MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Inventing History : forgery: a great British tradition (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 168, 169, 170 ... 178, 179, 180  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What are we to make of it all? I suppose the first bogus note is that there is such a thing as The John O'Groats Journal. Local newspapers are normally named after population centres rather than geographical expressions, but perhaps there is a Land's End Bugle. Still, it shows how widely distributed the Picts were. 'From John O'Groats to... wherever'.

Applying RevHist's Double Jeopardy rule:
1. If the first stone is a fake then the second one is a fake
2. If the first one is not a fake, the second one may or may not be a fake
3. If the second one is a fake, the first one may or may not be a fake.
4. If the second one is not a fake, the first one is not a fake.

That's the 'fake news'. So what's the story about the second one...?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have only the press report to go on -- deliberately -- so this should be considered both speculative and non-libellous. Nevertheless some good nuggets can be teased out. The best reason for believing in the authenticity of the stone, as well as the best reason for believing in its inauthenticity, is it being found in such close affinity to the Ulbster Stone. There being so few of them this can be considered 'remarkable'. But convenient since a Pictish stone found in a random place will not have the same clout as where this one was found. So that's where to start. Fiona Begg tells us she was

researching her family tree

That is easy to check. Was she? Are the Beggs a local family? Hatty will confirm that fakers are not very punctilious about these sorts of things. They rely on the fact that anything that is a bit nebulous won't be checked out. It is described as a 'historic graveyard' and that is problematic if it is situated out in the open rain-lashed wastes of northern Scotland. Inscriptions don't last more than a generation or two in such circumstances so it seems a forlorn quest to look for ancestors there on any kind of casual basis. Which Fiona confirms

while uncovering her ancestors' graves at Ulbster. She gradually uncovered more stone slabs that were marking graves and which had become submerged beneath soil and grass.

In other words this was not, shall we say, someone popping along to see if there were any Beggs in the local cemetery, being in the vicinity and all. She had come along with a trowel.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

"On one visit to Ulbster, I felt something underfoot and after removing a little of the soil I uncovered a flat gravestone [that] had an inscription for someone who belonged to my family tree," said Fiona.

Okay...

The slabs had not been recorded before so Fiona decided to take photographs of them

Okay...

but when she brushed away the dirt from one she noticed wavy lines on the surface. "My first thought was that this one had an inscription. Once it was fully uncovered the pattern stood out, it looked amazing. I knew that it was a Pictish stone."

This would appear to suggest -- though not quite coming right out and saying so -- that one of her ancestors had a gravestone in Pictish. Since nobody knows their family tree that far back this cannot be literally true.

On the other hand if it was the custom in the long ago to have your gravestone decorated with 'Pictish' symbols then it becomes possible but it is not a Pictish stone. Any more than having angels on it proves the existence of angels. Since, as Hatty is always pointing out to her scoffers on Facebook, inscriptions cannot be dated, I don't know how the Yarrows Heritage Trust is going to get out of that one.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiles wrote:

A lot of Scots of the nationalist variety are going to be offended when King Charles puts the Royal arse on this. If only we could prove forgery, we might just stop another civil war.


The Stone of Scone (/ˈskuːn/; Scottish Gaelic: An Lia Fàil; Scots: Stane o Scuin)—also known as the Stone of Destiny, and often referred to in England as The Coronation Stone—is an oblong block of red sandstone that has been used for centuries in the coronation of the monarchs of Scotland. It is also known as Jacob's Pillow Stone and the Tanist Stone, and as clach-na-cinneamhain in Scottish Gaelic.

Historically, the artefact was kept at the now-ruined Scone Abbey in Scone, near Perth, Scotland. It was seized by Edward I's forces from Scone during the English invasion of Scotland in 1296, and was used in the coronation of the monarchs of England as well as the monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, following the Treaty of Union of 1707. Its size is 26 in (66 cm) by 16.7 in (42 cm) by 10.5 in (26.7 cm) and its weight is approximately 335 lb (152 kg). A roughly incised cross is on one surface, and an iron ring at each end aids with transport.[1] Monarchs used to sit on the Stone of Scone itself until a wooden platform was added to the Coronation Chair in the 17th century.[2]

In 1996, the British Government decided to return the stone to Scotland, when not in use at coronations, and it was transported to Edinburgh Castle, where it is now kept with the Scottish Crown Jewels.


Alex has said he would have prevented this old bit of Roman wall being used in the coronation. Humza Yousaf decided instead to accept his invitation. Try not to smurtle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0pd0YtiMOg
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Here is the link to wiki. We only have to 6th May to solve this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_of_Scone
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I guess it's sensitive as:

In 1296, during the First Scottish War of Independence, King Edward I of England took the stone as spoils of war and removed it to Westminster Abbey, where it was fitted into a wooden chair – known as the Coronation Chair or King Edward's Chair – on which most subsequent English and then British sovereigns have been crowned. Edward I sought to claim the status of the "Lord Paramount" of Scotland, with the right to oversee its King.[13]


Things would not be quite as bad if Edward had been a wise or saintly king like, say, Edward the Martyr or Edward the Confessor, but he had to steal the Stone of Scone and was known as Edward "Hammer of the Scots", virtually guaranteeing years of lingering resentment.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The suffragettes, according to wiki, tried to blow up the stone.

1914 suffragette bombing.

On 11 June 1914, as part of the suffragette bombing and arson campaign of 1912-1914, suffragettes of the Women's Social and Political Union planted a bomb loaded with nuts and bolts to act as shrapnel next to the Coronation Chair and Stone;[17][18] no serious injuries were reported in the aftermath of the subsequent explosion despite the building having been busy with 80-100 visitors,[19][20] but the deflagration blew off a corner of the Coronation Chair[17][18] and caused the Stone to break in half – although this was not discovered until 1950, when four Scottish nationalists broke into the church to steal the stone and return it to Scotland.[18] Two days after the Westminster Abbey bombing, a second suffragette bomb was discovered before it could explode in St Paul's Cathedral.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Then in the 1950s it got stolen by Scots nationalists.

On Christmas Day 1950, a group of four Scottish students (Ian Hamilton, Gavin Vernon, Kay Matheson,[22] and Alan Stuart) removed the stone from Westminster Abbey, intending to return it to Scotland.[23] During the removal process, the stone broke into two pieces.[24][25] After burying the greater part of the Stone in a Kent field, where they camped for a few days,[26] they uncovered the buried stone and returned to Scotland, along with a new accomplice, John Josselyn.

According to one American diplomat who was posted in Edinburgh at the time, the stone was briefly hidden in a trunk in the basement of the consulate's Public Affairs Officer, unbeknownst to him, then brought up further north.[27] The smaller piece was similarly brought north at a later time. The entire stone was passed to a senior Glasgow politician, who arranged for the Glasgow stonemason Robert Gray to repair it professionally.[28][29]

The British Government ordered a major search for the stone, but was unsuccessful. The stone was left by those that had been hiding it on the altar of Arbroath Abbey on 11 April 1951, a property owned by the Church of Scotland. Once the London police were informed of its whereabouts, the stone was returned to Westminster four months after its removal. Afterward, rumours circulated that copies of the stone had been made, and that the returned stone was not the original.[30][31]
    Send private message
    Wile E. Coyote


    In: Arizona
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    John Major had the right idea. Return it to Scotland.

    On 3 July 1996, in response to a growing discussion around Scottish cultural history, the British Government announced that the stone would return to Scotland, 700 years after it had been taken.[31][32] On 15 November 1996, after a handover ceremony at the border between representatives of the Home Office and of the Scottish Office, the stone was transported to Edinburgh Castle. An official handover ceremony occurred in the Castle on 30 November 1996, St Andrew's Day, to mark the arrival of the stone.[33] Prince Andrew, Duke of York, representing Queen Elizabeth II, formally handed over the Royal Warrant transferring the stone into the safekeeping of the Commissioners for the Regalia.[34][35] It currently remains alongside the crown jewels of Scotland, the Honours of Scotland, in the Crown Room of Edinburgh Castle.[36]


    At last! We had rid of it. Phew. But....it's back for the coronation. Blimey, it is like trying to chuck away an unwanted boomerang. The King (if only it had been a shapely youthful queenly derriere!) is now going to squat and sit on Scottish pride. It is a PR disaster.

    Only AEists can stop it.
    Send private message
    Mick Harper
    Site Admin

    In: London
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    Does AE have a position on how some iddly-tiddly island decides to draw its borders? Remind me.
    Send private message
    Wile E. Coyote


    In: Arizona
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    The odd thing is the appearance.

    Offered the chance to guess I would say it is a bit of Roman wall.

    https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/uk/lifestyle/a42686176/what-is-the-stone-of-destiny/
    Send private message
    Mick Harper
    Site Admin

    In: London
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote


    Normally, Hatty and I are at pains to point out that a lump of Anglo-Saxon carved masonry (or whatever) left out in the elements would have had all its markings worn clean within a hundred years, not clear as a bell after a thousand. When a lump of Scottish carved masonry gets brought out once every time a king is crowned, it shouldn't be worn at all. So... someone wanted it to look old.
    Send private message
    Wile E. Coyote


    In: Arizona
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    If the stone contained a mighty Excalibur, then it would be ideal. But it looks like a bit of a wall.
    Send private message
    Mick Harper
    Site Admin

    In: London
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    If it is a piece of Hadrian's Wall, that would make it rather appropriate.
    Send private message
    Wile E. Coyote


    In: Arizona
    View user's profile
    Reply with quote

    Maybe a sandstone slab that was intended for later carving?
    Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 168, 169, 170 ... 178, 179, 180  Next

    Jump to:  
    Page 169 of 180

    MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


    Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group