Battle of Culloden 279 years ago

[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

[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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[Touchstone]

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 just completed a long plane trip and watched the movie of the musical "Wicked", in which one character complains: ""Why can't you teach us history instead of harping on the past?"