PDA

View Full Version : Culloden



migovie
04-19-2008, 02:54 AM
culloden ?
the garthbeg mactavish fought this battle and nearly every male member of fighting age from the homes of garthbeg . sth migovie , migovie fought . Docs prove their entry to the battle under the "muster role" .

we also know that the mactavish "head" of garthbeg or chief was hunted down for decades after this battle >
John mactavish of garthbeg had a death warrant hanging over his head for his rallying of his mactavish clansmen .

the Garthbeg Mactavish fought for fraser chief who was their "feudal lord" . meaning they had no option. The very leases they purchased demanded they fight for the fraser chief at his call whenever needed.

Had mactavish of garthbeg refused, their farms and lease would be forfeited . This demand was known as a "feu contract" and was a normal part of leases etc .

The Dunardry Mactavish held the dunardry lands under the same contract of feu. This same demand was pledged that they HAD to fight for their feudal lord.

Now if ANY dunardry mactavish actually attended the culloden battle they would be morally and legally bound by contract of feu to fight for their feudal chief...who was THE DUKE OF ARGYLLE.

So either dunardry mactavish didnt fight or if they did they fought for the campbells.
Had they refused they would have their lands forfeited for breach of the feu contract with argylle.

other mactavish that lived in argylle and held lands under feu to other chiefs would have fought the battle for that particular chief...

BUT without a doubt...any mactavish actually living and farming dunardry soils was demanded without question to fight for argylle.

Check land sassines and feu contracts regarding dunardry tenure for yourselves there is no question.

Due to the dunardry chief deing imprisoned for treason at time of culloden we have yet another more plausable explanation for events.

In this case duke of argylle would have considered the dunardry mactavish "untrustworthy and without their leader , in which case he would have elected to not include them in his troops.

Again there were other mactavish farming lands in argylle that were held by feu to other chiefs..

.in this case we may have seen a very small number of argylle mactavish fight for various other chiefs...

but NOT one dunardry mactavish .

NO dunardry mactavish from dunardry lands fought at culloden . Its a wonderfull idea. and today the dunardry family desperately wish to attach themselves to that battle.

I can state without doubt they never fought , and if they had they would have been compelled to fight for campbell.

i can state there may well be a handful of argylle mactavish who did fight , but this was a demand by their own feudal chief and had nothing to do with the dunardry clan or chief.

The only clansmen who are documented to have entered this fateful battle were the mactavish of garthbeg.

Docs prove their attendance and death warrants issued after the battle again prove the garthbeg mactavish role.

It may interest some of you to note that there is leading doc evidence that suggests that directly after the battle , bonnie prince charles was assisted out thru the very lands and homes of garthbeg and surrounds.

Whilst back at dunardry the mactavish men simply milked the cows and tended the sheep instead of fighting .

I understand some of you have contributed cash to the proposal of a memorial stone being erected in memory of the mactavish who fought at culloden.

WONDERFUL.

except

IF such clan matters are to be organised , such events have to be based on documented facts.

The facts are that the Mactavish of Garthbeg were at culloden

The facts are there are no facts or docs that prove dunardry mactavish fought. AT ALL

The facts are you have contributed funds ,,

so where is the stone ? and where is the money you gave.

Any such stone should , if correct < state the facts

"THIS STONE IS ERECTED IN MEMORY OF THE GARTHBEG MACTAVISH WHO FOUGHT AT CULLODEN"

anything else is fraud and based on hope and want and no facts whatsover.

nessie
04-22-2008, 02:52 PM
Youre so right Migsie---all the facts DO point to Dunardry being absent at Culloden---for the record ----and the record is crucially important when it comes down to history;So often the truth is fudged for personal agendas ,whole cultures can be influenced by the lies of one person and generations are subsequently deceived---sometimes with horrific consequences! I suppose human beans dont need much ammo to fire **** at each other!
Amidst great temptations to link my own ancestors into Culloden ---and given that my grt grt grt grt grt grandfather was actually living at Culloden from 1789 onwards----I could/would never presume anything about my family's role at Culloden until I know all the facts----
because that would be buying in to fudgy history in my book----the kind that advocate dodgy dossiers!
What a pity that truth doesnt sell anymore!

cathy
05-01-2008, 06:13 AM
Welcome back Nessie, it has been a while!! This forum has been quiet lately, but the "games" in the USA are starting now, and swords are being sharpened again!

Yes, you do not fudge history, false history repeated enough can often take on a tint of the truth and life of it's own. It is simply "romantic" for some folks to want to connect themselves to Culloden. Check out the facts, Charlie was not a romantic figure. He died a drunk. He swept the Highlands into Chaos, and then left for France.

My 5th great-grandfather did fight with the Fraser contingent at Culloden. His death warrant was only for about 10 years, but for 10 years, he lived a secret life. The graveyard where he was buried actually has a stone that still bears a musket hole, from where a Angry soldier of the king, fired into a crowd attending a funeral. The Argyll MacTavish should consider themselves lucky that Argyll did not allow his people to fight for Charlie.

Cathy












Youre so right Migsie---all the facts DO point to Dunardry being absent at Culloden---for the record ----and the record is crucially important when it comes down to history;So often the truth is fudged for personal agendas ,whole cultures can be influenced by the lies of one person and generations are subsequently deceived---sometimes with horrific consequences! I suppose human beans dont need much ammo to fire **** at each other!
Amidst great temptations to link my own ancestors into Culloden ---and given that my grt grt grt grt grt grandfather was actually living at Culloden from 1789 onwards----I could/would never presume anything about my family's role at Culloden until I know all the facts----
because that would be buying in to fudgy history in my book----the kind that advocate dodgy dossiers!
What a pity that truth doesnt sell anymore!
[/b]

REALMACTAVISH
05-02-2008, 08:41 AM
WELL I CAN ABSOLUTELY QUALIFY THAT DUNARDRY DID NOT FIGHT AT CULLODEN. MANSE BRAE ARCHIVES-OPEN TO THE PUBLIC- HAVE PROOF BEYOND DOUBT THAT DUNARDRY DID NOT COME OUT OF FIGHT AT CULLODEN. THERE IS A REPORT COMPILED BY THE DUKE OF ATHOLL FOR THE KING CALLED 'THE REBELS IN ARGYLE' .IT NAMES ALL JACOBITES AND THE PUNISHMENTS LEVIED(VERY LENIENT) IN ARGYLL. NOT A MACTAVISH/DUNARDRY MAN AMONGST THEM. FACT. THE DOCUMENTS THERE TO BE SEEN. I WENT ALL THROUGH IT. NOT A ONE.
NOW, WHEN THE FIRST PRETENDER,DUGALD, CAME TO ARGYLL ; HE WAS TOLD THAT THE PEDIGREE OF A CLAN PIVOTS ON IF AT CULLODEN OR NOT. THE MAN WAS DETERMINED TO PRESENT THE FALSEHOOD THAT THEY WERE.
THESE WANNABES ARE PARADING AROUND THE COLONIES -AND NEXT YEAR EDINBURGH WITH THE BLUE BONNET AND WHITE COCKADE....I FIND THAT VERY OFFENSIVE AND INSULTING TO OUR FOREBEARS WHO DID FIGHT AT CULLODEN.