had any interest in that. The prize in his eyes was the throne in London. Charles II was the same in that he'd use people for his own ends. He convinced the Scots Engagers to invade England with the promise being that he would establish Presbyterianism as the religion in England. But when he actually came ot power at the Restoration both he and his brother after him persecuted Scottish Presbyterians. In short people will promise the earth if they think you can help them in their quest!
English would rise on support. Of course they didn't. The Jacobites found themselves as far as Derby with only a couple of hundred English recruits joining them - and two professionsl armies which were more than twice their size plus a smaller force in the north -west all possibly blocking their return to Scotland. The Scottish commanders and chiefs wanted to return to Scotland to consolidate there. Particularly those who opposed the union. Charles had no interest in that - and probably never
"...he was brave and always ready for a fight....not the same can be said for the clan chiefs...if they had followed him at Derby they may still be king." It can be read other ways. After Culloden there was still a substantial army at the disposal of Charles but he refused to carry the fight on - so no he wasn't already for a fight. None of the Scottish commanders or Highland Chiefs had wanted to invade England as a hostile force in the first place. Charles though had assured them that the
Brilliant tune. Bonnie Prince Charlie was an appalling leader, totally unworthy of the men he lead. His atrocious leadership enabled the Scots ruling class to sell the Highlanders "up the river". The only Stuart worth a piss was Charles II, undoubtedly a Catholic, but the ordinary English loved him. But as I said, brilliant tune.
@Insperato62 its unfair to say charlie was unworthy...he was brave and always ready for a fight....not the same can be said for the clan chiefs...if they had followed him at Derby they may still be king..if his grandfather and father had a bit more sense they may never have lost the crown...staying catholic in a protestant country was asking for trouble back then..even charlie saw the light and by some views converted to protestantism in the end to try and gain favour..The Hanover knew politic
I think he probably dressed in the French way because Charlie was wholly reliant on Bourbon/French support.
---
Charlie also claimed the throne of England, Ireland and Scotland... so appearing in the particularly unique clothes of Scotland would have been unpolitic.
if its the white cockade on the blue bonnet well the clans cameron and macrae used these bonnets when they went to battle long before the uprisings and covenanters (1645-51)wore them to battle
his interferance won them prestonpans along with a tip from locals it was charlies favourite irish commanders that lost the war recommending drummosie moor (culloden) for the battle
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
thats where the reference to souped up quickening in Highlander come from anunnaki reptilian bluebloods and their incredible speeds of combat - I am saying that whoever made charlie turn round from london was one of them
it was a english, goverment spy who told them they were out numbered and that they should turn around, i would suggest if u are wanted to, or more rather trying to make a point on anythign that u stop wiht all the bull shit and just try and use straigh sentances, using big words dont make u a smart person it just makes u look like a prick with no point alright pal
how is it that alex salmond has committed to putting co2 down the oil wells when the same technology could take the SO2 out of scottish coal .. whose getting to sell us nuclear then alex ?
Charlie wasn't wearing tartan when he landed to take command of an economically disenfranchised standing army - though there were probably more jacobites in england
firstly I love the corries they inspired me to do scottish folk music - and I enjoy the romance of their heroic tales - but whereas we were muged by Charlie in my opinion .. I don't think Salmond should be elevated to the same status as peoples hero ... not yet
in that historic context of our nation state I agree with you ... Charlie can be viewed most poitiviely like that .. even if he came from europe and didn't initially wear tartan at moidart but there are other blueblooded aspects of this which I think play a part. - but I have a different perspective on human and scottish history these days that feature the Anunnaki/De Dannan and what they are really doing with humanities social structures
does it matter that he didnt wear tartan when he first came to shore? wow big crime right there im pretty sure that wasnt the main concern he had, rather than ''how do i get to scotland safely''
y are u trying to talk as though you are a profesor at glasgow uni? how old are u anyways!
internationally acknowledged whos who expert on the paranormal .. but I have opinions about events in global history that are unusual - though I always back up my unusual assertions with reference to checkable evidence
Yes, I have no doubt that Prince Charles should have listened to Murray. WHY he decided that Murray was a traitor has always baffled me. It's one of the things I tend to hold against the Prince.
But I'll never fault the men who fought and died there for Scotland. It's one place in Scotland and can't stand to go. It's too painful.
*sigh* I sometimes get mad at Charlie for those choices, but he was still better than the murderous Hanovers.
Me too, But it is true what they say, No great leader is whithout his faults. Nepolian for instance, Great tactitioner and general but could not and would not accept defeat
I think everyone does to be honest, but Not to worry. we will be an independent nation once again :), our time is here!
Not sure about pressing on to London. Seems to me it would have been good but Murray said not--and he was the best general they had. I don't know the military situation enough to be sure what they should have done--other than NOT fight at Culloden.
The only reason murray said no was becuase a government spy from england told then the english were waiting for them and they were outnumbered heavely, this wasnt the case however, i honestly belive that the jacobited would have taken london
See once again i think we could have beaten the english if charlie had listened to murray about culloden feild, it was just marsh and bog land, if we had picked somewhere better then we would have won but in saying that we gave them as could as we could
Well put, ScotlandTheBrave88. We don't need a monarchy and the one argument I have with the SNP is their talk of retaining ties to the British Monarchy. Who needs it?
The same people who object to Prince Charlie supposedly being Italian don't mind that the Hanovers were German. Where's the sense in that?!
Wallace didn't prove anything about monarchy since it took King Robert to free us that time. This time we do it ourselves!
Its been a wee while since ive looked at the SNP's plans on the whole monarchy idea but is it not we are trying to bring back a scottish monarchy/head of state. Id be lying if i said i could remember off the top of my head
Its just madness, As i said before id rasther follow a scottish king like my annestors than a german one.
Wallace was a known john Ballio supporter and when he was interigated by the english about committing treason he said..
''I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." that shows that he regected a english monarch but supported a scottish one doesnt it? but to be honest im not sure wot the argument about wallace is i didnt see all the messages ull have to fill me in sorry
Oh, well the argument about Wallace wasn't worth repeating--he just indicated that somehow Wallace showed we don't need a monarch.
I agree we don't need a monarch but Wallace hardly proved that. As you say, he was a supporter of Balliol and wasn't able to win independence without a monarch--
Times have changed.
The SNP say we should have independence but still somehow recognize the monarchy --not sure how that is supposed to work. It'll be a cold day in hell I consider them my monarch...
He didnt indecate that, if that was the case then a)he wouldnt have supported ballio
and b) he wouldnt have faught along side robert bruce lol
I dont think that they are indecating that thye are going to be the monarchy, i honestly cannon remmeber how it's supposed to work, and like you thats the only thing about the SNP i have doubts about but im sure Alex Salmond would be able to explain that alot better than me
I do think Wallace would have fought for Bruce after Bruce was crowned. Remember Bruce knighted him. And Wallace supported the King of Scots, I believe, less than an individual.
But of course that's speculation--after all Wallace had already been murdered by the English so it's only anyone's opinion. You could be right.
I trust Salmond more than any other politician in spite of that. So I still go SNP. If it bothered me too much, I'd look into to. lol
I think that too! Wallace was a nobleman and a patriot he would have followed the rightful king to the death.
I trust Salmond as well. He was one of the very first to speek out against iraq, he is very very good at debates at FMQ's he is just a great great leader despite what some people think, but i am with you they are a government body not a monarchy but i honestly belive thats not there intention, i really cant say what the plan is, it'll have to be explained if it stl gts go ahead,
Believe that we were somehow "saved" by the Hanovers transporting huge numbers of Scots to die, executing them, fighting religious freedom, butchering the survivors of Culloden, suppressing the Scottish dress, language and customs.
I'll believe that Scotland suffered immensely from their MIS-rule but prevailed in spite of it because Scots are a strong and proud peoples.
I have other things to do than bother with someone who doesn't believe in freedom of religion.
FOR THE LAST TIME I SAID WALLACE SHOWED WE DID NOT NEED A MONARCH TO LEAD US, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS FOR GODS SAKE READ THE DAMN POST! You really have to take everything out of context. Where have I once said I support The House of Hanover, that I don't believe in freedom of religion, that I support the actions of the Duke of Cumberland, that i equate freedom of religion with sectarianism, point out the words or stop spouting pish.
Mate, you obviously have some sort of social issue. I was merely trying to have a half sensible discussion with you, but you insisted on skewing what I said and making points and arguments out of nothing from your first post. You didn't make any legitimate counter-arguments but banged on about stuff that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, to try to get a reaction out of me. Kids have a name for that these days and its called 'Trolling'.
Oh, I have a social issue yet you accuse ME of sectarianism for supporting freedom of religion. Interesting. (Oh, yes, and "accuse" me of being from Glasgow lol) Yeah, sure.
And you repeatedly said that without the House of Hanover we would have an Absolute Monarchy--sounds like supporting them to me.
You can't seem to keep your own arguments straight.
Look everyone, In this day and age I do not see the point in a monarchy, but if there has to be one then i would gladly pledge alleigence to a SCOTTISH monarchy in SCOTLAND not a GERMAN monarchy in ENGLAND fuck sake wots the point in that? and all those ''yea but prince charlie was italian'' and? he was scottish born in italy under exile he still had scottish blood couring through his veins didnt he!
The name of the royal house is Steward NOT Stuart. Anyone who refuses to know that is an anglophile from the start.
The Age of Englightenment that made Scotland a world leader came about IN SPITE of the Hanovers NOT because of them.
Or maybe you think we should thank Butcher Cumberland (a member of that oh so estimable royal house) for that. ANYTHING good that happened in Scotland happened IN SPITE of the Hanovers, not because of them.
That isn't what you said. Wallace absolutely supported monarchy. As far as who created a free Scotland, brave and noble as Wallace was, a member of the royalty by the name of King Robert Bruce did that.
The Hanovers were so liberal and fair they were famous for their religious oppression. AS was the Parliment. The English civil war and the English Parliament led to genocide in Ireland and severe oppression in Scotland was a GOOD thing?
The Stewarts were more in favor of religious tolerance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I never said who Wallace supported, as that was not the point I made, I never said it was him who created a free Scotland, but that he was a FUNDAMENTAL part of the process. Please, stop deliberately misinterpreting me. I said that the Hanover's were more liberal and fair IN COMPARISON, I didn't say they were perfect, far from it, they were not. BUT under them we saw the creation of a constitutional monarchy, something that we never would have seen under a Stuart dynasty.
Wallace was a great hero whose contribution to our freedom was the hope he gave to our people and the martyrdom that impressed that hope on them. It had nothing to do with a monarchy.
RELIGOUS freedom happened in spite of the oppression and complete opposition of the HANOVERS. You don't know what would have happened under the STEWARDS.
They were not more liberal and fair than the Stewards. You choose to think their tyranny such as the Penal Laws in Ireland didn't count.
That's what I said in my original post that you objected to!!! Do you have Alzheimer's or something?
Because you obviously missed it, I was talking about the freedoms of the average man, not religion. Stop trying to bring sectarianism into it, are you from Glasgow or something?
"You don't know what would have happened under the STEWARDS (sic)."
Of course we do, just read a history book: Divine Right+Rights of the common man = Civil War and carnage.
And of course terrible things happened under the House of Hanover, I'm not saying they didn't, even if your determined to believe I do.
What I am saying is that while they were about we were able to gain a unique form of government that was the envy and basis of a huge number of nations. Not to mention the introduction of the age of Enlightenment, that made Scotland a world leader in Science and philosophy. Under the Stuarts we would have most likely go back to the days of Absolute Monarchy.
And that was NOT what your original post said. You said that Wallace proved we didn't need a monarch. Wallace proved no such thing--he CERTAINLY didn't believe any such thing.
not at all, There are still some who think that the jacobites should have pressed on to london, becuase if the had there is a very strong chance that they would have won, Besideds its more about the fact that we feel that a member of the steward family line has more of a right to the throne that the present monarch, u know wot i mean?
Well its all well saying it should or could have happened but it didn't and that's history for you. No i don't know what you mean - I have enough trouble understanding why people support the current monarchy, let alone one that died out hundreds of years ago and wasn't even a particularly good one. Scotland doesn't need royalty to lead it, Wallace showed us that its people are strong enough to do the job themselves. Just my two pence.
i see what you are sayin and i totally agree with you, i dont see the point in the monarchy but if there has to be one i would rather follow one that has a right to be there not a german one that is only there through marrage, Lets not forget that it was a scottish king that brought about the union therefor the very least it should be the scottish line that is still in the throne, if that makes sence
You know perfectly well what i meant, I said that Wallace was not a king, a man of privilege maybe, but not royalty, and what he did for Scotland in the war of independence was fundamental in the creation of a free Scotland. And as for the Hanover's, they were a lot more liberal and fair than many of their European counterparts of the period. The Stuarts were certainly not supporters of parliament. Have you even heard of the English Civil War?
And the name of the family was Steward. Unless you're English.
Those Hanovers you love so much stood aside and watched the Irish famine, passed the Act of Proscription that devastated the Highlands, and strongly opposed Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects of 1829 that ended at least some of the oppression of Catholics in England.
Yes, not pressing on to London was a terrible mistake. If we were to continue to have royalty at least it shouldn't be Hanovers (who pretend no longer to be by changing their name)
had any interest in that. The prize in his eyes was the throne in London. Charles II was the same in that he'd use people for his own ends. He convinced the Scots Engagers to invade England with the promise being that he would establish Presbyterianism as the religion in England. But when he actually came ot power at the Restoration both he and his brother after him persecuted Scottish Presbyterians. In short people will promise the earth if they think you can help them in their quest!
gaconnochie 8 months ago
English would rise on support. Of course they didn't. The Jacobites found themselves as far as Derby with only a couple of hundred English recruits joining them - and two professionsl armies which were more than twice their size plus a smaller force in the north -west all possibly blocking their return to Scotland. The Scottish commanders and chiefs wanted to return to Scotland to consolidate there. Particularly those who opposed the union. Charles had no interest in that - and probably never
gaconnochie 8 months ago
"...he was brave and always ready for a fight....not the same can be said for the clan chiefs...if they had followed him at Derby they may still be king." It can be read other ways. After Culloden there was still a substantial army at the disposal of Charles but he refused to carry the fight on - so no he wasn't already for a fight. None of the Scottish commanders or Highland Chiefs had wanted to invade England as a hostile force in the first place. Charles though had assured them that the
gaconnochie 8 months ago
Brilliant tune. Bonnie Prince Charlie was an appalling leader, totally unworthy of the men he lead. His atrocious leadership enabled the Scots ruling class to sell the Highlanders "up the river". The only Stuart worth a piss was Charles II, undoubtedly a Catholic, but the ordinary English loved him. But as I said, brilliant tune.
Insperato62 1 year ago
@Insperato62 its unfair to say charlie was unworthy...he was brave and always ready for a fight....not the same can be said for the clan chiefs...if they had followed him at Derby they may still be king..if his grandfather and father had a bit more sense they may never have lost the crown...staying catholic in a protestant country was asking for trouble back then..even charlie saw the light and by some views converted to protestantism in the end to try and gain favour..The Hanover knew politic
kendosendo 10 months ago
saor alba!! Scottish not Brittish
fuckedurmatwice 1 year ago
White roses have long been used as a symbol of Scotland. It just isnt well known.
BonnieBlueFlag1314 2 years ago
dont get in2 history cos it makes ye seem like yer know it ah and educatin i know wit i need tae ken an thats it
rosswatt1979 2 years ago
@rosswatt1979 whit the fuck u on aboot ya dafty
rosswatt1979 1 year ago
I think he probably dressed in the French way because Charlie was wholly reliant on Bourbon/French support.
---
Charlie also claimed the throne of England, Ireland and Scotland... so appearing in the particularly unique clothes of Scotland would have been unpolitic.
ajferet 2 years ago 7
if its the white cockade on the blue bonnet well the clans cameron and macrae used these bonnets when they went to battle long before the uprisings and covenanters (1645-51)wore them to battle
witchhunter32 2 years ago 2
It is also worth noting that Charlie was as good at interfering with his field commanders and sort of lost the war
ajferet 2 years ago 2
his interferance won them prestonpans along with a tip from locals it was charlies favourite irish commanders that lost the war recommending drummosie moor (culloden) for the battle
witchhunter32 2 years ago 2
Alba gu Brach!!
scouterjim 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thats where the reference to souped up quickening in Highlander come from anunnaki reptilian bluebloods and their incredible speeds of combat - I am saying that whoever made charlie turn round from london was one of them
outshore 2 years ago
it was a english, goverment spy who told them they were out numbered and that they should turn around, i would suggest if u are wanted to, or more rather trying to make a point on anythign that u stop wiht all the bull shit and just try and use straigh sentances, using big words dont make u a smart person it just makes u look like a prick with no point alright pal
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
just google john duncans painting the riders of the sidhe and check out the bluebloods in the saddles
outshore 2 years ago
what the fuck are u on about, stop jumpin all over the place fuckin hell ur a pain in the arse
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
In the context of Anunnaki interstellar social engineering and farming I don't think that Charlie got 'unlucky'
outshore 2 years ago
how is it that alex salmond has committed to putting co2 down the oil wells when the same technology could take the SO2 out of scottish coal .. whose getting to sell us nuclear then alex ?
outshore 2 years ago
Charlie wasn't wearing tartan when he landed to take command of an economically disenfranchised standing army - though there were probably more jacobites in england
outshore 2 years ago
and ur point is??
and i dont know ask them urself, one simple e-mail will explain all that
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
firstly I love the corries they inspired me to do scottish folk music - and I enjoy the romance of their heroic tales - but whereas we were muged by Charlie in my opinion .. I don't think Salmond should be elevated to the same status as peoples hero ... not yet
outshore 2 years ago
and how were we ''mugged'' by charlie?
One scotland becomes independent he will forever be known as the minister who lead us to that deciseve part of our history
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
in that historic context of our nation state I agree with you ... Charlie can be viewed most poitiviely like that .. even if he came from europe and didn't initially wear tartan at moidart but there are other blueblooded aspects of this which I think play a part. - but I have a different perspective on human and scottish history these days that feature the Anunnaki/De Dannan and what they are really doing with humanities social structures
outshore 2 years ago
does it matter that he didnt wear tartan when he first came to shore? wow big crime right there im pretty sure that wasnt the main concern he had, rather than ''how do i get to scotland safely''
y are u trying to talk as though you are a profesor at glasgow uni? how old are u anyways!
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
internationally acknowledged whos who expert on the paranormal .. but I have opinions about events in global history that are unusual - though I always back up my unusual assertions with reference to checkable evidence
outshore 2 years ago
alright apl ur just spoutin a load of shyte ;) u either have something to say in reference to jacobian/scottish history or shut ur whole, alright ;)
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
Yes, I have no doubt that Prince Charles should have listened to Murray. WHY he decided that Murray was a traitor has always baffled me. It's one of the things I tend to hold against the Prince.
But I'll never fault the men who fought and died there for Scotland. It's one place in Scotland and can't stand to go. It's too painful.
*sigh* I sometimes get mad at Charlie for those choices, but he was still better than the murderous Hanovers.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
Me too, But it is true what they say, No great leader is whithout his faults. Nepolian for instance, Great tactitioner and general but could not and would not accept defeat
I think everyone does to be honest, but Not to worry. we will be an independent nation once again :), our time is here!
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
Not sure about pressing on to London. Seems to me it would have been good but Murray said not--and he was the best general they had. I don't know the military situation enough to be sure what they should have done--other than NOT fight at Culloden.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
The only reason murray said no was becuase a government spy from england told then the english were waiting for them and they were outnumbered heavely, this wasnt the case however, i honestly belive that the jacobited would have taken london
See once again i think we could have beaten the english if charlie had listened to murray about culloden feild, it was just marsh and bog land, if we had picked somewhere better then we would have won but in saying that we gave them as could as we could
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
Aye, that I am. LOL
Well put, ScotlandTheBrave88. We don't need a monarchy and the one argument I have with the SNP is their talk of retaining ties to the British Monarchy. Who needs it?
The same people who object to Prince Charlie supposedly being Italian don't mind that the Hanovers were German. Where's the sense in that?!
Wallace didn't prove anything about monarchy since it took King Robert to free us that time. This time we do it ourselves!
Saor Alba!
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
lol
Its been a wee while since ive looked at the SNP's plans on the whole monarchy idea but is it not we are trying to bring back a scottish monarchy/head of state. Id be lying if i said i could remember off the top of my head
Its just madness, As i said before id rasther follow a scottish king like my annestors than a german one.
Wallace was a known john Ballio supporter and when he was interigated by the english about committing treason he said..
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
''I could not be a traitor to Edward, for I was never his subject." that shows that he regected a english monarch but supported a scottish one doesnt it? but to be honest im not sure wot the argument about wallace is i didnt see all the messages ull have to fill me in sorry
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
Oh, well the argument about Wallace wasn't worth repeating--he just indicated that somehow Wallace showed we don't need a monarch.
I agree we don't need a monarch but Wallace hardly proved that. As you say, he was a supporter of Balliol and wasn't able to win independence without a monarch--
Times have changed.
The SNP say we should have independence but still somehow recognize the monarchy --not sure how that is supposed to work. It'll be a cold day in hell I consider them my monarch...
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
He didnt indecate that, if that was the case then a)he wouldnt have supported ballio
and b) he wouldnt have faught along side robert bruce lol
I dont think that they are indecating that thye are going to be the monarchy, i honestly cannon remmeber how it's supposed to work, and like you thats the only thing about the SNP i have doubts about but im sure Alex Salmond would be able to explain that alot better than me
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
I do think Wallace would have fought for Bruce after Bruce was crowned. Remember Bruce knighted him. And Wallace supported the King of Scots, I believe, less than an individual.
But of course that's speculation--after all Wallace had already been murdered by the English so it's only anyone's opinion. You could be right.
I trust Salmond more than any other politician in spite of that. So I still go SNP. If it bothered me too much, I'd look into to. lol
But I'll never claim them--never.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
I think that too! Wallace was a nobleman and a patriot he would have followed the rightful king to the death.
I trust Salmond as well. He was one of the very first to speek out against iraq, he is very very good at debates at FMQ's he is just a great great leader despite what some people think, but i am with you they are a government body not a monarchy but i honestly belive thats not there intention, i really cant say what the plan is, it'll have to be explained if it stl gts go ahead,
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
And I'm done.
Believe that we were somehow "saved" by the Hanovers transporting huge numbers of Scots to die, executing them, fighting religious freedom, butchering the survivors of Culloden, suppressing the Scottish dress, language and customs.
I'll believe that Scotland suffered immensely from their MIS-rule but prevailed in spite of it because Scots are a strong and proud peoples.
I have other things to do than bother with someone who doesn't believe in freedom of religion.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
FOR THE LAST TIME I SAID WALLACE SHOWED WE DID NOT NEED A MONARCH TO LEAD US, I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIS PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS FOR GODS SAKE READ THE DAMN POST! You really have to take everything out of context. Where have I once said I support The House of Hanover, that I don't believe in freedom of religion, that I support the actions of the Duke of Cumberland, that i equate freedom of religion with sectarianism, point out the words or stop spouting pish.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Mate, you obviously have some sort of social issue. I was merely trying to have a half sensible discussion with you, but you insisted on skewing what I said and making points and arguments out of nothing from your first post. You didn't make any legitimate counter-arguments but banged on about stuff that had nothing to do with what I was talking about, to try to get a reaction out of me. Kids have a name for that these days and its called 'Trolling'.
Good day.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Oh, I have a social issue yet you accuse ME of sectarianism for supporting freedom of religion. Interesting. (Oh, yes, and "accuse" me of being from Glasgow lol) Yeah, sure.
And you repeatedly said that without the House of Hanover we would have an Absolute Monarchy--sounds like supporting them to me.
You can't seem to keep your own arguments straight.
Have a good life.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
good to see ur still passionat!
Look everyone, In this day and age I do not see the point in a monarchy, but if there has to be one then i would gladly pledge alleigence to a SCOTTISH monarchy in SCOTLAND not a GERMAN monarchy in ENGLAND fuck sake wots the point in that? and all those ''yea but prince charlie was italian'' and? he was scottish born in italy under exile he still had scottish blood couring through his veins didnt he!
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago
First, it is NOT STEWARDS (sic).
The name of the royal house is Steward NOT Stuart. Anyone who refuses to know that is an anglophile from the start.
The Age of Englightenment that made Scotland a world leader came about IN SPITE of the Hanovers NOT because of them.
Or maybe you think we should thank Butcher Cumberland (a member of that oh so estimable royal house) for that. ANYTHING good that happened in Scotland happened IN SPITE of the Hanovers, not because of them.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
That isn't what you said. Wallace absolutely supported monarchy. As far as who created a free Scotland, brave and noble as Wallace was, a member of the royalty by the name of King Robert Bruce did that.
The Hanovers were so liberal and fair they were famous for their religious oppression. AS was the Parliment. The English civil war and the English Parliament led to genocide in Ireland and severe oppression in Scotland was a GOOD thing?
The Stewarts were more in favor of religious tolerance.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I never said who Wallace supported, as that was not the point I made, I never said it was him who created a free Scotland, but that he was a FUNDAMENTAL part of the process. Please, stop deliberately misinterpreting me. I said that the Hanover's were more liberal and fair IN COMPARISON, I didn't say they were perfect, far from it, they were not. BUT under them we saw the creation of a constitutional monarchy, something that we never would have seen under a Stuart dynasty.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Wallace was a great hero whose contribution to our freedom was the hope he gave to our people and the martyrdom that impressed that hope on them. It had nothing to do with a monarchy.
RELIGOUS freedom happened in spite of the oppression and complete opposition of the HANOVERS. You don't know what would have happened under the STEWARDS.
They were not more liberal and fair than the Stewards. You choose to think their tyranny such as the Penal Laws in Ireland didn't count.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
"It had nothing to do with a monarchy."
That's what I said in my original post that you objected to!!! Do you have Alzheimer's or something?
Because you obviously missed it, I was talking about the freedoms of the average man, not religion. Stop trying to bring sectarianism into it, are you from Glasgow or something?
"You don't know what would have happened under the STEWARDS (sic)."
Of course we do, just read a history book: Divine Right+Rights of the common man = Civil War and carnage.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
And of course terrible things happened under the House of Hanover, I'm not saying they didn't, even if your determined to believe I do.
What I am saying is that while they were about we were able to gain a unique form of government that was the envy and basis of a huge number of nations. Not to mention the introduction of the age of Enlightenment, that made Scotland a world leader in Science and philosophy. Under the Stuarts we would have most likely go back to the days of Absolute Monarchy.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
Freedom of religion is PART of the freedoms of the average man. If you don't have freedom of religion you do NOT have freedom.
And the carnage of the civil war was the Parliamentarians slaughtering their opponents who wanted to have their own religion, NOT the Stewards.
It says a lot that you equate Freedom of Religion with sectarianism. Obviously, you don't believe it in.
Hence you do not believe in freedom at all. Hardly surprising from a supporter of the Hanovers and NO Scot.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
And that was NOT what your original post said. You said that Wallace proved we didn't need a monarch. Wallace proved no such thing--he CERTAINLY didn't believe any such thing.
YOU go read a history book.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
What a great song! Is it traditional, or is it one of the ones to which Burns or some other poet contributed?--or both?
EMesaros 2 years ago
when ever i wear a kilt i wear a white cockade to show people i am a jacobite follower
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dont you think Jacobite cause is, well, dead?
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
not at all, There are still some who think that the jacobites should have pressed on to london, becuase if the had there is a very strong chance that they would have won, Besideds its more about the fact that we feel that a member of the steward family line has more of a right to the throne that the present monarch, u know wot i mean?
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago 2
Well its all well saying it should or could have happened but it didn't and that's history for you. No i don't know what you mean - I have enough trouble understanding why people support the current monarchy, let alone one that died out hundreds of years ago and wasn't even a particularly good one. Scotland doesn't need royalty to lead it, Wallace showed us that its people are strong enough to do the job themselves. Just my two pence.
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
i see what you are sayin and i totally agree with you, i dont see the point in the monarchy but if there has to be one i would rather follow one that has a right to be there not a german one that is only there through marrage, Lets not forget that it was a scottish king that brought about the union therefor the very least it should be the scottish line that is still in the throne, if that makes sence
ScotlandTheBrave88 2 years ago 2
Wallace showed no such thing. Wallace was a supporter of King John Baliol.
While I agree that we don't need royalty now, that statement just shows having seen Braveheart one too many times--a movie FULL of lies.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
You know perfectly well what i meant, I said that Wallace was not a king, a man of privilege maybe, but not royalty, and what he did for Scotland in the war of independence was fundamental in the creation of a free Scotland. And as for the Hanover's, they were a lot more liberal and fair than many of their European counterparts of the period. The Stuarts were certainly not supporters of parliament. Have you even heard of the English Civil War?
calicheSCOT 2 years ago
And the name of the family was Steward. Unless you're English.
Those Hanovers you love so much stood aside and watched the Irish famine, passed the Act of Proscription that devastated the Highlands, and strongly opposed Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects of 1829 that ended at least some of the oppression of Catholics in England.
Admirable royal house indeed.
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
Yes, not pressing on to London was a terrible mistake. If we were to continue to have royalty at least it shouldn't be Hanovers (who pretend no longer to be by changing their name)
JeannieTomlin 2 years ago
Comment removed
EMesaros 2 years ago
To Scotland TheBrave88: Now I think that's charming!
EMesaros 2 years ago
i like your style ross
JAKWIK 2 years ago
thankin ye
rosswatt1979 2 years ago
I LOVE this song!
LordTharrion 3 years ago