FOR centuries he has been reviled throughout Scotland as 'the butcher' and was named as one of the most evil Britons of all time by the BBC.
But now an English historian claims that the Duke of Cumberland was merely misunderstood – and his reputation as a war criminal was undeserved.
Cumberland is widely held to have ordered his Hanoverian troops to slaughter wounded Jacobites after
the battle of Culloden.
But Dr Jonathan Oates claims that he was simply acting in line with the military rules of the era and that his strong-arm tactics actually prevented further bloodshed.
Unsurprisingly, the author's controversial remarks have led critics to sharpen their claymores and claim he is attempting to rewrite history.
It is widely believed that in the aftermath of the last battle fought on British soil, Cumberland's troops asked for orders. It is said he casually wrote 'No quarter' on a playing card and for that reason the nine of diamonds is still referred to as the 'curse of Scotland'.
But Oates attempts to overturn the orthodox view of Cumberland in his book Sweet William Or The Butcher? He writes: "What is clear is that Cumberland must be cleared of the grossest charges that have been laid against him. He was certainly not an exponent of genocide against the Highlanders."
He concludes that Cumberland's junior officers were more likely to have ordered the wounded to be killed and suggests the duke may even have been unaware of their actions.
Dr Louise Yeoman, a historian employed by the BBC, felt it was important not to neglect the role of lowland Scots, many of whom fought for the Hanoverians.
She said: "There was almost a sense that the lowland Scots were trying to be more English than the English."
Sweet William Or The Butcher? The Duke Of Cumberland And The 45 will be published by Pen and Sword Books.
