Anniversary of Collden + two Canadian re-enactors

[jhockin]

Sunday will be the 271st anniversary of the Battle of Collden.
Thought this might interest some:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-to-leave-the/

[Jock Scot]

Why so surprised? I can't imagine the management of Disneyland allowing that to continue on their premises for10 minutes, never mind 10 years.

[MacRob]

Too bad they did not get the blessing of the authorities before doing that. Apparently the people who run the battlefield looked the other way for awhile and something must have happened to trigger the sudden action to remove them. The folks over there are very sensitive to any type of weapon, historic or otherwise so this is not surprising. At least that was the excuse used to move them off the battlefield.

[Panache]

Thoughts and Questions

If one couple can do it, then can't anyone else?

What sort of information were they offering?

Was there an assumption that they were officially part of the organization running the site?

Were they adding to or distracting from the visitors experience?

If they really enjoyed being there and helping to share the history, why didn't they work with the site organizers and become official docents?

if they really enjoyed what they were doing, couldn't they continue to do so minus the weapons?

Cheers

Jamie

[ThistleDown]

I was a guide/docent at Culloden for three years. We followed a very set script in order not to offend anyone, to provide a wealth of information and answer both serious and foolish questions with care and impartiality. I've heard many an armchair historian spouting great nonsense to friends and family (and an occasional onlooker), but none of them gave the impression that they were employed by NTS. Often these things are complaint-driven and I suspect 'weapons' was the best excuse NTS could come up with when someone finally questioned the official role these two were playing. I wonder how The Telegraph came to hear about this.

[Walkman]

I was a guide/docent at Culloden for three years. We followed a very set script in order not to offend anyone, to provide a wealth of information and answer both serious and foolish questions with care and impartiality. I've heard many an armchair historian spouting great nonsense to friends and family (and an occasional onlooker), but none of them gave the impression that they were employed by NTS. Often these things are complaint-driven and I suspect 'weapons' was the best excuse NTS could come up with when someone finally questioned the official role these two were playing. I wonder how The Telegraph came to hear about this.

Rather presumptive to show up and start lecturing without sanction from the NTS.