HOW THE REFORMATION AFFECTED THE MCNAUGHTONS

By Thomas R Holme

        The new McNaughton book by Matthew Cock went a long way in bringing out new information on this matter. One of the things Mr Cock has managed to clarify which I have not seen anywhere else is the question of whether or not the McNauchtans of old were Catholic as Archibald Campbell stated in his 1885 book RECORDS OF ARGYLL -- which hitherto left many questions unanswered, for instance how it could be that the two families were able to intermarry, and so civilly, if the MacNauchtans were Catholic and the Campbells Protestant? And how it was that Malcolm McNauchtan could give his life defending the Campbell's property of Skipness against the besieging Catholic MacDonalds? Mr Cock's research has brought forth evidence that Chief Malcolm McNauchtan was a member of the Presbytery and that he and his son both rode with Argyll's Covenanters. So either Archibald Campbell writing in 1885 was unaware that the McNauchtans were Protestant, or perhaps he had a desire to write one of the most comprehensive and solitary histories of the McNauchtans in such a way as to present a deliberately inaccurate vision of them to future generations. The former seems unlikely. However there is another possibility and that is this: The main body of clan McNauchtan may have remained largely Catholic regardless of what religion their chiefs professed. And though some of the McNauchtan chiefs professed Protestantism externally they may have remained Catholic in their hearts. And some may have switched from one to another with the vicissitudes of their lives.

       Wondering what part the McNaughtons played in the beginning of the Reformation in Scotland must cause us to wonder what part, if any, the Reformation may have had in the building of Dunderave castle... The scholar and writer W.H. Murray writes of Dunderave: "Built by clan McNachtan of Glen Shira in 1560 (despite the 1598 carved above the door)..." I wish he had mentioned the source which caused him to be so sure of that. However other scholars have also indicated that the castle is older than 1598. Angus Macnaghten in his book THE CHIEFS OF CLAN MACNACHTAN suggests that Gilbert Macnachtan may be the builder and that he believes that the 1596 inscribed over the lintel indicates that Dunderave was rebuilt at that date, which sounds reasonable to me.

      So let's consider that Dunderave was built sometime around 1560. What were the historical events of that time-frame? Gilbert's son Alexander was chief of clan McNauchtan in 1560...

      In 1555 the Catholic queen of England Mary Tudor earned for herself the sobriquet Bloody Mary by causing 300 Protestants to be burned alive in Smithfield. In 1558 she died childless and was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth -- who the Roman church would not recognize as legitimate because her father had never legally devorced Catherine of Aragon. The Catholic church considered Mary Queen of Scots to be the rightful queen of England. So Elizabeth backed the Protestants of England in their meteoric rise to power. It was the only way she might keep her throne. The Protestants immediately passed laws that would make the Protestant church strong. Like church attendance was compulsory by law.

      The 4th Earl of Argyll, Gillespie Roy Campbell, joined the first Covenant in 1557. The Highlanders were largely Catholic at this time, and that would certainly include the McNaughtons. But 3 miles away, the Earl of Argyll had become a Protestant!


       In 1559 John Knox, friend of John Calvin, came to Scotland where he was well received by the Marquis of Argyll (Campbell) and the Lord James Stewart, the earl of Moray. He preached and crowds flocked to him. Entire clans turned out, led by their chiefs to hear John Knox preach. He created a great furor with his words. Many Catholics became Protestant at this time.


      So there you have Campbells of Inverary and the Stewarts of Moray and everyone in between gathered to hear the powerful sermons of John Knox, and wherever he preached he inspired people to rise up against the Catholic church and they gathered in mobs throughout Scotland and entered the ancient churches and smashed stained glass windows, set fire to ancient tapestries, desecrated altars, broke gravestones and precious carved marbles, and cast relics into the sea. And they formed into an army called the Army of the Congregation of Christ. And a Protestant English army marched north to join them. Then in June 1560 Mary of Loraine, mother of Mary queen of Scots, died in Edinburgh.

      In that year, 1560, the Reformation was forced upon Scotland. A Protestant Confession of Faith became the law of the land. Catholic Mass was forbidden. A third offence meant death.

      Eric Linklater says in THE SURVIVAL OF SCOTLAND: "...the Roman church possessed vast wealth, and with a curious naive optimism the Reformers expected to acquire all the revenues of the church except monastery rentals. In that they were disappointed. The church had disposed of so much of its property that a great number of rich or well-to-do tenants had a vested interest in its lands and benefices...."

      The McNauchtans had built several churches in Argyll and Perth. The McNauchtans had always been influential in the Catholic church, held high offices. It stands to reason that the Catholic church, knowing its lands were about to be confiscated and given to the Protestants might prefer to put that local wealth into the hands of people who might protect it during dark days. More likely though the disposal of the property was out of the hands of the church. In 1560 the chief of the MacNauchtans was almost certainly united hand in glove with the Campbells of Argyll in the new Protestant religion. Therefore he would play his part in the confiscation of church lands and property. He would rent out the land to tenants and pull down the churches and put the valuable cut stones into new buildings. So in this manner the reformation may have indeed played a part in the way Dunderave castle came into existence after 1560. Dunderave may have been built of stones torn from dissassembled churches.

      There are other pieces of historical information necessary to anyone if they want to understand what was happening at that time in history. We should refresh our memories with the horrors of the Inquisition as witnessed by intelligent human beings of the day and their brave reactions in the face of a Christian church which was so vast and so powerful that it certainly did not seem possible that any single person or even perhaps any group of people might stand against it and survive. The public burnings of heretics. The hideous torture chambers...

      The grand Inquisitor of the Inquisition was Michele Ghislieri -- Fra Michele dell'Inquisizione, whose very name sent shudders up and down the spines of anyone who heard it. He became Pope Pius V. And he chose Vincenzo Laureo, bishop of Mondovi, to be his legate to Scotland. Together they conceived a plan for the assassination of the Protestant leaders Campbell of Argyll and James Stewart of Moray, and four other influencial Protestants of Scotland. So, taken in perspective, we might view these men as humanitarian heros of their day. Mary, Queen of Scots, refused to allow the assassinations to be carried out. Like most Stewarts she was basically a kind-hearted person of principals. She would remain loyal to the Catholic Church through thick and thin -- but she would not allow the church too assassinate her people. (source: THE SURVIVAL OF SCOTLAND by Eric Linklatter)

       Mary was often driven to tears by John Knox who she allowed to visit her. He considered her "a hoor" and preached viciously against her throughout Scotland causing the rabble to hiss and hoot and call out "Burn the hoor!". Yet she allowed him to live and to go on preaching, hoping that her brave people would see through him. His severe sermons accused all Catholics of being adulterers, fornicators, drunkards, and Mass-mongers. And the people roared in their frenzy. In 1564 John Knox was about sixty years old when he married the fifteen year old daughter of James Stewart, Lord Ochiltree. John Knox was a complicated man...

      Two Campbell brothers fought on opposite sides during the battle of Langside in 1568. One was the first of the family to assume the designation of Argyll. Archibald the 5th Earl commanded the Army of Queen Mary whilst Colin Campbell fought for the young King James. Religion had even set Campbells agains one another.

       I would like to see more in-depth research into the area of the building of Dunderave and the activities of the McNauchtans of that age... Whether Alexander McNauchtan or his son John McNaughton attended the sermons of John Knox with his Campbell and Stewart neighbors we cannot say one way or the other. Whether Alexander rode in armour against the Catholic queen Mary -- or among the people who gathered together to try to save her, we cannot say.

        I have always been fascinated by the two stories about John McNauchtan's participation in the raids upon his neighbors in 1596 and again in 1600. No writer so far has explained to my satisfaction what exactly they were about. These two incidents occurred at a time when the schism between Catholics and Protestants were at a fever pitch in Scotland. The Protestant Campbells and their adherants were ardently attempting to drive all Catholic clans from their castles and lands. Of these the extermination of the MacGregor clan is best remembered. I perceive that while the MacNauchtan clan followed the politics of the Campbells their sympathies must often have been with the persecuted Catholic clans. Shortly before being hung the MacGregor chief spoke of MacNauchtan as his friend. I would keep these elements in mind while trying to decipher the incidents of 1596 and 1600. But the first thing we should consider is something really amazing: It is one thing to be the ally of a Protestant cause -- but the Ardkinglass Campbells who lived across the loch from the MacNauchtans were involved in an anti-Catholic religion that was much older than Protestantism, practices which must have shocked the MacNauchtans...

      Since the dark ages Catholicism had been the only thing keeping some very malevolent evils from the human door. With Catholicism falling apart, not only Protestantism replaced it, but also the void was filled by some ancient Dianist Witch religions, and certain Campbells are said to have embraced them. A law was passed against witchcraft by Mary Queen of Scots in 1563, but incidents continued to surface.

      There are letters, and court dispositions concerning a murder arising from a feud in the area of Lochnell around 1591--most of the parties involved bear the surname "Campbell". The papers date from sometime in 1591 to 1596.

      This was an ongoing trouble which lasted many years. We can imagine there were plenty of recriminations between people regarding what they said in their testimonies.

       Sir John Campbell of Calder was murdered in 1591. His murderer was said to be Sir John Campbell of Ardkinglass, and he was brought to trial. During the second trial of Ardkinglass there is some incredible testimoney which convincingly reveals that Ardkinglass was involved in witchcraft. A man by the name of McQueen was named as a great warlock and wizard in Argyll. Margaret Campbell, the widow of John Campbell of Cabrachan, who was brother of Campbell of Lochnell confessed in great detail to the extent of the witchcraft in which Campbell of Ardkinglass was involved, speaking of the witches of Lorn.  Margaret Campbell said the witches were taught their craft by MacEller of Cruachan who had learned in turn from the Pryoress of Icolmkill.

        Margaret Campbell testified that in September 1593 "Ardkinglass demandit of her gief the witches quhilk sche employit usit to name God or Christ in their practises, to quhom it wes ansurit be the Deponar, that it wes the forme that the witches namit God in thaise words." Then Ardkinglass said to Margaret Campbell that he "had ane man called Patrick Mac Queine a minister quhae wes afar better Inshanter nor any of thame and usit not in his practises to name God, and that Patricks werk of witchcraft and Inshaintment wes very often hinderit and stayit be the rest of the witches because in thair werk theye namit God and thairefore Ardkinglass commandit hir to discharge all the witches frae that tyme furth. And farder Ardkinglass confessit to the Deponar that Patrick Mac Quine wes so skillit in his craft that he culd mak up and big ane castle betwix the sons [sunset] gangand to and the contrair [sunrise]. And farder Ardkinglass declarit to the Deponar that Patrick Mac Quiene foirtauld him that baith him and Glenurqhye suld be tane and yeit betyme suld escheap be Patrick his moyen, and farder Ardkinglass schew to the Deponar, that gief Patrick wer to be tane and he had sae meikle laisir as to invocate upon seven Divils quhilk waitit upon him, he wald haif power thaireby to escheap and theye suld keip the skaithe that cam to pursue him and that Patrick Mac Quiene gaif to Ardkinglass tokens of his skill. He foirtauld that my Lady Argyll suld bring furth ane lass for hir first Birthe, and ane lad nixt and that my Lord suld lyne ane field in the quhilk the next best in the bair heid suld fall, and farder that Ardkinglass tauld to the Deponar that Mac quene had uther ministeris companiones with him in his craft, and furder geif Patrick wes sufferit to use his craft bot seven yeirs unchallengit that he suld cause my Lord Argyll repent his proceedings and that he suld drive him from place to place and suld not suffer my Lord to tak rest quhill he brocht him to the end of his lyffe quhilk suld be in the lawlands, and upon the Cassay [Causeway] of Edinbrught. And fardar geif he wes sufferit to perseveir in his doing he suld mak the haill name of Campbell in Argyll to fall, the Houses of Ardkinglass and Glenurqhye onlie exceptit, and that in the end the haill suld be pairtit betwix theye twa, and that theye suld differ amang thameselffis extreamlie for the haill leivings of the Campbell, and that the sword suld end the matter amangst thame."

      The minister/wizard mentioned was Patrick M'Queine, son of Patrick oig M'Queine, who in 1589 was minister of the church of St. Mary, Rothesay. Kingarth in Bute was also under his care, and the parish of Kilmhiccoarmick in Knapdaill was also added in 1591. He continued in 1593 and was subsequently settled at Monzie over the borders of Perthshire. (Vide Fasti Eccles. Scot., part v. p. 29.)

      Patrick M'Queen is also named in a bond dated at Finlarg, 21st June 1597 (Black Book of Taymouth, p. 235), so evidently he ultimately lived under the Laird of Glenurquhie's protection, the latter having also been implicated according to Ardkinglass's confession in the said murder of the Laird of Calder.

       The witchcraft mentioned here is the tip of the iceburg. During the last decades of the fifteen hundreds and the first decades of the sixteen hundreds there are many records of individuals who seriously involved themselves in the study and practice of witchcraft. This is not to be confused with individuals who were falsely accused of being witches. These were individuals who truly practiced the "arts". And lest you be confused by contemporary literature which professes those "arts" to be innocent things like midwifery and herbalism, the "arts" were more in the area of murder and theft of land. These were not innocent old grandmothers burnt at the stake for fairy charms. These were men and women who kidnapped and harmed children to force parents to do their bidding, arranged the murder of people who were in the way of their ambitions, and did these terrible things with prayers and incantations and Dianist rituals.

        In view of these revelations we should ponder long upon the confrontations that occured between the religious McNaughtons and the witches of Ardkinglass. The other McNaughton historians, McNitt, Cock, Macnaghten, McNaughton, all do not mention in their books anything about this. The subject of witchcraft is too difficult. So they ignore Margaret Campbell's testimony at the trial of John Campbell of Ardkinglass. But clearly it well deserves to be considered. Click image to read about Cathars and Dianists in Scotland.  

      Matthew Cock states that both incidents happened in the same year, not given, sometime after 1592, where V.V,McNitt gives both complaints verbatim with their dates, respectively 1596 and 1600. Matthew Cock's book explains the first incident better than McNitt's book. However McNitt's version, with it's verbatim copy of the complaint, presents a piece of valuable information which causes considerable question to arise about what was really happening. It condenses down to this: If Campbell of Argyll organized a punitive raid of fifty of his kinsmen together with the three McNauchtan brothers against Campbell of Ardkinglass, HOW IS IT that when it was all said and done, Jean Hamilton, wife of Ardkinglass, could present her grievances before the Privy council in Edinburgh and have the result that the raiders would be denounced as rebels? It looks like Campbell of Argyll set the McNauchtans up for a fall. He has them do his dirty work and they get branded as rebels as a result... The incident also clearly indicates that at the early date of 1596 the McNauchtan chiefs were riding with the Campbell clan against Argyll's enemies upon his command. And to my mind that is a significant situation. It's like he can order than to ride off a cliff and they go do it...

      The second incident is even more intriquing because it brings forth the entire scenario of politics and Reformation... In November of 1600 the three McNauchtan brothers together with thirty or more Campbells, MacGregors, MacIntyres, MacVicars, and MacNeils, altogether about one hundred men, completely armed, raided the lands of the Duke of Lennox and killed eight cows and stole 32 horses and 24 cows. Matthew Cock doesn't explain it. Neither does McNitt. So what was going on?

      The first important bit of information that Matthew Cock and V.V. McNitt left out of the picture was WHO exactly were John Dow McAula and Patrick McCaula and who is the Laird of Ardincaple? They are the Macaulay Clan of Dunbartonshire on the eastern shore of Loch Lomond and their castle was Ardincaple.

      Immediately south of the Macaulay clan exist the Stuart lands of the Duke of Lennox. Immediately adjacent to the Macaulay lands, to the north, were the lands of clan Colquhoun and their castle Rossdhu, the Laird of Luss. Now immediately northwest of the lands of Clan Colquhoun was the lands of Clan MacFarlane and their castle Inveruglas. Adjacent to the eastern border of the MacFarlane lands were the MacGregors of Glen Gyle. To the northwest of the MacFarlane lands were the lands of Clan MacNauchtan with its castle Dunderave. And just north of clan McNaughton lands were the lands of the MacGregors of Glenstrae. So you have six clans here in a row south to north. It helps to get a mental picture. From south to north: Lennox, Macaulay, Coquhoun, MacFarlane and MacGregor, and MacNauchtan. All in the space of about forty miles.
   
      The MacGregors claim descent from MacAlpin. They believed in the ancient Highland principal that a clan’s lands were kept by the sword, not by any piece of paper. Which meant sure trouble for anyone who walked up to them with a piece of paper signed by a king saying he had given their land away. In the fourteenth century Clan Campbell was given lands on Loch Awe by Robert Bruce. The Campbells forced the MacGregors into the mountains and glens.

      Archibald Campbell, 7th Earl of Argyle was made the Warden of the South West Highlands by King James VI. Campbell always used his power to his own advantage. One of the individuals he intended to manipulate vengeance upon was John Campbell of Ardkinglass, a close friend of MacGregor of Glenstrae. This friendship would become a part of Argyll’s plan. And of course the nearest neighbors to Ardkinglas were the MacNauchtans of Dunderave, so they would become pawns too. According to the chief of the MacGregors, Argyll had tried to persuade the MacGregor chief to make war against clan Buchanan and when he had refused to do it Argyll had sent MacGregor’s close friend and neighbor, the chief of the MacNauchtans, to try to convince him to raid and war against clan Colquhoun.

      In the 1560’s the MacGregors and the Campbells of Glenorchy were trying in vain to share the same glen. The MacGregors clearly felt it was their ancestral land. The Campbells didn’t care a wit about that. They just wanted the MacGregors to either leave peacefully or die. Sir Colin Campbell of Glenorchy was the superior under the law. The day came when he refused to recognise MacGregor’s claim to his clan’s estates which meant that Chief Gregor Roy MacGregor had no legal lands at all anymore. Everywhere his clansmen turned they found enemies. They became outlaws on their own ancient lands. In 1570 Gregor Roy was captured. Sir Colin Campbell personally cut off his head.

      But still the Macgregors were not subdued. Taking refuge in their mountain fastness, they set at defiance all the efforts made by their enemies for their entire extermination, and inflicted upon some of them a terrible vengeance. In 1589 they seized and murdered John Drummond of Drummond Ernoch, a forester of the royal forest of Glenartney. Fresh letters of fire and sword for three years were issued against the whole clan, and all persons were interdicted from harbouring or having any communication with them.

      So as the law stood no one was allowed to shelter a MacGregor. And if anyone chose to break the law and shelter a MacGregor they too would be subject to loss of their freedom and their property. Argyll had insured the success of this persecution by having the various chiefs sign papers agreeing to help eradicate the MacGregors. The Chief of the MacNauchtan clan was one of those who signed.

      One small clan attempted to assist the MacGregors. Clan MacAulay considered themselves to be a sept of the clan MacGregor. On the 27th of May, 1591 MacGregor of Glenstrae and MacAulay of Ardincaple signed a bond of manrent, or deed of clanship, the MacAulay clan acknowledged being a cadet of the MacGregor clan and agreed to pay the "calp", that is, a tribute of cattle given in acknowledgement or superiority. (In 1694, in a similar bond given to Sir Duncan Campbell of Auchinbreck, clan MacAulay again declared themselves MacGregors.)

       So in the McNauchtan books of Matthew Cock and V.V. McNitt and others we read about strange events happening that the authors can not explain: In October of 1596 Dame Jean Hamiltoun, wife of John Campbell of Ardkinglas, is abused and mistreated by a gang of ruffians, and her servants as well, and her home is searched, and a certain servant named John McGregor is removed from the home and taken to Inverary where he is held for three or four days. She files a complaint. No word of explanation is given by Cock or McNitt or the others. As if a fight erupted over nothing.

      Then in 1600 another gang of ruffians chase down two MacAulay clansmen in search of their chief, with the intention of perhaps killing him. They search the men’s homes and do considerable damage. The Duke of Lennox is shielding the men. A month later one hundred of these ruffians return to the lands of the Duke of Lennox and steal 32 horses and 24 cattle and did a terrible thing to eight other cattle: they houghed them. To hough an animal is to cut the tendons in their lower legs so they can never use them again. Ludovic Stuart, Duke of Lenox, filed a complaint. Again no explanation is given by McNitt or Cock or the others -- as if the brigands acted upon a whim of the moment with no reason necessary. Yet history is rife with clues.

      It seems clear to me that the hundred ruffians were not lawbreakers, but were enforcing a decree of fire and sword against the Catholic MacGregors and all who harbored them, commissioned by Campbell of Argyll.

      You may rightfully wonder what part Ludovic Stuart, Duke of Lennox, did to deserve their rancour. The Catholic Lennox Stuarts considered the MacAulay clan to be part of their family. So it appears the MacGregors and the Lennox Stuarts both claimed the MacAalays. The Lennox genealogical information seems closer to the truth. The house MacAulay of Ardincaple fix their descent from a younger son of the second Alwyn, Earl of Lennox. Alexander de Ardincaple who lived in the reign of James V, son of Aulay de Ardincaple, was the first to assume the name of MacAulay, as stated in the Historical and Critical Remarks on the Ragmans Roll.


      Argyle used his puppeteering to incite an increase in the raids by the MacGregors on Colquhoun, who retaliated in strength. Many clans became embroiled. Argyle asked for a new commission of fire and Sword against the MacGregors. The Privy Council did not trust Argyle, but granted the Letter of Fire and Sword. The Privy Council was right in its distrust; Argyle inserted a clause in the letter denying the King or Privy Council from granting mercy to the MacGregors. Argyle was named a rebel and fined 20,000 merk. Argyle refused to pay.

      A couple of tired MacGregor peddlers were traveling across country and requested the traditional hospitality of the highlands from the Colquhouns, but were refused. They were too tired to go further, stopped in an unused cottage, killed a stray sheep and ate it. It happened they were caught, and hung. When the MacGregors heard the news they made ready for war. On the 7th of December 1602, eighty Gregors led by Duncan MacGregor, Tutor of Glenstrae attacked the Colquhouns at Glenfinlas killing two Colquhoun men and stealing a quantity of cattle from 45 houses.

      The Chief of the Colquhoun went to Argyll, who had probably been planning the whole thing anyway, and together they decided to seek a commission from the King to deal Clan MacGregor a death blow. King James VI of Scotland was a poet and a Scholar. (Remember, we have him to thank for the King James Bible .) He did not like to get to close to the gory side of life. So the strategy of Argyll and the Laird of Luss was to have Colquhoun “widows” protest to the King personally bearing white shirts soaked with blood. The shirts had been bloodied by either sheep’s blood or from a miscarriage, depending upon which story one has heard. The King gave the Laird of Luss the right to raise an army to destroy the MacGregors. The MacGregors gathered their own people together to prepare for the great battle.

      On 7th of February 1603 as the MacGregor army consisted of a force of 400 hundred MacGregors, Camerons of Rannoch, and MacIans of Glencoe. Their opponents on the field of battle were 500 footsoldiers of clans Colquhoun and Buchanan and 300 horse from Dumbarton Castle. The MacGregor forces split up, one half going round to charge into the enemy from their rear. The strategy was successful and the Colquhouns were decimated and sent running for their lives. Two hundred Colquhouns were killed, and only two MacGregors. Afterwards Glenfruin on Colquhoun lands became known as “the Glen of Sorrows”.

      But winning this battle did not help clan MacGregor much. The result of it was that they were totally outlawed from then on. Even the mere use of their name, MacGregor, could result in death. It was quite common in Scotland in those days to see MacGregors hanging from trees.

     So there you have a lot of extraneous factors to take into consideration while evaluating the incidents of 1596 and 1600 and perhaps we can form a better idea about what John McNaughton and his brothers were doing running around with a hundred other armed men wrecking havoc. But we have only scratched the surface.

       It is interesting for instance to go into some of the information a bit deeper. If we want to understand how the duke of Lennox may have figured into the raid of 1600 we must go back three and a half decades to to 1564 when Queen Mary restored the forfeited lands to Matthew Stewart and allowed him to return to Scotland from exile. Matthew Stewart, the earl of Lennox was an ardent Catholic, was Lord Darnley's father. Lord Darnley of course married Mary, Queen of Scots, and their son was James who in time became king... Protestants overpowered Scotland, Mary was imprisoned, escaped, fled to England, where she was imprisoned again by her half-sister Elizabeth the Queen, and there she stayed. King James was raised without parents, by Protestant regents. When he was eight years old he could already translate the latin Bible into French and from French to English. He was smarter and wiser than almost anyone around him. But he had no parents to give him their love. And all the people around him weren't there for him as much as for themselves and it was oh too obvious to him.

      When James was twelve years old he met the first real friend of his life: Esme Stewart, seigneur d'Aubigny, nephew of Matthew Stewart. Esme was twenty years older than James and had been brought up Catholic in France. James made Esme duke of Lennox, keeper of Dumbarton castle, and privy councilor. These circumstances fit well into the plans of the Catholic governments of France and Spain. Spain was busily creating something called an "Armada" which it hoped to bring to the Atlantic shores of Britain, or perhaps to Argyll... The Protestants didn't feel comfortable about any of these developments -- and Campbell of Argyll probably didn't think it kind of Spain to be considering a trip to his shores... In 1582 the Protestant earl of Gowrie abducted the young king to Ruthven castle and held him there. He was humiliated. Esme Lennox was forced to flee for his life to France where he died soon after. Eventually the young king managed his own escape but he never forgot his ordeal.

       He was wise... He could see clearly the true situation of his mother, of himself, of Scotland and England, and even all of Europe... He could see through his learned sour tutor Buchanan. He could see through Gowrie. He could see through Argyll. He knew them, it might be said, better than they knew themselves, because he could see through them and they DIDN'T KNOW that he could see through them... He knew that the Protestants would use him. Or they would kill him. And he knew that there was something of a chance that if his mother were somehow freed and returned to Scotland, all would be right with the world again. And the only way that might be possible were if Spain would land upon English or Scottish shores, and wage a war. And win. Then Elizabeth would be gone and Mary would be free. His mother would rule England and he would rule Scotland. All the evil Protestants who had so humiliated him would receive their recompense. The whole world would be made right again. And it seemed to all depend upon a fleet of great warships arriving from Spain... Young king James was an excellant hunter. He had patience. And he was a pacer, rambling about with ponderous thoughts like a mountain cat. He paced and waited for Spain to make its move. Years passed and Spain did not come. It was bitter truth for the young boy, King James of Scotland, who was fast becoming a man, to come to perceive that neither mighty France nor Spain might ever be able to free his mother and save her life, nor would it ever be wise for him to open up his true heart too much to anyone, lest they be killed. James was perhaps the wisest king Britain ever had...

       I think it will be said that it is sheer invention on my part to deduce that James would have liked to see Spain invade England and free his mother. Linklater says James knew if that happened Spain would have conquered Scotland too and he wouldn't have wanted that. It's funny to think of a Spanish Scotland... I just believe that he was very intelligent and very lonely and very worried about his mother in prison far away -- and that he would secretly pray for almost any interference which might free her. And he would have also believed, perhaps correctly, that if it had come to pass, Spain would have given Scotland its sovereignty with Mary as Queen. To James, almost any solution might have been okay as long as she was free. And James was intelligent enough to keep those dangerous thoughts to himself and perhaps a few very close and intimate friends. Historians tell how the Protestant scholar Buchanan who was his tutor poisoned his mind against his mother. But they also say that James developed a strong mind of his own in spite of Buchanan's inculcation. I think historians do not give enough credit to the natural impulses of a child's heart towards his mother.

       Queen Elizabeth knew what was happening in the world. Her secretary of state was Francis Walsingham who had created an army or secret agents with gold for bribes and torture chambers for persuasion. Spain's intentions were known well enough to Elizabeth. And thanks to Walsingham's agents she also knew that Mary had supporters in England and Scotland who would join the Catholic armies of Spain. And the armies of France would no doubt come to England too on that day. And if that happened Elizabeth would be no more. It was quite plain to see.

       There was one thing she might do which could possibly throw a wrench into those plans. Something she had been avoiding for years. She could execute her sister Mary.

       In September of 1586 Mary was brought to trial before an English tribunal for her part in the Babington plot, which was a plan to create a Catholic revolt, free Mary, and murder Elizabeth. Mary was convicted. She was executed on February 7, 1587.

       King James had emotions equal to his high intelligence. There are times when deliberate composure is in itself a fine-tuned emotion -- something not always understood by lower mentalities... Several historians of his day say he received the news coolly. They would have us believe it did not matter much to him one way or the other...

       King Phillip II of Spain sent the Armada in 1588 but the winds of time blew it away forever...

       I think one thought must have raged in King James' mind again and again: "How long will it take Spain to build another Armada???!!!" He needed advice. He needed news of the world. News of Spain. He needed an intelligence core of his own. But he was surrounded by Argylls and lackies of Argylls. Who could he trust? Esme was gone. There was one he could trust, a young man from a staunch old Catholic family, and a friend of Esme's: Gordon of Huntly. James made him Captain of his gaurd... He wasn't the only person James could trust; there were several strong men of the north who could see into James' soul as clearly as they could see into their own. But they were wise too, like a fox in a hole surrounded by hounds. Neither their bravery nor their heart would save them if they stood too tall.

       George Gordon must have been too noble for his own good, and too young and foolish. He was close to the same age as King James. Two friends. To share such deep dark plans... Gordon sent word to Phillip of Spain that many in Scotland were ready and waiting to give their all if only Spain would try to come again. But he had no experience or skill in espionage and his messenger was intercepted before he even got out of England and George Gordon was imprisoned. James saw to it he was released. Gordon joined with the Earls of Errol and Crawford (Hay and Lindsay) and gathered an army to march on Edinburgh, to test the waters, to see just how many Scots might feel it was time to reassert their independence. George Gordon must have thought he might become the William Wallace of his age. But it was obviously not going to happen so King James brought forth an army to oppose his friend on the field; and it was all a sham to remove himself from complicity. The "rebellious" earls were lightly punished and soon free.

       But we have digressed far away from the incident of the three Billy goats gruff, I mean of the three McNauchtan brothers of Dunderave, and their raid upon their neighbor the duke of Lennox, and we shall return to it now.

       So what did the MacNauchtans and the Campbells have against Ludovic Stewart, the Duke of Lennox, to make them pillage his property in the year 1600? Well, I think it is reasonable to set aside the possibility that it was all merely a local dispute, or a simple cattle raid. There's just too much politics and religion in the air. The raid took place less than twelve years after the destruction of the Spanish Armada -- and the realization of how close their world had come to being turned upside down and inside out was still flashing and crashing like lightning bolts in the minds of every intelligent man and woman in Scotland. The Duke of Lennox, Esme Stuart's successor Ludovic, must have been one of the Catholic northern earls who would have loved to see a Spanish flag flying over Inverary Castle. And Campbell must have regarded Ludovic much like a farmer who enters his henhouse and observes in a dark corner the glowing eyes of a hiding wolf. So Campbell of Argyll gathered together one hundred Protestants to do Ludovic Stewart some damage.

       Predestination-believing Protestants saw the destruction of the Armada as proof of God's plan unfolding and it was with sincere feelings of righteousness that they came together as mobs and menaced their Catholic neighbors.

       But there is still another obvious angle to Argyll's move: An attempt to kill two, or even three, birds with one stone... History records that in the immediate years before 1600 King James had become severe with cattle raiders. Many of them were hung. Clan Gregor was on the verge of being entirely rubbed off the face of Scotland. Clan Gregor's lands were on the north of Loch Lomond, the Lennox family castle was at the south end. By ordering McNauchtans and MacGregors to commit cattle raids upon the Lennox's, who had been so close to King James, it was an open invitation for the King to call for their destruction.

       McNitt's book has this interesting tid-bit: "In THE ARROW OF GLENLYON, A.A.W.Ramsay says Alasdair MacGregor -- soon to be hanged -- related that the Earl of Argyll had tried to persuade him to make war on the Buchanans: 'and when I did refuse his desire in that, then he enticit me with other messengers, as by the Laird of Macnachtan and other of my friends to weir and trouble the Laird of Luss; which I behovit to do for his false boutgaits (deceitful purposes).'"

       One after another Campbells found ways to get rid of their neighbors and take their lands. Very few chiefs had the cunning necessary to outsmart them. There is a rather grim story of one chief who appears to have been entirely fed up with the Campbells and he was able to do something about it. However the only reason he was so successful was that he was even more sinister than them.

       Ian Dubh was the bastard son of John the chief of clan MacLeod. John's only legitimate child was a daughter Mary -- and Campbell of Argyll was her legal gaurdian. When John died in 1557 it may have appeared that Argyll would raise Mary and marry her to one of his sons and thereby inherit the lands of the MacLeods. The very thought may have infuriated Ian Dubh to do what he did. He killed his two brothers and three nephews and threw anyone else who got into his way into the dungeon. His clansmen were either for him or they were dead. Campbell of Argyll wanted to get Mary safely into his keeping. Ian Dubh invited eleven Campbell chiefs to parley. He pretended to accept their terms. There was a farewell banquet. After the feast each Campbell chief was served a goblet of blood and killed.

       But there were many Campbell chiefs. And most of them had enough sons to fill their shoes on the day they died... The story of the death of the eleven Campbell chiefs goes a long way in telling us of the intensity of these days.

       In 1557 The earl of Argyll married his eldest daughter, Lady Janet Campbell to Hector Ig MacLean of Duart. Interestingly it was somewhere around this timeframe that chief John MacNauchtan married Ann MacLean, the daughter of Murdoch MacLean of Loch Buie, and built the castle of Dunderave.

***

       By 1627 John McNauchtan was gone and his son Alexander was chief of the clan -- as well as one of the Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber for Charles I King of Great Britain.

       Britain was at war with Catholic Spain and France. However the war was not going well because the parliament refused to give Charles the money he needed unless he agreed to the changes in the counries religion which they demanded. Parliament wanted Britain to follow a Calvinist principal which would ultimately make the as opposite from the old Catholic religion as was possible. There was not much room for kings in the principals of the new religion. The King was just another man standing before the Great King Jesus, no more, no less. The old concept of Devine Right of Kings was a Catholic tradition which had to be discarded. Charles considered that to be a gross error and an injustice. He believed himself to be annointed of God and the ultimate authority in his Kingdom. Charles and his parliament butted heads and neither gave way. He had to find other ways of raising money to fight the war.

       He forced his gentry and nobles to mortgage their property if necessary get loans and give him the money. He imprisoned without trial any who refused. Alexander McNauchtan mortgaged no fewer than fifteen farms and manors, including Dunderave castle to borrow 15,000 pounds Scots, and raised a force of 200 bowmen to serve with the Duke of Buckingham's expedition. Over the years that followed the MacNauchtans were not able to redeem all these properties and many were lost

       I mention the incident mainly because I think it is valuable from the religion perspective, as further evidence that the MacNauchtans were Protestant at this time. It is not likely that a Catholic Alexander McNauchtan would have mortgaged everything and raised 200 archers to save the Protestant defenders of La Rochelle. The Roll of the men who were aboard the ship to go to France does not include many McNaughtons. Hardly any in fact. So the chief goes, but not the clan? Why? Because the clan had remained Catholic and sympathized with the French Catholics. That is my guess. The McNaughton chief had to become Protestant to keep his good standing with Campbell of Argyll. And do his bidding. But the ornery clansmen remained Catholic. This was often the case in the highlands.

       In time Alexander died and his brother Malcolm became chief of the clan. Something very interesting comes to mind regarding John MacNauchtan's son Malcolm and Malcolm's son Alexander, and the change that Alexander went through which turned him so violently against the Campbells, and probably returned him to the Catholic faith. I wonder if any other lovers of history have figured out what that was? It has never before been written anywhere that I know of. But after I write it here you might think so too... It's about clan Lamont... But first its necessary to retell the historical circumstances which led to it...

       I have written in another place about the events which I believe truly led up to the destruction of Dubh Loch and the end of clan McNauchtan as a royal charter and how it happened that after 1473 clan McNauchtan received its charter from the Campbells as feudal Superiors. With this in mind we should understand that clan McNauchtan's interests were thereafter irrevocably entwined with clan Campbell's. From that point on it would have been very difficult for clan McNauchtan to go it's own way in any direction which did not have the approval of Argyll. Otherwise they could lose it all... Like it or not they were in Campbell's pocket.

       In 1548 Gilbert McNauchtan was formally engaged to Egidia Lamont; a healthy union between two significant Catholic families. They were to be married in 1550, when Gilbert would be of age. Until then Egidia's family were given McNauchtan property to hold until the marriage took place. Then Gilbert died! And clan Lamont refused to return the property. The McNauchtans sued and lost. Their property was gone and they got nothing in return. It was not forgotten.

       A few years later the McNauchtans somehow obtained the wherewithal to build Dunderave castle -- less than three miles from the Campbell's castle of Inverary. It stands to reason that the Campbells probably had a lot to say about this. In return for allowing the McNauchtans to have a castle three miles from Inverary the Campbells received the loyalty and service of the McNauchtans, were their lieutenants, their captains. The Campbells were the biggest cattle owners in the area and the MacGregors loved to steal their cattle. When the Campbells told McNauchtan to sign the papers of fire and sword against their old friends and neighbors the MacGregors it was reluctantly done and the McNauchtans helped make the MacGregor families into enemies, into victims, into charasmatic outlaws. The Campbells called the shots for the MacNauchtans. Apparently the McNauchtans tried to make their subservient relationship with the Campbells work -- like a bad marriage.

       On the other hand the McNauchtans and the Campbells sometimes had very similar political interests. They had a history of being allies against the Norwegians, expelling MacDougals from Argyll and at other times expelling MacDonalds. The McNauchtans stood to gain some advantage by having such a mighty neighbor and ally. If any clan slighted them that clan might have to deal with more than the McNaughtons; they might have to deal with the Campbells too. This is a kind of politics, a kind of "friendship", which can not help but teach hard lessons. But there just might have been a clan or two who the MacNauchtans might have believed could stand to have a lesson taught to them now that it was within their power. If the opportunity were to arise... The MacDougals maybe... Or Clan Lamont... But wait.

       Queen Mary of Scotland tried her best to navigate the ship of state through the rough waters of reformation and ended up with her head in a basket. Her son became King James of England, Scotland, and Ireland, unifying the nation of Great Britain with a Scottish King. And after King James came Charles I. Now these two kings were both extraordinary men. King James was a scholar equal to almost any in Europe. It is thanks to his efforts that we have the King James Bible. He caused fifty of the most literate men of the age to come together and create the translation -- of diverse religious backgrounds. Half of them were Puritans. He preferred tact and diplomacy to war and strife. He continually worked for peace with Spain against the wishes of his Parliament who looked upon war as profit. When he spoke to his people he asked them for love and harmony. It truly was his vision of the mission on Earth which God had given him to do. And when his son Charles became king he too was very religious and a man of great learning. Unfortunately he tried to force a kind of Protestant religion on Scotland that they would not tolerate and it led to civil war.

       This civil war was characterized by the difference in the qualities of humanity manifested by the antagonists. The cut and dried distinctions between the sides blurred. Catholics seem to have reflected upon the iniquities of the Inquisition and made significant changes in their character, and returned to a kinder, nobler and wiser vision. The men who fought for Charles I of Scotland, the royalists, Montrose, Cameron of Lochiel, even Colkitto, were tough and deadly -- but they were also capable of being chivilrous and merciful; they emulated the good qualities of their king. The Protestant Covenanter armies on the other hand had for the most part been recruited from the rabble, the uneducated, with promises of equality and redistribution of property and wealth, and they were easily led to achieve their ends with unexcelled brutality -- heinous zealots with mob mentalities who killed in cold blood and committed shameful atrocities which have never been forgotten. On the side of the royalists were noble men: clans Stewart and Cameron and MacLean and MacDonald and Glengarry and Clanranald and many other Highland clans who all held in common the fact that they loved their king and they hated the Campbells, clans that would suffer together and fall and rise together again and again, in 1646, in 1689, in 1715, in 1719, in 1745... On the other side stood the Campbells, an army of religious zealots known as Covenanters -- and with the Campbells during these years of 1644 through 1650, with armour and axe rode Malcolm McNauchtan and his son Alexander. This picture won't set well with most of us. We will have to think about it for a time. For me it sets the record straight and enables things to make sense which defied sense previously. And the picture I get isn't all bad. It is a picture of someone who is forced to wear a shoe that is too small, that hurts his feet so bad! But he goes on wearing the shoes because he thinks he has to, maybe because they cost so much money and they look so good so he tries to bear the pain. But finally the day comes when enough is enough and he kicks them off and puts on a pair of comfortable old cheap tennis shoes and he knows he has learned an important lesson. Well it was something like that...

       In 1644 an old enemy returned to haunt clan Campbell. Alasdair MacColla MacDonald, alias Young Colkitto, the son of a man who the Campbells had driven out of Argyll. Colkitto was a giant of a man supposedly able to handle a claymore in each hand. And with him came a well trained army of Catholic Scots-Irish. There had been massacres of Protestants in Ireland and some historical sources report that Colkitto and his soldiers were deep into it and had a lot of blood on their hands. Colkitto's soldiers combined with those of Sir James Grahm of Montrose and with many other Highland clans who had in common the fact that they all hated the Campbells -- and from the start they defeated Campbell's army of Covenanters again and again. Devastating defeats. And Malcolm McNauchtan, chief of his clan was a Captain of these Covenantors. And in all likelihood many McNaughton clansman rode with him. And Malcolm McNaughton's son Alexander also rode with them. I didn't know this fact until I read it in the new book. I had previously believed that Alexander and his two brothers were still young children at the time of their father Malcolm's death.

       Highland armies would normally disband during the winter months. The weather was too cold for fighting, for barefoot marching through deep snow, where mountain passes were blocked impossibly for long months, with snowdrifts twenty feet deep and more. But in the first winter of conflict Colkitto and Clan Glengarry and Clanranald did the impossible by marching through the mountains into the heart of Campbell country to take by surprise the very home of the marquis of Argyll, the castle of Inverary. Archibald Campbell managed to escape by ship, leaving his clansmen to their fate. The castle was pillaged and burned. According to Eric Linklater the royalists were honorable to the vanquished and there was very little bloodshed. Matthew Cock writes that MacColla's men (Colkitto is also known as MacColla) burned the town and celebrated Mass on portable altars in the streets. McNitt says in THE MACNAUCHTAN SAGA that Montrose destroyed Campbell's forces in Inverary and slew 1,500 of his family and name. I gathered from the other sources that Montrose wasn't there though. And they didn't speak of such carnage. So I don't know which version is the right one. I hope to eventually know the truth. The problem is, as always, that both sides wrote their own personal version of history, and that is mainly what we have to go on today...

       Castle Inverary is less than three miles from Dunderave. We don't know if Colkitto's army came that way. It is mentioned in the new book that (a couple years later?) Colkitto met with Malcolm MacNauchtan near Dunderave and they talked about something, no one knows what, after which Colkitto and his army headed overland to Loch Awe. Everyone wonders what the meeting was about. In my heart I hear their voices talking. Colkitto is asking McNauchtan if he really is a Campbell after all? Or is his heart with the Highland clans? And suggesting that he should decide SOON... It is a meeting of two men talking with each other straightforwardly from their hearts. Two men who know each other well. They part honorably, each going his way. Who listens to such voices?

       Matthew Cock states that it was not chief Malcolm McNauchtan but rather an individual named Matthew McNauchtan who was the captain of Skipness, and that he was taken prisoner. I wonder if the source Mr Cock gives for that information, Stevenson in HIGHLAND WARRIOR, may not have confused the names Malcolm and Matthew. Because every other source I have seen says Malcolm was the captain at Skipness and that he suffered greatly as a result and died, which might have been as a result of captivity. It was part of the McNauchtan chief's hereditary duties, like being caretakers of Ben Buie, going way back to 1473 when the McNauchtans accepted the suzerainity of the Earl of Argyll over Dunderave. As early as 1513 THE EXCHEQUER ROLLS OF SCOTLAND refer to "Gilbert Maknactane of Dunderaw, sheriff in that part, with the offices of justiciar, sheriff, crowner, and chamberlain of the lands of Kyntyre and Knapdale, and with the office of captain of the castle of Tarbert, etc." So it seems to me that it probably was Malcolm who was the captain... Though I am not sure that it would change matters much either way, and perhaps it was after all some McNauchtan named Matthew; the main thing being as I see it that chief Malcolm was part of Campbell's army... Matthew Cock writes that Chief Malcolm McNauchtan rode with Campbell's covenanters in their battles and that he commanded a garrison of Campbells at Skipness castle in 1646 and he goes on to describe what happened there in more detail than I have seen anywhere else.

       The victories of Montrose and Colkitto came one after the other. After defeating Argyll's superior forces at Kilsyth the royalists seemed unstoppable. Glasgow and Edinburgh both submitted and Montrose graciously pardoned everyone who pledged their allegiance to King Charles. Although they had burned Aberdeen and Inverary and other towns they treated Glasgow and Edinburgh with consideration. There was no burnings of homes, no sackings, no destruction, no plundering.

       History remembers Montrose as one of the noblest men of his age. He seems to have honestly tried to make his soldiers remember that they were the representatives of King Charles' God-ordained grace and humanity. At least some versions of history suggest that...

       We learn from the new book that Malcolm McNauchtan did not die at Skipness in 1646 as other sources indicate. Rather he died three years later, as a result of wounds he sustained in the fighting. By that time Montrose and Colkitto were both gone. Malcolm McNauchtan had served the Campbells long and well and his son would replace him as chief, and presumably as one of Argyll's main henchmen. But Alexander was going through a change of life. Things that once mattered did not matter anymore. The result of these changes would turn him against the Campbells, regardless of the consequences, and no doubt cause him to return to the Catholic faith. And what would those changes be? Matthew Cock does not mention them in the new book. V.V. McNitt didn't mention them in his book. Angus Macnaghten didn't mention them in his book either. Perhaps it is because no one knows for sure. But anyone who studies Scottish history does know that an event DID occur at that time which was horrendous enough to change any good man's life. We have come to what happened to the Lamonts.

       I suppose before we begin we might add ten cents worth of kindling to the fire by saying that in 1632 Duncan Lamont was sueing the MacNauchtans for money owed... This is eighty years after the Lamonts absconded with McNauchtan lands and the soreness may well have lingered still... Only now clan McNauchtan rode with clan Campbell and war was their way of life.

       Clan Lamont's Toward castle stood on the point of land overlooking the Firth of Clyde. In 1646 the earl of Argyll beseiged the castle with a considerable army but could not take it by force. A truce was proposed. The Lamonts accepted and opened their doors to parley. The Campbell army stormed inside killing and plundering and came away with hundreds of Lamont prisoners. 36 of clan Lamont's most important men were quickly hung from one tree. Afterwards the Campbell army with sword and axe fell upon the remaining unarmed captives until all were dead. This terrible act stands equal to the massace of Glencoe and is worse in terms of the number of unarmed victims slaughtered and it rocked every man of conscience who heard the details in its day. How much moreso it might have rocked the life of a young man who participated in the atrocity. We cannot know if either Chief Malcolm or his son Alexander were among the murderers that day.

        But we do know this: the Captain who led the attack on the Lamont, and violated the flag of truce, and committed massacre upon the innocent unarmed people was none other than Sir James Campbell of Ardkinglass. And we also know that the son of Chief Malcolm MacNauchtan, Alexander, was at this time also riding with the Campbell army. And we know that Alexander MacNauchtan eventually married Ann Campbell, the daughter of James Campbell the 9th laird of Ardkinglass. So the son of the chief of the MacNachtans married a daughter of the laird of Ardkinglass. Very interesting. One must suppose that young MacNauchtan rode with Ardkinglass's soldiers, was probably an officer. He would have to be to marry Ardkinglass's daughter. So, think about all this for a moment: Fifty years previously the Ardkinglass clan was steeped in witchcraft. Then in 1646 James Campbell of Ardkinglass commands his soldiers to do a dastardly thing -- to violate a flag of truce, and then to slaughter hundreds of unarmed innocents.... And all, supposedly, in the name of the Protestant religion, the Covenant, which they have all signed and to which they have sworn... And just a few years later young Alexander MacNauchtan switches sides, and fights on the side of the Catholic king! There is a pattern here, a strong suggestion of what must have occurred. Alexander MacNauchtan finally saw enough of the Campbell's brand of religion and decided he wanted no more of it.

       Unfortunately it cannot be said that the barbaric treatment of the clan Lamont was an isolated incident. Captain Malcolm McNauchtan's business of protecting the Campbell's interests in Kintyre means that he and his son and other members of the McNauchtan clan must have also been part of the forces beseiging Dunaverty castle there in Kintyre in 1647. 300 of Alexander MacDonald's best royalists held the castle, but they had no water supply. At last they had no choice but to surrender. The prisoners stood helpless while the infamous presbyterian minister John Neave preached to the Covenantors that no mercy was required for such as these. After Neeve finished his firey sermon the Covenantors fell upon unarmed men and slew them all. A common cry of the Puritans in those days was, "Jesus and no quarter!"

       Also in 1647 Argyll ordered the army of Covenanters to beseige the MacDougal's Gylen Castle. After the castle was taken John Neeve again preached -- and when he was finished all the MacDougals were slain. Every one. And these are only a few examples of the barbarities committed.

       Considering the merciless ferocity of those actions I myself have no difficulty understanding the story of the woman with the two cows who lambasted Colkitto and fought his men when they tried to take them from her (keep in mind here the potential ferocity of a Highland woman: pause to remember that the last wolf in Scotland was killed by an old woman with her yarn spindle...), and told him that he wouldn't have gotten her cows if her people had been there. Whereupon he asked her who her people were? and she answered "The MacNauchtans". And he straightaway gave her cows back to her and went on his way. I hear the voices again. I think Malcolm McNauchtan and Colkitto were two men who knew each other (actually they were probably related through Sorlie Boy MacDonald, ancestor of Anna McLean who married John McNauchtan of Dunderave) and if it had not been for the war they might have bowled on the same team and shared Uisquebaugh in the evenings. But there is something else that is possible, a dark thing: Is it possible that the ruthless reputation of Captain McNauchtan and his son Alexander and their merciless soldiers was such as to strike ultimate fear even into Colkitto's heart? Could that have something to do with the reason he let the woman keep her cows and went his way?...

       The civil war was not over. The royalists fought and won again at Alford. Then Oliver Cromwell brought a huge new army into play against the royalists and defeated King Charles' army at the battle of Naseby. There were many women campfollowers trailing behind King Charles' troops. After the battle Cromwell allowed his Puritan soldiers to massacre the women.

       Montrose brought his army finally to Philiphaugh where he was outnumbered five to one. He was defeated by the Covenanters. Once again all the unarmed prisoners and all the female campfollowers were massacred.

       It appears that right or wrong Captain Malcolm MacNauchtan stayed true to his Campbell kindred until the end. But regardless how Malcolm McNauchtan saw things it seems his son Alexander saw them somewhat different. Alexander rode with the Covenanters and he may well have shared in the atrocities which they committed. He at least knew of them. He rode with the Campbells -- against the Camerons, against the Stewarts, against the MacLeans, and against the MacDonalds. He must have at times felt like his brain was turned around backwards inside his skull. When his father died in 1649 Alexander was chief of his clan and free to make his own decisions --and somewhere around 1653 he changed sides.

       I don't see anything necessarily unusual about the fact that Protestant historians have in every case I have seen so far depicted Colkitto and his Irish-Scot soldiers as the fiends of the era -- while at the same time neglecting to mention in their histories about the Lamont or Gaylen or Dunverty incidents or the Covenanter's frequent massacres of women campfollowers, not to mention the slaughter of the unarmed soldiers who had surrendered. However it comes to mind that there is one bit of savagery that may be fairly held to the armies of Colkitto and Montrose. And that is that when they faced superior numbers of well fed soldiers clad in mail and armour, and innumerable cannons, and cavalry, the Camerons and Stewarts and MacDonalds and MacGregors and yes, surely even some McNauchtan clansmen who would prefer to follow a Cameron or Stewart rather than their own chief in Argyll's pocket, kicked off their shoes and gave the Covenanters A HIGHLAND CHARGE -- the like of which, was savage enough, and sufficient enough, to win the day time after time. Some of these "savages" are reported to even have fearlessly charged the enemy utterly naked but for their weapons, like the Picts of antiquity. What Puritan would report THAT in a good light?

       In 1649 King Charles I was beheaded. He died nobly and graciously. Even the Puritans of Scotland had never expected that their king would die on a scaffold. Even men who had fought against the royalists could not condone the regicide. Good men throughout Scotland and England turned against former allies and joined the other side. It woke them up so to speak. And so it was that Alexander McNauchtan changed sides and joined the royalist cause and for the next several years became one of the leaders of the armies who battled against Oliver Cromwell in Scotland and eventually saw Charles II brought back from France and restored as King of Great Britain: Charles Stewart, secret Catholic who knighted Alexander MacNauchtan and considered him to be a friend and called him a "good lawyer" and saw to it that when he died Sir Alexander McNauchtan was laid to rest in the Chapel Royal among the kings and queens.

       His burial in Chapel Royal has always aroused my curiosity. King Charles only visited Scotland twice. He lived in England. The Kings and Queens of England were buried in a royal cemetary in London. It seemed to me to indicate that Alexander was buried in London... McNitt says that Alexander must have died shortly before King Charles' death in February of 1685 and that the King ordered his burial in the Chapel Royal. Matthew Cock's information is only slightly different: That Alexander died in London and was buried in one of the Chapels Royal, at King Charles' command. One of the Chapels... Plural. Were there many of them?

        McNitt also wrote Alexander "was much in Argyll, and his name does not appear among the courtiers who revelled and played at the palace (in London)." The chief of clan McNaughton... lives most of his life in Dunderave Castle in Scotland and then gets buried in London England... Seems odd, even with the honour of being buried amidst royalty...

        And what is the source for this information? McNitt says "it is related in clan histories". Matthew Cock gives his as an essay by Buchanan of Auchmar.

        Eric Linklater on page 301 of THE SURVIVAL OF SCOTLAND is writing about the first months of the reign of King James after Charles' death in 1685: "Now James showed favor to his Catholics and looked for converts. He allowed them freedom to worship... At Holyrood the nave of the abbey was re-consecrated and became the Roman Catholic chapel royal." THE Roman Catholic chapel royal. The only Roman Catholic chapel royal in Great Britain. It would make more sense that Alexander was buried in this chapel in Edinburgh, Scotland. The creation of this chapel royal in Holyrood would have been a significant event to the people of the day, and surely a clan historian would have written about it. The only problem with it is that King Charles is the one who is supposed to have ordered Alexander to be buried there. And the chapel royal in Hollyrood at Edinburgh wasn't created until a few months after King Charles died. Or maybe it was under construction while Charles was still alive and James merely got credit for it! Charles kept his Catholic faith secret until he received the last rites. But his brother James was an outspoken Catholic who was it is said incapable of duplicity. He simply was what he was... Or maybe Buchanan got it wrong when he wrote that King Charles ordered the burial. Maybe it was actually James.

        All in all, this may seem like an insignificant matter. To me it digs deep into several questions: Was Alexander Catholic? Did he die in the reign of King Charles? -- or in the reign of King James? Was he buried in London? or Edinburgh?

        But there is something else... I don't know exactly how to say it. It is a feeling of the heart which sometimes causes visions to arise in my heart which seem almost as real as something I did yesterday and I find myself saying to myself excitedly "Yes! That is it!" Like it is my own memories instead of pieces of histories excerpted from old books. I wonder if any other McNaughtons ever feel like that? And this chapel royal thing... One of those memory-visions is pouring through a crack in time like sunshine pouring through between dark storm clouds. How to put it into words?... Well it is the letter King James wrote asking John McNauchtan to please bring his clan to the Boyne for one last fight, all or nothing. He called them his beloved McNaughtons and he spelled the name the way we spell it today. McNaughtons. Instead of the way the family had been spelling it, McNauchtans. And thereafter we spelled it the way he had in the letter. But this strong vision I have regards his words in the letter. I see a funeral in Edinburgh and chief Alexander being laid to his eternal rest, and around his coffin stands his two sons, Alexander and John and many many other McNaughtons. And the priest is saying the words. It is one of the very first burials to take place in the newly consecrated Catholic chapel royal. Many Edinburgh citizens are there. People from all over Scotland have come.

        This burial has something to do with the way King James referred to them five years later in that letter as his beloved McNaughtons. I feel it. The McNauchtan clansmen standing, their stern and loyal demeanors... Rereading this paragraph I doubt I have written it clear enough. It is a difficult thing to write about.

        Historians say Alexander McNauchtan was one of the most respected men of his day... To King James, Alexander's character was identical with his whole clan's character. He needed his friends to stand by him. His real friends... I was climbing a slanted narrow ledge of a cliff once far above the crashing sea. It began to rain and the ledge became slippery mud -- and every handhold crumbled -- and I was beginning to slide -- when a friend reached out and held me in place until I found solid footholds and handholds. You have to have been in a situation like that for you to understand how King James must have felt about his friends who reached out with their hearts and souls and all their might to help him. Some historians paint a picture of King James II as being selfish and uncaring. One picture won't leave my mind; that is his wife worrying about him because of the way he would flog his own back until it was a bloody mess in private pennance and prayer. The next day he would go about his duties as king of Britain without speaking about the pain of the shirt sticking to the wounds. By today's standards that would be crazy. But he was determined that he would not be weak in his faith. Men who couldn't understand that couldn't understand him. And never would. But men who COULD understand the cornerstones of his character he would notice with deep regard. King James II and Alexander McNaughton were friends. They were surrounded by a world of enemies.

        About the massacre of clan Lamont and the other actions which Malcolm and Alexander McNauchtan may have been part of: I think the story has a moral to it which tells that a person can easily get caught up in things larger than themselves until they turn their life around and fight the good fight win or lose. Because apparently that is what happened to the MacNauchtans. They must have seen from the beginning what they were up against and how it might turn out. Their castle was three miles from Inverary. They were bound to lose it if they didn't heel when MacChailein Mor said heel...

    ****************

       What I have written here should give us pause to consider the many ways in which the Reformation affected our McNaughton ancestors. Having taken the side of the Catholic Stuarts it seems certain in my eyes that the McNaughtons of Dunderave had also accepted the Catholic religion. This made them especially beloved to King Charles and his brother King James. It would not have been remembered so well if they had been Protestant. Archibald Campbell in his book THE RECORDS OF ARGYLL speaks of the McNaughtons going to the Catholic church on one side of the river while the Campbell Protestants went to church on the other side. And they threw things at each other! This story certainly sounds like it came from the last years of the sixteen hundreds, after the battle of the Boyne, and before the first of the Jacobite wars in 1715.

        But when all was lost at Culloden it was time to rethink. Being a Catholic was not such a good idea after all. Not anymore. They could even be brought to court for not registering the birth of their babies with the Protestant Session Clerk! The McNaughtons had no choice but to become Protestant again. And from around 1775 onward we begin seeing their baptisms and marriages again in the parish records.

       I have not yet run into a Catholic McNaughton of Scottish roots, though I have heard of some Irish ones. Most of our ancestors who came to America in the eighteen hundreds were Protestant.