History HubÌý permalink
Culloden apology?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Ceilteach_Kitten (U6750508) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I am a member of the nts and there's been a lively discussion via the letters page over whether the government troops should have a memorial at the site. The discussion got me thinking that, Given the war crimes which took place after the battle, has the uk government ever issued an apology and if not, should they? Discuss!
-
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Wasn't it a case of one bunch of Scotsmen fighting for a German King against another bunch of Scotsmen fighting for a French one. And again most of the so called war crimes were committed by Scotsmen on Scotsman.
-
Message 3
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 16th August 2010
whether the government troops should have a memorial at the site.Ìý
Why not? It's many years since I've visited the site, but I recall a memorial to the men of both sides (am I right?). Why should the enlisted men of the legitimate government be denied a memorial?
Given the war crimes which took place after the battle, has the uk government ever issued an apology and if not, should they?Ìý
No they shouldn't. It's 264 years ago, anyone still "hurting" from Culloden has more problems than a government apology would solve. -
Message 4
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Memorial placque- yes! Apology- no! Dangerous precedent to start, when none is needed.
I remember reading over on the Siol Nan Gaidheal forum a hint that if English memorial placques were erecetd for any battle, they might not survive long! Sour faced Celtic gits!
It was a civil war! Mostly Lowland Scottish with some English in a Government army led by an obese German Prince (Cumberland) against his OWN cousin- a gay Scot-Polish-Italian 'Bonnie' Prince leading some Highland clans to win his dour Scot-Spanish father's 'crown'!
And all that because 'Bonnie' Prince's Anglo-Franco-Scot's grandfather, James II, made a mess-up of his reign- making enemies of the English army, church, nobility and people! -
Message 5
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Given the war crimes which took place after the battle, has the uk government ever issued an apology and if not, should they? Discuss!Ìý
There were no 'war crimes', because it wasn't a war except when crown forces were engaged with those regiments of the French army (whose members, even those of British and Irish origin, were treated as legitimate combatants by Cumberland) that had been in existence prior to the beginning of the rebellion.
Under all other circumstances, it was a rebellion by a bunch of traitors who wanted to impose an cruel, absolutist (proto-fascist) regime upon Great Britain.
Treason has always carried the death penalty, and the accepted, normal punishment for armed rebellion (of which, e.g., all the rebel wounded killed in the wake of the battle were undoubtedly guilty) was death by hanging, drawing and quartering, so those who were shot or knocked on the head actually got off pretty lightly compared with what they would have suffered if the legitimate army had stuck to 'proper procedure' and taken them into custody. The so-called 'civilians' who were targeted during the pacification of the highlands (ie members of the known Jacobite communities which were giving shelter to rebels who escaped Culloden) formed the logistical/propaganda/intelligence arm of the rebellion, and deserve no more sympathy then Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts.
I wonder how many of the haggis-munching muppets opposed to our lads having a memorial on the site of their victory are aware that the Jacobites were opposed to research/advances in medical science, because the idea of treating diseases was against their political/theocratic principles...
-
Message 6
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I think we should just have an enormous barrage balloon floating permanently over the Houses of Parliament, emblazoned in huge letters, SORRY EVERYONE! And the Skull and Crossbones, of course.
-
Message 7
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 16th August 2010
I vote for a big barrage balloon with the skull and crossbones too, but one adorned with the legend:
We're NOT sorry and we're KEEPING all the stuff*.
GET OVER YOURSELVES AND GET USED TO IT!
*Marbles, diamonds, the Falklands etc... -
Message 8
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 16th August 2010
And the balloon could also double as an escape pod for the politicians as it is sounding like you will have to barricade Parliament as well.
Apologise for a civil war? Good grief this touchy feely nonsense is out of hand. Perhaps everyone should be thanking Cumberland, after all the alternative was that ridiculous ninkumpoop on the throne.
-
Message 9
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Perhaps everyone should be thanking Cumberland, after all the alternative was that ridiculous ninkumpoop on the throne.
Ìý
That's certainly how the bulk of the people of Britain (including Scotchlandshire) felt at the time, hence the honours and gifts heaped on Cumberland by the City of Perth, the University of Glasgow etc.
-
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 16th August 2010
a hint that if English memorial placques were erecetd for any battle, they might not survive long!Ìý
A bizarre suggestion conidering the fact that one of the oldest memorial stones at Culloden reads:
'Field of the English
they were buried here'
Many assume that this is just a crude conflation of the word 'English' with 'Hanoverian' and that it refers to all the dead of Cumberland's army (Scots included). I've often wondered, however, about this stone and exactly when it was put up.
One suggestion it that it could be a simple marker for the dead English members of the Hanoverian army who (unlike the Scottish Hanoverians) were too far from home and so were simply buried there at Culloden. But is there any evidence that dead members of Cumberland's army were actually buried on the battlefield?
Another suggestion, however, is that these buried English dead at Culloden were not Hanoverians soldiers at all - but were English Jacobites in Prince Charles' army. Some accounts say that there were at least 23 English Jacobites at Culloden and probably as many as 100 or more. Could this stone refer to them perhaps? -
Message 11
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 16th August 2010
"The so-called 'civilians' who were targeted during the pacification of the highlands (ie members of the known Jacobite communities which were giving shelter to rebels who escaped Culloden) formed the logistical/propaganda/intelligence arm of the rebellion, and deserve no more sympathy then Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts."
Disagree. The Gaelic people seemed to be fighting for cultural survival, if that is the case IMO they were misled to believe tht any London King would be sympathetic to them, but to describe them as like 'Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts' is nonsense. They were a community that had lived proud and free for centuries and deserved to be treated as the innocent civilians they were. -
Message 12
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 16th August 2010
The Gaelic people seemed to be fighting for cultural survival,Ìý
There were plenty of Gaels fighting for King George. Jacobitism was not even representative of the Scottish Highlands.
if that is the case IMO they were misled to believe tht any London King would be sympathetic to them,Ìý
All the post-revolutionary monarchs were sympathetic to and supportive of LOYAL highlanders, such as the Argyll line.
but to describe them as like 'Oswald Moseley's Blackshirts' is nonsense.Ìý
No it isn't - just look at how hideously savage the Stuart regime the rebels wished to reimpose on everyone else had actually been prior to the revolution: the 'Killing Times', the widespread use of medieval torture instruments as a tactic of first resort against Whig communities, the death penalty for field-preaching, etc, etc...
They were a community that had lived proud and free for centuries and deserved to be treated as the innocent civilians they were.Ìý
What a steaming pile of romantic, 'Celtomaniac' manure!
The pro-Stuart Gaels (remember, do, that the Jacobites and their predecessors were NEVER representative of Scottish Gaeldom) had been at the forefront of repeated, savage, brutal attempts to terrorise the rest of the nation into submitting to Stuart absolutism and the 'Divine Right of Kings'. Besides their efforts on behalf of Charles I during the civil wars, they'd been happy to act as the Restoration regime's stormtroopers and jumped at the opportunity to plunder and abuse the general population of the south west as the 'Highland Host'. Your 'proud and free' 'innocent civilians' had had every chance to fall into line since the revolution and accept that the British Isles and their populations were not, in fact, the private property and hereditary slaves of the house of Stuart. They failed to do so in 1689, and again in 1715, and again in 1719, and each time they were treated with astonishing leniency by their intended victims (the general population of the British Isles). The Jacobites WERE the Blackshirts of the eighteenth century and they deserved all they got. -
Message 13
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Catigern, you don't like the Jacobites, do you?
Seriously though, digressing briefly, I'm always irked by the same whimsical Celto-romantic BS about their 'lost lands' in regard to the Anglo-Saxons?
So, when the cultured but notoriously warlike Celtic people settled in this island from 7-500bc, did they displace the indigenous peoples (the 'Beaker people') with polite manners and peaceful gestures?
Back on topic, the Jaocbites' focus on James II was hardly honourable- he had ruled like a tyrant, making enemies of the entire state! Church, army, Parliament and people!
Even the Gaelic people remembered the fleeing James (after the Boyne in 1690) as "Seamus a' chaca" - James the Sh*t! -
Message 14
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 16th August 2010
The Gaelic people seemed to be fighting for cultural survivalÌý
It might seem that way today, but they were remarkably neglectful of their duties given the number who lined up for King George rather than against him. Others were happy to line up with the Stuart dynasty who'd been the most aggressive at trying to force Gaels to speak English and adopt customs from lowland Scotland. The Statutes of Iona had been passed by a Stuart king, not a Hanoverian one. And Hanoverian kings had been far more lenient on Highl,and rebels in 1689, 1715, 1719 than Stuart kings ever had been.
They were a community that had lived proud and free for centuriesÌý
Proud indeed. But free? Free to burnt out by the Laird for not supporting James Stuart (or George depending on the politics of their chief). For some reason we applaud the death of the feudal system in the rest of the country, yet lionize it in Highland Scotland?
deserved to be treated as the innocent civilians they were. Ìý -
Message 15
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Didn't the NTS have until recently a sign = "Burial place of the English and dog walkiong area"? Are they going to apologise for that?
From what I have read the battle was fought to the standards of the day. Many past battles would be classed as war crimes by modern standards, the term is used far too much. -
Message 16
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 16th August 2010
For some reason we applaud the death of the feudal system in the rest of the country, yet lionize it in Highland Scotland?Ìý
I blame Mel Gibson and "Braveheart"! -
Message 17
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Until the UK govt issues an apology for their role in slavery and the slave trade, then I really don't see the point of them apologising for any other smaller, less important events....
-
Message 18
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Until the UK govt issues an apology for their role in slavery and the slave tradeÌý
What role? The slave trade was a private commercial matter. It was the British Government (through the Royal Navy) which eventually suppressed it. -
Message 19
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
"...Until the UK govt issues an apology for their role in slavery and the slave trade..."
Quite right.
The British government's role in abolishing slavery is a blight on our reputation.
On behalf of the entire British people I apologise utterly and abjectly for this interference in the commercial life of the nation, and all those other nations whose ships we intercepted on the high seas to 'free' private property.
I am somewhat surprised that no one has actually pointed out yet that there were more Scots on the government side at Culloden than their were on the Jacobite side.
When these misty eyed skirt wearers start blathering on about Culloden, just how many put a second's thought in to which side they would have been on* if they were actually there.
* As opposed to blathering on about it down the ale house while someone else did the fighting. -
Message 20
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
As opposed to blathering on about it down the ale house while someone else did the fighting.Ìý
That pretty much sums up the over-whelming Jacobite response in 1745 too. Lots of idealist talk of the king over the water, but a remarkable reticence to join the cause when opportunity presented itself. My own view is that Jacobism had changed by 1745 to a symbolic opposition to Whigs rather than any really serious desire to bring back the old regime.
As for the modern Scots national myth of the Jacobites, I just don't understand where the love of the Stuarts comes form. These were the kings/queens who took Scotland into monarchical, then political union with England, and scuttled off to London as soon as possible. Charles I raised an English army to foist a foreign prayer book on the Scots yet his line became a symbolic victim of the English?
Lowland Scotland did well out of the Hanoverians - trade and industry grew. Cities like Glasgow became world centres of science and industry.
I blame Walter Scott. Still, at least he changed the earlier lowland attitude that highlanders were vermin, beggars, thieves, murderers, etc. -
Message 21
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
If there were more Scots on the Hanoverian side perhaps Alex Salmond rather than David Cameron (which side were the Camerons on, btw?) should issue the apology for Culloden then. Should Alastair Campbell issue an apology for the Glencoe Massacre? It certainly appears as if his relatives were involved.
-
Message 22
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Should Alastair Campbell issue an apology for the Glencoe Massacre? It certainly appears as if his relatives were involved.Ìý
Glencoe was a stitch up by the Scottish government from start to finish, perhaps the modern Scottish government could lead the way with a formal apology. Then maybe follow it up with one for introducing the laws which eroded gaelic as a national language. -
Message 23
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
I am so very glad that I have never researched my ancestry and so have no idea of to whom I should 'apologise' and for what, which leaves me free to feel guilt and remorse for the atrocities that are happening now and about which I might, were I a better human being, try harder to do something.
ferval -
Message 24
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
"The slave trade was a private commercial matter. It was the British Government (through the Royal Navy) which eventually suppressed it."
Quite
But as the topic of this thread is about Scottish demands for apologies, perhaps the Scots should first be issuing apologies themselves for their complicity in the slave trade?
Personally I agree with ferval, enough of this whinging and whining about events so far in the past that no-one today can possibly be held responsible. -
Message 25
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Lets go back to the root of the problem!
When are women going to apologise for that apple in the Garden of Eden?
And are the Churches going to apologise for blaming them for it ever since? -
Message 26
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
I would only accept an apology from the Scots if it was genuine.
-
Message 27
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
"When are women going to apologise for that apple in the Garden of Eden?"
Ha giraffe, not until men admit that they didn't enjoy it.
"And are the Churches going to apologise for blaming them for it ever since?"
Wouldn't hold my breath, they are the jealous ones because they never got a bite. -
Message 28
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
It wasn't our fault we were beguiled by the serpent. God put the wretched reptile there in the first place. It was all predestined and we were framed.
-
Message 29
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
And she clearly wasn't a Scot, it's well known they never eat anything healthy. Now had it been a chip tree........
-
Message 30
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Or a battered Mars Bar tree...
-
Message 31
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
""The slave trade was a private commercial matter. It was the British Government (through the Royal Navy) which eventually suppressed it."
Quite
But as the topic of this thread is about Scottish demands for apologies, perhaps the Scots should first be issuing apologies themselves for their complicity in the slave trade?"
I went to a talk at the Mod about the Scottish involvement in the slave trade, they were quite active and it was argued that many Scottish institutions were financed from the profits of estates using slaves including the predominance of Scotland in medical education (it was important to keep the slaves healthy enough to work so many doctors were needed). -
Message 32
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
How about we dont apologise for anything and instead seeing as we're going to get blamed for it any way, we start doing it all again?
We can invade, burn, enslave, rape,kill and pillage our way across the world once more.
Only this time we wont be so nice. -
Message 33
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
David Cameron is a direct descendant of George II, however according to wiki the Clan Cameron were solidly Jacobite.
-
Message 34
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
"We can invade, burn, enslave, rape,kill and pillage our way across the world once more."
Nah too late bttdp, good old Britian has allowed the stiff uppper lips to soften, the moustaches to mould and the bowlers and topees have caved in under the pressure of the PC police. And I bet you there isn't a brolly in sight anymore either!
Unless you plan to drive everyone into submission with group hugs and that really bizarre "office speak"? -
Message 35
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Cameron claims descent from the illegitimate offspring of William IV, great-grandson of George II, through his paternal grandmother's side, it seems. Through the male line it appears he is directly linked to the Clan Cameron who, as you say, were staunchly Jacobite. He is therefore in a unique position to apologise for both sides.
-
Message 36
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
Just because someone has the surname 'Cameron' may make them part of 'Clan Cameron' according to modern 'rules', but the modern concept of Scotch clans as surname-based clubs has nowt to do with the nature of 18th century and earlier clans. The 'Clan Cameron' that rebelled in 1745/6 were the followers of Cameron of Lochiel, who had all sorts of surnames, and by no means everyone called 'Cameron' was a follower of Lochiel. Richard Cameron, for whom the Cameronian faction and regiment (later the 26th Foot) were named, was arguably Scotland's foremost anti-Jacobite, in that he was responsible for the Declaration of Sanquhar of 1681
, which might well be seen as relating to the Glorious Revolution in the same way as the Declaration of Independence related to the American War of Independence. -
Message 37
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
"What role? The slave trade was a private commercial matter. It was the British Government (through the Royal Navy) which eventually suppressed it."
LOL, you must be joking, the British government at the time was hand in hand with big business and no doubt had its coffers full of the filthy lucre of the slave trade; the Royal Navy could easily have been used earlier by parliament but wasn't. -
Message 38
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 18th August 2010
I thought of Richard Cameron, but DC's Cameron ancesters came from the Highlands, somewhere near Inverness. So he is more likely to be connected to the Clan Cameron than to Richard Cameron.
-
Message 39
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Friday, 20th August 2010
Well done Ceilteach_Kitten, a bulging net that a Faroese mackerel fisherman would be proud of. EU regs will require you to chuck a fair number of the more underdeveloped and regressive specimens back though...
-
Message 40
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 20th August 2010
DC's great-great grandfather was born near Culloden, I see, so perhaps we owe him an apology or maybe the Bonnie Prince has come back again?
-
Message 41
Posted by Ceilteach_Kitten (U6750508) on Friday, 27th August 2010
Wow, just checked back in to this. Judging by some of the comments, there's definitely a few "underdeveloped and regressive specimens" kicking around out there!
-
Message 42
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 30th August 2010
Surely Culloden must be seen in the context of the whole "Forty-Five" and to isolate the battle from the context of the uprising is to distort history and minimise the reality of that uprising.
In the light of the subsequent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe that the recent example of the consequences of not letting sleeping dogs lie is relevant to the mission that was entrusted to the Duke of Cumberland and a military machine funded by London wealth- because the 45 was almost a "Twin Towers" moment for England's capital city, and London was not in a mood to "take it lying down".
Of course, prior to invading England and striking south for England's capital, Bonnie Prince Charlie's forces had occupied and taken over the Scottish capital, Edinburgh, much to the disgust of many of the "locals", who were not to associate their Scottishness with Highland culture and tartan for a long time; perhaps not until Queen Victoria and Prince Albert made the romance of the Highlands really fashionable, and the "Monarch of the Glen" hung in countless British homes.
By then the Lowland Scots, and many London and Royal Court-based Scots with roots in the Highlands, had used the post 45 dynamic as an excuse to follow the Stuart policy of wiping out Highland culture and carrying out the great highland clearances in the name of improvement.
But it is probably true that none of this would have been possible without the power of London, a London that was driven into real panic by the arrival of the Jacobite rebels as far south as Derby, just a couple of days forced march away from London.
Such panics had been felt before in the time of the Popish Plot and Titus Oates under Charles II, and of the rumours of James II bringing over Irish armies to impose his will and religious beliefs on the English people in the build up to 1688-9.
But by 1745 London was much more of an international powerhouse, able to stand up for itself and, like New York after 9/11, quite prepared to take the idea of "pour encourager les autres" to which Admiral Byng was sacrificed and apply it to those who had dared to take up arms in order to invade the country and place James II's grandson on the English throne by force of arms.
Culloden was not therefore a little local Scottish affair, but a key and decisive moment in British and therefore world history. It was treated as such by Cole and Postgate in their classic study of "The Common People" in the late thirties. As they put it Culloden spelled the end of way of life that was perhaps as old as the apes, and presumably the Highlander was a species that was bound for extinction. But anyone who sets out to actually dictate the course of history is likely to find that the course of history has a will of its own, along with a capacity to impose it and eliminate those who would compel it along a course by mere "Triumph of Will".
But, lest we forget, people of my generation lived with the daily reality that it was considered acceptable to launch a nuclear holocaust in defence of our way of life that would possibly have meant the destruction of all human and other life on Earth.
Back in the Sixties, the Â鶹ԼÅÄ did show the innovative documentary about Culloden. It did not broadcast "The War Game".
Cass -
Message 43
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
"...the Duke of Cumberland and a military machine funded by London wealth..."
I believe we call this system of 'funding' 'taxation'. I further believe that is was not necessarily voluntary and that taxes were raised beyond the capital, including, again, in Scotland.
Nation states have a habit of defending their territorial integrity. Dynasties have a habit of defending their position. Indeed 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' was attempting to re-gain his own dynastic position.
I find this habit of blaming London, as if it were a unified political entity rather odd, frankly.
"...because the 45 was almost a "Twin Towers" moment for England's capital city..."
It was a 'Twin Towers' moment for the entire United Kingdom. Unless, of course, you are suggesting that a nation once established (whatever you think of its establishment) should not defend itself.
"...Culloden was not therefore a little local Scottish affair..."
I don't think anyone was suggesting that it was a solely Scottish affair. To the contrary, the suggestion is that the majority of Scots were actively opposed to the Jacobites and actively allied with the UK government. -
Message 44
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
Tim Track
By 1745 I believe that for half a century since the formation of the Bank of England emergency funding for the Crown- as has happened in the recent financial storm- was based upon borrowing from what became known as "The City of London". Taxation is then raised in order to service the National Debt. This facility to spread the cost of emergencies by means of instant loans raised from the City Interest was crucial in the wars with France from at least the War of Spanish Succession: and the absence of such facilities was crucial to the downfall of the Bourbon dynasty and the outbreak of the French Revolution.
As for the London interest, I believe that historians identify this as an important element in English history from the late Middle Ages. G.G.Coulton makes the point that no Medieval King was successful without the active support of London, and London (and its apprentices) was a crucial factor in the Civil War started by Charles I, who left England's first city, having lost its support, only to be denied entry into the second city Hull.
'A propos' Hull, historians have tended to look for questions of great principle and have ignored the fact that much of the success of old England sprang from people really minding their own business. Sir Lewis Namier showed the important role of interest groups in eighteenth century politics- groups like the London interest and the West India interest. William Wilberforce's anti-slavery campaign was very much in this tradition, as it served the interests of his native port of Hull and the great woollen interest of his native Yorkshire.
Cass -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 31st August 2010
Tim Track
As for the "Twin Towers moment" I had in mind the fact that in the aftermath of 9/11 the value of the whole world fell by 20%.. a world in which wealth and the access to it is often the determinant factor in whether millions live or die.
My expectation was that the death-toll caused by the collapse in the global asset values would greatly exceed the numbers actually killed by the bombers, since there is a vast global dependency upon various sources of money aid.
In fact "the Blitz Spirit" defied this prospect as Western consumers were encouraged to spend, spend, spend on credit, accumulating vast totals of private "national debt" that helped to get the global economy moving again.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Friday, 3rd September 2010
the majority of Scots were actively opposed to the Jacobites and actively allied with the UK government.Ìý
Of course they were. All that "Charlie is my darling" and "Will ye no come back again?" and paintings of BPC having flowers scattered beneath his feet by silly Edinburgh girls, and similar sentimental waffle, came much later, when it was all safely in the past.
The reality in 1745 was squads of the Jacobite army rolling up at Scottish towns and demanding all the town's money, otherwise they'd be pillaged and plundered.
They paid up, of course. And I bet the townsfolk really loved the "Bonnie Prince" for that. -
Message 47
Posted by arty macclench (U14332487) on Friday, 3rd September 2010
He wasn't the rightful king, he was just a very naughty boy.
-
Message 48
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Saturday, 4th September 2010
He wasn't the rightful king,Ìý
Of course not. Even the rebel side would have claimed his father James for king, not Charles.
But pedantry aside, the concept that "parliament" could determine who was king was a concept which was well established in antiquity in England and Scotland. Which meant George II was the king legally as well as practically. -
Message 49
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
I've got to be honest I am perplexed by this idea that there should be an apology for Culloden.At the end of the day the Jacobites tried to unsurp the Government and plonk their King on the throne.They march all the way to Derby,cause chaos but then run out of steam and head back north......
What are the English expected to do? Say "fairs,fair you gone back North,lets say no more about it"???? Do you let this potential threat off,.Or do you deal with it?? Im sure that the English troops were nasty ** but Im sure that Jacobites were not exactly without vice! And had the shoe been on the other foot they would have been just as vicious.
They came,they saw,they failed,they got right kicking......
end of .... -
Message 50
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 5th September 2010
So the pro-Hanoverian UK government forces at Culloden were 'the English troops'?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.