@oarfrost depends on when Derby became part of Scotland, ya muppet. Clearly the war council were right, since they knew what they were talking about while he was a diddy at the game, but mostly since an Army was waiting in London to do him right.
enter England in the first place. Charles eventually persuaded them to by amongst other things convincing them that the English, especially the English in the north, would flock to his banner. They'd got as far as Derby and had only manged to recruit about 300 or 400 or so. So I suppose they realised there was not going to be a rising in their favour!
@oarfrost Och it is one of these we'll never know "what if" situations. Another one is what if they hadn't invaded England? What if he'd been happy to consolidate in Scotland. Supposedly Edinburgh was back in Hanovarian hands by the time the Jacobite Army hit Dalkeith. They only controlled when the army was in situ. That may have changed had they consolidated. As for the retreat I suppose one has to take the councils overall view into account. The Scottish commanders and chiefs had no wish to
Google this "Cameron's war with SNP over migrants: Westminster rejects Salmond's bid to flood recession-hit Scotland with foreign workers" - Mail online...
@AlbaSiar You know it, I know it, so why they hell can't more Scots see it? The SNP members themselves are too busy attacking the English in their bitter rants to see it for themselves. The SNP rank & file are living in a mythical past, unable to see the truth happening right now. Salmond knows the truth, he's playing them all by playing the ethno-racist anti-English card, but doesn't have the guts to say so outright. Salmond panders to the rich, and pulls the strings of the poor.
@yehrightify He's a joker, he misleads voters by telling them the monarchy will remain, and then with the other hand plots their demise by stating they will be voted out. Meanwhile like the utter crawly-bum traitor Salmond goes to Royal Weddings and elsewhere shares posh lunches with Prince Charles. Why don't we just vote him out instead. Scotland is not a Republican country. Salmond's in it for the cash, always has been.
The SNP and their followers like to gloss over facts like it was Scottish Covenanters who struck the first blow to the Jacobites at Strathaven. Likewise it was the KOSB who defended Edinburgh against the Jacobites, and likewise the City of Glasgow refused to surrender the city to him and he 'shit' it in that case. Scotland was deeply divided after just emerging from a long war begun by a Stuart tyrant who enslaved, tortured and murdered Presbyterians forcing them to accept the Episcopal Church.
@yehrightify Since the vast majority of Scots are Presbyterian, many of them descending from those Covenanters and martyrs, it is extremely unlikely that they will ever embrace the history according to the now Papist SNP. Although a Protestant, I don't care too much for the Orange, but I know they won't lie down without a fight. There's at least as many of them as there are Tims, and then there's the rest of us who hate the SNP anyway AND WILL VOTE NO! The SNP have no chance.
decades members of Seed Of The Gael (a tiny insignificant vehemently anti-English fascist organisation) have been ostracised by the SNP. Salmond has said that the role of the monarchy is for future Scots to decide. They are (ie the monarchy and independence) in essence two seperate subjects so I suspect he is wanting to keep any referendum as simple as possible. I know that grates with many republican Nats but it is the party's position.
@gaconnochie The SNP is a fascist organisation. All nationalists parties are fascist. The SNP leader during WW11 was a traitor eager to sell Scotland out to the Nazi's. Not too much has changed in the 80's Winne Ewing sat on a group in the EU chiefly composed of EXTREME right-wing fascist parties from across Europe. No matter Scotland for the Scots means nothing now, it belongs to foreigners, as does much of the wealth in the nation. Scotland is finished.
@gaconnochie BTW, don't answer me any more. I really don't care. I am one of the many who would willingly take up arms against Nationalism. As a political movement it sucks balls and is the enemy of free-thinking people wherever it raises its Nat-zi head.
@yehrightify "don't answer me any more" If you didn't want to debate then why put points to me? Taking up arms is nonsense. It is a democratic choice for the people and whatever they decide will be accepted by the people as a whole. The idea that the SNP are papist is just silly. In fact if anything what has held them back is that until recently they've struggled to capture Labour's many Catholic voters in the west of Scotland.
@gaconnochie I didn't come here to debate with you. I couldn't care less about your opinions. There is no democratic choice when the majority of Scots reject the SNP, but they become the government anyway. I just read the Sectarian Republican comments from SNP members who post on the Daily Record and The Scotsman and it's plainly obvious what the SNP is about. They are Papist and Republican. Roseanna Cunningham is PRO-IRA! Yer a daft auld cunt.
@gaconnochie Don't watch a clip about The Jacobites and dismiss 'taking up arms', we've done it before all through history. Northern Ireland would be like a holiday camp compared to Scotland, if the SNP suddenly got their way and attempted to force their minority views on the rest of us. Salmond knows this and would shit a brick. He's riding on a tigers back, because he doesn't actually believe the divisive shit he's been preaching, which affects the minds and actions of the trash.
@gaconnochie - Siol nan Gaidheal - Are a Scottish cultural organisation which was purged from the SNP by Salmond in the 90's. They are a fraternal organisation interested in keeping Scotland Scottish and preserving the dying language and culture. Precisely what any nationalist party worth it's name should be doing.
@AlbaSiar I meant to say I USED to be an SNP member and met and knew members of SnG over the years, both in the SNP and in other places. Was well known to yer man in Livie back in the day... If nothing else I'm glad to hear you guys haven't sold out to the garbage Salmond is pushing us towards. To defeat him and get a balanced debate going it might even take some unholy political alliances, but I think it really has to happen. I don't believe he is acting in Scotland's interests.
@AlbaSiar They were purged long before that (ie 1979-1980) and not by Alex Salmond as he himself was suspended from the party at that time for being in the left wing 79 Group. He was let back in but the fascists weren't. Sorry but generally leopards don't change their spots so quickly. Like the BNP your 'cultural' organisation have toned down their website in recent years but they are still the same fascists! Scotland is much too sensible to let them become relevant.
@gaconnochie - With respect, I'm sick of your silly remarks on this board accusing people of being members of organisations without any proof or justification. Your leader was kicked of that party for being a far-left extremist. The same extremist is now running that repugnant party now claiming at best 23% of the Scottish voters, and many of them are foreigners. My own view is they are NOT a nationalist party at all - they are in fact a fake anti-Scottish party and should be exposed as such.
@AlbaSiar "With respect, I'm sick of your silly remarks on this board accusing people of being members of organisations without any proof or justification." With respect I never accused anyone of being members of the said organisation. I simply pointed out that the said organisation existed. As to the level of support the SNP at the last Holyrood election attracted 45.4% of the votes cast. Michael Moore's party (secretary of state) attracted only 7.9% of the said vote.
@AlbaSiar TOTALLY! It really is shocking how Salmond is getting in on the votes of immigrants. Gordon Wilson was right to have Salmond and his 79 group booted from the SNP, the mistake was letting the clown back in again. The banned 79 group are now half of his ministers! Salmond is betraying Scotland. The SNP have betrayed us all and sold us all out for immigrant votes.
As to the fascism thing. I know there are different views on whether we should have the union or not and that is fair dos but again we should keep the debate sensible. The Nats position is that on independence anyone legally living in Scotland would be offered citizenship regardless of place of birth, nationality, colour, creed or religion. They are most definitely not a fascist organisation. That is not to say there are not fascist or bigoted Scots Nationalists of course there are. But for
@gaconnochie Does that include the English? If 2 million English wanted to settle in Scotland would that be okay with the SNP? I bet it wouldn't. But somehow we are to believe that an army of foreign workers brought in by the SNP who now have all the jobs and homes and speak foreign languages is somehow acceptable and okay. The SNP will lose in the long-run. Scotland no longer belongs to the Scots. It belongs to Poles, Paki's, ILLEGALS, and anyone who wants to build a golf course. Well done!
@yehrightify The SNP are a racist organisation too cowardly to say what they really think about the English. The SNP push for a Scotland for Poles and Pakis. The Poles now work cheaply for what is less than legal in Hotels, Shops and Building sites. Meanwhile Asians for Independence push a Pro-Islam agenda. The SNP hop from leg to leg to please Roman Catholic Republicans and Islamic Fundamentalists. But the English (our countrymen) are still not welcome in the SNP view of Scotland.
should sit on the throne seems absurd. The Queen isn't descended from William and Mary. They have no descendents as they had no children. Neither did the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne. The Queen's descent was from the Hanovarian line. The throne was offered to Sophia of Hanover and her descendents. Sophia was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Scotland who was the daughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England. So yes the Queen's ancestors were related to all the relevant parties.
@gaconnochie Amazing what a dickhead like you can find on wikipedia. I really couldn't give a shit to listen to your SNP bullshit. Fuck the SNP. You fawn on the Stuarts and yet claim you are all Republicans. What a load of shit. Most of you even fawned on that shameful fake who fled back to Belgium a few years ago after he was exposed as a complete liar. Desperate people do deseperate things.
@metallica12606 Have you ever actually read a history book? Hearing about something in a work of fiction is why we have the wankers like the SNP in power right now.
@AlbaSiar With you on that! Scottish Nationalism is a load of shit. Look around you, talk to people who are not of your mind. Eventually the SNP will come to realise that the majority of Scots do not like them. It's a personal thing which is bigger than Independence. Salmond is an utter wanker who fawns to the rich and the Royal family. All Scots Nats are wankers. If independence comes it won't be the wee Nats who make it happen.
@yehrightify - The biggest problem facing Scotland is demographics.Our very low birth rates, high emigration and immigration rates (Scots out , foreigners in) means we are being quickly replaced. This is why Salmond likes to to be seen canvassing in certain area's of Glasgow during election time. He knows where the future votes are coming from - thanks to his policies and it isn't from the traditional votes are coming from.
@AlbaSiar Many more Scots will leave, I don't blame them. When you can't get a job because you don't speak a foreign language like Polish in your own country, then it's time to gtf out of the place. Funny how the SNP preach about a Scotland for the Scots, but hand it away to FOREIGNERS who will work for less, or will buy up the land. The most annoying line to come from the SNP, is their idea that if you don't agree with them then you must be a Traitor and can't possibly be a Scot.
as from the same bloodline..i salute the jacobites..and those who oposed them..none ist such evil beast as war..may it never set foot on that island again..
@baldwinthefox And what about the innocent Scots that the Stuart's put to death in the name of the Church of England? learn some history, and not just the fake pish the SNP like to put about. The Church of Scotland is there because those people fought back against the Stuarts, and they won.
I can honestly say that my ancestors where there with him. Just how many Scots Nats can say that? Seriously how many? I suspect probably none, since they were invariably peasants at that point. Yet, I oppose the SNP in all stands for. That party is a joke, misled by a fat egotistical idiot, and the inepts who sit with him. Follow them, and you will be poor, bankrupt and friendless. Nationalism was thrown off by the sane in the 20th century. It's all fascism. Believe it.
fending off anyone else. It is possible though it is not something we could ever know - others say it needed to be all or nothing. Like I said though it wasn't on his agenda he wanted his father to have his grand-father's English throne back again.
crown in London. He was certainly in a position to consolidate in Scotland. It would basically have turned the clock back to the Restoration period where the Episcopalian regime dominated over the more numerous Presbyterians. Difference is Charles II and James VII had their power base in London which the Pretender would not have. He would need to be more conciliatory towards Presbyterians than they had been to unite the country. And without a united country they would have had no chance in
All of the Scottish regiments were on the continent as there was a major European war going on. There was no armed force present to oppose him apart from Cope's regiment. However as I said by the time the Jacobite army returned from England there were many on arms against them in Scotland - not just regular regiments. That is a fact and saying it does not make one a Hanovarian. As to the what-if he'd stayed in Scotland? First of all it wasn't on his agenda so it is a big if. The target was the
He was largely unopposed in Scotland because they knew the Stuart line was the true line, a fact distilled by much later Irish migration and idiotic unionist brain washing. It wasn't a Catholic agenda, he was offering religious freedom which most of Scotland definitely didn't have after the land grab that was called the Reformation.
@Gonzoidz He wasn't largely unopposed. There were many Scots in arms against him. When he arrived at first the armed resistance was ineffectual because it was the middle of a major European war with France (who of course encouraged his enterprise as a diversion) and virtually all of the regular Scottish troops were on the continent fighting the French. At the same time the clans who favoured the Hanovarians were for the most disarmed. There was plenty of men to oppose him just not the means.
@Gonzoidz Being rude doesn't improve your point! He was largely unopposed initially because of the reasons I say. However by the time the army returned to Scotland they were more organised and there were a great many Scots in Scotland in opposition to him. Not just the regular Scottish regiments but the Independent Highland Companies; the Argyll Militia; numerous clansmen and all the local lowland militias etc.
That still doesn't constitute a majority although if he did have the majority no doubt he would have won his thrown from the usurper. Well done to all Hanoverian's like you for overseeing the banning of the tartan and enslavement and rape of the highlands.
@Gonzoidz Nobody mentioned majority! You said he was largely unopposed in Scotland which is a nonsense. That is what I commented on. Scotland was clearly divided over the issue - as it had been divided since the mid 17thC. The idea that anyone who points out mistakes in your analysis of Scottish history is a Hanovarian is pretty silly.
It's not nonsense at all. If he'd stayed in Scotland he would have been regent no problem, stop making up Hanoverian lies that there was a significant organised opposition that would have risen up without the red coat's backing. And if he'd went onto London as he wanted that regency would have included England Wales and Ireland. The minority in Scotland chaffing from sectarian sermons in the kirks would have accepted the outcome.
@Gonzoidz First of all he was unnopposed, then the oppposition didn't constitute a majority, now there was no significant organised opposition without redcoats backing! stop moving goalposts. We know that Scotland was divided. We know that only a minority of people became involved and actively supported either of the sides. There was no active organised opposition to him because most of Scotland (ie all the Lowlands and many of the clans in the Highlands) was not an armed society by that time.
@Gonzoidz I'm a nationalist and certainly not a monarchist. Having some kind of clue about what 17th and 18thC Scotland were like doesn't reflect on what one's political views are in the here and now.
@gaconnochie You are wasting your time arguing with a Nationalist. They only believe what they are told from they are told from the 18th century onwards. It doesn't suit Salmond et al. to mention the 50 years before that when the Covenanting Wars were very bitter, leading ultimately to Scots Protestants opposing a Stuart tyrant. The SNP right now is a Roman Catholic organization, and they are very keen to bury any of Scotland's past which does not agree with their opinions.
@yehrightify I kind of agree with you about the correlation between Jacobites and modern politics as there is none. They were about who would sit on the British throne. Fletcher of Saltoun the most obvious anti-unionist in the 18thC was vehemently anti-Jacobite too. He beleived in stripping further powers from the monarchy not going back to a medieval divine right situation which the Pretenders offered. Likewise I'm not a monarchist so the idea that many died arguing over which royal arse
@Gonzoidz That's nonsense. Glasgow refused to join him. If he was truly accepted as the Prince then Glasgow would have welcomed him. He hshould have then attacked Glasgow for refusing to open her gates to him. Instead he turned tail and ran into the guns of a bigger enemy. It was James Stuart who put Scots Presbyterians to death for refusing to accept the Church of England. Which is why it was Scots Covenanters who had fought his father and defeated the Jacobites at Strathaven.
divine right to rule etc. The Scots Parliament was at first divided but the attitude of James swung the in favour of William and James was stripped of this throne and declared a traitor.
@gaconnochie Was it not James who tried to bring about religious liberty? I'm not saying the guy was progressive or anything like that, but for a time when religious tolerance was not around, at least he tried. The guy had no love for the covenanters and clearly had a bias and catholic agenda, but I kinda sympathise with the guy. At the time it was the catholics getting the raw deal (especially in Scotland) and that kinda puts him between a rock and a hard place. As a catholic in power...
@gaconnochie He was obviously trying to make things better for catholics and push his agenda. But knowing the protestants were ready to string him up by the balls, he's trying to keep them happy also. At the end of the day, he was not really opposed for being a bad king (which he kinda was) but for being catholic and giving birth to a catholic heir. And giving positions of power to other catholics, which was a big no no in the days of persecuting catholics.
@gaconnochie None of this was about right or wrong or good or bad. It was all just one big cluster fuck of religious bullshit. Catholics fucking over protestants, and protestants fucking over catholics, and alot of people dying in the process. Which is why religion should have no power or say in politics, but everyone has their own opinion I guess.
@ClanScottishMetal Again though my point was that in Scotland it wasn't Catholic versus Protestant. It was largely Episcopalian versus Presbyterian as far as religion goes! The Scots Jacobites even refused to cross into England until Charles stripped any Catholic officers of their rank as they didn't want to be viewed in any way as an invading Catholic force - enabling him to then declare "look are we not a Protestant army?". Most Scottish Jacobites supported him despite his religion - not
@jeaherendeen I think you mean his grand-father - that is James VII of Scotland and II of England. Once he lost his English power base the Scots Parliament met to decide whether they would keep James as monarch or offer it to William and Mary instead. Both James and William wrote letters putting their cases. William's was concillatory - but James (who had many enemies because of his religious persecution of the Scots Presbyterians) wrote what was seemingly an arrogant letter confirming his
At least you Highlanders have your homeland. Bonnie Prince Charlie's defeat meant that my people, the English Catholics, were permanently robed of a homeland. That is until we declare a secular republic in Britain!
every scottish soldier is a hero.... R.I.P brave warriors from fighting eachothers clans to fighting muslim heathens today! fight on scottish soldier i pledge my prayers to you!
@frosty8859 Wow you are powerful stupid. First off it's Scottish, Also He was neither Scottish or French. His grandfather (King James) was King of Scotland and England. His father was I think born in England (but in a Scottish family) and his mother was Polish and he was born in ITALY. So yeah, your dumb ass needs to read a history book sometime. It's like me calling the Queen a Dutch/German/Scottish Bitch. Actually that would be more accurate than your insult, because thats what she is
@ClanScottishMetal - He was a Stewart with 6 centuries of heritage behind him. He was Scots because of the ancestral line stretching centuries back to Walter the High Steward, of Robert the Bruce, Bannockburn , and the wars of independence era and further. . His grandfather was King of Scots ( and. the " community of the realm") not "of Scotland". BTW the term "Scottish" is a recent P.C. term used by the politicians to describe anybody resident in Scotland. BPC's heritage was Scots.
@AlbaSiar Ok, So the guy had Scottish blood. He also had Polish blood and was not born or raised in Scotland or Scottish culture. When he came from France he could barely speak English, nevermind Gaelic (which alot of his supporters spoke) I'm a Stewart and a jacobite, But not through religious or political reasons. I'm atheist so the devine right of kings can suck it, but I don't recognise Williams right to any of the thrones, And I hate the raw deal the Highland clans were given
@ClanScottishMetal Where he was born or language he spoke is irrelevant - being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse. His strong Stewart lineage going back several hundred years to the time of Walter the Steward, Bruce and Bannockburn made him indisputably Scots and a figurehead for the disgruntled highland clansmen (not least the Stewarts of Appin).
@voodoobay405, That is Britain into the twentieth century. Until Roosevelt said no more Commonwealth...no more English rapes of foreign indigenous peoples. It took into the 1980's to get the brits to release their hold in Africa under the ancient UN mandate....Now we just have to get the brits to give up Gibraltar, the last six counties in Ireland, and the Falkland Islands.
@bweber2k Get out of Cuba, Japan etc.....and all the other countries you infect and stop using our language you yank bastard. You know nothing of Irelands troubles or that a 3rd of Religious denominations in Ireland are Protestants and love the British. So stick to your shit country and fucking up the atmosphere.
Perhaps charismatic, Bonny Prince Charlie was ne a leader nor a fighter. Culloden remains a bitter pill for Scotland. The Stone of Destiny was ne his -- never !
succesful in the Lowlands and absolutely failed in England bar the Manchester regiment (ie in the 45 I mean). Yet Charles cajoled the unwilling Scottish commanders and Clan Chiefs to invade England on the assurance that the English would rise in his favour. He may have been brave but he was incredibly foolish and selfish.
only people who should feel guilt over the events have been dead for centuries. That is anyone involved in unwarranted oppression and the leading figures on both sides who were willing to sacrifice and manipulate innocents for their own selfish ends. There were of course Highlanders and Lowlanders on both sides on all the major Jacobite Rebellions! The rebels never got enough people out full stop. They weren't very succesful in recruiting the amount of Highlanders they needed, were even less
BPC was a disaster for the Highland Scots. The lowlanders (with the admirable exception of John Stewart's Edinburgh battalion and the Boyd's of Kilmarnock), supported the Hanoverian butcher. Even the Kirk sent Cumberland a letter of congratulations after the Culloden massacre. . To this day the Lowlander harbours guilt about selling out their countrymen - exemplified by the plethora of romantic ballads written in a language (English) the Highland Clansmen would never have understood being Gael
@AlbaSiar No-one sold out anyone. Scotland was divided over who should sit on the throne. It was as plain as that! And that was case from about the 1640sonwards long before the union. The defeat of the Jacobites was celebrated throughout much of Scotland so of course they'd be happy at the outcome of the battle but that doesn't mean people would necessarily have approved of the oppression in the aftermath. Of course you are right the story has been ridiculously romanticised since. However the
@voodoobaby405 Well, there is no doubt that he was cocky enough. But his real problem was that he was too lucky too early. At both Prestonpans and Falkirk the government armies broke and ran so Charlie got the idea that his lads were invincible. Then at Culloden he encountered Cumberland's first eleven and the result was extremely messy.
Of course, the upside of all of this is that Highlanders who fought against Wolf at Culloden fought FOR him at Quebec. The Highlanders charged and the French ran away. 1759 and all that.
@LittleDragon2000 Verry Verry interesting. I know virtually nothing about this - Quebec. I would like to know more, and if you can recommend a good book on this, let me know. (or a video on YouTube) Wallace
@LittleDragon2000 A good book on the Scots in Canada is "The Non-potable Scotch: A Memoir of the Clansmen in Canada)" by J.K Galbraith. It is the famous economist's memoirs of growing up in Elgin County in southern Ontario and if for nothing else, is well worth reading for the story of when Galbraith was out walking with his girlfriend. Passing a field they encountered one of Galbraith's bulls doing what bulls are supposed to do to cows.
@oarfrost Sounds like a great book. I've just been reading a very readable biography of Canada's last great prime minister - John A. Macdonald. Born in Scotland but raised in Canada. Best of all possible worlds.
@oarfrost Galbraith once said that he saw himself as a kind of prophet. And the role of the prophet was "to comfort the afflicted - and afflict the comfortable."
@LittleDragon2000 "Galbraith once said that he saw himself as a kind of prophet. And the role of the prophet was "to comfort the afflicted - and afflict the comfortable."
@LittleDragon2000 they werent fighting for wolf, they were fighting in the british army. they still would have served in the british army whether or not, charles edward stuart had taken the throne, this had nothing to do with the british empire or scottish independence
An interesting thing I discovered about a month ago. King William I's Illegitimate daughter, Ada married Gospatrick de Greenlaw. (Don't know if his last name was Greenlaw, but if so, and his lineageg goes way way down to me, that would make King William I my G G G G G G G G G ????? father in Law, and K Alexanter my GGGGGGGG????? brother in law. Both of whom are named, and a major factor that really caused the creation of the Magna Carta, and of course our Declaration of Independance. Wallace
I will get that for you later though might be hard to find as it is more than a century old. It has its faults but does have transcripts of various letters etc which make fascinating reading. For instance Charles seems to be almost traumatised after the Battle of Prestonpans as he can't stand the thought that most of the casualties were English. He writes that he's heard Dutch troops have been brought to assist the Hanovarians and wishes all the enemy were Dutch so that he didn't need to shed
@gaconnochie any more blood of his father's subjects. So yes there is some interesting stuff in it. Though for a wider more informative and more up to date account of the entire rising, which is easily readable but still pact with facts and stats etc - I'd plump for a book called "The 45" by Christopher Duffy
@gaconnochie " For instance Charles seems to be almost traumatised after the Battle of Prestonpans as he can't stand the thought that most of the casualties were English"
From what I can gather he had trouble appreciating what a brutal business war is. He refused to allow public celebrations of his victory and was shocked that his Highlanders would not bury the enemy dead. Nice bloke but a crap general.
we have traced the paternal line back to my great-great-great-great-grand parents who are actually buried in Greenlaw kirk yard. Third stone in on the right. They were born just after the 1745 rebellion and she is almost certainly local but we believe he's probably moved down from the Highlands at sometime in the 1760s or 1770s but we've kind of hit a brick wall with the tracing it.
Charles persuaded them that the English would rise in support of him. I'm sure he wasn't intentionally misleading the Scots- he was just deluding himself. I have Elwand's biography of the Prince at home which I could post later. In it a letter from Charles to his father is quoted. He tells his father 'something like' that as soon as he crosses the border the English will rise in support and there will be an uproar which will dwarf everything so far!
@gaconnochie " I have Elwand's biography of the Prince at home"
Do you have the title to hand gaconnochie? I would like to brush up on Prince Charlie and the Jacobite movement and if you could recommend a few books I would be much obliged.
country was actually quite wealthy. Again maybe not in comparison with its neighbour but you just need to see the many 11th - 12th century ruins of huge monastic abbeys that dot southern Scotland etc.
@orckiller91 dont be so fucking stupid. charles edward stuart had no interest in scottish independence. he had an interest in the imperial throne of great britain
no family or any kind of dynasty has any right what-so-ever to rule over any other human being, its all elitest Blue blood BS ,about money & land at the end of the day & are always kept in power by the "mongs" hangin on coat tails for handouts & "honours" what a crock!! republics by the people for the people but even that is the same but without a crowns & urmin.
Wonderfully romantic tale of highland clans rallying to their former kings grandson and their gallant fight against a traditional foe. Niven whose father was a scot and mother french is the perfect young Prince, inspiring hope, loyalty and dreamt triumph.
In reality never had a hope of succeeding, but it was in the scots character to try!.
Charlie and the Jacobites were so close to taking London. why the hell didn't they? the battle of Culloden, the order for attack didn't get through in time. thats what went wrong. Charles thought that he had been betrayed. 50,000 pounds on your head is a fucking shitload, but noone turned him. his escape is so legendary
@ThePoorhillbilly "Charlie and the Jacobites were so close to taking London. why the hell didn't they? "
They couldn't have held it. The Jacobites were in an odd position. They kept winning battles but didn't pick up much support., particularly from the French who were supposed to send an army of regulars to their aid. So they had to leg it back to the Highlands before the government got its act together and sent in a first string team.
@oarfrost no they had an army of 4 thousand men with additions from Manchester. in London there was basically no resistance. people were scared, and the word was going round that the king was going to leave. the french would have invaded and that would have been that. Charles knew the mythical army didn't excist, but the other jacobites thought they had come too far. they were only interested in taking back scotland. they could have won at culloden but supplies didn't come, lack of leadership
@oarfrost they also gave the British army a few weeks to gather themselves and actually go through more specific training in Aberdeen before Culloden. its Madness. they got shot by cannon for a good while before they charge at culloden, and the mcdonalds on the left could have just waited, or ducked in the mud whilst the main group engaged the front line. lack of leaders on the battlefiled meant that men piled into gaps in the english line and just got shot down by the second line. crossfire
@oarfrost the actual orders for attack at culloden didn't actually arrive. they sat there waiting for a fare while getting ripped apart by cannon fire not knowing what to do. they eventually charged by themselves. the messenger was shot down, but its pretty suss if you ask me. once again know known leadership. Charles had his authority challenged too much by the other pests. this is a man who had miltary training since he was born, and had witnessed battles across europe. he was no nancy boy
@ThePoorhillbilly "this is a man who had miltary training since he was born, and had witnessed battles across europe"
Actually, Charles military training was limited to ten days at the siege of Gaeta. He was there as an observer, which was understandable as he was only 13 years old
No he didn't. At 13 years old he spent 10 days watching a siege. After that he didn't do anything until he arrived in the highlands and managed to lose an army.
@oarfrost the government got its act together? the Jacobites had had completely ravaged through their army in Scotland at Prestonpans. there wasn't anything left but a couple of units in the north. People were genuinely shitting themselves in England. the Jacobites had everything going for them, but they chose not to take London. WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T YOU!
Except popular support. The Jacobites beat practically every army they encountered, but they didn't pick up much in the way of reinforcements or munitions. By the time they were 100 miles from London Charles' army was only about 5,000 strong. London was defended by about 7,000 regulars plus the militia. The Jacobites couldn't have taken the city and if they had they couldn't have held it against the armies that the government ..
@oarfrost They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester. No armies were in London they would have not stood a chance. Cumberland's, Wade's were north of them not as strong, mystery army in between Derby and London did not excist!
@ThePoorhillbilly "They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester"
Exactly. Not a lot for an army of 5,000 - 6,000 men. And instead of the tens of thousands of English Jacobites that Charles had promised his followers would rise up and join them, they got 300 Mancurians oddballs and no Frenchmen.
@ThePoorhillbilly "They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester. "
Exactly. The Jacobite army had about half as many muskets as they required for their army of 5,000 to 6,000 and nothing like the tens of thousands of English supporters that had been expected. And when they reached Derby, they found that Cumberland's army was only 26 miles away.
@oarfrost ahah thats because noone in England actually fights battles.! they get scots to do the fighting for them. they waltzed on in into Manchester and Derby to cheering crowds, yet only 300 additions. The Jacobite Army was pretty good they had artillery, Flintlocks ( broadswords, were only for gentlemen and clan cheifs). Cumberlands army wasn't a threat they had barely as many men (Hannoverian, Austrians) as they would gain for Culloden. It was the Mystery army which was the deciding factor
@oarfrost I think The Jacobites could have defeated Cumberlands army in England, and then progressed onto London with very few casualties, thats what Charles wanted to do. It was the extra 4 scottish battalions and trainng at Aberdeen that made the difference at Culloden for the government forces. The Jacobites defeat is one of the most dodgy shams in Scottish History, basically all down to the fault of the arrogant clan cheifs who drafted men onto the battlefield against their will
@oarfrost Cumberlands army was reenforced by 5,000 Hessian troops when it reached Scotland! so of the 8,000 government troops at Culloden, more than half were Germanic, 2,000 Scots Irish troops and they were all payed.
@ThePoorhillbilly "Cumberlands army was reenforced by 5,000 Hessian troops when it reached Scotland! so of the 8,000 government troops at Culloden, more than half were Germanic"
Not quite. The Hessians were left behind to stop the Jacobite army marching south again. The bulk of the government troops at Culloden were Scots. The English folowed their usual practice of hiring Campbells to kill any other Scots they disliked.
@oarfrost the Campbells were horrible they fought other clans and raped and killed their women and children. theyr;e were still Hannoverian troops and Austrians on the Battlefield. what i'm trying to say but got my facts wrong was mercenaries were used to fight this war. many government troops thought the aftermath was too far an act. its surprising that there was not alot of support from Catholics in England. The Jacobites were mostly volunteers.
@ThePoorhillbilly "its surprising that there was not alot of support from Catholics in England."
Religion wasn't really the issue. As far as the English (and a lot of Scots) were concerned, they would rather have dour old George II, who was halfway to being a constitutional monarch, than Bonnie Prince Charlie's benevolent despotism.The aftermath of Culloden was horrific but it had been on the cards for generations. Once the clans were rendered powerless Sir Walter Scott and co started to spin
@oarfrost romantic legends of gallant highland warriors, but at the time the lowlanders thought of them as cattle thieves at best and murderous savages at worst. The Scots didn't think much of the English, but most of them thought a lot less of the highland warlords and their private armies and were only too happy to see them crushed.
@oarfrost Alexander II's campaign to London was helped by thousands of english a few hundred years before. I'd say relgion wasn't the only issue, but it was an issue. You can't simply say that the aftermath of Culloden wasn't a religious purge, what was it then? a cultural war? The Highlanders were proud people with their own rules and heirachy, not rebels and theives. The Clearences changed the Highlands for the worse. alot of the union armies were made up of convicts and exiles.
@ThePoorhillbilly" Alexander II's campaign to London was helped by thousands of english a few hundred years before"
That is the point. The Jacobites still thought it was 1215 where absolute monarchs ruled with the aid of feudal barons. Unfortunately for them, the world had moved on.
@oarfrost Charles Edward Stewart was the rightfull king of Britian. Their were people opposed and people with him, but he suffered at the hands of his friends, and against an unstoppable army made up of theives rapists murderers that would terrorise America, Australia, The Pacific, The Zulus later on. Britian at that time wanted to expand their control over whoever they wanted, and individual powers like Catholicism were seen as a threat. They never represented the people and were nasty wretches
@ThePoorhillbilly "Charles Edward Stewart was the rightfull king of Britian"
No he wasn't. Parliament had decided that his grandfather James II & VII had abdicated and gave the job to William & Mary. It later passed the Act of Settlement that said that only members of the Church of England could become Kings or Queens of England. Charles was a left footer so that was him out of the running.
@oarfrost The man was king, he got ousted by another man. he's still king. no matter which is law passed you can't take that away. He had quite a fair bit of support. yes that was the same parliament who thought it was perfectly fine to let 1 million irish die of starvation. thats where England and Scotland differ, the kings of Scotland actually represented their people and brought peace, where the kings of england were just sick bastard sons put in place and a spot to fill
@oarfrost The man was king, he got ousted by another man. he's still king. no matter which is law passed you can't take that away. He had quite a fair bit of support. yes that was the same parliament who thought it was perfectly fine to let 1 million irish die of starvation. thats where England and Scotland differ, the kings of Scotland actually represented their people and brought peace, where the kings of england were just sick bastard sons put in place and a spot to fill
@oarfrost that was the same parliament that let 1 million irish die of starvation. kings and queens of England are just sick bastard children who get put in a place to fill a spot, whilst Scottish monarchs are for their people, peacefull and rightfull kings. he was the king no law can take that away. they can kill and rape as many people as they want but they can't change the nature of a man and his tarnish his pride.
@ThePoorhillbilly "kings and queens of England are just sick bastard children who get put in a place to fill a spot, whilst Scottish monarchs are for their people, peacefull and rightfull kings"
Well there you are. Why study history when you can watch Braveheart? That said, that rightful King or Queen of England is whoever Parliament says it is, and Parliament said it wasn't going to be Bonnie Prince Charlie.
@oarfrost its a biological trait, English people are like the sickly child at school who never remembers to wash his face.. mm typical England no such thing as democracy, just leave it up to the decisions of a bunch of murdurering swine in a big building.
@oarfrost This is the comment I wanted to reply to. All I wanted to say about it was. Fair enough England gave the throne to William And I have no problem with that. my problem is with giving him the Scottish throne. He had no right to it at all, it was given to him by the convention of estates of Scotland. Which did not represent alot of the Scottish People. This was not a democratic parliament but rather men with land and title acting in their own best interest.
@1brutaldeath I know little about English history and less about that of Scotland. That said my feeling is that William got the English throne because he was prepared to govern with the consent of Parliament and James (II and VII) wasn't. I dare say that the convention of estates of Scotland felt the same way. Neither the English Parliament or the Convention were particularly democratic bodies and, as you rightly say, both were following their own agendas. But they both had the great virtue of
@oarfrost wanting a limited rather than an absolute monarchy, which meant that 60 years later a dour, smi constitutional lump like George II was seen as a better prospect than a lively young believer in benevolent despotism such as Charles Stuart.
@oarfrost Quite so William of Orange and later the Hanovarians may not have liked the limited aspect of it but they accepted it. The Scots left the door open for the Pretenders as they were sick of how the existing semi union worked against them as the monarchs always favoured the interests of their richer kingdom. Hence in the 1704 Act of Security they stated they may take a different monarch from England on Anne's death - with the proviso that they must be descended from the Scottish line
@oarfrost and be of the true Protestant religion by which they meant Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Sophie of Hanover could have fitted that bill but had the Old Pretender accepted the provisos then he would jump the queue.
@gaconnochie "and be of the true Protestant religion by which they meant Presbyterian Church of Scotland."
That might have fitted the bill in Scotland, although it would have only been a start. However, in England the monarch has to be a member of the Church of England, an affable institution that none the less manages to offend as many protestants as catholics.
@oarfrost The said Act only related to Scotland as it predates the union. The later Union Settlement itself was drafted partly in reaction to the Act of Security and is a compromise position where the monarch is Head of The Church of England but in Scotland is a member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch has to take both oaths. As monarch she retains the right to attend the General Synod but is not allowed to take part in the debates - though she may address it if invited to.
@gaconnochie "The said Act only related to Scotland as it predates the union. The later Union Settlement itself was drafted partly in reaction to the Act of Security and is a compromise position where the monarch is Head of The Church of England but in Scotland is a member of the Church of Scotland."
That I didn't know. Thank you for the information.
That said, neither Scotland nor England wanted Charles. It wasn't that he was a Stuart or a Catholic or anything else. It was simply that
@oarfrost he wanted to be king and to have the power that went with it. What the British wanted was someone like George II who was halfway to being a constitutional monarch and whose descendants would open parliament once a year and spend the rest of their time opening hospitals and waving to the tourists.
@LittleDragon2000 Oarfrost is from the east side of the pond so you can be assured that when he says British he means British - so he's meaning for that time period the Scots, English and Welsh. And taking the British as one he is right. Scotland was still divided over the issue but Jacobitism by the 45 was a dead duck in England. The Scottish Jacobite generals to a man didn't want to invade England. They wanted Charles to consolidate in Edinburgh and take the crown of Scotland for his father.
@gaconnochie Thanks for the clarification. But it's not only the Americans that mix things up. Australians have a bad habit of doing that, too - especially if they star in American movies.
@oarfrost You are absolutely right. Jacobitism had been a pan-British phenomena but by the 45 it was a spent force in England. It still had some following in Scotland but Scotland itself was divided over the issue. He didn't gain enough support from the Highlands and Episcopalian north-east Lowlands; he failed miserable to recruit in the rest of the Lowlands and northern England. The Scottish Jacobites wanted him to set up govt in Scotland only but they reluctantly agreed to invade England
Independence for Scotland!!
seastorm1979 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oarfrost depends on when Derby became part of Scotland, ya muppet. Clearly the war council were right, since they knew what they were talking about while he was a diddy at the game, but mostly since an Army was waiting in London to do him right.
yehrightify 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 2 weeks ago
enter England in the first place. Charles eventually persuaded them to by amongst other things convincing them that the English, especially the English in the north, would flock to his banner. They'd got as far as Derby and had only manged to recruit about 300 or 400 or so. So I suppose they realised there was not going to be a rising in their favour!
gaconnochie 2 weeks ago
@gaconnochie Thanks for this info. I am fascinated by the English, Irish and Scottish history.
elizabethosler 1 week ago
@oarfrost Och it is one of these we'll never know "what if" situations. Another one is what if they hadn't invaded England? What if he'd been happy to consolidate in Scotland. Supposedly Edinburgh was back in Hanovarian hands by the time the Jacobite Army hit Dalkeith. They only controlled when the army was in situ. That may have changed had they consolidated. As for the retreat I suppose one has to take the councils overall view into account. The Scottish commanders and chiefs had no wish to
gaconnochie 2 weeks ago
Google this "Cameron's war with SNP over migrants: Westminster rejects Salmond's bid to flood recession-hit Scotland with foreign workers" - Mail online...
yehrightify 3 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaSiar You know it, I know it, so why they hell can't more Scots see it? The SNP members themselves are too busy attacking the English in their bitter rants to see it for themselves. The SNP rank & file are living in a mythical past, unable to see the truth happening right now. Salmond knows the truth, he's playing them all by playing the ethno-racist anti-English card, but doesn't have the guts to say so outright. Salmond panders to the rich, and pulls the strings of the poor.
yehrightify 3 weeks ago 2
Comment removed
yehrightify 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 3 weeks ago
Google this "Republican-rose-and-anti-catholic" and judge for yourself the bitter sectarian one-sided rants from the Papist SNP...
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@yehrightify He's a joker, he misleads voters by telling them the monarchy will remain, and then with the other hand plots their demise by stating they will be voted out. Meanwhile like the utter crawly-bum traitor Salmond goes to Royal Weddings and elsewhere shares posh lunches with Prince Charles. Why don't we just vote him out instead. Scotland is not a Republican country. Salmond's in it for the cash, always has been.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
The SNP and their followers like to gloss over facts like it was Scottish Covenanters who struck the first blow to the Jacobites at Strathaven. Likewise it was the KOSB who defended Edinburgh against the Jacobites, and likewise the City of Glasgow refused to surrender the city to him and he 'shit' it in that case. Scotland was deeply divided after just emerging from a long war begun by a Stuart tyrant who enslaved, tortured and murdered Presbyterians forcing them to accept the Episcopal Church.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 2
@yehrightify Since the vast majority of Scots are Presbyterian, many of them descending from those Covenanters and martyrs, it is extremely unlikely that they will ever embrace the history according to the now Papist SNP. Although a Protestant, I don't care too much for the Orange, but I know they won't lie down without a fight. There's at least as many of them as there are Tims, and then there's the rest of us who hate the SNP anyway AND WILL VOTE NO! The SNP have no chance.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
@yehrightify "it is extremely unlikely that they will ever embrace the history according to the now Papist SNP"
Alex Salmond digs with the other foot? He has kept that well hidden.
oarfrost 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
decades members of Seed Of The Gael (a tiny insignificant vehemently anti-English fascist organisation) have been ostracised by the SNP. Salmond has said that the role of the monarchy is for future Scots to decide. They are (ie the monarchy and independence) in essence two seperate subjects so I suspect he is wanting to keep any referendum as simple as possible. I know that grates with many republican Nats but it is the party's position.
gaconnochie 4 weeks ago
@gaconnochie The SNP is a fascist organisation. All nationalists parties are fascist. The SNP leader during WW11 was a traitor eager to sell Scotland out to the Nazi's. Not too much has changed in the 80's Winne Ewing sat on a group in the EU chiefly composed of EXTREME right-wing fascist parties from across Europe. No matter Scotland for the Scots means nothing now, it belongs to foreigners, as does much of the wealth in the nation. Scotland is finished.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
@gaconnochie BTW, don't answer me any more. I really don't care. I am one of the many who would willingly take up arms against Nationalism. As a political movement it sucks balls and is the enemy of free-thinking people wherever it raises its Nat-zi head.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
@yehrightify "don't answer me any more" If you didn't want to debate then why put points to me? Taking up arms is nonsense. It is a democratic choice for the people and whatever they decide will be accepted by the people as a whole. The idea that the SNP are papist is just silly. In fact if anything what has held them back is that until recently they've struggled to capture Labour's many Catholic voters in the west of Scotland.
gaconnochie 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gaconnochie I didn't come here to debate with you. I couldn't care less about your opinions. There is no democratic choice when the majority of Scots reject the SNP, but they become the government anyway. I just read the Sectarian Republican comments from SNP members who post on the Daily Record and The Scotsman and it's plainly obvious what the SNP is about. They are Papist and Republican. Roseanna Cunningham is PRO-IRA! Yer a daft auld cunt.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@gaconnochie Don't watch a clip about The Jacobites and dismiss 'taking up arms', we've done it before all through history. Northern Ireland would be like a holiday camp compared to Scotland, if the SNP suddenly got their way and attempted to force their minority views on the rest of us. Salmond knows this and would shit a brick. He's riding on a tigers back, because he doesn't actually believe the divisive shit he's been preaching, which affects the minds and actions of the trash.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 5
@gaconnochie - Siol nan Gaidheal - Are a Scottish cultural organisation which was purged from the SNP by Salmond in the 90's. They are a fraternal organisation interested in keeping Scotland Scottish and preserving the dying language and culture. Precisely what any nationalist party worth it's name should be doing.
AlbaSiar 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlbaSiar I meant to say I USED to be an SNP member and met and knew members of SnG over the years, both in the SNP and in other places. Was well known to yer man in Livie back in the day... If nothing else I'm glad to hear you guys haven't sold out to the garbage Salmond is pushing us towards. To defeat him and get a balanced debate going it might even take some unholy political alliances, but I think it really has to happen. I don't believe he is acting in Scotland's interests.
yehrightify 3 weeks ago
@AlbaSiar They were purged long before that (ie 1979-1980) and not by Alex Salmond as he himself was suspended from the party at that time for being in the left wing 79 Group. He was let back in but the fascists weren't. Sorry but generally leopards don't change their spots so quickly. Like the BNP your 'cultural' organisation have toned down their website in recent years but they are still the same fascists! Scotland is much too sensible to let them become relevant.
gaconnochie 2 weeks ago
@gaconnochie - With respect, I'm sick of your silly remarks on this board accusing people of being members of organisations without any proof or justification. Your leader was kicked of that party for being a far-left extremist. The same extremist is now running that repugnant party now claiming at best 23% of the Scottish voters, and many of them are foreigners. My own view is they are NOT a nationalist party at all - they are in fact a fake anti-Scottish party and should be exposed as such.
AlbaSiar 2 weeks ago
@AlbaSiar "With respect, I'm sick of your silly remarks on this board accusing people of being members of organisations without any proof or justification." With respect I never accused anyone of being members of the said organisation. I simply pointed out that the said organisation existed. As to the level of support the SNP at the last Holyrood election attracted 45.4% of the votes cast. Michael Moore's party (secretary of state) attracted only 7.9% of the said vote.
gaconnochie 2 weeks ago
@AlbaSiar TOTALLY! It really is shocking how Salmond is getting in on the votes of immigrants. Gordon Wilson was right to have Salmond and his 79 group booted from the SNP, the mistake was letting the clown back in again. The banned 79 group are now half of his ministers! Salmond is betraying Scotland. The SNP have betrayed us all and sold us all out for immigrant votes.
yehrightify 2 weeks ago
As to the fascism thing. I know there are different views on whether we should have the union or not and that is fair dos but again we should keep the debate sensible. The Nats position is that on independence anyone legally living in Scotland would be offered citizenship regardless of place of birth, nationality, colour, creed or religion. They are most definitely not a fascist organisation. That is not to say there are not fascist or bigoted Scots Nationalists of course there are. But for
gaconnochie 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gaconnochie Does that include the English? If 2 million English wanted to settle in Scotland would that be okay with the SNP? I bet it wouldn't. But somehow we are to believe that an army of foreign workers brought in by the SNP who now have all the jobs and homes and speak foreign languages is somehow acceptable and okay. The SNP will lose in the long-run. Scotland no longer belongs to the Scots. It belongs to Poles, Paki's, ILLEGALS, and anyone who wants to build a golf course. Well done!
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@yehrightify The SNP are a racist organisation too cowardly to say what they really think about the English. The SNP push for a Scotland for Poles and Pakis. The Poles now work cheaply for what is less than legal in Hotels, Shops and Building sites. Meanwhile Asians for Independence push a Pro-Islam agenda. The SNP hop from leg to leg to please Roman Catholic Republicans and Islamic Fundamentalists. But the English (our countrymen) are still not welcome in the SNP view of Scotland.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago 4
should sit on the throne seems absurd. The Queen isn't descended from William and Mary. They have no descendents as they had no children. Neither did the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne. The Queen's descent was from the Hanovarian line. The throne was offered to Sophia of Hanover and her descendents. Sophia was the daughter of Princess Elizabeth of Scotland who was the daughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England. So yes the Queen's ancestors were related to all the relevant parties.
gaconnochie 4 weeks ago
@gaconnochie Amazing what a dickhead like you can find on wikipedia. I really couldn't give a shit to listen to your SNP bullshit. Fuck the SNP. You fawn on the Stuarts and yet claim you are all Republicans. What a load of shit. Most of you even fawned on that shameful fake who fled back to Belgium a few years ago after he was exposed as a complete liar. Desperate people do deseperate things.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
Shite
TalkPish 1 month ago
i love Diana gaboldons. outlander series. its where i learned about collodun, soo sad, sorry about my spelling
metallica12606 1 month ago
@metallica12606 Have you ever actually read a history book? Hearing about something in a work of fiction is why we have the wankers like the SNP in power right now.
yehrightify 4 weeks ago
@Bagpipermuntagner its a film called Bonnie prince charlie starring David Niven & Margeret Leighton i was able to get it on ebay its a good film
Duncansbroadsword 2 months ago
what is the title of film?? thank you :)
Bagpipermuntagner 3 months ago
The Jacobites were true patriots unlike the current bunch of faux "nationalists"intent on destroying our country, people and heritage.
AlbaSiar 3 months ago
@AlbaSiar With you on that! Scottish Nationalism is a load of shit. Look around you, talk to people who are not of your mind. Eventually the SNP will come to realise that the majority of Scots do not like them. It's a personal thing which is bigger than Independence. Salmond is an utter wanker who fawns to the rich and the Royal family. All Scots Nats are wankers. If independence comes it won't be the wee Nats who make it happen.
yehrightify 1 month ago
@yehrightify - The biggest problem facing Scotland is demographics.Our very low birth rates, high emigration and immigration rates (Scots out , foreigners in) means we are being quickly replaced. This is why Salmond likes to to be seen canvassing in certain area's of Glasgow during election time. He knows where the future votes are coming from - thanks to his policies and it isn't from the traditional votes are coming from.
AlbaSiar 3 weeks ago
@AlbaSiar Many more Scots will leave, I don't blame them. When you can't get a job because you don't speak a foreign language like Polish in your own country, then it's time to gtf out of the place. Funny how the SNP preach about a Scotland for the Scots, but hand it away to FOREIGNERS who will work for less, or will buy up the land. The most annoying line to come from the SNP, is their idea that if you don't agree with them then you must be a Traitor and can't possibly be a Scot.
yehrightify 3 weeks ago
as from the same bloodline..i salute the jacobites..and those who oposed them..none ist such evil beast as war..may it never set foot on that island again..
baldwinthefox 4 months ago
@baldwinthefox And what about the innocent Scots that the Stuart's put to death in the name of the Church of England? learn some history, and not just the fake pish the SNP like to put about. The Church of Scotland is there because those people fought back against the Stuarts, and they won.
yehrightify 1 month ago
I can honestly say that my ancestors where there with him. Just how many Scots Nats can say that? Seriously how many? I suspect probably none, since they were invariably peasants at that point. Yet, I oppose the SNP in all stands for. That party is a joke, misled by a fat egotistical idiot, and the inepts who sit with him. Follow them, and you will be poor, bankrupt and friendless. Nationalism was thrown off by the sane in the 20th century. It's all fascism. Believe it.
yehrightify 1 month ago
fending off anyone else. It is possible though it is not something we could ever know - others say it needed to be all or nothing. Like I said though it wasn't on his agenda he wanted his father to have his grand-father's English throne back again.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
crown in London. He was certainly in a position to consolidate in Scotland. It would basically have turned the clock back to the Restoration period where the Episcopalian regime dominated over the more numerous Presbyterians. Difference is Charles II and James VII had their power base in London which the Pretender would not have. He would need to be more conciliatory towards Presbyterians than they had been to unite the country. And without a united country they would have had no chance in
gaconnochie 5 months ago
All of the Scottish regiments were on the continent as there was a major European war going on. There was no armed force present to oppose him apart from Cope's regiment. However as I said by the time the Jacobite army returned from England there were many on arms against them in Scotland - not just regular regiments. That is a fact and saying it does not make one a Hanovarian. As to the what-if he'd stayed in Scotland? First of all it wasn't on his agenda so it is a big if. The target was the
gaconnochie 5 months ago
He was largely unopposed in Scotland because they knew the Stuart line was the true line, a fact distilled by much later Irish migration and idiotic unionist brain washing. It wasn't a Catholic agenda, he was offering religious freedom which most of Scotland definitely didn't have after the land grab that was called the Reformation.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago 6
@Gonzoidz He wasn't largely unopposed. There were many Scots in arms against him. When he arrived at first the armed resistance was ineffectual because it was the middle of a major European war with France (who of course encouraged his enterprise as a diversion) and virtually all of the regular Scottish troops were on the continent fighting the French. At the same time the clans who favoured the Hanovarians were for the most disarmed. There was plenty of men to oppose him just not the means.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
He was largely unopposed in Scotland you idiot.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz Being rude doesn't improve your point! He was largely unopposed initially because of the reasons I say. However by the time the army returned to Scotland they were more organised and there were a great many Scots in Scotland in opposition to him. Not just the regular Scottish regiments but the Independent Highland Companies; the Argyll Militia; numerous clansmen and all the local lowland militias etc.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
That still doesn't constitute a majority although if he did have the majority no doubt he would have won his thrown from the usurper. Well done to all Hanoverian's like you for overseeing the banning of the tartan and enslavement and rape of the highlands.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz Nobody mentioned majority! You said he was largely unopposed in Scotland which is a nonsense. That is what I commented on. Scotland was clearly divided over the issue - as it had been divided since the mid 17thC. The idea that anyone who points out mistakes in your analysis of Scottish history is a Hanovarian is pretty silly.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
I stick by the fact he was largely unopposed and minus the Hanoverian English army he could have stayed in Edinburgh for good as King of Scotland.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
It's not nonsense at all. If he'd stayed in Scotland he would have been regent no problem, stop making up Hanoverian lies that there was a significant organised opposition that would have risen up without the red coat's backing. And if he'd went onto London as he wanted that regency would have included England Wales and Ireland. The minority in Scotland chaffing from sectarian sermons in the kirks would have accepted the outcome.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz First of all he was unnopposed, then the oppposition didn't constitute a majority, now there was no significant organised opposition without redcoats backing! stop moving goalposts. We know that Scotland was divided. We know that only a minority of people became involved and actively supported either of the sides. There was no active organised opposition to him because most of Scotland (ie all the Lowlands and many of the clans in the Highlands) was not an armed society by that time.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie
Best go to bed under your Union Jack duvet set, crank.
Gonzoidz 5 months ago
@Gonzoidz I'm a nationalist and certainly not a monarchist. Having some kind of clue about what 17th and 18thC Scotland were like doesn't reflect on what one's political views are in the here and now.
gaconnochie 5 months ago
@gaconnochie You are wasting your time arguing with a Nationalist. They only believe what they are told from they are told from the 18th century onwards. It doesn't suit Salmond et al. to mention the 50 years before that when the Covenanting Wars were very bitter, leading ultimately to Scots Protestants opposing a Stuart tyrant. The SNP right now is a Roman Catholic organization, and they are very keen to bury any of Scotland's past which does not agree with their opinions.
yehrightify 1 month ago
Comment removed
yehrightify 1 month ago
@yehrightify I kind of agree with you about the correlation between Jacobites and modern politics as there is none. They were about who would sit on the British throne. Fletcher of Saltoun the most obvious anti-unionist in the 18thC was vehemently anti-Jacobite too. He beleived in stripping further powers from the monarchy not going back to a medieval divine right situation which the Pretenders offered. Likewise I'm not a monarchist so the idea that many died arguing over which royal arse
gaconnochie 4 weeks ago
@Gonzoidz That's nonsense. Glasgow refused to join him. If he was truly accepted as the Prince then Glasgow would have welcomed him. He hshould have then attacked Glasgow for refusing to open her gates to him. Instead he turned tail and ran into the guns of a bigger enemy. It was James Stuart who put Scots Presbyterians to death for refusing to accept the Church of England. Which is why it was Scots Covenanters who had fought his father and defeated the Jacobites at Strathaven.
yehrightify 1 month ago
because of it. Saying that I agree entirely with your sentiments about the absurdity of the religious dimension of conflicts.
gaconnochie 6 months ago
divine right to rule etc. The Scots Parliament was at first divided but the attitude of James swung the in favour of William and James was stripped of this throne and declared a traitor.
gaconnochie 6 months ago
@gaconnochie Was it not James who tried to bring about religious liberty? I'm not saying the guy was progressive or anything like that, but for a time when religious tolerance was not around, at least he tried. The guy had no love for the covenanters and clearly had a bias and catholic agenda, but I kinda sympathise with the guy. At the time it was the catholics getting the raw deal (especially in Scotland) and that kinda puts him between a rock and a hard place. As a catholic in power...
ClanScottishMetal 6 months ago
@gaconnochie He was obviously trying to make things better for catholics and push his agenda. But knowing the protestants were ready to string him up by the balls, he's trying to keep them happy also. At the end of the day, he was not really opposed for being a bad king (which he kinda was) but for being catholic and giving birth to a catholic heir. And giving positions of power to other catholics, which was a big no no in the days of persecuting catholics.
ClanScottishMetal 6 months ago
@gaconnochie None of this was about right or wrong or good or bad. It was all just one big cluster fuck of religious bullshit. Catholics fucking over protestants, and protestants fucking over catholics, and alot of people dying in the process. Which is why religion should have no power or say in politics, but everyone has their own opinion I guess.
ClanScottishMetal 6 months ago
@ClanScottishMetal Again though my point was that in Scotland it wasn't Catholic versus Protestant. It was largely Episcopalian versus Presbyterian as far as religion goes! The Scots Jacobites even refused to cross into England until Charles stripped any Catholic officers of their rank as they didn't want to be viewed in any way as an invading Catholic force - enabling him to then declare "look are we not a Protestant army?". Most Scottish Jacobites supported him despite his religion - not
gaconnochie 6 months ago
Well, his dad could've continued being King if he hadn't refused to acquiesce to Parliament's demands...perhaps you can blame Culloden on HIM
jeaherendeen 6 months ago
@jeaherendeen I think you mean his grand-father - that is James VII of Scotland and II of England. Once he lost his English power base the Scots Parliament met to decide whether they would keep James as monarch or offer it to William and Mary instead. Both James and William wrote letters putting their cases. William's was concillatory - but James (who had many enemies because of his religious persecution of the Scots Presbyterians) wrote what was seemingly an arrogant letter confirming his
gaconnochie 6 months ago
At least you Highlanders have your homeland. Bonnie Prince Charlie's defeat meant that my people, the English Catholics, were permanently robed of a homeland. That is until we declare a secular republic in Britain!
MegaStalin1 6 months ago
every scottish soldier is a hero.... R.I.P brave warriors from fighting eachothers clans to fighting muslim heathens today! fight on scottish soldier i pledge my prayers to you!
DrinkToIreland 6 months ago
honour those who diserve some...i top my hat to al those fallen i the 45..and to the true king to be..
baldwinthefox 6 months ago
fukin scotish french wanker
frosty8859 6 months ago
@frosty8859 Wow you are powerful stupid. First off it's Scottish, Also He was neither Scottish or French. His grandfather (King James) was King of Scotland and England. His father was I think born in England (but in a Scottish family) and his mother was Polish and he was born in ITALY. So yeah, your dumb ass needs to read a history book sometime. It's like me calling the Queen a Dutch/German/Scottish Bitch. Actually that would be more accurate than your insult, because thats what she is
ClanScottishMetal 6 months ago
@ClanScottishMetal - He was a Stewart with 6 centuries of heritage behind him. He was Scots because of the ancestral line stretching centuries back to Walter the High Steward, of Robert the Bruce, Bannockburn , and the wars of independence era and further. . His grandfather was King of Scots ( and. the " community of the realm") not "of Scotland". BTW the term "Scottish" is a recent P.C. term used by the politicians to describe anybody resident in Scotland. BPC's heritage was Scots.
AlbaSiar 6 months ago
@AlbaSiar Ok, So the guy had Scottish blood. He also had Polish blood and was not born or raised in Scotland or Scottish culture. When he came from France he could barely speak English, nevermind Gaelic (which alot of his supporters spoke) I'm a Stewart and a jacobite, But not through religious or political reasons. I'm atheist so the devine right of kings can suck it, but I don't recognise Williams right to any of the thrones, And I hate the raw deal the Highland clans were given
ClanScottishMetal 6 months ago
@ClanScottishMetal Where he was born or language he spoke is irrelevant - being born in a stable doesn't make one a horse. His strong Stewart lineage going back several hundred years to the time of Walter the Steward, Bruce and Bannockburn made him indisputably Scots and a figurehead for the disgruntled highland clansmen (not least the Stewarts of Appin).
AlbaSiar 1 month ago
@voodoobay405, That is Britain into the twentieth century. Until Roosevelt said no more Commonwealth...no more English rapes of foreign indigenous peoples. It took into the 1980's to get the brits to release their hold in Africa under the ancient UN mandate....Now we just have to get the brits to give up Gibraltar, the last six counties in Ireland, and the Falkland Islands.
bweber2k 6 months ago
@bweber2k Get out of Cuba, Japan etc.....and all the other countries you infect and stop using our language you yank bastard. You know nothing of Irelands troubles or that a 3rd of Religious denominations in Ireland are Protestants and love the British. So stick to your shit country and fucking up the atmosphere.
fffeeenixxx 6 months ago
Perhaps charismatic, Bonny Prince Charlie was ne a leader nor a fighter. Culloden remains a bitter pill for Scotland. The Stone of Destiny was ne his -- never !
ernstbecker1 7 months ago
I am an eternal Jacobite.
It is forged into my blood in a way that words cannot explain nor others understand.
SouthSaturnDelta1 7 months ago
succesful in the Lowlands and absolutely failed in England bar the Manchester regiment (ie in the 45 I mean). Yet Charles cajoled the unwilling Scottish commanders and Clan Chiefs to invade England on the assurance that the English would rise in his favour. He may have been brave but he was incredibly foolish and selfish.
gaconnochie 7 months ago
only people who should feel guilt over the events have been dead for centuries. That is anyone involved in unwarranted oppression and the leading figures on both sides who were willing to sacrifice and manipulate innocents for their own selfish ends. There were of course Highlanders and Lowlanders on both sides on all the major Jacobite Rebellions! The rebels never got enough people out full stop. They weren't very succesful in recruiting the amount of Highlanders they needed, were even less
gaconnochie 7 months ago
BPC was a disaster for the Highland Scots. The lowlanders (with the admirable exception of John Stewart's Edinburgh battalion and the Boyd's of Kilmarnock), supported the Hanoverian butcher. Even the Kirk sent Cumberland a letter of congratulations after the Culloden massacre. . To this day the Lowlander harbours guilt about selling out their countrymen - exemplified by the plethora of romantic ballads written in a language (English) the Highland Clansmen would never have understood being Gael
AlbaSiar 7 months ago
@AlbaSiar No-one sold out anyone. Scotland was divided over who should sit on the throne. It was as plain as that! And that was case from about the 1640sonwards long before the union. The defeat of the Jacobites was celebrated throughout much of Scotland so of course they'd be happy at the outcome of the battle but that doesn't mean people would necessarily have approved of the oppression in the aftermath. Of course you are right the story has been ridiculously romanticised since. However the
gaconnochie 7 months ago
I wish this movie was uploaded on Youtube...I've been wishing to see it for such a long time now...:(
iamdiva 7 months ago
SirLiam rides again and is going to tilt a kilt or two for thy serpant is thru
jadestoyboy 7 months ago
What movie is featured in this music video?
cinaedmacalpin3 7 months ago
@voodoobaby405 Well, there is no doubt that he was cocky enough. But his real problem was that he was too lucky too early. At both Prestonpans and Falkirk the government armies broke and ran so Charlie got the idea that his lads were invincible. Then at Culloden he encountered Cumberland's first eleven and the result was extremely messy.
oarfrost 8 months ago
Of course, the upside of all of this is that Highlanders who fought against Wolf at Culloden fought FOR him at Quebec. The Highlanders charged and the French ran away. 1759 and all that.
LittleDragon2000 9 months ago
@LittleDragon2000 Verry Verry interesting. I know virtually nothing about this - Quebec. I would like to know more, and if you can recommend a good book on this, let me know. (or a video on YouTube) Wallace
wallyozzy 9 months ago
@wallyozzy
There are a number of books that explore the idea that it was the Scots more than anyone who created Canada.
The best is probably "Great Scots! How the Scots Created Canada."
It has a good section on the Battle of Quebec/Battle of Canada/ Plains of Abraham
The best book on the battle is "1759: The Battle for Canada" by Laurier LaPierre
But there is also this "1759: the battle that won Canada"
And the Canadian Encyclopedia online has lots
Hope this helps
LittleDragon2000 9 months ago
@LittleDragon2000 A good book on the Scots in Canada is "The Non-potable Scotch: A Memoir of the Clansmen in Canada)" by J.K Galbraith. It is the famous economist's memoirs of growing up in Elgin County in southern Ontario and if for nothing else, is well worth reading for the story of when Galbraith was out walking with his girlfriend. Passing a field they encountered one of Galbraith's bulls doing what bulls are supposed to do to cows.
oarfrost 8 months ago
@oarfrost Siezing the moment the young man cried, "I think it would be fun to do that!"
The lass looked a bit puzzled but finally said, "well, it is your cow."
oarfrost 8 months ago
@oarfrost Sounds like a great book. I've just been reading a very readable biography of Canada's last great prime minister - John A. Macdonald. Born in Scotland but raised in Canada. Best of all possible worlds.
LittleDragon2000 8 months ago
@oarfrost Galbraith once said that he saw himself as a kind of prophet. And the role of the prophet was "to comfort the afflicted - and afflict the comfortable."
LittleDragon2000 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LittleDragon2000 "Galbraith once said that he saw himself as a kind of prophet. And the role of the prophet was "to comfort the afflicted - and afflict the comfortable."
A good line
oarfrost 8 months ago
@wallyozzy @wallyozzy
There are a number of books that explore the idea that it was the Scots more than anyone who created Canada.
The best is probably "Great Scots! How the Scots Created Canada."
It has a good section on the Battle of Quebec/Battle of Canada/ Plains of Abraham
The best book on the battle is "1759: The Battle for Canada" by Laurier LaPierre
But there is also this "1759: the battle that won Canada"
And the Canadian Encyclopedia online has lots
Hope this helps
LittleDragon2000 9 months ago
@LittleDragon2000 they werent fighting for wolf, they were fighting in the british army. they still would have served in the british army whether or not, charles edward stuart had taken the throne, this had nothing to do with the british empire or scottish independence
dmax631 8 months ago
@dmax631 Of course they were fighting for Wolf, just as the French were fighting for Montcalm.
LittleDragon2000 8 months ago
An interesting thing I discovered about a month ago. King William I's Illegitimate daughter, Ada married Gospatrick de Greenlaw. (Don't know if his last name was Greenlaw, but if so, and his lineageg goes way way down to me, that would make King William I my G G G G G G G G G ????? father in Law, and K Alexanter my GGGGGGGG????? brother in law. Both of whom are named, and a major factor that really caused the creation of the Magna Carta, and of course our Declaration of Independance. Wallace
wallyozzy 9 months ago
@wallyozzy It's certainly nice to know that it is at least a possibility :-)
gaconnochie 9 months ago
I will get that for you later though might be hard to find as it is more than a century old. It has its faults but does have transcripts of various letters etc which make fascinating reading. For instance Charles seems to be almost traumatised after the Battle of Prestonpans as he can't stand the thought that most of the casualties were English. He writes that he's heard Dutch troops have been brought to assist the Hanovarians and wishes all the enemy were Dutch so that he didn't need to shed
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie any more blood of his father's subjects. So yes there is some interesting stuff in it. Though for a wider more informative and more up to date account of the entire rising, which is easily readable but still pact with facts and stats etc - I'd plump for a book called "The 45" by Christopher Duffy
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie " For instance Charles seems to be almost traumatised after the Battle of Prestonpans as he can't stand the thought that most of the casualties were English"
From what I can gather he had trouble appreciating what a brutal business war is. He refused to allow public celebrations of his victory and was shocked that his Highlanders would not bury the enemy dead. Nice bloke but a crap general.
oarfrost 9 months ago
@oarfrost he couldnt speak a word of english or gallic, only french or italian, Oh! his mother was polish. quite a mixture for a scottish prince.
MrJimmyboy1972 8 months ago
we have traced the paternal line back to my great-great-great-great-grand parents who are actually buried in Greenlaw kirk yard. Third stone in on the right. They were born just after the 1745 rebellion and she is almost certainly local but we believe he's probably moved down from the Highlands at sometime in the 1760s or 1770s but we've kind of hit a brick wall with the tracing it.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Make the abbeys 12thC - getting carried away with myself.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
Charles persuaded them that the English would rise in support of him. I'm sure he wasn't intentionally misleading the Scots- he was just deluding himself. I have Elwand's biography of the Prince at home which I could post later. In it a letter from Charles to his father is quoted. He tells his father 'something like' that as soon as he crosses the border the English will rise in support and there will be an uproar which will dwarf everything so far!
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie " I have Elwand's biography of the Prince at home"
Do you have the title to hand gaconnochie? I would like to brush up on Prince Charlie and the Jacobite movement and if you could recommend a few books I would be much obliged.
oarfrost 9 months ago
country was actually quite wealthy. Again maybe not in comparison with its neighbour but you just need to see the many 11th - 12th century ruins of huge monastic abbeys that dot southern Scotland etc.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
May Scotland yet see her freedom, once more to take her place among the countries of the world.
orckiller91 10 months ago
@orckiller91 dont be so fucking stupid. charles edward stuart had no interest in scottish independence. he had an interest in the imperial throne of great britain
dmax631 8 months ago
@dmax631 hey fuck tard I didnt say anything about charles. Fucking moron learn to read
orckiller91 8 months ago
no family or any kind of dynasty has any right what-so-ever to rule over any other human being, its all elitest Blue blood BS ,about money & land at the end of the day & are always kept in power by the "mongs" hangin on coat tails for handouts & "honours" what a crock!! republics by the people for the people but even that is the same but without a crowns & urmin.
paulspydar 10 months ago
Wonderfully romantic tale of highland clans rallying to their former kings grandson and their gallant fight against a traditional foe. Niven whose father was a scot and mother french is the perfect young Prince, inspiring hope, loyalty and dreamt triumph.
In reality never had a hope of succeeding, but it was in the scots character to try!.
TMMQUINN2011 11 months ago
what movie is this
Highlandglenpiper 11 months ago
Charlie and the Jacobites were so close to taking London. why the hell didn't they? the battle of Culloden, the order for attack didn't get through in time. thats what went wrong. Charles thought that he had been betrayed. 50,000 pounds on your head is a fucking shitload, but noone turned him. his escape is so legendary
ThePoorhillbilly 11 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "Charlie and the Jacobites were so close to taking London. why the hell didn't they? "
They couldn't have held it. The Jacobites were in an odd position. They kept winning battles but didn't pick up much support., particularly from the French who were supposed to send an army of regulars to their aid. So they had to leg it back to the Highlands before the government got its act together and sent in a first string team.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost no they had an army of 4 thousand men with additions from Manchester. in London there was basically no resistance. people were scared, and the word was going round that the king was going to leave. the french would have invaded and that would have been that. Charles knew the mythical army didn't excist, but the other jacobites thought they had come too far. they were only interested in taking back scotland. they could have won at culloden but supplies didn't come, lack of leadership
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost CHARLES WAS STABBED IN THE BACK!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost they also gave the British army a few weeks to gather themselves and actually go through more specific training in Aberdeen before Culloden. its Madness. they got shot by cannon for a good while before they charge at culloden, and the mcdonalds on the left could have just waited, or ducked in the mud whilst the main group engaged the front line. lack of leaders on the battlefiled meant that men piled into gaps in the english line and just got shot down by the second line. crossfire
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost the actual orders for attack at culloden didn't actually arrive. they sat there waiting for a fare while getting ripped apart by cannon fire not knowing what to do. they eventually charged by themselves. the messenger was shot down, but its pretty suss if you ask me. once again know known leadership. Charles had his authority challenged too much by the other pests. this is a man who had miltary training since he was born, and had witnessed battles across europe. he was no nancy boy
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "this is a man who had miltary training since he was born, and had witnessed battles across europe"
Actually, Charles military training was limited to ten days at the siege of Gaeta. He was there as an observer, which was understandable as he was only 13 years old
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost He had military training. yes but what was his general doing when his men were being shot down by cannon?
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePoorhillbilly "He had military training. "
No he didn't. At 13 years old he spent 10 days watching a siege. After that he didn't do anything until he arrived in the highlands and managed to lose an army.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost the government got its act together? the Jacobites had had completely ravaged through their army in Scotland at Prestonpans. there wasn't anything left but a couple of units in the north. People were genuinely shitting themselves in England. the Jacobites had everything going for them, but they chose not to take London. WHY THE FUCK WOULDN'T YOU!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "the Jacobites had everything going for them"
Except popular support. The Jacobites beat practically every army they encountered, but they didn't pick up much in the way of reinforcements or munitions. By the time they were 100 miles from London Charles' army was only about 5,000 strong. London was defended by about 7,000 regulars plus the militia. The Jacobites couldn't have taken the city and if they had they couldn't have held it against the armies that the government ..
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost was recalling from the war in Flanders
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester. No armies were in London they would have not stood a chance. Cumberland's, Wade's were north of them not as strong, mystery army in between Derby and London did not excist!
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePoorhillbilly "They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester"
Exactly. Not a lot for an army of 5,000 - 6,000 men. And instead of the tens of thousands of English Jacobites that Charles had promised his followers would rise up and join them, they got 300 Mancurians oddballs and no Frenchmen.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "They recieved 1,500 muskets, 160 barrels of gunpowder, 500 grenades and about 120 horses from Carlisle, 1,500–1,600 flintlocks in October from the French, 300 men from Manchester. "
Exactly. The Jacobite army had about half as many muskets as they required for their army of 5,000 to 6,000 and nothing like the tens of thousands of English supporters that had been expected. And when they reached Derby, they found that Cumberland's army was only 26 miles away.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost ahah thats because noone in England actually fights battles.! they get scots to do the fighting for them. they waltzed on in into Manchester and Derby to cheering crowds, yet only 300 additions. The Jacobite Army was pretty good they had artillery, Flintlocks ( broadswords, were only for gentlemen and clan cheifs). Cumberlands army wasn't a threat they had barely as many men (Hannoverian, Austrians) as they would gain for Culloden. It was the Mystery army which was the deciding factor
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost I think The Jacobites could have defeated Cumberlands army in England, and then progressed onto London with very few casualties, thats what Charles wanted to do. It was the extra 4 scottish battalions and trainng at Aberdeen that made the difference at Culloden for the government forces. The Jacobites defeat is one of the most dodgy shams in Scottish History, basically all down to the fault of the arrogant clan cheifs who drafted men onto the battlefield against their will
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost Cumberlands army was reenforced by 5,000 Hessian troops when it reached Scotland! so of the 8,000 government troops at Culloden, more than half were Germanic, 2,000 Scots Irish troops and they were all payed.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "Cumberlands army was reenforced by 5,000 Hessian troops when it reached Scotland! so of the 8,000 government troops at Culloden, more than half were Germanic"
Not quite. The Hessians were left behind to stop the Jacobite army marching south again. The bulk of the government troops at Culloden were Scots. The English folowed their usual practice of hiring Campbells to kill any other Scots they disliked.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost the Campbells were horrible they fought other clans and raped and killed their women and children. theyr;e were still Hannoverian troops and Austrians on the Battlefield. what i'm trying to say but got my facts wrong was mercenaries were used to fight this war. many government troops thought the aftermath was too far an act. its surprising that there was not alot of support from Catholics in England. The Jacobites were mostly volunteers.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "its surprising that there was not alot of support from Catholics in England."
Religion wasn't really the issue. As far as the English (and a lot of Scots) were concerned, they would rather have dour old George II, who was halfway to being a constitutional monarch, than Bonnie Prince Charlie's benevolent despotism.The aftermath of Culloden was horrific but it had been on the cards for generations. Once the clans were rendered powerless Sir Walter Scott and co started to spin
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost romantic legends of gallant highland warriors, but at the time the lowlanders thought of them as cattle thieves at best and murderous savages at worst. The Scots didn't think much of the English, but most of them thought a lot less of the highland warlords and their private armies and were only too happy to see them crushed.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Alexander II's campaign to London was helped by thousands of english a few hundred years before. I'd say relgion wasn't the only issue, but it was an issue. You can't simply say that the aftermath of Culloden wasn't a religious purge, what was it then? a cultural war? The Highlanders were proud people with their own rules and heirachy, not rebels and theives. The Clearences changed the Highlands for the worse. alot of the union armies were made up of convicts and exiles.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePoorhillbilly" Alexander II's campaign to London was helped by thousands of english a few hundred years before"
That is the point. The Jacobites still thought it was 1215 where absolute monarchs ruled with the aid of feudal barons. Unfortunately for them, the world had moved on.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Charles Edward Stewart was the rightfull king of Britian. Their were people opposed and people with him, but he suffered at the hands of his friends, and against an unstoppable army made up of theives rapists murderers that would terrorise America, Australia, The Pacific, The Zulus later on. Britian at that time wanted to expand their control over whoever they wanted, and individual powers like Catholicism were seen as a threat. They never represented the people and were nasty wretches
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "Charles Edward Stewart was the rightfull king of Britian"
No he wasn't. Parliament had decided that his grandfather James II & VII had abdicated and gave the job to William & Mary. It later passed the Act of Settlement that said that only members of the Church of England could become Kings or Queens of England. Charles was a left footer so that was him out of the running.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost The man was king, he got ousted by another man. he's still king. no matter which is law passed you can't take that away. He had quite a fair bit of support. yes that was the same parliament who thought it was perfectly fine to let 1 million irish die of starvation. thats where England and Scotland differ, the kings of Scotland actually represented their people and brought peace, where the kings of england were just sick bastard sons put in place and a spot to fill
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@oarfrost The man was king, he got ousted by another man. he's still king. no matter which is law passed you can't take that away. He had quite a fair bit of support. yes that was the same parliament who thought it was perfectly fine to let 1 million irish die of starvation. thats where England and Scotland differ, the kings of Scotland actually represented their people and brought peace, where the kings of england were just sick bastard sons put in place and a spot to fill
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost that was the same parliament that let 1 million irish die of starvation. kings and queens of England are just sick bastard children who get put in a place to fill a spot, whilst Scottish monarchs are for their people, peacefull and rightfull kings. he was the king no law can take that away. they can kill and rape as many people as they want but they can't change the nature of a man and his tarnish his pride.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@ThePoorhillbilly "kings and queens of England are just sick bastard children who get put in a place to fill a spot, whilst Scottish monarchs are for their people, peacefull and rightfull kings"
Well there you are. Why study history when you can watch Braveheart? That said, that rightful King or Queen of England is whoever Parliament says it is, and Parliament said it wasn't going to be Bonnie Prince Charlie.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost its a biological trait, English people are like the sickly child at school who never remembers to wash his face.. mm typical England no such thing as democracy, just leave it up to the decisions of a bunch of murdurering swine in a big building.
ThePoorhillbilly 10 months ago
@oarfrost This is the comment I wanted to reply to. All I wanted to say about it was. Fair enough England gave the throne to William And I have no problem with that. my problem is with giving him the Scottish throne. He had no right to it at all, it was given to him by the convention of estates of Scotland. Which did not represent alot of the Scottish People. This was not a democratic parliament but rather men with land and title acting in their own best interest.
1brutaldeath 10 months ago
@1brutaldeath I know little about English history and less about that of Scotland. That said my feeling is that William got the English throne because he was prepared to govern with the consent of Parliament and James (II and VII) wasn't. I dare say that the convention of estates of Scotland felt the same way. Neither the English Parliament or the Convention were particularly democratic bodies and, as you rightly say, both were following their own agendas. But they both had the great virtue of
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost wanting a limited rather than an absolute monarchy, which meant that 60 years later a dour, smi constitutional lump like George II was seen as a better prospect than a lively young believer in benevolent despotism such as Charles Stuart.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost Quite so William of Orange and later the Hanovarians may not have liked the limited aspect of it but they accepted it. The Scots left the door open for the Pretenders as they were sick of how the existing semi union worked against them as the monarchs always favoured the interests of their richer kingdom. Hence in the 1704 Act of Security they stated they may take a different monarch from England on Anne's death - with the proviso that they must be descended from the Scottish line
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@oarfrost and be of the true Protestant religion by which they meant Presbyterian Church of Scotland. Sophie of Hanover could have fitted that bill but had the Old Pretender accepted the provisos then he would jump the queue.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie "and be of the true Protestant religion by which they meant Presbyterian Church of Scotland."
That might have fitted the bill in Scotland, although it would have only been a start. However, in England the monarch has to be a member of the Church of England, an affable institution that none the less manages to offend as many protestants as catholics.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost The said Act only related to Scotland as it predates the union. The later Union Settlement itself was drafted partly in reaction to the Act of Security and is a compromise position where the monarch is Head of The Church of England but in Scotland is a member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch has to take both oaths. As monarch she retains the right to attend the General Synod but is not allowed to take part in the debates - though she may address it if invited to.
gaconnochie 10 months ago
@gaconnochie "The said Act only related to Scotland as it predates the union. The later Union Settlement itself was drafted partly in reaction to the Act of Security and is a compromise position where the monarch is Head of The Church of England but in Scotland is a member of the Church of Scotland."
That I didn't know. Thank you for the information.
That said, neither Scotland nor England wanted Charles. It wasn't that he was a Stuart or a Catholic or anything else. It was simply that
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost he wanted to be king and to have the power that went with it. What the British wanted was someone like George II who was halfway to being a constitutional monarch and whose descendants would open parliament once a year and spend the rest of their time opening hospitals and waving to the tourists.
oarfrost 10 months ago
@oarfrost When you say "What the British wanted..." I assume you mean both the Scottish and English
LittleDragon2000 9 months ago
@LittleDragon2000 Oarfrost is from the east side of the pond so you can be assured that when he says British he means British - so he's meaning for that time period the Scots, English and Welsh. And taking the British as one he is right. Scotland was still divided over the issue but Jacobitism by the 45 was a dead duck in England. The Scottish Jacobite generals to a man didn't want to invade England. They wanted Charles to consolidate in Edinburgh and take the crown of Scotland for his father.
gaconnochie 9 months ago
@gaconnochie Thanks for the clarification. But it's not only the Americans that mix things up. Australians have a bad habit of doing that, too - especially if they star in American movies.
LittleDragon2000 9 months ago
@oarfrost You are absolutely right. Jacobitism had been a pan-British phenomena but by the 45 it was a spent force in England. It still had some following in Scotland but Scotland itself was divided over the issue. He didn't gain enough support from the Highlands and Episcopalian north-east Lowlands; he failed miserable to recruit in the rest of the Lowlands and northern England. The Scottish Jacobites wanted him to set up govt in Scotland only but they reluctantly agreed to invade England
gaconnochie 10 months ago