Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

FreedomNow

Just reading about the Jacobite leader at the battle of Killiecrankie Viscount Dundee. If he led his army to victory, gave his life for Scotland and was fearless at the battle why does he not get the same plaudits as Wallace and Bruce do?

_________________
I will never apoligise for my Scottish blood, my Scottish mind or my love for my nation. You will never kill our will to be free.

ALBA GU BRATH - SCOTLAND FOREVER
FOR A SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ALBA

MAKE MONARCHY HISTORY

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3776

He died too early on and thus will never be remembered in the same light. He was considered by even the British government troops as a fearless warrior - 'Bonnie Dundee' was rumoured to have sold his soul to the devil in exchange for almost immortality.

It was told that only a bullet made of silver could kill him - and apparently the grapeshot from musket fire that hit him in battle was a silver button from a redcoat soldier's jacket. He lived just long enough to hear of the victory but his death almost totally quashed this Jacobite rebellion.
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Highlander · I Love 'Our Scotland' Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 298

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 743

Viscount Dundee was no hero. A murdering thug who should forever be remembered as "Bluidy Clavers" for what he did to try to enforce English ecclesiastical culture onto Lowland Scotland on behalf of a London based monarchy. For a hero try one of his many victims like John Brown of Priesthill:-

http://www.covenanter.org.uk/JohnBrown/

Holebender · Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

It's interesting how people see different aspects of the same person. To one camp he's Bonnie Dundee but to another he's Bluidy Clavers.

Another character from history had the flower Sweet William named after him, but to many people he will remain Butcher Cumberland. We love our heroes and villians!

However, the Bluidy Clavers post probably explains why John Graham of Claverhouse, First Viscount Dundee, is not accorded the status of Wallace or Bruce. Besides, he never fought for Scotland but for one faction fighting over Scotland.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

mairead · Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 6:34 am Post subject:

Bonnie Dundee was loyal to the Stewart monarchy and fought against the usurpation of William of Orange.
After refusing to kiss the usurpers hand at Edinburgh, he rode north and called out the clans. His battle at Killiecrankie was the precursor to the Jacobite wars.

The Bluidy Clavers name was given to him when he stood against the Covenanters who were rebelling against the King over religion, and many of the Covenanting ministers, were just as bloody in their battles as was Claverhouse, a fact which is rarely mentioned.

He therefore was one thing to some and another to others depending on which side he is viewed from.
Whatever he was, he fought and died at Killiecrankie for his country and shouold be remembered for that.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Mairead wrote "Bonnie Dundee was loyal to the Stewart monarchy and fought against the usurpation of William of Orange" - in actual fact it was considerably more complicated than that. For one thing, you still had a Stewart monarchy after the usurpation by William of Orange. King Billy was himself of Stewart descent, and was married to Mary, daughter of James the Seventh of Scotland and Second of England. William and Mary were proclaimed as joint monarchs, and, after they were both dead, they were succeeded by Anne Stewart, daughter of James, sister of Mary. The monarchy didn't really cease to be Stewart until the death of Anne.

Like William of Orange, "Bonnie Dundee" was not lacking in personal bravery. The two of them fought together in European wars, and on one occasion "Bonnie Dundee" saved the life of his colleague William of Orange. However, although neither of them were lacking in personal bravery, they were both murderers. William of Orange's involvement in the Massacre of Glencoe is well known. The dreadfull record of "Bonnie Dundee" in enforcing the edicts of a London government in Scotland is perhaps not so well known in some quarters. As has been pointed out, "Bonnie Dundee" was personally responsible for the murder of John Brown of Priesthill, in front of the man's wife and children, after troops under Dundee's command had proved reluctant to carry out the order to kill Brown. http://www.covenanter.org.uk/JohnBrown/ This was just one of many atrocities committed by Dundee in the service of the government in London.

"The Bluidy Clavers name was given to him when he stood against the Covenanters who were rebelling against the King over religion, and many of the Covenanting ministers, were just as bloody in their battles as was Claverhouse, a fact which is rarely mentioned." - yes, the Covenanters could be bloody, but in the case of John Brown of Priesthill, what we have is an innocent man murdered in cold blood, in front of his wife and children, by "Bonnie Dundee".

"Whatever he was, he fought and died at Killiecrankie for his country" - no he didn't, it wasn't a "Scotland versus England" conflict, he fought and died for one side in a civil war.

"and shouold be remembered for that." - His memory will always be more controversial than that of (for instance) Wallace and Bruce.

mairead · Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject:

Perhaps I should have clarified this.
When I said Stewart Monarchy I was referring to the usurped but true King, James, not James's daughter Mary and her foreign husband William. As far as Dundee was concerned, James was still the lawful King.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Mairead wrote "When I said Stewart Monarchy I was referring to the usurped but true King, James" - okay, I may have got this wrong, but wasn't James dead and gone when his daughter Anne Stewart was on the throne? So, in that sense, there was a continuing Stewart monarchy right up until when the wee German lairdie took over? In any case, I find the whole idea of there being such a thing as a "true king" one which only has meaning for the more misty-eyed kind of monarchists of one kind or another. Okay, it is possible that there might be a conservative case for a monarchy on practical grounds (that it's easier to work with what exists and seek to modify that, rather than to risk tearing it all up and starting again) but I find the idea of a "true" monarchy completely meaningless. There have been literally SCORES of cases of usurpation throughout Scottish history and James was just as much a descendant of usurpers as the later Hanoverian claimants were. When Kenneth MacAlpin seized the throne of Alba, that was probably a usurpation. When Malcolm Canmore overthrew Macbeth, you could make out a very good case that was a usurpation. When Robert the Bruce was crowned king, that was a usurpation. William Wallace carried out his campaigns in the name of the then "true" king, John Balliol. Bruce had to fight, not just against the English, but against those who didn't trust this turncoat turning yet again, and The Declaration of Arbroath made it clear that, if this guy Bruce proved to be unreliable in the future, then we will get rid of him. These are just a few of the more obvious examples that spring immediately to mind, but of course there are plenty more, including several disputed successions within the Stewart line. The "true" king is merely the descendant of earlier successfull gangsters. Yes, the present lot are usurpers. So were all the others.

mairead · Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:35 am Post subject:

Well I suppose you could look at it that way Dave, but that way of seeing things would then apply to monarchy world wide from time immemorial.

We should perhaps bring this thread back to topic and not a history of Scottish Monarchs.
I, and many others, am probably just as well versed as you are in the history of our nation.

The Covenanting ministers were an evil lot and committed many atrocities among their own kind, never mind their enemies, which is something that is conveniently forgotten by those who despise the name of Claverhouse.
As for myelf, I see Dundee as a hero and he is well remembered by many. At the time, he was the one man in Scotland who was capable of winning the throne back for his King.
There was a well attended memorial gathering at Killiecrankie to him just last month
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Mairead wrote "Well I suppose you could look at it that way Dave, but that way of seeing things would then apply to monarchy world wide from time immemorial".

Well like I said, "it's possible there might be a conservative case for a monarchy on practical grounds (that it's easier to work with what exists and seek to modify that, rather than to risk tearing it all up and starting again)". There are some folk who really are sceptical about monarchy but who are quite prepared to go along with it on these pragmatic grounds. I suspect that Alex Salmond might be one example of such a pragmatic monarchist. But I'm not. Yes, seeing things like this applies to monarchy world wide from time immemorial. I'm no monarchist, but in campaigning for a referendum and for independence I'm quite happy to work with folk who are.

"We should perhaps bring this thread back to topic" - why? Threads develop. As long as they don't just descend into personal trivia and abuse, there is no reason why threads should not be allowed to take a direction un-anticipated by the person who initiated the thread.

"The Covenanting ministers were an evil lot" - First, by referring to "Covenanting ministers", you ignore the simple fact that the great majority of Covenanters were not ministers. Have you seen the Dungeon at Dunottar where a large number of covenanting men, women, and yes, young chidren, were held, and some died? The survivors being sent to slavery in the West Indies? That was an "evil" committed by the enemies of the covenanters. Secondly, by describing these many thousands of of people as "an evil lot" you display your own prejudices. Yes, there were atrocities committed by covenanters. I'm not suggesting they were all saints. But this thread was started by somebody who is apparently unaware of the many atrocities committed by "Bonnie Dundee". One example of an atrocity committed by "Bonnie Dundee" has been given, the cold-blooded murder of an unarmed man, John Brown of Priesthill, in front of Brown's wife and young children. "Bonnie Dundee" carried out the murder himself, after his own troops had refused the order to do so.

"There was a well attended memorial gathering at Killiecrankie to him just last month" - There were lots of well attended memorial gatherings to William of Orange last month, also. Mind you, "Bonnie Dundee" did save the life of William of Orange, thus enabling him to go on to claim the British throne, so maybe the Orangemen should thank him for that. My personal opinion is that BOTH of them were bad for Scotland.

"As for myself, I see Dundee as a hero" - that's up to you. But let's face it, he is NEVER going to be universally regarded as a Good Thing in quite the same way as Wallace and Bruce. In my view, it is better to concentrate on the things that supporters of independence can agree on.

mairead · Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:48 pm Post subject:

The only thing all supporters of idependence will agree on is that we all want independence, but like the Scots have always been, we will not all agree on much else. It's not in the nature of the Scots, sadly.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Corby Boy · Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject:

I agree, Bonnie Dundee is problematic to be an icon of Independence. As is Bruce to some extent i.e. his frequent swearing of loyalty to Edward I and then breaking it again and repeating the same. Also, did he have any hand in Wallace's capture?

(Having read Tranter's Bruce trilogy I like to think of his depiction of Bruce vis a vis Wallace).

Clearly, though his deeds post the death of Wallace delivered Scotland from servitude and shaped the nation for a further 700 years, hence his rightful stature.

Wallace is perhaps the purest icon because of his lower born status, unwavering view of his nation and his fierce determination to rid the nation of the invader.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

Corby Boy wrote "I agree, Bonnie Dundee is problematic to be an icon of Independence. As is Bruce to some extent i.e. his frequent swearing of loyalty to Edward I and then breaking it again and repeating the same". But Corby Boy also wrote "Clearly, though, his deeds post the death of Wallace delivered Scotland from servitude and shaped the nation for a further 700 years, hence his rightful stature" - yes, he was a slippery character, but in the end he was OUR slippery character. Like Wallace, Bruce did actually fight for Independence for Scotland. Viscount Dundee didn't. He fought to have one bunch of slippery characters rather than another bunch of slippery characters running the BRITISH monarchy.

William_Cleland · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 743

Being a slippery character was the only way to win in that era. In the final analysis William Wallace while undoubtedly heroic was a loser who backed the wrong horse in the shape of John Balliol and wound up suffering a gruesome death while Robert the Bruce was the winner who secured at least temporarily (the conflict actually dragged on for several more decades with John Balliol's son Edward attempting to retake the thrown with English help) Scotland's independence. Braveheart was completely farcical in terms of historical accuracy (the Battle of Stirling Bridge depicted minus the bridge to name but one example) but the younger generation seems to have been heavily influenced by it, unfortunately. People don't seem to grasp that the bizarre portrayal of Bruce in the film was probably driven by Mel Gibson's sectarian biases given that Bruce was an excommunicant and is rumoured to have been helped by the Knights Templar and to have played a hand in starting the freemasons in Scotland.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

William wrote "People don't seem to grasp that the bizarre portrayal of Bruce in the film was probably driven by Mel Gibson's sectarian biases given that Bruce was an excommunicant and is rumoured to have been helped by the Knights Templar and to have played a hand in starting the freemasons in Scotland" - I'm quite prepared to believe that Mel Gibson's view of historical characters is coloured by his sectarian bias. I'm quite prepared to believe that Mel Gibson believes Bruce had a hand in starting the freemasons. However, if Mel Gibson does believe that, I think his belief is nonsense. Masonry almost certainly came from more humble beginnings, not royal ones. Yes, there are bits of Templar stuff mixed in, but for the most part there is a simple, obvious source for freemasonry. I spent most of my working life in the building trade, working as a bricklayer. I knew several men who were either stonemasons or mason/bricklayers by trade who were also freemasons. The masons, as their name implies, do have some sort of connection, maybe only a very tenuous one nowadays, with associations of building workers. In the middle ages, lots of professions had "guilds", and these guilds were very careful about looking after the interests of their members, and they were very careful about admitting new members, and lots of these guilds had secret signs and handshakes etc. This was even true of the Nineteenth Century trade unions - in her book "The Tolpuddle Martyrs", Joyce Marlow mentions the blood-curdling oath which _those_ early trade unionists took, under a painting of Death, the Grim Reaper. Anyway, one of the medieval guilds was the masons. Being a stone mason was a hard job but it paid better than being a peasant. Of course lots of castles were built in the middle ages but the really BIG jobs for stonemasons were the building of cathedrals for the church. The great medieval cathedrals cost huge amounts of money to build (but the church was not short of money), construction could last for many years, and the job would attract skilled men from many hundreds of miles away, including from other countries. Since you could have a workforce speaking several different languages, it was particularly important they knew everybody really was a mason, and not just some chancer trying to bluff his way into a job. So, signs, handshakes, etc. Squares, levels, building tools, and God as the Great Architect. Of course. That is the background, but modern masonry really started in Scotland sometime around the the early Eighteenth Century, and drew on that background for a fraternity which started recruiting non building workers.

By the way it isn't just the Catholic Church which regards the Freemasons as heretics. My brother (who, as it happens, really IS a mason/bricklayer by trade) is a member of the freemasons. He also used to be a regular churchgoer, and an Elder of the Church of Scotland, involved in the running of the local church. But then a new minister took over as the local preacher. While the previous minister had taken a relaxed attitude towards the masons, the new one was far more fundamentalist, an evangelical protestant.who took the attitude that Christ said "go out and preach the Gospel to ALL" , and not "just pass on this secret knowledge to the few". He also took the attitude that "without Christ, there is no salvation", and while masonry believes in a Great Architect, it makes no mention at all of the Son of God. My brother fell out with the new minister (this was twenty years ago), he quit as an elder, and he hasn't been back to that church since. When his wife died, and then later he re-married, it was in a different church.

Blackadder · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 4021

To the Lords o' Convention 'twas Claverhouse spoke
E'er the King's crown go down there are crowns to be broke
So each cavalier who loves honour and me
Let him follow the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can
Come saddle my horses and call out my men
Unhook the West Port and let us gae free
For it's up with the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

Dundee he is mounted and rides up the street
The bells they ring backward, the drums they are beat
But the provost douce man says just let it be
For the toon is well rid o' that devil Dundee

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can
Come saddle my horses and call out my men
Unhook the West Port and let us gae free
For it's up with the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

There are hills beyond Pentland and lands beyond Forth
Be there lords in the south, there are chiefs in the north
There are brave downie wassles three thousand times three
Cry hey for the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can
Come saddle my horses and call out my men
Unhook the West Port and let us gae free
For it's up with the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

And awa tae the hills, tae the lee and the rocks
Ere I own a usurper I'll couch with the fox
So tremble false whigs in the mid'st o' yer glee
For ye've no seen the last o' my bonnets and me

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can
Come saddle my horses and call out my men
Unhook the West Port and let us gae free
For it's up with the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

Come fill up my cup, come fill up my can
Come saddle my horses and call out my men
Unhook the West Port and let us gae free
For it's up with the bonnets o' Bonnie Dundee

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 928

James Connolly, the so-called "Irish Rebel", was born. raised, and worked at his first job in Edinburgh. and was a founder member of the Scottish Republican Socialist party formed in Edinburgh. He later emigrated to the USA, where he joined and became an active agitator for the somewhat-anarchistically-inclined IWW, the Industrial Workers of The World. All of that happened before he even set foot on Irish soil. All of his life, James Connolly spoke with a Scottish accent, and more specifically an Edinburgh accent. James Connolly had far more connection with Edinburgh than the so-called "Duke of Edinburgh" has. That "Edinburgh" is in fact German/Greek royalty, with an English-upper-class education. Although he had some claim to be a "prince" of a defunct royal line, he didn't have a British title. When he married Princess Elizabeth, the heir to the throne, the powers-that-be decided he had to have some sort of British title, and what they invented for this purpose was "Duke of Edinburgh". Anyway, the point is, the so-called "Dundee" in this song had about as much to do with Dundee as Zorba has to do with Edinburgh. As Robert Burns said

"A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might"

And everything about "Bonnie Dundee" was dishonest, including his name.

mairead · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject:

Think you should have checked your facts here Dave.
Graham of Claverhouse was born in 1643 at Old Claverhouse Castle, Dundee, therefore the titles of Constable of Dundee and Viscount Dundee which were bestowed upon him were accurate, so I don't know where you got the idea he had no connections to the area.
His own home was at Dudhope, just outside Dundee.

Take it you would have been on the side of the Covenanters then. As for me, I would have fought for Dundee.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

agentmancuso · Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: