Battle of Culloden 279 years ago

[jhockin]

279 years ago, the Battle of Culloden, which led to the laws against many facets of Scottish highland culture, including the wearing of tartan clothing, for most people. Perhaps the exception made for members of the British kilted regiments is the main reason we still have the Scottish kilt.

[OC Richard]

From the standpoint of studying the history of Highland Dress the battle is unique in giving us an accurate picture of the Highland Dress worn by commoners at the battle itself.

As we know nearly all of the 18th century portraits show members of the aristocracy, commissioned by themselves.

In spite of knowing what the Highland participants looked like Hollywood presents its dull brown & grey (and oddly hat-poor) re-imagining.

[Troglodyte]

279 years ago, the Battle of Culloden, which led to the laws against many facets of Scottish highland culture, including the wearing of tartan clothing, for most people. Perhaps the exception made for members of the British kilted regiments is the main reason we still have the Scottish kilt.

We should remember that there were more Scots who were against the Jacobite cause than were for it, and much of the Jacobite support (potentially more, by some estimates) came from England and Wales, as well as Ireland. The Scots themselves contributed to much of what came about, post-Culloden.

The ban on Highland dress was restricted to Scotland only, but Highland dress and tartan had become symbols of Jacobitism and representative of Bonny Prince Charlie's army so to include it in the measures taken to supress rebellion and pacification is understandable. The restrictions affected only men and boys, and women and girls were still free to sport tartan shawls and veils as they had always done - even in the Lowland towns and the capital, Edinburgh.

Similar measures have been taken since, and we have seen political colours being banned in different places in our current time.

We need to remember, also, that the Scottish-elected members of parliament sitting at Westminster and representing Scottish constituencies were jointly (if not mostly) responsible for internal affairs at the time of the '45 rising, and so co-operated with the United Kingdom's policies in the pacification programme. Much of what was done in Scotland was with home-grown Scottish approval and desire - despite what might now be thought of it.

Interestingly, it has been documented that consumer interest and demand for tartan rose following the the 'ban', with a significant rise in sales amongst the North American and West Indian colonials - which is partly why remnants of tartans from this era that are to be found in these places are now so valuable to tartan historians today - ie, examples of genuine 'Jacobite Era' tartans as opposed to Highland Revival creations.

The raising of kilted Highland regiments was a necessity of the time, and proved remarkably popular - but they were Scottish, with Scottish (mainly Highland) recruits, and with a home base in Scotland. Having them clothed, armed and allowed to fight in Highland style shows just how highly regarded by the government they were, when on-side. They formed part of the British army, it is true, but in just the same way that English, Welsh and Irish regiments did, and still do. All serve the Crown, not the government.

Apart from the civilian disarming and restrictions on Highland clothing (essentially because they were so conducive to reiving, and so had allowed the Highlanders to cover distances quickly and easily) I cannot think of any other laws which acted as a ban on Highland or, more widely, Scottish culture as you suggest. Perhaps the most profound effects had been seen 140 years earlier, when James VI had gone to London to take the English crown and create the United Kingdom.

James, as the king of Scotland and now of England too, had declared that from his accession, all inhabitants of both kingdoms would no longer be enemies, that all would be equal and enjoy the same rights in each other's countries, with freedom of movement, and that Scotland and England would heceforth be known as North Britain and South Britain respectively. We all know how successful that last bit has been.

The population of England has always been around four fifths of the UK total, so a degree of majority rule where Scotland and the others are concerned is to be expected, and is reasonable in a democracy. However, the English argue that Scots enjoy significantly more than their fair share of ten per cent when it comes to government and policy-making.

It is easy to get swept up in the romanticism of lost causes, especially when they have dashing, young poster-boys like 'darling' Charles Edward Stuart, but careful attention must be paid to the facts to prevent myth becoming the reality. Particularly with Highland dress where so much myth and nonsense has been, and still is being created.

[Jock Scot]

We should remember that there were more Scots who were against the Jacobite cause than were for it, and much of the Jacobite support (potentially more, by some estimates) came from England and Wales, as well as Ireland. The Scots themselves contributed to much of what came about, post-Culloden.

The ban on Highland dress was restricted to Scotland only, but Highland dress and tartan had become symbols of Jacobitism and representative of Bonny Prince Charlie's army so to include it in the measures taken to supress rebellion and pacification is understandable. The restrictions affected only men and boys, and women and girls were still free to sport tartan shawls and veils as they had always done - even in the Lowland towns and the capital, Edinburgh.

Similar measures have been taken since, and we have seen political colours being banned in different places in our current time.

We need to remember, also, that the Scottish-elected members of parliament sitting at Westminster and representing Scottish constituencies were jointly (if not mostly) responsible for internal affairs at the time of the '45 rising, and so co-operated with the United Kingdom's policies in the pacification programme. Much of what was done in Scotland was with home-grown Scottish approval and desire - despite what might now be thought of it.

Interestingly, it has been documented that consumer interest and demand for tartan rose following the the 'ban', with a significant rise in sales amongst the North American and West Indian colonials - which is partly why remnants of tartans from this era that are to be found in these places are now so valuable to tartan historians today - ie, examples of genuine 'Jacobite Era' tartans as opposed to Highland Revival creations.

The raising of kilted Highland regiments was a necessity of the time, and proved remarkably popular - but they were Scottish, with Scottish (mainly Highland) recruits, and with a home base in Scotland. Having them clothed, armed and allowed to fight in Highland style shows just how highly regarded by the government they were, when on-side. They formed part of the British army, it is true, but in just the same way that English, Welsh and Irish regiments did, and still do. All serve the Crown, not the government.

Apart from the civilian disarming and restrictions on Highland clothing (essentially because they were so conducive to reiving, and so had allowed the Highlanders to cover distances quickly and easily) I cannot think of any other laws which acted as a ban on Highland or, more widely, Scottish culture as you suggest. Perhaps the most profound effects had been seen 140 years earlier, when James VI had gone to London to take the English crown and create the United Kingdom.

James, as the king of Scotland and now of England too, had declared that from his accession, all inhabitants of both kingdoms would no longer be enemies, that all would be equal and enjoy the same rights in each other's countries, with freedom of movement, and that Scotland and England would heceforth be known as North Britain and South Britain respectively. We all know how successful that last bit has been.

The population of England has always been around four fifths of the UK total, so a degree of majority rule where Scotland and the others are concerned is to be expected, and is reasonable in a democracy. However, the English argue that Scots enjoy significantly more than their fair share of ten per cent when it comes to government and policy-making.

It is easy to get swept up in the romanticism of lost causes, especially when they have dashing, young poster-boys like 'darling' Charles Edward Stuart, but careful attention must be paid to the facts to prevent myth becoming the reality. Particularly with Highland dress where so much myth and nonsense has been, and still is being created.

This post needs repeating again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.........................

I am sick sorry and tired of this romantic Jacobite stuff and its about time someone said so. Wrong has been done historically on both sides, but on balance the best team won. Nothing, not even pointless and often inaccurate romantic thoughts are going to change history.

[jsrnephdoc]

This post needs repeating again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.........................

Nothing, not even pointless and often inaccurate romantic thoughts are going to change history.

Tell that to the curators of the Culloden Museum, or the Edinburgh Castle Museum, or, even (and TRULY critical) target who needs to be forced to hear AND believe it, our current American president, whose quest to become "King" seems to have MORE chance of becoming a disastrous reality than did Charles Edward Stuart's.

But, more on topic, my first visit to the museum at the Edinburgh Castle, about 2 decades ago, occurred just a few days after a visit to another memorial, at Verdun. There, the message was FAR more dramatic, compelling, and honest, to wit: let us REMEMBER the travesty of the "Great War" forever, so we're never so stupid as to repeat it. Of course, that message was forgotten barely a decade later.

What I took away from the Edinburgh Castle museum visit could be distilled down to "yeah, we know them English have decimated us time and time again, but just give us ONE more chance against their tanks and nukes and jets with our Claymores, Dirks, and Sgian Dubhs, and we'll slaughter 'em all."

OK, that's a bit over the top, but the typical tourist could be forgiven for acquiring that misunderstanding from the exhibits

[Troglodyte]

Tell that to the curators of the Culloden Museum, or the Edinburgh Castle Museum, or, even (and TRULY critical) target who needs to be forced to hear AND believe it, our current American president, whose quest to become "King" seems to have MORE chance of becoming a disastrous reality than did Charles Edward Stuart's.

But, more on topic, my first visit to the museum at the Edinburgh Castle, about 2 decades ago, occurred just a few days after a visit to another memorial, at Verdun. There, the message was FAR more dramatic, compelling, and honest, to wit: let us REMEMBER the travesty of the "Great War" forever, so we're never so stupid as to repeat it. Of course, that message was forgotten barely a decade later.

What I took away from the Edinburgh Castle museum visit could be distilled down to "yeah, we know them English have decimated us time and time again, but just give us ONE more chance against their tanks and nukes and jets with our Claymores, Dirks, and Sgian Dubhs, and we'll slaughter 'em all."

OK, that's a bit over the top, but the typical tourist could be forgiven for acquiring that misunderstanding from the exhibits

Poor English... They get blamed for everything.

Until Robert the Bruce did his thing, England and Scotland had lived for several centuries in relative peace, despite the English having lost considerable swathes of land to Scotland during the domestic difficulties in England that was the Norman conquest.

It is often argued that everything south of the Forth-Clyde line ought really to be England, as it was part of the old pre-Norman Anglo-Saxon region of Northumbria that was cut in two by the Scots' imposed border. That the English allowed the Scots to keep the territory in exchange for peace gives a good indication of how the English felt (and still feel) about the Scots.

Proud Edward and his army did manage to make some redress in the 1200s, but Scotland chose to follow the English-born (he was a Essex lad, according to scholars) Anglo-Norman Robert the Bruce, and that gave us 300 years of continual warfare. England never recovered its lost lands, and the border has remained static ever since.

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...

[Jock Scot]

Heigh-ho indeed!

[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.

[Bendigo Rob]

We should remember that there were more Scots who were against the Jacobite cause than were for it, and much of the Jacobite support (potentially more, by some estimates) came from England and Wales, as well as Ireland. The Scots themselves contributed to much of what came about, post-Culloden.

The ban on Highland dress was restricted to Scotland only, but Highland dress and tartan had become symbols of Jacobitism and representative of Bonny Prince Charlie's army so to include it in the measures taken to supress rebellion and pacification is understandable. The restrictions affected only men and boys, and women and girls were still free to sport tartan shawls and veils as they had always done - even in the Lowland towns and the capital, Edinburgh.

Similar measures have been taken since, and we have seen political colours being banned in different places in our current time.

We need to remember, also, that the Scottish-elected members of parliament sitting at Westminster and representing Scottish constituencies were jointly (if not mostly) responsible for internal affairs at the time of the '45 rising, and so co-operated with the United Kingdom's policies in the pacification programme. Much of what was done in Scotland was with home-grown Scottish approval and desire - despite what might now be thought of it.

Interestingly, it has been documented that consumer interest and demand for tartan rose following the the 'ban', with a significant rise in sales amongst the North American and West Indian colonials - which is partly why remnants of tartans from this era that are to be found in these places are now so valuable to tartan historians today - ie, examples of genuine 'Jacobite Era' tartans as opposed to Highland Revival creations.

The raising of kilted Highland regiments was a necessity of the time, and proved remarkably popular - but they were Scottish, with Scottish (mainly Highland) recruits, and with a home base in Scotland. Having them clothed, armed and allowed to fight in Highland style shows just how highly regarded by the government they were, when on-side. They formed part of the British army, it is true, but in just the same way that English, Welsh and Irish regiments did, and still do. All serve the Crown, not the government.

Apart from the civilian disarming and restrictions on Highland clothing (essentially because they were so conducive to reiving, and so had allowed the Highlanders to cover distances quickly and easily) I cannot think of any other laws which acted as a ban on Highland or, more widely, Scottish culture as you suggest. Perhaps the most profound effects had been seen 140 years earlier, when James VI had gone to London to take the English crown and create the United Kingdom.

James, as the king of Scotland and now of England too, had declared that from his accession, all inhabitants of both kingdoms would no longer be enemies, that all would be equal and enjoy the same rights in each other's countries, with freedom of movement, and that Scotland and England would heceforth be known as North Britain and South Britain respectively. We all know how successful that last bit has been.

The population of England has always been around four fifths of the UK total, so a degree of majority rule where Scotland and the others are concerned is to be expected, and is reasonable in a democracy. However, the English argue that Scots enjoy significantly more than their fair share of ten per cent when it comes to government and policy-making.

It is easy to get swept up in the romanticism of lost causes, especially when they have dashing, young poster-boys like 'darling' Charles Edward Stuart, but careful attention must be paid to the facts to prevent myth becoming the reality. Particularly with Highland dress where so much myth and nonsense has been, and still is being created.

Just noticed your location - I have distant Coutts ancestors from Strathdon from the mid 1700s - John (my 6xGGrandfather) was born 1759.

Still a bit of a novice on Scottish history, but it seems to me that the Jacobite risings were also something of desperate response to a more general loss of opportunity and hope - that probably reached its climax in the following century with Highland clearances, the possibility of better lives in the New World (including GOLD in Australia and New Zealand) and the potato famine. Somewhere I suspect that the romance of the Jacobites - particularly among the diaspora - is fed into by that nostalgia for a lost world that could (and should) have been better, and the tales which would have been passed to at least the first couple of generations away that would have reflected both the positives and the stories of who was to blame for the need to leave home forever.
And the rebel who fights for a lost cause always attracts some folkloric status for trying to stick it to the man, even - and perhaps especially - when the lives sacrificed are of others, and there is the opportunity to continue to contribute to the mythology from a safely distant but "in communication" foreign exile.