THIS news just in: the English - I'm merely citing reports, so don't accuse me of being racist for mentioning the dreaded E-word - believed Robert, a Bruce, was the "second King Arthur".
Arthur, despite being sold to us during my childhood as an E-word hero, tried to save Britlandia from the invading Anglo-Saxon hordes, or "smiling killers" as they were described.
So, in the 14th century, England's evil King Eddie I feared the Bruce personified a prophecy to unite the Celtic nations and drive the English out of Britain. Indeed, never one for a light touch on the tiller, Ed executed friars who propounded the presumably preposterous prophecy, which was attributed to Merlin, a Gandalf-style wizard.
I say "preposterous", for the prophecy appears to have its origins in Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th century best-seller, History of the Kings of Britain, which contains fewer facts than The Lord of the Rings.
That was the trouble with the old days: people believed anything.
Mind you, when yon Bruce won a landslide to be crowned King of Scots in 1306, he wrote to Ireland proposing an alliance, so perhaps Ed Madandbad was right to suspect his tea was oot.
The latest revelations are contained in a forthcoming BBC documentary called After Bannockburn. Here, Ted Cowan, Emeritus Professor of Scottish History at Glasgow University, says Bruce's destiny was seen as "to unite Wales and Ireland and Scotland against England and drive the hated English dragon back into the North Sea whence it came".
At the time, Scotland lacked a Better Together campaign, and it was not until the advent of the Patriots for Powerlessness movement in the 18th century that Scots accepted they were relatively rubbish.
As for the 14th century, it seems a million miles away but, in truth, was not that different. Take the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320: "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor hours that we are fighting, but for devo max." Stirring words. Not for glory, riches, honours: could have been written by Lord Robertson himself. And, at 90 characters, they're easily circulated today as the Tweet of Arbroath.
One sees Alex Salmond as the new King Arthur, pulling his sword Eckscalibur out of the Scone [CORR] of Destiny. And where, today, Scottish Labour leader Jim Mordred spins, "Vote Eck, get Dave", back in the 14th century, his inspiration Edward I was warning: "Vote Bruce, get Arthur."
At this point I feel the narrative could be spiced up with a "whither". Accordingly (clears throat): oh Arthur, whither art thou? More to the point: who the hell are you? And where's your manifesto?
There's a school of thoughtlessness that says he never existed at all or was, at best, a half-forgotten Celtic deity. The name is variously said to be of Welsh, Irish or Latin origin. Some very early versions of the mythology cite cat-monsters and dog-headed brutes but I think, to quote a true English hero - Captain Mainwaring - we're getting into the realms of fantasy here.
Before Monmouth's Geoff, in 731AD, the Venerable Bede, a cleric, wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, and that doesn't mention Arthur at all. Still, you know what they say: history is written by the vicars. [CORR]
By the Middle Ages, Arthur had become the subject of Continental-style romances, all precious manners and courtly mincing aboot. Knights came to blows over doilies, and Arthur's most notable trait was his penchant for circular furniture.
The admirably civil E-people then adopted Arthur as one of their own, putting the con into incongruity and, while they were at it, kicking the Celts in the Tintagels.
If Arthur has a grave, he must have spun himself dizzy in it by now. Seriously, it must be rubbish being a historical figure. Even the Bruce doesn't get off Scot-free.
Today's heirs of the aforementioned Patriots for Powerlessness, ever eager to belittle their own small country, claim he was Anglo-Norman (part that, part Gael, I believe) by background, and that the tenacious spider which inspired him was actually born in Saffron Walden.
So it goes. Today, we don't need a King Arthur to save us. We're led by a woman, Nicola Sturgeon, a new Celtic Boudicca, representing Glasgow Southside rather than what is now Norfolk, and riding her righteous chariot right over Mr Murphy's phalanxes.
But we're getting into the realms of fantasy here.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article