One of our American members asked me to comment on the history surrounding the Catholic-Protestant divide in Scotland. Although quite an intricate situation to unravel, we will try to cover the history behind it.
So where did it begin:
Until the 1500’s Scotland was predominantly Roman Catholic. Protestantism spread to Scotland in a large part through the teachings of John Knox who wished to establish a Presbyterian Protestant Church. Eventually by 1560 the Scottish Parliament rejected papal authority by adopting the protestant faith, which went a long way to establishing Protestantism as the national religion. However, although some nobles supported this reform others stayed loyal to the Catholic faith. As such the Scottish crown progressively became embroiled and central to this was Mary Queen of Scots of the Stuart dynasty, a monarch passionate in her belief in the papacy in Rome and her Catholic faith.
Fearing a return to a Catholic Scotland, Mary was forced to abdicate leaving the Crown in the hands of her infant son James VI of Scotland. As most are aware James VI progressively became James I of England and therefore a United Kingdom after the Union of the Crowns in 1603. What made things easier of course was James was raised a Protestant. After Mary Queen of Scots was forced out, this led to the total collapse of Catholic Royal authority in Scotland and firmly established Scotland as a Protestant country. It was during James’s reign that the Catholic Guy Fawkes, as a member of a group of provincial English Catholics was involved in the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. The aftermath saw further severe persecution and harsh treatment of Catholics in England. Th failed plot is celebrated each year in the UK, on November 5th, and is known as Guy Faulkes/Bonfire-night which is augmented by the letting off, of fireworks.
However, life is never that simple and James II, grandson of James I, converted to Catholicism, which in turn fuelled fears of Catholic tyranny and concerns of a possible return of Catholicism as the national religion. During the quarrel (1687–88) between James II and William over James’s pro-Catholic policies, Mary felt it her religious duty to side with her husband. Hence, she agreed to support William’s invasion of England in November 1688, leading to William, who was to become the III and Mary his wife, who was to become the II, to the throne. They were to become joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1689 until Mary’s death in 1694. Their reign followed the dramatic events of the Glorious Revolution.
The (bloodless) Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a pivotal event in British history that resulted in the deposition of King James II and the accession of his daughter Mary II and her husband William III of Orange. This revolution established the supremacy of Parliament over the monarchy, marking a significant shift towards constitutional monarchy in England.
William (III) of Orange
William III, often called William of Orange, was a Dutch prince and military leader from the Netherlands. He was a devout Protestant and already held power as Stadtholder in the Dutch Republic before becoming king. He was invited by English political leaders and supported by his wife, to intervene when King James II, Mary’s father, was accused of favouring Catholicism and ruling too aggressively without Parliament’s support.
Mary II
Mary II was the eldest daughter of James II. She was staunch Protestant, unlike her father, and had married William of Orange in 1677. Because many English nobles wanted a Protestant monarchy, William and Mary were offered the crown jointly, after James II fled England. It was through the change in monarchy and based on the action of previous kings and queens, that the monarchy became more limited by Parliament. The Bill of Rights 1689 further established important constitutional principles, including limits on royal authority and protections for Parliament as it helped secure Protestant rule in Britain for generations.
Many historians see this period as a major step toward Britain’s modern constitutional monarchy.
William continued ruling alone after Mary died of smallpox in 1694. with Mary’s sister, Anne becoming Queen of Great Britain. However, their story remains closely tied to religious conflict, constitutional change, and the struggle between monarchy and Parliament in late 17th-century Britain.
- It is also relevant at this time to mention the Orange Order. The Orange Order, officially known as the Loyal Orange Institution, is a Protestant fraternal organization, founded in 1795 in Northern Ireland, primarily associated with Ulster Protestants. It aims to uphold the principles of the Protestant Reformation and the Glorious Revolution, and it is known for its annual parades and celebrations. Its edict was to maintain the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland in the face of rising demands for Catholic Emancipation. Enmity between Roman Catholics and Protestants had always been endemic in Ireland and was much exacerbated in the 17th century by the introduction into Ulster of Presbyterian settlers, by the rebellion of 1641, and by the war of 1688–91, when the Catholic King James II attempted to maintain in Ireland the power he had lost in England. Orange lodges are mostly concentrated in Northern Ireland, but also have a presence in England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, parts of the Commonwealth, and the United States.
- The Catholic equivalent to the Orange Order is the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which was officially recognised in 1838 to defend the Catholic faith, heritage and identity primarily by Irish Catholics and has a similar fraternal structure. Both organizations have historically been involved in public parades, in the case of the Hibernians the St Patrick Day parade springs to mind, offering cultural expressions of their respective communities.
In Scotland, King William III and Queen Mary II were accepted by some but strongly resisted by others. The situation in Scotland in 1688–89 was politically, religiously, and constitutionally very different from England.
The resistance came from several overlapping causes as in those days, many Scots still regarded James VII and II as the lawful king, even after he fled England during the Glorious Revolution. In England, Parliament had declared that James had effectively abandoned the throne, while in Scotland this was more controversial because Scottish political tradition placed stronger emphasis on hereditary monarchy. Therefore, to many Highland clans and Episcopalian nobles, removing James looked like rebellion rather than a lawful transfer of power. This of course became the basis of the early Jacobite movement (“Jacobite” from Jacobus, Latin for James).
Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Catholicism
However, as we can see, the crux of the matter was religion and not simply between Catholic and Protestant. There were at that time two main Protestant factions: Presbyterians, who wanted the Church of Scotland governed by ministers and elders, while Episcopalians, supported using bishops and had largely backed the Stuart kings.
- NB: To Clarify, the term “Episcopalian” can be confusing because it’s sometimes used very loosely. In the late 1600s, an Episcopal church structure existed in Britain and just not always under that exact English label. In Scotland it mainly meant the Scottish Episcopal Church, which was Protestant in theology (it wasn’t Catholic), was organized around bishops—i.e., it wasn’t ‘Presbyterian’. As such, Episcopalians were Protestants who rejected Presbyterian church government but did not reject Rome. Further, and this is important, Jacobite sentiment wasn’t only within the Catholic population as it attracted multiple groups including many Scottish Episcopalians. The Church of England/episcopal traditions, sometimes called the “High Church”, traces back to the Reformation, however later people called the “bishop-governed/led protestant groups, “Episcopalians” even if the precise definition and institutional naming varied by the region.
William and Mary were therefore closely associated with Presbyterianism, and after taking power they restored Presbyterian control of the Scottish Kirk. This caused alarm amongst Episcopalians and Catholics, especially in the Highlands, the northeast of Scotland and parts of Aberdeenshire and Perthshire. So, with the changes at the court, many Episcopalians stayed loyal to James.
To fully understand the Scottish mentality, even after the Union of the Crowns of 1603, Scotland saw itself and still recognises itself as a separate national entity with its own parliament, laws, judicial and policing and educational system etc, and as such Westminster rule was never seen as a comfortable situation. Some Scots believed the Glorious Revolution increased English control over Scotland and many Scots politician, nobles and commoners alike, disliked the idea that England had effectively decided who Scotland’s monarch should be. As such, the Scottish Convention of Estates only accepted William and Mary after seriously fierce debate in 1689.
It is fair to state that William and Mary were not universally rejected in Scotland as many Lowland Presbyterians strongly supported them however, they still faced much greater resistance here than in England because of dynastic loyalty to James. This loyalty in turn led to ongoing Highland clan politics and the growth of Jacobitism as a political cause. The dissenters further distrusted Lowland government which was based in Edinburgh and there was a suspicion that they were being controlled by Westminster. As such they feared the loss of their local autonomy.
King William’s government later worsened relations through harsh their policies, including the events leading to the Massacre of Glencoe supported by the Campbells, which had in the background serious religious undertones. Therefore, opposition to Westminster and its rulings quickly turned military with John Graham of Claverhouse (“Bonnie Dundee”) raising Highland forces for James VII, leading to the Jacobite victory at the Battle of Killiecrankie and continued unrest in the Highlands, Although Dundee was killed at Killiecrankie, Jacobitism survived for decades and later produced the risings of 1715 and 1745.
The West March
‘The King over the Water‘
Outside the Highlands, and down into the lands of our ancestors, in general William III and Mary II were more accepted than they were in many Highland or northeastern parts of Scotland. The western Borders to include Annandale and Galloway had several characteristics that made support for William and Mary easier to accept, to include deep Covenanting traditions from the 17th century. However, not all did, and not all within individual families did either. Many people there had opposed the Stuart kings, especially James VII/II because of his attempts to suppress Presbyterianism. By 1688–89, many Covenanters saw William as a Protestant protector and ally of Presbyterianism and therefore preferable to a Stuart monarch. This was further due to the decades of religious conflict in the area between Catholic and Protestants in part, to the open support of Catholicism by James VII/II, which lead to a somewhat anti-Catholic feeling. It was further enhanced by the difference in culture between the Highlands and the old riding culture of the borders, which led to complicated loyalties. Although many leading landowners in the southwest ultimately aligned with the new regime because stability and government recognition mattered more after the many decades of turmoil, the Highlands by contrast, preserved stronger military clan loyalties to the Stuarts.
However, as previously stated the West March was not completely pro-William regime change. Some Border gentry and Episcopalians remained Jacobite or sympathetic to the Stuarts, especially among older royalist families. This included our own family as well as our old ally, the Maxwells where parts of their interests retained Jacobite leanings and of course some other Episcopalian nobles distrusted Presbyterian dominance under William. This fed into support for the Jacobite risings, which still found some sympathy in the Borders.
Carruthers
Before the Scottish Reformation of 1560, the Carruthers, like nearly all Lowland Scottish families, were Roman Catholic. The family had close ecclesiastical ties to include lands connected to ecclesiastical foundations, church/clerical members of the family and strong service relationships with church institutions in southwest Scotland. So, the medieval members of our family, as a whole were unquestionably Catholic in the ordinary Scottish sense. After 1560, most Border families ‘outwardly’ conformed to the new Protestant settlement as Presbyterianism became especially strong during the 1600s. In Annandale our family were also influenced by Covenanting ideas, leading in part to anti-episcopal feeling and therefore Catholic church rule, but again – not all.
However, it is also important to recognise that among landed Border families there was often a distinction between the religion of the common people and the political/religious loyalties of lairds and gentlemen. As such, some Carruthers branches likely and did lean towards support of the royalist movement and Episcopalian church rule especially where alliances connected them with royalist Border houses. This was a strange time of flux, with no clear- cut religious demarcation, which was mirrored within many a border name.
It is however, worth noting that many families of the western Borders had already been adapting to stronger central government after the end of the major Border reiving era in the early 1600s. By William and Mary’s reign, many Border lairds were more concerned with preserving estates, securing legal standing, religious settlement and political stability, than with restoring the Stuarts ‘at all costs’.
Carruthers were, as stated probably religiously mixed over time, but by the late 17th century and around the reign of William III and II and Mary II, most Carruthers in Annandale and the western Borders were likely erring openly towards Presbyterian or at least had Presbyterian-leanings albeit some branches and allied families still retained Episcopalian or older royalist/Jacobite sympathies privately.
Even today, some members of our family and in fact other border families still follow the Catholic faith. However, over time we generally merged into Protestantism and although Carruthers were not known historically as a major recusant Catholic Border family, recusants certainly existed and of course inter-marriages would reconnect families back into Catholic lines, while political Jacobitism later sometimes revived old Catholic associations
Saying all this, even for those of us accepting the Protestant faith, certain factors would have encouraged Jacobite leanings among some: tradition i.e. the unwillingness to change the faith deep seated in generations and with it an older loyalty to the Stuart monarchy. This of course, included historic ties to royalist Border families, all of which were influenced by Episcopalian sympathies among some of the landowning gentry. On top of this there was the definite underlying resentment of centralized government after the Union of the Crowns. Many Border lairds disliked aspects of the post-Revolution settlement even if they did not openly rebel as it became a very risky proposition and some would have toasted quite quietly and in secret to ‘the King over the water‘.
To Summarise, historically there is evidence that our Name had some Jacobite sympathies, with branches and individuals almost certainly sympathising with or supporting the Stuart cause at different times. They would therefore have privately toasted “the King over the water”, aided Jacobite networks and participated indirectly in the risings. However, it would all have been done surreptitiously and as was the reiver blood, they would have sat carefully watching from the middle ground. However, Jacobite support was not necessarily across the board it seems, as others would have accepted the post Revolution Hanoverian government.
Like all families of the time, there was division and it is fair to say that we would have been much less ‘physically’ supportive of the Jacobite cause. This has to be reflected in the bizarre claims by some that Carruthers fought at Culloden. Other than a stable hand listed in the annals, there is no evidence we were there. This mixed pattern of support/beliefs fits the political and religious character of Annandale and the western Borders in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as such we would not have been alone.
For a Border family from Annandale, Dumfriesshire, the outcome of this piece does not offer a simple black and white option regarding our Name, but there is evidence that we were at one time supportive of the Jacobite cause. In the generality of things, I have looked only at the historical aspect in an attempt to answer the question originally posed, but have not chosen to delve into any current affairs.
Promptus et Fidelis
Non Sto Solus.
