Scotch-Irish-L Archives
Archiver > Scotch-Irish > 2001-06 > 0993862563
From: Charles Clark <>
Subject: Re: [Scotch-Irish] MCGINLEY, James: Scotland/Ireland > MD/PA ca 1739
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 12:56:03 +1200
References: <200106290915.AA1508114614@mail.fea.net>
wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> > He came to PA before the '45 in Scotland so I suspect that
> >if he was on the Continent, he may have been a member of a Scottish
> >or Irish regiment or some other military organization on hire to a
> >member of Continental royalty.
>
> Eh?
(I scrubbed most of that but just had to repeat Linda's expostulation,
because it's my sentiments exactly)
Michael, I get highly suspicious every time I see anyone mentioning the
'45, because it's one of those events that people make myths about. I have
an ancestor who was said to have "fled Scotland after Culloden" (which was,
of course, the most myth-making event of the '45) Load of codswallop. The
whole story was invented, probably by my great-grandfather at a time when
he was in Canada (Calgary, Alberta) in the 1880s. The reality is that the
ancestor concerned was one Andrew Stewart of the Park, Ballintoy, who turns
up in Francis Dobb's report on the Hutchinson Bequest as a "poor and
neccessitous" relation who was applying for a handout.
It seems the story was invented at least in part because Scottishness was
much more fashionable last century than Irishness (still is, I suppose), in
particular after Queen Vicky got hold of Balmoral and started the fad
sometimes known as Balmorality. The English Royal family are still at it,
of course, you sometimes see Prince Charles wearing one of those silly
dresses Scotsmen wear (kilts, tartans etc are also a part of the
English-driven commercial and political view of Scottishness, dating back
in large part to the visit of King George to Scotland in 1824).
Not that one should dismiss a story such as yours out of hand, Michael, if
nothing else it says something about the people who invented it ( if they
in fact did so) if not about those supposedly part of it
Or ahve I got it wrong, and it it you who have inserted the '45 into the
story? In which case it is a distraction the story can do without, for the
reasons already mentioned: that it is the subject of a lot more myth than
fact
Charlie
This thread: