CHAPTER 25
The Tracy Family History
William Wallace, Second Thoughts
Not so long ago there was a television documentary on the
life of William Wallace, Scotland’s greatest hero. It told, authoritatively,
that he was never married. Not only was he not married but he also had no
illegitimate children.
Thus, goes the conclusion, all the Scots who claim to descend
from William Wallace are wrong. He had two brothers, Malcolm and John. In 1307,
Malcolm would suffer the same fate of his more famous brother. It is presumed
that those who claim to descend from William actually descend from his brother
Malcolm. (This is a possibility as I have one historical reference that we do
descend from Malcolm.)
Through my research of family history/genealogy, which entailed reading thousand
of pages by eminent scholars, I am struck by the tradition that is so strong
that we do indeed descend from the great Scottish patriot.
This tradition shows up in different lines, some of whom do
not know that the other lines even exist. It has come down through the many
generations. Again, it is a tradition that is strongly spoken of
by our ancestors.
Now we go back to the documentary, it is accepted as valid because
who ever heard of Public Television being wrong? I wonder, how can one noted
scholar, or group of researchers, be so positive about what happened 700 years
ago?
In researching my Moon's connection to the Hanks, I read a book on the
life of Nancy Hanks the mother of Abraham Lincoln, because Tom Hanks (actor,
chapter 11) is related to
this woman. This writer points out that around 1940, a famous author
wrote a book on Abraham Lincoln positively debunking the legend of his romance
with Ann Rutledge. Since publication, many have accepted this version as
being fact. However, this writer points out, if you ignore this one book then
there is a great deal of evidence that there was a relationship between the two:
Documents, records, diaries, etc..
I am not so sure that I am ready to throw in the towel about
all of us not descending from William Wallace. I ended the previous chapter with
all intentions of leaving the story there. But, I have had second thoughts.
I am including the following photos to add to my dubious
ancestor story.
All photos are courtesy of The Highlander Magazine, except when noted.
(Photo by Marc Sexton, not a relative, but a Good Samaritan.)
This is the actual sword of William Wallace on display in the
Wallace Monument. You can get a good idea as to the enormous size of the sword
compared to Mark standing next to the case.
The sword is 66 inches (5 and a half feet). It is a two-handed broadsword. The experts have used modern technology to come up with
the estimate that William Wallace must have been at least 6 feet 6 inches in height to wield such
a sword.
This is confirmed by historians who tells that he was indeed
a very tall man. Why? After his death, William Wallace fell into obscurity until
revived by a minstrel-poet who went by the strange pen name of "Blind Harry."
This writer of history is believed to have lived between the years of 1440 and
1495. His name is not so strange when you consider he was blind from birth.
Blind Harry writes a story of William Wallace and brings him
back into history. He makes Wallace seven feet tall. Many historians consider
this to be true not realizing that Blind Harry was a writer of fiction.
Yet, those historians in the know say authoritatively, “He was not a tall
man.” He had a unique build and was immensely powerful.
The following legend will give you an idea as to the enormous
strength of this man: A little girl who knew both William Wallace and
Scotland's second greatest hero, Robert
Bruce, says, “Rob could overthrow two men, but William could overthrow two
Roberts.”
My family history web site has 79 chapters. If you would like to know more about the other chapters then go to my Home Page www.thetracyfamilyhistory.net
NOTE: There are two standard screen resolutions. The new one at 1024x768, and the old one at 800x600. If text and images interfere, overlap one another, it is probably because you are using the new one. Change to 800x600 and you should be alright.
