Who Was Prince Charlie Anyway?

[ccga3359]

Come on... That looks nothing like Billy Connelly. Next you are going to tell us that William Wallce didn't really look like Mel Gibson


Seriously, that's a cool picture. It's interesting to see how different the pocket flaps are on this version from today's tweed argyle coats. I reminds me more of of the side of some doublets.

Of course not, although Mel Gibson does have an uncanny resemblance to Sir William Wallace 9especially the height thing) and may be a direct descendant. I recall reading somewhere that John Brown was unique in his choice of solid tweed kilt over a clan tartan.

[gilmore]

Of course not, although Mel Gibson does have an uncanny resemblance to Sir William Wallace 9especially the height thing) and may be a direct descendant. ....

How would anyone know if Gibson looks like Wallace?

There are no surviving contemporary portraits of Wallace, and it is unlikely that any ever existed. Portraits were almost never made of people of his social standing at that time and place. Even if there were, portraiture at the time was usually stereotypal, and not very good a showing individual features. Further, like most men of his time, Wallace probably had long hair and a beard that would have covered most of his face, obscuring his features and rendering them invisible to an artist.

It is impossible that Gibson, or anyone else is an identifiable descendant of Wallace. He had no known children, nor did he leave any known collateral descendants through any brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles or cousins. This topic was the subject of a thread of two here, as well as a recent one at the Wallace surname board at rootsweb.com.

Though many---possibly hundreds ---have bragged of their direct descent from William Wallace over the centuries, it just isn't so. It's yet another of those gentle lies that people tell about their ancestry.

[Colin]

How would anyone know if Gibson looks like Wallace?

There are no surviving contemporary portraits of Wallace, and it is unlikely that any ever existed. Portraits were almost never made of people of his social standing at that time and place. Even if there were, portraiture at the time was usually stereotypal, and not very good a showing individual features. Further, like most men of his time, Wallace probably had long hair and a beard that would have covered most of his face, obscuring his features and rendering them invisible to an artist.

It is impossible that Gibson, or anyone else is an identifiable descendant of Wallace. He had no known children, nor did he leave any known collateral descendants through any brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles or cousins. This topic was the subject of a thread of two here, as well as a recent one at the Wallace surname board at rootsweb.com.

Though many---possibly hundreds ---have bragged of their direct descent from William Wallace over the centuries, it just isn't so. It's yet another of those gentle lies that people tell about their ancestry.

I think Grant was taking the piss....

I feel for the people that visit the statue in Stering and really think that is what Wallace looked like