Battle of Culloden 279 years ago

[Jock Scot]

Well thats confused the colonials and many resident Scots even more! With the greatest of respect and with touch of humour, if they don't understand the difference between English and British------and most, I fear, don't appear to----- we might as well talk to the trees!

[kilted2000]

Everything that happened in Scottish domestic policy prior to 1603 (and prior to the Union in 1707) was carried out by Scots under the rule of their own Stewart monarchy - so the internecine sqabbling of the clans and the Scottish monarchy, their genocidal activities and proscription of specific clans (think Macgregor), and massacres like those of Glencoe were a Scot-on-Scot action.

It was my understanding that Glencoe was largely orchestrated by the very Dutch William of Orange. Either way, still not English. I do get annoyed when people use English when they mean British. Or think all Scotland is the Highlands.

Reference for fellow colonials:
English: From England

British: From the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland

If any of the above is wrong, please correct me

[jsrnephdoc]

Poor English... They get blamed for everything.

Everything that happened in Scottish domestic policy prior to 1603 (and prior to the Union in 1707) was carried out by Scots under the rule of their own Stewart monarchy - so the internecine sqabbling of the clans and the Scottish monarchy, their genocidal activities and proscription of specific clans (think Macgregor), and massacres like those of Glencoe were a Scot-on-Scot action.

The English (mostly because the Monarch resided in London after 1603) are generally, and conveniently, seen as the perpetrators of the Glencoe massacre and the later Clearances, but the English had no part in either. Orders for the Glencoe killings were signed by a Stewart dynasty monarch, and the Clearances were carried out by the Highland proprietors (clan chiefs) and their willing Lowland Scot (most seem to have been from the Borders) agents.

Outrage at both was openly expressed in England, with enquiries into Glencoe being called for by the English, which was resisted by Scots, and the English demanding the Clearances be halted. A good indication of how the Scots viewed the English around 1600 is expressed in the Basilikon Doron - James VI's how-to-be-a-king guide to his son, Charles, (who messed things up like few kings have ever done) - makes special mention of the English sense for fair-play and natural justice. Not the Scots' nationalistic view, in other words.

There has been no English (ie Anglo-Saxon) king since 1066, and the English have been subject to minority rule for the best part of 1,000 years - ruled by French, Welsh, Scots and German monarchs since that date. It seems to add insult to injury by blaming them for Scots' mistreatment of each other also.

But blaming others for your own faults and wrong-doing has always soothed injured pride and eased the conscience, so cultivating the English bugbear image will always serve Scotland's needs. Heigh-ho...

Apologies from me are due, I think. My knowledge of Scottish history is meager. Yes, I took two semesters of British (primarily English) history in my sophomore year of college, but memories dim 6 decades on…

My point, however, was based on the stories told by the exhibits I visited at Culloden and the Edinburgh Castle museum, from which I have fresher memories. At Culloden, it was made clear that some Clans and lowlanders were participants in British Army uniforms, but I think it was NOT suggested that many Scots in the British Parliament favored the Articles of Proscription. And (admittedly from a visit now more than 2 decades ago) I came away from the Edinburgh Castle Museum with a similar opinion. Do you (or others) feel I misrepresented the story its exhibits tell to someone not already knowledgeable about Scottish history?

Of course, your final paragraphs can be read as saying you agree with me about those exhibits. And, the longest line I encountered at the Edinburgh Castle in summer of 2023 was the wait to glance at the Stone of Scone…

What's happening here in the US demonstrates just how easily such bias can be spliced or bludgeoned into remembering our past. One of our greatest historical monuments (The Smithsonian Institute) is in the process of submitting to a forced and fictitious retelling the history of our (previously) darkest time, expunging memories of what our Civil War was really about (people entitled to OWN other people),and resurrecting fame for Confederate Generals. Truth is a precious commodity whose value is too often under-rated.

[spr0k3t]

I do get annoyed when people use English when they mean British. Or think all Scotland is the Highlands.

I'm sure you wouldn't be shocked in the least to know many of the murikan's think that way. The variance of the British inflections on the English language mean nothing to many of them and result with calling it all English. I find the British linguistics rather fascinating where you can track down where a person lived solely on their accent infliction right down to their townships of origin. So much so that you can tell the difference between someone from Eastern parts of London to someone from the Northern parts of London.

As for the Highlands... there are some really dumb people out there. 'Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.' I've run across many who think England is the "low lands" due to the placement of borders on a map. When I have asked the same group to show me all of the United Kingdom, they tend to miss out on everything that isn't the main lands encompassing England, Scotland, & Wales.

[Troglodyte]

Apologies from me are due, I think. My knowledge of Scottish history is meager. Yes, I took two semesters of British (primarily English) history in my sophomore year of college, but memories dim 6 decades on…

My point, however, was based on the stories told by the exhibits I visited at Culloden and the Edinburgh Castle museum, from which I have fresher memories. At Culloden, it was made clear that some Clans and lowlanders were participants in British Army uniforms, but I think it was NOT suggested that many Scots in the British Parliament favored the Articles of Proscription. And (admittedly from a visit now more than 2 decades ago) I came away from the Edinburgh Castle Museum with a similar opinion. Do you (or others) feel I misrepresented the story its exhibits tell to someone not already knowledgeable about Scottish history?

Of course, your final paragraphs can be read as saying you agree with me about those exhibits. And, the longest line I encountered at the Edinburgh Castle in summer of 2023 was the wait to glance at the Stone of Scone…

What's happening here in the US demonstrates just how easily such bias can be spliced or bludgeoned into remembering our past. One of our greatest historical monuments (The Smithsonian Institute) is in the process of submitting to a forced and fictitious retelling the history of our (previously) darkest time, expunging memories of what our Civil War was really about (people entitled to OWN other people),and resurrecting fame for Confederate Generals. Truth is a precious commodity whose value is too often under-rated.

I'm pretty sure you understood the historical message as the displays and exhibitions intend - a good deal of Scottish history is embarrassing for many Scots, so to have the Engish on hand to blame does very nicely, thank you!

The funny thing is, the English (in my experience) actually love their Celtic neighbours - except when playing each other at footie - and are amused when the resounding victory that was Bannockburn is used against them. The English know that took place 720 years ago, and respond with 'Name another...'

This cross-border bickering between Scots and English is nothing new, even when it's not actually military combat. Samuel Johnson met with similar challenges in his 1775 tour of Scotland and the Highlands, notably on independance and the English treatment of Mary, Queen of Scots. He deals with them in his usual sit-down-and-shut-up style, and demonstrates how the Scots are ultimately to blame for accepting English money in exchange. Just as they did when they sold Charles I to Cromwell & Co. and handed the hapless king to the Parliamentarians for his eventual execution. 'The Englsih made us do it by giving us money' is not an honourable defence.

Even though England and Scotland were effectively at war when Mary was being held prisoner by her English cousin, Elizabeth, not a single Scot took a step into England, nor even raised arms to rescue her. Sure, Scotland's last and best-loved Queen was killed in England, but every living Scot at the time was complicit according to Johnson. Was he wrong?

It has been said of the English that they lose every battle except the final decider - this certainly seems to be true where Anglo-Scottish enmity is concerned. No regiment in the British army has Culloden among its battles-honours - there is nothing honourable in supressing a rebellion and killing your own people.

[Troglodyte]

It was my understanding that Glencoe was largely orchestrated by the very Dutch William of Orange. Either way, still not English. I do get annoyed when people use English when they mean British. Or think all Scotland is the Highlands.

Reference for fellow colonials:
English: From England

British: From the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland

If any of the above is wrong, please correct me

You are right. William of Orange was Dutch, but he was the grandson of Charles I and husband of Mary, who was daughter of the ousted James II - from whom we get the Jacobite following.

William had an obvious claim to the Crown of the United Kingdom - and took it by rebellion or Glorious Revolution, according to your personal stance.

Revolution is only the name given to a successful rebellion, but William and Mary were no less royal and Stewart than James, who was William's father-in-law.

Complicated and awkward for all...