Alexander McAlexander, son of Alexander III, died on the 28th of January, 1284.
Alexander III, the 'Glorious' King of Scots, was careless enough to have lost all three of his children, before he was lost, himself, in the early hours of the 19th of March, 1286. Actually, Alexander didnae lose his bairns, in the sense that they were tint; the tragic fact is that they had all died. All three of his children pre-deceased their father. With those premature deaths and the mysterious manner of the King's passing, you'd be forgiven for thinking that the family were cursed. Indeed, an omen surrounding the death of Alexander III appears to have been fulfilled by proxy, involving the rest of his family.
Alexander's wife, Margaret, daughter of Henry III and sister of Edward I, Kings of England, died in the February of 1275 (or 1274). And his youngest son, the seven year old David, died in 1280 (or June 1281, according to WikiPee). Alexander III’s eldest child, his daughter Margaret, she who had married Eric of Norway to become Queen, died on the 9th of April, 1283, shortly after giving birth to Alexander's granddaughter, the 'Maid of Norway'. At that point, all Alexander had left was his second child, eldest son and namesake, the great Scots hope, Alaxandair mac Alaxandair, Prince of Scotland.
Alexander, Prince of Scotland, was born at Jedburgh, on the 21st of January, 1264. At the time of his sister's death, Alexander Jnr. was a healthy young man of nineteen. He had been married to Marguerite, daughter of Guy de Dampierre, Count of Flanders, on the 15th of November, 1282, at Roxburgh. That marriage strengthened Scotland's ties with an important trading partner of the time, however, as the history books recorded, “No children were born of this union.”
The match also marked Scotland's re-emergence onto the European stage. However, it was ill starred. Like his ma and siblings, the young Alexander was to die before his time. Sadly for Scotland, that he did and suddenly, at Lindores Abbey in Fife, on the 28th of January, 1284. Wee Alexander – he lived to be a week over twenty years of age – was buried in Dunfermline Abbey, with his mother and brother. Nigel Tranter recounts these events in his novel, ‘Envoy Extraordinary’, in which he has Patrick, the 7th Earl of Dunbar and March, responding to an urgent message from the King; to collect him at Leith and ferry him to Fife so that he could conduct his son’s funeral to the royal burial place at the Abbey in Dunfermline.
Ominously, when the young prince Alexander died, Edward I sent his condolences to the King of Scots in a letter, in which Ed assured his brother-in-law, Alex, that they remained “united together perpetually, God willing, by the tie of indissoluble affection.” Edward's was an affection not reserved for Alexander‘s successors, Balliol and Bruce, as history and Hollywood has recorded. You can read more about the consequences in 'Anglo-Scottish Relations 1174-1328', ed. E. L. G. Stones, 'The Kings & Queens of Scotland', ed. Richard Oram, and ‘Robert the Bruce' by Caroline Bingham.
Because he was left with no male heir, Alexander had need of marrying again. All he had left as potential heir was his granddaughter, Margaret, the 'Maid of Norway'. So it was that Alexander contracted to marry Yolande (var. Yolent, Joleta, Iolanthe, & Violette), Comtesse de Montfort, daughter of Robert IV, Comte de Dreux. She was French, in case you hadn’t guessed, and by all accounts quite attractive. She was also much younger than Alexander, being twenty-two years his junior. The marriage was celebrated on St. Calixtus' day, the 14th of October, 1285, at Jedburgh Abbey. Five months later, tragedy struck.
On the night of the 18-19th March, 1286, King Alexander III, then still an active and virile forty-four, decided to return to Kinghorn Castle on horseback. He was no doubt keen to get back to his marital bed for a bit of siring. Nevertheless, he was advised not to make the journey over to Fife, because it was after dark and the weather was very bad. Nothing loath, he rode off anyway. On the way, he became separated from his escorts in the fog and whatever happened next, nobody really knows. In any case, that morning (the 19th) he was found dead, with a broken neck, at the foot of a very steep rocky embankment. The common belief is that his horse stumbled and threw him, pitching him to his untimely and accidental death.
One prophecy relating to the death of Alexander III was the work of Thomas Learmonth, better known as Thomas the Rhymer, True Thomas or Thomas of Ercildoune. Thomas was a 13th Century Scottish laird from Ercildoune (now Earlston) who is the protagonist of the ballad 'Thomas the Rhymer' (Childe Ballad number 37). Thomas was a bard and a harpist, and a bit of a prophet in his day, having gained his 'powers' from a chance meeting with a Faerie on a grey horse by the Eildon Tree on Huntlie Bank, near Melrose. The Faerie gave Thomas a magic apple, which he ate and in so doing gained the gift of prophecy in rhyme or the 'tongue whit canna lee'. Thomas is also reputed to have been the author of the Arthurian legend of Tristan and Isolde.
Thomas foretold the King's death after being encouraged to make a prophecy by the Earl of Douglas, at Dunbar. In most records, True Thomas is said to have spoken thus: “Alas for the morrow, day of misery and calamity! Before the hour of noon there will assuredly be felt such a mighty storm in Scotland that its like has not been known for long ages past. The blast of it will cause nations to tremble, will make those who hear it dumb, and will humble the high, and lay the strong level with the ground.”
Another prophecy, which you can read about in Marion Campbell's 'Alexander III', involves an omen, which occurred at the wedding of Alexander III and Yolande de Druex. According to Bower, in his 'Scotichronicon', at the wedding masque, an apparition was seen gliding in behind the musicians, which brought their playing to a sudden halt. All present were appalled at what was seen and the vision was taken as a premonition of the King's death.
Omen, premonition or prophecy, the 'blast' that occurred overnight on the 18-19th March was indeed a body blow to Scotland, notwithstanding the ramifications took a while to be fully understood. Alexander's death resulted in the crisis of succession that led directly to the Wars of Independence with Edward Longshanks and Norman England.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Sunday, 22 January 2012
Sir William Paterson
Sir William Paterson, Scottish financier and founder of the Bank Of England, died on the 22nd of January, 1719.
Every schoolboy knows that the Bank of England was founded by a Scot, William Paterson, and that the Bank of Scotland was established by an Englishman, a London merchant called John Holland, although they probably don't know the names. However, most won't realise that William Paterson also had a hand in the founding of the Scottish bank. The Scottish bank came into being in 1696, the year after Paterson returned to his native Scotland and helped to persuade his fellows that there was a need for a bank to support foreign trade. Nevertheless, Paterson is more famous and rightly so, for his having been one of the co-founders of what was then a private English bank. Not only was Paterson a co-founder, the canny Scot, a natural successor to Jinglin' Geordie Heriot, was the conceiver and proposer of the idea, in 1691, three years before the Bank gained its Royal Charter.
The need for a bank willing to lend huge sums to King William II and his Government stemmed from the weakness of public finances. Orange Wullie needed money to pay for his wars and Paterson, with his fellow subscribers, proposed to loan the Government the sum of £1.2m at eight percent interest. Not a bad deal, eh? Paterson and his mates established a joint stock company, incorporated as The Governor and Company of the Bank of England and lent their money to the nation. The national debt became the stock of the Bank of England and it became the Government's banker.
Paterson's other grand idea was the unsuccessful Darien Scheme, which was intended to establish a commercial settlement in Panama. By 1700, tragically, for Paterson personally and for many others of the 1200 settlers who had left Leith in 1698, full of hope and ambition, the Scheme collapsed amidst disease, and due to English intransigence. It was in the aftermath of the financial collapse of Darien, which bankrupted many Scots, that the Act of Union was negotiated.
William Paterson was born in April, 1658, in his parent's farmhouse at Skipmyre, in the Parish of Tinwald, near Dumfries. At the age of seventeen, young Wullie emigrated – yes, that's the word for it prior to 1707 – to Bristol, in England. According to the NNDB website, Wullie's move south was due to “A desire to escape the religious persecution then raging in Scotland, and the immemorial ambition of his race.” The NNDB also quotes a pamphleteer from 1700 as having suggested that Wullie Paterson “ went through England with a pedlar's pack.” Pedlar or not, Wullie certainly had ambition and, whatever that had been in 1675, he achieved a good deal in his life.
From Bristol, Paterson sailed to the American Colonies and lived for a time in the Bahamas. It's unfortunate that so little is known of his time there, but the stories suggest he was a bit of a rogue. Perhaps he was acquainted with another of oor Scottish Wullies; Captain William Kidd, the Scottish privateer who was hanged at Execution Dock in London, for piracy and murder, on the 23rd of May, 1701. In any event, Paterson is said to have been either a member of a religious order or a buccaneer. The first is unlikely! He can't have been all good or all bad, but he was certainly an intellectual and left the Bahamas having become, one way or another, a prosperous merchant.
Paterson returned to England fired up by his Darien Scheme, which he'd conceived as a means of facilitating trade with the Far East, based on creating a trading company in a colony on the isthmus of Panama. If he'd only thought of building a canal. Posterity recollects that Paterson failed to persuade the government of James II to suport his plan, so he trotted off to the Continent and invested in Dutch banks. Paterson then touted his grand scheme around the courts of the Holy Roman Empire and the Dutch Republic like an early form of lobbyist. After visiting Hamburg, Amsterdam and Berlin, oor Wullie Paterson had to accept failure – put his ambitions on hold – and he returned to London.
Back in the capital of England, Paterson re-engaged in his profession as a trader, involved with the Merchant Taylors' Company. Paterson was also involved in the formation of the Hampstead Water Company and he was successful enough to have amassed a decent fortune by the time his next bright idea came to light. As an example of his intellect and influence, Paterson wrote, the better part of a century before Adam Smith published his seminal work, that, “Trade will increase trade, and money will beget money, and the trading world shall no more want work for their hands, but will rather want hands for their work.” Thus spake the future Governor of the Bank of England.
Paterson launched his grand banking idea in 1691, when he published a document called 'A Brief Account of the Intended Bank of England'. The concept was a private bank that would assist Government finance. Strapped for cash, another Wullie, the 2nd of England, by way of Orange, promptly approved the idea. The Bank of England's Royal Charter was gained on the 27th of July, 1694, and its first loan was a king's ransom of £1.2m.
Paterson was the conceiver, a co-founder and one of the original Directors of the Bank of England, but he was never its Governor. In terms of his contribution, William Paterson, Esquire, of London, subscribed with the sum of £2,400 and this fact is recorded in ledger folio 56 as entry reference 304 on page 10. In 1695, owing to a disagreement with his colleagues (according to some, he was removed after a financial scandal), Paterson withdrew from the board and devoted himself to his first grand scheme; that of Darien. Perhaps Paterson's fellow directors had become wary of his endless stream of ideas, one of which had been a plan for the 'Orphan Bank', which must have been seen as a dangerous rival to the emergent Bank of England.
Paterson, with his second wife and their child, were aboard one of the first five ships that left Leith for Darien on the 14th of July, 1698. Fifteen months later, he was back in Edinburgh, a widower and childless, and virtually bankrupt by the disaster of Darien. Thanks mainly to fears of upsetting the Spanish, his kingly namesake and the English Government had let him down by actively prohibiting assistance of the Scots colonists. You'd think then that Paterson would've been against the Act of Union, in 1707. On the contrary, he was an advocate of Union and a key figure in the financial negotiations for the Treaty. Perhaps that was his subtle revenge; engineering a settlement that was financially fairly favourable to Scotland. Under its terms, compensation was paid to those who had lost money in the Darien scheme.
Sir William Paterson died in Westminster, in London, on the 22nd of January, 1719. He was buried back in Scotland, in the graveyard at Sweetheart Abbey, where a commemorative plaque was unveiled, centuries later, in 1974.
Every schoolboy knows that the Bank of England was founded by a Scot, William Paterson, and that the Bank of Scotland was established by an Englishman, a London merchant called John Holland, although they probably don't know the names. However, most won't realise that William Paterson also had a hand in the founding of the Scottish bank. The Scottish bank came into being in 1696, the year after Paterson returned to his native Scotland and helped to persuade his fellows that there was a need for a bank to support foreign trade. Nevertheless, Paterson is more famous and rightly so, for his having been one of the co-founders of what was then a private English bank. Not only was Paterson a co-founder, the canny Scot, a natural successor to Jinglin' Geordie Heriot, was the conceiver and proposer of the idea, in 1691, three years before the Bank gained its Royal Charter.
The need for a bank willing to lend huge sums to King William II and his Government stemmed from the weakness of public finances. Orange Wullie needed money to pay for his wars and Paterson, with his fellow subscribers, proposed to loan the Government the sum of £1.2m at eight percent interest. Not a bad deal, eh? Paterson and his mates established a joint stock company, incorporated as The Governor and Company of the Bank of England and lent their money to the nation. The national debt became the stock of the Bank of England and it became the Government's banker.
Paterson's other grand idea was the unsuccessful Darien Scheme, which was intended to establish a commercial settlement in Panama. By 1700, tragically, for Paterson personally and for many others of the 1200 settlers who had left Leith in 1698, full of hope and ambition, the Scheme collapsed amidst disease, and due to English intransigence. It was in the aftermath of the financial collapse of Darien, which bankrupted many Scots, that the Act of Union was negotiated.
William Paterson was born in April, 1658, in his parent's farmhouse at Skipmyre, in the Parish of Tinwald, near Dumfries. At the age of seventeen, young Wullie emigrated – yes, that's the word for it prior to 1707 – to Bristol, in England. According to the NNDB website, Wullie's move south was due to “A desire to escape the religious persecution then raging in Scotland, and the immemorial ambition of his race.” The NNDB also quotes a pamphleteer from 1700 as having suggested that Wullie Paterson “ went through England with a pedlar's pack.” Pedlar or not, Wullie certainly had ambition and, whatever that had been in 1675, he achieved a good deal in his life.
From Bristol, Paterson sailed to the American Colonies and lived for a time in the Bahamas. It's unfortunate that so little is known of his time there, but the stories suggest he was a bit of a rogue. Perhaps he was acquainted with another of oor Scottish Wullies; Captain William Kidd, the Scottish privateer who was hanged at Execution Dock in London, for piracy and murder, on the 23rd of May, 1701. In any event, Paterson is said to have been either a member of a religious order or a buccaneer. The first is unlikely! He can't have been all good or all bad, but he was certainly an intellectual and left the Bahamas having become, one way or another, a prosperous merchant.
Paterson returned to England fired up by his Darien Scheme, which he'd conceived as a means of facilitating trade with the Far East, based on creating a trading company in a colony on the isthmus of Panama. If he'd only thought of building a canal. Posterity recollects that Paterson failed to persuade the government of James II to suport his plan, so he trotted off to the Continent and invested in Dutch banks. Paterson then touted his grand scheme around the courts of the Holy Roman Empire and the Dutch Republic like an early form of lobbyist. After visiting Hamburg, Amsterdam and Berlin, oor Wullie Paterson had to accept failure – put his ambitions on hold – and he returned to London.
Back in the capital of England, Paterson re-engaged in his profession as a trader, involved with the Merchant Taylors' Company. Paterson was also involved in the formation of the Hampstead Water Company and he was successful enough to have amassed a decent fortune by the time his next bright idea came to light. As an example of his intellect and influence, Paterson wrote, the better part of a century before Adam Smith published his seminal work, that, “Trade will increase trade, and money will beget money, and the trading world shall no more want work for their hands, but will rather want hands for their work.” Thus spake the future Governor of the Bank of England.
Paterson launched his grand banking idea in 1691, when he published a document called 'A Brief Account of the Intended Bank of England'. The concept was a private bank that would assist Government finance. Strapped for cash, another Wullie, the 2nd of England, by way of Orange, promptly approved the idea. The Bank of England's Royal Charter was gained on the 27th of July, 1694, and its first loan was a king's ransom of £1.2m.
Paterson was the conceiver, a co-founder and one of the original Directors of the Bank of England, but he was never its Governor. In terms of his contribution, William Paterson, Esquire, of London, subscribed with the sum of £2,400 and this fact is recorded in ledger folio 56 as entry reference 304 on page 10. In 1695, owing to a disagreement with his colleagues (according to some, he was removed after a financial scandal), Paterson withdrew from the board and devoted himself to his first grand scheme; that of Darien. Perhaps Paterson's fellow directors had become wary of his endless stream of ideas, one of which had been a plan for the 'Orphan Bank', which must have been seen as a dangerous rival to the emergent Bank of England.
Paterson, with his second wife and their child, were aboard one of the first five ships that left Leith for Darien on the 14th of July, 1698. Fifteen months later, he was back in Edinburgh, a widower and childless, and virtually bankrupt by the disaster of Darien. Thanks mainly to fears of upsetting the Spanish, his kingly namesake and the English Government had let him down by actively prohibiting assistance of the Scots colonists. You'd think then that Paterson would've been against the Act of Union, in 1707. On the contrary, he was an advocate of Union and a key figure in the financial negotiations for the Treaty. Perhaps that was his subtle revenge; engineering a settlement that was financially fairly favourable to Scotland. Under its terms, compensation was paid to those who had lost money in the Darien scheme.
Sir William Paterson died in Westminster, in London, on the 22nd of January, 1719. He was buried back in Scotland, in the graveyard at Sweetheart Abbey, where a commemorative plaque was unveiled, centuries later, in 1974.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
The Battle of Falkirk Muir
The Battle of Falkirk Muir took place on the 17th of January, 1746.
The Battle of the South Muir of Falkirk was the second battle to take place near Falkirk and, from an essentially Scottish point of view, it was a case of having lost one; win one. The Scots under Wallace famously lost the first match at Falkirk in 1298, but in 1746, under Lord George Murray, the result was reversed and a modicum of revenge gained. In truth, the war of 1745-6 was more of a civil war than a Scotland vs. England affair, with its primary purpose being to restore the Catholic succession of the Old Pretender (James VIII he hoped, in vain). Falkirk Moor is remembered more for being the Jacobite’s final victory than a redressing of the balance after the Wallace débâcle.
A problem that presented itself to the Jacobite army of Bonnie Prince Charlie after it returned from its excursion to Derby – a short story of there and back again, which achieved precisely nothing – was that Government forces were closing in around Stirling and Edinburgh. By mid-January, 1746, Government forces were well entrenched in Edinburgh and the Navy were blockading the ports, notionally preventing the resupply or reinforcement of Charlie’s army by his French allies. Notionally that is, primarily because the idea of tangible support from the intransigent French was a bit of a myth.
The cockaded Jacobite army had marched out of Glasgow “in a handsome manner” on the 3rdof January. Six Highland battalions, under Murray, marched off in the direction of Falkirk, to make it appear as if they were heading towards Lieutenant-General Hawley’s Hanoverian army in Edinburgh. Instead, Murray’s column turned north for Bannockburn. Meanwhile, the ‘Young Pretender’ had arrived at Bannockburn, where he had set up his headquarters. In reality, the Jacobites were destined for a rendezvous at Perth, but they decided to tarry at Stirling, not because it was a strategic fortress that had to be reduced, but because Charlie couldn’t bear to see it remain in enemy control. Instead of French reinforcements, a number of cannon had been shipped to Glasgow and these were used to besiege Stirling Castle. What a waste of time that was.
Following the earlier defeat at Prestonpans, which took place before the Jacobite Army embarked on its futile march down and back up through in England, General 'Hey Johnny' Cope had been replaced as Commander in Chief of the Royal forces in Scotland, by Henry Hawley. Hawley led his Hanoverian army out of Edinburgh to relieve Blakeney, under threat at Stirling. A protégé of the Duke of Cumberland, Hawley as far as Falkirk. According to Horace Walpole, Hawley was illiterate and, from the evidence, he was also a brutal disciplinarian, with the nickname of ‘Hangman’ Hawley – a great name for the disciple of the 'Butcher'. Hawley also proved to have been incompetent, which must've cheered up wee Johnny Cope, who is reputed to have ₤10,000 in a bet, because Hawley, his successor , was beaten by the same Highlanders that had unceremoniously woken him up at Prestonpans.
Unlike Prestonpans, where untested government troops had broken in the face of the Highland charge, Hawley had well trained troops at his disposal. However, his handling of that army, mostly veteran regiments of foot from the Flanders war, was grossly inept. The arrogant Hawley had also formed the view, from his experience at Sheriffmuir in 'The 15', that the Highlanders would not stand against cavalry. He thought “these Rascalls“ of Highlanders weren't worth worrying about.
Those 'Hielant Rascalls' numbered approximately 8000 men. Around half were the combined Clans of MacPherson, Mackintosh, MacKenzie and the MacDonalds, plus the Appin Stewarts. The remainder of Murray's army were Lowland infantry militia, led by the Duke of Atholl and my Lords Gordon and Ogilvy, plus a few hundred horse led by Lord Elcho. The Jacobites marched out to do battle on the 15th of January and were then drawn up on Plean Muir, two miles south-east of Bannockburn. Eager to do battle, they waited in vain for an attack. They did the same on the next day, but again Hawley did not come. Murray then suggested that they took the initiative and occupy the rough upland of the South Muir of Falkirk. To deceive Hawley, Murray also proposed that Charlie's standard be left flying on Plean Muir and that a diversionary force under Drummond be sent up to Falkirk.
About noon on the 17th, Murray had drawn up his army on a ridge west of Falkirk, blocking Hawley‘s route to Stirling. However, confusion reigned on both sides. Murray and John O‘Sullivan, an Irish mercenary with the ear of the Prince, argued over the positioning of the troops. This led to Lord Drummond not being in place to command the Jacobite right at the start of the battle as Murray wished. Hawley, reminiscent of Cope, was taken by surprise at the presence of the Jacobites and struggled to get his 9000-strong army formed up in proper battle order. Hawley's army was made up of 6500 regular infantry, 700 dragoons, the mounted infantry, plus the Glasgow Militia and 2000 men of Clan Campbell. He also had artillery, but these became stuck in the mud, caused by heavy rain and took no part in the battle.
As the light faded in the worsening weather, Hawley ordered Colonel Ligonier to take three regiments of Dragoons against the Jacobite right wing. Without Drummond in command, the MacDonalds and Farquharsons fired an eager musket volley and this had a devastating affect on the Dragoons. As one observer noted, “in one part of them nearest us I saw daylight through them in several places”. The remains of both Ligonier‘s and Hamilton’s decimated regiments promptly fled. Cobham's regiment charged into the Highlanders, but were no match for the Scots, whereupon they too scarpered, to be pursued by the Clansmen.
The fleeing Dragoons rode straight through the waiting Hanoverian infantry regiments, causing more confusion and preventing effective fire on the pursuing Highlanders. Their rain sodden gunpowder didn't help either as one in four muskets failed. The MacDonalds were upon them with cold steel before they knew what had hit them and as the rest of the Clans joined in, the Government forces, with the Glaswegians in tow, turned tail and ran. Cluny MacPherson led a charge from the Jacobite left towards the Hanoverian right wing to complete the rout.
The Hanoverians lost around 350 men killed, wounded and missing in a battle that had lasted a mere twenty minutes. Some 300 were captured. The Jacobites lost less than 50 dead and had 70 wounded. The wretched Hawley fled, unharmed, to Linlithgow, where he penned his excuses to Cumberland in a letter that began, “Sir, my heart is broke...” The site of the battle is marked by an obelisk, which was unveiled by the Duke of Atholl in 1927.
The Battle of the South Muir of Falkirk was the second battle to take place near Falkirk and, from an essentially Scottish point of view, it was a case of having lost one; win one. The Scots under Wallace famously lost the first match at Falkirk in 1298, but in 1746, under Lord George Murray, the result was reversed and a modicum of revenge gained. In truth, the war of 1745-6 was more of a civil war than a Scotland vs. England affair, with its primary purpose being to restore the Catholic succession of the Old Pretender (James VIII he hoped, in vain). Falkirk Moor is remembered more for being the Jacobite’s final victory than a redressing of the balance after the Wallace débâcle.
A problem that presented itself to the Jacobite army of Bonnie Prince Charlie after it returned from its excursion to Derby – a short story of there and back again, which achieved precisely nothing – was that Government forces were closing in around Stirling and Edinburgh. By mid-January, 1746, Government forces were well entrenched in Edinburgh and the Navy were blockading the ports, notionally preventing the resupply or reinforcement of Charlie’s army by his French allies. Notionally that is, primarily because the idea of tangible support from the intransigent French was a bit of a myth.
The cockaded Jacobite army had marched out of Glasgow “in a handsome manner” on the 3rdof January. Six Highland battalions, under Murray, marched off in the direction of Falkirk, to make it appear as if they were heading towards Lieutenant-General Hawley’s Hanoverian army in Edinburgh. Instead, Murray’s column turned north for Bannockburn. Meanwhile, the ‘Young Pretender’ had arrived at Bannockburn, where he had set up his headquarters. In reality, the Jacobites were destined for a rendezvous at Perth, but they decided to tarry at Stirling, not because it was a strategic fortress that had to be reduced, but because Charlie couldn’t bear to see it remain in enemy control. Instead of French reinforcements, a number of cannon had been shipped to Glasgow and these were used to besiege Stirling Castle. What a waste of time that was.
Following the earlier defeat at Prestonpans, which took place before the Jacobite Army embarked on its futile march down and back up through in England, General 'Hey Johnny' Cope had been replaced as Commander in Chief of the Royal forces in Scotland, by Henry Hawley. Hawley led his Hanoverian army out of Edinburgh to relieve Blakeney, under threat at Stirling. A protégé of the Duke of Cumberland, Hawley as far as Falkirk. According to Horace Walpole, Hawley was illiterate and, from the evidence, he was also a brutal disciplinarian, with the nickname of ‘Hangman’ Hawley – a great name for the disciple of the 'Butcher'. Hawley also proved to have been incompetent, which must've cheered up wee Johnny Cope, who is reputed to have ₤10,000 in a bet, because Hawley, his successor , was beaten by the same Highlanders that had unceremoniously woken him up at Prestonpans.
Unlike Prestonpans, where untested government troops had broken in the face of the Highland charge, Hawley had well trained troops at his disposal. However, his handling of that army, mostly veteran regiments of foot from the Flanders war, was grossly inept. The arrogant Hawley had also formed the view, from his experience at Sheriffmuir in 'The 15', that the Highlanders would not stand against cavalry. He thought “these Rascalls“ of Highlanders weren't worth worrying about.
Those 'Hielant Rascalls' numbered approximately 8000 men. Around half were the combined Clans of MacPherson, Mackintosh, MacKenzie and the MacDonalds, plus the Appin Stewarts. The remainder of Murray's army were Lowland infantry militia, led by the Duke of Atholl and my Lords Gordon and Ogilvy, plus a few hundred horse led by Lord Elcho. The Jacobites marched out to do battle on the 15th of January and were then drawn up on Plean Muir, two miles south-east of Bannockburn. Eager to do battle, they waited in vain for an attack. They did the same on the next day, but again Hawley did not come. Murray then suggested that they took the initiative and occupy the rough upland of the South Muir of Falkirk. To deceive Hawley, Murray also proposed that Charlie's standard be left flying on Plean Muir and that a diversionary force under Drummond be sent up to Falkirk.
About noon on the 17th, Murray had drawn up his army on a ridge west of Falkirk, blocking Hawley‘s route to Stirling. However, confusion reigned on both sides. Murray and John O‘Sullivan, an Irish mercenary with the ear of the Prince, argued over the positioning of the troops. This led to Lord Drummond not being in place to command the Jacobite right at the start of the battle as Murray wished. Hawley, reminiscent of Cope, was taken by surprise at the presence of the Jacobites and struggled to get his 9000-strong army formed up in proper battle order. Hawley's army was made up of 6500 regular infantry, 700 dragoons, the mounted infantry, plus the Glasgow Militia and 2000 men of Clan Campbell. He also had artillery, but these became stuck in the mud, caused by heavy rain and took no part in the battle.
As the light faded in the worsening weather, Hawley ordered Colonel Ligonier to take three regiments of Dragoons against the Jacobite right wing. Without Drummond in command, the MacDonalds and Farquharsons fired an eager musket volley and this had a devastating affect on the Dragoons. As one observer noted, “in one part of them nearest us I saw daylight through them in several places”. The remains of both Ligonier‘s and Hamilton’s decimated regiments promptly fled. Cobham's regiment charged into the Highlanders, but were no match for the Scots, whereupon they too scarpered, to be pursued by the Clansmen.
The fleeing Dragoons rode straight through the waiting Hanoverian infantry regiments, causing more confusion and preventing effective fire on the pursuing Highlanders. Their rain sodden gunpowder didn't help either as one in four muskets failed. The MacDonalds were upon them with cold steel before they knew what had hit them and as the rest of the Clans joined in, the Government forces, with the Glaswegians in tow, turned tail and ran. Cluny MacPherson led a charge from the Jacobite left towards the Hanoverian right wing to complete the rout.
The Hanoverians lost around 350 men killed, wounded and missing in a battle that had lasted a mere twenty minutes. Some 300 were captured. The Jacobites lost less than 50 dead and had 70 wounded. The wretched Hawley fled, unharmed, to Linlithgow, where he penned his excuses to Cumberland in a letter that began, “Sir, my heart is broke...” The site of the battle is marked by an obelisk, which was unveiled by the Duke of Atholl in 1927.
Sunday, 8 January 2012
Edgar, King of Scots
Edgar, King of Scots, died on the 8th of January, 1107.
The story of Edgar, King of Scots, is really the story of the beginning of the end if you're of the view that Scotland's heritage revolves solely around its Picto-Scottish, Gaelic/Celtic period – the Alba of the Ravens. Of course, that's a very myopic viewpoint and there's surely no question that today, Scotland benefits from its broader heritage, encompassing a mixture of ancient Picts, Scots, Britons, Celts, Gaels, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings (and Egyptians and Iberians if you want to add a myth or two – or take Neanderthal migration into account). However, as the then eldest surviving son of Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, otherwise known as Malcolm Canmore) and his Queen, Margaret of Wessex, Etgair mac Mael Cholium was the first King of Scots to have both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon blood coursing through his veins, his rule spelled the end of a 'pure' Scots line.
Edgar's mother was a Princess of England, albeit she'd been born in exile in Hungary, who was also a granddaughter of England's 'Ironside', Edmund II, sister to the Anglo-Saxon Edgar (the) Ætheling, and became, famously, St. Margaret of Scotland. Margaret's father was Edward the Exile, so called after his banishment, following the conquest of England by the Danish King, Cnut the Great (Canute of the Waves), in 1016. Furthermore, the sainted Margaret's mother, Agatha, was a relative of the German Emperor. In such a manner, Edgar, King of Scots, named after an English bit-part King, was a composite of Picto-Scottish Gael and Anglo-Saxon, with a Teutonic tint and a pinch of Hungarian paprika thrown in for seasoning. Edgar was also the first of the 'Margaretsons', the first of three, to become King of Scots.
Born around 1074, Edgar's history really begins with his own exile and banishment, to England, once again following a battle and conquest. In late 1093, after evading capture at the Battle of Alnwick, in which his father and elder brother, Edward, had been killed, Edgar and his siblings were sent – or brought – to England. Queen Margaret wasn't able to go to England as she had died of a broken heart, nine days after Alnwick. When Edgar first appeared before his mother after the battle, she asked him, “How fares it with the King and my Edward?” and, on Edgar's eloquent silence, she is said to have exclaimed, “I know all!” Those that did go with Edgar were his younger brothers, Alexander and David, both of whom became Kings of Scots in their turn, and his sisters, Edith (who later married Henry I of England) and Mary (who married Eustace III of Boulogne). Edgar's two surviving older brothers, Ethelred who became Abbot of Dunkeld, and Edmund, remained in Scotland.
Edgar's émigré status was seemingly as a hostage for the good behaviour of the Scots, who were ruled by his uncle, as Donald III, or his half-brother, as Duncan II, after the death of their father. However, his journey to England may have been as a refugee from his uncle, Donald (Domnall mac Donnchada), known as Domnall Bán (Donald the Fair) or Donalbane. Edgar's status as a refugee is credible as there was a goodly deal of internecine strife abroad in Scotland following the demise of the Canmore. Malcolm III seems to have designated his eldest 'Margaretson', Edward, as his heir, but Malcolm's brother, Donald, had a better right to the throne according to ancient customs. So it was that, at least according to John of Fordun, Donald, “at the head of a numerous band,” laid siege to Edinburgh and caused Margaret's brother, the Ætheling, to remove her, and his nephews and nieces, to England.
Donald III ruled from November, 1093, to May, 1094, and from November, 1094, to sometime in 1097, when Edgar became King. The interruption came in May of 1094, when Donald's nephew, Duncan, aided by Edgar's older brother, Edmund, invaded with an army made up of Anglo-Normans and Northumbrians, under his father-in-law, the Gospatric Earl of Northumbria. The 'englishified' Duncan, a son of Malcolm Canmore by his first wife, Ingibiorg, the widow of Thorfinn Sigurdsson (Thorfinn the Mighty), the Norwegian Earl of Orkney, gained the throne for a wee while, but his short lived and unwelcome rule was brought to an end when he was “killed in action” on the 12th of November, 1094, at the Battle of Monthechin. As Donald then promptly appointed Edmund as his heir, there might be some truth in the claim, made in the Annals of Ulster, that Duncan was instead 'assassinated' on the orders of his uncle and a turncoat Edmund.
Unlike Alexander and David, Edgar didn't spend his formative years in England as he was twenty when he rode south to a brief exile. He was also mature enough to be not unduly influenced by the ways of the Anglo-Norman court in which he found himself. Nevertheless, he gained some empathy and support from the Norman, William Rufus, son of the Conqueror. In 1095, with Donald and Edmund engaged in supporting the latter's father-in-law, the Gospatrick, Robert de Mowbray's rebellion against Rufus, Edgar managed to gain control of Lothian. However, it wasn't until 1097 that Edgar invaded Scotland, accompanied by the Ætheling and an English army. Donald and Edmund were defeated and Edgar became King, four years after he had first claimed the throne on the death of his half-brother, Duncan II.
Although there is some contradiction between his derogatory nickname, 'the Peaceable', and the alternative 'Valiant', neither could be applied to Edgar in relation to how he dealt with his uncle and half-brother thereafter. The Annals of Tigernach indicate that Edgar had Donald's eyes put out and that is backed up by Fordun, who wrote that Donald was “blinded, and doomed to eternal imprisonment [by Edgar]”. Blinded or not, Donald was imprisoned at Rescobis (Rescobie), in Forfar, where he died, in 1099. It's less clear what happened to Edmund, but it seems he was banished, with his sight intact, to a monastery.
An incident, which is said to have given rise to Edgar's nickname of 'the Peaceable', occurred in 1098, when he signed the first formal treaty made by a Scots King, in ceding to Magnus Barelegs, King of Norway, the Western Isles and the peninsula of Kintyre. Magnus was a marauder and, having conquered the Orkneys, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man, he was able to persuade Edgar that a treaty, which incidentally, survived until the Battle of Largs, in 1263, was a better option than fighting to retain the Hebrides. Legend has it that Magnus made his agreement with Edgar on the basis that he would settle for all the islands of the west coast he could pass in a vessel with her rudder shipped. To that end, Magnus had a skiff “drawn over the strand at Cantire [Kintyre],” whilst “[he] sat in the stern-sheets, and held the tiller.” Longships were often drawn over the small neck of land between the mainland, and Magnus' adroit manoeuvre neatly severed the Isles and Kintyre from Edgar's newly won Scotland.
Edgar died in Edinburgh Castle on the 8th of January, 1107. The King of Scots with the Saxon name was buried at Dunfermline in the Holy Trinity Minster founded by his parents. Incidentally, Eadgar apparently means 'happy spear' in Old English and the first recording of its use in Scotland is thought to have been by Edgar, King of Scots.
The story of Edgar, King of Scots, is really the story of the beginning of the end if you're of the view that Scotland's heritage revolves solely around its Picto-Scottish, Gaelic/Celtic period – the Alba of the Ravens. Of course, that's a very myopic viewpoint and there's surely no question that today, Scotland benefits from its broader heritage, encompassing a mixture of ancient Picts, Scots, Britons, Celts, Gaels, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Vikings (and Egyptians and Iberians if you want to add a myth or two – or take Neanderthal migration into account). However, as the then eldest surviving son of Malcolm III (Máel Coluim mac Donnchada, otherwise known as Malcolm Canmore) and his Queen, Margaret of Wessex, Etgair mac Mael Cholium was the first King of Scots to have both Celtic and Anglo-Saxon blood coursing through his veins, his rule spelled the end of a 'pure' Scots line.
Edgar's mother was a Princess of England, albeit she'd been born in exile in Hungary, who was also a granddaughter of England's 'Ironside', Edmund II, sister to the Anglo-Saxon Edgar (the) Ætheling, and became, famously, St. Margaret of Scotland. Margaret's father was Edward the Exile, so called after his banishment, following the conquest of England by the Danish King, Cnut the Great (Canute of the Waves), in 1016. Furthermore, the sainted Margaret's mother, Agatha, was a relative of the German Emperor. In such a manner, Edgar, King of Scots, named after an English bit-part King, was a composite of Picto-Scottish Gael and Anglo-Saxon, with a Teutonic tint and a pinch of Hungarian paprika thrown in for seasoning. Edgar was also the first of the 'Margaretsons', the first of three, to become King of Scots.
Born around 1074, Edgar's history really begins with his own exile and banishment, to England, once again following a battle and conquest. In late 1093, after evading capture at the Battle of Alnwick, in which his father and elder brother, Edward, had been killed, Edgar and his siblings were sent – or brought – to England. Queen Margaret wasn't able to go to England as she had died of a broken heart, nine days after Alnwick. When Edgar first appeared before his mother after the battle, she asked him, “How fares it with the King and my Edward?” and, on Edgar's eloquent silence, she is said to have exclaimed, “I know all!” Those that did go with Edgar were his younger brothers, Alexander and David, both of whom became Kings of Scots in their turn, and his sisters, Edith (who later married Henry I of England) and Mary (who married Eustace III of Boulogne). Edgar's two surviving older brothers, Ethelred who became Abbot of Dunkeld, and Edmund, remained in Scotland.
Edgar's émigré status was seemingly as a hostage for the good behaviour of the Scots, who were ruled by his uncle, as Donald III, or his half-brother, as Duncan II, after the death of their father. However, his journey to England may have been as a refugee from his uncle, Donald (Domnall mac Donnchada), known as Domnall Bán (Donald the Fair) or Donalbane. Edgar's status as a refugee is credible as there was a goodly deal of internecine strife abroad in Scotland following the demise of the Canmore. Malcolm III seems to have designated his eldest 'Margaretson', Edward, as his heir, but Malcolm's brother, Donald, had a better right to the throne according to ancient customs. So it was that, at least according to John of Fordun, Donald, “at the head of a numerous band,” laid siege to Edinburgh and caused Margaret's brother, the Ætheling, to remove her, and his nephews and nieces, to England.
Donald III ruled from November, 1093, to May, 1094, and from November, 1094, to sometime in 1097, when Edgar became King. The interruption came in May of 1094, when Donald's nephew, Duncan, aided by Edgar's older brother, Edmund, invaded with an army made up of Anglo-Normans and Northumbrians, under his father-in-law, the Gospatric Earl of Northumbria. The 'englishified' Duncan, a son of Malcolm Canmore by his first wife, Ingibiorg, the widow of Thorfinn Sigurdsson (Thorfinn the Mighty), the Norwegian Earl of Orkney, gained the throne for a wee while, but his short lived and unwelcome rule was brought to an end when he was “killed in action” on the 12th of November, 1094, at the Battle of Monthechin. As Donald then promptly appointed Edmund as his heir, there might be some truth in the claim, made in the Annals of Ulster, that Duncan was instead 'assassinated' on the orders of his uncle and a turncoat Edmund.
Unlike Alexander and David, Edgar didn't spend his formative years in England as he was twenty when he rode south to a brief exile. He was also mature enough to be not unduly influenced by the ways of the Anglo-Norman court in which he found himself. Nevertheless, he gained some empathy and support from the Norman, William Rufus, son of the Conqueror. In 1095, with Donald and Edmund engaged in supporting the latter's father-in-law, the Gospatrick, Robert de Mowbray's rebellion against Rufus, Edgar managed to gain control of Lothian. However, it wasn't until 1097 that Edgar invaded Scotland, accompanied by the Ætheling and an English army. Donald and Edmund were defeated and Edgar became King, four years after he had first claimed the throne on the death of his half-brother, Duncan II.
Although there is some contradiction between his derogatory nickname, 'the Peaceable', and the alternative 'Valiant', neither could be applied to Edgar in relation to how he dealt with his uncle and half-brother thereafter. The Annals of Tigernach indicate that Edgar had Donald's eyes put out and that is backed up by Fordun, who wrote that Donald was “blinded, and doomed to eternal imprisonment [by Edgar]”. Blinded or not, Donald was imprisoned at Rescobis (Rescobie), in Forfar, where he died, in 1099. It's less clear what happened to Edmund, but it seems he was banished, with his sight intact, to a monastery.
An incident, which is said to have given rise to Edgar's nickname of 'the Peaceable', occurred in 1098, when he signed the first formal treaty made by a Scots King, in ceding to Magnus Barelegs, King of Norway, the Western Isles and the peninsula of Kintyre. Magnus was a marauder and, having conquered the Orkneys, the Hebrides and the Isle of Man, he was able to persuade Edgar that a treaty, which incidentally, survived until the Battle of Largs, in 1263, was a better option than fighting to retain the Hebrides. Legend has it that Magnus made his agreement with Edgar on the basis that he would settle for all the islands of the west coast he could pass in a vessel with her rudder shipped. To that end, Magnus had a skiff “drawn over the strand at Cantire [Kintyre],” whilst “[he] sat in the stern-sheets, and held the tiller.” Longships were often drawn over the small neck of land between the mainland, and Magnus' adroit manoeuvre neatly severed the Isles and Kintyre from Edgar's newly won Scotland.
Edgar died in Edinburgh Castle on the 8th of January, 1107. The King of Scots with the Saxon name was buried at Dunfermline in the Holy Trinity Minster founded by his parents. Incidentally, Eadgar apparently means 'happy spear' in Old English and the first recording of its use in Scotland is thought to have been by Edgar, King of Scots.
Saturday, 17 December 2011
New Year's Day in Scotland
By an act of his Privy Council on the 17th of December, 1599, James VI of Scotland decided that New Year's Day would henceforth fall on the 1st of January.
Most folks, if asked, will say that New Year's Day falls on the 1st of January each year. It was not always so, either in the United Kingdom in general or in Scotland, in particular. Come to think of it, it still isn't so in many parts of the world. New Year's Day is generally accepted as being the day that marks the beginning of a new calendar year and also the day on which the year count is incremented, but neither was that always so and still isn't so in the Jewish calendar. The 1st of January is certainly the first day of the year on the modern Gregorian calendar and it was also the first day of the year on the ancient Julian calendar as used in Rome. Despite that apparent synchronisation, January the 1st on the Julian calendar currently corresponds to January the 14th on the Gregorian calendar.
In terms of other cultures, the Hijri or Islamic New Year begins on the first day of Muharram, the first month in the Islamic calendar. In 2011, it fell on the Gregorian 26th of November. However, the Islamic year is 11 to 12 days shorter than the Gregorian year, so there's also a perennially shifting differential between the two calendars. The Hindu New Year falls according to the time and date the Sun enters Aries on the Hindu calendar, which normally means the 13th of 14th of April, depending on the Leap year. The Jewish New Year is celebrated on Rosh Hashanah, which takes place between sunset on the evening before the first day of Tishrei and nightfall on the second day of Tishrei. Strange to say, Tishrei is the seventh, rather than the first, month of the Hebrew calendar. In terms of the Gregorian calendar, Rosh Hashanah will fall between September the 5th and October the 5th. The Chinese, on the other hand, celebrate New Year's Day as the first day of the lunar calendar, corrected every three years, for solar deviations. The date normally falls between the 20th of January and the 20th of February.
Until 1599 in Scotland, the New Year began on the 25th of March, which was in line with England. However, on the 17th of December, 1599, King James VI, via an act of his Privy Council, decided that Scotland should come into line with other “well governit commonwealths.” As a result of Jamie Saxt looking over his shoulder at the likes of 'well governed' France, the date for New Year's Day was changed from the 25th of March and imposed as the 1st of January. So the day after the 31st of December, 1599, became the 1st of January, 1600. Insular England didn't make the 1st of January the official start of the year until 1752, the year it adopted the Gregorian calendar and way after James VI became James I of England, and six years after yon Bonnie Twat, Charlie Stuart, failed to make his Pa, James VIII & III.
According to the 'Register of the Privy Council', “The Kingis majestie and Lordis of his Secreit Counsall undirstanding that in all utheris weill governit commouns welthis and cuntreyis the first day of the yeir begynis yeirlie upoun the first day of Januare, commounlie callit new yeiris day, and that this realme onlie is different fra all utheris in the compt and reckning of the yeiris ...his Majestie with the advise of the Lordis of his Secreit Counsall statutis and ordanis that in all tyme cuming the first day of the yeir sal begin yeirlie upoun the first day of Januare...”
Jamie's Privy Council was a powerful legislative and administrative body, which was very useful to him. The King had much more influence over the Privy Council than he ever did over the more independently minded Scottish Parliament. The Privy Council act of the 17th December, 1599, went on to command royal officials, clerks, judges, notaries, &c., “in all tyme heireftir” to date all “thair decreittis infeftmentis charteris seasings letteris and writtis quhatsumeuir according to this p[rese]nt ordinance.” They had a shortage of commas in those days.
The reason for January the 1st on the old style Julian calendar currently corresponding to January the 14th on the new style Gregorian calendar is that the latter is marginally shorter. The number of days in the year is the essence of a calendar year and the Gregorian calendar results in a year that is about 11 minutes shorter than the 365.25 days of the Julian year. So, if you have two calendars, one calculating the length of the year according to ancient Roman practice and one, more accurately, according to the solar equinoxes, then you get a discrepancy. In fact, the Julian calendar falls further behind every year as the deviation increases by about three days every four centuries.
New Year's Day in the Julian calendar was the 25th of March i.e., the 24th of March, 1598, was followed by the 25th of March, 1599. So, New Year's Day was the day on which the year count was incremented, but it didn't mark the beginning of the calendar year; that still being the 1st of January. So, back at the tail end of 1599, or on the 1st of January, 1600, as it was, Scotland began a new year, but it was a new year according to the Julian calendar. That meant that the 31st of December, 1600, occurred 365 days later (with 1599, the previous year, having had only nine months).
It wasn't until 1752, the same year England caught up with the New Year's Day celebrations, that Scotland adopted the Gregorian. Jamie Saxt's notions about what the French might think weren't fully developed in 1582, when the majority of European countries adopted the Gregorian and the 1st of January date for New Year's Day. Earlier, in England, Henry VIII was having nothing to do with anything named after a Pope, so he stuck to Julius Caesar's calendar, introduced in 45 BC, and so did his successors, from Edward VI all the way through to George II. The Gregorian calendar was introduced by a bull of Pope Gregory XIII; dated the 24th of February, 1582.
It took Jamie's pride and joy, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nearly two hundred years to deal with the combined change. The Gregorian was adopted in the United Kingdom under what is known as 'Chesterfield's Act' or the 'Calendar Act of 1752', which revised the way that leap years were calculated and dropped the necessary 11 days in order to synchronise with the newly adopted, solar-based Gregorian calendar year. Wednesday, the 2nd of September, 1752, was followed by Thursday, the 14th of September, 1752. Scotland lost zero days in 1600 after changing the date of New Year's Day, but it lost the same 11 days as England, Wales and Ireland in 1752, when the Gregorian was adopted. If they'd changed back in 1582, they'd have lost only 10 days.
Incidentally, the reason the UK tax year starts on the 6th of April is that, back in 1752, the authorities didn't want to lose 11 days' tax revenue in that year, so they moved the start of the tax year forward from the 25th of March and it's been that way ever since.
Most folks, if asked, will say that New Year's Day falls on the 1st of January each year. It was not always so, either in the United Kingdom in general or in Scotland, in particular. Come to think of it, it still isn't so in many parts of the world. New Year's Day is generally accepted as being the day that marks the beginning of a new calendar year and also the day on which the year count is incremented, but neither was that always so and still isn't so in the Jewish calendar. The 1st of January is certainly the first day of the year on the modern Gregorian calendar and it was also the first day of the year on the ancient Julian calendar as used in Rome. Despite that apparent synchronisation, January the 1st on the Julian calendar currently corresponds to January the 14th on the Gregorian calendar.
In terms of other cultures, the Hijri or Islamic New Year begins on the first day of Muharram, the first month in the Islamic calendar. In 2011, it fell on the Gregorian 26th of November. However, the Islamic year is 11 to 12 days shorter than the Gregorian year, so there's also a perennially shifting differential between the two calendars. The Hindu New Year falls according to the time and date the Sun enters Aries on the Hindu calendar, which normally means the 13th of 14th of April, depending on the Leap year. The Jewish New Year is celebrated on Rosh Hashanah, which takes place between sunset on the evening before the first day of Tishrei and nightfall on the second day of Tishrei. Strange to say, Tishrei is the seventh, rather than the first, month of the Hebrew calendar. In terms of the Gregorian calendar, Rosh Hashanah will fall between September the 5th and October the 5th. The Chinese, on the other hand, celebrate New Year's Day as the first day of the lunar calendar, corrected every three years, for solar deviations. The date normally falls between the 20th of January and the 20th of February.
Until 1599 in Scotland, the New Year began on the 25th of March, which was in line with England. However, on the 17th of December, 1599, King James VI, via an act of his Privy Council, decided that Scotland should come into line with other “well governit commonwealths.” As a result of Jamie Saxt looking over his shoulder at the likes of 'well governed' France, the date for New Year's Day was changed from the 25th of March and imposed as the 1st of January. So the day after the 31st of December, 1599, became the 1st of January, 1600. Insular England didn't make the 1st of January the official start of the year until 1752, the year it adopted the Gregorian calendar and way after James VI became James I of England, and six years after yon Bonnie Twat, Charlie Stuart, failed to make his Pa, James VIII & III.
According to the 'Register of the Privy Council', “The Kingis majestie and Lordis of his Secreit Counsall undirstanding that in all utheris weill governit commouns welthis and cuntreyis the first day of the yeir begynis yeirlie upoun the first day of Januare, commounlie callit new yeiris day, and that this realme onlie is different fra all utheris in the compt and reckning of the yeiris ...his Majestie with the advise of the Lordis of his Secreit Counsall statutis and ordanis that in all tyme cuming the first day of the yeir sal begin yeirlie upoun the first day of Januare...”
Jamie's Privy Council was a powerful legislative and administrative body, which was very useful to him. The King had much more influence over the Privy Council than he ever did over the more independently minded Scottish Parliament. The Privy Council act of the 17th December, 1599, went on to command royal officials, clerks, judges, notaries, &c., “in all tyme heireftir” to date all “thair decreittis infeftmentis charteris seasings letteris and writtis quhatsumeuir according to this p[rese]nt ordinance.” They had a shortage of commas in those days.
The reason for January the 1st on the old style Julian calendar currently corresponding to January the 14th on the new style Gregorian calendar is that the latter is marginally shorter. The number of days in the year is the essence of a calendar year and the Gregorian calendar results in a year that is about 11 minutes shorter than the 365.25 days of the Julian year. So, if you have two calendars, one calculating the length of the year according to ancient Roman practice and one, more accurately, according to the solar equinoxes, then you get a discrepancy. In fact, the Julian calendar falls further behind every year as the deviation increases by about three days every four centuries.
New Year's Day in the Julian calendar was the 25th of March i.e., the 24th of March, 1598, was followed by the 25th of March, 1599. So, New Year's Day was the day on which the year count was incremented, but it didn't mark the beginning of the calendar year; that still being the 1st of January. So, back at the tail end of 1599, or on the 1st of January, 1600, as it was, Scotland began a new year, but it was a new year according to the Julian calendar. That meant that the 31st of December, 1600, occurred 365 days later (with 1599, the previous year, having had only nine months).
It wasn't until 1752, the same year England caught up with the New Year's Day celebrations, that Scotland adopted the Gregorian. Jamie Saxt's notions about what the French might think weren't fully developed in 1582, when the majority of European countries adopted the Gregorian and the 1st of January date for New Year's Day. Earlier, in England, Henry VIII was having nothing to do with anything named after a Pope, so he stuck to Julius Caesar's calendar, introduced in 45 BC, and so did his successors, from Edward VI all the way through to George II. The Gregorian calendar was introduced by a bull of Pope Gregory XIII; dated the 24th of February, 1582.
It took Jamie's pride and joy, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, nearly two hundred years to deal with the combined change. The Gregorian was adopted in the United Kingdom under what is known as 'Chesterfield's Act' or the 'Calendar Act of 1752', which revised the way that leap years were calculated and dropped the necessary 11 days in order to synchronise with the newly adopted, solar-based Gregorian calendar year. Wednesday, the 2nd of September, 1752, was followed by Thursday, the 14th of September, 1752. Scotland lost zero days in 1600 after changing the date of New Year's Day, but it lost the same 11 days as England, Wales and Ireland in 1752, when the Gregorian was adopted. If they'd changed back in 1582, they'd have lost only 10 days.
Incidentally, the reason the UK tax year starts on the 6th of April is that, back in 1752, the authorities didn't want to lose 11 days' tax revenue in that year, so they moved the start of the tax year forward from the 25th of March and it's been that way ever since.
Sunday, 11 December 2011
The Scottish Friends of the People
The first National Convention of the Scottish Friends of the People, formed to demand parliamentary reform, met in Edinburgh on the 11th of December, 1792.
The most famous of the 18th Century 'Friends of the People' in Scotland was Thomas Muir of Huntershill who has since been eulogised in a terrific 20th Century folk song by Dick Gaughan of Leith. Puir Thomas Muir was arrested for sedition, tried, sentenced and transported to Australia, all for his involvement in being too much of a ‘Friend’ to the ‘wrong’ kind of people. That he was right is borne out by history and by the fact that today we can all vote – at least in civilised, democratic societies around the world. As Gaughan wrote in his lyrics,
“When you’re called for jury service,
When your name is drawn by lot
When you vote in an election
When you freely voice your thought
Don’t take these things for granted,
For dearly were they bought.”
Thomas Muir was a “champion of democracy” and a key player in the organisation of the first National Convention of the Scottish Friends of the People. The ‘Friends of the People’ or, to give its full title, 'The Society of the Friends of the People, Associated for the Purpose of Obtaining a Parliamentary Reform' was an 18th Century, political activist group, formed in London, in 1792, by Whig MPs and Lords. Although short lived, many of its members were heavily influenced by the French Revolution of 1789, the writings of Thomas Paine, and resultant Irish republican ideals.
Against that global backdrop, the 'Friends' was formed at a time when only the landed gentry had a vote in Parliament. The 'Society' sought to redress that skewed political imbalance, which depended on the aristocracy and patronage, to gain electoral enfranchisement for all, throughout the land. Patronage extended to being able to buy seats, which were consequently controlled by the wealthy, but the system was even more rotten than that. Whigs and Tories alike, tended to vote in favour of their mutual interests. In addition, many major cities, which had become flourishing centres of manufacturing, following the incipient industrial revolution, had no representation in Parliament.
Throughout 1792, 'Friends' branches were organised in many communities, the length and breadth of Great Britain. The 'Friends' in Scotland were a cosmopolitan bunch, drawn from all aspects of society. They consisted of lawyers, such as Muir, artisans and guilds-men – the likes of butchers; bakers; candlestick makers; clergymen; cobblers; farmers; tailors; tanners; and weavers. However, generally speaking, it didn't include agricultural labourers and other manual trades, such as colliers and masons, nor even spinners.
The most influential of the 'Friends' were of the Whig tendency, more open to liberal concepts of fairness than any Tory in those days. The objective of the 'Friends' was never a revolution after the manner of the French. The 'Society' didn't wish to overthrow the monarchical regime, such as was occurring in France, nor rebel after the manner of the American Colonies; it merely wanted political enfranchisement. That was in contrast to the many secret societies, like the United Irishmen and the United Scotsmen organisations, that grew up after the demise of the 'Friends'.
The 'Friends' in Scotland peaceably demonstrated their sympathies by planting Liberty Trees at market crosses. However, in June, 1792, thousands of protesters took to the streets in Edinburgh, in what became known as the King’s Birthday Riots. The mob spent three days rioting, during which it burned effigies of the much disliked Home Secretary, Robert Dundas, and tried to burn down the Lord Advocate's house. A lot of the propaganda leading to those riots was written by James Tytler, whom Muir defended on a charge of sedition, a case that led to Muir himself being so charged.
It was disturbances of that nature that caused the Government concern, believing as it did that revolution was a real possibility. Consequently, as a result of the seemingly popular support for radical reform, the Government began to restrict freedom of speech and made it a crime, for example, to distribute copies Paine's 'The Rights of Man'. Throughout the riots, however, the 'Friends' officially condemned the disturbances and threatened to expel anyone joining the rioters.
By November, 1792, there were eighty-seven branches of the 'Friends' in Britain. Some southern societies were similar in composition to those in Scotland, particularly the 'London Correspondence Club' formed as early as January, 1792. In Scotland, there were many 'Friends' branches, such as the 'Associated Friends of the Constitution of the People' (Glasgow), the 'Sons of Liberty and Friends of Man' (Partick), the 'Perth Society for Parliamentary Reform', and the 'Friends of the People Society of Edinburgh'. In July, 1792, Muir and farmer, William Skirving, established the 'Scottish Association of the Friends of the People', bringing the branches under one umbrella organisation.
The first national general convention of the 'Friends' in Scotland was held on the 11th of December, 1792; its effective leader being Thomas Muir. A total of 160 delegates, including some government spies, from thirty-five branches of the 'Friends' in Scotland, met in Edinburgh. The convention was well attended by some prominent Advocates and the nobility was represented by Lord Daer. Also in attendance were the MP for Inverness, Colonel Macleod, and Lieutenant Colonel William Dalrymple of Fordell.
Two more general or national conventions were held by the 'Friends', the second of those, in October, 1793, being open to delegates from English branches and societies. That third convention, called 'British', wasn't attended by the Lords and lawyers, and was publicly renounced by Macleod. It was broken up by the authorities and more men were arrested and tried for sedition by a panicky Government. They were sentenced to transportation, along with Muir and Dundee's Thomas Fyshe Palmer.
That sort of persecution spelled the end for the 'Friends' societies. Hopes of peace with France gave way to the Napoleonic Wars and an ever more frightened Government continued its unprecedented increase in crackdowns on freedom of speech and persecution of radicals. In Tranent, in 1797, the army crushed an anti-conscription protest, indiscriminately killing eleven miners and wounding twelve others. The 'Friends of the People' was wound down and reform was left to the Whigs in Parliament. It wasn’t until the working class rebellions of 1819-20 that organised radicalism reappeared.
The most famous of the 18th Century 'Friends of the People' in Scotland was Thomas Muir of Huntershill who has since been eulogised in a terrific 20th Century folk song by Dick Gaughan of Leith. Puir Thomas Muir was arrested for sedition, tried, sentenced and transported to Australia, all for his involvement in being too much of a ‘Friend’ to the ‘wrong’ kind of people. That he was right is borne out by history and by the fact that today we can all vote – at least in civilised, democratic societies around the world. As Gaughan wrote in his lyrics,
“When you’re called for jury service,
When your name is drawn by lot
When you vote in an election
When you freely voice your thought
Don’t take these things for granted,
For dearly were they bought.”
Thomas Muir was a “champion of democracy” and a key player in the organisation of the first National Convention of the Scottish Friends of the People. The ‘Friends of the People’ or, to give its full title, 'The Society of the Friends of the People, Associated for the Purpose of Obtaining a Parliamentary Reform' was an 18th Century, political activist group, formed in London, in 1792, by Whig MPs and Lords. Although short lived, many of its members were heavily influenced by the French Revolution of 1789, the writings of Thomas Paine, and resultant Irish republican ideals.
Against that global backdrop, the 'Friends' was formed at a time when only the landed gentry had a vote in Parliament. The 'Society' sought to redress that skewed political imbalance, which depended on the aristocracy and patronage, to gain electoral enfranchisement for all, throughout the land. Patronage extended to being able to buy seats, which were consequently controlled by the wealthy, but the system was even more rotten than that. Whigs and Tories alike, tended to vote in favour of their mutual interests. In addition, many major cities, which had become flourishing centres of manufacturing, following the incipient industrial revolution, had no representation in Parliament.
Throughout 1792, 'Friends' branches were organised in many communities, the length and breadth of Great Britain. The 'Friends' in Scotland were a cosmopolitan bunch, drawn from all aspects of society. They consisted of lawyers, such as Muir, artisans and guilds-men – the likes of butchers; bakers; candlestick makers; clergymen; cobblers; farmers; tailors; tanners; and weavers. However, generally speaking, it didn't include agricultural labourers and other manual trades, such as colliers and masons, nor even spinners.
The most influential of the 'Friends' were of the Whig tendency, more open to liberal concepts of fairness than any Tory in those days. The objective of the 'Friends' was never a revolution after the manner of the French. The 'Society' didn't wish to overthrow the monarchical regime, such as was occurring in France, nor rebel after the manner of the American Colonies; it merely wanted political enfranchisement. That was in contrast to the many secret societies, like the United Irishmen and the United Scotsmen organisations, that grew up after the demise of the 'Friends'.
The 'Friends' in Scotland peaceably demonstrated their sympathies by planting Liberty Trees at market crosses. However, in June, 1792, thousands of protesters took to the streets in Edinburgh, in what became known as the King’s Birthday Riots. The mob spent three days rioting, during which it burned effigies of the much disliked Home Secretary, Robert Dundas, and tried to burn down the Lord Advocate's house. A lot of the propaganda leading to those riots was written by James Tytler, whom Muir defended on a charge of sedition, a case that led to Muir himself being so charged.
It was disturbances of that nature that caused the Government concern, believing as it did that revolution was a real possibility. Consequently, as a result of the seemingly popular support for radical reform, the Government began to restrict freedom of speech and made it a crime, for example, to distribute copies Paine's 'The Rights of Man'. Throughout the riots, however, the 'Friends' officially condemned the disturbances and threatened to expel anyone joining the rioters.
By November, 1792, there were eighty-seven branches of the 'Friends' in Britain. Some southern societies were similar in composition to those in Scotland, particularly the 'London Correspondence Club' formed as early as January, 1792. In Scotland, there were many 'Friends' branches, such as the 'Associated Friends of the Constitution of the People' (Glasgow), the 'Sons of Liberty and Friends of Man' (Partick), the 'Perth Society for Parliamentary Reform', and the 'Friends of the People Society of Edinburgh'. In July, 1792, Muir and farmer, William Skirving, established the 'Scottish Association of the Friends of the People', bringing the branches under one umbrella organisation.
The first national general convention of the 'Friends' in Scotland was held on the 11th of December, 1792; its effective leader being Thomas Muir. A total of 160 delegates, including some government spies, from thirty-five branches of the 'Friends' in Scotland, met in Edinburgh. The convention was well attended by some prominent Advocates and the nobility was represented by Lord Daer. Also in attendance were the MP for Inverness, Colonel Macleod, and Lieutenant Colonel William Dalrymple of Fordell.
Two more general or national conventions were held by the 'Friends', the second of those, in October, 1793, being open to delegates from English branches and societies. That third convention, called 'British', wasn't attended by the Lords and lawyers, and was publicly renounced by Macleod. It was broken up by the authorities and more men were arrested and tried for sedition by a panicky Government. They were sentenced to transportation, along with Muir and Dundee's Thomas Fyshe Palmer.
That sort of persecution spelled the end for the 'Friends' societies. Hopes of peace with France gave way to the Napoleonic Wars and an ever more frightened Government continued its unprecedented increase in crackdowns on freedom of speech and persecution of radicals. In Tranent, in 1797, the army crushed an anti-conscription protest, indiscriminately killing eleven miners and wounding twelve others. The 'Friends of the People' was wound down and reform was left to the Whigs in Parliament. It wasn’t until the working class rebellions of 1819-20 that organised radicalism reappeared.
Saturday, 10 December 2011
The establishment of parish schools in Scotland
By an Act of the Scottish Privy Council, on the 10th of December, 1616, ordinance was published for the establishment of parish schools in Scotland.
Whatever might be said about the quality of education in general throughout Great Britain in the 21st Century, it has always been considered very important in Scotland. In fact, Scots still have their own educational system, distinct, perhaps superior, from that of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. There have been schools in Scotland from as far back as early medieval times and very likely earlier. Aberdeen’s earliest school, for example, dates from 1124. Although there is no surviving evidence of any schools before the 12th Century, it's also true that early Christian monasteries functioned as centres of learning. Later, until the Reformation took hold, it was the Roman Catholic Church that organised schooling.
Apart from Aberdeen, the first schools included the High School of Glasgow, dating also from 1124, and the High School of Dundee, established in 1239. Such schools were grammar schools and, largely speaking, only available to boys, and the sons of the wealthy elite at that. From the 15th Century, education advanced exponentially in Scotland with the founding of several universities: St Andrews in 1413; Glasgow in 1450; and Aberdeen in 1495. The year after Aberdeen's university was established, James IV brought in Scotland's first Education Act. That act decreed that the eldest sons of barons and freeholders of substance should attend grammar schools to study Latin, arts and law, in order to ensure that all local government in James' kingdom lay in knowledgeable hands. The resulting increase in literacy no doubt contributed to the flowering of Scottish culture, under the influence of the European Renaissance, during the reign of the enlightened one – James IV.
Come the Reformation and Scotland saw a change in the delivery of formal education. John Knox gets a lot of the credit and no doubt he felt he deserved it. In 1560, Knox's 'First Book of Discipline' outlined a national system for providing a “virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this Realm”. The mechanism was the establishment of parish primary schools, burgh grammar schools, high schools, and new universities; Edinburgh, which was established in 1582 and Marischal College, Aberdeen, in 1593.
The Kirk wanted to ensure that everyone could read the Bible, but its heart was in the right place when it added, “For the poor, if need be, education may be given free.” The result was the setting up of schools in various towns and parishes, but it was no means widespread. Subjects taught were as proposed by Knox and his cronies, namely the Catechism, grammar, classical literature, French, and Latin “if the town be of any reputation.” In the high schools, such as were provided, was taught in addition “the Arts, at least Logic and Rhetoric.”
Fifty-six years after Knox's book and one hundred and twenty years after James IV's act, James VI's Privy Council passed the School Establishment Act of 1616, which mandated that a school be established in every parish. According to the section on the 'Acts of the Parliament and of the Privy Council of Scotland, relative to the establishing and maintaining of Schools' published in 1840, in the 'Miscellany of the Maitland Club', “Thairfoir the Kingis Majestie with advise of the Lordis of his secreit Counsall hes thocht it necessar and expedient that in everie parroche of this Kingdome whair convenient meanes may be had for interteyning a scoole That a scoole salbe establisheit and a fitt persone appointit to teach the same upoun the expensis of the parrochinneris.”
The act, inspired by the preamble to Knox's book, set out the responsibilities of the local heritors (the landed proprietors of the parish) to provide and fund a schoolhouse, with a Dominie (schoolmaster) on a small, fixed salary. Also, as per the system outlined by Knox, the act declared that “ all his Majesties subjectis especailly the youth be exercised and trayned up in civilitie and godlines knawledge and leirning.” Unable to escape the clutches of the Kirk, the act further declared that “the trew religion be advanceit and establisheit in all the places of this kingdome,” however, the Episcopalian Bishops were to supervise the schools, rather than Ministers as the Presbyterians would have wished. There was always a rift between the Kirk and the Monarch in Scotland.
Not satisfied with its involvement in education and religion, the 1616 Privy Council act commanded a social change. Religion notwithstanding, the objectionable objective of the act was the obliteration of Gaelic, which James VI and I spoke himself by the way; one of his several and varied talents. The promoting of universally available education was praiseworthy, but the intended elimination of Gaelic and its attendant assault on highland culture was a dastardly deed. The Maitland Club's 'Miscellany' records the crime as follows: “That the vulgar Inglish toung be universallie plantit and the Irische language which is one of the cheif and principall causis of the continewance of barbaritie and incivilitie amangis the inhabitantis of the Ilis and heylandis may be abolisheit and removit.” This Privy Council act was neither the first nor the last attempt to sort out the descendants of the Picts, and the Gaels.
It took three more acts of Parliament, in 1633, 1646 and 1696, before a solid foundation was established and schools became sufficiently widespread to be classed as nationwide. At first, success proved elusive, because of Scotland’s relative poverty and the prevailing political and religious circumstances. The 1633 act was introduced to levy a tax on local landowners; to ensure that money was available. The 1696 Scottish Parliament act for 'Setting Schools’ ensured that every parish not already equipped with a school was required to establish a schoolhouse and to provide for a Dominie. By the end of the 18th Century, most parishes in Scotland had at least one school. No accident then, that from the 18th Century onwards, Scotland had one of the highest standards of literacy of any nation in Europe.
Whatever might be said about the quality of education in general throughout Great Britain in the 21st Century, it has always been considered very important in Scotland. In fact, Scots still have their own educational system, distinct, perhaps superior, from that of the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom. There have been schools in Scotland from as far back as early medieval times and very likely earlier. Aberdeen’s earliest school, for example, dates from 1124. Although there is no surviving evidence of any schools before the 12th Century, it's also true that early Christian monasteries functioned as centres of learning. Later, until the Reformation took hold, it was the Roman Catholic Church that organised schooling.
Apart from Aberdeen, the first schools included the High School of Glasgow, dating also from 1124, and the High School of Dundee, established in 1239. Such schools were grammar schools and, largely speaking, only available to boys, and the sons of the wealthy elite at that. From the 15th Century, education advanced exponentially in Scotland with the founding of several universities: St Andrews in 1413; Glasgow in 1450; and Aberdeen in 1495. The year after Aberdeen's university was established, James IV brought in Scotland's first Education Act. That act decreed that the eldest sons of barons and freeholders of substance should attend grammar schools to study Latin, arts and law, in order to ensure that all local government in James' kingdom lay in knowledgeable hands. The resulting increase in literacy no doubt contributed to the flowering of Scottish culture, under the influence of the European Renaissance, during the reign of the enlightened one – James IV.
Come the Reformation and Scotland saw a change in the delivery of formal education. John Knox gets a lot of the credit and no doubt he felt he deserved it. In 1560, Knox's 'First Book of Discipline' outlined a national system for providing a “virtuous education and godly upbringing of the youth of this Realm”. The mechanism was the establishment of parish primary schools, burgh grammar schools, high schools, and new universities; Edinburgh, which was established in 1582 and Marischal College, Aberdeen, in 1593.
The Kirk wanted to ensure that everyone could read the Bible, but its heart was in the right place when it added, “For the poor, if need be, education may be given free.” The result was the setting up of schools in various towns and parishes, but it was no means widespread. Subjects taught were as proposed by Knox and his cronies, namely the Catechism, grammar, classical literature, French, and Latin “if the town be of any reputation.” In the high schools, such as were provided, was taught in addition “the Arts, at least Logic and Rhetoric.”
Fifty-six years after Knox's book and one hundred and twenty years after James IV's act, James VI's Privy Council passed the School Establishment Act of 1616, which mandated that a school be established in every parish. According to the section on the 'Acts of the Parliament and of the Privy Council of Scotland, relative to the establishing and maintaining of Schools' published in 1840, in the 'Miscellany of the Maitland Club', “Thairfoir the Kingis Majestie with advise of the Lordis of his secreit Counsall hes thocht it necessar and expedient that in everie parroche of this Kingdome whair convenient meanes may be had for interteyning a scoole That a scoole salbe establisheit and a fitt persone appointit to teach the same upoun the expensis of the parrochinneris.”
The act, inspired by the preamble to Knox's book, set out the responsibilities of the local heritors (the landed proprietors of the parish) to provide and fund a schoolhouse, with a Dominie (schoolmaster) on a small, fixed salary. Also, as per the system outlined by Knox, the act declared that “ all his Majesties subjectis especailly the youth be exercised and trayned up in civilitie and godlines knawledge and leirning.” Unable to escape the clutches of the Kirk, the act further declared that “the trew religion be advanceit and establisheit in all the places of this kingdome,” however, the Episcopalian Bishops were to supervise the schools, rather than Ministers as the Presbyterians would have wished. There was always a rift between the Kirk and the Monarch in Scotland.
Not satisfied with its involvement in education and religion, the 1616 Privy Council act commanded a social change. Religion notwithstanding, the objectionable objective of the act was the obliteration of Gaelic, which James VI and I spoke himself by the way; one of his several and varied talents. The promoting of universally available education was praiseworthy, but the intended elimination of Gaelic and its attendant assault on highland culture was a dastardly deed. The Maitland Club's 'Miscellany' records the crime as follows: “That the vulgar Inglish toung be universallie plantit and the Irische language which is one of the cheif and principall causis of the continewance of barbaritie and incivilitie amangis the inhabitantis of the Ilis and heylandis may be abolisheit and removit.” This Privy Council act was neither the first nor the last attempt to sort out the descendants of the Picts, and the Gaels.
It took three more acts of Parliament, in 1633, 1646 and 1696, before a solid foundation was established and schools became sufficiently widespread to be classed as nationwide. At first, success proved elusive, because of Scotland’s relative poverty and the prevailing political and religious circumstances. The 1633 act was introduced to levy a tax on local landowners; to ensure that money was available. The 1696 Scottish Parliament act for 'Setting Schools’ ensured that every parish not already equipped with a school was required to establish a schoolhouse and to provide for a Dominie. By the end of the 18th Century, most parishes in Scotland had at least one school. No accident then, that from the 18th Century onwards, Scotland had one of the highest standards of literacy of any nation in Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)