Just call him Braveheart II.
Scottish conservationists think they have found the mummified
heart of Robert the Bruce, the legendary 14th-century Scottish king
who heroically resisted the English and won independence for his
native land.
Discovered in a medieval casket, the heart proves that Bruce's
supporters honored his dying wish to be buried at Melrose Abbey in
the southeastern corner of Scotland, conservationists said Monday.
``It is a very important artifact,'' said Doreen Grove,
inspector of ancient monuments at Historic Scotland, the government
conservation group that investigated the find.
Grove said the king who took up the independence battle from
William ``Braveheart'' Wallace will finally get a proper memorial
in the abbey grounds, 667 years after he died.
``This has not been a waste of time if we can perform the burial
of one of Scotland's heroes,'' she said.
Until now, there has been only a sign stating that Bruce's heart
had been buried somewhere on the abbey's grounds. Bruce's bones are
buried at Dunfermline, 15 miles north of Edinburgh.
Although the find is not considered momentous in archeological
terms, Historic Scotland says it is highly significant for
Scotland's heritage.
A relic of one of Scotland's favorite sons could also provide
another rallying point for Scottish nationalists, already elated by
Prime Minister John Major's announcement in July that England will
return the Stone of Scone, the cherished symbol of Scottish power.
Scotland's heroes already are a boon to tourism.
Tourism officials reported a bumper year in 1995, thanks partly
to two 1994 movies: ``Braveheart,'' Mel Gibson's Oscar-winning epic
about Wallace, and ``Rob Roy,'' about 18th-century Highlands clan
leader Rob Roy MacGregor, which starred Liam Neeson.
On Thursday, archeologists undertaking a $450,000 excavation of
Melrose Abbey's chapter house dug up a modern, cylindrical lead
casket.
In a painstaking, two-hour operation Monday, two
conservationists from Historic Scotland drilled through one end of
the 10-inch casket to reveal a slightly smaller, cone-shaped
medieval casket, also made of lead.
Inside the outer casket there was also a note written by the
archeologists who unearthed it in 1921: ``The enclosed leaden
casket containing a heart was found beneath Chapter House floor in
March 1921 and reburied by His Majesty's Office of Works.''
Those scientists reburied the casket inside the modern casket,
probably for protection, but its location was lost, according to
Historic Scotland.
Grove said there was no way of verifying that it was Bruce's
heart, but his was the only heart reported to have been buried at
Melrose. There are no plans to open the medieval container, she
said, because the 1921 study verified that it contained a heart.
Born in 1274, Bruce was crowned king of Scotland in 1306 after
he led an uprising against King Edward I of England.
Known for his doggedness, said to have been inspired by watching
a spider painstakingly weaving its web, he led the defeat of the
army of England's King Edward II in 1314. In 1328, a year before
his death, he signed the treaty of Northampton that recognized both
his kingship and Scottish independence.
Bruce had asked that his heart be buried at Melrose Abbey, but
on his deathbed, he asked a close friend, Sir James Douglas, to
take it first on the Crusades, as Christians fought to recover the
Holy Land from Muslims.
Douglas fell fighting the Moors in Spain and, according to
legend, hurled the casket at the enemy as he died.
Bruce's supporters recovered it and buried it at Melrose, a
Cistercian abbey founded in 1136 that was badly damaged in
Scotland's wars of independence. It was extensively rebuilt in the
15th century.
Bruce has not had the same big screen success as Wallace and Rob
Roy: ``The Bruce,'' a low-budget film about his life that starred
Oliver Reed, was a flop.
APTV-09-02-96 1620EDT
<FF>
------------------------------------------------
Dan Bjarnason / Toronto, Canada
sa...@inforamp.net
------------------------------------------------
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <50fvco$s...@news.inforamp.net>, sa...@inforamp.net writes
> Scottish conservationists think they have found the mummified
>heart of Robert the Bruce, the legendary 14th-century Scottish king
>who heroically resisted the English and won independence for his
>native land.
> Discovered in a medieval casket, the heart proves that Bruce's
>supporters honored his dying wish to be buried at Melrose Abbey in
>the southeastern corner of Scotland, conservationists said Monday.
Well, up to a point, Lord Copper ...
As you note, the casket was buried, inside another casket, around 1921
by the last people to have found it! We are entirely reliant on their
attribution of its being the original Bruce casket.
So it is scarcely of fundamental archaeological interest, although
fellow Scots may be thrilled by the national heritage aspects of it.
However, nobody has yet explained satisfactorily to me how an anatomical
relic, carried on crusade as far as Spain by Douglas, and reputedly
hurled by him in a dying gesture of defiance at the advancing horde of
Moors, found its way home to Scotland at all.
("Er... excuse me Mr Moor - can we have our casket back, please?
Sentimental family value, you see. And while you're at it, do you have a
sack you could give which we could fill with those bits of the Douglas
we can find, to give him a decent Christian - oops, sorry! - burial?")
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Deborah Foisy
Deb writes,
I think Braveheart was a wonderful movie. It did a lot more than
just boost tourism. My children are half french-canadian
and it was this movie that finally piqued his
interest/pride in his other side. But, there were a lot
of a lettor historical errors in it.
I am not sure I would agree with calling "Bruce"
BraveheartII. Particularly since it wasn't particularly
kind in its portrayal of him. I only have the book on him
by Bruce McNair Scott. I have Nigel Tranter's Bruce
Trilogy as well.
I've heard numerous comments on the accuracy, or lack
therof, when speaking of historical novels in general.
Any comments on Tranter. I have yet to read him and have
his book on Thomas the Rhymer too.
I will be interested in following this story. How often
do historians and archaeologists get such a find! It will
be interesting to see what happens as far as positive
indentification, if any. Forensic anthropology is a great
field to delve into, as is archaeology.
Nlessed Be!
D. Foisy
sa...@inforamp.net wrote:
> <FF>
This is the beginning of a new day.
The Lord/Lady has given me this day to use as I will.
I can waste it or use it for good.
What I do today is important because I am exchanging it for a
day of my life.
When tomorrow comes, this day will be gone forever;
Leaving in it's place, something I traded for it.
I want it to be gain, not loss; good, not evil; success not failure.
In order that I shall not regret the price I paid for it.
-unknown author
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River1667
In article <w05BrHAc...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk writes
> However, nobody has yet explained satisfactorily to me how an
anatomical >relic, carried on crusade as far as Spain by Douglas, and
reputedly hurled by him >in a dying gesture of defiance at the advancing
horde of Moors, found its way >home to Scotland at all.
Well, what happened was...
After the battle, Douglas gave pursuit with ten other men to the Saracens,
when those trailing of the Saracens' retreating force spun round and
surrounded Douglas' men. Douglas actually managed to squeeze through the
encircling Moors in time, but broke back through the ring when he realized
his men were trapped. Contrary to popular legend, Douglas didn't have
time to throw the heart in defiance, nor do I believe it would have
crossed his mind as a tactical gesture in such a moment. He was cut down
and his ten supporters (who was supporting who?) were dispatched with just
as quickly. When the vanguard caught up to the chaos and chased off the
stragglers, they found the casket still around Douglas' neck, and
delivered it to his cousin, Sir William Keith, who was also on the crusade
but due to an injury, did not participate in the battle. He conveyed
Douglas' remains and the heart within its casket back to Scotland.
I do agree with you that there really is no point to modern forensics and
archaeology to bow to the poorly equipped witnesses of the past. There
must have been some way of investigating the casket. For all we know,
especially since no one bothered to note where they reburied the casket in
1921, the person who buried it then may have replaced it with a deer's
heart before reburial and kept the heart to be found fifty years from now
by one of his successors in his attic or something.
Besides, if we lived by the testament of our predessessors (sp?), then
we'd believe that the Trojan War never happened, Pompeii was no longer,
and the bones found in the crypt of Canterbury Cathedral were actually
Thomas Becket's. Or that Douglas hurled Robert the Bruce's heart at the
Saracens.
River.
Steve Russell
Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
it was revived by The Donald in our time.
Steve the Russell
Deborah June Foisy
Deb writes,
That was cute! Here goes, I think, and correct me if I am wrong.
Robert was the first king of his dynasty, the Bruce dynasty. Which
makes him the Bruce of his house (?).
I think that he is still one of the most heroic rulers in Scottish
history. It was he who won back Scottish Independeance from Edward II.
He is the one with the spider and the cave legend, perseverance
and all that. Perhaps it may also have to do with the fact that the
Normanss may have still been the driving force even in Scotland, but
they did not conquer the Scots, as were the English Saxons. More of the
Celtic traditions remaining here, maybe?. In another thread, someone
asked why Edward I was Edward the first, given the existence of Edward the
Confessor. So, perhaps it is just a continuing tradition in Scotland
too. Does this help, anyone else any comments?
Blessed Be!
Deb
Steve Russell
River1667
Robert THE Bruce is derived from his family's name's Norman origins of "de
Brus". They came from Brus in Normandy, thus "of Brus" which, changed into
familiar sounds of English became THE.
ReginaLV
Being specified as "The Bruce" indicates the carrier of the name is the
senior member of his family, not by age, but by rank as counted in
Celtic/Norman/etc. society. Surnames were not in general use at the time
and most people used patrinimics (sp?) or descriptive names tags (Seamus
Rudh, i.e., John the Red). The Bruce was the familiar, or popular,
designation of the the senior male member of the Bruce family. Other,
national titles aside.
Troy Sagrillo
Steve Russell wrote:
>
> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>
> Steve the Russell
According to Frank Adam (The Clans, Septs & Regiments of the Scottish
Highlands; p. 406):
"In the 14th century, chiefs of Lowland families, and principally those of
Norman origin, for a time distinguished themselves as "Le Graham," "Le
Lindsay," "The Bruce," and this was carried to the Highlands by "The
Chisholm," "The MacNab," and "The Mackintosh." Such titles briefly and
usefully denote a chief. In _full_ description of the title "of that ilk"
-- so characteristicly Scottish -- is almost invariably the form used,
whether by Highland or Lowland chiefs, until the 19th century."
Lesley Robertson
And, of course, "Le" is simply french for "The".
Lesley Robertson
Richard A. Williams
Steve Russell wrote:
>
> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>
> Steve the Russell
It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
the Bruce's.
Richard.
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.A.Williams, BA(Hons) MBCS CEng <riwi...@cisco.com>
God does not play dice with the Universe....Einstein
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr Adrian P Tribe
sa...@inforamp.net writes:
> LONDON (AP) _ Just call him Braveheart II.
> Scottish conservationists think they have found the mummified
>heart of Robert the Bruce, the legendary 14th-century Scottish king
>who heroically resisted the English and won independence for his
>native land.
<snip>
> In a painstaking, two-hour operation Monday, two
>conservationists from Historic Scotland drilled through one end of
>the 10-inch casket to reveal a slightly smaller, cone-shaped
>medieval casket, also made of lead.
<snip>
No, No, No! Conservationists are people who work to
preserve the natural environment. The people shown on
TV opening the casket were CONSERVATORS (the one
doing the nervous handling being Richard Wellander).
Adrian Tribe
CONSERVATOR
Warren Grant
Steve Russell <srus...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
>Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
>it was revived by The Donald in our time.
I believe it comes from the fact that (as with most nobility of the
British Isles) he was part Norman and his name was originally "De
Brus" and has simply been translated into "the Bruce".
Its possible that it is related to the gaelic habit of
referring to the head of a clan as "The Whatever", ie the head of
clan Graham of Montrose was called "The Montrose", etc.
Warren Grant
Teresa Bolger
Regarding your query about the name of Robert the Bruce, as I understand
it the reason why Robert is called "the Bruce" is this, at this period in
scottish history we are still dealing with a time when the clan system
was still in operation. in order to become king he would first have had
to become the head of his clan in this case the Bruces. At that time the
head of a clan was signified by being called "the Bruce", "the
MacDonald", etc. Basically it's an honorific, because he was head of the
clan and spoke for the clan on all matters he was called "the Bruce",
because he was.
I hope that clears that up.
Teresa Bolger.
Dave Key
In <50p168$8...@hermes.ucd.ie>, Teresa Bolger <bol...@ollamh.ucd.ie> writes:
>Regarding your query about the name of Robert the Bruce, as I understand
>it the reason why Robert is called "the Bruce" is this, at this period in
>scottish history we are still dealing with a time when the clan system
>was still in operation.
I have seen 2 theories in these postings on the use of 'the' in 'the Bruce' ... one
that it comes from the Norman 'de Brus' .... the other above. Personally I don't
know what the real answer is .... BUT ... I do have a question relating to the
Clan theory ...
I thought that lowland Scottish nobility of the c13th-c14th was far more
closely related to the Anglo-Norman English & Continental forms of society
than the later Clan system commonly associated with the c18th Highlands ...
.. in which case is it appropriate to associate Clan usage with Robert Bruce?
Basically ... does anyone have a primary source which gives his title ...
ie. what was he called, and what did he call himself, whilst he was alive ...
I presume there must be extant documents ...
Cheers,
Dave
Bill Bedford
Richard A. Williams <riwi...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Steve Russell wrote:
> >
> > Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
> > Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
> > it was revived by The Donald in our time.
> >
> > Steve the Russell
>
> It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
> so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
> The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
> the Bruce's.
>
Mmm but Clans are Highland, Bruce was a Lowlander......
--
Bill Bedford bi...@mousa.demon.co.uk Shetland
Brit_Rail-L list auto...@mousa.demon.co.uk
Looking forward to 2001 -
When the world it due to start thinking about the future again.
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <50p168$8...@hermes.ucd.ie>, Teresa Bolger
<bol...@ollamh.ucd.ie> writes
>Regarding your query about the name of Robert the Bruce, as I understand
>it the reason why Robert is called "the Bruce" is this, at this period in
>scottish history we are still dealing with a time when the clan system
>to become the head of his clan in this case the Bruces. At that time the
>head of a clan was signified by being called "the Bruce", "the
>MacDonald", etc. Basically it's an honorific, because he was head of the
>clan and spoke for the clan on all matters he was called "the Bruce",
>because he was.
As the son of a family of Norman immigrants living in the South of
Scotland, Bruce had few cultural contacts of any kind with the Highland
clans. At this time, as for centuries afterwards, Scotland was actually
two nations, the Southern lowlands and uplands being peopled by a stock
which had assimilated a large Anglo-Saxon element, as well as the later
Normans, and which talked a Germanic language called 'Scots', or
'Lallands'. (And who had much more in common with the inhabitants on the
other side of the English border than with their fellow-countrymen to
the north.)
North and west of the Highland Boundary Fault lived the Celtic
Highlanders who spoke Gaelic and whose society was based on the clan
system.
The normal feeling between the two groups was mutual distrust if not
hatred and open hostility.
Robert the Bruce was no more a clansman than was Sir Walter Scott five
hundred years later.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
River1667
Indeed, Robert the Bruce was no clansman.
At that time, Norman French was used at court, a variation of Northern
English/Scots in the royal burghs, and Gaelic in the highlands most
particularly. During the reign of Alexander III, Gaelic was pushed north
into the highlands while assimilation took place in the south between
northern Englishmen, Flemish, Germans, Gaels, Picts, Scandinavians, and
Normans- the trade routes, essentially. Robert the Bruce was tri-lingual
in Norman French, Northern English (or Scots), and the Gaelic of his
Celtic mother's retainers.
Robert the Bruce's family were descended from Lodver, the Norse Earl of
Orkney. Eventually migrating to Normandy, Adam de Brus (of Brus,
Normandy) came over with William the Conqueror to fight at the Battle of
Hastings. When William distributed British lands to his Norman lords,
Adam was granted lands in Yorkshire and to the north of Yorkshire. The
Bruces became connected with Scotland when David I of Scotland (a
Norman-English feudal overlord himself) granted the title of Earldom of
Annandale to the one who could control that gateway to Scotland. The
Bruces had subdued the Anglo-Saxons in Northern England and were thus
engaged to the title.
While surnames were not yet prevelant in the 10th Century, and even in the
later 12th Century of Henry II, by the age of Alexander III, all
prepositions and articles were struck. Thus, Thomas the Shoemaker,
through "lazy tongue" became Thomas Shoemaker, and Andrew of Mandeville,
became Andrew Mandeville.
All records I have on the subject, Robert called himself Robert Bruce,
sometimes referred to as Carrick, and later to be "Robertus Dei gracia rex
Scottorum omnibus probis hominibus tocius terre sue salutem". But I
believe that the oral history and written chronicles that followed perhaps
added The (much as they kept "Mac" when reading off the predessessors of a
king at his crowning) to keep it particularly Scots, or Celtic, and to
differentiate him from his grandfather, Robert the Competitor.
Also, with Robert being the family name with so many before and after him,
perhaps Robert The Bruce was to give him the air of champion of his
family's name.
Another possibility is that to retain "de Brus" or The Bruce when writing
of a hero keeps with the ancient epics' tradition. Perhaps it started
with the contemporary chronicle written by Barbour entitled "The Brus".
The same was done to Thomas Becket who went by that name during his life
(his name too was on Norman origin from an actual Norman village but had
since become a surname). However, after his death, the French chroniclers
referred to him as Thomas a Becket simply to make their hero sound more
legendary.
Just some hypotheses blowing in the wind.
River.
Daniel D Scripture
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960904...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu>,
Steve Russell <srus...@lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu> wrote:
>Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
>Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar, unless
>it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>
>Steve the Russell
Well, I _think_ I know, but I'm happy to be corrected. Anyway,
Robert the Bruce was in fact a Norman noble, or descendent of same,
and his name was in fact Robert LeBruce. So Robert the Bruce is
simply a literal translation into Scots (or English, if you like) of
the French (where 'le'='the'). The point about Scots and English is
that even in the time of Elizabeth I, it was necessary to have court
interpreters for Scots nobles who spoke no French, because Scots was
very difficult for English speakers in England to follow. Sorry, I
don't have a cite for this last--something I read and retained
sometime, somewhere.
Dan Scripture
UC Santa Cruz
Daniel D Scripture
In article <M2xmBFAt...@moonrake.demon.co.uk>,
Alan M. Dunsmuir <al...@moonrake.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[highland stuff deleted]
>As the son of a family of Norman immigrants living in the South of
>Scotland, Bruce had few cultural contacts of any kind with the Highland
>clans. At this time, as for centuries afterwards, Scotland was actually
>two nations, the Southern lowlands and uplands being peopled by a stock
>which had assimilated a large Anglo-Saxon element, as well as the later
>Normans, and which talked a Germanic language called 'Scots', or
>'Lallands'. (And who had much more in common with the inhabitants on the
>other side of the English border than with their fellow-countrymen to
>the north.)
>
>North and west of the Highland Boundary Fault lived the Celtic
>Highlanders who spoke Gaelic and whose society was based on the clan
>system.
>
>The normal feeling between the two groups was mutual distrust if not
>hatred and open hostility.
>
>Robert the Bruce was no more a clansman than was Sir Walter Scott five
>hundred years later.
>--
>Alan M. Dunsmuir
I agree, Alan, he was no clansman, but the source I have
immediately at hand makes the
issue far more complex (Ronald McNair Scott, _Robert the Bruce_, Peter
Bedrick Books, New York, 1982). I got to looking at it because I was
beginning to think it was de Brus, not le Brus, as I claimed in an
earlier posting. And sure enough, I was wrong, Bruce was decended
from an Adam de Brus, whose grandfather arrived with William the
Conqueror (p. 10). The Bruces claimed to be descended, guess what,
from Lodvar, Norse Earl of Orkney in the 10th century. The
grandfather mentioned above was an immigrant to Normandy, it is
claimed. (p. 10)
But on to the Celtic/Gaelic/Highlander issue:
Bruce was born and grew up in the Earl of Carrick's castle (that is,
his father's castle.) in Turnbury.
This is on the northwest coast of Galloway. It isn't in
what is usually called the lowlands, exactly.
Quoting directly from Scott now:
"He would have spoken the Norman-French of his peers and in the Celtic
household of his parents absorbed from their retainers the Gaelic
language which was dominant from Galloway in the southwest up through
the western Highlands to the mountains of Inverness. In his
grandfather's house [Lochmaben Castle, at the head of the Annandale
Valley, 60 miles away to the southeast, and more-or-less
in the Lowlands, as
I understand the term] he would have heard spoken and learnt the
northern English, which was to become the broad Scots of later
generations and was then the common speech from the borders to
Strathclyde, and from Lothian to the trading ports on the eastern
seabord. He would have become trilingual at an early age: an
accomplishment most necessary for one who was to draw supporters for
his struggle from all three spheres." (p. 13)
Now, this source is not precisely an academic study, and on occasion
verges on hagiography. But it does work very carefully with the
primary sources, and the secondary ones seem reasonable, although
often very old. It is documented
in normal academic fashion.
That allowed me to pursue the question someone else asked, about what
did Bruce's contemporaries call him, and also the use of "the," which
generated the thread. I could not find in contemporary documents cited in
this book any use of "Robert the Bruce," although I did find a number
of contemporary cites as simply "Robert Bruce." But I _did_ find this
interesting contemporary cite: when John Comyn submitted to Edward,
(the action that ultimately resulted in the betrayal of William
Wallace)
the surrender included these words:
"No words of peace are to be held out to William Wallace in any
circumstances in our will. . .The Stewart, Sir John de Soulis and Sir
Ingram de Umfraville are not to have safe conduct nor come within the
king's power until Sir William Wallace is given up. . ." (p. 65)
Now, this document was more-or-less dictated by Edward--that is, these
were his terms. Also note that this would be a translation from I
suppose Norman French. Presumably there was something in there to
generate "The Stewart." The Stewart was James Stewart, one of the
earlier ones of that name. So what this document looks like is an
English king, using Norman French, in dictating the surrender of a
Scots lord, somehow referred to James Stewart as The Stewart--perhaps.
Because this Stewart was the Stewart who in later usage would normally
be called "The Stewart," translation issues arise.
The original source of the quote is in Palgrave, ed.
_Documents and Records illustrating the History of Scotland_, 1837.
Having not seen this tome, I don't know whose the translation is, or
whether the Norman French text is included in this book, and I have no
idea where the actual original is. Also found (p. 104) another quote
from a contemporary document where Bruce is referred to as Sir Robert
de Bruce, in a letter from a Scottish lord to an English official.
Basic questions remain unanswered, but I think I have succeeded in
making them more complicated, the permanent failing of academics. ;-)
Greetings to all,
Doug Weller
In article <50pjpb$j...@zen.hursley.ibm.com>
davi...@vnet.ibm.com (Dave Key) wrote:
> In <50p168$8...@hermes.ucd.ie>, Teresa Bolger <bol...@ollamh.ucd.ie> writes:
> >Regarding your query about the name of Robert the Bruce, as I understand
> >it the reason why Robert is called "the Bruce" is this, at this period in
> >scottish history we are still dealing with a time when the clan system
> >was still in operation.
>
> I have seen 2 theories in these postings on the use of 'the' in 'the Bruce' ... one
> that it comes from the Norman 'de Brus' .... the other above. Personally I don't
> know what the real answer is...
It's de Brus -- that was his name. We've Anglicized it.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Doug Weller
In article <50r50r$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
scr...@cats.ucsc.edu (Daniel D Scripture) wrote:
[SNIP]
>
> That allowed me to pursue the question someone else asked, about what
> did Bruce's contemporaries call him, and also the use of "the," which
> generated the thread. I could not find in contemporary documents cited in
> this book any use of "Robert the Bruce," although I did find a number
> of contemporary cites as simply "Robert Bruce." But I _did_ find this
> interesting contemporary cite: when John Comyn submitted to Edward,
> (the action that ultimately resulted in the betrayal of William
> Wallace)
> the surrender included these words:
>
> "No words of peace are to be held out to William Wallace in any
> circumstances in our will. . .The Stewart, Sir John de Soulis and Sir
> Ingram de Umfraville are not to have safe conduct nor come within the
> king's power until Sir William Wallace is given up. . ." (p. 65)
>
> Now, this document was more-or-less dictated by Edward--that is, these
> were his terms. Also note that this would be a translation from I
> suppose Norman French. Presumably there was something in there to
> generate "The Stewart." The Stewart was James Stewart, one of the
> earlier ones of that name. So what this document looks like is an
> English king, using Norman French, in dictating the surrender of a
> Scots lord, somehow referred to James Stewart as The Stewart--perhaps.
> Because this Stewart was the Stewart who in later usage would normally
> be called "The Stewart," translation issues arise.
Of course the Stewarts were originally just that, stewards -- or
rather The Steward, as there would be only one at a time, and presumably
that one would be the head of the family. I don't know if this
situation still existed at this time, but if it did then that would
explain this usage. Just as you might have 'The Marshall'.
So this might sound the same but have an entirely different history.
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <50r50r$5...@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, Daniel D Scripture
<scr...@cats.ucsc.edu> writes
>Basic questions remain unanswered, but I think I have succeeded in
>making them more complicated, the permanent failing of academics. ;-)
:-)
At the risk of heaping confusion upon complexity, it may even be that
"the Stewart" refers to his eponymous and hereditary function, as High
Steward to the King, rather than directly to his name.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Richard A. Williams
Not a 'maybe', it's a sure thing. The nobles of Scotland eventually
decided if they'd been Stewards so damn long, they may as well be
King. And so they were.
Tom May
In article <322F58...@cisco.com>, riwi...@cisco.com says...
>Steve Russell wrote:
>> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
>> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar,
unless
>> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>> Steve the Russell
>It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
>so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
>The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
>the Bruce's.
>Richard.
Surely the Clan Chief of McGregor is "The Gregor" not the McGregor,(like
wise "The Donald" etc) the Mc (or Mac for the Irish branch?) signifying
affiliation to the chief.
I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I've got it wrong.
Regards
Tom May
Avoid dissappointment in life - Be a pessamist.
Tom May
Richard A. Williams
Quite possibly old man, I was illustrating a point which you obviously
understood though.. As for the exact styling or spelling, well, not being Scots
I think I have some leeway for error!
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <511ma3$c...@lightning.cise.npl.co.uk>, Tom May
<a...@bae.npl.co.uk> writes
>Surely the Clan Chief of McGregor is "The Gregor" not the McGregor,(like
>wise "The Donald" etc) the Mc (or Mac for the Irish branch?) signifying
>affiliation to the chief.
>
>I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I've got it wrong.
OK - you're wrong <g>. The 'Mac' part in both Irish and Scots Gaelic is
a clan patronymic, indicating common descent from some eponymous clan
founder. The clan chief carries the same name as everybody else in the
clan.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Deborah Foisy
> >Steve Russell wrote:
> >> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert THE
> >> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar,
> unless
> >> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
>
> >> Steve the Russell
> >It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
> >so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
> >The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
> >the Bruce's.
> >Richard.
> Surely the Clan Chief of McGregor is "The Gregor" not the McGregor,(like
> wise "The Donald" etc) the Mc (or Mac for the Irish branch?) signifying
> affiliation to the chief.
> I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I've got it wrong.
Deb writes,
Well, given how wrong I was the first time I tried to answer this
I should keep quiet. But, my understanding is that the Mac, Mc and O'
whatever signfy "son of", not affiliation with a clan i.e. Gregor. Is it
not the phrase "of that ilk" that does that?
Blessed Be!
Deborah
> Regards
> Tom May
> Avoid dissappointment in life - Be a pessamist.
> Tom May
Doug Weller
In article <516bef$h...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>
dfo...@chat.carleton.ca (Deborah Foisy) wrote:
> Deb writes,
> Well, given how wrong I was the first time I tried to answer this
> I should keep quiet. But, my understanding is that the Mac, Mc and O'
> whatever signfy "son of", not affiliation with a clan i.e. Gregor. Is it
> not the phrase "of that ilk" that does that?
No. 'Balwhidder of that ilk' means Balwhidder of Balwhidder, ie it
connects the names of Scottish landed families to their property.
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <516bef$h...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>, Deborah Foisy
<dfo...@chat.carleton.ca> writes
>Deb writes,
> Well, given how wrong I was the first time I tried to answer this
>I should keep quiet. But, my understanding is that the Mac, Mc and O'
>whatever signfy "son of", not affiliation with a clan i.e. Gregor. Is it
>not the phrase "of that ilk" that does that?
>Deborah
"Son of" in the the sense of "Son of Abraham" - descended from the
clan's eponymous founder.
"of that ilk" is a much-misused and misunderstood phrase. I can't put it
better than the Oxford English Dictionary:
of that ilk, of the same place, territorial designation, or name:
chiefly in names of landed families, as Guthrie of that ilk, Wemyss of
that ilk = Guthrie of Guthrie, Wemyss of Wemyss. Sc.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Hugh Stewart McKenna
Mr Adrian P Tribe wrote:
>
> sa...@inforamp.net writes:
>
> > LONDON (AP) _ Just call him Braveheart II.
> > Scottish conservationists think they have found the mummified
> >heart of Robert the Bruce, the legendary 14th-century Scottish king
I missed this whole topic due to usenet servcies being down.
Could someone post a syonopsis, or e-mail it to me?
What does this do to the the traditional story of the earl of
Douglas throwing the casket at some attacking Moors, and crying
"BraveHeart, you were ever to the front. Where you go I will follow!"
(or words to that effect)?
--
Hugh Stewart McKenna miahm01....@eds.com
--
Whenever it is possible to find out the cause of what is happening, one
should not have recourse to the gods. -- Polybius (204-122 B.C.)
Alan M. Dunsmuir
In article <323A0B...@eds.com>, Hugh Stewart McKenna
<miahm01....@eds.com> writes
>I missed this whole topic due to usenet servcies being down.
>Could someone post a syonopsis, or e-mail it to me?
>What does this do to the the traditional story of the earl of
>Douglas throwing the casket at some attacking Moors, and crying
>"BraveHeart, you were ever to the front. Where you go I will follow!"
>(or words to that effect)?
Some people, around 1920, claimed that they had uncovered the casket,
supposedly buried in Melrose Abbey on its kindly return from the Moors
in Spain, which contained the heart of the Bruce. They enclosed this in
a modern casket and reburied it shortly afterwards.
The modern casket has now been re-exhumed (for what purpose is unclear -
the people involved are certainly not planning to open the supposedly
14th century inner casket to see what it contains) but those of a mind
are prepared to attempt to milk any sentimental capital they can from
the odd event.
--
Alan M. Dunsmuir
Dominic Green
Dear Friends
I am profoundly Glad that Mr. The Bruce's (apparently conical) heart has
been located. Now we can set our sights on uncovering the rest of him.
Evidently the good King's unfortunate leprous affliction led to Bits of
Him Dropping Off From Time to Time requiring separate burial before he
could be Wholesomely Inhumed. Possibly the Winkie Of The Bruce itself
still awaits discovery and ceremonial unearthing to a solemn
accompaniment of bagpipes.
However, the very nature of the Heart itself craves discussion. What
manner of brave heart requires to be buried in not merely one, but two
heavy leaden caskets? Surely the answer is a Dangerously Radioactive
one. Is it possible that The Bruce possessed Radioactive Blood, having
been bitten by that same Spider which he observed perseveringly spinning
its web, and that from that day forward he became possessed of the
Powers of the Spider and rode out to Fight Evil in All Its Forms,
becoming able to Swing from a Thread? Take a Look Overhead, his
claymore-wielding supporters would have yelled, Hey There, There Goes
the Spider Man. By day, he would have been a mild-mannered Scottish
Freedom Fighter; by night, a masked Scottish Freedom Fighter with the
power to ride his horse up tall buildings. Possibly the Spider also
contracted Leprosy from the encounter. However, I have experimented
with ordinary domestic rabbits, and discovered that a Bite cannot pass
on characteristics between Man and Animal. No matter how many times I
Bite the rabbits, they remain herbivorous rodents with virtually no
typing skills.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward The Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma)
Enchante
> Alan M. Dunsmuir wrote:
> > At the risk of heaping confusion upon complexity, it may even be that
> > "the Stewart" refers to his eponymous and hereditary function, as High
> > Steward to the King, rather than directly to his name.
I came in late. "The Stewart" as a reference to the head of the house is a
generic thing for clan chieftains in Scotland. On the other hand, the
surname "Stewart" does indeed derive from a title. The family name had been
FitzAlan. The ninth of their hereditary Lord High Stewards married the only
sister of King David II Bruce, who died childless. Why they took the name
Stewart rather than FitzAlan as their dynastic name I do not know, but all
their Scottish cousins followed their example. When Mary Queen of Scots
lived in France, the spelling was Frenchified to Stuart, whcih was adopted
by her descendants but not by the collateral cousins of other branches.
The FitzAlans of England, earls of Arundel, kept their name. Their last
heiress married a Howard Duke of Norfolk; the present Duke of Norfolk and
Earl of Arundel is a FitzAlan-Howard.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
Grant Menzies
Hugh Stewart McKenna <miahm01....@eds.com> wrote:
>Mr Adrian P Tribe wrote:
>>
>> sa...@inforamp.net writes:
>>
>> > LONDON (AP) _ Just call him Braveheart II.
>> > Scottish conservationists think they have found the mummified
>> >heart of Robert the Bruce, the legendary 14th-century Scottish king
>I missed this whole topic due to usenet servcies being down.
>Could someone post a syonopsis, or e-mail it to me?
>What does this do to the the traditional story of the earl of
>Douglas throwing the casket at some attacking Moors, and crying
>"BraveHeart, you were ever to the front. Where you go I will follow!"
>(or words to that effect)?
Greetings, Hugh--
This is what I posted a few weeks ago, with regard to the mummified
Brucian heart:
===================================================
The New York Times reported today on the re-discovery of King Robert
the Bruce's heart at Melrose Abbey--an artifact but for which my clan,
the Menzies, might not have its crest: "a Saracen's head proper".
So the story goes, after the death of Robert the Bruce in 1329, Sir
James Douglas was deputed to carry the king's embalmed heart "in a
silver casket round his neck" on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where
he was to oversee its burial in the precincts of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem. With him were several Scottish knights, among them Chief
Lord Robert the Menzies. Some time in the summer of 1330, our
faithful band encountered a force of "Infidels" on a plain near the
frontiers of Andalusia--then at war with King Alfonso of Leon and
Castile--and promptly got caught up in it. Sir James Douglas was
overpowered by the Saracens, into whose midst he tossed the silver
casket, saying, "Now pass before us, gallant heart, as thou wert wont,
Douglas will follow thee or die!"
Alas, Sir James was cut down; but Lord Robert Menzies was not willing
to give up yet, and he cried out "Toilleadh Die e s ni mis e", or "God
will it; I'll do it!", and proceeded to behead the Saracen who had
killed Sir James Douglas--whence came the "Saracen's head proper" on
the Chief's crest as well as the family motto, "Vil God, I zal".
After this aborted journey, the story goes on to add that the Bruce's
heart was brought back to Scotland and deposited at Melrose. Well, at
least we know now at least that part of the story is true ;-)
==================================================
G M Menzies
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Se non e vero, e molto ben trovato
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Michael Daunt
Dave Smith <dave....@microserve.com> wrote in article
<51ldpd$h...@news2.ptd.net>...
> Amid the talk of Highlander Clan and Norman diversions on the
> discussion of the derivation of 'Robert the Bruce', it seems to me,
glaringly
> obvious that the name Robert, itself, is almost certainly Germanic, tied
thus
> either to Saxon or 'Lallander' Scots, and as such, is likely not tied
> directly to any Norse, Highlander Gaelic, or Norman French tradition, but
to
> tradition surviving through the English Lowlanders. Although now
'American'
> primarily of Scottish descent, I spent the formative decades of my life
in a
> fairly rural part of Germany, and recall an importance even now on
extended
> family, similar to 'Clan' structure in the form of 'Stamm', such that one
> leading figure could easily be called 'the Such-And-Such' of the family
> 'Such-and-Such' very much as was discussed. But that still baffles me,
as
> 'Bruce' or 'Brus' don't seem Germanic...
>
> *shrug*
Sorry, but this is incorrect. Robert was actually a very common Norman
name. William the Conqueror's eldest son (who was deposed as Duke of
Normandy by Henry I) was named Robert, as just one prominent example of
many.
Michael Daunt
liz....@sympatico.ca
Dave Smith
Paul J. Gans
Dominic Green (dem...@groin.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[deletions]
: Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward The Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
: (Oklahoma)
I wish to welcome the emminent Reverand to soc.history.medieval.
Being long familiar with his indisputable contributions to
sci.archaeology and knowing of his extreme erudition and
sagacity, I am thrilled that we here may be further enlighted
by the Reverend Colonel's researches.
In closing I know that the readers of soc.history.medieval will
give the good Reverend the respect he deserves. A close reading
of any post of his will repay the reader.
------ Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Mike Tittensor
In message <tCGwErCg...@groin.demon.co.uk> Dominic Green wrote:
However, I have experimented
> with ordinary domestic rabbits, and discovered that a Bite cannot pass
> on characteristics between Man and Animal. No matter how many times I
> Bite the rabbits, they remain herbivorous rodents with virtually no
> typing skills.
It is customary, your Grace, not to cook your experimental subjects in a
dill sauce before biting them.
A chilled Sancerre is also not recognised as a viable aid to scientific
experiment.
--
Mike Tittensor (mi...@heridoth.demon.co.uk)
WMclean290
In article <tCGwErCg...@groin.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Green
<dem...@groin.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Is it possible that The Bruce possessed Radioactive Blood, having
>been bitten by that same Spider which he observed perseveringly spinning
>its web, and that from that day forward he became possessed of the
>Powers of the Spider and rode out to Fight Evil in All Its Forms,
>becoming able to Swing from a Thread?
Clearly. The historical phrase "Ye have bled for Wallace, now ye shall
bleed for me" was in fact a reference to his habit of sucking out the body
fluids of his opponents, leaving their bodies as dessicated husks.
We now also understand why the Black Douglas hurled the Bruce's heart into
the thick of the Saracen army in Spain: clearly he expected the radiactive
remnant to act like some sort of hideous medieval neutron bomb.
Will
Kathy McIntosh
In article <51not6$9...@news.nyu.edu>, "Paul J. Gans"
<ga...@scholar.nyu.edu> writes
I agree with Paul, the Reverend's postings are a delight and deffinatly
repay reading.
--
Kathy McIntosh
Paul J. Gans
WMclean290 (wmcle...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <tCGwErCg...@groin.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Green
It did! It did! Within a short few hundred years Spain had been
Cleansed of Muslims, Alien Space Invaders, and Jews.
pegasus
Dominic Green <dem...@groin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Hello Dominic, my name is Andrew and I'm from Scotland and I am your
blind date for the evening.
The reason Robert the Brucey Wallace was chopped into bits was because
of English Nationalism, the upper class cads were afraid of us working
class Jocks, and didn't want to piss us off, especially since we're a
good source of cannon fodder to defend the English Empire with.
Over 50% of the troops supplied by the 'Crown' during the gulf war
were Scottish, which even to an English twit like yourself, ought to
point to a bias of nationalaties in the British contingent somewhat in
favour of preserving English manhood, and continuing with the age old
campaign of genocide,jealousy and fear against the Scottish people.
I don't know why, because when the world runs out of Scotsmen and
women, there will be a major dearth in British cannonfodder and
therefore less military participation in the world by the disunited
Kingdom, and also the same Intelligent and hard wearing stock that
gave you T.V, Computers and a whole pile of inventions that are part
of the Western infrastructure, the whole place will simply collapse.
to quote a popular Scottish ballad.
'and stood against him, proud edwards army,
and sent him homewards to think again'
Pray that we never run out of Bravehearts to die for the English
Empire.
>Dear Friends
>I am profoundly Glad that Mr. The Bruce's (apparently conical) heart has
>been located. Now we can set our sights on uncovering the rest of him.
>Evidently the good King's unfortunate leprous affliction led to Bits of
>Him Dropping Off From Time to Time requiring separate burial before he
>could be Wholesomely Inhumed. Possibly the Winkie Of The Bruce itself
>still awaits discovery and ceremonial unearthing to a solemn
>accompaniment of bagpipes.
>However, the very nature of the Heart itself craves discussion. What
>manner of brave heart requires to be buried in not merely one, but two
>heavy leaden caskets? Surely the answer is a Dangerously Radioactive
>one. Is it possible that The Bruce possessed Radioactive Blood, having
>been bitten by that same Spider which he observed perseveringly spinning
>its web, and that from that day forward he became possessed of the
>Powers of the Spider and rode out to Fight Evil in All Its Forms,
>becoming able to Swing from a Thread? Take a Look Overhead, his
>claymore-wielding supporters would have yelled, Hey There, There Goes
>the Spider Man. By day, he would have been a mild-mannered Scottish
>Freedom Fighter; by night, a masked Scottish Freedom Fighter with the
>power to ride his horse up tall buildings. Possibly the Spider also
>contracted Leprosy from the encounter. However, I have experimented
>with ordinary domestic rabbits, and discovered that a Bite cannot pass
>on characteristics between Man and Animal. No matter how many times I
>Bite the rabbits, they remain herbivorous rodents with virtually no
>typing skills.
>Yours
Janet Jubran
tee hee. You guys crack me up! Especially the part about the rabbits.
In article <524doh$1...@cherry.news.easynet.net>, peg...@easynet.co.uk
Deborah June Foisy
Deb writes,
Wow, you leave for a few weeks and boom:)! I missed what started
this thread but really folks. April 1st is still some time aways.
Half man-half spider? Yikes!
Blessed Be!
Deborah
Paul J. Gans
(ga...@scholar.nyu.edu) writes: > WMclean290 (wmcle...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <tCGwErCg...@groin.demon.co.uk>, Dominic Green
> : <dem...@groin.demon.co.uk> writes:
> :
> : >Is it possible that The Bruce possessed Radioactive Blood, having
> : >been bitten by that same Spider which he observed perseveringly spinning
> : >its web, and that from that day forward he became possessed of the
> : >Powers of the Spider and rode out to Fight Evil in All Its Forms,
> : >becoming able to Swing from a Thread?
Kevin Daly
Deborah Foisy <dfo...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in article
<516bef$h...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca>...
> Tom May (a...@bae.npl.co.uk) wrote:
> > In article <322F58...@cisco.com>, riwi...@cisco.com says...
>
> > >Steve Russell wrote:
>
> > >> Will someone who knows please post the meaning of the name Robert
THE
> > >> Bruce. It follows some convention with which I am not familiar,
> > unless
> > >> it was revived by The Donald in our time.
> >
> > >> Steve the Russell
>
> > >It's a Scots clan thing. The Clan Cheif is usually called 'The...',
> > >so if you are a MacGregor, the Clan Cheif would be known as
> > >The MacGregor. Perceptably, the title stuck more formally with
> > >the Bruce's.
>
> > >Richard.
>
>
> > Surely the Clan Chief of McGregor is "The Gregor" not the
McGregor,(like
> > wise "The Donald" etc) the Mc (or Mac for the Irish branch?) signifying
> > affiliation to the chief.
>
> > I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I've got it wrong.
>
> Deb writes,
> Well, given how wrong I was the first time I tried to answer this
> I should keep quiet. But, my understanding is that the Mac, Mc and O'
> whatever signfy "son of", not affiliation with a clan i.e. Gregor. Is it
> not the phrase "of that ilk" that does that?
You're right _and_wrong.
Mac (of which the forms 'Mac' and 'Mc' are just different anglicisations)
is the word for "son" in both Irish and in Scottish Gaelic. The 'Mac' part
does not mean "son _of_" as such, the "of" part being indicated by the
grammatical form of the name that follows.
O' is the anglicised from of Ó, which derives from Old Irish "Ua" and
means descendant, or more literally "Grandson" (which is why the feminine
form of Ó-names begins with Ní, which is a contraction of "Iníon
Uí"="daughter of the descendant". So Peter O'Brian will be Peadar Ó Briain
(Peter descendant of Brian), but his sister Kathleen (whether married or
not) will be Caitlín Ní Bhriain). I don't know why only Mac names survived
in Scotland, but I suspect it has something to do with later adoption of
fixed surnames and political fragmentation in the Highlands. Or maybe not.
Scottish clan names sometimes do and sometimes don't reflect the
eponymous ancestor commemorated in the common surname...but the head of the
clan would normally take his title from the surname used by the clan rather
than the clan name (which can have subdivisions...so a branch of Clan
Donald are known as Clan Ranald, etc.). Some clan names, such as Clan
Chattan, actually refer to confederations of clans (In this case one known
as the Clan of the Cats).
Dominic Green
I am profoundly glad that you are willing to Die for your Queen.
However, I am alarmed to note your claim that fifty per cent of troops
sent to the Gulf War were Scottish. This seems a scandalously large
percentage, especially when one considers that at least fifty per cent
of such troops are known to have been Iraqi. One must also take into
account the fact that one or two Americans also claim to have
participated in the 'Gulf Conflict'; the mathematics of the situation
lead one to the inescapable conclusion that THE SCOTS AND THE IRAQIS ARE
ONE AND THE SAME. In order to further my research into this astounding
possibility, therefore, please fill in the following questionnaire:
(1) I have/have not a violent desire to Grow a Ridiculous Moustache
(2) I am/am not interested in seeing THE MOTHER OF BATTLES: THE TRUE AS
I'M STANDING HERE HISTORICAL STORY OF THE LIBERATION OF KUWAIT, starring
Mel Gibson as Saddam Hussein and Sophie Marceau as Barbara Bush. 'He
was a wild, untamed and somewhat dictatorial Arab spending much of his
time deep underground in secret locations; she was a busty blonde in her
early twenties, yearning for a Scud Missile to do her Collateral
Damage.'
(3) When Bricklaying, I do/do not possess an Inoverridable Urge to
scrawl 'Built in the Time of McAlpine' on every second brick.
HOW DO I SCORE? Score one point for each positive answer, and no points
for each negative. Then consult the table below:
3 points - There is no escaping it. You are an IRAQI and enjoy voting
for power-mad lunatics who Set Fire to Deserts. Your entire family is
starving, you are Oppressed by a Brutal and Militaristic Regime, and you
have No Legs from being Blown Up by American Cruise Missiles, but
everyone agrees that it Serves You Jolly Well Right.
2 points - It is possible that your Iraqi tendencies may be avoided.
Try exercising your Stiff Upper Lip muscle by tying weights to your
Saddam Moustache. Also, try to cut down on the number of Newborn
Kuwaiti Babies you consume each morning.
1 point - You are slightly Iraqi, but nothing that Clean Living and Good
Stout Christian Underwear will not cure.
0 points - You are definitely BRITISH. You Rule the Waves, when the
Americans allow you to, and your Upper Lip is Stiffer than J. Edgar
Hoover in a Crinoline.
Less than Zero Points - Your Mental Arithmetic is Terribly Bad. You are
certainly SCOTTISH and may well have difficulty Counting Your Own
Backside, which is definitely Smothered in Woad.
Any Iraqis reading this by chance should feel no alarm. This is
hypothesis only, and there is every chance that they are not Scottish.
However, it must be said that the No Fly Zone of Northern Iraq may well
be rightful Scottish territory - for where a man has no Fly, then he can
wear no Trouser, and if he wears no Trouser, then must he not wear a
Kilt?
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma)
Morgoth
Galatia was in what is now Turkey with some overlap into what is now Iraq,
if I remember correctly. The Galatians were Celts, who had moved down
c.500bc to serve originally as mercenaries for some Greek War, and then
decided to stay. I think they were to fight the Persians or ..
Whay Galatia sounds so familar, is cause St. Paul has a book/letter to
them.
Fr. Morgoth, Cyberabbey of St. Cyril
LtCmdr Morgoth Gusiq, Chief Medical Officer USS Taislin
So you want kids? Please fill out this 200 page form in triplicate.
jye...@bga.com
>Galatia was in what is now Turkey with some overlap into what is now Iraq,
>if I remember correctly. The Galatians were Celts, who had moved down
>c.500bc to serve originally as mercenaries for some Greek War, and then
>decided to stay. I think they were to fight the Persians or ..
after a major keltoi invasion of Greece and Macedonia broke apart , 20,000
warriors were employed as mercenaries by Nicomedes of Bithynia against
Antiochus of Syra, and were later (along with their families) granted lands in
what was later called Galatia, which was reinforced by later immigrations
>Whay Galatia sounds so familar, is cause St. Paul has a book/letter to
>them.
they (Galatians) were first keltoi peoples converted to christianity ...
'wolf
--
... The meek shall inherit the Earth
... And they will become food for the Morlocks
LGreco6227
Why is he called Robert the Bruce you ask?
Robert the Bruce was descended from a French earl who came over
from France with William the Conquerer in 1066 during the Norman conquest.
This man was the earl of a place called "Bruis" in France which when
translated to the native language came to "Bruce". As a reward to all his
loyal followers William gave this man lands in England. As time went on
Robert the eighth Earl of Bruce came around in the later half of the
1200's the family held vast lands in Scotland. He was the eighth earl of
bruce and not the eighteenth as the movie Braveheart might have you
believe.
LGreco6227
Robert was the eighth earl of Bruce. He was descended from a man who came
to england with William the Conquerer in 1066. This man was the Earl of a
place in France called Bruis. With the success of the Norman Conquest
William granted him land in Scotland. Translation of the French "Bruis"
to the native language was "Bruce", hence he was called Robert the Eighth
earl of Bruce.
Michael Carlin
jye...@bga.com wrote:
>
> >Galatia was in what is now Turkey with some overlap into what is now Iraq,
> >if I remember correctly. The Galatians were Celts, who had moved down
> >c.500bc to serve originally as mercenaries for some Greek War, and then
> >decided to stay. I think they were to fight the Persians or ..
>
> after a major keltoi invasion of Greece and Macedonia broke apart , 20,000
> warriors were employed as mercenaries by Nicomedes of Bithynia against
> Antiochus of Syra, and were later (along with their families) granted lands in
> what was later called Galatia, which was reinforced by later immigrations
>
> >Whay Galatia sounds so familar, is cause St. Paul has a book/letter to
> >them.
>
> they (Galatians) were first keltoi peoples converted to christianity ...
This is correct except that Nicomedes had serious second thoughts about
actually granting the land promised to the Celtic tribes. The idea of having
thousands of armed warriors under his nose quickly lost its appeal- even if
these warriors had just helped him defeat the emperor. The tribes got tired of
his waffling, and eventually just took the land they had been promised.
Nicomedes was not in a position to argue about it.