Quote Originally Posted by Jock Scot View Post
more Scots fought on the BRITISH side than English at the battle of Culloden. I am not for one second saying that the English were entirely blameless in forming parts of Scottish history though! But again it’s another example of the starry eyed “biscuit tin” version of Scottish history that our Country churns out on a daily basis.
Far be it from me to attempt (foolishly) to "teach" Scottish history to a Scot! However, I think on this topic we're using different words and different slants to say much the same thing. For example, I'd guess that if you asked Americans in possession of commercial Pipes and Drums recordings, most would have no idea whether the Royal Scotts Dragoon Guards and the Black Watch are the same thing or different. And if you asked the same folks (with their record collections indicating their interest in Scottish history) what the role of the Black Watch was at Culloden, a majority would answer that they were among Prince Charlie's warriors, attempting to terrify the "English" with their most fearsome weapons, the Pipes, rather than a British infantry regiment attempting to keep the Jacobite rebels in line.

Perhaps another reason for such confusion is that people in one country may tend to look at the histories (plural intended) of another through the lens of their own. Here in the USA, we've traditionally thought of our "Civil War" as our greatest disruption, and because it pitted one region against another, Jacobite rebellions must have been much the same thing. But of course, the goals were FAR different. The Confederate States weren't intending to replace the government in Washington D with another. They wanted complete secession (and a way of life that included subjugation of one race by another, but that was at least partly a convenient substitute for different economics). And yet, while the Jacobites were motivated in part by their religion, and here in America we claim that from the outset, our constitution declared that religion was not a battlefield in Politics, our first Roman Catholic president was elected only recently in our history, and a good bit of opposition to his candidacy came from people who feared his allegiance would be foremost to the Holy Father in Rome.

But, stories sell tickets, hence the popularity of movies like "The Stone of Destiny."

A related question might clarify things for me (or muddle them up still more). My guess is that QE2 was revered as an extraordinarily nice person, and that because of that the "story" of the British Monarchy sold just as well at higher latitudes than it did in London. Does that remain true to this day? From this great distance it appears that King Charles devotes considerable time and effort to convincing his subjects in the highlands of his affection for the Scottish portion of his realm, yet regional political differences; e.g., regarding the wisdom, or lack thereof, of BREXIT, may conflate differences in attitudes towards maintaining the monarchy. (I know that's a long way way from flat caps vs. Balmorals), but, I thought it at least curious that the last tune played by pipers outside St. George's Chapel as QE2 was brought to her final place of internment was The Skye Boat Song (after all, supposedly, she chose the music)!