Macbeth was one of the greatest Celtic kings of Scotland.  The name itself is a surname which means 'son of the elect.' He was believed to have been born around the year 1005 AD.  He became king of Scots in 1040 AD & was killed in battle 17 years later in 1057 AD.  His grave is on the holy island of Iona, which was founded by Columcille (St. Columba), and is home to many graves of Scots kings, as well as many Norwegian kings.

     Shakespeare gave him a pretty bad press, which I suppose is not surprising for an Englishman.  While Macbeth was alive his standing as a warrior-king must have carried a great deal of weight amongst other rulers whose kingdoms lay in reach of Alba (Scotland).  Because of our situaton between Scandinavia, England, Ireland & the continent, Alba was a place of strategic importance.  In Macbeth we found a capable king who was able to rule easily in disturbed times for 17 years, and indeed was able to leave Alba for great periods of time without fear of some usurper claiming his throne, something Edward the Confessor  could never do.  Indeed Macbeth went to Rome on a pilgrimage in 1050AD as can be read in the chronicles of an Irish monk living in Germany at this time, and we know that once he got there he was free with his gold, scattering his alms 'like seed.'

     Macbeth & his kingdom stood at the centre of a power struggle in which the Norse Danes, Holy Roman Emperor, saxons, Normans, Flemings and his fellow Celtic kinsmen of Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland & Wales all played a part, with his holiness the Pope courting them all.

     So what did Shakespeare change (or even fabricate) about the story of Macbeth?  For a start King Duncan (who Macbeth did slay incidentally) was not an old man as he appears in the play, but was likely to have been in his mid 30's or even younger, when he met his death on campaign in a disastrous attempt to capture the city of Durham in northern England.  His grandfather had tried to acquire it & failed as did he, although he didn't actually die at Durham.  He was mortally wounded by Macbeth in the north of Scotland at Bothgofnane (which means 'hut of the blacksmith') & taken to Elgin, where he died.  He is often known as Duncan the Gentle (not because he wouldn't hurt a fly; more because the lights were on but nobody was at home, if you see what I mean).  Macbeths' wife the lady Gruoch is not linked in anyway with the killing.  Indeed she appears to have been a beautiful, loyal & blameless lady.  From a previous marriage she brought with her a son, Lulach, whom Macbeth cherished & was crowned king after Macbeths' death, before being killed in battle in his turn.

     The witches were another fiction.  At the time Shakespeare was alive his patron King James VI of Scotland & I of England, had just written a book which stated this story about witches.  This book was called Daemonologie, and in no small part would play a major role in the coming withchunts which plagued Europe & the Americas in the coming decades.  If there were no witches, and therefore no prophecies, why did Macbeth kill Duncan & Banquo, if not to seize the crown & prevent Banquo from founding his royal line?

     To start with, Banquo never existed.  His invention came from Hector Boece, who invented both him & his son Fleance in 1527AD.  Indeed only by sparing Duncans' nephew Malcolm Can More (who he exiled to England) did Macbeth seal his own sad fate.

     Many years later with English support Malcolm Can More invaded Scotland.  Macbeth (which as well as meaning son of life, also means son of the elect) did great battle & drove them south to York.  He then returned to his own lands & lived for a further 3 years until Malcolm raised a party in turn to assassinate both him & his grandson.  Please note MacDuff from the play is another fictional character.