****Please sign****

[fhpdo]

#762 here

[John M.]

750 Here. Had to wait till I got home to post.

[LoftGuy]

Hi,

763

Bob

[macsim]

#766.

[Paul Henry]

Can someone explain what this is about, please.
If the letter was from the King of France..... why should it go back to Scotland? What am I missing??

[highlander_Daz]

It refers to a letter that was in the possession of Sir William Wallace at the time of his capture, thats held at Kew, its not really a safe conduct letter its from the king of france to his agents in Rome, the letter mentions Wallace by name "'William le Waleis', knight of Scotland" and the fact that Wallace had it on him when captured really does make for a strong case for being on display in Scotland.

[Paul Henry]

so the letter mentions William Wallace, of Scotland so why should it be returned to Scotland? Still don't understand.
Of course it might be nice if it was in Scotland but why " should it be returned"?
Perahps I;m being very slow here, but on that basis all sorts of things should be returned just because someone had either a mention or temporary possession of an object. If the letter was from a French King to an Italian Agent mentioning a Scottish man, I can't see that it should automatically go to a museum in Scotland.

[macwilkin]

Can someone explain what this is about, please.
If the letter was from the King of France..... why should it go back to Scotland? What am I missing??

See this article, paulhenry:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4385544.stm

As for the King of France, remember that Scotland & France were allies in "The Auld Alliance" against a common enemy, England.

I hope this clears things up.

Cheers,

Todd

[RockyR]

That was a great article, Todd... thanks for sharing!

#780 here.

[Paul Henry]

thanks for the link, interseting reading, but I still don't understand why it should be returned to Scotland, as I said before it might be nice to have in Scotland, but it hardly being returned!