Kilts were banned in Scotland for decades following the Jacobite rebellion

[MacRob46]

What adds to the confusion is that many people do not understand that there was not one single Jacobite rising. Many people would like there to be a single, simple answer to the risings but there were a lot of different reasons behind each of them.

We need to remember that Jacobitism was the name of the political movement in Great Britain and Ireland that aimed to restore the House of Stuart to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The movement was named after Jacobus, the Latin form of James.

The Jacobite period can be said to have begun in 1688 with "The Glorious Revolution" And continued until the collapse of 1745 rising.

There were separate risings in 1689 - 1715 - 1719 - 1745.
There were also aborted risings in 1708 - 1744 - 1759

As a result there were many enactments aimed at preventing further risings a such as "The Clan Act of 1715" - "The Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1715" - "The Disarming Act of 1716" - "Indemnity Act of 1717" - The "Disarming Act of 1745" - "Jurors Act of 1745" - "Act of Proscription of 1746" - "Dress Act of 1746" - "Heritable Jurisdiction Act of 1746" - "Sheriff's Act of 1746" - "Traitors Transported Act 1746" - "Treason Outlaweries Act 1748".

This whole issue is not a simple one. There is a lot of myth and misunderstanding. There was not a single history textbook date or event, but an ongoing progress over almost 60 years. You must also understand what was going on before and after to put it is historical perspective.

The major difference in the proscription of 1746 was it was to be permanent. The disarming act of 1716 had an expiration date so did not have much in the way of "teeth." And, there was not a blanket removal of power as in the Heritable Jurisdiction Act. There certainly was in the acts passed after the '45. But, as you point out, there is nothing simple about it.

[figheadair]

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here but, mentioned in the repeal or not, tartan became available and was widely sold and worn once the act was lifted.

My point was, that tartan wasn't banned. It was also widely sold outside of the Highlands and even within the Highlands during Proscription but it is the case that after the Act was repealed the sale of tartan into the Highlands increased markedly.

[David Dubh]

And fortuitously it was repealed on exactly this date in 1782

[KnittedReenactor]

Speaking of restricting laws, are bagpipes still regarded as weapons of war in Britain? Or is that yet another misconception of history?

[figheadair]

Speaking of restricting laws, are bagpipes still regarded as weapons of war in Britain? Or is that yet another misconception of history?

That's another Scotch Myth. The pipes were never banned although there is a record of a piper sentenced to death in Carlisle after the judge stated that his pipes were a weapon of war. One incident and not official government policy.

[Bad Monkey]

That's another Scotch Myth. The pipes were never banned although there is a record of a piper sentenced to death in Carlisle after the judge stated that his pipes were a weapon of war. One incident and not official government policy.

I hadn't heard that a piper was actually sentenced to death for piping.

Wonder if it was just the way he played 'em...

[MacRob46]

I hadn't heard that a piper was actually sentenced to death for piping.

Wonder if it was just the way he played 'em...

His name was James Reid and he was piper to Ogilvy's Regiment. His defense was that he had not carried a gun or sword during his time in the regiment. However, the judge declared that "no Highland regiment ever marched without a piper, therefor it was a weapon of war," (not an exact quote) and sentenced him to be hanged, which he was, on November 15, 1746.

That is the genesis of the belief that pipes were outlawed after 1746 but as mentioned, that is not true, although the judge made a pronouncement that might have resulted in a ban, had the authorities paid closer attention.

[KnittedReenactor]

So, one judge, in one case made a determination, thereby setting precedent. However, it was never codified into law by HM nor Parliament.
Would this decision still hold any legitimacy in modern British law, even though it would never have any real chance of being enacted/enforced?
Further side question- pipers, although typically unarmed when piping, would still not qualify as noncombatants, like chaplins and medics?

[Father Bill]

Interesting questions. A British solicitor would have to opine on those.

...and "Chaplain" my friend - my name ain't "Charlie"!

[MacRob46]

After the passage of almost 273 years, what difference does it make?

If we are to believe some of the traditions that have come down, pipers were frequently armed and accompanied by a small boy or gillie of some sort to whom they would hand their pipes if they decided to wade into the tussle.

As far as chaplains and medics, there were no medics of the kind we think of today when we hear the term but there were doctors and apothecaries on the field. Likewise there were non-jurant and other ministers in the ranks. If they supported the Jacobites then they were subject to punishment if captured and some were although I can only know for sure of two who were hanged, drawn and quartered - Rev. Thomas Coppoch of the Manchester Regiment and Rev. Robert Lyon, Chaplain of Ogilvy's Regiment. Others may have been killed outright at Culloden. This information is from the muster roll of Prince Charlie's Army.