Redcoat Memorial at Culloden - Historum

**okamido** · March 25th, 2010, 06:58 PM

Good idead or bad?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...ds/8576910.stm

JRMacClure · March 25th, 2010, 08:01 PM

I think the correct word for it isn't bad. Try TERRIBLE.

robbielynne · March 25th, 2010, 08:03 PM

IMHO..I don't see why it would be a problem..Tis to honor the fallen who died in battle fighting for their country...I honor any soldier who loses their life in War...I would think that this would be for the Scottish People to decide though...

JRMacClure · March 25th, 2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robbielynne

IMHO..I don't see why it would be a problem..Tis to honor the fallen who died in battle fighting for their country...I honor any soldier who loses their life in War...I would think that this would be for the Scottish People to decide though...

The article calls for those who fought there to be honoured--not those who "lost their lives". Those who lost their lives are already honoured there. The entire battlefield is an official grave site. Both sides of the war are covered in the Culloden Museum.

The British can be honoured somewhere else.

Prince William, Duke of Cumberland, better known as 'Butcher' Cumberland, ordered his troops to show no quarter against any remaining Jacobite rebels after the defeat. He ordered at least one injured Jacobite executed before his very eyes. Both combatants and non-combatants were executed. Something honouring those who did these deeds has no place on this battlefield.

Edit: This is nothing more than a political ploy. Believe me, you do not want to get into Scottish politics and that's all this is.

**Belisarius** · March 26th, 2010, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMacClure

The British can be honoured somewhere else.

There's nothing in the article that most people would object to. Where's the harm in putting up a grave marker, or marking the positions of the government army?

I'm inclined to agree with you where Scottish politics, or at least sensibilities, are concerned. Culloden has been a shrine to Scottish nationalism for quite a while, as the foregoing "butcher" reference testifies.

**beorna** · March 26th, 2010, 01:54 AM

there are millions of graves of german soldiers in russia and we can take care for them and there are memorials as well and there are russian graves in germany as well and we take care of them and there are memorials too. I think a memorial for the British soldiers of Culloden is a good thing, because these casualties for sure were not responsible for the crimes committed after the battle or at its end. But I think the size of a memorial, the way it would be open and inscription of the commemoretive tablet are important. If you built a huge memorial for "the brave soldier's who kicked in the a***** of the Jacobites" and opened by the Queen, then it would be wrong of course.

**HistoryFreak1912** · March 26th, 2010, 02:11 AM

I don't really think it's wrong, unless, like beorna said, you were building it to thumb your nose at the Jacobites.

**PADDYBOY** · March 26th, 2010, 04:56 AM

Speaking as a Scot, I don't have a problem with the idea, so long as it's well fenced of from the tourists (and note I said 'tourists' and not Scots)
Culloden is a very sombre site which seems to have an affect on folks, for some reason.
I wish I had a pound coin for every tourist I have seen in tears as they walk round the grave mounds. I can honestly envisage people spitting or even urinating on such a memorial ?

Ben Harding · March 26th, 2010, 05:04 AM

If the intent is commemoration, then I would think it's fine.

**tjadams** · March 26th, 2010, 05:22 AM

Sounds like an honorable thing to do.