****Please sign****

**John M.** · 17th March 06, 08:44 PM

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

**LoftGuy** · 17th March 06, 08:55 PM

Hi,

763

Bob

**macsim** · 18th March 06, 05:06 AM

#766.

**Paul Henry** · 18th March 06, 05:13 AM

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** · 18th March 06, 05:59 AM

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** · 18th March 06, 06:06 AM

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.

**longshadows** · 18th March 06, 06:16 AM

# 768 (For all the good it will do.)

N.B. The British won't give back to Greece their Elgin marbles, which they hauled off from the face of the Parthenon, so why should be assume a few signatures on a petition will move them to donate this piece of Scottish history to Scotland?

**McRod** · 18th March 06, 06:53 AM

Happy to do so.
776
Rod.

**Paul Henry** · 18th March 06, 06:56 AM

I take the point about the elgin marbles, ( and not for discussion here otherwisse the post will be closed) but I think the letter is different, it if mentions Wallace why does that mean it should be returned to Scotland, that is the point that I don't understand

**macwilkin** · 18th March 06, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by paulhenry

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