Talk:Massacre of Glencoe

POV

Isn't the Aftermath section just POV, or at the very least unbecoming of inclusion in an encyclopedia? Lianachan 13:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some clarification is needed as to why this particular massacre is so well remembered, improvements will be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

My mother who died in 1999, was of the Clan Farquharson who were the standard bearers to the MacDonalds' of Glen Coe. She told me the reason why the massacre of Glen Coe is still remembered especially by those of highland descent was due to the fact that the massacre was "Murder under Trust." The Campbells had been offered and accepted hospitality by the MacDonalds and that fact preclude all and any such type of behaviour - they were guests in the home and guests do not murder their hosts. Seemingly if the Campbells had left the glen and returned later to carry out the killing, then whilst maybe legally wrong it would not have been so repugnant and just put down to another feud between the MacDonalds and the Campbells. Highland tradition meant that you did not hurt the hand of those who had given hospitality. I see there is an entry in the Clan Campbell pages of wiki which expounds about this.The Geologist (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, the issue is discussed in the section in our article. However, it's lacking in citations providing the verification from reliable sources which our policy requires. If you can find any good published sources on it, that will be very much appreciated. Of course the massacre was also remembered because it became part of Jacobite propaganda, and subsequently was part of the romantic highland history that was very popular in the 19th century, it will also be useful to find improved sources covering these aspects, . dave souza, talk 17:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Glencoe village

Regarding a question raised on my talk page, it seemed to me that his article should have a link to the Glencoe, Scotland article about the village and to the old village location, which was widely thought to be where the hospitality and the start of the subsequent Massacre took place. It seemed to me that readers might welcome an early link to maps of the area, so I've added both links to the intro. Any further clarifications will be appreciated. ..dave souza, talk 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the last sentence of the 'Aftermath' section should be removed. As the rest of the article makes clear (and this is perfectly well known from other sources) despite British government attempts to show this as a 'clan feud' it was in fact part of the 'ethnic cleansing' that we call the Highland Clearances. The visitor centre at Glencoe also makes perfectly clear that the main reason for the massacre was purely and simply pour encourager les autres: the highlanders were associated with Catholic insurrection, and the clan system had to be smashed to show who was boss. The Glencoe massacre was a test case to show that the (protestant) state was serious about this. 86.1.194.43 21:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The page geolocation is on the River Coe near the current Clachaig Inn. I think that the significance of the geolocation should be explained in the article. I have added a geolocation for the memorial. Diggers2004 (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Whoops. Location was already in the reference note. Diggers2004 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Massacres and Myths

In general, I believe this piece manages to trace a reasonable course through one of the more emotive minefields of Scottish history. My editing is intended to clarify some facts and eliminate some misconceptions.

1. The Jacobite clans were not threatened with 'death' if they failed take the oath of loyalty; nothing as specific as that. They were told that they 'would answer at their highest peril.' It is also perhaps worth mentioning-although this does not appear in this article-that MacIan, while late, did at least take the oath to King William. Others, including the Macdonalds of Sleat and Glengarry, did not, at least not prior to the events of February 1692. The Macdonalds of Glencoe were chosen for extraordinary action because they were vulnerable in a way that the Sleat and Glengarry men were not.

2. I've tried to weaken any causal link between Glenlyon's losses in 1690 and the Massacre. As I highlight, he held the Glengarry men more culpable.

3. Breadalbane was not involved at any stage in the preparations for the Massacre. I've already highlighted this, with more detailed reasoning, in the talk page attached to the article on John Campbell Earl of Breadalbane.

4. I've rearranged the section on the Argyll Regiment to make the facts a little clearer. The way it was written suggests, amongst other things, that the Earl of Argyll was personally present, which, of course, he was not. He was colonel-in-chief of the regiment; but this was purely an honorary appointment; he never took part in any of its field operations. It is also important not to make too much of the regiment as a specifically Campbell formation. This was a regular army regiment, not a Highland militia.

5. I think the final section, headed 'Aftermath' could be better organized. The fair and accurate point is made that the focus of historical discussion has been steered away from official policy to clan rivalry; but then it wanders off into the usual misty Campbell/Macdonald associations. I've removed the original final paragraph because it loses all focus, and comes close to justifying the Massacre as just another episode in an ancient feud, which I feel sure was not the author's intention. I think my own last paragraph is absolutely necessary to put the whole thing in true perspective.

Rcpaterson 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To your point #4.: Neverheless, The Argyll Regiment WAS a Highland Regiment, which meant that, despite its officers being mainly English (as were all Highland Regiments(?)), its foot-soldiers were overwhelmingly 'recruited/ pressed' from the Campbell holdings and held their allegiance to the Crown through their Chain of Command to the Duke, thence on to the Crown, no? To this day, and through personal experience, the officers (at least) of the modern Argyll & Sutherland Regiment remain sensitive to this issue, in a good way. (I am a Macdonald and former Canadian military.) Spartan26 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've updated the Aftermath section to be more comprehensive; I know this is a long time after the fact :) but there are a couple of points in the discussion above that I think worth clarifying;

Archive material (ie letters and records made by contemporaries) contain plenty of circumstantial evidence Breadalbane was deeply involved but for personal reasons (proving his 'loyalty' and the dispute with MacIain over his share of the £12,000), not as part of a wider Campbell-MacDonald (which originated with Macaulay's Histories, as I've also mentioned in the rewrite). That would also explain why Glengarry was able to sign in February and not be similarly prosecuted (too senior, too powerful).

The idea Highland Regiments were 'largely' officered by the English is simply not accurate. If you're curious, this link has lists of officers in Highland Regiments fighting in North America in the 1780s - the names are almost entirely Scottish. http://www.electricscotland.com/history/highlands/chapter13.htm

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Some points worth considering

In checking an assessment of the outcome, I hauled out John Prebble's Lion in the North which gives a brief treatment of this subject which he had earlier tackled in depth in Glencoe. Some points, quotes or nuances he considered important aren't included here, and while they seem to set useful context I thought I'd note them before adding them to see if they're disputed by more authoritative or recent scholarship.

Firstly, that William was embroiled in war in the Low Countries, and to reduce the threat of another rising opening a second front the original scheme to pacify the Highlands was to buy loyalty, but Stair's negotiations fell through. From the royal camp in Flanders on 17 August 1761 (impossible date)William made the offer of pardon to those swearing allegiance before 1 January with the threat of "the utmost severity of the law" for those who didn't. Stair {privately] proposed "fire and sword and all manner of hostility" on several clans, particularly the MacDonalds, for few men would regret what happened to them.

The message from James authorising the signing arrived by messenger in the last week of December, saying that the loyal chiefs could "do what may be most for their own safety". At such short notice less than a hands-count were able to travel to the sheriffs of their shire and submit the oath in time.

The Glencoe MacDonalds had few, if any, friends: their only loyalty was to that which served Clan Donald and the Lords of the Isles, and they were thus hostile opponents of the Campbells, though they had not been above taking Clan Diarmid's [another name for the Campbells?] pay for the killing of its other enemies. Stair believed that it would be a lesson to the laggards and a mercy to the nation if this "thieving tribe were rooted out and cut off".

When news came out that MacIain had been late, Stair wrote "I am glad that Glencoe did not come in within the time prescribed, I hope what's done there may be in earnest."

The use of Campbell soldiers had little to do with their ancient feuds, they were the only disciplined and reliable force in John Hill's district, but the selection of the bankrupt and drunkard Glenlyon was perhaps deliberate... on their way back from Dunkeld, the MacDonalds had burnt and looted his glen for the second time, completing a financial ruin begun by drink and gambling.

Stair had to resign his secretaryship, but his work had been effective and the laggard chiefs came quickly to take the oath of submission. Though Jacobites used the incident as propaganda, the Glencoe men showed their tolerance when in 1715 they fought beside the sons and tenants of Glenlyon.

[The Scottish] Parliament's courage in addressing the King, declaring the responsibility of his minister and asking for the trial of his officers reflected their growing independence in their frequently hostile relationship with the king who was imposing a heavy burden on Scotland in the long and unpopular war with France.

Feedback will be welcome. ..dave souza, talk 22:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful in trying to draw a direct causal link between Glenlyon's misfortunes and his involvement in the Glencoe Massacre (Massacres and Myths-point 2). In the claim for compensation placed before the Privy Council for the losses he sustained in the 1690 raid he makes no mention of Glencoe, holding the Glengarry men more culpable. There is also a wider point to be considered. Much of the evidence suggests that he was being deliberately set up as a scapegoat; and while this cannot be proved conclusively, it is virtually certain that he knew nothing of his true task in Glencoe until he received his written orders on 12 February, with their hints and threats on the consequences of failure.

I'm puzzled, quite frankly, by your commendation of the 'courage' of the Scottish Parliament. The inquiry into the causes of the Glencoe Massacre was set up with one purpose only: to exonerate the King. Dalrymple was an obvious target, and stood condemned by his plentiful and public correspondence. William, far from being forced to dispense with a treasured minister, was only to happy to lose Dalrymple, quite simply because he no longer served any useful purpose. Beyond loss of office, he suffered no other penalty. The Scottish Parliament, in its address to the King, did no more than what was expected of it, even in its request that the Argyll Regiment officers stand trial. The Glencoe Macdonalds, moreover, received not a penny in compensation. I can see no evidence of either poilitical or moral courage. Rcpaterson 23:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, on the first issue I read Prebble as emphasising that Glenlyon may have been selected because he was a bankrupt with various problems, including an argument with the MacDonalds generally, and so would be less likely to refuse the (unlawful) orders he was given. This ties in with him being set up as a scapegoat.

Secondly, I accept your assessment of Prebble's comment on "courage", and you make good points. I did find interesting the idea that the parliament was getting restive, and the context that Scotland was suffering the costs of William's continuing war with France seemed useful. This suggests the massacre as a callous exemplary action to discount French hopes of a second front, carried out reluctantly by soldiers under orders, rather than the clanfight scenario.

A point made in Glencoe is that in 1688 James granted Letters of Fire and Sword against some clans, particularly the MacDonalds, as well as requiring his subjects to concur "in rooting out the said barbarous and inhuman traitors", though in May 1689 he was asking for their support against the "antimonarchial" forces of William. Jacobite identification with the Highlanders was not long standing. Your comments on the other points will be appreciated ..dave souza, talk 10:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you.

There are important aspects of this whole episode that tend to escape from both the written narratives and the popular preception. All of the leading players, including William, Breadalbane and Dalrymple had their own particular agendas. William's was simple enough: he cared little for Scotland, or Scottish issues, and simply wanted a quick peace in the Highlands to allow him to pursue his war on the Continent. Breadalbane, anxious to take on the role of statesman, and to replace his cousin Argyll as the head of the Campbells, laboured to achieve a negotiated peace with the rebel chiefs. His efforts were partially rewarded with the truce he managed to conclude at Achallader.

Dalyrmple is, perhaps, the most complex of all. He, too, wished to remain in William's favour ( a very difficult thing with the cold and impatient Dutchman), but was far less patient than Breadalbane, a man he did not fully trust. But there was, for him, an even higher consideration; he was working towards a full political union with England, which, he believed could not be achieved as long as Scotland continued to be haunted by unruly and barbarous Highlanders. Temporary truces were not good enough: pacification could only be achieved by terror, and terror in its most frightful and militant form. His original scheme for military action was sweeping in scope, taking in much more than the men of Clan Iain Abrach. Practical considerations narrowed this down to Glencoe alone.

Your point about the Stewarts and the Highlanders is well made: for James they were simply a means towards an end, as they were to be for his son and grandson in times to come. Although he managed to establish reasonably good relations with the chiefs when he came to Edinburgh in the early 1680s, his general perceptions were little different from his Stewart ancestors, for whom the Highlands were a source of trouble as far back as the reign of James IV. The Glencoe Massacre is a singular event in Scottish history, but it is rooted in an ancient hostility. James V seriously considered the wholesale extirpation of Clan Chattan, and James VI authorised the systematic extermination of the Macleods of Lewis, and threatend death for the crime of being called Macgregor. Even the traditionally loyal Campbells were not immune from Lowland hostility. At the outset of James' reign it was seriously suggested that the men of the clan be physically disabled, and the women shipped to the outer isles, as the price for their involvement in the ninth Earl of Argyll's rebellion in 1685. The 'Letters of Fire and Sword' you mention were issued by James against the Keppoch Macdonalds, shortly before the collapse of his regime, and technically remained in force even after they joined Dundee. I've always been amused-and angered- by the hype,lies and myths surrounding stories of Loyal Highland Clans and Stewart Princes, based, as it so often is, on the shallowest understanding of Scottish history.

I note that you have been drawing on John Preeble's Glencoe. It's a fine book, and the first full account I myself read of the Massacre; but it is now a fairly dated work, and some of the judgements are open to question. He places John Hill, for example, in a far better light than he deserves. As I noted elsewhere, Hill's opportunism and lack of real moral courage made him one of the minor architects of the Massacre. Have you read Paul Hopkins' Glencoe and the End of the Highland War? The prose style is as turgid and dull as Preeble is vivid and imaginative; but it musters every conceivable fact about the whole period.

Rcpaterson 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent discussion, both of you! You've provided me with interesting sidelights on some of the finer points and issues. As you note, the Coe MacDonalds had few friends--they were known to thieve without prejudice, BOTH Campbell AND neighbouring MacDonald cattle and chattel. However, after the Massacre, it became "family IS family." I think what makes this such a fascinating massacre, of the hundreds/ thousands throughout history, and beyond simply the descendants of those involved, is that it is not only interesting to study at the 'local politics' level, but also to study in the scope of the 'grand canvas' of United Kingdom and European history that was going on around it at the time.... Spartan26 (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Clanfight or not,

Some people are looking at the historical documents, i, Quaggga, am looking at the circumstances, Could it be or couldn't it be a simple clanfight in the perceptions of the rivalising parties, the macdonalds and the campbells, and indeed, it is not my goal to rewrite the glen coe massacre, it is a tragedy and we have to remember this for the sake of abuse of power.

My contribution to this has been erased, and apparently there is just room for one kind of view. But call it stubborn or any name you want When we're looking at the circumstances, what do we see: 1. A massacre 2. A family who had a hard time in the past decades, 3. Animosity with another clan

I'm not defending the campbells, or support the macdonalds. And vica versa. But the results of 1 to 3: 1. 40-70 persons are killed 2. the campbells, the chief of the clan had to flee to Holland, the first Marquis hanged, and his sons had to fear for their own lives 3. the macdonalds, since the 1600 a major obstacle for good relationships.

and now with the blessing of the government the campbells got the chance to get rid off the macdonalds. what would you do? take of leave it

I'm interested in your comments

Thanks, Quaggga, the point is that there were other more murderous massacres associated with the clanfights, this one was memorable because it was under specific government orders that contravened both Scots law and Highland custom. The clans were pawns in a bigger game, and it says more about the antipathy of lowland gentry to what some effectively saw as thieving savages than it does about the complex Campbell / MacDonald rivalry. ..dave souza, talk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Glenlyon as dupe or 'fall guy'

This is an argument that Glenlyon was unaware of the impending massacre, and that he was duped and threatened into carrying it out by his superior officers.

From a military point of view the regiment was given a very difficult task when it was ordered to carry out the massacre. This is quite apart from any ethical considerations. The problem was that they were specifically ordered to take the MacDonalds (or MacIains) by surprise - see Dalrymple's letter to General Livingstone, where he is most emphatic that they should not be allowed to escape to the hills, as this would cause further problems. However, any approach by a large body of soldiers to the valley of Glencoe would be visible for miles. Approaching at night would also have been very difficult. The soldiers would have to march a long distance without lights, and could very easily go astray. This meant that no normal approach to Glencoe could succeed. They had to devise a ruse in order to get soldiers into the glen, where they could fall on the MacDonalds.

It seems likely that the senior officers in the regiment picked the most junior captain in the regiment, Glenlyon, as the 'fall guy' to carry out a massacre which other officers found distasteful or dishonourable. As an older man (in his 50s), an alcoholic, a gambler, and a general loser, he was the obvious choice. He wasn't told about the orders to carry out the massacre, or the real reason for his being sent to Glencoe. If he had known he might not have been able to keep up an act of friendliness and successfully deceive MacIain. It was far simpler to leave Glenlyon in the dark.

The order to him dated Feb 12 is extremely threatening in tone. the order emphasizes "the King's special command", and that if he fails to carry out the order "you may expect to be dealt with as one not true to King nor Government, nor a man fit to carry Commission in the King's service." He is told to carry out the order "as you love your self".

He is explicitly being told that if he fails to carry out the order, which is presented as though it was from the King personally, he will lose his commission and be dealt with as a traitor. Since it was known to the other officers that he had no other means of support for his family other than his commission, this was also a threat that his family would be left destitute.

If he had known beforehand about the planned massacre, or if he had hated the MacDonalds of Glencoe, it wouldn't have been necessary to threaten him so blatantly.

He is also told to attack at 5am whether or not the other detachments who are supposed to support him are there. This seems to indicate that there was never any real intention for the other detachments to arrive in time for the attack. In fact, they only arrived very late the following day, many hours after it was all over. They were never even close to arriving in time. So this was just a convenient excuse for the other officers not to be present.

If any other captain or senior officer had felt any desire to take part in the massacre, he could very easily have arranged to be there. Instead they found a trick to avoid being there and to put the whole responsibility on Glenlyon.

It's interesting to speculate what might have happened if Glenlyon had refused to carry out the order - unlikely as that might be, since he had a weak character. It seems probable that he would indeed have suffered exactly what was threatened. It's true that Lts. Farquhar and Kennedy were later acquitted for disobeying orders, but this was only after the massive publicity and outcry following the massacre. If Glenlyon had refused and there had been no massacre, then only a few people in the military and in government would have known about it, and it's highly likely that he would have been court-martialed and found guilty of disobeying orders.

GreenWyvern1 —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC).

Who's to blame?

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 30 for processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How was it possible for such a thing to happen in late seventeenth century Britain? Was it the fault of the English? Lord of the Glens 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired now, but I cannot resist giving an answer to this before trotting off to bed.

Your Lordship, the English were the very last people to blame for the Massacre at Glencoe. It was, from beginning to end, an entirely Scottish affair, that was approved by a Dutch king for reasons of strategic and political expediency. The scheme itself was conceived by John Dalrymple, Master of Stair, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who acted in conjunction with Thomas Livingstone, the Scottish commander-in-chief. The task was then delegated to the Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot, a formation on the Scottish military establishment. This regiment's Campbell associations helped give the whole affair quite spurious overtones of clan rivalry, an act of deliberate obfuscation.

Why, then, did Dalyrmple conceive of this act? Because he wanted a quick end to the Highland war against William, and because he was looking forward to eventual political union between Scotland and England. The one obstacle on the path of both schemes was the Gaelic peoples of Scotland's 'wild west'; and that expression is not chosen by accident. If one wishes an analogy with what happened in Scotland in 1692 one could do no better than look to the United States and the policy towards the Indian tribes of the West in the nineteenth century. I imagine Dalrymple would have shared Philip Sheridan's sentiment with a slight adaptation, in that for him the 'only good Highlander he ever saw was dead.'

There was a huge and ancient cultural gap in Scotland between the English-speaking Lowlands and the Gaelic-speaking Highlands, with hostility and misunderstanding spread along the way. For many Lowlanders the Highland 'savage' was an embarrassment, an obstacle to progress and civilization. James V had pressed for the wholesale extirpation of the people of Clan Chattan, who had given him particular offence; and James VI had advanced a scheme for Lowland settlement in the Hebrides, based on the extermination of the local people, MacLeods and MacDonalds. These hostilities were compounded by the rise of Jacobitism, which divided the Lowlands of the south still further from the Highlands. In 1692 hatred, racism and the politics of cultural contempt finally acquired a practical and murderous form. Clio the Muse 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Aftermath - Brothers

In the Aftermath section there is reference to two brothers who escaped to Ireland. It is unclear as to who they were. Were they simply two brothers from the Clan Donald or did they hold some prominence in the clan? After all, it is recorded that the sons of the chief, Alastair MacIain, escaped the massacre. It is unclear as to whether these were the brothers referred to, or not. I think clarification is needed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YrFyrddin (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Another reference

There's a very good account of the the massacre and the events leading up to it in Clan, king, and covenant: history of the Highland clans from the Civil War By John Leonard Roberts. You can read quite a large chunk of it online at Google books here Richerman (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's was also a programme on BBC Radio 4 today (21 Jan 2010) about the massacre which you can listen to, or download as a podcast at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/index.shtml. Richerman (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent radio program, it goes over many of the points discussed above. The one sentence summary i could make of the radio show is the Macdonalds of Glencoe were killed because they were poor, a softer target than the Macdonalds of Glengarry, and were to be made an example of.203.2.218.132 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Date Battle of Boyne

Quote: "...and James was defeated on 1 July 1690 at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland" - the Battle was on the 12th, not on the 1st -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, and ironic (or is it simply coincidental?), given the new topic that I am about to post to this discussion. Are you referring to the date on the Julian calendar or the date on the Gregorian calendar? (Since the dates you quote are eleven days apart.) Ireland, being primarily a Catholic country, was widely using the Gregorian calendar by this time, despite it not being officially adopted by the UK until the mid-1700s. And William of Orange, being Dutch/ Luxembourgoise, was also operating primarily on the Gregorian calendar. Could it be that BOTH dates are right, depending on whose calendar reference one is using (i.e., English or Irish)? This discrepancy leads to much confusion about historical dates in both Scottish and Irish history in the period 1600 through 1753.... Spartan26 (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

ouch, thats ok - I'm referring to nothing but the own Article of the Battle. Forgive me, my english is not very good and maybe my concentration was out for reading some hours long english articles, which is very hard for me. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 21:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Hartmann. And for the link. I should have checked it myself before posting. It states in the second paragraph that the battle was fought, "...on 1 July 1690 (old style Julian calendar – equivalent[1] to 12 July 'new style' or Gregorian calendar)." I don't know when the parenthetical clarification was added, so don't know if it was there when you first read the article. Nevertheless, for several reasons Ireland and Scotland at that time in history were both following the Gregorian (New Style) calendar, at least practically, if not legally, while England was still following the Julian (Old Style) calendar until 1753-54. Since much of the history of the period was recorded by the English (the victors write the history, right? :-( ), many important dates are confused because the Irish/ Scottish remember them as being twelve days later because of the shift in dates added by the new Gregorian calendar. Spartan26 (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Discrepancies Caused by English Julian Calendar versus Scottish/ Irish Gregorian Calendar?

It seems clear that Scotland changed New Year's Day to January 1st from March 25th in 1600, by decree of James VI. (http://medievalscotland.org/history/calendar.shtml)

It also seems clear that, for at least pragmatic reasons, Scotland's mercantile classes (e.g., the Lowlanders) observed the Gregorian calendar after France and the Low Countries changed, as these were Scotland's major trading partners. (http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/time.html) Jacobites were also probably following the "new" calendar for religious reasons in Scotland, and Catholics in Ireland.

In trying to research the Massacre of Glencoe, including MacIain's trip to swear allegiance on "New Year's Eve, 1691," it is not clear to me at all whether this was the Old Style or New Style date, with some references even indicting that it was not clear to the participants at the time. The offer was made by William III (of Orange, hence also King of a New Style country and probably personally operating within that calendar) to the Chiefs of the Clans of Scotland, a country at least following, if not having officially adopted, the Gregorian Calendar at that time? It is also not clear to me, whether the dates of the Massacre refer to New Style or Old Style. (Given that they are usually provided in reference to the English history, one presumes that they are the Old Style dates?) Sharon L. Krossa, at the Medieval Scotland link above, indicates that dates are particularly suspect between January 1st and March 25th, in any given year between 1600 and 1753.

The reason this becomes important is that the answers to several questions that it raises may well have been deciding factors in decisions made by the participants:

1. Did William III, having signed the offer to the Chiefs while in the Low Countries, mean January 1, 1692, New Style or Old Style? (And did William, in writing the invitation, actually write "January 1, 1692," or did he only make reference to "New Year's Day, 1692?")

2. Did William's English officials understand which actual DAY was intended by William when he issued the invitation? In other words, were they "jumping the gun" in giving effect to sanctions against MacIain and other delinquent Highland Chiefs BEFORE, in fact, it was warranted?

3. Did the Highland Chiefs understand which actual DAY was the deadline for forswearing? There is apocryphal evidence that several of the Chiefs used this confusion in excusing their delay in swearing allegiance to William.

4. Did any confusion surrounding which ACTUAL day the attack was to take place play any part in additionally explaining the delayed arrival of the additional regiments used to seal off the passes into the Glen?

5. And other questions?

I know that some of these are only "little" questions and therefore of little consequence, but I believe that at least a couple of them are "big" questions that may well have had decisive influence on the unfolding of events. I do not completely understand the actual application of the "corrections" used to determine dates Old Style and New Style, but I hope that someone with such knowledge and understanding could add some discussion to the main article on this important (I believe) sidelight.

Spartan26 (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Spartan26, having just read the account thoroughly in Macaulay's book 'The History of Engalnd', I am satisfied that the issue of the Gregorian calendar versus the Julian calendar had got nothing to do with the matter. Maclain knew that he had arrived in Fortwilliam on the last day of the amnesty and he knew that when he got to Inverary that he was six days late. He hadn't banked on the fact that Colonel Hill at Fortwilliam wouldn't be authorized to take the oath of allegiance.

After signing at Inverary, the certificate was sent to Edinburgh. It seems that the Master of Stair in London managed to somehow see to it that the certificate got withdrawn and cancelled on the basis of an irrelgularity. The book doesn't specify what that irregularity was, but I assumed that it was the fact that it was signed 6 days late in Inverary. David Tombe (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The First Jacobite Uprising

Above the picture of Glencoe at the top of the article, it says 'part of the first Jacobite uprising'. In what respect was it part of the 'first Jacobite uprising'? I always assumed the first Jacobite uprising to be the 15. Does Glencoe play any special significance in the 15? David Tombe (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The first Jacobite rising was the one led by John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount Dundee, in 1689. This led to the Battle of Killiecrankie and the Battle of Dunkeld. After this, and after things had settled down in Ireland after the Battle of the Boyne, the government started to crack down on the Highland clans, and the Massacre of Glencoe took place.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zln-AAePtL0 for a good version of the famous song "Bonnie Dundee" about Dundee's uprising.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMA-E8ujBDA for a great song about the Battle of Killiecrankie.

Green Wyvern (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I actually know all about Bonnie Dundee and Killiecrankie already. I was merely questioning the system about what is defined as the first Jacobite uprising. Some of the articles here take it to be the '15'. I'll have to take a look through them all and get some consistency. But just one query. Was 1689 actually an uprising, or was it a case of the Jacobites in Scotland objecting to the new Williamite order? I would see the '15' more as the first uprising because the Jacobites were not actually in power at the time, but attempting to take power, whereas at Killiecrankie it was more of an attempt to cling on to the old order. I'll wait to hear your views on that before doing any edits. David Tombe (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dundee uprising is generally accepted as the first uprising. It occured only after the Scottish government and the Lords of the Convention had formally ratified the removal of James VII, and officially accepted William and Mary as joint sovereigns of Scotland. The uprising was aimed at overthowing the newly established Whig/Protestant government and restoring James to the throne.

About Macaulay: He wrote over 160 years ago, and his works have long since been superceded by modern scholarship. He was a Whig politician and wrote from a strongly Whiggish point of view (i.e. anti-Jacobite). It is generally accepted today that although he was an inspiring writer, his history tends to be rather one-sided, dogmatic and ideologically biased. Also, a lot of research has been done by later historians, and far more facts and documents are available now than in 1848.

See some comments on Macauly's 'Whig view of history' on the University of Cambridge site:

http://www.historycambridge.com/default.asp?contentID=670

His book may be widely quoted on the internet because it is out of copyright and freely available. Modern books and academic papers are still in copyright and cannot legally be published free on the internet.

I suggest you read some modern books about Glencoe, such Prebble's book, or Paul Hopkins' book which criticises Prebble

http://www.historytoday.com/bruce-p-lenman/glencoe-and-end-highland-war

It's a good idea to read several sources and points of view. If you have access to a university library, you could search for academic papers on this subject published in history journals.

I think it's generally accepted by historians today (although popular myths continue) that clan feuding was only a minor factor in the Massacre. Most of the impetus came from Lowlanders and Protestant fundamentalists. The order for the massacre came as an official command from the Scottish Secretary of State, which was carried out by a regular army unit.

Green Wyvern (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

GreenWyvern, I was fully aware of the fact that Lord Macaulay wrote about the Glorious Revolution from a Whig perspective. But that doesn't mean that we must write Breadalbane out of the equation as regards the Glencoe massacre. I will now quote from the Hutchinson's Encyclopaedia. It says that,

"- - members of the Macdonald clan were massacred in 1692, John Campbell, earl of Breadalabane, being the chief instigator."

That ties in exactly with what Macaulay wrote. I always took it to be well known that it was the Campbells who had massacred the Macdonalds. We do know that King William and Stair had their signatures on the document, and that fact was indeed duly recorded in my edits. But it seems that the way that it is written now, the Campbells have been completely removed from the equation.

As regards Killiecrankie being the first Jacobite uprising, that may be true, although I had always seen the '15' as being referred to as the first Jacobite rebellion. At any rate, even though the Glencoe massacre occurred in the wake of Killiecrankie, does that make the Glencoe massacre part of the first Jacobite uprising, as is stated at the top of the picture? Killiecrankie was in 1689 and the Glencoe massacre was early in 1692. I don't see that massacre as actually being a part of the 1689 upsring, but rather as something which happened in the aftermath.

There is another famous book which covers this era of history from the Tory perspective and that is also called 'The History of England' as written by a David Hume (1711-1776). I know somebody who has read that version and keeps recommending me to read it. I'll ask him about the Glencoe massacre to see if the Tory account differs in any substantial way from the Whig account. David Tombe (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Do you mean a King's Party account, as differing from the Kirk Party account? Our page on Hume suggests he had Whig inclinations, he seems unlikely to have been a supporter of royal absolutism. His history pp. 358–370 has an entertaining and pretty detailed account of the '15, which I understand is usually called the first Jacobite rising or rebellion. It concludes with a comment on "the violent measures of a Whig ministry" having "kindled such a flame of discontent in the nation", suggesting a lack of enthusiasm for the Whig government of the time. There's a passing mention of the massacre of Glencoe on p. 109, but the search for that term doesn't seem to give any further detail. Graham of Claverhouse / Dundee doesn't seem to get any mention. . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave, My colleague seems to think that Stair was the instigator, and he further confirmed as you have just done, that Hume didn't cover Glencoe in any detail. But I don't think that we can entirely write Breadalbane out of the equation. Many sources blame Breadalbane. Breadalbane perhaps was too eager to take advantage of the opportunity to settle old scores, and the treacherous manner in which Glenlyon carried out the massacre is really what the whole controversy was about. David Tombe (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've only a superficial knowledge of all this. My suspicion is that there's truth in both aspects, but that the Jacobites seized on it for propaganda purposes and greatly exaggerated both its significance and the extent to which it was unusual. There were complex political and religious circumstances at the time, and events have been reimagined in terms of more recent political allegiances and narratives. The main thing is to find and accurately summarise the best modern historical analyses of the event, which unfortunately is beyond my resources. . . dave souza, talk 14:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave, That's correct. It's a question of trying to pin down where the major culpability lay along a chain involving, Stair, Breadalbane, Glenlyon, and also King William. It would seem that both the Whigs and the Tories are agreed that Stair was culpable, and from what I can read, both Macaulay and Hume believe that Stair was thee culprit. King William in London was at a distance from the whole affair, but being the King, and having signed the order, naturally leaves a stain on his memory. But most people would understand that Monarchs often sign things routinely, and William certainly had no idea that what he was signing would have led to what subsequently happened. That fact is in the literature, and that needs to be recorded in the article. In the aftermath, King William unequivocally expressed his remorse about what had happened. The chances are that he had signed the original order thinking that it was about routing out a den of thieves in the Valley of Glencoe, rather than about punishing a clan who had been pushing at the edges of their obligations by being slow about taking the oath of allegiance.

Breadalbane was obviously involved too. It's easy enough to try and excuse Breadalbane on the grounds that he was only taking orders. But the evidence is that he would have been only too delighted to have complied with such orders. You could almost imagine his reaction on seeing the order from Edinburgh Castle to extirpate the Macdonalds of Glencoe. You could imagine him thinking "I'll certainly extirpate them!". Breadalbane did not like Alexander Macdonald. The feud between the Campbells and the Macdonalds was notorious, and the orders from Stair would have been obeyed enthusiastically. Finally of course, there is the role of Glenlyon which made the incident famous. Glenlyon accepted hospitality from the Macdonalds and then slaughtered them in their beds while they slept. That's the key issue about the Glencoe massacre.David Tombe (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Glancing at Prebble, which I've not read for years, there's a lot of context. He points to the Highland Host (which didn't include the MacDonalds of Glencoe or, of course, the Campbells) as resulting in lasting hatred of the highlanders among lowland lairds, in particular Stair. As you say, the feud between Campbells and other clans was notorious, with MacIain in particular having made various damaging raids into Campbell territory over the forty years leading up to the massacre, including their participation in the attacks by clans (with government approval) in 1685 after the ninth Earl of Argyll was executed at the Maiden for supporting Monmouth's opposition to James. The Campbells would naturally support William of Orange, and by December 1691 Argyll's regiment was possibly the best in Scotland, and the only reliable one in the Western Highlands. Also interesting that one of those raided by the Macdonalds of Glencoe was Colin Campbell of Dresalch, who was apparently involved in crossing out MacIan's name from a list of those who had signed in time. It's an oldish book and it would be better to check more modern sources, but the background section at present lacks sources and gives no indication of this sort of complex background. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Dave, That all ties in with what I have just read in Macaulay. Alexander Macdonald left it to the last moment to take the oath of allegiance. He presented himself to Colonel Hill in Fortwilliam on 31st December 1691, but Colonel Hill was not empowered to administer the oath and so Macdonald had to do a six day long journey through the snows of winter to the Sheriff in Invarary. He took the oath on 6th of January 1692, and the certificate was then sent to Edinburgh. Meanwhile, Stair was in London with both Argyll and Breadalbane. Stair had been hoping that the clansmen would be disobedient so that he could execute a plan which he had already drawn up to bring the Highlands into a state of law and order, and he was very disappointed when he heard that the clansmen had actually been obedient. Meanwhile, Breadalbane had got to find out that Macdonald had taken the oath late (pushing the boundaries), and he saw that as an opportunity for punishment. Macaulay's account made it quite clear that Breadalbane, Stair, and Argyll all conspired together in London to severely punish the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and it also made it clear that while the motive in the case of Breadalbane and Argyll was personal vengeance, the motive in the case of Stair was a higher plan of taming the Highlands, and using the Macdonalds of Glencoe as an example. Meanwhile, Macdonald's certificate in Edinburgh mysteriously went missing and Stair was able to persuade King William to accept his plan on the grounds that Macdonald had not signed, and that his plan was to extirpate a den of thieves in the valley of Glencoe. It should have been obvious that King William was mislead by Stair. In the 1937 Encyclopaedia Britannica, it states that Macaulay, who was actually a great admirer of King William, condemned King William for the fact that following the enquiry in which Stair and the Scottish ministers were found culpable, King William let Stair off very lightly. Stair was obviously a personal favourite of King William, and Stair knew how to influence King William.

So I think that the article needs to be re-worded to better clarify the role of those cited as being involved in the plans. The two Campbells, Breadalbane and Argyll, need to be mentioned along with Stair, and the lesser role of King William needs to be elaborated upon in a follow up paragraph. David Tombe (talk) 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The involvement of Breadalbane and MacCallum More in the conspiracy

I've just tidied up some of the details on the main article, and in particular I've added in the extra information that both Breadalbane and MacCallum More were involved with the Master of Stair in the conspiracy. (The anon edits were mine too. I forgot to log in). I followed advice which I was given at the reliable sources noticeboard and also at the no original research noticeboard, and as such, I worded Macaulay into the main body of the text, since he is a notable historian. I can understand that there are concerns in certain quarters that the common account of the massacre misleads the public into believing that the event was purely a local tribal feud between the Campbells and the Macdonalds, and I can understand that there will be some who will wish to remind readers that it was a government conspiracy. However, Macaulay doesn't deny that it was a government conspiracy. In fact he makes it quite clear that it was indeed a government conspiracy, but a government conspiracy that involved the Campbells, who were very close to the government at that period in history. If one wants to deny the Campbell involvement in the conspiracy, they will need to provide a source which explicitly claims that Macaulay's account is wrong, in which case it can be cited as a counter argument to Macaulay's point of view. A source which merely points out that the massacre was a government conspiracy, and which is silent on the involvement of the Campbells will not be sufficient to counteract Macaulay's view that the Campbells were heavily involved in the conspiracy. David Tombe (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the only quibble is that it would be good to put the inline citation at the end of all the text ascribed to Macaulay, or at least at the end of that paragraph – the same citation can be used for several paragraphs, if appropriate, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#List-defined references for a version of the "ref name=" system. Have clarified which Argyll was involved, apparently Archibald Campbell, 10th Earl of Argyll, (MacCallum More) – which title does Macaulay use? It appears that Breadalbane was John Campbell, 1st Earl of Breadalbane and Holland. Must dig out Prebble for Stair's reasons for disliking the highlanders, Kilmaurs#Highland Host gives a good indication, unfortunately our Covenanter article doesn't give any detail of the Highland Host, and it's not mentioned in the Stair, East Ayrshire article. Stair was presumably not only Protestant, as the beeb notes, but Presbyterian or at least sympathetic to the covenanters of Ayrshire. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, Your edits are fine with me. And I think you did get the correct Earl of Argyll. He was obviously the son of the the one who went to the gallows for supporting the Monmouth rebellion in 1685. I did note that the title 'Duke of Argyll' was first bestowed upon that particular one, but that he didn't have that title at the period in question. You have tidied that bit up well. As regards the reasons why Stair didn't like the Highlanders (apart from the Campbells), Macaulay says that it is because the clan system led to a state of total lawlessness. That will have been Stairs's main reason. He wanted to break the clan system in order to civilize the area. He believed that the lawlessness that arose because of the clan system was holding back progress amongst what would otherwise be a civilized people. As regards the issue of Protestantism, I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is, because most Highlanders are Protestants too. Scotland as a whole, is predominantly Presbyterian, both in the Highlands and the Lowlands. But there is some issue about religion in Scottish Jacobitism, the full deatils of which I haven't yet established. I do believe that in the part of the Highlands bordering on the Campbell lands, such as Lochaber, that Jesuits from the continent took advantage of the anti-Campbell feeling, and did some covert reconversions to Rome after the reformation. I would venture a guess that the clan Macdonald were Catholics, but I couldn't be sure. Also, it was in that region of Lochaber and the Road to the Isles between Fortwilliam and Mallaig that the Bonnie Prince got most of his support at the '45'. I've always been a bit confused over the issue of which clans supported Bonnie Charlie and which ones didn't. I have read that the Catholic clans supported the Bonnie Prince as did the Episcoplian clans, as well as some Presbyterian clans who were using the situation to side against their local rivals. But even if we tend to think of the Bonnie Prince as being a Catholic cause, the Protestant/Catholic divide was never as clear cut an issue in matters to do with Scottish Jacobitism as it was in Irish Jacobitism. So perhaps Stair hated the Highlanders in general for their lawlessness irrespective of their religion, but hated the Macdonalds in particular because they were also Catholics, and since they were the arch enemies of the Campbells, it was convenient for Stair to single the Macdonalds out in order to make an example of them. David Tombe (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you miss my point, it wasn't a Catholic/Protestant divide as in Ireland, in Scotland the Jacobites were supported by Episcopalians as well as by Catholics. (and in a slightly different way in England, by the nonjuring schism of the CofE). The Scottish situation went back to the severe repression of Covenanters by Charles II and by his brother James who from 1680 was Lord High Commissioner of Scotland, then from 1685 became James VII of Scotland, before being forced to flee before William and Mary and becoming the first Jacobite pretender to the throne. Archibald Campbell, 1st Marquess of Argyll gave support to the Covenanters, and after complex developments under Charles II, was executed at the Maiden (not hanged), as was his son Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll, for supporting the Monmouth Rebellion.

Both Charles II and James II sought to enforce Episcopalianism on their Presbyterin Covenanter subjects, with enforcers such as Graham of Claverhouse ("Bonnie Dundee") shooting and torturing suspected Covenanters. The repression of Covenanters in Ayrshire and the southwest was extreme, see Margaret Wilson (Scottish martyr) for a glorified example, and included moving highlanders, the "Highland Host", into Ayrshire as a way of punishing and bankrupting suspected Covenanters by making them provide their homes as quarters, and feed and give wages to these troops. This stirred up much hatred for the highlanders, and according to Prebble influenced Stair, of Stair, East Ayrshire. Must try to concisely expand the background a little. . dave souza, talk 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, I don't think that we are in any disagreement here. If you read again what I said carefully, I think you will see that I was saying the exact same thing as you, in that in Scotland, the Jacobite issue was not a clear cut Catholic/Protestant divide as it was in Ireland. The few Highland Catholics that there were, mainly in Invernesshire, did however tend to be Jacobites. And yes, I was about to say to you that the main religious problem at that time in Scotland was more between the two kinds of Protestantism rather than between Catholics and Protestants. Throughout the entire seventeenth century there was friction in Scotland over the issue of Episcopalianism (Anglicanism) versus Presbyterianism. In fact, wasn't the entire English Civil War caused because King Charles I tried to impose the Episcopalian prayer book on the Scots who had just recently become Presbyterians? So I think that we are agreed there. I don't know for sure if the Macdonald clan were Catholics, but I think form their locality and from their animosity towards the Campbells that they probably were. As regards Stairs's grand design to tame the Highlands, I doubt if the issue of him being a Protestant was relevant, but once his Campbell collegaues got him focused on the Macdonald clan in particular, the fact that the Macdonalds were a Catholic clan probably did them no favours in Stairs's eyes.David Tombe (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

septs

The fact that not all the men were named Campbell does not mean that they weren't the Earl of Argyle's vassals or even part of his clan. Since he recruited them, he was landlord to most of them. This would mean that the Earl would have considerable power and influence over them. In fact, some of the names are the names of Campbell septs. However, this article suggests differently. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and now corrected.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What should this event be called?

The article currently uses three different names (or rather, two names with different capitalisation): "Massacre of Glencoe", "Glencoe massacre" and "Glencoe Massacre". Likewise, the location is sometimes "Glen Coe" and sometimes "Glencoe". Is there a prefered term? ("Glencoe Massacre" is the term I've most often heard, although the memorial uses "Massacre of Glencoe"). Iapetus (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Glen Coe is the name of the whole glen, and the village located in the glen is called Glencoe. Or at least that seems to be the general convention. As to Massacre of Glencoe or Glencoe Massacre, sources vary. I don't think you can say that one or the other is more 'correct'. Any decision would be arbitrary. However, they both mean the same thing and there's no ambiguity, so I don't see any need to impose an artificial consistency. Green Wyvern (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Perspective on the events; Massacre and Inquiry Sections

While not disputing the reality of the Massacre, these sections as currently written are largely cut and paste inputs from non-Wikipedia, non-sourced websites, contain subjective comments which are out of place in a factual account eg 'terrorism', 'heinous crimes' etc and information that is either simply wrong (eg only a 'sole survivor' was left alive to give evidence to the Inquiry) or unsubstantiated e.g. 'Hill had a grudge against' etc. There is also a lot more information available since this was written, so I'd like to provide these and make it more objective; I realise it's an emotive topic for many.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

'The scandal was further enhanced when the leading Scottish jurist Sir John Lauder, Lord Fountainhall was, in 1692, offered the post of Lord Advocate but declined it because the condition was attached that he should not prosecute the persons implicated in the Glencoe Massacre. Sir George Mackenzie, who had been Lord Advocate under King Charles II, also refused to concur in this partial application of the penal laws but, unlike Fountainhall, his refusal led to his temporary disgrace.'

This is a straight cut and paste from the Wikipedia entry for Sir John with no source - I've spent some time looking for one, and the best so far is https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/learning/hall-of-fame/hall-of-fame-a-z/lauder-john which says 'according to tradition' which is hardly confirmation. I can't find any reference to Sir George Mackenzie 'refusing to concur' other than that he was forced to resign in 1695 for corruption.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Replace JPEG of Painting

Does anyone object to replacing the current 'Edwardian painting' with Horatio McCulloch's 'Glen Coe;' that would tie into the reference in the article comparing perspectives between this one and Peter Graham's 'After the massacre.'

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Expand section on Massacre

As previously mentioned, there are a number of statements that impact the neutrality or balance of this article and are either subjective or unsourced.

who received them in the hospitable tradition of the Highlands

However, it was Colonel Hill who issued the orders to begin the massacre two weeks later, as he had a grudge against the MacIains for not marrying one of their daughters to his son, Robert Hill.

Due to his role in ensuring MacIain was late in giving his oath, Drummond would not have been welcomed.

who had experience with prior action of terrorism against the Scottish Clans

The sole survivor of the disaster also provided evidence against the officers.

...by the customary hospitality of neighboring clans, thus not wishing to fight other Scotsmen; it is equally possible that they simply did not want to play any part in what they knew to be a heinous crime. This contains three wholly subjective statements in one sentence :)

It's an interesting topic, I've learned a lot by expanding the other sections, so I'd just like to bring this into line.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Update Information Box and Background; suggestions

Earl of Argyll's Regiment of Foot (Clan Campbell & Lowland Scots) should be Argyll's Regiment of Foot muster rolls show the Argyll's were all recruited locally, regardless of name and Hamilton's detachment was part of Hill's Regiment of Foot.

Commanders and leaders Robert Campbell of Glenlyon should be Lt-Colonel Hamilton who commanded the northern detachment of 400 men from Hill's Regiment at Fort William, Major Duncanson, Glenlyon's immediate superior and who brought another 400 men from the Argylls as well as Glenlyon.

Strength 120 Should be 920 (estimated) ie Hamilton 400, Duncanson 400 and Glenlyon 120.

in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution and the Jacobite uprising of 1689 led by John Graham of Claverhouse it can't really be considered the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution and Dundee is mentioned several times below;

as the massacre of Glencoe or Mort Ghlinne Comhann murder of Glencoe doesn't add anything to repeat it only slightly differently

by the guests who had accepted their hospitality technically, the soldiers were in Glencoe on 'free quarter' a term commonly used in place of taxes. This doesn't detract from the fact 38 people were killed but focuses on the wrong area, since it implies the violation of 'guest right' was the worst thing about it. It also places the burden on those who performed it when the decision was made at a much higher level. Evidence given to the 1695 Commission shows Glenlyon received his orders on the evening of 12th February but the soldiers themselves were unaware of it until shortly before it started.

Makes it slightly less cynical ie spending two weeks, knowing you'll murder your hosts at the end of it versus kicked out of bed on a cold February morning at 4:00 am and told to get on with it.

The description of the killings is far more complicated than this; John MacDonald (MacIain's eldest son) actually told the Commission he heard shooting, went down to ask Glenlyon what was going on and then went back to bed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

William III/II and James II/VII

It seemed natural to me to use the Scottish ordinals, since the article deals exclusively with Scotland. If we are going to use English ordinals because they are more common overall, then surely James VII of Scotland should be called James II of England, right? Surtsicna (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)○

I don't have a strong preference but as a general comment, I think people sometimes forget Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia used by others. There's a difference between what is technically correct versus what people recognise, which can be confusing.

If we follow this to its logical conclusion, then all references in this article should actually be to William and Mary as joint monarchs. Elsewhere, if we were to use that approach, the same article could refer to William as Prince of Orange, Stadtholder, William III (of Holland), William III (of England) or William II (of Scotland), depending on what he's doing.

Personally, I'd prefer to use William and James (with maybe a footnote) because very few people outside the Wikipedia editor community care and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. But I try to pick the right battles :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

I haven't been able to find any confirmed number for subsequent deaths; the most common estimate is 40 but not sure where that comes from and most historians simply say Unknown. If anyone else has better information, please correct but it needs a source.

Robinvp11 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I've also made some changes to the number of confirmed dead; I can't find a list of the dead and the numbers vary (see edits in Massacre). Numbers do not change the nature of the event ie 5 people or 50 is still a crime. What I find interesting and why I've put these in is how many of the details around Glencoe are hard to substantiate.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hendersons

This was really useful because it inspired me to go back and check the casualties - the closer you look, the more you realise how little we know. I couldn't find a comprehensive list of the dead ie names while the number varies ie the MacDonalds told the Commission 25, another says 30 and the generally accepted figure of 38 comes from Hamilton's sergeant based on what he'd heard from Glenlyon's.

However, the Glencoe Massacre is worth remembering for many reasons but not really whether the dead were called MacIain, MacDonald, Campbell or Henderson. That's before getting into the issue of whether these distinctions were even recognised by contemporaries.

The 1695 Parliamentary Commission did not distinguish names or any other account; there is no mention of them on any of the memorials that commemorate it. The so-called Henderson Stone has only been in place since 1998, and its provenance rests entirely on 'it is said' statements that largely originate from the same source.

That needs to be third party, not simply recycling stuff that appears on the Henderson clan Wikipedia page and if it is going to be added, it doesn't belong in the lead paragraph, which is a five line summary of an extensive article. It makes no sense to include a statement which is overly detailed (ie one of them was six foot seven) and then appears no where else in the article.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've included a reference to the Henderson's in the Aftermath section and made some changes elsewhere, which I hope will suffice.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that citing to the Clan Henderson page or Clan Henderson Society web site is not support. I've added published references and links to government web sites. U. of Edinburgh has many audio tracks of local folklore, mostly in Gaelic, that reference the Henderson Stone, but including them seems like overkill. Suzannehendersonemerson (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

All you've done is move the same content into a different location; my original objections still exist.

The sources you provided; Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs is not a source. And the two further down; neither of those refer to Hendersons. So how can they substantiate the claims?

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you clarify your comments? I did not move the location of the discussion of the Henderson Stone; I edited it in the same location it had been in the article. I did not reference the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs. I referenced 4 government documents or web pages, 5 books, one journal article, and one transcription of folklore recording. Can you clarify which of these you do not consider to support the contention for which they are cited? Suzannehendersonemerson (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

There are two criteria for the inclusion of details in any article; (a) Is it relevant? and (b) Is it accurate? Can it be supported?

I've edited it to reflect what the Sources provided actually say and left out the bits they don't. Which I think is a fair compromise.

Gaelic oral tradition in the area tells of a Campbell soldier "speaking to" the Henderson stone in the presence of a local resident to warn of the impending massacre Dorson and Lang say an unspecified soldier spoke to a stone. Or a plaid. Not the Henderson Stone and the extent to which the Massacre was publicised is covered elsewhere in the article.

I'm sure you're an intelligent person; since I rewrote this a couple of years back, no one's challenged any of the facts, just this bit. I moved away from articles on Scottish history because dealing with this stuff just got so tiring.

Do you not find that interesting?

13:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to accuracy. The text you’ve re-written indicates that the stone was first called “Soldier’s Stone” then renamed “Henry’s Stone” then renamed “Henderson Stone.” It would be accurate to describe it as “ Clach Eanruig, translated as ‘Henderson Stone’ or ‘Henry’s Stone’ ”. I see nothing in the historical materials indicating that the name of the stone changed over time, and although Dorson refers to it as Soldier’s Stone (at 156), Dorson also refers to it as Clach Eanruig/Henry’s Stone (at 158). The earliest documentation I have found, the 1870’s Ordnance Survey and Ordnance Survey Name Book, identify it as Clach Eanruig.

Clach Eanruig : Ordnance Survey, Six-inch, Argyllshire, Sheet XXXI (1st edition, survey date 1870, published 1875), available at https://maps.nls.uk/view/74427313; Argyll Ordnance Survey Name Book; Donaldson at 301-302; Dorson at 158; MacInnes (SA1958.082), Livingston (SA1958.081).

Henderson Stone: Henderson Stone (Clach Eanruig), Glencoe,” Highland Historic Environment Record (“The stone has strong associations with Clan Henderson and is known locally as the Henderson Stone or "Henderson's Stone".); MacLennan (SA1976.260).

Henry’s Stone: Donaldson at 301-302 (Stone of Henry); Dorson at 158; Argyll Ordnance Survey Name Book (Clach Eanruig: “Henry’s Stone”); but see “MHG36 – Henderson Stone (Clach Eanruig), Glencoe,” Highland Historic Environment Record (“The name "Henry's Stone" appears to be a mistranslation by the Ordnance Survey. ").

Soldier’s Stone: Dorson at 156.

A side note: I’m changing the Donaldson cite from “Mary” back to “M.”. The book was published under the name “M.E.M. Donaldson”, and Donaldson is said not to have liked to use the name “Mary”. (http://www.ornaverum.org/family/donaldson/mary-e-muir.html)

Suzannehendersonemerson (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

First, some context; I spent a lot of time on this article (which I enjoyed), trying to figure out which bits are true and which are myth. The answer was nearly every single popular assumption is wrong eg MacDonald/Campbell feud, that it was a unique event, the numbers involved etc. I think its reasonable to ask others for the same level care.

Second, there is considerable debate about the true nature of the clan system ie to what extent is it a 19th century invention. The answer is a lot of it and the Aftermath section explains why.

Third, I know what Historic Scotland says; its called Clach Eanruig on the 1876 map because that's what Donaldson called it (see below).

Glencoe was cleared in the 1760s (Highland Clearances); it was empty, which is why McCulloch painted it. Dorson relies on Donaldson but by the time he turned up, Glencoe had been abandoned for over a century. Who told the vicar it was called Clach Eanruig? How do we get from that to 'Henry's Stone', then 'Henderson'? Donaldson can't simultaneously be right on Clach Eanruig, wrong on 'Soldiers Stone.' And if that was the original name, why did he decide to change it?

I've been through the 1695 trial proceedings and tons more; the word Henderson doesn't appear in any of them. They may have been bagpipers, but I can't find any reference to them being hereditary pipers to MacIain. Most such claims originate from the Henderson Wikipedia page, which in turn relies on two sources, one being the Henderson Clan itself. That's hardly third-party verification and since it also makes the demonstrably false claim a Henderson was killed in the Massacre, its not reliable.

If you can find evidence that doesn't originate from Clan Henderson heritage pages, that would be really helpful.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Addition to 'In popular culture'

During the final season of AMC's TV-Show "Mad Men" the Campbell/MacDonald feud is resason for a short fight between Peter 'Pete' Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) and the headmaster of an elite preschool who denies Pete's daughter the admission. Although Pete dismisses the grounds as absurd at first, the story seems well known to him, making him yell "The king ordered it!", as an automatic defense for the crimes his ancestors committed almost 300 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.255.66 (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)