Shomeret wrote:
> This is actually relevant to HL:TS. Is it possible that what is
> regarded as the Stone of Scone is a fake that was palmed off on Edward
> I when he claimed it for England? There's an article in the current
> issue of Scotland Magazine that airs that theory.
Theory? Everyone knows that. The Stone was described in the
historical records as being dark granite and covered with carvings,
the one now sitting in Edinburgh Castle (it was returned to us in
1999) is pale Scottish sandstone.
Plus - if Edward took the Stone south with him, how come Robert the
Bruce was crowned in the traditional way MONTHS later? (btw, you're
not supposed to sit on the stone - the monarch is supposed to stand
and place one foot on the stone while being crowned to symbolise
his/her union with the land). Edward then imprisoned the woman who
performed the coronation (her family had the traditional right/duty to
crown Scottish monarchs but there were no male members of her family
able or willing to do duty for Bruce).
The real stone has been with the Lord of the Isles since Bruce's
coronation.
> So do you think that Duncan, Fitz and Amanda stole a counterfeit
> stone? And where is the real article if the Westminster Coronation
> Stone is a phony?
>
The Westminster stone may have been a phony, but by this time it's
also imbued with a lot of historical significance. The young heroes
who liberated it back in the 50s did so to get Scots people talking
and thinking about their own political situation. The new parliament
at Holyrood is a _direct_ result of that, even though it took many
many years to get there.
--
Jette Goldie
jette@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
|
