Opening a can of worms is something that the British Establishment don't like doing, the Stuart line in Scotland is definitely not finished, in fact HRH Prince Michael himself admits that there are 1000+ claimants to the throne of Scotland. If you look at a book written by Pininski from Poland who also claims he is a descendent you will find there are similarities between them. The reality of things in Scotland are very different to what you hear in the USA.

You may think they're unecessary but I can assure you living in Scotland these things do happen. Any threat to the Brit state is scrutinised very carefully.  Also why will the Brit government not allow HRH Prince Michael a passport when he has British citizenship

Yes he does travel but on a Maltese Diplomatic passport but the point I was making was why will the Brit government not give him a Brit passport as he is a British Citizen with documents proving this issued by the government themselves also why do they want to restrict him from travelling on occasions when he is on Diplomatic business. The answer seems to be quite clear

I re-enact, but I take it more seriously.  I do not do it because I have nothing better to do on the weekends ..... it history and it's blood...

Yours aye,

Caledonianreb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take it more seriously than WHO?  You have some nerve describing re-enactors that way.  Geographically removed a few generations ago does not neccesarily make a person a "hobbyist".  I am an American Re-enactor, and I feel a very strong connection to MY Scottish history and BLOOD.  I certainly hope you didn't mean to be so flip, but you really should learn that living in Scotland does not give you exclusive rights to love Her.  That's all I m going to say on this message thread about your completely inaccurate generalization of Re-enactors.  Keep on the subject!
     Sincerely,
          Malcolm

Hear! Hear...!
I began this thread as a historic/political discussion separate from reenacting.  Everyone has different reasons for being involved in the reenacting hobby, and no one has a more "legitimate" claim to any impression than another.  You don't have to be an American southerner to portray a Confederate soldier, nor a Scot to represent an 18th C. highlander.  I myself am of English-Irish-Sardinian heritage, but I'll portray any historic incarnation I want to - as long as I'm doing it accurately and with respect for the "original."  Too often politics, modern or from a past century, intrude upon our hobby and sully it.  This discussion was meant to  be separate from the issue of living history and reenactment....

Alex,
That problem (so far) has resolved itself in that such folk have never displayed ANY interest in such a portrayal.  I imagine that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
There was a black fellow at "Culloden `98" (the first one) portraying a Highlander, and initially I thought "What the hey?"
But, further reading did reveal the presence of black men in the entourages of one or two Highland chiefs.  Apparently, they had Caribbean holdings, or some such.  One black highlander even got into trouble for violating the Proscription Act by wearing highland garb!
As to your question as to how I'd handle it if, say, a Japanese-American inquired as to joining my clan group, I honestly don't know.  You'll note my statement regarding doing an "accurate" portrayal.  Perhaps I'd try to discourage that person on those grounds....
Anyways, we are straying off-topic for this thread.

Hi All,

I'm pro-Scotland, an independant Scotland, but a jacobite on weekends only, and here is why -

Being a student of history, with some aquaintance with the Stuart monarchy and it's handling of Scotland in general (they were quick to trade their throne for the one in Westminster, and never bothered with Scotland save to persecute it until they were in such desperate straights that they would turn to any source for succour), and Highlanders in particular (those of you with romantic attatchments to them *really* need to delve into 16th and 17th century Scottish history in depth, and see how they treated the clansmen, and the antics of their "viceroys", the Gordons and Campbells in particular) - I would say Scotland needs a Stuart monarch of the old mold as much as it needs a 12 guage hole through the back of it's allegorical head.

The Stuart monarchy post the early 16th century never brought anything but misery and destruction to the peoples of Scotland, and they make the treatment of Scottish peoples by the Duke of Cumberland seem to be the actions of a boyscout in comparison. The House of Hanover is no prize, but the Stuarts make them look good in comparison  - there was a reason they were bloodlessly deposed in the end, and it is typical of them that none of them remained true to the good men and women who risked all and laid down their lives and fortunes in their cause. Had Bonnie Prince Charlie (the real one, not our beloved reenactment leader) ousted the House of Hanover, I haven't the slightest doubt he would have gone back to treating the Scots as did his great-grandfather once his posterior began to warm the throne - Scotland would be well shut of any monarchy.

Don't know how many posters are born and bred Scots living in Scotland only know of myself and Rebel Highlander,I've been to the Culloden event twice and been impressed and enjoyed every minute of it  it also demonstrated that those of the Scottish diaspora and some who are not have a better grasp of Scottish history than many of  those brought through a Scottish education where Scottish history is discouraged.I hadn't re enacted before the Culloden  event and it was great to learn from people who had went into great detail over what they were doing ,and to learn from US re enactors like Brian and Caledonian Reb that this was a small event compared to some of the civil war stuff was impressive.
The small group Na Fir Dileas which I belong to are more a battle commemoration group travelling to the battle sites to remember the Jacobites who fought and died there,and not just the big ones,and not just in this country having travelled to the Vatican and to England ,last week for instance we were at the site of the skirmish in Clifton,.in a few weeks we commemorate the Battle of Inverurie here in Aberdeenshire.so in relation to second third or even fourth generation Scots you will find no critcisim from me as I have certainly enjoyed meeting them only wish we could do some of the things you do over there here in Scotland.
Some of the other stuff posted,Scotlands place in the EU,it has already been accepted that Scotland would remain in the EU,at the point of independence the UK will cease to exist in its previous state so technically the position of all the countries would change not just Scotland and no country as yet has  been thrown out of the EU so Scotland would remain a member,and given the fact we are Europes biggest oil producer they aren't about to get rid of us,whether some of us want to remain in it is a different story given what has happend to our fishing.
Our constitutional position I believe will be the subject of a referendum in the first few years of independence what Prince Michael argues is that there should be a three part question,the status quo with the Windsors remaining as head of state,a republic or the restoration of a Scottish monarchy,he is also quite clear that if the last option is not available he will support a republic as would many Scots.