What if...?
sme...@mindspring.com
Wonder what would have happened if Prince Charlie
had had the good sense to stop at the Border and
allow his military commanders to do their job -- plan
strategy and design tactics. Would there have been a prayer of
whipping the romantic but disorganized Clans into
a "modern" fighting force that could have held off Butcher
Cumberland and his well-trained army?
Perhaps in a parallel universe it happened?
--
Polar
Allan Connochie
<sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:63omhvg6ro8l9vd7b...@4ax.com...
>
> Wonder what would have happened if Prince Charlie
> had had the good sense to stop at the Border and
> allow his military commanders to do their job -- plan
> strategy and design tactics. Would there have been a prayer of
> whipping the romantic but disorganized Clans into
> a "modern" fighting force that could have held off Butcher
> Cumberland and his well-trained army?
The truth is though surely that Charles was not there to try and become King
of Scotland. He used the disaffection with the union which permeated parts
of Scottish society but his aim was to regain the British, which for all
intents and purposes meant the English throne. Whether they would have
succeeded by simply holding Scotland is a different matter. They took power
basically because Scotland was completely undefended. Until their march
into England they had fought what were basically only raw recruits, old men
and cripples. The vast bulk of Scotland's fighting force were on the
European continent embroiled on ongoing wars. For a stable country they
would have needed to win the hearts and minds of the Scottish people which
they came nowhere close to doing. However badly the Stuarts had behaved in
the preceding century, and it was basically that behaviour which had lost
them the throne in the first place, it perhaps would have been possible. I
would think he would have had to renounce his religion faster and more
seriously than he did five years later; he would have had to promise to
protect the Presbyterian Church of Scotland; and kill of any ideas he had
about divine right to have any chance of seriously being accepted in
Scotland as a whole, rather than being feted simply by the Episcopalian
disaffected and a tiny group of Roman Catholics. He would then maybe have
had a chance of being accepted King of Scotland but would have been bordered
by a hostile country which was fast becoming one of the most powerful
nations on earth. I think Charles was right his only sensible action was to
go for all or nothing. He could not rely solely on what support he had
which wasn't solid anyway. Highlanders were apt to desert and the folks of
Edinburgh for instance, who appeared to accept him, reverted away as soon as
his army left. The western Lowlands [eg Glasgow, Dumfries etc] remained
hostile to him throughout.
Allan
Lesley Robertson
> had had the good sense to stop at the Border and
> allow his military commanders to do their job -- plan
> strategy and design tactics. Would there have been a prayer of
> whipping the romantic but disorganized Clans into
> a "modern" fighting force that could have held off Butcher
> Cumberland and his well-trained army?
>
throne of England. Look at the speed with which his ancestor, James VI and I
moved south. The image of scots vs english is also inaccurate - theyre were
both on both sides.
> Perhaps in a parallel universe it happened?
I pity the Scotland where it did. Behind the romantic image of BPC was a
syphilitic, alcoholic wife beater who believed in the Divine Right of Kings
and whose "conversion" to the Kirk would not have lasted longer than
necessary. With a brother who was a Cardinal, it wouldn't have been long
before the Inquisition was in Scotland.
It would only have postponed matters anyway. Charles had no legitimate heirs
(indeed, he only left one child, Clementina, so it's doubtful whether he
could have fathered any others if he had managed to dump his wife as he was
not exactly a faithful husband) and after his death Scotland could have had
the the interesting experience of having a Cardinal-King. As a Cardinal,
Henry could have no legitimate heirs, and the throne would have passed to
the Hanovers anyway - after the children of James VII and II, they were the
legitimate heirs, thanks to their descent from Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of
James VI and I. History would have been different without William of Orange
on the UK throne, of course....
Unlike France, both scots and english thrones could be inherited by women.
Lesley Robertson
Joe Makowiec
> As a Cardinal, Henry could have no legitimate heirs
Minor point - anybody can be appointed Cardinal, and the Church has had
lay Cardinals. According to
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0846999.html
he was made Cardinal in 1747, but not a bishop until 1761. He *could*
have had legitimate offspring prior to ordination.
--
Joe Makowiec can be reached at:
http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
S Viemeister
> On 21 Jul 2003 in soc.culture.scottish, Lesley Robertson wrote:
> > As a Cardinal, Henry could have no legitimate heirs
> have had legitimate offspring prior to ordination.
>
Legitimate offspring would have required a wife - presumably having a wife
would preclude ordination?
Sheila
Lesley Robertson
"Joe Makowiec" <mako...@nycap.rEMOVECAPSr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93BF46828DA3Ama...@24.24.2.167...
> On 21 Jul 2003 in soc.culture.scottish, Lesley Robertson wrote:
>
> > As a Cardinal, Henry could have no legitimate heirs
>
> Minor point - anybody can be appointed Cardinal, and the Church has had
> lay Cardinals. According to
>
> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0846999.html
>
> he was made Cardinal in 1747, but not a bishop until 1761. He *could*
> have had legitimate offspring prior to ordination.
>
Lesley Robertson
Lindy1026
>Date: 7/21/2003 5:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <bfglbf$mfb$1...@news.tudelft.nl>
I don't know anything about this specific case, but I seem to recall reading
that you didn't (maybe still don't?) have to be a priest prior to being elected
Pope, so maybe it works for cardinals too?
Back to Charles' daughter Clementine. She died without issue, I take it?
Anybody know why? Was she married? If her father had taken the throne, and she
in line to be Queen, might she have made alterations in her lifestyle that
would have led to her having children?
-Melin
sme...@mindspring.com
<l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>
><sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:63omhvg6ro8l9vd7b...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Wonder what would have happened if Prince Charlie
>> had had the good sense to stop at the Border and
>> allow his military commanders to do their job -- plan
>> strategy and design tactics. Would there have been a prayer of
>> whipping the romantic but disorganized Clans into
>> a "modern" fighting force that could have held off Butcher
>> Cumberland and his well-trained army?
>>
>Charles wasn't interested in the scottish throne - the money came with the
>throne of England. Look at the speed with which his ancestor, James VI and I
>moved south. The image of scots vs english is also inaccurate - theyre were
>both on both sides.
>
I wasn't painting a Scots vs English picture! Am well aware that
many of the Norman-ized, Anglicized Lowlanders regarded the
Highlanders with, to put it mildly, disdain, and some actively opposed
them in & out of arms.
>> Perhaps in a parallel universe it happened?
>
>I pity the Scotland where it did. Behind the romantic image of BPC was a
>syphilitic, alcoholic wife beater who believed in the Divine Right of Kings
>and whose "conversion" to the Kirk would not have lasted longer than
>necessary. With a brother who was a Cardinal, it wouldn't have been long
>before the Inquisition was in Scotland.
Inquisition? My! Isn't that a little strong? Willing to learn, but
startled... dubious...
>It would only have postponed matters anyway. Charles had no legitimate heirs
>(indeed, he only left one child, Clementina, so it's doubtful whether he
>could have fathered any others if he had managed to dump his wife as he was
>not exactly a faithful husband) and after his death Scotland could have had
>the the interesting experience of having a Cardinal-King. As a Cardinal,
>Henry could have no legitimate heirs, and the throne would have passed to
>the Hanovers anyway - after the children of James VII and II, they were the
>legitimate heirs, thanks to their descent from Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of
>James VI and I. History would have been different without William of Orange
>on the UK throne, of course....
>Unlike France, both scots and english thrones could be inherited by women.
>Lesley Robertson
Could one look at the whole "adventure" as the last gasp of romantic
Old-Tyme Highland independence, in a world that had moved on, for
better or for worse?
Did those who followed BPC displace onto him the fealty the
Highlanders had felt for the clan chiefs who betrayed them?
--
Polar
Séimí mac Liam
news:20030721123124...@mb-m20.aol.com:
> I don't know anything about this specific case, but I seem to recall
> reading that you didn't (maybe still don't?) have to be a priest prior
> to being elected Pope, so maybe it works for cardinals too?
>
In an earlier era, not this late.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
Duke of URL
news:bfglbf$mfb$1...@news.tudelft.nl
To the best of my (limited) knowlege, the highest truly eccelastic
rank in the RC's is Bishop. Archbishop, Cardinal & Pope are
"political" offices. Even the Pope is really the Bishop of Rome.
S Viemeister
>
> Back to Charles' daughter Clementine. She died without issue, I take it?
> Anybody know why? Was she married? If her father had taken the throne, and she
> in line to be Queen, might she have made alterations in her lifestyle that
> would have led to her having children?
>
Alan Smaill
He had a daughter by his mistress Clementine (or -tina) Walkinshaw.
I don't think he had any legitimate chidren (?).
--
Alan Smaill
School of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
University of Edinburgh
Murchadh
I thought she was Clementina Walkinshaw's daughter; therefore
illegitmate.
Murchadh
Murchadh
>Could one look at the whole "adventure" as the last gasp of romantic
>Old-Tyme Highland independence, in a world that had moved on, for
>better or for worse?
It was certainly anachronistic, but because of the tribal (clan)
system, the habit of obedience was deeply ingrained in Highland men,
as was often seen during the Clearances where the men hung back from
assaulting Authority while their women set to with a will to beat up
those trying to displace them.
Thus, when the men were told to ready for war, they went; partly
through obedience; partly because those who demurred were faced with
threatened or actual punishment, just as modern soldiers are punished
for failing to appear for military service when ordered.
>Did those who followed BPC displace onto him the fealty the
>Highlanders had felt for the clan chiefs who betrayed them?
Some chiefs betrayed their clanspeople after BPC had returned to
France and drunken obscurity, so the question doesn't arise.
Note: some chiefs did not betray their clanspeople and are honoured to
this day because of their loyalty to their clans.
I might mention MacNeil, MacLeod, MacNab and Campbell. There were many
others.
Murchadh
Allan Connochie
<sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ul6ohv0unvj0mb8gu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:57:49 +0200, "Lesley Robertson"
> <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>
> >
> ><sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >news:63omhvg6ro8l9vd7b...@4ax.com...
> many of the Norman-ized, Anglicized Lowlanders regarded the
> Highlanders with, to put it mildly, disdain, and some actively opposed
> them in & out of arms.
It's even too simplistic as to paint it as a Highlander versus the rest.
Charles failed to mobilise anywhere like enough Highlanders and of course
many Highlanders actively opposed him too. He invaded England and the force
he could muster for that particular job was only around 5000 or so men.
This was a tiny amount. To put it into some perspective one of his
ancestors had thought it necessary to bring as many as 10000 troops into
Liddesdale/Teviotdale just to deal with the Armstrongs. It was nothing like
any kind of national uprising. The majority of Highlands Clans did not come
out for the Prince [though to be fair more actively supported him than
actively supported the Hanovarians]; he failed miserbaly to draw any
reasonable amount of support from the Lowlands and apart from the Manchester
Regiment his recruitment in England was a disaster. This was simply an
unsuccesful coup which has been blown out of all proportion by later
romantic writers.
Allan
Lesley Robertson
"Lindy1026" <lind...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030721123124...@mb-m20.aol.com...
>
> Back to Charles' daughter Clementine. She died without issue, I take it?
> Anybody know why? Was she married? If her father had taken the throne,
and she
> in line to be Queen, might she have made alterations in her lifestyle that
> would have led to her having children?
>
Walkinshaw..... He did try and get her legitimated, as his only child, but
that still wouldn't have put her in line and his brother was his officila
heir. She died the year after her father did.
Lesley Robertson
Alan Smaill
To counter further the romatic view, the idea that it was mostly a
highland venture is opposed recently with a detailed account of the
consitution of the Jacobite army, suggesting that the highlanders were
in a minority:
"Myth of the Jacobite clans", M Pittock, Edinburgh UP, 1995
>
> Allan
>
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Allan Connochie
"Alan Smaill" <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fwesmoy...@tippins.inf.ed.ac.uk...
Sounds like an interesting read. I have read before that a significant
amount of the small army which marched on England were not clansmen, but
that the Jacobite leaders insisted on Highland garb. Don't know the truth
of that and can't remember where I read it either - which is as much good as
no good. However if that was true then it may have been a mistake as far as
recruiting both Lowland Scots and the northern English goes who perhaps
would have been more willing to join up with a mixed Scottish force rather
than what they may have perceived as an invading and alien Highland army.
Allan
Alan Smaill
That's right -- not just for the army in England.
The Jacobite uniform put folk in kilts, from other parts of Scotland
(not England AFAIK). It's in this book.
The Hanoverian propaganda also exaggerated the highland/celtic side
of things -- the anti-Jacobite cartoons in London at the time
have Sawney in the bog-house struggling with his kilt.
> However if that was true then it may have been a mistake as far as
> recruiting both Lowland Scots and the northern English goes who perhaps
> would have been more willing to join up with a mixed Scottish force rather
> than what they may have perceived as an invading and alien Highland army.
I'm not so convinced by this "lowland Scots seeing the highlanders as
barbarians" attitude that Prebble is keen on. Hamish Henderson
had a good go at him on that attitude in Prebble's Culloden book.
One image that sticks in my mind is of the governor of the Bank of
Scotland (I think) in his swanky tartan-clad portrait at a time when
tartan had just been outlawed. (Is it in the Scottish Portrait Gallery
in Queen St, Edinburgh?).
You'd think that head of the bank made you a lowlander by conviction,
and the HQ was certainly in Edinburgh.
> Allan
Alan
> > "Myth of the Jacobite clans", M Pittock, Edinburgh UP, 1995
Lesley Robertson
>
> I'm not so convinced by this "lowland Scots seeing the highlanders as
> barbarians" attitude that Prebble is keen on. Hamish Henderson
> had a good go at him on that attitude in Prebble's Culloden book.
>
as though he's been trying to manipulate the way I think.
I don't see how the "lowlands against the highlands" view could have been
that common by the 18th and 19th centuries when you look at the level of
inter-marriages going on among the ordinary folk. It was possibly true much
earlier when Scotland was essentially two countries- gaelic and scots
speaking, but once people started moving around more (and that nice General
Wade did so much to open up the Highlands) the attitude couldn't last.
Lesley Robertson
Allan Connochie
>
> "Alan Smaill" <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:fwe8yqq...@derby.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> >
> > I'm not so convinced by this "lowland Scots seeing the highlanders as
> > barbarians" attitude that Prebble is keen on. Hamish Henderson
> > had a good go at him on that attitude in Prebble's Culloden book.
> >
> Prebble's very good at the monochrome approach. He always leaves me
feeling
> as though he's been trying to manipulate the way I think.
> I don't see how the "lowlands against the highlands" view could have been
> that common by the 18th and 19th centuries when you look at the level of
> inter-marriages going on among the ordinary folk.
It is true that once Highlanders moved into the Lowlands in large numbers
they blended in easily with the Lowland population often, or perhaps even
usually, intermarrying. There were no Highland ghettoes and there seems to
have been no real prejudice against them. This was kept almost exclusively
for the Irish, and at that it was only the Irish Catholics who were singled
out. So perhaps it was religion rather than language or which area someone
came from which caused any problems?
It was possibly true much
> earlier when Scotland was essentially two countries- gaelic and scots
> speaking, but once people started moving around more (and that nice
General
> Wade did so much to open up the Highlands) the attitude couldn't last.
One theory is that although of course there had been a divide that after the
45 many Lowland Scots during the Enlightenment deliberately overstated it.
Before the 45 to the English the typical Scot was someone from the Lowlands
who wasn't much different from themselves, but due to hysteria, xenophobia,
whatever we want to call it, after the rebellion when anti-Scottishness
abounded, the Scot became typecast as a Highlander and of course in English
eyes [incorrectly of course] Highlander meant rebel. Stressing the
differences was North Britain's way of saying "luik thon's no us, thon's
thaim heilan savages" Just a theory but it makes a kind of sense too.
Allan
Alan Smaill
> "Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
> news:bflij4$i1j$1...@news.tudelft.nl...
> >
> > "Alan Smaill" <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:fwe8yqq...@derby.inf.ed.ac.uk...
> > >
> > > I'm not so convinced by this "lowland Scots seeing the highlanders as
> > > barbarians" attitude that Prebble is keen on. Hamish Henderson
> > > had a good go at him on that attitude in Prebble's Culloden book.
> > >
> > Prebble's very good at the monochrome approach. He always leaves me
> feeling
> > as though he's been trying to manipulate the way I think.
> > I don't see how the "lowlands against the highlands" view could have been
> > that common by the 18th and 19th centuries when you look at the level of
> > inter-marriages going on among the ordinary folk.
>
> It is true that once Highlanders moved into the Lowlands in large numbers
> they blended in easily with the Lowland population often, or perhaps even
> usually, intermarrying. There were no Highland ghettoes and there seems to
> have been no real prejudice against them. This was kept almost exclusively
> for the Irish, and at that it was only the Irish Catholics who were singled
> out. So perhaps it was religion rather than language or which area someone
> came from which caused any problems?
Not sure if religion or culture was the main issue, but anyway
Irish immigration wasn't a big deal until the 19th century AFAIK.
> It was possibly true much
> > earlier when Scotland was essentially two countries- gaelic and scots
> > speaking, but once people started moving around more (and that nice
> General
> > Wade did so much to open up the Highlands) the attitude couldn't last.
>
>
> One theory is that although of course there had been a divide that after the
> 45 many Lowland Scots during the Enlightenment deliberately overstated it.
> Before the 45 to the English the typical Scot was someone from the Lowlands
> who wasn't much different from themselves, but due to hysteria, xenophobia,
> whatever we want to call it, after the rebellion when anti-Scottishness
> abounded, the Scot became typecast as a Highlander and of course in English
> eyes [incorrectly of course] Highlander meant rebel. Stressing the
> differences was North Britain's way of saying "luik thon's no us, thon's
> thaim heilan savages" Just a theory but it makes a kind of sense too.
Not convinced --
I've already pointed out the establishment banker getting his portrait
done in tartan in mid 18th century.
Another story from after the 1745 is from Boswell, that you might
expect to react to the 45 in the way you say, finding himself
in a theatre in London when a soldier in Scottish dress comes in;
the audience boos, and Boswell says he's black affrontit --
he sees himself on the other side for that moment.
couldn't find an on-line reference, I'll be grateful
to pointers to that tale ...
Alan
> Allan
>
--
Alan Smaill
Sally
had their position from the pope and lived off the revenues of the
church lands. They were called benefices. It was this 'problem' that
was attacked by the reformation. In some cases they were married men,
with families. Some of them had more than one benefice. Some of them
wrote the pope asking that someone take over a benefice that this man
held and thus the older man could retire and a younger man of the same
family could take over. The revenues would stay in the family. Of
course some men were sincere, but certainly others were not. Read the
last chapter, "Road to Reformation" of "Medieval Scotland" by A.D.M.
Barrell. His sources are stated in footnotes and a bibliography/index.
A real eye opener! Sally
Sharon L. Krossa
> One image that sticks in my mind is of the governor of the Bank of
> Scotland (I think) in his swanky tartan-clad portrait at a time when
> tartan had just been outlawed. (Is it in the Scottish Portrait Gallery
> in Queen St, Edinburgh?).
Tartan was never outlawed. "Peculiarly" Highland items of clothing were
outlawed, and certain garments (such as great coats) could not be made
of tartan, but tartan itself and so many other garments made out of
tartan were still quite legal.
It is a myth that tartan itself was ever banned, a myth unfortunately
fed by far too many history books (some of whose authors one would
really expect to know better) using misleadingly shortened, out of
context quotes from the Disclothing act, specifically quoting:
"no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used..."
but leaving out the rest of the sentence which makes it very clear that
it is not (all) tartan which is being banned:
"no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used _for the Great
Coats or upper Coats_"
See
<http://www.MedievalScotland.org/clothing/refs/disclothing1746.shtml>
for more of the actual text of the Disclothing Act.
> You'd think that head of the bank made you a lowlander by conviction,
> and the HQ was certainly in Edinburgh.
Tartan was never a Highland only (or even a Scottish only) thing -- the
relevant question is, what kind of tartan clothing was he wearing? That
is, was he wearing Highland clothing in tartan, or normal Lowland
clothing that happened to be made of tartan? (Neither would surprise me
-- my point is that the mere use of tartan isn't what would be
significant.)
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, skros...@MedievalScotland.org
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Allan Connochie
"Sally" <esd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b8bcd929.03072...@posting.google.com...
Not that I know anything at all about the subject, but would what applied to
pre-reformation Scotland still have any relevance to post-Union Scotland?
We're talking about a couple of centuries.
cheers
Allan
Allan Connochie
That was what Lesley said though. Lowlands v Highlands view not that common
by the 18th and 19thC. I was simply pointing out the different ways
Highlanders and Catholic Irish seemed to be thought about in this period in
question.
>
> > It was possibly true much
> > > earlier when Scotland was essentially two countries- gaelic and scots
> > > speaking, but once people started moving around more (and that nice
> > General
> > > Wade did so much to open up the Highlands) the attitude couldn't last.
> >
> >
> > One theory is that although of course there had been a divide that after
the
> > 45 many Lowland Scots during the Enlightenment deliberately overstated
it.
> > Before the 45 to the English the typical Scot was someone from the
Lowlands
> > who wasn't much different from themselves, but due to hysteria,
xenophobia,
> > whatever we want to call it, after the rebellion when anti-Scottishness
> > abounded, the Scot became typecast as a Highlander and of course in
English
> > eyes [incorrectly of course] Highlander meant rebel. Stressing the
> > differences was North Britain's way of saying "luik thon's no us, thon's
> > thaim heilan savages" Just a theory but it makes a kind of sense too.
>
> Not convinced --
> I've already pointed out the establishment banker getting his portrait
> done in tartan in mid 18th century.
Like I said it was only a theory but then again we can't discount theories
because of one or two individual things. All that proves was that tartan or
highland garb or whatever it was he was painted in was around.
>
> Another story from after the 1745 is from Boswell, that you might
> expect to react to the 45 in the way you say, finding himself
> in a theatre in London when a soldier in Scottish dress comes in;
> the audience boos, and Boswell says he's black affrontit --
> he sees himself on the other side for that moment.
>
> couldn't find an on-line reference, I'll be grateful
> to pointers to that tale ...
Actually it perfectly backs up my point about the anti-Scottishness that
swept London. It was the 8th Dec 1762 at Covent Garden when what were
described as "two Highland officers" came in. The mob started roaring "No
Scots, no Scots, out with them" and according to Boswell started pelting the
officers with apples. Boswell jumped on the benches and berated the mob
"Damn you, you rascals" and he writes "My heart warmed to my countrymen."
It was Boswell's reaction which was interesting but again it was just the
reaction of one individual. The theory is [and I don't know enough about
the period so it's not my theory] that many in Scotland when faced with such
hostility tried to shift things from themselves by pointing the finger at
the rebel Highlanders. As in all societies I imagine that there was a bit
of both types of reaction. The episode is from "Boswell's London journal."
Of course within a few decades the Highlanders were back in vogue as 'the'
defenders of the British Empire anyway.
cheers
Allan
Lesley Robertson
"Allan Connochie" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:3f1f...@news.greennet.net...
>
> It is true that once Highlanders moved into the Lowlands in large numbers
> they blended in easily with the Lowland population often, or perhaps even
> usually, intermarrying. There were no Highland ghettoes and there seems
to
> have been no real prejudice against them. This was kept almost
exclusively
> for the Irish, and at that it was only the Irish Catholics who were
singled
> out. So perhaps it was religion rather than language or which area
someone
> came from which caused any problems?
>
registers are harder to get at, both because many didn't survive (hardly in
your interests for the government to find a register showing whose kids had
been baprised into the "wrong" denomination) and because the surviving ones
are mostly in NAS, who don't have their catalogues on line (unlike the Kirk
registers which are on line at Scotland's People). I'll be in NAS next month
to look at Dissenter rgisters. If I have any time left, I'll have a look. I
have 1 irishman (from Queen's County) among my ancestors, but he married
according to the Kirk so probably wasn't RC. It might have been a
combination of factors - the usual ghetto forming as immigrants arrive en
masse, the antagnonism arising from the usual "they're taking over the
country" reaction, cultural, religious. My irish ancestor settled and
married in Ruthven, Angus where there weren't many irish. There was only one
irish (ag lab) family in the 1891 census for the Berwickshire parish of
Whitsome and they seem to have settled as they're still there in 1901 and
their kids were marrying in. The situation in somewhere like Glasgow where
the bulk of the irish went was distinctly different.
>
> One theory is that although of course there had been a divide that after
the
> 45 many Lowland Scots during the Enlightenment deliberately overstated it.
> Before the 45 to the English the typical Scot was someone from the
Lowlands
> who wasn't much different from themselves, but due to hysteria,
xenophobia,
> whatever we want to call it, after the rebellion when anti-Scottishness
> abounded, the Scot became typecast as a Highlander and of course in
English
> eyes [incorrectly of course] Highlander meant rebel. Stressing the
> differences was North Britain's way of saying "luik thon's no us, thon's
> thaim heilan savages" Just a theory but it makes a kind of sense too.
It does make sense. There's a fascinating book around which includes the
accounts of a tailor in Mary Stuart's Edinburgh, detailing the clothes he
was making for and selling to the middle and upper class. It's all very much
what was being worn south of the Border, so the Edinburgh folk would have
looked very much like the english. The Highlanders were, in general, less
affluent and many dressed very differently - it's easier to hate folk who
don't look like what you see in the mirror in the morning....
Lesley Robertson
sme...@mindspring.com
(Sharon L. Krossa) wrote:
[...]
>Tartan was never outlawed. "Peculiarly" Highland items of clothing were
>outlawed, and certain garments (such as great coats) could not be made
>of tartan, but tartan itself and so many other garments made out of
>tartan were still quite legal.
>
>It is a myth that tartan itself was ever banned, a myth unfortunately
>fed by far too many history books (some of whose authors one would
>really expect to know better) using misleadingly shortened, out of
>context quotes from the Disclothing act, specifically quoting:
>
>"no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used..."
>
>but leaving out the rest of the sentence which makes it very clear that
>it is not (all) tartan which is being banned:
>
>"no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used _for the Great
>Coats or upper Coats_"
>
> See
><http://www.MedievalScotland.org/clothing/refs/disclothing1746.shtml>
>for more of the actual text of the Disclothing Act.
[...]
URL didn't work. ???
I wanted to follow up, as I recall the display at the new Culloden
tourist center didn't mention the above. Maybe KISS?
--
Polar
Alan Smaill
> "Alan Smaill" <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:fwen0f4...@derby.inf.ed.ac.uk...
[ on highland/lowland interaction in 18th century ]
> > Not convinced --
> > I've already pointed out the establishment banker getting his portrait
> > done in tartan in mid 18th century.
>
>
> Like I said it was only a theory but then again we can't discount theories
> because of one or two individual things. All that proves was that tartan or
> highland garb or whatever it was he was painted in was around.
Yes, it's just anecdotal ...
> > Another story from after the 1745 is from Boswell, that you might
> > expect to react to the 45 in the way you say, finding himself
> > in a theatre in London when a soldier in Scottish dress comes in;
> > the audience boos, and Boswell says he's black affrontit --
> > he sees himself on the other side for that moment.
> >
> > couldn't find an on-line reference, I'll be grateful
> > to pointers to that tale ...
>
>
> Actually it perfectly backs up my point about the anti-Scottishness that
> swept London. It was the 8th Dec 1762 at Covent Garden when what were
> described as "two Highland officers" came in. The mob started roaring "No
> Scots, no Scots, out with them" and according to Boswell started pelting the
> officers with apples. Boswell jumped on the benches and berated the mob
> "Damn you, you rascals" and he writes "My heart warmed to my countrymen."
> It was Boswell's reaction which was interesting but again it was just the
> reaction of one individual. The theory is [and I don't know enough about
> the period so it's not my theory] that many in Scotland when faced with such
> hostility tried to shift things from themselves by pointing the finger at
> the rebel Highlanders. As in all societies I imagine that there was a bit
> of both types of reaction. The episode is from "Boswell's London journal."
> Of course within a few decades the Highlanders were back in vogue as 'the'
> defenders of the British Empire anyway.
thanks --
I think it's significant that Boswell's reaction is from an archtypal Scotsman
on the make that might be expected to disown the highlanders, if anyone would.
Alan
>
>
> cheers
>
>
> Allan
>
>
>
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Ian Morrison
news:gkh0ivc4l0ujh0d2j...@4ax.com
> I wanted to follow up, as I recall the display at the new Culloden
> tourist center didn't mention the above. Maybe KISS?
I hope you are not suggesting that Scottish heritage institutions might
be <whisper it> "dumbing down? I'm sure Culloden omit certain
inconvenient facts purely in the interests of accessibilty and social
inclusion.
------
Ian O.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Allan Connochie
<sme...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gkh0ivc4l0ujh0d2j...@4ax.com...
It worked for me. I'd try again.
cheers
Allan
Sharon L. Krossa
URL works fine for me, both yesterday and today (well, this morning and
just now ;-). Perhaps you need to omit the "<" ">" at either side, which
I only used to mark off the URL?
Murchadh
wrote:
>thanks --
>I think it's significant that Boswell's reaction is from an archtypal Scotsman
>on the make that might be expected to disown the highlanders, if anyone would.
>
>Alan
For various reasons I've decided that Boswell was not as bad as he's
painted and there is evidence to suggest that he protested whenever
Johnson rubbished the Highlanders and their way of life. I think he
was proud of his country, wanted Johnson to love it as much as he did,
and was saddened when Johnston, like many others, was unable to pass
up the chance to score with a few good smacks rather than expressing
the admiration he occasionallty let slip, like his panegyric to the
divine Flora.
Murchadh
Jim Stewart
"Sharon L. Krossa" <skros...@MedievalScotland.org> wrote in message
news:1fylyf8.13btw621xplv1cN%skros...@MedievalScotland.org...
> <sme...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 03:35:12 GMT, skros...@MedievalScotland.org
> > (Sharon L. Krossa) wrote:
> >
> > > See
> > ><http://www.MedievalScotland.org/clothing/refs/disclothing1746.shtml>
> > >for more of the actual text of the Disclothing Act.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > URL didn't work. ???
> >
> > I wanted to follow up, as I recall the display at the new Culloden
> > tourist center didn't mention the above. Maybe KISS?
>
> URL works fine for me, both yesterday and today (well, this morning and
> just now ;-). Perhaps you need to omit the "<" ">" at either side, which
> I only used to mark off the URL?
>
> Sharon
It opened for me, Sharon
Alan Smaill
> Alan Smaill <sma...@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > One image that sticks in my mind is of the governor of the Bank of
> > Scotland (I think) in his swanky tartan-clad portrait at a time when
> > tartan had just been outlawed. (Is it in the Scottish Portrait Gallery
> > in Queen St, Edinburgh?).
>
> Tartan was never outlawed. "Peculiarly" Highland items of clothing were
> outlawed, and certain garments (such as great coats) could not be made
> of tartan, but tartan itself and so many other garments made out of
> tartan were still quite legal.
>
> It is a myth that tartan itself was ever banned, a myth unfortunately
> fed by far too many history books (some of whose authors one would
> really expect to know better) using misleadingly shortened, out of
> context quotes from the Disclothing act, specifically quoting:
>
> "no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used..."
>
> but leaving out the rest of the sentence which makes it very clear that
> it is not (all) tartan which is being banned:
>
> "no tartan or party-coloured plaid or stuff shall be used _for the Great
> Coats or upper Coats_"
>
> See
> <http://www.MedievalScotland.org/clothing/refs/disclothing1746.shtml>
> for more of the actual text of the Disclothing Act.
thanks for the pointer.
> > You'd think that head of the bank made you a lowlander by conviction,
> > and the HQ was certainly in Edinburgh.
>
> Tartan was never a Highland only (or even a Scottish only) thing -- the
> relevant question is, what kind of tartan clothing was he wearing? That
> is, was he wearing Highland clothing in tartan, or normal Lowland
> clothing that happened to be made of tartan? (Neither would surprise me
> -- my point is that the mere use of tartan isn't what would be
> significant.)
He is in fairly fancy highland dress, with tartan from his shoulders
to his philabeg, basket-hilted sword to hand and a few bankers
orders sitting on a table beside him.
There is a reproduction in:
Woosnam-Savage, R. (ed) 1745 Charles Edward Stuart and the Jacobites.
HMSO Edinburgh 1995.
Painted 1749, apparently still owned by Royal Bank of Scotland.
I should add that he was (the?) Cashier rather than governor,
and also that he was a Campbell ...
Alan
> Sharon
> --
> Sharon L. Krossa, skros...@MedievalScotland.org
> Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
> The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
> The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
--
Alan Smaill