i8hibsh Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4138768.ece Perhaps the real one is resting on his shoulders. Would explain the large chip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 read it yesterday, could not believe he was able to say that. Thank goodness they got a respected Scottish Historian to rubbish it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 read it yesterday, could not believe he was able to say that. Thank goodness they got a respected Scottish Historian to rubbish it. Did the respected Scottish Historian who rubbished the claims explain why it isn't round, black and polished with carved symbols, as per the Medieval chroniclers? Or why a stone that was reputed to be used by by the biblical patriarch Jacob as a pillow would appear to have a composition similar to other quarried Perthshire stones, as per mineralogical analysis, and not a composition familiar to the Middle East? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Did the respected Scottish Historian who rubbished the claims explain why it isn't round, black and polished with carved symbols, as per the Medieval chroniclers? Or why a stone that was reputed to be used by by the biblical patriarch Jacob as a pillow would appear to have a composition similar to other quarried Perthshire stones, as per mineralogical analysis, and not a composition familiar to the Middle East? No as unlike Salmond who got a whole page to go through his theory the historian got only 1 sentence where he countered the view that the abbot of Scone decided to hide it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Ohh no, First Minister tells historical theory - Oust him now!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanananananana-angus Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Don't think there is anything controversial or outlandish in anything Salmond has said,he is a historian himself and is just stating his opinion,an opinion that many others share. The article does say the film is based on the 1950 "theft" of the Stone by Scottish radicals.Surely they mean repatriation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Did the respected Scottish Historian who rubbished the claims explain why it isn't round, black and polished with carved symbols, as per the Medieval chroniclers? Or why a stone that was reputed to be used by by the biblical patriarch Jacob as a pillow would appear to have a composition similar to other quarried Perthshire stones, as per mineralogical analysis, and not a composition familiar to the Middle East? With Medieval history you are always going to get various historians who argue for both sides of cases like this. The medieval chronicles are sometimes written years or decades after the chronicler saw or heard about what they eventually write about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Froissart is the daddy of chroniclers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Froissart is the daddy of chroniclers. I have one of his books - some of the stories in there are absolute crackers. Had to do a documents test on it last year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 16, 2008 Author Share Posted June 16, 2008 Ohh no, First Minister tells historical theory - Oust him now!! He probably blames Westminster And Toggie I can spell!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 He probably blames Westminster And Toggie I can spell!!!!!!!! Yeah, he does. So do I, it's all there fault Explain your name and the quote will be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Therapist Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 So do I, it's all there fault You stopped blubbing about it yet Togster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 No as unlike Salmond who got a whole page to go through his theory the historian got only 1 sentence where he countered the view that the abbot of Scone decided to hide it. its a fake. if Edward I had got the real thing then why did he send troops up to rip the abbey apart again 2 years later, only for them to return home empty handed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Root Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 Nobody knows for sure, but I'd say the Abbott got one over on the thick English soldiers eh Simply put, Salmond's theory is just as sound as anybody elses as nobody can say 100% which is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambopompey Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The SNP hopes the film, which is being billed as Braveheart II, will boost its campaign for independence. full of historical inaccuracies then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 The real stone was dropped on Salmond's head, it didn't survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinross jambo Posted June 16, 2008 Share Posted June 16, 2008 the stone that the english took is a fake,believe me !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i8hibsh Posted June 17, 2008 Author Share Posted June 17, 2008 I reckon the fat racist Salmond ate it The above comment is based solely on the opinion of i8hibsh and is not shared by the JKB team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wheatfield to sheffield Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I also hear that he doubts that St Andrew's shoulderbone is really in a box next to the St James centre, As you so rightly say i8hibsh, ftsnp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Yeah, he does. So do I, it's all there fault Explain your name and the quote will be removed. *their Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 With Medieval history you are always going to get various historians who argue for both sides of cases like this. The medieval chronicles are sometimes written years or decades after the chronicler saw or heard about what they eventually write about. I agree with you, done alot of medieval history recently and my dissertation is about the major chronicler Matthew Paris so been reading a few. Adding to what you said it is also worth remembering that they would twist the truth to make something more symbolic or similar to the old testament e.g. if a king does something, make it sound more like something biblical or similar to a great king (e.g. Charlemange is a big fav of German and french chroniclers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.