National Trust for Scotland searches for Culloden decendants

[Monkey@Arms]

From The Scotsman

Global search for the children of Culloden

IT WAS a brutal conflict that changed the course of history, pitching Scot against Scot, clan against clan and brother against brother.

The Battle of Culloden in 1746 ended the attempt by the Jacobite army to reclaim the British throne for a Catholic, Stuart king. Its aftermath led to the "pacification" of the Highlands and the dismantling of a way of life with estates seized and kilts and tartan banned.

The campaign accelerated emigration from the area and the setting up of new colonies in the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Now the National Trust for Scotland (NTS), the guardians of the battlefield, have launched a global search for young people whose ancestors fought on either side of the conflict.

The NTS wants to encourage youngsters to research their family trees to find out if any are related to the soldiers who fought for Prince Charles Edward Stuart, or the government troops, led by the Duke of Cumberland.

The aim is to find two direct descendants to help officially open a new £9.4 million visitor centre at Culloden on 16 April, the anniversary of the battle.

Alexander Bennett, the trust's project coordinator, said: "The myth that Culloden was a conflict between England and Scotland is still alive today.

"In fact, many Scots fought with the government troops and some families had members who fought on opposing sides, often against their will.

"The Battle of Culloden signalled the end of the clan system and contributed to the exodus of many Highlanders to the New World where they played a significant role in the creation and development of the US, Australia and Canada.

"We think it's very important that the descendants of those who fought on either side should help us officially open the new centre."

Mr Bennett said he hopes to uncover children with a direct line to the battle, but not necessarily the leading players.

"It's more to do with the process rather than who the ancestor was. It's not as if we are looking for a direct descendant of the prince.

"It would be nice if we could have someone from both sides, just ordinary, everyday people." The names of soldiers on the prince's side included Cameron, Macleod, Maclean, Farquharson, Chattan, Fraser and Stewart, while among the government troops were Monro, Campbell, Price, Cholmondely, Bligh, Semphill and Flemming.

"There will be some obvious direct descendants from, say, the clan chiefs, but that's not quite what we are looking for," said Mr Bennett.

"It's more for children who want to get involved in research.

"It would be great if we get someone from Canada, or Australia as that is the diaspora and they are extremely proud of their ancestry."

The project is open to school-age children who have until 19 March to submit their family trees. These will then be scrutinised and authenticated by a panel of judges, including Dr Nick Barratt from the TV genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are? Dr Barratt said: "This is an opportunity for generations to come together and explore their shared past. Family trees are the gateway to history. There is something very exciting about seeing past events through ancestors' lives."

FAMILY IN THE FIGHTING

NELLIE Leitch, who lives in Culloden, spent 30 years investigating her family connections to the battle and discovered her great grandfather three times removed, Roderick Mackenzie, fought with the Lifeguards on the Jacobite side.

He survived the fighting and was among those who helped Prince Charles Edward Stuart escape. Government troops caught and shot Mr Mackenzie and beheaded him, mistaking him for the prince. His head was taken to London and put on display for a month before the mistake was realised.

David Henderson, of Farr, near Inverness, is able to trace his family to an Andrew Henderson, who was an eyewitness at the battle, working as an early war reporter on the government side.

Born in Roxburghe in February 1717, Mr Henderson wrote a book about the conflict, a copy of which is now at the Culloden visitor centre.

Best regards,

Jake

[Arlen]

Hmm.
I already know at least one of my direct ancestors fought for Prince Charlie.
That said, I am dreadfully irritated that they seem to have made such a point that people were fighting for a 'Catholic king.'
Most of the Scots fighting for Prince Charlie were Protestants.


Then again, it is the Scotsman.

[macwilkin]

Hmm.
I already know at least one of my direct ancestors fought for Prince Charlie.
That said, I am dreadfully irritated that they seem to have made such a point that people were fighting for a 'Catholic king.'
Most of the Scots fighting for Prince Charlie were Protestants.


Then again, it is the Scotsman.

Well said, Arlen. The Jacobite army contained quite a few Episcopalians and even some Presbyterians, although there were RC's among the ranks as well.

T.

[Arlen]

Well said, Arlen. The Jacobite army contained quite a few Episcopalians and even some Presbyterians, although there were RC's among the ranks as well.

T.

Thank you.
I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I think what's bothering me more is reading some of the absolute nonsense that people are saying in the comments.
I really need to learn not to ever read the comments on anything online.
Or, you know, just stop ever going to the Scotsman's site for anything whatsoever.

[McClef]

Well I may well be descended from some who saw the Jacobite army as it passed through my home town of Macclesfield on its way to Derby!

[Sheep In Wolf's Clothing]

I do think that it is a great way to get children interested in history. I find that history classes are sadly understressed in schools today (in many parts of the world, mine included).
Sara

[Galician]

Hmm, interesting point. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but I understood that the reason for the whole conflict was that the Laws of Succesion had been changed to exclude his line due to their Catholic faith.

[macwilkin]

Hmm, interesting point. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but I understood that the reason for the whole conflict was that the Laws of Succesion had been changed to exclude his line due to their Catholic faith.

You've got it; the issue of James II, his Catholicism, and more importantly, his son's Catholicism, was one of the key factors in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

But, in Scotland, some Catholics, Protestants and Dissenters alike had been opposed to the Union of 1707, and saw the Jacobite Rebellions as a way to reverse it.

T.

[McClef]

They were changed following the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

James II had converted to Catholicism prior to his accession (and it appears that Charles II had done so on his death bed) and it had not made him popular with his subjects.

When he fled, he had legitimate female Protestant heirs - Mary and Anne who reigned in their turn (Mary was a Queen in her own right and not merely the Consort of William IV). Neither produced living heirs so with the death of Anne the only other child of James II was his son (the Old Pretender) by his second wife, Mary of Modena who had been raised in exile as a Catholic and therefore exlcuded by the Act of Settlement.

To find Protestant heirs they had to work the line back to the sister of Charles I who had married Frederick the Elector Palatine and that led to the Hanovarians and George I succeeded Anne. He could not speak English and brought his mistresses with him having imprisoned his legitimate wife Sophia Dorothea for adultery (case of kettle calling the pan!)

There were many, irrespective of religion, that preferred a Stuart to a Hanovarian so religion was secondary for supporters of the Jacobite cause.

The Act of Settlement is still in force even though the need for it may well be considered redundant in our modern world and though an attempt was made in the House of Lords by Michael Forsyth, former Secretary of State for Scotland for it to be abolished, it did not get much support.

So any member of the Royal Family who marries a Catholic still looses their place in the Line of Succession - this happened to Prince Michael of Kent for example, but his low position in that line in effect made no appreciable difference. The Duchess of Kent's conversion on the other hand does not affect her husband or their children as she was not Catholic when they were married and the children are still Anglican.

This act is one of the main reasons for so much marriage with Germans by the Royal Family in the past as Germany had the highest proportion of Protestant royalty.

Hope this helps give a little more background to those interested.

[Sheep In Wolf's Clothing]

Look who won:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...ds/7340595.stm
Sara