Clan CrestThe Clan McLea/Livingstone Forum

Code of
Conduct
Title: New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?
Posted by: Kyle MacLea
Date: 11 October 2007

Dear Forum,

I received the following reply today to my recent note.  The interesting thing about it to me is that she does lay out a way forward, but I'm not sure whether it's totally a non-starter or not.

Let me highlight the line in question:
"If you wish to pursue your cause, I would suggest that you discuss the matter with the Stewarts of Appin and the Maclarens."

It seems to imply that if we keep up our campaign and can show her some NUMBERS of concerned folk, AND can bring on board either the Stewarts OR the Maclarens, we might have a chance.

I think this hopeful adjustment in stance gives us a tack to take next.  We need to diplomatically approach the Stewarts/Maclarens.  I figure our chance of winning over either is going to be tough.  The Stewarts made up the greatest chunk of the Regiment, and nearly the entire officer corps.  So, of course they would like to be recognized.  Similarly, the Maclarens, who maybe had one or two officers(?) but have somehow convinced NTS to add them (or resuscitate the older Forestry Commission language, right or wrong), might be hard pressed to voluntarily de-recognize themselves.

But, we might (softly, diplomatically) appeal to their sense of history and morality.

What do folks think of our chances?  Similarly, anyone know who would be the proper persons to approach about this?

Meanwhile, we need to continue our campaign to reach out to EVERYONE ELSE to bring up our concern.

See a proposed letter of protest:
http://www.clanmclea.co.uk/forum/show-message.asp?ID=3318 

Or the postcard I devised:
http://www.clanmclea.co.uk/forum/show-message.asp?ID=3350 

I'm happy to discuss further ideas!  In the meantime, let's continue to send letters and contact people.  Spread the word, friends and clansmen!

Kyle=


----
Sent on behalf of Shonaig Macpherson 

Dear Dr MacLea 

Thank you for your letter of 6th October 2007. 

I do appreciate the spirit in which you write.  At the National Trust for Scotland we do recognise that the Appin Regiment comprised more that the Stewarts and Maclarens.  I do not believe that our action shows any disrespect to the others who took part, especially as for the first time ever all of the clans that participated in the battle on 16th April 1746 will be recognised at the centre.  In the interpretation in the visitor centre it will also be made clear within which regiment each clan fought.  I can assure you that we have undertaken extensive research, including discussions with the Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs over a considerable period of time regarding all of the clans that were present at Culloden and how markers should be placed upon the battlefield.  The marker will state:

The Appin Regiment - Stewarts of Appin and Maclarens 

Therefore in response to the logic, the marker does state that the Appin Regiment was the name of the unit.  All the names of those who fought are being commemorated and, I will add again, for the first time ever.  If you wish to pursue your cause, I would suggest that you discuss the matter with the Stewarts of Appin and the Maclarens.

I do appreciate that Culloden does hold an important place in your hearts and minds.  However, I believe that were you to visit Culloden in 2008 you would find that taking into account the content at the centre, the new guides to the battlefield and the battlefield itself, you will see for the first time ever a complete and authoritative version of history will be told.

Yours sincerely 

Shonaig Macpherson CBE FRSE 

** This Thread has ended - Please do NOT attempt to resurrect it! **

Replies

Title:Date:Posted By:
New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Kyle MacLea
   New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Jerry Schmidt
      New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Kyle MacLea
   My response from Historic Scotland11 October 2007Jerry Schmidt
      My response from Historic Scotland11 October 2007Kyle MacLea
   New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Donald (Livingstone) Clink
      New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Kyle MacLea
   Way Forward 11 October 2007Young Bachuil
   New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Craig McClay Wilson
      New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Kyle MacLea
         New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?11 October 2007Donald (Livingstone) Clink
   New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?13 October 2007Donald (Livingstone) Clink
      New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?13 October 2007Jill Richmond
         New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?13 October 2007Kyle MacLea
         New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?13 October 2007Donald (Livingstone) Clink
            New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?15 October 2007Jill Richmond
               New Reply from NTS: Way Forward or Dead End?25 October 2007Jill Richmond
                  Jill's response from SM25 October 2007Kyle MacLea
                     Jill's response from SM25 October 2007Jerry Schmidt
                  Ostrich Response25 October 2007Young Bachuil

Return to Main Listings     Return to ANZ Listings     Return to Homepage