I went to Scotland last year. It was freezing and rained non-stop. The only food was haggis, deep fried Mars Bars and shortbread & everyone is fat. All the men are transvestites & the women look like men. I couldn't understand a word anyone said & everyone had false teeth. Most of Scotland is sparsely habited due to the midge plague. Most children have MS due to the appalling weather & the oldest person is 50-years-old. I couldn't sleep due to the 24-hour-a-day bagpipe playing. Avoid.
the expedition of Bonnie Prince Charlie i think must see in the contest of the Fight between England and France for the supremacy in Europe - For the France a Stuart as King of England mean Break the traditional alliance between England and Austria against the France - Religion question had not importance - in that period If you that England (protestant) was Allied with Austria (Catholic) against the France (Catholic) -and France was allied with Prussia (Protestant)
@gorozon of course religion was a big part to do with it .charles was catholic after the crown of england,he would never be accepted ,even by the lowland scots
@gorozon The French ambassador seeminly admitted that the French monarch didn't really care that much which part of the extended British royal family sat on the throne. The main aim for the French was to open another front in the war and get British troops off the continental mainland. After the rebellion failed France was happy enough to expel the Young Pretender from French territory too.
@gaconnochie i am not sure about French dont' really care on who was the King Of England -Considering that the Stuart had faimily ties with the Bourbon- the Charles I wife Henrietta was the daughter of Henri IV -and his daughter Henrietta Anna had married Philip I of Bourbon-Orléans .Where even the Hannoverian Kings were for tradition tied with the Austria The Big rival of the France in Europe in that period -
@gorozon In the first place they were politicians. The French King helped Charles when it was expedient to do so. When it was helping France tactically. As soon as it was not expedient the Pretender was dropped like a brick and was officially exiled from France. Earlier Charles I may indeed have been brother-in-law to the French king but he also went to war against him in support of the French Protestants just several years after marrying Henrietta
@gorozon Well of course you are right the expedition failed but that wasn't when he was expelled from France. As long as France was at war with Britain the French king was happy to show favour to the Prince. However once the peace came he didn't just fall out of favour he was forcibly expelled from France itself.
@gorozon "an disordinated charge with obsolete weapons against an army that use modern tatics and weapons (for the period ) "
You would think so, but those tactics had worked at Prestonpans and Falkirk, where the redcoats very sensibly decided that they had business elsewhere and promptly legged it.
but surely the saddest thing of all is that the LAST highland charge happened not at Culloden but in North Carolina? Where Scottish men of the '45 (who had previosly fought side by side) had to choose between the new America or England? In the end neither side would win out, the riches would as usual go to those who pulled the strings behind the scenes, but no doubt as they fell they thought *dulce et decorum est pro patria moria* (glorious it is to give ones life for ones country) just like WW1
@jed371 aye good point, bonnie prince charlie is not looked on well now as he bottled it and left 4000 highlanders to die...........but to be fair the hanoverian UK state a legacy of the dutch orange brigade are hardly any better!!!
@Apemanwithcalculator Aye, but what tae expect by a young liqueur-lover wha rather liked the companion o' whores an' spent most o' his days in a tavern? ... damn right! If ye hae twa pieces o'shite, wich one would ye prefer tae eat? ;o)
@jed371 Aye, 'cuz they had the legitime right fur the throne an' hae nae robbed it like the House of Hannover, wha hae nae fockin' right tae rule brave Scotland as strangers an' nae idea o' hundreds years old Clan-Traditions an' even o' the meanin' of honour ... an' dinnae forget that they've nae only fought fur religious motives ... even most fur the freedom o' a brave nation an' their families, wha had tae stand centuries o' murder, rape an' brutal tyranny o' them f...in' red coated occupiers
@Fitheach1 I think it's odd to hear people praising the Stuarts. They were just as bad as any other monarchs and, as soon as they became the kings of Scotland an England, they moved to London and Scotland was an afterthought. Their reign gave no more freedom to the Scots. However, the jacobite rebellions did lead to the oppression of highland scots, as the English could justify oppressing those who had already rebelled twice. Hannover or Stuart, i'd rather have a parliament than either.
@hitthatperfectbeat The aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion and the 'pacification' of the highlands were not simply about England and Scotland, but in fact a civil war and a clash of Scottish cultures. If anything the Lowland population supported the dismantling of the clan system as much as anyone south of the border.
@Fitheach1 dont be daft you deluded moron. Bonnie Prince Charlie wanted the throne of GREAT BRITAIN, he had not interest in Scotland, other then to use Highland scots as his cannon fodder. If you want to talk about tyranny, it was the stuarts who were the tyrannts, they believed in religious absolutism. We would not have a parliament today if it was up to them
@jed371 Actually...The Stuart dynasty was still very much aware where their family line had come from, and where they had the most support. Charles Edward Stuart repealed the Act of Union when he arrived in Edinburgh proclaiming; "the pretended Union of these Kingdoms being now at an End". It should be noted that he Act of Union was deeply unpopular with the majority of Scots of this time and did play a large role in determining events. The Stuarts were happy to rule both independent kingdoms.
The Stuarts weren't traditionally for Religious absolutism as far as I'm aware in fact it's the Catholic religion that had been suppressed until then, of course Catholic countries elsewhere were more than capable of similar.
@manfred898 It depends what part of the islands you are talking about. There were very few Catholics in Scotland - thoguh there were some. The mian religious struggle was between Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Both sides suppressed each other whenever they had the chance. Most Scottish Jacobites were Protestant Episcopalians who supported Chalres despite his religion not because of it. Before they crossed into England the Scottish leaders insisted any Catholic officers were demoted.
Have y'all read The Outlander? It's a fiction novel that was written by someone that did the research.
imagineers0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I went to Scotland last year. It was freezing and rained non-stop. The only food was haggis, deep fried Mars Bars and shortbread & everyone is fat. All the men are transvestites & the women look like men. I couldn't understand a word anyone said & everyone had false teeth. Most of Scotland is sparsely habited due to the midge plague. Most children have MS due to the appalling weather & the oldest person is 50-years-old. I couldn't sleep due to the 24-hour-a-day bagpipe playing. Avoid.
karezza6 1 month ago
the expedition of Bonnie Prince Charlie i think must see in the contest of the Fight between England and France for the supremacy in Europe - For the France a Stuart as King of England mean Break the traditional alliance between England and Austria against the France - Religion question had not importance - in that period If you that England (protestant) was Allied with Austria (Catholic) against the France (Catholic) -and France was allied with Prussia (Protestant)
gorozon 1 month ago
@gorozon of course religion was a big part to do with it .charles was catholic after the crown of england,he would never be accepted ,even by the lowland scots
IsleOfAlbion 3 weeks ago
@gorozon The French ambassador seeminly admitted that the French monarch didn't really care that much which part of the extended British royal family sat on the throne. The main aim for the French was to open another front in the war and get British troops off the continental mainland. After the rebellion failed France was happy enough to expel the Young Pretender from French territory too.
gaconnochie 3 weeks ago
@gaconnochie i am not sure about French dont' really care on who was the King Of England -Considering that the Stuart had faimily ties with the Bourbon- the Charles I wife Henrietta was the daughter of Henri IV -and his daughter Henrietta Anna had married Philip I of Bourbon-Orléans .Where even the Hannoverian Kings were for tradition tied with the Austria The Big rival of the France in Europe in that period -
gorozon 3 weeks ago
@gorozon In the first place they were politicians. The French King helped Charles when it was expedient to do so. When it was helping France tactically. As soon as it was not expedient the Pretender was dropped like a brick and was officially exiled from France. Earlier Charles I may indeed have been brother-in-law to the French king but he also went to war against him in support of the French Protestants just several years after marrying Henrietta
gaconnochie 3 weeks ago
@gaconnochie this may be true , But how many influence had the failure of the Bonnie Charlie expedition on the sucessive French postions?
gorozon 3 weeks ago
@gorozon Well of course you are right the expedition failed but that wasn't when he was expelled from France. As long as France was at war with Britain the French king was happy to show favour to the Prince. However once the peace came he didn't just fall out of favour he was forcibly expelled from France itself.
gaconnochie 2 weeks ago
All royalty should be abolished....it has brought little but misery to Scotland since James V1 ran off to London in 1603 ....
BillDFC 1 month ago
could you upload the full thing please
GCmediacourse 1 month ago
an disordinated charge with obsolete weapons against an army that use modern tatics and weapons (for the period ) No wonder if Scots lost the battle
gorozon 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gorozon "an disordinated charge with obsolete weapons against an army that use modern tatics and weapons (for the period ) "
You would think so, but those tactics had worked at Prestonpans and Falkirk, where the redcoats very sensibly decided that they had business elsewhere and promptly legged it.
oarfrost 2 months ago
but surely the saddest thing of all is that the LAST highland charge happened not at Culloden but in North Carolina? Where Scottish men of the '45 (who had previosly fought side by side) had to choose between the new America or England? In the end neither side would win out, the riches would as usual go to those who pulled the strings behind the scenes, but no doubt as they fell they thought *dulce et decorum est pro patria moria* (glorious it is to give ones life for ones country) just like WW1
TheIslandhome 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jed371 aye good point, bonnie prince charlie is not looked on well now as he bottled it and left 4000 highlanders to die...........but to be fair the hanoverian UK state a legacy of the dutch orange brigade are hardly any better!!!
Apemanwithcalculator 3 months ago
@Apemanwithcalculator Aye, but what tae expect by a young liqueur-lover wha rather liked the companion o' whores an' spent most o' his days in a tavern? ... damn right! If ye hae twa pieces o'shite, wich one would ye prefer tae eat? ;o)
Fitheach1 3 months ago
@Fitheach1 "Aye, but what tae expect by a young liqueur-lover wha rather liked the companion o' whores an' spent most o' his days in a tavern? "
Well, that just about describes every lad who ever lived. Would you like to narrow the field a bit?
oarfrost 1 month ago
Nothing to do with the union. the Jacobites were religious fanatics who wanted the Stuarts back on the throne
jed371 4 months ago 9
@jed371 Aye, 'cuz they had the legitime right fur the throne an' hae nae robbed it like the House of Hannover, wha hae nae fockin' right tae rule brave Scotland as strangers an' nae idea o' hundreds years old Clan-Traditions an' even o' the meanin' of honour ... an' dinnae forget that they've nae only fought fur religious motives ... even most fur the freedom o' a brave nation an' their families, wha had tae stand centuries o' murder, rape an' brutal tyranny o' them f...in' red coated occupiers
Fitheach1 4 months ago
@Fitheach1 I think it's odd to hear people praising the Stuarts. They were just as bad as any other monarchs and, as soon as they became the kings of Scotland an England, they moved to London and Scotland was an afterthought. Their reign gave no more freedom to the Scots. However, the jacobite rebellions did lead to the oppression of highland scots, as the English could justify oppressing those who had already rebelled twice. Hannover or Stuart, i'd rather have a parliament than either.
hitthatperfectbeat 4 months ago
@hitthatperfectbeat The aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion and the 'pacification' of the highlands were not simply about England and Scotland, but in fact a civil war and a clash of Scottish cultures. If anything the Lowland population supported the dismantling of the clan system as much as anyone south of the border.
calicheSCOT 3 months ago
@Fitheach1 dont be daft you deluded moron. Bonnie Prince Charlie wanted the throne of GREAT BRITAIN, he had not interest in Scotland, other then to use Highland scots as his cannon fodder. If you want to talk about tyranny, it was the stuarts who were the tyrannts, they believed in religious absolutism. We would not have a parliament today if it was up to them
jed371 3 months ago 11
Comment removed
Apemanwithcalculator 3 months ago
@jed371 Actually...The Stuart dynasty was still very much aware where their family line had come from, and where they had the most support. Charles Edward Stuart repealed the Act of Union when he arrived in Edinburgh proclaiming; "the pretended Union of these Kingdoms being now at an End". It should be noted that he Act of Union was deeply unpopular with the majority of Scots of this time and did play a large role in determining events. The Stuarts were happy to rule both independent kingdoms.
calicheSCOT 3 months ago
@jed371 That's nae the point an' nae mean tae become abusive
Fitheach1 3 months ago
The Stuarts weren't traditionally for Religious absolutism as far as I'm aware in fact it's the Catholic religion that had been suppressed until then, of course Catholic countries elsewhere were more than capable of similar.
manfred898 1 month ago
@manfred898 It depends what part of the islands you are talking about. There were very few Catholics in Scotland - thoguh there were some. The mian religious struggle was between Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Both sides suppressed each other whenever they had the chance. Most Scottish Jacobites were Protestant Episcopalians who supported Chalres despite his religion not because of it. Before they crossed into England the Scottish leaders insisted any Catholic officers were demoted.
gaconnochie 3 weeks ago
Ace the Jacobites was my peoject
thesneakfreek 10 months ago
english rapist bastards
IAIN19760 11 months ago
@IAIN19760 freedom scotish losers
Sowbert 4 months ago
@Sowbert english tory boy wanker
IAIN19760 4 months ago