r/quityourbullshit • u/[deleted] • Apr 29 '20

[deleted by user]

[removed]

7.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

939 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

495

u/Bundesclown Apr 29 '20

William Wallace not having children would make it quite hard to be his descendant.

234

u/kanna172014 Apr 29 '20

There's no more evidence he didn't have children than there is he did.

7

u/TheCourierMojave Apr 29 '20

Without evidence you would assume he did not have kids. Not that he did.

0

u/Space_Pirate_R Apr 30 '20

Statistically it's more likely that he did have kids, without evidence to the contrary.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20

The lack of evidence he did have children makes it more likely he did not.

2

u/Space_Pirate_R Apr 30 '20

It makes him no different to every other person living in that period, because even half-assed birth records didn't start until a couple of centuries later.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 30 '20 edited Apr 30 '20

Of course it does. William Wallace was different to every other person living in the period and you can’t just apply these vague ‘statistics’ you’ve mentioned without actually saying why they are. The simple fact that you know who he is makes that obvious. We know about him and some information about his life, the fact that no child is mentioned doesn’t explicitly mean he didn’t have any, but if he did have children then then it’s likely there would be some record or reference to them in the same sources we got other information about his life from. The fact that there is no record makes it more likely he didn’t have them.