Battle of Carbisdale

April 27th, 1650 was a black day for the great Montrose, James Graham.  On that day,

the Royalist Montrose and a host of Orcadians, fighting in support of King Charles I,

lost the Battle of Carbisdale, to a Covenanter force led by the the Marquess of Argyll,

Archibald Campbell.  Montrose was supported by the Sinclair clan, and survived the battle,

escaping with the help of one of the Sinclairs.  Montrose surrendered shortly afterward to

Neil MacLeod, who sent him to Edinburgh to meet his end.

Another family name from the Battle of Carbisdale is that of Whitefoord.  In

“The Whitefoord Papers”, edited by W. Hewins, is found a description of Walter Whiteford.

‘…Colonel Walter Whitefoord, a stout and desperate man,  was one of the Scottish followers

of Montrose, many of whom were at the Hague in 1649. When the Commonwealth sent over

Dr. Dorislaus, the regicide, as their special envoy in April of that year, Whitefoord took part in

the scheme to murder him. On the evening of May 2, just as Dorislaus was sitting down to

supper, Whitefoord and five others burst into his room, and while some of them secured his

servants, Whitefoord, ' after slashing him over the head, passed a sword through his body.

He escaped into the Spanish Netherlands. He is next heard of with Montrose in Scotland,

in 1650. With Sir William Hay of Dalgetty, and 100 men, he was left in Dumbeath Castle,

when Montrose marched to Glenmtiick. After the battle of Carbisdale (April 27, 1650),

the garrison of Dumbeath Castle were forced to surrender, and were sent to Edinburgh…’

The Whitefoord family is one whose history Walter Scott drew on more than once in

his work.  The following comes from the introduction to “The Whitefoord Papers”. 

‘SIR WALTER SCOTT once apologized to the late Mr. Whitefoord for misspelling the family

name in the preface to the Chronicles of the Canongate. ' Dearly as I am myself particular,'

he wrote, ' in the spelling of my name to a " T," I had no right to treat your "O" as a cipher,'

and when he transferred the story of Colonel Charles Whitefoord, in which the mistake

occurred, from the Chronicles to Waverley, he took care to introduce the additional letter.

But the name is, in fact, spelt in at least twelve different ways in authentic documents.

Before the main branch of the family settled down to Whitefoord, the forms Quhitefurd,

Quhitefurde, Quhitefuird, and other variations, frequently occur. The first of the family is

said to have been a certain Walter, who, for his services against the Norwegians at the

Battle of Largs in 1263, received the lands of Whitefoord near Paisley, in the shire of

Renfrew. It is much more likely that Walter derived his name from the lands,

than that they were named after him.’

Kantuffa

Scottish travel writer James Bruce died this day, April 27, 1794.  Bruce is known for discovering the source of the Blue Nile.  Bruce's "Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile" was published in 1790.  According to WEK Anderson, who edited a version of Scott's Journal in 1998, Scott owned an 1804 edition of the work.

Scott, in his journal, mentions the Kantuffa tree: 'November 4 [1827]—Put my papers in some order, and prepared for my journey. It is in the style of the Emperors of Abyssinia who proclaim—Cut down the Kantuffa in the four quarters of the world,—for I know not where I am going...'

It was Bruce who introduced this tree to westerners, going into a long discussion of its form and uses.  Scott's quote above is directly from Bruce's "Travels...", as included below:

KANTUFFA.

This thorn, like many men we meet daily in society, has wrought itself into a degree of reputation and respect, from the noxious qualities and power of doing ill which it possesses, and the constant exertion of these powers. The Abyssinians, who wear coarse cotton cloths, the coarsest of which are as thick as our blankets, the finest equal to our muslin, are in the same degree annoyed with it. The soldier screens himself by a goat's, leopard's or lion's skin, thrown over his shoulders, of which it has no hold. As his head is bare, he always cuts his hair short before he goes to battle, lest his enemy should take advantage of it; but the women, wearing their hair long, and the great men, whether in the army, or travelling in peace, being always clothed, it never fails to incommode them, whatever species of raiment they wear. If their cloak is fine muslin, the least motion against it puts it all in rags; but if it is a thick soft cloth, as those are with which men of rank generally travel, it buries its thorns, great and small, so deep in it, that the wearer must either dismount and appear naked, which to principal people is a great disgrace, or else much time will be spent before he can disengage himself from its thorns. In the time when one is thus employed, it rarely fails to lay hold of you by the hair, and that, again, brings on another operation, full as laborious, but much more painful, than the other.

In the course of my history, when speaking of the king, Tecla Haimanout II., first entering Gondar after his exile into Tigre, I gave an instance that shewed how dangerous it was for the natives to leave this thorn standing; and of such consequence is the clearing of the ground thought to be, that every year when the king marches, among the necessary proclamations this is thought to be a very principal one, " Cut down the Kantuffa in the four quarters of the world, for I do not know where I am going." This proclamation, from the abrupt style of it, seems at first absurd to strangers, but when understood, is full of good sense and information. It means, do not sit gossiping with your hands before you, talking; The king is going to Damot, he certainly will go to Gojara, he will be obliged to go to Tigre. That is not your business, remove nuisances out of the way, that he may go as expeditiously as possible, or send to every place where he may have occasion.

The branches of the Kantuffa stand two and two upon the stalk ; the leaves are disposed two and two likewise, without any single one at the point, whereas the branches bearing the leaves part from the stalk: at the immediate joining of them are two thick thorns, placed perpendicular and parallel alternately; but there are also single ones distributed in all the interstices throughout the branch...

 

Battle of Dunbar (1296)

Popular report states this battle to have been lost by treachery; and the communication between the earls of Dunbar and Angus and King Edward, as well as the disgraceful flight of the Scottish cavalry without a single blow, corroborates the suspicion. But the great superiority of the English in archery may account for the loss of this as of many another battle on the part of the Scots. The bowmen of Ettrick Forest were faithful; but they could only be few. So nearly had Wallace's scheme for the campaign been successful, that Edward, even after having gained this great battle, returned to England, and deferred reaping the harvest of his conquest till the following season. If he had not been able to bring the Scottish army to action, his retreat must have been made with discredit and loss, and Scotland must have been left in the power of the patriots.

From 'Exploits and Death of William Wallace, the "Hero of Scotland" ' by Sir Walter Scott.

The Battle of Dunbar took place on April 27, 1296.  Dunbar followed the Massacre at Berwick in the Wars of Scottish Independence.  It was the first and final major confrontation between Scots and English during that calendar year.  John Balliol led the field for the Scots in what became a complete rout for the English under Balliol's father-in-law, John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey.  After the short-lived battle was over, King Edward I rode in to Dunbar Castle, which readily surrendered in the face of a much superior force.