Idol gossip

The proclamation made in your editorial, “Wallace must stay a standalone hero” (15 September), makes the assumption that he was, and always has been seen as, standing alone.

This, the author declares, is a certainty. In truth there is little certainty about Wallace, but one thing that can be said with certainty was that he did not stand alone. This is not a new assertion; it is not shattering preconceptions or radically altering Scottish history.

It is in fact well documented that Wallace was one of two commanders who led the Scottish army at Stirling Bridge. Perhaps if it had been the other who had survived and Wallace had died it would be him we would be idolising today.

Wallace is not Braveheart. The “Braveheart rebel of legend” is in fact a legend of 16 years, from the 1995 release of the film. We know few facts about the historical man William Wallace who lived more than 700 years ago.

To compare our sketchy knowledge of Wallace to what we know about Knox and Burns is nothing short of preposterous. Braveheart is a work of fiction.

To make the declaration that “There are some things that just are, just have to be… Wallace the great leader must remain a historical hit, not a myth” undermines the work of all historians.

More than this, it undermines our own true Scottish history.

Eleanor Geddes

Corstorphine Road

Edinburgh