The full story can be read in The Scotsman... and in my opinion this is LONG overdue; in my opinion, Robert the Bruce is the Greatest Scot and deserves to be given more exposure!

Seems to me that one of the problems RtB has had for the past 15 years is the rather dark character he totally unfairly gained as a result of the 1995 film Braveheart. This did a huge amount (indeed, more than was warranted) for the reputation of Wallace, and helped change the national mood in favour of devolution. But poor old Robert the Bruce had done to him in the film pretty much what Shakespeare did to Richard III in the play: blackened his popular reputation with no regard at all to the real history.

I think the problem is that to modern eyes anyone living then had to be exclusively Scottish or English in their sympathies: and Wallace benefits because he fits within this neat pattern, to a psychopathic degree. The Bruces, on the other hand (like the even more historically ambivalent Balliols) came from a background that stood outside this neat picture and had for generations sought to play off the Scots and the English against one another from their semi independent heartland of south west Scotland. They also had huge estates in England that were of far more value than their estates in Scotland and had been key players in English politics: RtB's father had fought alongside Prince Edward (later Edward I) in the final defeat of Simon de Montford at the Battle of Evesham.

Yet "Braveheart" could equally well, or perhaps better, been made about RtB rather than Wallace. The sufferings and achievements of the Bruce family during the Wars of Independence make for a much better story.

I agree with what you are saying Ken. When it comes to how the Bruce was portrayed in Braveheart, many people did think that he was on the side of the English at the Battle of Falkirk; the fact is no one knows for certain where he was, but the general consensus is he stayed away... which given the end result of the battle and the way the nobles left the battlefield is probably just as well! That film also went along with the myth (or at least unproven story) that the Bruce suffered from leprosy by portraying his father as a sufferer. Then again, any film that can show the Battle of Stirling Bridge and completely ignore the role the bridge played in the battle cannot be taken as serious... but that's another issue altogether!

When it comes to the Scotland v England issue, as you say Ken, many Scots (especially those of Norman descent) had land in England so did have some loyalty towards the kings south of the border. This was something that Edward I in particular liked to use to his advantage and ultimately meant that Robert the Bruce, in the desire to be a king in his own right, played a waiting game; while Edward was alive Robert played the loyal man, at least until that incident in Dumfries... after that (and the fact that Edward had supposedly discovered the plot to place the Bruce on the Scottish throne) Robert had to move quickly, hence the rush to Scone to be crowned. The rest as they say is history.

As for the Bruce being a better subject for a film such as Braveheart, I have to agree with that 100%! While the story of William Wallace is interesting it is mostly based on the writings of Blind Harry and that was Randall Wallace's main source for his (equally historically inaccurate) book the film was based on! Even the title of that film and book probably applies more to the Bruce than it does to the Wallace; after all it is the King not the Knight of Ellerslie; there is a story that says just before James Douglas, who was carrying the Bruce's heart to the Holy Land, was killed in battle with the Moors in Spain threw the casket containing the king's heart ahead and shouted "Pass first in fight, brave heart!" (Another version I have read goes: "Onward braveheart, Douglas shall follow thee or die.")