Culloden
CandL Garrett
"Being no longer able to keep myself on my legs, and the enemy always
advancing very slowly but redoubling their fire, my mind was agitated and
undecided whether I should throw away my life or surrender a prisoner,
which was a thousand times worse than death on the field of battle. All at
once I perceived a horse without a rider about thirty paces before me. The
idea of being yet able to escape, gave me fresh strength and served as a
spur to me. I ran and laid hold of the bridle which was fast in the hand
of a man lying on the ground, whom I supposed dead. What was my surprise,
when the cowardly poltroon, who was suffering from nothing but fear, dared
to remain in the most horrible fire to dispute the horse with me at twenty
paces from the enemy? All my menaces could not induce him to quit the
bridle. Whilst we were disputing, a discharge from a cannon loaded with
grape-shot fell at our feet and covered us with mud, without, however,
producing any effect upon this singular individual, who obstinately
persisted in retaining the horse. Fortunately for me, Finlay Cameron, an
officer in Lochiel's regiment, a youth of twenty years of age, six feet
high, and very strong and vigorous, happened to pass near us. I called on
him to assist me. 'Ah! Finlay,' said I, 'this fellow will not give me up
the horse'. Finlay flew to me like lightening, immediately presented his
pistol to the head of this man and threatened to blow out his brains if he
hesitated a moment to let go the bridle. The fellow, who had the
appearance of a servant, at length yielded and took to his heels."
The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, led by Prince Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie
Prince Charlie) came very close to toppling the Hanoverian regime. The
rebels were finally defeated at Culloden in April 1756.
........from "Millennium Eyewitness - A thousand years of history written
by those
who were there"
Note... Prince Charles Stuart was never called Charlie... this English
version of the name is from the Gaelic name that he was called by,
Tearleach
Mac Seamus (sp?- help!).... Charles son of James
--
Lena G
James William Oliver
CandL Garrett <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:01bf787f$5760bac0$04a3868b@default...
> 1746 "The End of the Battle of Culloden, Scotland" by Chevalier Johnstone
<snip>
> The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, led by Prince Charles Edward Stuart
(Bonnie
> Prince Charlie) came very close to toppling the Hanoverian regime. The
> rebels were finally defeated at Culloden in April 1756.
No, the rebels were not capable of toppling the government. There are
several reasons for this. Mainly, the size of the rebel army. How does an
army of 5,000 take and hold a city like London, with a population then of,
perhaps (I don't know), one million? And even if they did manage to take
London they certainly could not control it. Besides, government by that had
evolved sufficiently that it was no longer simply the case of simply
capturing the King to control the country. As today, Parliament would have
simply moved to another, safe location. Even ignoring all this, and the
fact the Government was prepared to pull a huge portion of the army out of
fighting on the continent to defeat the rebellion (and the fact that
government spies were successfully misleading the leadership of the
rebellion); the Jacobite army was composed of badly armed Highlanders that
could speak no English. It is not possible to defeat an entire state with
just this.
It is true that people in London were worried about a possible attack;
letters between prominent officials at the time debate whether they should
head off for their country estates until the rebellion had blown over and
some went so far as to send out their wives and children. Still, however,
the Jacobite rebellion was doomed when no English Jacobites came out to
support it.
> --
> Lena G
James
Ian Johnston
: Still, however,
: the Jacobite rebellion was doomed when no English Jacobites came out to
: support it.
It was doomed long before that, when practically no Scots supported it.
Ian
James William Oliver
Ian Johnston <engs...@sable.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:88f4lt$4lt$7...@news.ox.ac.uk...
Its true that few Scots Jacobites came out to fight, but there was still the
possibility of large numbers of English supporters joining up if they could
make an impressive show south of the border. However with the benefit of
hindsight, I take your point.
James
CandL Garrett
James William Oliver wrote in article ...
> CandL Garrett wrote in message
> some went so far as to send out their wives and children. Still,
however,
> the Jacobite rebellion was doomed when no English Jacobites came out to
> support it.
>
> James
London popn immediately after the Plague 1665 = 400,000. London popn 1800
= 959,000 souls. 1745 popn pre Agricultural Revn =(????) would you like to
hazard a guess James.....LOL
You mentioned in a prior posting that History is speculative... it most
certainly is.
Now... James you most certainly know much more than I on the above topic
(and probably on many more <gbg>).... I doffs me 'at! BUT... I'm not
convinced... how can we speculate about the possible results of BPC
reaching the Palace of St James... and holding it!... when there are so
many arguable factors. George was packing his bags... the merchants were
boarding up their shops and preparing the Welcome speeches, (just in case)
if BPC arrived what was to stop him from taking it and what if that was the
point where all the doubting Thomas' came forward to support him. BPC had
charisma, George was a disappointment, the only ones with a vested interest
in his survival as King were the Politicians. And at that point in time
they were only beginning to consolidate their power.
I would like to know more about your reasons for dismissing BPC's
'chances'.
Also.... an undated and unsourced article in the Feb 2000 edition of "The
Scottish Banner":-
"New History of Scotland is in the Works.
Scholars and historians at St Andrew's University are compiling a marathon
new History of Scotland, covering 5000 years of the nation's history. It
is expected to be published within a year."
<grin>
--
Lena G
David Thorpe
engaged fighting in Europe - the War of the Austrian Succession, I believe.
Needless to say the French were the main enemy and they, of course, thought
that a Jacobite invasion would be an Extremely Good Thing. Initial plans to
invade with BPC at the head of a French army were shelved in 1744, and BPC
then got impatient and decided to force France's hand by going ahead with
his own invasion, confident in the knowledge that if he had some initial
success the French would provide military support. At first BPC was
successful, although much of the credit for that must be given to his
exceptional military commander, George Murray, as well as to the fact that
the Government, heavily involved overseas, was quite unprepared - there were
only 3000 government troops available (under the unfortunate Johnny Cope)
for Scotland's defence. Once BPC had defeated Cope at Prestonpans, the way
south lay open before him.
After Prestonpans, many of BPC's advisers recommended that he consolidate
his position in Scotland before going south. If Scotland could be seen to
be under his control, it would be added encouragement to the French to carry
out the postponed invasion. Charles didn't want this - he wanted the
British Crown and he wanted it as soon as possible, so the Jacobite army
headed south into England. It is perhaps interesting to speculate, however,
just what might have happened had Charles heeded his advisers at the
time.......
So Charles and his 5000 highlanders marched into England, getting as far as
Derby. England was a major disappointment as support for the Jacobites was
minimal. The French were still keeping a low profile. Most importantly,
the British government was now reacting and had recalled some of its troops
back from Flanders. As a result, by Derby BPC's now dispirited 5000 strong
army was threatened on one hand by three
batallions of guards and seven of infantry and on the other by 6000 Dutch
troops under General Wade. Defeat was inevitable and retreat was the only
realistic course of action open to the Jacobites. Unfortunately for them,
however, they'd also lost the opportunity of consolidating their position in
Scotland, where only the highlands remained remotely sympathetic to them.
David.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> 1746 "The End of the Battle of Culloden, Scotland" by Chevalier
Johnstone
> The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, led by Prince Charles Edward Stuart
(Bonnie
> Prince Charlie) came very close to toppling the Hanoverian regime.
The
> rebels were finally defeated at Culloden in April 1756.
No, 1746.
> ........from "Millennium Eyewitness - A thousand years of history
written
> by those
> who were there"
>
> Note... Prince Charles Stuart was never called Charlie... this
English
> version of the name is from the Gaelic name that he was called by,
> Tearleach
> Mac Seamus (sp?- help!).... Charles son of James
No, the Lowlands also referred to him as Charles, Charlie, or
"The Young Pretender." Gàidhlig, of course, not being very
common or popular in the Lowlands.
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeòid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:88egou$j4u$1...@sparkie.st-andrews.ac.uk...
>
> CandL Garrett <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:01bf787f$5760bac0$04a3868b@default...
> > 1746 "The End of the Battle of Culloden, Scotland" by Chevalier
Johnstone
>
>
> > The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, led by Prince Charles Edward
Stuart
> (Bonnie
> > Prince Charlie) came very close to toppling the Hanoverian regime.
The
> > rebels were finally defeated at Culloden in April 1756.
>
I wouldn't go that far, James. London would have been sacked,
and from there I think it would have been a small step.
> There are
> several reasons for this. Mainly, the size of the rebel army. How
does an
> army of 5,000 take and hold a city like London, with a population
then of,
> perhaps (I don't know), one million?
On the other hand, why do people living in London flee in massive
droves before an army of that size in abject terror of the Jacobites
sacking the city?
> fighting on the continent to defeat the rebellion (and the fact that
> government spies were successfully misleading the leadership of the
> rebellion);
Well, one spy, anyway.....you're referring to Bradstreet?
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:0OEs4.5517$74.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>
> "CandL Garrett" <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:01bf7d3e$7c205000$LocalHost@default...
> >
> >
> > James William Oliver wrote in article ...
> He'd never have got to London, Lena.
Hello David! Good to hear from you. As far as "never getting to
London"
I can't agree....no one thought he could invade England, either.
Which
we all know he did.
> So Charles and his 5000 highlanders marched into England, getting as
far as
> Derby. England was a major disappointment as support for the
Jacobites was
> minimal. The French were still keeping a low profile. Most
importantly,
> the British government was now reacting and had recalled some of its
troops
> back from Flanders. As a result, by Derby BPC's now dispirited 5000
strong
> army was threatened on one hand by three
> batallions of guards and seven of infantry and on the other by 6000
Dutch
> troops under General Wade. Defeat was inevitable and retreat was
the only
> realistic course of action open to the Jacobites.
Oh I disagree....if it had not been for the English spy Bradstreet
providing
completely false information about the size of the force that awaited
CES, London would have assuredly been sacked. CES himself wished
to continue on, but his plans were rejected.
Jeff
James William Oliver
news:01bf7d3e$7c205000$LocalHost@default...
>
>
> James William Oliver wrote in article ...
> >
> Johnstone
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > The Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, led by Prince Charles Edward Stuart
> > (Bonnie
> > > Prince Charlie) came very close to toppling the Hanoverian regime.
The
> > > rebels were finally defeated at Culloden in April 1756.
> >
> > several reasons for this. Mainly, the size of the rebel army. How does
> an
> > army of 5,000 take and hold a city like London, with a population then
> of,
take
> > London they certainly could not control it. Besides, government by that
> had
> > evolved sufficiently that it was no longer simply the case of simply
> > capturing the King to control the country. As today, Parliament would
> have
> > simply moved to another, safe location. Even ignoring all this, and the
> > fact the Government was prepared to pull a huge portion of the army out
> of
> > government spies were successfully misleading the leadership of the
apostraphies anyway. You are certainly right that it was militarily
possible for the Jacobite army to take St James' Palace. Lets assume this happened. King George would have been taken to safety on a 1st rate ship of the line and sailed north. The government armies in the North would have
marched to London and troops from the continent would have been rushed back.
Parliament would assemble in some safe northern or western city in England to run
the country during the crisis. The government army would have attacked St James' Palace and destroyed the entire Jacobite army.
> Also.... an undated and unsourced article in the Feb 2000 edition of "The
> Scottish Banner":-
>
> "New History of Scotland is in the Works.
> Scholars and historians at St Andrew's University are compiling a marathon
> new History of Scotland, covering 5000 years of the nation's history.
It
> is expected to be published within a year."
James William Oliver
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid) <mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote in
message news:38b328ce$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> "David Thorpe" <skybl...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> news:0OEs4.5517$74.1...@nnrp3.clara.net...
> >
> > news:01bf7d3e$7c205000$LocalHost@default...
> > >
> > >
> > > James William Oliver wrote in article ...
>
>
>
> London"
> I can't agree....no one thought he could invade England, either.
> Which
> we all know he did.
>
> far as
> > Derby. England was a major disappointment as support for the
> Jacobites was
> > minimal. The French were still keeping a low profile. Most
> importantly,
> > the British government was now reacting and had recalled some of its
> troops
> > back from Flanders. As a result, by Derby BPC's now dispirited 5000
> strong
> > army was threatened on one hand by three
> > batallions of guards and seven of infantry and on the other by 6000
> Dutch
> > troops under General Wade. Defeat was inevitable and retreat was
> the only
> > realistic course of action open to the Jacobites.
>
> providing
> completely false information about the size of the force that awaited
> CES, London would have assuredly been sacked. CES himself wished
> to continue on, but his plans were rejected.
>
> Jeff
I remain to be convinced of the ability of the Jacobite army to sack London
in any meaningful sense of the word before being caught by government
forces. They could have caused panic and put many Londoners to flight,
certainly. Remember though that in those days many ordinary people carried
muskets and swords. I'm sure some sort of militia could have been put
together and with Yeomanry called in from surrounding counties, a force
could have been created (albeit mostly untrained) with numbers at least
matching the rebel army (remembering that the population of London at this
time was about one million). And if you remember how badly armed the
Jacobites were, even after their previous victories, and how low morale was,
attacking London would have been the end of the rebellion. And while
considering these factors also remember the nature of the troops. Poor
Highlanders, far from home, badly armed, speaking only gaelic.
Belive it or not, I have tried to argue the case for the Jacobites being
able to attack London, seeing my tutor was so dismissive of them. I
referred him to the battle of Killiekrankie in 1688, and the first, and
possibly best ever, example of the 'Highland Charge'. This battle saw rates
of attrition that were not seen again until the slaughter of World War I.
After some debate, I now agree with him for the reasons I have outlined...
James
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
>
> I remain to be convinced of the ability of the Jacobite army to sack
London
> in any meaningful sense of the word before being caught by
government
> forces.
(chuckle) Okay, and I remain unconvinced of the contrary.
> They could have caused panic and put many Londoners to flight,
> certainly.
And indeed did...
> Remember though that in those days many ordinary people carried
> muskets and swords. I'm sure some sort of militia could have been
put
> together and with Yeomanry called in from surrounding counties, a
force
> could have been created (albeit mostly untrained) with numbers at
least
> matching the rebel army (remembering that the population of London
at this
> time was about one million).
Could have? Absolutely. Did? No. London was in a state of
wide-spread
panic at the approach of the Jacobites, and while I fully agree that a
militia
*could* physically have been raised, it wasn't really viable or it
would have
been.
> And if you remember how badly armed the
> Jacobites were, even after their previous victories, and how low
morale was,
> attacking London would have been the end of the rebellion.
I disagree - London's morale wasn't any better, and the average person
on the street was hardly very well armed. Remember, it was *London*
that was in panic, not the Jacobite army.
> And while
> considering these factors also remember the nature of the troops.
Poor
> Highlanders, far from home, badly armed, speaking only gaelic.
> Belive it or not, I have tried to argue the case for the
Jacobites being
> able to attack London, seeing my tutor was so dismissive of them. I
> referred him to the battle of Killiekrankie in 1688, and the first,
and
> possibly best ever, example of the 'Highland Charge'. This battle
saw rates
> of attrition that were not seen again until the slaughter of World
War I.
> After some debate, I now agree with him for the reasons I have
outlined...
Sure, Killiekrankie, Cromdale, Prestonpans......Highland forces
traditionally
aren't afraid of being outnumbered it seems - and sometimes with a
victorious result.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> I think you are right to put the word chances in inverted commas,
well
> apostraphies anyway. You are certainly right that it was militarily
> possible for the Jacobite army to take St James' Palace. Lets
assume this
> happened. King George would have been taken to safety on a 1st rate
ship
> of the line and sailed north. The government armies in the North
would have
> marched to London and troops from the continent would have been
rushed back.
Like they were at Stirling?
> Parliament would assemble in some safe northern or western city in
> England to run the country during the crisis. The government army
would
> have attacked St James' Palace and destroyed the entire Jacobite
army.
I don't think you're allowing for the English Jacobites.....I fully
believe that
they didn't join CES because they thought he wouldn't win, and didn't
want
to be caught on the losing side. After taking London, I suspect CES
would
have had a great deal more English support.
NINETY 3RD
believe that they didn't join CES because they thought he wouldn't win, and
didn't want to be caught on the losing side. After taking London, I suspect
CES
would have had a great deal more English support. >>
IMHO it would have had to have been a *great* deal indeed. From what I can
recall, the government had somewhere around 33,000 regular troops still in
Britain, (with more on the way home) not counting English militia raised at the
threat of CES - 12 regiments of foot and 2 of horse. Also not including
Scottish militia raised against the Jacobites.
I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the most.
Then there was the Royal Navy. They only failed in their mission about twice -
letting Charlie in, and letting him get away. They kept foreign troops,
supplies, money and arms from reaching the Jacobites.
Capturing a Capitol city can be instrumental, but then again, doing so does not
always guarantee an end of a war and immediate success. Cumberland took
Edinburgh. The British took Washington in 1814. Napoleon captured Moscow.
Circumstances will always dictate what may happen in each individual case.
Cheers!
***"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Peter Sellers
as the US President in "Dr. Strangelove".
Tiss
CandL Garrett wrote:
>
>
> James William Oliver wrote in article ...
Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland army was poorly
trained, didn't understand the English language for the most part. And their
HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before Culloden, many of
the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and realized they didn't
stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride wouldn't let them do
it before their neighbors.
Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got everyone stirred
up for the "Glory of Scotland". They managed to enlist Bonnie Prince Charlie
as leader of their group. I really think that Charles would have never set
foot in Scotland if he hadn't had his pride all puffed up and was told that
"Gee, we'll make you a King" if you just act as our figurehead. Charlie was
not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only 22? and
probably would have much rather spent his time at the French Court. Why would
he want to spend his time with "those barbarians" when he knew nothing about
them.
Tiss
ScotHeritage
>Tiss wrote:
>Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland army was
>poorly
>trained, didn't understand the English language for the most part.
No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been doing what they
did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the English, and
were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly trained.
And their
>HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before Culloden, many of
>the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and realized they didn't
>stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride wouldn't let them do
>it before their neighbors.
Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden. A matter of
honpour has nothing to do with your neighbours, it is a matter of an oath, and
a willingness to fight to the death. I can tell you from personal experience,
when you are kitted out in kilt, (even battle dress with only the toorie to
show you are the Highland Division), You have your arms, and thon dam pipes
start, I do not know any Highland Soldier who would not fight through the very
bowels of hell just for the hell of it. Why, if the Highlanders were so
disgruntled, did the English Army have a much higher desertion rate? Always
have had a higher desertion rate and probably always will. Why were there only
ever 3 instances of Highland soldiers being flogged, (see Highland Mutiny).
They rebelled after the liers in England recruited them under written contract
that they would not be sent away from Scottish soil and then tried to ship them
all over to the Hell Holes of the world.
I do not want to seem inpolite, but to say such things is about the Highland
soldier, the most honoured fighting force in the world, is totally
unacceptable. You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds
sterling was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword, death
and deportation. For honourable action against a superior force, for treating
the enemy and their families with compassion and kindness, and for attempting
to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship of a
foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women and
children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare you
madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people with
such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.
>
>Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got everyone
>stirred up for the "Glory of Scotland".
Not at all. Several thousand men do not rise because of a few hot heads. Just
like today you have many hot heads, and very few riots, fewer revolutions, and
fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been trained for all
of his life.
They managed to enlist Bonnie Prince Charlie
>as leader of their group. I really think that Charles would have never set
>foot in Scotland if he hadn't had his pride all puffed up and was told that
>"Gee, we'll make you a King" if you just act as our figurehead.
Charles was in line for the job of being the King, his father was the rightful
king.
Charlie was
>not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only 22? and
>probably would have much rather spent his time at the French Court.
1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real name), was
fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had spent his young
years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being a prince in
Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into retrurning to
Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of his father.
Why would he want to spend his time with "those barbarians" when he knew
nothing about them.
He knew all about US. Barbarians. All of his teachers and the court in ITALY
were of the blood of we barbarians. My dear Sir or Madam, when the Highland
armies marched into England, from before and after the time of William Wallace
we did not slaughter babies in their cribs and mothers at thier homes.
Prisoners were more often than not released imediately upon their own parol and
never imprisoned like animals to rot slow death.If they surrendered. NO
quarter, (an Inglis expression by the way), was ever asked, but it was always
given. For over 500 years most Highlanders have been able to read and write in
their language, and in many cases several others. By the age of 7 I was fluent
in The Gaelic, French and English and was starting the Latin. My cousins about
2 years younger spoke Gaelic, fluent Italian and English.
Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or more recently
Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden, The English record in India, North
America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something when the English
brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park in Ireland and
mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
(Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating it.
ScotHeritage
> fighting on the continent to defeat the rebellion (and the fact that
>> > government spies were successfully misleading the leadership of the
>> > rebellion); the Jacobite army was composed of badly armed Highlanders
>> that
>> > could speak no English. It is not possible to defeat an entire state
>> with
>> > just this.
aye that's what the said just before the French, American, Russian revolutions,
to the Cubans and the Vietnamise. Spain said the same to Simon Bolivar, France
to the Mexicans, etc.
We seemed to work rather well in India and other colonies where a band of
Highlanders held territory which was considered by ALL to be impossible.
Ticonderoga NY. (42nd) The Thin Red Line, (96th) and the list goes on and on.
While they may of been better outfitted while in the King's service, (The
English King wee Geordie the Jerry), it usually eneded up bayonetts and charge.
Hell we could take London today. It is surprising how fsat the people will turn
to a new King, especially when He is at least of Scottish, and at that time
British heritage. He was of the court of France and Italy, so there is a wee
bit help once he was settled, he was of the Church of Rome, so Spain and
Portugal would of perhaps been persuaded by the Pope to help out.
As for government spies, they could not of been doing that well cosidering the
badly armed, unalingual Highland Hords made it all the way to Darby and wee
Geordy was packing his drawers for his midnight flit ower tha wa-er.
By the way as for not being able to speak English, Neither could the troops of
Napolian and they did a bit of a job on Europe. Remember that education came
from the North to the South, not the South to the North. We had places of
education whilst our southern cousins were running around in furs bashing
ladies over the head with clubs just to impress them, and get a little.
I guess the bottom line is Never Never make the mistake of many once powerful
Generals and under estimate the power of a few Teuchters with an attitude.
Montcalm made that mistake in Quebec and look what happened when the Frasers
dropped by for a wee visit. Romel made the same mistake at El Alemein and look
what happened with the Camerons. Hitler made thatmistake with his panzers and
infantry at the Anhiem Bridge,(sp), and look what Lovat did in Holland. The
Argentinians made that mistake in the Falklands, and which flag isflying there?
Herro Hito made that mistake in Burma and the 42nd gave him a bloody good run
for his money, The kaiser at the Somme, then there was Alexandria, South
Africa, etc., etc., etc., etc.,
Not only could they of taken London, but they could of held it, and probably
held the whole of Englnd. Once the land was being doled out the Lords and
ladies would of sold their oath and allience.
Kindest Regards;
DaveM.
PS: My indignity is focused on the topic and the debate, not at you.
Final QUOTE:
"Ror so long as one man remain alive we shall NEVR under any condition submit
to the domination of the English. It is truth, not for glory nor riches, nor
honours that we are fighting, but for freedom for that alone which no honest
man gives up but for life itself. (Decloration of Arbroath 1320)
Jennifer Fletcher
ScotHeritage <scothe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000228175832...@nso-cm.aol.com...
My but you're a passionate one aren't you?!
Jennifer.
James William Oliver
> In article <38B760F4...@i1.net>, Tiss <ejth...@i1.net> writes:
>
> >Tiss wrote:
>
> >Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland army was
> >poorly
> >trained, didn't understand the English language for the most part.
>
> No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been doing what
they
> did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the
English, and
> were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly trained.
They were poorly trained, who was going to train them? Many of them were
experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to train them
and for what reason?
> And their
> >HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before Culloden, many
of
> >the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and realized they
didn't
> >stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride wouldn't let
them do
> >it before their neighbors.
>
> Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden. A matter of
But they didn't regroup...
> honpour has nothing to do with your neighbours, it is a matter of an oath,
and
> a willingness to fight to the death. I can tell you from personal
experience,
> when you are kitted out in kilt, (even battle dress with only the toorie
to
> show you are the Highland Division), You have your arms, and thon dam
pipes
> start, I do not know any Highland Soldier who would not fight through the
very
> bowels of hell just for the hell of it. Why, if the Highlanders were so
> disgruntled, did the English Army have a much higher desertion rate?
Always
> have had a higher desertion rate and probably always will. Why were there
only
> ever 3 instances of Highland soldiers being flogged, (see Highland
Mutiny).
> They rebelled after the liers in England recruited them under written
contract
> that they would not be sent away from Scottish soil and then tried to ship
them
> all over to the Hell Holes of the world.
Lets not confuse issues here...we are talking about the British army at this
point.
> I do not want to seem inpolite, but to say such things is about the
Highland
> soldier, the most honoured fighting force in the world, is totally
> unacceptable. You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000
pounds
> sterling was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over
our
> Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword,
death
> and deportation. For honourable action against a superior force, for
treating
> the enemy and their families with compassion and kindness, and for
attempting
> to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship
of a
> foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women
and
> children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare
you
> madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people
with
> such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.
Good god man, you sound just like the head of Klan Akins. I'd suggest that
you not give out the 'how dare you' comments until you have done some
research of your own. Anyway, how dare you insult someone that has
obviously thought about the issue with such ignorant remarks...Tiss, you're
right on this one...
> >Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got everyone
> >stirred up for the "Glory of Scotland".
>
> Not at all. Several thousand men do not rise because of a few hot heads.
Just
> like today you have many hot heads, and very few riots, fewer revolutions,
and
> fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been trained for
all
> of his life.
No, those several thousand men rose becuase their Cheiftains told them to.
> They managed to enlist Bonnie Prince Charlie
> >as leader of their group. I really think that Charles would have never
set
> >foot in Scotland if he hadn't had his pride all puffed up and was told
that
> >"Gee, we'll make you a King" if you just act as our figurehead.
> Charles was in line for the job of being the King, his father was the
rightful
> king.
No he wasn't. Both the English and Scottish Parliaments deposed his
Grandfather, James VII and II. As I'm sure you remember from the nasty
episode involving Charles I and and axe, Parliament has supreme authority,
over everything.
> Charlie was
> >not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only 22? and
> >probably would have much rather spent his time at the French Court.
>
> 1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real name),
was
> fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had spent his
young
> years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
> 2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
> 3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being a prince
in
> Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
> 4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
> 5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into retrurning to
> Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of his
father.
lol. Bonnie Prince Charlie? Highland Blood? Ahem, just a wee bit unlikely,
to put it in understatement...
> Why would he want to spend his time with "those barbarians" when he knew
> nothing about them.
>
> He knew all about US. Barbarians. All of his teachers and the court in
ITALY
> were of the blood of we barbarians. My dear Sir or Madam, when the
Highland
> armies marched into England, from before and after the time of William
Wallace
> we did not slaughter babies in their cribs and mothers at thier homes.
> Prisoners were more often than not released imediately upon their own
parol and
> never imprisoned like animals to rot slow death.If they surrendered. NO
> quarter, (an Inglis expression by the way), was ever asked, but it was
always
> given. For over 500 years most Highlanders have been able to read and
write in
> their language, and in many cases several others. By the age of 7 I was
fluent
> in The Gaelic, French and English and was starting the Latin. My cousins
about
> 2 years younger spoke Gaelic, fluent Italian and English.
"Highland armies" marching into England. When please? And, frankly,
atrocities were committed on all sides in every war between Scotland and
England.
> Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or more
recently
> Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden, The English record in India,
North
> America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something when the
English
> brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park in
Ireland and
> mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
England? Erm...Britain I think you mean...
> (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating
it.
Yeah, ok...if you've learned a lot, then you must have known absolutely
nothing to begin with.
If you want to continue the debate please feel free...tell me where I'm
wrong. Then I'll show you why you're wrong.
James
ALIXGUNN
>You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds sterling was
placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword, death
and deportation.
For honourable action against a superior force, for treating the enemy and
their families with compassion and kindness, and for attempting
to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship of a
foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women and
children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare you
madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people with
such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks<.
Hope I'm not being too rude here....Just extremely curious. Wondering in
what country Scotheritage is currently living - - and how deep his roots go
there? And does he have a spell / grammar checker?
Something about such zealousness makes me think he's American... and I'm
curious if he's as interested in his current history/politics as he is in
something he cannot change.
James William Oliver
ALIXGUNN <alix...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000229134438...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
>
> >You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds sterling
was
> placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
> Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword,
death
> and deportation.
> For honourable action against a superior force, for treating the enemy and
> their families with compassion and kindness, and for attempting
> to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship
of a
> foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women
and
> children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare
you
> madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people
with
>
> Hope I'm not being too rude here....Just extremely curious.
Wondering in
> what country Scotheritage is currently living - - and how deep his roots
go
> there? And does he have a spell / grammar checker?
> Something about such zealousness makes me think he's American... and
I'm
> something he cannot change.
>
>
I'm more interested to know what planet he's on; and I'm certain he's
American...
Helen Ramsay
> >Dave said:
> > >You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds
sterling
> > >was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
> > >Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and
sword,
> > >death and deportation.
> > Hope I'm not being too rude here....Just extremely curious.
> > Wondering in what country Scotheritage is currently living - - and how
> > deep his roots go there?
If he is who I think he is, he's a Gaelic-speaking highlander now
living
in Texas.
> > And does he have a spell / grammar checker?
This is only my opinion Alix, but that question *is* rude. Unless
someone has disparaged someone else's spelling, criticism
of spelling and grammar should be kept to oneself. Comments
like that would tend to discourage poor spellers from posting
and that could be everyone's loss.
> > Something about such zealousness makes me think he's
> > American... and I'm curious if he's as interested in his current
> > history/politics as he is in something he cannot change.
Again, this is just my opinion, but this kind of "zealousness" is
fairly typical of a great number of Gaelic-speaking highlanders ;-)
> >
> I'm more interested to know what planet he's on; and I'm certain he's
> American...
I think you'd lose in this case James <G>
Cheers,
Helen
You don't stop laughing because you grow old;
you grow old because you stop laughing.
Séimí mac Liam
James William Oliver wrote in message
<89h5sq$gub$1...@sparkie.st-andrews.ac.uk>...
>>
>I'm more interested to know what planet he's on; and I'm certain he's
>American...
>
>
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
My eyes are hazel as well as my nuts"
Canonized December '99
ALIXGUNN
has disparaged someone else's spelling, criticism of spelling and grammar
should be kept to oneself. Comments like that would tend to discourage poor
spellers from posting
and that could be everyone's loss.<
I apologize for being rude. Anal retentive..that's my fall back excuse.
Arguements go over a bit stronger when everything is spelled right and look
like they weren't zapped out in a hasty rush of emotion.
> Again, this is just my opinion, but this kind of "zealousness" is fairly
typical of a great number of Gaelic-speaking highlanders ;-) <
I've run into the same zeal in a lot of "newbie - I just found out I'm
Scottish - but never been there" types here. Guess it makes me overly
suspicious
Stephen Hamilton
> "James William Oliver" <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote
> >
> > ALIXGUNN <alix...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Hope I'm not being too rude here....Just extremely curious.
> > > Wondering in what country Scotheritage is currently living - - and how
> > > deep his roots go there?
>
> If he is who I think he is, he's a Gaelic-speaking highlander now
> living
> in Texas.
>
Yup. Decent guy, too. He slipped up, a little and gave it away. <sigh> Why
*anyone* would live in Texas...!
MacRobert
Séimí mac Liam
Lachie Macquarie
ScotHeritage <scothe...@aol.com> writes
SNiP
>Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or more recently
>Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden, The English record in India, North
>America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something when the English
>brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park in Ireland and
>mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
>
>(Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating it.
>
>
Tanks were deployed in the streets of Glasgow and not in Croke Park,
"Both sides engaged in bloody reprisals, the most notable was perhaps
"Bloody Sunday," 21 November, 1920. After 11 English intelligence agents
were assassinated and the Black and Tans fired upon unarmed spectators
and players who were playing Gaelic football in Croke Park, Dublin, resulting in
12 dead and 60 wounded".
"1920 (21 November) : Crown forces shoot dead 12 spectators and a player
in raid on Croke Park. The day became known as "Bloody Sunday".
Red George Square The work was completed in late 1994 in response to a
suggestion from Glasgow City Council's 'Souncity' administrators. It is
concerned with the riots that took place in Glasgow in 1919. These were the
outcome of many months of political protest by the 'Red Clydesiders' who
had been against the Great War and were outraged by new working
conditions and rules in the factories and shipyards. On 31st January 1919 an
illegal but peaceful demonstration was brutally attacked by the police in the
city centre's George Square. The government called in the army in an
attempt to restore order and the tanks were sent in. This was the closest
Great Britain has come to a Bolshevik revolu- tion. In the work I have utilised
some of the music-hall songs of the period which the workers used to sing
with their own sardonic agit-prop lyrics. These include 'The wee hoose 'mang
the heather' which was a hit for Harry Lauder, 'Where are the lads of the
village tonight' - a song from the war, and 'Hello! Hello! Here we are again!'.
There is also a setting of 'The red flag'. The intention of the work is not to
convey a programme however, merely to pay tribute to this important event
and the brave men and women involved.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~gaud/biobak/c/campbelr.htm
--
Lachie Macquarie, Bod an Deamhain I wish.
Helen Ramsay
>
> Stephen Hamilton wrote
> >Helen Ramsay wrote:
> >> If he is who I think he is, he's a Gaelic-speaking highlander
> >> now living in Texas.
> >>
> >Yup. Decent guy, too. He slipped up, a little and gave it away.
> <sigh> Why *anyone* would live in Texas...!
There's no accounting for taste! ;-)
> Snady's beau?
That's my guess.
NINETY 3RD
in Message-id: <20000228175832...@nso-cm.aol.com> wrote:
>>We seemed to work rather well in India and other colonies where a band of
Highlanders held territory which was considered by ALL to be impossible.
Ticonderoga NY. (42nd) The Thin Red Line, (96th) and the list goes on and on.
While they may of been better outfitted while in the King's service, (The
English King wee Geordie the Jerry), it usually eneded up bayonetts and charge.
Hell we could take London today. It is surprising how fsat the people will turn
to a new King, especially when He is at least of Scottish, and at that time
British heritage. He was of the court of France and Italy, so there is a wee
bit help once he was settled, he was of the Church of Rome, so Spain and
Portugal would of perhaps been persuaded by the Pope to help out.
<snip>
By the way as for not being able to speak English, Neither could the troops of
Napolian and they did a bit of a job on Europe. <snip> <<
First off, many of the above references to Scottish (and not always necessarily
_Highland_) soldiers ignores the fact that in most of the situations, they were
part of a LARGER force composed of many elements of the British Army, including
English, Welsh, Irish and provincial regiments.
By the way - The Thin Red Line was the _93rd_ Highlanders (not 96th), at the
Battle of Balaclava in the Crimea, 25 October 1854. As for Ticonderoga, I
believe the 42nd was involved in attacking the Fort there, not holding it, and
suffering heavy casualties in the process, IIRC.
The stuff about Napoleon's French troops not speaking English either is waaaay
out of context and makes no sense here whatsoever.
As for bayonets and charge, this was (during the time of muzzleloading muskets)
a very standard form for the British Army -- not just Highlanders.
And for the spurious remark about taking London today -- excuse me while I
laugh a wee bit. First off, none of the modern Scottish regiments would aid
such a cause, but rather would fight against it. Second, this ain't the age of
muskets and bayonets anymore, it's the age of FALs, satellite communication,
Scorpions, APCs, jet fighters, the SAS and rapid deployment. When the British
Army is set loose to actually fight, get out of the way.
I will post elsewhere about the Bonnie Prince Foppy (as I have before...sigh).
>>I guess the bottom line is Never Never make the mistake of many once powerful
Generals and under estimate the power of a few Teuchters with an attitude.
Montcalm made that mistake in Quebec and look what happened when the Frasers
dropped by for a wee visit. Romel made the same mistake at El Alemein and look
what happened with the Camerons. Hitler made thatmistake with his panzers and
infantry at the Anhiem Bridge,(sp), and look what Lovat did in Holland. The
Argentinians made that mistake in the Falklands, and which flag isflying there?
Herro Hito made that mistake in Burma and the 42nd gave him a bloody good run
for his money, The kaiser at the Somme, then there was Alexandria, South
Africa, etc., etc., etc., etc., <snip><<
And again and again, the above references IGNORE the fact that the Scots units
involved in those campaigns were not there alone, but as part of a larger force
of the BRITISH Army.
Slainte!
and for a look at REAL history about Highland soldiers, visit:
http://hometown.aol.com/ninety3rd
NINETY 3RD
Message-id: <20000228175830...@nso-cm.aol.com>
wrote:
>>In article <38B760F4...@i1.net>, Tiss <ejth...@i1.net> writes:
>>Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland army was
>>poorly trained, didn't understand the English language for the most part. <<
>No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been doing what they
did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the English, and
were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly trained.<
Actually, some were trained, some had a little training and others had almost
no training. Those units from France were trained regular soldiers. Some of the
JACOBITE force (and let's get this clear early -- it was not a _Highland_ or
_Scottish_ Army, though most of it was made up of Scots, It was a _Jacobite_
Army.... yes, there is a difference) were militia units with varying amounts
of training. Most of the so-called _clan_ regiments' training (if any) came
after they were raised for the campaign and so had not as much time together
under arms as regular soldiers would.
They did indeed use many of the same tactics as the government forces (let's
set this straight now -- it was not the _English_ Army. It was the _British_,
or better, _Government_ Army. This included a large number of regular army
Scottish units and individual Scots soldiers in other regiments. It also
included numerous _clan_ and militia units of Scotland - both Highland and
Lowland, which sided with the Government). The tactics did make great use of
the so-called _Highland charge_ but up to that point in the fight everything
else was based on the same drill and maneuver of all armies of the time.
Not to be nit-picky, but it is _guerilla_ war .... NOT _gorilla_.
Gorilla is the ape.
Guerilla (a term not invented until the early 1800s during the Peninsular War
against the French.... from the Spanish guerillas -- partisans/freedom
fighters, the word literally means _little war_) is the type of warfare.
>>And their HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before
Culloden, >>many of the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and
realized they >>didn't stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride
wouldn't let them >>do it before their neighbors.
>Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden.<
Not all of them did, but a good portion (those that still survived) did indeed
regroup. They simply did not have a leader any longer as he was running like a
rabbit.
><snip> Why, if the Highlanders were so disgruntled, did the English Army have
a much higher desertion rate? Always have had a higher desertion rate and
probably always will.<
Please list documentation for this. (Again, it was the _government_ army, not
the English army at this certain time period.)
>Why were there only ever 3 instances of Highland soldiers being flogged, (see
Highland Mutiny). They rebelled after the liers in England recruited them under
written contract that they would not be sent away from Scottish soil and then
tried to ship them all over to the Hell Holes of the world.<
This is not the case and there are numerous documentations showing Highland
soldiers flogged up through the 19th century until the practice was stopped.
The case you refer to above is an early chapter in that of the Black Watch,
which regiment by the way was part of that _government_ army at the time of
1745.
>I do not want to seem inpolite, but to say such things is about the Highland
soldier, the most honoured fighting force in the world, is totally
unacceptable. You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds
sterling was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword, death
and deportation.<
Would you not say that few even knew of his whereabouts and most of those who
saw him would not recognize him anyway, let alone done up as woman?
_Army of Occupation_ is again spurious as many elements of the army were both
Scottish and Highland, and as Scotland was part of the United Kingdom at the
time, the army present was the army of the nation. (For example, the US Army
having bases in Texas or Michigan, etc...)
>For honourable action against a superior force, for treating the enemy and
their families with compassion and kindness, and for attempting to put the
rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship of a foriegn
government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women and children
flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare you madam. How
dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people with such
unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.<
I'll address this with more below.
>>Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got everyone
>>stirred up for the "Glory of Scotland". <<
>Not at all. Several thousand men do not rise because of a few hot heads. Just
like today you have many hot heads, and very few riots, fewer revolutions, and
fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been trained for all
of his life.<
Yes, they do. Those of clans rose because their chief or laird (liege lord)
told them to. Simple as that. Yes, there were individuals who rose in spite of
their chief's siding with the government, and conversely, others refused to
side even with their chief! The others were militia, French regulars, etc.
>Charles was in line for the job of being the King, his father was the rightful
king.<
Only according to the Jacobite faction.
>>Charlie was not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was
only 22? and probably would have much rather spent his time at the French
Court. <<
>1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real name), was
fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had spent his young
years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being a prince in
Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into retrurning to
Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of his father.<
1. Please present documentation for this _real name_. Also for that he spoke
fluent Gaelic.
And he did indeed spend quite a bit of time in the French court.
2. And Charles after.
3. His father was of a mostly Lowland line, his mother was Polish, a
grandmother was Italian, a great grandmother was French, a great great
grandmother was Danish, a great great great great grandmother was French again,
and a great great great great great grandmother (wife of James IV King of
Scots) was ENGLISH - the daughter of Henry VII.
4. Please list these by name and place and subjects taught.
5. Spurious (in my honest opinion).
>Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or more recently
Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden, The English record in India, North
America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something when the English
brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park in Ireland and
mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.<
Wouldn't you agree this is going off on a tangent? Let's certainly not get
embroiled over the age old Irish debate (this is Scottish Clans after all!).
Would you not mean the _British_ record in India rather? Certainly let's
discuss how the British stopped the cult of Thugee which for centuries had
murdered millions in the name of religion, or many other similar cases. North
America? To what do you refer? That British treaties with natives were less
broken by comparison to those of the USA with same? The West Indies? What in
particular ---and without leaving out mention of the French, Dutch, Spanish,
Portuguese, etc... Maybe we can discuss how the bad old _English_ abolished
the slave trade around 1805 or '07, and outlawed slavery throughout the Empire
in the 1830s while the Royal Navy patrolled for slave ships and slaver ports?
>(Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating it.<
Hold on! Don't change that channel! There's yet more to learn ----
My apologies to those on this ng who have seen all the following before, but as
it has all been brought up again, I went through Dejanews and copied all that I
posted a few months back:
Concerning "Culloden", "the '45" and unhistorical romantic notions applied to
such:
Both James the Old Pretender and George I had James I & VI as great
grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland. (And nor was the half Polish,
Italian born, French raised Charles Edward Stuart, who ran back to France
disguised as a woman after only losing one battle and leaving *his* followers
to suffer their fate.)
*It is tempting to view Culloden as a struggle between Scots and English, or -
slightly less inaccurately - between Highlanders and non-Highlanders. The
reality was different. Religious and political beliefs dictated diverse
loyalties.......
...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars there was for
some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a son on the
other side. For some, this situation came as no surprise; family policy ensured
that, whoever won, lands would not be lost. Perhaps the deciding factor in the
Rising of 1745, however, was the great majority who did not rise; the
Highlanders and Lowlanders, Scots and English, who stayed at home and awaited
the outcome.* --
--The above is from _Culloden_ by Phil Skeld, published by The National Trust
For Scotland.
Please note again who produced this publication - The National Trust For
Scotland. Head offices in Edinburgh. A charitable organization, independent
of the Government. The very people responsible for caretaking and preserving
huge chunks of Scottish historic real estate (over 100) - including Culloden
Battlefield. The National Trust of Scotland -- not some *English* agency
trying to *distance English involvement* or make apologetics for atrocities.
At Culloden there were *literally* brothers on each side facing and fighting
each other. The Jacobite uprisings were not "Scotland vs. England". The
rebellions were politics against the government. There were Scots on each side,
as well as English and many others.
Charles Edward Stuart had not come to reclaim the throne of Scotland or to
*free* Scotland. He was there to gain the throne of BRITAIN (which included
England, Scotland, Wales and all other lands of Britain at the time) for his
father. Had he succeeded there would have been no *Scottish freedom*, and his
father would have been crowned in London and ruled from there. So much for
romantic hogwash.
This next Title is "The Jacobites in Lancashire" by Fred Holcroft, 1995. The
Description goes: " The '15 and '45 Rebellions were dramatic times in British
History. For fifty years of so following the abdication of James II in 1688
conspiracy, intrigue and rebellion convulsed England, much of it in Lancashire
(that's in ENGLAND). This book tells that story, making use of contemporary
documents and correspondence. An appendix contains the names of Lancashire
participants in the '45 and shows what happened to them. ..87pp with 16 b/w
illus and 6 maps."
Then also ask the 300 men of the Jacobite Manchester (England) Regiment about
>foreign kings< or >intolerable situations<...when they were left to suffer
their fate when Bonnie Prince Foppy's army turned back to Scotland.
It's good to take in a modern perspective of Scottish politics when discussing
these historical issues, as too often the history gets clouded by a glaze of
centuries old, out of date politics and romance...
Brian McNeill's (formerly of the Scottish band, Battlefield Band) song, "No
Gods And Precious Few Heroes":
"I was listening to the news the other day
I heard a fat politician who had the nerve to say
He was proud to be Scottish, by the way,
With the glories of our past to remember:
Here's tae us, wha's like us? Listen to the cry!
No surrender to the truth and here's the reason why -
The Power and the Glory's just another bloody lie
They use to keep us all in line.
For there's no Gods and there's precious few heroes
But there's plenty on the dole in the Land o the Leal,
And it's time now to sweep the future clear
Of the lies of a past that we know was never real.
Sae farewell tae the heather and the glen,
They cleared us off once and they'll do it all again.
For they stil prefer sheep to thinking men,
Ah, but men who think like sheep are even better.
There's nothing much to choose
between the old laird and the new.
They still don't give a damn
for the likes of me and you,
Just mind ye pay the rent
to the factor when it's due,
And mind your bloody manners when ye pay.
And tell me will we never hear the end
Of puir bluidy Charlie at Culloden yet again?
Though he ran like a rabbit doun the glen
Leaving better folk than him to be butchered.
Or are ye sittin in your council house
dreaming o your Clan?
Waitin for the Jacobites tae come an free the land?
Try goin doun the broo wi your claymore
in your hand
And count aw the princes in the queue.
So don't talk to me of Scotland the Brave,
For if we don't fight soon there'll be nothing
left to save
While ye wait for the tartan messiah?
He'll lead us tae the promised land
wi laughter in his eye.
We'll all live on the oil and the whisky by and by,
Free heavy beer, pie suppers in the sky -
Will we never have the sense to learn?
That there's no Gods and there's precious few heroes,
But there's plenty on the dole in the Land o the Leal
And I'm damn sure there's plenty live in fear
Of the day we stand together
with our shoulders at the wheel."
Song by
Brian McNeill & Hamish Henderson; Grian Music <<
One last thought concerning the use of *we*, *our* and etc...:
I always question the use of "we" in referring to past histories before one was
ever born. I am quite aware it is used to denote "my family" or "my people" or
"my nation". It is still however extremely incorrect, extremely egotistical and
jingoistic and also dishonourable to those who actually *were* at any past
historical incident. "We" were not at Culloden moor in 1746. "We" were not born
yet. Period.
As to a >foreign< king, let us look at the lineage of those in question at the
time of 1746:
First tracing Bonnie Charlie's line:
James IV, King of Scots (with line back to Robert Bruce) m. Margaret (daughter
of Henry VII of England, and with her 2nd husband, the Earl of Angus, was
grandmother of Lord Darnley, who m. Mary Queens of Scots).
|
James V, King of Scots m. (2nd wife) Marie of Lorraine-Guise
|
Mary, Queen of Scots m. (2nd husband) Lord Darnley
|
James I (& VI of Scotland) m. Anne of Denmark
(James I also has daughter
Elizabeth who m.
Frederick V, Elector
Palatine of the Rhine)
|
Charles I m. Henrietta Maria of France
|
1. Charles II (no legitimate issue)
2. Mary m. William II of Orange (whose son is Wm III and m. Mary II)
3. James II (m. 1st wife Anne Hyde, whose daughters are Mary II - no issue; and
Queen Anne - who has no surviving issue)
m. (2nd wife) Mary of Modena, Italy.
|
James Francis Edward, The Old Pretender (m. Maria Clementia Sobieski of Poland)
|
Charles Edward Stuart, Bonnie Prince Charlie, The Young Pretender. Born in
Rome, raised in France. m. Louisa of Stolberg-Gedern. no issue.
Now picking up the line of the House of Hanover:
James I (& VI of Scotland) m. Anne of Denmark
| (Charles I is brother to:)
Elizabeth m. Frederick V, Elector Palatine of the Rhine, King of Bohemia
|
Sophia m. Ernest Augustus, Elector of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Luneborg
|
George I m. Sophia Dorothea of Celle
|
(House of Hanover, line continues on thru other Houses to present day).
In 1701 the Act of Settlement declared that, after Princess (later Queen) Anne,
"the most excellent Princess Sophia. Electress and Dowager Duchess of Hanover,
daughter of Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of James I, shall be
next in line to the Crown". It was Sophia's son, George Lewis who became King
of Britain when Anne died in 1714.
(repeating myself yet once more, but this is in context with my first post on
the subject...) Both James the Old Pretender and George I had James I & VI as
great
grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland. (And neither was the half Polish,
Italian born, French raised Charles Edward Stuart, who ran back to France
disguised as a woman after only losing one battle and leaving *his* followers
to suffer their fate.)
Just to AGAIN spell out that it was not "English" vs. Scottish -- it was the
"government" vs. Jacobites. To wit: Culloden, 1746. Government forces:
St. Clair's, 2/1st, The Royal Regiment. (Later known as the Royal Scots).
Howard's (3rd - became The Buffs or East Kent, later the Queen's Reg't).
Barrell's (4th - became The King's Own Royal Reg't, later The King's Own
Border Regiment).
Wolfe's (8th - became The King's (Liverpool) Reg't).
Pulteney's (13th - later The Somerset Light Infantry, later The Light
Infantry).
Price's (14th, - later The Prince of Wales' Own West Yorkshire Reg't, later
Prince of Wales' Own Reg't of Yorkshire).
Bligh's (20th, - later The Lancashire Fusiliers, later The Royal Reg't of
Fusiliers).
Campell's (21st, - Royal North British Fusiliers, later the Royal Scots
Fusiliers, later the Royal Highland Fusiliers).
Semphill's (25th - later The King's Own Scottish Borderers).
Blakeney's (27th - later the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, later The Royal
Irish Rangers).
Cholmondley's (34th - later The Border regiment, later the King's Own Royal
Border Reg't. See Barrell's)
Fleming's (36th - later The Worcestershire Reg't, later The Worcestershire &
Sherwood Foresters).
Dejean's (37th - formerly Munro's. Later The Royal Hampshire Reg't).
Conway's (59th - formerly Ligonier's. Later The Northhamptonshire Reg't, later
The Royal Anglian Reg't).
Battereau's (62nd - disbanded 1748).
Highland Battalion (Mamore's) (inaccurately referred to as the Argyll Militia,
actually comprised at least 3 companies of Loudon's 64th Highlanders along with
the Argyllshire companies. Some officers also belonged to the 43rd
Highlanders.)
10th (Kingston's) Horse
10th (Cobham's) Dragoons
11th (Kerr's) Dragoons
Cumberland's Hussars (probably small bodyguard unit)
Royal Artillery.
Jacobite forces at Culloden:
(Some are by "clan" regiment, others by commander)
Glengarry
Keppoch
Clanranald
Chisholms
John Roy Stewart's Edinburgh Reg't.
MacLachlans, MacLeans & Raasay MacLeods
Farquharsons
Clan Chattan
Lovat's Frasers
Stewarts of Appin & MacLarens
Camerons
Atholl Brigade
Ogilvy
Gordon
Glenbucket
Duke of Perth
Eccosais Royale
Irish Picquets
Kilmarnock
Strathallan
Pitsligo
Balmerino & Elcho
Fitzjames
To call a government regiment a *Campbell* regiment" is spurious. The name
"Campbell's" was given to the 21st simply because that was the name of the
commanding officer - a practice quickly dispensed with when C.O.s would come
and go (some by death) and the resultant confusion obvious. They were in the
Army, recruited regionally, but still in the Army. For instance, not everyone
in the later famous Army regiment "Gordon Highlanders" was named Gordon, nor
related to the Gordon families, nor for that matter necessarily from
Aberdeenshire.
The 21st had recently returned from the continent having fought at Dettingen
and Fontenoy. (BTW - this was NOT a kilted regiment!)
Most of those one might label as "Campbell" were in the 43rd Highlanders (Black
Watch) recruited mainly from the areas of Campbell, Grant and Munro. And as
mentioned earlier, the 43rd took no part in any of the '45 (nor at Culloden in
'46.
Atholl Brigade -- non-clan Jacobite regiment raised of men from Highland or
near-Highland areas with no particular allegiance to any chief. Gordon of
Glenbucket's the same.
Other non-clan regiments were from lowland districts north of Edinburgh ---
Ogilvy's, Gordon's, Duke of Perth's (which was also recruited in Edinburgh as
was Roy Stuart's - both of which also had English deserters and prisoners taken
at Prestonpans).
The Irish Picquets -- French speaking men of Irish descent from the 6 Irish
regiments in the French Army. These men were from 3 of those regiments -
Dillon's, Ruth's and Lally's.
The Eccosais Royale (not to be confused with the Royal Scots over on the
Government side) were also a regular French regiment, under Lord Lewis
Drummond.
Fitzjames' was also a Franco/Irish unit of cavalry.
Here is the *Government* (not *English*) line of battle at Culloden: Front
line, beginning of engagement, from the government right:
Dragoons
Kingston's Horse
2/1st St. Clair's (Royal Scots)
34th Chomondley's
14th Price's
21st Campbell's (Royal North British Fuziliers)
37th Dejean's (ex Monro's)
4th Barrell's
Dragoons
Highland Battalion (Mamore's) (to the left/behind the low wall and forward.)
Artillery spaced in front of the line.
2nd Line, from the gov. right:
3rd Howard's (Buffs)
36th Fleming's
59th Conway's (ex Ligonier's) (moved forward to reinforce front line) 20th
Bligh's (moved forward to reinforce front line)
25th Sempill's (moved forward to reinforce front line)
8th Wolfe's (moved forward of and at right angle to front line on gov. left
flank, in front of the low wall.)
Reserves, from gov right:
13th Pulteney's (moved forward to front line to the right of the 1st Royal
Scots.)
62nd Battereau's (moved forward to right flank of 2nd line.)
27th Blakeney's
(So we see form all the above that there were mixed forces on both sides, Scots
fighting for the government, English on the Jacobite side along with French,
Franco-Irish, etc., etc... Not all the rosy colored, black/white, "Will Ye No
Come Back Again" hogwash that makes a nice movie but is bad history and even
worse when applied to modern politics.)
As for the Atholl Brigade, as they moved forward, a bulge in the Leanach dike
drove them to their left, musket and artillery fire from the government line
forced the Chattan, Appin and Cameron men to swerve to their right and the
combined forces hit the 37th and the 4th. The 4th was forced back on the 25th
who stood their ground and pushed forward. The 37th refused their left flank
and prevented the Jacobites from rolling up the line. The 25th and 20th also
moved forward to block any gaps made by the
4th. The 8th and Highland Battalion fired into the Jacobite flank. The
Jacobites here were now in the bulge of their own creation and caught in a
deadly crossfire and bayonet wall.
Let's also take a look at all the "pages" of clan vs. clan, house vs. house and
Highland vs. Lowland throughout the centuries and all the slaughter that went
on to "darken the pages of history"... Examples of "barbarity" can be found in
all histories of all peoples. The analogy of anyone not being *barbaric* whilst
the other *side* always was rings flat and dead.
Lastly, I should add something on the topic of Charlie, Jacobites, etc.
The fact is that the Jacobite risings were not only civil wars in nature but
that they were also religious. I have often found it interesting when
encountering Bonnie Charlie fans to ask if they are Roman Catholic. As the
majority of the Jacobites and the Pretenders' supporters were Catholic, as were
the Pretenders' themselves.
In fact, religious politics and being Catholic was one of the main reasons for
the ouster of James in the first place.
So what we have is not just simple loyalties to one monarchial faction or
another, but indeed religious beliefs at war as well.
The simple fact Charlie was Roman Catholic was a factor in the number of
followers he mustered. Many did not follow the Jacobite cause for the plain
fact of the Pretenders' Catholicism. Those that did follow who were
Protestants did so because: 1. They had been ordered to, 2. Had other
political/economic agendas of their own going on, possibly against an old
neighbour and rival, 3. Were simply looking for a fight to be in no matter the
cause or leader.
That aside, I will repeat about the Pretenders -- they did not espouse anything
Scottish, except for being of a royal line that had Scottish ancestry, and
which line had moved out of and ignored Scotland for several generations.
Charlie landed with the sole purpose of putting his father on the throne of
*Britain* (not Scotland). There was no idea whatsoever of Scottish
independence, nothing *Scottish* politically in any of the '45 rising. He found
support in Scotland because of long held hatreds there, distance from London,
numbers of Catholics to muster, etc.
Had Charlie won, there simply would have been a foreign born Catholic on the
throne of Britain - in London - and little notice would, as usual, be given
Scotland afterward.
As for any "honor being lost" -- Charlie accomplished that in spades with his
retreat from London, mangled and botched strategy and tactical blunder of
Culloden, and his subsequent fleeing and abandonment of his followers. After
Culloden his *army* was still viable and most had rallied together again at
another place (name of which escapes me off hand) and were waiting and ready to
carry on and fight again -- if they had had a leader! But their *leader* was
running with his tail between his legs, oops, I mean skirts, back to his Papa
in France.
So - take your choice: A foreign born fat Protestant guy, or a foreign born
drunk Catholic guy.
BPCharlie -- who had never before set foot in Scotland, and got out as fast as
he could the first time things looked bad. Wallace and Bruce must have cried in
heaven at that last bit.
The best thing BPC did for Scotland was to LEAVE.
....Ok, that and Drambuie!
Slainte!
WGreyrover
<hotanvilNOP...@vol.com> writes:
>
>Yup. Decent guy, too. He slipped up, a little and gave it away. <sigh> Why
>*anyone* would live in Texas...!
>
>MacRobert
Nothing wrong with Texas. My folks live there and I may be moving to Texas
this summer.
Greyrover
NINETY 3RD
in
Message-id: <20000302003831...@nso-bj.news.cs.com> wrote:
>>Nothing wrong with Texas. My folks live there and I may be moving to Texas
this summer.
>>
I agree....of course I was born and raised there. That might make me biased....
I am no longer there, however (except for the occasional visit).
But you have picked THE worst season to move there!
Ah, Texas -- we don't call it "hot" until it gets to be at least 100 degrees f.
;-)
Cheers!
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:89ghl9$cp9$1...@sparkie.st-andrews.ac.uk...
>
> ScotHeritage <scothe...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000228175830...@nso-cm.aol.com...
> > In article <38B760F4...@i1.net>, Tiss <ejth...@i1.net>
writes:
> >
> > >Tiss wrote:
> >
> > >Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland
army was
> > >poorly
> > >trained, didn't understand the English language for the most
part.
> >
> > No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been
doing what
> they
> > did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the
> English, and
> > were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly
trained.
>
> They were poorly trained, who was going to train them? Many of them
were
> experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to
train them
> and for what reason?
James, military training doesn't necessarily limit itself to drill and
ceremony. Do you think that these experience combatants
simply picked up a broadsword and began using it well enough
to defeat an organised army?
> > Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden. A
matter of
>
> But they didn't regroup...
Oh, but they DID.....
> > madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my
people
> with
> > such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.
>
> Good god man, you sound just like the head of Klan Akins. I'd
suggest that
Rubbish. He sounds like a soldier - civilians wouldn't understand.
Every
day that I wore my uniform I was incredibly proud - it wasn't given to
me,
it was earned. And I'd die rather than disgrace the memory of the men
that fell before me wearing it.
> you not give out the 'how dare you' comments until you have done
some
> research of your own. Anyway, how dare you insult someone that has
> obviously thought about the issue with such ignorant remarks...Tiss,
you're
> right on this one...
Oh, but she isn't right, James. That's the point.
> > fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been
trained for
> all
> > of his life.
>
> No, those several thousand men rose becuase their Cheiftains told
them to.
Hmmm....mostly correct. MacLeod of Harris, (MacLeod of MacLeod)
refused to send clansmen to join the Jacobites, but many of the clan
went anyway. I suspect that was not an isolated incident.
> > Charles was in line for the job of being the King, his father was
the
> rightful
> > king.
>
> No he wasn't. Both the English and Scottish Parliaments deposed his
> Grandfather, James VII and II. As I'm sure you remember from the
nasty
> episode involving Charles I and and axe, Parliament has supreme
authority,
> over everything.
Parliament rules by consent of the people. In the case of the
Highland
Gael, Charles was the rightful Prince. As you know, the typical
Highlander
did not recognise England's right to rule the Highlands, and barely
acknowledged the Scottish Parliament.
>
> > Charlie was
> > >not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only
22? and
> > >probably would have much rather spent his time at the French
Court.
I'm not quite sure what his age has to do with it.....?
> > in The Gaelic, French and English and was starting the Latin. My
cousins
> about
> > 2 years younger spoke Gaelic, fluent Italian and English.
>
> "Highland armies" marching into England. When please? And,
frankly,
1745, the third Jacobite uprising. Why the confusion?
> atrocities were committed on all sides in every war between Scotland
and
> England.
True, but a little more on one side, I believe. I guess it depends on
what you feel is atrocious.
>
> > Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or
more
> recently
> > Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden, The English record in
India,
> North
> > America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something
when the
> English
> > brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park
in
> Ireland and
> > mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
>
> England? Erm...Britain I think you mean...
No, he means England.
> If you want to continue the debate please feel free...tell me where
I'm
> wrong. Then I'll show you why you're wrong.
You've yet to do so, James.
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeņid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> >
> > curious if he's as interested in his current history/politics as
he is in
> > something he cannot change.
> >
> >
> I'm more interested to know what planet he's on; and I'm certain
he's
> American...
Probably....you know, "America?" The place that shares the lion's
portion of Highland blood with Canada?
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeòid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> Something about such zealousness makes me think he's
American... and I'm
> curious if he's as interested in his current history/politics as he
is in
> something he cannot change.
I don't think someone has to be born in Scotland to have a scholarly
interest and opinion on Scottish history.
WGreyrover
nine...@aol.comnospam (NINETY 3RD) writes:
>>>Nothing wrong with Texas. My folks live there and I may be moving to Texas
>this summer.
> >>
>
>I agree....of course I was born and raised there. That might make me
>biased....
>I am no longer there, however (except for the occasional visit).
>But you have picked THE worst season to move there!
>Ah, Texas -- we don't call it "hot" until it gets to be at least 100 degrees
>f.
>;-)
>Cheers!
Texas is just plain chilly compared to Tucson. 100º ? That's October there.
Earlier it's even hotter.
Greyrover
Rev Timothy N Nurse
<mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote:
<"James William Oliver" <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote in message
<news:89ghl9$cp9$1...@sparkie.st-andrews.ac.uk...
<>
<>
<> They were poorly trained, who was going to train them? Many of them
<were
<> experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to
<train them
<> and for what reason?
<
<
<James, military training doesn't necessarily limit itself to drill and
<ceremony.
He's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that operating as an effective
unit requires rather more than weapons use.
<> No he wasn't. Both the English and Scottish Parliaments deposed his
<> Grandfather, James VII and II. As I'm sure you remember from the
<nasty
<> episode involving Charles I and and axe, Parliament has supreme
<authority,
<> over everything.
<
<Parliament rules by consent of the people.
Which was precisely what happened in the case of the Stuarts. The Scottish
people had had quite enough of the Stuarts and were happy to see the back
of them.
In the case of the
<Highland
<Gael, Charles was the rightful Prince. As you know, the typical
<Highlander
<did not recognise England's right to rule the Highlands, and barely
<acknowledged the Scottish Parliament.
Which is largely irrelevant to Scotland as a whole. On what basis do you draw
the conclusion that they barely recognised the Scottish Parliament, given
that a number of them actually sat in the parliament before its dissolution
and took up seats in Westminster that were put on offer following the Act of
Union?
<> > America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something
<when the
<> English
<> > brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park
<in
<> Ireland and
<> > mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
<>
<> England? Erm...Britain I think you mean...
<
<No, he means England.
Is this a reference to the Black and Tans? They were mainly Ulster Scots,
not English. I'm sure Klan Akins will fill you in on this 'glorious'
chapter.
--
-------------------------------------------
Visit my exciting new *improved* web pages at:
http://members.xoom.com/The_Minister
-------------------------------------------
NINETY 3RD
in
Message-id: <20000303002334...@nso-fa.news.cs.com> wrote:
Texas is just plain chilly compared to Tucson. 100º ? That's October there.
Earlier it's even hotter. >>
Quite so!
But then half of AZ is not also draped in a heavy wool blanket called Humidity,
all while being 110 in the shade!
(Born in El Paso - "dry heat". Lived in Dallas-Ft Worth -- "humidity"..... And
then there's Houston...)
;-)
CandL Garrett
Helen Ramsay wrote in article
> "James William Oliver" wrote
> > ALIXGUNN wrote in message
>
> > >Dave said:
> > > >You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds
> sterling
> > > >was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over
our
> > > >Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and
> sword,
> > > >death and deportation.
>
> > > Hope I'm not being too rude here....Just extremely curious.
> > > Wondering in what country Scotheritage is currently living - - and
how
> > > deep his roots go there?
>
> If he is who I think he is, he's a Gaelic-speaking highlander now
> living
> in Texas.
>
> > > And does he have a spell / grammar checker?
>
> This is only my opinion Alix, but that question *is* rude. Unless
> someone has disparaged someone else's spelling, criticism
> of spelling and grammar should be kept to oneself. Comments
> like that would tend to discourage poor spellers from posting
> and that could be everyone's loss.
>
> > > Something about such zealousness makes me think he's
> > > American... and I'm curious if he's as interested in his
current
> > > history/politics as he is in something he cannot change.
>
> Again, this is just my opinion, but this kind of "zealousness" is
> fairly typical of a great number of Gaelic-speaking highlanders ;-)
I may be wrong, but I have the distinct impression that the Highland
clansmen did not have any concept of "nation" until it was forced down
their throat after Culloden. Perhaps this is their tragedy... that they
didn't think of themselves as Scottish, but as a separate and independent
people. They certainly didn't acknowledged kinship with Lowland Scotland.
Their 'zealousness' IMHO is often companied by kind of 'indignation'.
--
Lena G
CandL Garrett
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid) wrote in article
> "ALIXGUNN" wrote in message
> > Something about such zealousness makes me think he's
> American... and I'm
> > curious if he's as interested in his current history/politics as he
> is in
> > something he cannot change.
>
> I don't think someone has to be born in Scotland to have a scholarly
> interest and opinion on Scottish history.
>
Nor even to have any Scottish blood to do so!!!!! :-)
--
Lena G
CandL Garrett
NINETY 3RD wrote in article
Another brilliant post 93rd!!!! I don't care how often you repost it... I
have it saved as well !!
> The best thing BPC did for Scotland was to LEAVE.
>
LOL.... I take it that you are NOT a Jacobite? :-)
> ....Ok, that and Drambuie!
>
You have your priorities right, Kiddo!! LOL
> Slainte!
Slainte mhath!!
--
Lena G
CandL Garrett
ScotHeritage wrote in article
> dropped by for a wee visit. Romel made the same mistake at El Alemein
and look
> what happened with the Camerons.
Oi!!! You have gone to far, my good man!!! El Alamein!!! You can thank the
Aussies for THAT one!!!
<gbg>.
>
> Kindest Regards;
> DaveM.
> PS: My indignity is focused on the topic and the debate, not at you.
And kindest regards to you DaveM. :-)
--
Lena G
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
"Rev Timothy N Nurse" <tnn...@XYZ.usa.net> wrote in message
news:tnnurse-ya0235800...@130.209.34.15...
> In article <38bee754$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, "Jeff Ramsden
\(MacLeņid\)"
> <mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> <"James William Oliver" <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote in message
> <news:89ghl9$cp9$1...@sparkie.st-andrews.ac.uk...
> <>
>
> <>
them
> <were
> <> experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to
> <train them
> <> and for what reason?
> <
> <
and
> <ceremony.
>
> He's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that operating as an
effective
> unit requires rather more than weapons use.
*That* I would agree with. Is that indeed what you meant, James?
However, I still maintain that there were a significant amount of
battle veterans in the makeup to stand for something. That is, I
don't accept that the Highland forces were simply a bunch of
farmers that couldn't tell one end of a sword from another.
> <> No he wasn't. Both the English and Scottish Parliaments deposed
his
> <> Grandfather, James VII and II. As I'm sure you remember from
the
> <nasty
> <> episode involving Charles I and and axe, Parliament has supreme
> <authority,
> <> over everything.
> <
> <Parliament rules by consent of the people.
>
> Which was precisely what happened in the case of the Stuarts. The
Scottish
> people had had quite enough of the Stuarts and were happy to see the
back
> of them.
Somewhat true. Again, we're blurring lines of distinction whenever
it's convenient to prove a point. In this case, the larger number of
Scots (that being largely Lowland Scotland) were fairly happy to be
ruled by the Hanoverian userper. Many Highland clans did not
send troops to aid CES, because they thought his plans ill-conceived,
and didn't have much hope for victory. They did NOT withhold
troops because of the cause or principle at hand - it was simply
because
they didn't feel that CES's plans would work.
Further, CES's popularity not withstanding, there weren't too many
Highlanders that were happy about the userper sitting in London and
"ruling" the Highlands from afar. Like I've said before, I believe
they
would have followed a jelly donut into battle if they thought it would
win.
>
> In the case of the
> <Highland
> <Gael, Charles was the rightful Prince. As you know, the typical
> <Highlander
> <did not recognise England's right to rule the Highlands, and
barely
> <acknowledged the Scottish Parliament.
>
> Which is largely irrelevant to Scotland as a whole.
Again, blurring when convenient. :) That wasn't the question. You
can always use that argument, since the vast majority of native Scots
were and are Lowlanders. This isn't a popularity contest.....saying
that "most Scots" or "most of Scotland" isn't really relevant to the
point.
> On what basis do you draw
> the conclusion that they barely recognised the Scottish Parliament,
given
> that a number of them actually sat in the parliament before its
dissolution
> and took up seats in Westminster that were put on offer following
the Act of
> Union?
Hold that thought.....I'll quote some chapter and verse come Monday.
(I don't have my books here at work)
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeņid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Sean MacUisdin
> >
> > ALIXGUNN <alix...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000229134438...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> > >
>
> he is in
> > > something he cannot change.
> > >
> > >
> he's
> > American...
>
> Probably....you know, "America?" The place that shares the lion's
> portion of Highland blood with Canada?
--
Air muir 's air tir,
Sean of Clan Uisdin
-------------------
If anyone is looking for Sean of Clan Uisdin, he can be found in the
bathtub mulling over his thoughts wi' a dram o' Glen Ord.
Remove 'mac' to reply.
... The heroes of the race of Conn are dead,
How bitter to our hearts is the grief for them!
We shall not live long after them,
Perilous we think it to be bereaved of the brotherhood!
Cathal MacMhuirich
"Well, I'm sick of this room and everyone in it!" - Bender
"When Canada is dead and gone there'll be no more Celine Dion!" - MAC
(Mothers against Canada)
CandL Garrett
James William Oliver wrote in article
<all other posts snipped>
> I remain to be convinced of the ability of the Jacobite army to sack
London
> in any meaningful sense of the word before being caught by government
> forces. They could have caused panic and put many Londoners to flight,
> certainly. Remember though that in those days many ordinary people
carried
> muskets and swords. I'm sure some sort of militia could have been put
> together and with Yeomanry called in from surrounding counties, a force
> could have been created (albeit mostly untrained) with numbers at least
> matching the rebel army (remembering that the population of London at
this
> time was about one million). And if you remember how badly armed the
> Jacobites were, even after their previous victories, and how low morale
was,
> attacking London would have been the end of the rebellion. And while
> considering these factors also remember the nature of the troops. Poor
> Highlanders, far from home, badly armed, speaking only gaelic.
> Belive it or not, I have tried to argue the case for the Jacobites
being
> able to attack London, seeing my tutor was so dismissive of them. I
> referred him to the battle of Killiekrankie in 1688, and the first, and
> possibly best ever, example of the 'Highland Charge'. This battle saw
rates
> of attrition that were not seen again until the slaughter of World War I.
> After some debate, I now agree with him for the reasons I have
outlined...
>
> James
James except for your comment on BPC's troops 'sacking' London... I have no
argument with your, or for that matter, any other post on this topic.
IMMHO... I doubt whether there would have been much armed resistance to
his entry to London I think the Londoners would have just let things
'happen'.
I have an ancestor born at that very time and place..... and the only
genuine *anti* vibes I have picked up in what I've read have been
anti-George. The rumours are flying that BPC is coming and lo behold
there is a rash of babies being christened with Jacobite names. ?????
Londoners at that time were anti-authority, anti-church,
anti-establishment.... that's when they were sober, of course.
But it is ALL speculation based on the information at hand... in other
words... an educated guess! History tutors are professional debaters,
surmisers, interpreters!! But the problem is that they tend to push their
pet theories or convictions as fact, and my reaction is always... how do
they know that ? what is the quality of their information? When I know the
answer to that,
I am usually satisfied, but will never be *convinced* because of the multi
faceted nature of the subject. History is what happened from the view
point of the observer!! We can't get away from that. All we can hope is
that the facts are found, presented and interpreted in an unbiased manner.
There are a number of History subjects which will always be suspect because
of their ability to evoke emotion. The Stewarts, BPC, The American Civil
War are good examples because people are STILL taking sides. Compare these
to the more 'rational' history of the English Civil War. Yet the ECW was
just as controversial at the time, it is just that those who objected to
the official records of what happened are no longer vocal in their
objections. It amuses me to hear English people describe how Cromwell blew
up this... pulled that down... slaughtered, ransacked, etc.. in such a
matter
fact tone, he did it or ordered it... no big deal...!
Just a matter fact acceptance, of what they have been told. I can't help
wondering about what the reaction of the person whose home
was destroyed or whose church was defiled? Their version did not make an
impact on 'official' history.
There have been a couple of local historical events that I have been
involved and/or lived through and when I read the official version.... it
sounds like just so much gobbeldy-gook!!
--
Lena G
the_...@my-deja.com
"Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)"
<mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> "Rev Timothy N Nurse" <tnn...@XYZ.usa.net> wrote in message
> news:tnnurse-ya0235800...@130.209.34.15...
> > In article <38bee754$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, "Jeff Ramsden
> \(MacLeņid\)"
> >
> > <"James William Oliver" <j...@st-andrews.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > <>
> >
> > <>
> > <> They were poorly trained, who was going to train them? Many of
> them
> > <were
> > <> experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to
> > <train them
> > <> and for what reason?
> > <
> > <
> > <James, military training doesn't necessarily limit itself to drill
> and
> > <ceremony.
> >
> > He's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that operating as an
> effective
> > unit requires rather more than weapons use.
>
> *That* I would agree with. Is that indeed what you meant, James?
>
> However, I still maintain that there were a significant amount of
> battle veterans in the makeup to stand for something. That is, I
> don't accept that the Highland forces were simply a bunch of
> farmers that couldn't tell one end of a sword from another.
Perhaps it is a bit unclear from my own posting, but yes, that was the
idea I was trying to convey. I also accept that most highlanders did
know how to use weapons. Highland society was a militarised one. The
clan, after all, was simply feudalism by another name (and with some
romantic embelishment) and allowed for the raising of feudal-style
forces.
> > <> No he wasn't. Both the English and Scottish Parliaments deposed
> his
> > <> Grandfather, James VII and II. As I'm sure you remember from
> the
> > <nasty
> > <> episode involving Charles I and and axe, Parliament has supreme
> > <authority,
> > <> over everything.
> > <
> > <Parliament rules by consent of the people.
> >
> > Which was precisely what happened in the case of the Stuarts. The
> Scottish
> > people had had quite enough of the Stuarts and were happy to see the
> back
> > of them.
>
> Somewhat true. Again, we're blurring lines of distinction whenever
> it's convenient to prove a point. In this case, the larger number of
> Scots (that being largely Lowland Scotland) were fairly happy to be
> ruled by the Hanoverian userper. Many Highland clans did not
> send troops to aid CES, because they thought his plans ill-conceived,
> and didn't have much hope for victory. They did NOT withhold
> troops because of the cause or principle at hand - it was simply
> because
> they didn't feel that CES's plans would work.
Very true, French assistance was a vital pre-conditon to most Jacobites
coming out to fight. As we all know, this didn't materialise.
Also, its worth pointing out that Jacobites was seen as, what we would
call today, a bunch of losers. From 1688 onwards, they always lost to
the Scottish, then British, State. Those with Jacobite sympathies were
not willing to come out at fight for what they knew would be the losing
side.
> Further, CES's popularity not withstanding, there weren't too many
> Highlanders that were happy about the userper sitting in London and
> "ruling" the Highlands from afar. Like I've said before, I believe
> they
> would have followed a jelly donut into battle if they thought it would
> win.
I'm sorry, but this comment stikes me as nothing more than romanticism.
Firstly, I'm very sure that the ordinary Highlander didn't have an
opinion, he was too busy with other matters, like eaking a living out of
the Highlands. Secondly most Highland chiefs supported the Jacobite
cause for one (or more) of the following reasons:
1. They were Catholic (minority)
2. They were Episcopalian (which means they belive in the Divine right
of Kings, therefore the 1688 deposition was illegal and the Pretenders
were the correct monarchs)
3. The prospect of personal gain.
4. Nothing to lose by joining in.
The idea that BPC or those before him came to restore the Scottish
throne, or even that he was interested in Scotland, beyond its use as a
staging point for invasions of Britain, is extremely far fetched. In my
opinion anyway.
> > In the case of the
> > <Highland
> > <Gael, Charles was the rightful Prince. As you know, the typical
> > <Highlander
> > <did not recognise England's right to rule the Highlands, and
> barely
> > <acknowledged the Scottish Parliament.
> >
> > Which is largely irrelevant to Scotland as a whole.
>
> Again, blurring when convenient. :) That wasn't the question. You
> can always use that argument, since the vast majority of native Scots
> were and are Lowlanders. This isn't a popularity contest.....saying
> that "most Scots" or "most of Scotland" isn't really relevant to the
> point.
Why? Remember that the majority of ordinary Highland folk were not
politically aware, they didn't have the time (this applies equally to
the ordinary lowland people). They were too busy trying to survive. So
your point is moot. When we talk of the political classes in the 18th
century, We are talking about the aristocracy and upper middle class -
men with land and/or money. The rest, frankly, didn't count.
Also, at this point, the Highlands were about 1/3 of the population of
Scotland.
> > On what basis do you draw
> > the conclusion that they barely recognised the Scottish Parliament,
> given
> > that a number of them actually sat in the parliament before its
> dissolution
> > and took up seats in Westminster that were put on offer following
> the Act of
> > Union?
>
> Hold that thought.....I'll quote some chapter and verse come Monday.
> (I don't have my books here at work)
And I look forward to reading it.
Also, I haven't been able to defend my arguments lately because I've
been busy with essays. Been writing on an interesting topic relating to
Scottish identity post Union. Quite interesting, I've a feeling that
some members of the group would not be happy with my conclusions. I
might raise a discussion when I've got time.
Anyway...I'll try not to be so tardy with my responses this week (though
I can't guarentee anything)
PS Jeff, the Act of Union is a topic that I've been though in minute
detail, far more so than Jacobitism...if your going to post on that (and
if we differ in opinions) you can expect one mighty debate. I look
forward to it.
Regards
James
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
NINETY 3RD
Or was my previous post on all this just too dang long and no one (except Lena
G -- thanks for the compliment again, BTW..) has read it?
Oh well....
here we go...again...
he_...@my-deja.com
Date: Sat, 4 Mar, 2000 10:08 AM
Message-id: <89rfur$ghu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
wrote:
<snip of who wrote what when>
> > <> They were poorly trained, who was going to train them? Many of them
were experienced in the use of weapons, granted, but who was going to
train them and for what reason?
> > <James, military training doesn't necessarily limit itself to drill and
ceremony.
> >
> > He's not suggesting that, he's suggesting that operating as an effective
unit requires rather more than weapons use.
> However, I still maintain that there were a significant amount of
> battle veterans in the makeup to stand for something. That is, I
> don't accept that the Highland forces were simply a bunch of
> farmers that couldn't tell one end of a sword from another.
>>Perhaps it is a bit unclear from my own posting, but yes, that was the idea I
was trying to convey. I also accept that most highlanders did know how to use
weapons. Highland society was a militarised one. The
clan, after all, was simply feudalism by another name (and with some romantic
embelishment) and allowed for the raising of feudal-style forces.<<
OK, in order to be able to discuss this coherently, a few niceties have to be
established:
1. It was the JACOBITE army, not "Highland", and not even "Scottish" army.
There were French, Franco-Irish and English units in the Jacobite ranks.
2. There were professional soldiers and units "regulars") in the Jacobite Army,
but not comprising all of it.
3. MANY Scots fought against the Jacobites -- there were regular Scottish units
(both Highland and Lowland) in the British Army, Scottish militia units and
many Clan units which came out in open conflict against the Jacobites.
Now repeating myself from previously: Actually, some were trained, some had a
little training and others had almost no training. Those units from France were
trained regular soldiers. Some of the JACOBITE force were militia units with
varying amounts of training. Most of the so-called _clan_ regiments' training
(if any) came after they were raised for the campaign and so had not as much
time together under arms as regular soldiers would.
Knowledge of weapons and individual combat is one thing, working together as a
fighting force is another. On the battlefield the latter will eventually
dominate.
> Somewhat true. Again, we're blurring lines of distinction whenever it's
convenient to prove a point. >In this case, the larger number of Scots (that
being largely Lowland Scotland) were fairly happy to be
> ruled by the Hanoverian userper. Many Highland clans did not send troops to
aid CES, because they thought his plans ill-conceived, and didn't have much
hope for victory. They did NOT withhold troops because of the cause or
principle at hand - it was simply because they didn't feel that CES's plans
would work.<
OK...first off, the use of the word "usurper" shows a bias in the conversation.
George did not usurp anything. He was ASKED to come to Britain.
Let's delve into this one more time: Both James the Old Pretender and George I
had James I & VI as great
grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland.
As for why a great many Highland clans did not send troops, it indeed WAS
because they thought his plans ill-conceived, didn't have much hope for victory
AND because of the cause or principle at hand.
Repeating:
*It is tempting to view Culloden as a struggle between Scots and English, or -
slightly less inaccurately - between Highlanders and non Highlanders. The
reality was different. Religious and political beliefs dictated diverse
loyalties.......
...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars there was for
some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a son on the
other side. For some, this situation came as no surprise; family policy ensured
that, whoever won, lands would not be lost. Perhaps the deciding factor in the
Rising of 1745, however, was the great majority who did not rise; the
Highlanders and Lowlanders, Scots and English, who stayed at home and awaited
the outcome.* --
--The above is from _Culloden_ by Phil Skeld, published by The National Trust
For Scotland.
Please note again who produced this publication - The National Trust For
Scotland. Head offices in Edinburgh. A charitable organization, independent of
the Government. The very people responsible for caretaking and preserving huge
chunks of Scottish historic real estate (over 100) - including Culloden
Battlefield. The National Trust of Scotland -- not some *English* agency trying
to *distance English involvement* or make apologetics for atrocities.
>>The idea that BPC or those before him came to restore the Scottish throne, or
even that he was interested in Scotland, beyond its use as a staging point for
invasions of Britain, is extremely far fetched. In my opinion anyway.<<
And your opinion is actually quite correct.
Again: Charles Edward Stuart had not come to reclaim the throne of Scotland or
to *free* Scotland. He was there to gain the throne of BRITAIN (which included
England, Scotland, Wales and all other lands of Britain at the time) for his
father. Had he succeeded there would have been no *Scottish freedom*, and his
father would have been crowned in London and ruled from there. So much for
romantic hogwash.
> > In the case of the Highland Gael, Charles was the rightful Prince. > >
Only to the handful who came out to support him. Most did not support him, or
could have cared less.
As to the "taking of London" question, I will (again) post from yet another
previous post of mine (what happens to all of these? I AM the Invisible Man!):
From what I can recall, the government had somewhere around 33,000 regular
troops still in Britain, (with more on the way home) not counting English
militia raised at the threat of CES - 12 regiments of foot and 2 of horse. Also
not including
Scottish militia raised against the Jacobites.
I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the most.
Then there was the Royal Navy. They only failed in their mission about twice -
letting Charlie in, and letting him get away. They kept foreign troops,
supplies, money and arms from reaching the Jacobites.
Capturing a Capitol city can be instrumental, but then again, doing so does not
always guarantee an end of a war and immediate success. Cumberland took
Edinburgh. The British took Washington in 1814. Napoleon captured Moscow.
Circumstances will always dictate what may happen in each individual case.
Cheers!
Charles W. Harrison & Gena M. Burns-Harrison
hence the following...)
NINETY 3rd...Outstanding. I now understand a couple of
points that I had failed to understand previously. Thank
you and please...feel free to explain anything else in Scot
history. I can stand the enlightenment!!!
It goes in my "Keeper File". Thanks again.
--
I bid you these things...Laughter and Peace. ><>
Gena M. Burns-Harrison (GMBH)
warc...@compaq.net
Nolensville, Tennessee, USA
"NINETY 3RD" <nine...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000301165139...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
Tiss
ScotHeritage wrote:
> In article <38B760F4...@i1.net>, Tiss <ejth...@i1.net> writes:
>
> >Tiss wrote:
>
> >Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland army was
> >poorly
> >trained, didn't understand the English language for the most part.
>
> No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been doing what they
> did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the English, and
> were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly trained.
They had been fighting among themselves, using the same tactics. They had not been
exposed to the English Professional Soldier who has been described as the "Greatest
Army ever".
> And their
> >HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before Culloden, many of
> >the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and realized they didn't
> >stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride wouldn't let them do
> >it before their neighbors.
>
> Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden. A matter of
> honpour has nothing to do with your neighbours, it is a matter of an oath, and
> a willingness to fight to the death.
Prove it! As far as anything I have read, the survivors were too busy fleeing for
their lives and I don't mean in fear of being cowards. That they weren't. But
they were rational human beings and knew what would happen to them if the English
caught them.
> I can tell you from personal experience,
> when you are kitted out in kilt, (even battle dress with only the toorie to
> show you are the Highland Division), You have your arms, and thon dam pipes
> start, I do not know any Highland Soldier who would not fight through the very
> bowels of hell just for the hell of it. Why, if the Highlanders were so
> disgruntled, did the English Army have a much higher desertion rate? Always
> have had a higher desertion rate and probably always will. Why were there only
> ever 3 instances of Highland soldiers being flogged, (see Highland Mutiny).
> They rebelled after the liers in England recruited them under written contract
> that they would not be sent away from Scottish soil and then tried to ship them
> all over to the Hell Holes of the world.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you with these statements.
I think you have been reading the wrong history books.
>
>
> I do not want to seem inpolite, but to say such things is about the Highland
> soldier, the most honoured fighting force in the world, is totally
> unacceptable. You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of 30,000 pounds
> sterling was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander turn over our
> Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and sword, death
> and deportation.
I doubt that they knew where he was. He was wisked out of Scotland so fast.
> For honourable action against a superior force, for treating
> the enemy and their families with compassion and kindness, and for attempting
> to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the dictatorship of a
> foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of our women and
> children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How dare you
> madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my people with
> such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.
Get your head out of the clouds, Sir! I am not dishonouring anyone. I'm only
being logical, which is something you aren't. Where have you received your
information? It sounds very one sided and romantic.>
> >Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got everyone
> >stirred up for the "Glory of Scotland".
>
> Not at all. Several thousand men do not rise because of a few hot heads. Just
> like today you have many hot heads, and very few riots, fewer revolutions, and
> fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been trained for all
> of his life.
I've seen one person cause a riot. Where have you been? I don't believe his
father cared, as long as he was left out of it.
William had just as much right to the throne as BPC as you can see below:
"As a result of William's
superior diplomacy, which included his marriage in 1677 to
the English
princess Mary (eldest daughter of the future King James II),
Louis XIV
agreed to terminate the war on terms favorable to the Dutch.
Fearing that James II would restore the Roman Catholic
church in England,
James's opponents secretly invited William to bring an army
of liberation to
England, which he did in 1688. James fled to France, and
William and
Mary were proclaimed joint sovereigns of England in 1689.
Scotland
accepted the new rulers. Predominantly Catholic Ireland
remained loyal to
the deposed king. In 1690 William led the army that defeated
James and
his Irish partisans at the Battle of the Boyne. " from
Escarta Encyclopedia
> They managed to enlist Bonnie Prince Charlie
> >as leader of their group. I really think that Charles would have never set
> >foot in Scotland if he hadn't had his pride all puffed up and was told that
> >"Gee, we'll make you a King" if you just act as our figurehead.
>
> Charles was in line for the job of being the King, his father was the rightful
> king.
Not anymore then William.
> Charlie was
> >not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only 22? and
> >probably would have much rather spent his time at the French Court.
>
> 1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real name), was
> fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had spent his young
> years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
> 2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
> 3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being a prince in
> Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
> 4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
> 5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into retrurning to
> Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of his father.
Where in the world did you get this information?
> Why would he want to spend his time with "those barbarians" when he knew
> nothing about them.
>
> He knew all about US. Barbarians. All of his teachers and the court in ITALY
> were of the blood of we barbarians. My dear Sir or Madam, when the Highland
> armies marched into England, from before and after the time of William Wallace
> we did not slaughter babies in their cribs and mothers at thier homes.
> Prisoners were more often than not released imediately upon their own parol and
> never imprisoned like animals to rot slow death.If they surrendered. NO
> quarter, (an Inglis expression by the way), was ever asked, but it was always
> given. For over 500 years most Highlanders have been able to read and write in
> their language, and in many cases several others. By the age of 7 I was fluent
> in The Gaelic, French and English and was starting the Latin. My cousins about
> 2 years younger spoke Gaelic, fluent Italian and English.
>
> Perhaps we should now study the social morals of, Edward I, or more recently
> Butcher Billy Cumberland after Culloden,
We are not discussing Edward I
> The English record in India, North
> America, the West Indies, shall I go on ???? OK 1920 something when the English
> brought tanks and automatic weapons into a crowded football park in Ireland and
> mowed down unarmed defensless men women and children.
Again, we are not discussing "the Troubles".
> (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating it.
I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
Tiss
David Thorpe
yet appear to have been discussed.
First, I don't think that the Jacobite army would have succeeded in taking
London. The Jacobites at the time didn't think so either - while they may
have been misled to some extent by government spies, they nevertheless had
their own information sources and there was undoubted truth in the fact that
enormously superior government forces were being massed against them. As a
result, only two members of Charles' Council of War advocated pressing on
from Derby to London. However, the situation isn't so clear as to what
might have happened had the Jacobite army remained in Scotland after
Prestonpans and consolidated the Stuart position there. They very nearly
did just this - only by one vote did the Jacobite Council decide to press on
south of the border.
Had they remained in Scotland, would they have been able to reconcile the
essentially hostile lowland Scotland to the Jacobite cause before the
British Government initiated any meaningful action against them? I think it
is highly arguable that if there was a relatively stable Scotland to provide
a firm base for Jacobite support the French might then have provided the
desired support. Also, the Jacobites would have been financially
strengthened as they would have commanded the Scottish Exchequer. With
Jacobite forces firmly established in Scotland and effectively running the
government there, and with the French providing substantive and realistic
military aid, Jacobites in Northern England (assuming that there were as
many as present-day Jacobites claim) might then have felt sufficiently
encouraged to rise in support. However, I personally think that the
Jacobites would have had great difficulty in reconciling lowland Scotland to
their cause if only because of religion - I don't think that Charles would
have rejected Catholicism to win the Scots over and I don't think that the
Scots would ever have been won over by a Catholic monarch.
Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British government
would have done with Charles had he indeed been captured after Culloden. It
would have put them in an enormous quandary. Charles was clearly guilty of
treason and numerous other capital offences, but it would have been
unthinkable to execute him. Confining him for the rest of his days would
have provided a constant focus for Jacobite resentment and rebellion, a not
dissimilar situation to that which faced Elizabeth of England when she
afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I suspect that the
Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a collective sigh of
relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it might have
done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed himself to be
captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
David.
Ann Getty
In article <20000304185221...@ng-cd1.aol.com>,
nine...@aol.comnospam (NINETY 3RD) wrote:
>Hmmm...am I kill-filed on most folks browsers?
>Or was my previous post on all this just too dang long and no one (except
>Lena
>G -- thanks for the compliment again, BTW..) has read it?
Nope, that's not the case at all. I read it, but don't feel
"qualified" enough to offer any comments on the subject. My knowledge
of Culloden is pitifully inadequate to contribute to the conversation,
but I'm grateful to you and anyone else who has offered comments in
this thread for enlightening me.
Ann
the_...@my-deja.com
> >>Perhaps it is a bit unclear from my own posting, but yes, that was
the idea I
> was trying to convey. I also accept that most highlanders did know how
to use
> weapons. Highland society was a militarised one. The
> clan, after all, was simply feudalism by another name (and with some
romantic
> embelishment) and allowed for the raising of feudal-style forces.<<
>
> OK, in order to be able to discuss this coherently, a few niceties
have to be
> established:
> 1. It was the JACOBITE army, not "Highland", and not even "Scottish"
army.
I'm well aware of this, as you'll know from reading my posts on the
topic. British military history is an interest of mine.
I was referring to the Highland contingent of the Jacobite army, which
was present in every rebellion from the beginning. Highlanders made up
the majority of every Jacobite force raised in Scotland.
> >>The idea that BPC or those before him came to restore the Scottish
throne, or
> even that he was interested in Scotland, beyond its use as a staging
point for
> invasions of Britain, is extremely far fetched. In my opinion
anyway.<<
> And your opinion is actually quite correct.
I know. I was simply trying to encorage a discussion.
Tiss
CandL Garrett wrote:
> NINETY 3RD wrote in article
>
> Another brilliant post 93rd!!!! I don't care how often you repost it... I
> have it saved as well !!
>
> > The best thing BPC did for Scotland was to LEAVE.
> >
> LOL.... I take it that you are NOT a Jacobite? :-)
>
> > ....Ok, that and Drambuie!
> >
> You have your priorities right, Kiddo!! LOL
>
> > Slainte!
>
> Slainte mhath!!
> --
> Lena G
I'd like to add my thanks too for the great post. I filed it away for future
reference.
Tiss
Sean MacUisdin
(big snip)
> > (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by debating it.
>
> I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
>
> Tiss
Wow - anyone saying the lowlanders don't know how to fight haven't been
reading this ng.
Tiss
David Thorpe wrote:
From what I have read, I definitely agree with you. The Protestant Lowlander
was fanatical in their religious
beliefs. The Coventeers hated the Catholics and I'm afraid they brought their
religious zeal over to America.
>
>
> Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British government
> would have done with Charles had he indeed been captured after Culloden. It
> would have put them in an enormous quandary. Charles was clearly guilty of
> treason and numerous other capital offences, but it would have been
> unthinkable to execute him. Confining him for the rest of his days would
> have provided a constant focus for Jacobite resentment and rebellion, a not
> dissimilar situation to that which faced Elizabeth of England when she
> afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I suspect that the
> Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a collective sigh of
> relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it might have
> done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed himself to be
> captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
>
> David.
That is an interesting thought. I wonder what they would have done. They
could have hidden him in the Tower and never told anyone. I'm sure they
wouldn't have wanted him to be a martyr to the Jacobite cause. Very
interesting!
Tiss
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:89rfur$ghu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <38c0679f$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
> "Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)"
> <mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote:
> >
> Also, its worth pointing out that Jacobites was seen as, what we
would
> call today, a bunch of losers. From 1688 onwards, they always lost
to
> the Scottish, then British, State. Those with Jacobite sympathies
were
> not willing to come out at fight for what they knew would be the
losing
> side.
Just to be clear, I'd agree with that statement if you mean *after*
the '19.
During the '15 and '19 I'd have to disagree that the Jacobites were
considered "losers."
>
> > Further, CES's popularity not withstanding, there weren't too many
> > Highlanders that were happy about the userper sitting in London
and
> > "ruling" the Highlands from afar. Like I've said before, I
believe
> > they
> > would have followed a jelly donut into battle if they thought it
would
> > win.
>
> I'm sorry, but this comment stikes me as nothing more than
romanticism.
> Firstly, I'm very sure that the ordinary Highlander didn't have an
> opinion, he was too busy with other matters, like eaking a living
out of
> the Highlands. Secondly most Highland chiefs supported the Jacobite
> cause for one (or more) of the following reasons:
Sorry, I wasn't being clear. When I said "weren't too many
Highlanders
that were happy...." I meant Chiefs and Chieftains mostly, with of
course
a few common clansmen. I didn't mean necessarily the rank and file.
> The idea that BPC or those before him came to restore the Scottish
> throne, or even that he was interested in Scotland, beyond its use
as a
> staging point for invasions of Britain, is extremely far fetched. In
my
> opinion anyway.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. :) I totally
agree,
of course, that Scotland was to be a staging point for the invasion
of England. However, I think restoring the Scottish throne was also
a significant objective.
> > > Which is largely irrelevant to Scotland as a whole.
> >
> > Again, blurring when convenient. :) That wasn't the question.
You
> > can always use that argument, since the vast majority of native
Scots
> > were and are Lowlanders. This isn't a popularity
contest.....saying
> > that "most Scots" or "most of Scotland" isn't really relevant to
the
> > point.
>
> Why? Remember that the majority of ordinary Highland folk were not
> politically aware, they didn't have the time (this applies equally
to
> the ordinary lowland people). They were too busy trying to survive.
So
> your point is moot. When we talk of the political classes in the
18th
> century, We are talking about the aristocracy and upper middle
class -
> men with land and/or money. The rest, frankly, didn't count.
> Also, at this point, the Highlands were about 1/3 of the population
of
> Scotland.
No, we're talking about regions - not populations. Per capita doesn't
count.
> Also, I haven't been able to defend my arguments lately because
I've
> been busy with essays. Been writing on an interesting topic
relating to
> Scottish identity post Union. Quite interesting, I've a feeling
that
> some members of the group would not be happy with my conclusions. I
> might raise a discussion when I've got time.
Brilliant. :)
>
> Anyway...I'll try not to be so tardy with my responses this week
(though
> I can't guarentee anything)
>
> PS Jeff, the Act of Union is a topic that I've been though in minute
> detail, far more so than Jacobitism...if your going to post on that
(and
> if we differ in opinions) you can expect one mighty debate. I look
> forward to it.
Excellent! I look forward to it, James. :)
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:38C2EE5D...@home.com...
> Tiss wrote:
>
> (big snip)
>
> > > (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by
debating it.
> >
> > I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
> >
> > Tiss
>
been
> reading this ng.
True. I wish she knew what she was talking about, though. It would
have SO much more effect.....
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> Hmmm...am I kill-filed on most folks browsers?
> Or was my previous post on all this just too dang long and no one
(except Lena
> G -- thanks for the compliment again, BTW..) has read it?
I did! :)
> >>Perhaps it is a bit unclear from my own posting, but yes, that was
the idea I
> was trying to convey. I also accept that most highlanders did know
how to use
> weapons. Highland society was a militarised one. The
> clan, after all, was simply feudalism by another name (and with some
romantic
> embelishment) and allowed for the raising of feudal-style forces.<<
>
> OK, in order to be able to discuss this coherently, a few niceties
have to be
> established:
> 1. It was the JACOBITE army, not "Highland", and not even "Scottish"
army.
Okay, true.
> Now repeating myself from previously: Actually, some were trained,
some had a
> little training and others had almost no training. Those units from
France were
> trained regular soldiers. Some of the JACOBITE force were militia
units with
> varying amounts of training. Most of the so-called _clan_ regiments'
training
> (if any) came after they were raised for the campaign and so had not
as much
> time together under arms as regular soldiers would.
True, I'm with you......
>
> Knowledge of weapons and individual combat is one thing, working
together as a
> fighting force is another. On the battlefield the latter will
eventually
> dominate.
Um..........maybe. One word: Stirling. Okay, I lied - here's another
word: Prestonpans.
Determination plays a big role in battle, and can outweigh training.
> OK...first off, the use of the word "usurper" shows a bias in the
conversation.
> George did not usurp anything. He was ASKED to come to Britain.
> Let's delve into this one more time: Both James the Old Pretender
and George I
So does "Old Pretender" but I don't mind if you don't. :)
> had James I & VI as great
> grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland.
Which doesn't mean anything. Divine Right doesn't recognise
country boundaries and places of birth.
> As for why a great many Highland clans did not send troops, it
indeed WAS
> because they thought his plans ill-conceived, didn't have much hope
for victory
> AND because of the cause or principle at hand.
I agree with the first, but I simply don't accept the second.
> ...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars there
was for
> some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a
son on the
> other side.
That is a matter of opinion. If you define the term "civil war" as a
battle between countrymen, then fine. I agree with that.
> And your opinion is actually quite correct.
> Again: Charles Edward Stuart had not come to reclaim the throne of
Scotland or
> to *free* Scotland. He was there to gain the throne of BRITAIN
(which included
> England, Scotland, Wales and all other lands of Britain at the time)
for his
> father. Had he succeeded there would have been no *Scottish
freedom*, and his
> father would have been crowned in London and ruled from there. So
much for
> romantic hogwash.
Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
CES wanted the throne of Britain, on that we agree, as a maximum. At
a minimum, the throne of Scotland. The point is not Scotland being
free,
the point is Scotland not being ruled by the Hanoverian usurper.
>
> > > In the case of the Highland Gael, Charles was the rightful
Prince. > >
>
> Only to the handful who came out to support him. Most did not
support him, or
> could have cared less.
LOL! A handful?!? Check your numbers! You must have freightfully
large hands!
>
> As to the "taking of London" question, I will (again) post from yet
another
> previous post of mine (what happens to all of these? I AM the
Invisible Man!):
> From what I can recall, the government had somewhere around 33,000
regular
> troops still in Britain, (with more on the way home) not counting
English
> militia raised at the threat of CES - 12 regiments of foot and 2 of
horse. Also
> not including
> Scottish militia raised against the Jacobites.
> I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the
most.
Which means exactly nothing. The Jacobites pulled off other battles
where they were outnumbered. And if there was no danger, then
why was London in such a state of panic?
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeòid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:38C1CBD1...@i1.net...
>
>
> ScotHeritage wrote:
>
> > In article <38B760F4...@i1.net>, Tiss <ejth...@i1.net>
writes:
> >
> > >Tiss wrote:
> >
> > >Lena, I have to partially agree with James here. The Highland
army was
> > >poorly
> > >trained, didn't understand the English language for the most
part.
> >
> > No they were most certainly not poorly trained. They had been
doing what they
> > did for several hundred years. They did not use the tactics of the
English, and
> > were best at gorilla warfare, but they were not at all poorly
trained.
>
> They had been fighting among themselves, using the same tactics.
They had not been
> exposed to the English Professional Soldier who has been described
as the "Greatest
> Army ever".
And your point is exactly what, Tiss? How about Prestonpans,
Stirling? So much
for the poorly trained Highlander vs. the "English Professional
Soldier." And you
make it sound like people competed with each other to get into the
English
army......please. You're killing me here.
>
> > And their
> > >HONOR was being threatened. I have read where just before
Culloden, many of
> > >the Highlanders saw through the whole bloody mess and realized
they didn't
> > >stand a chance and would have quit then, but their pride wouldn't
let them do
> > >it before their neighbors.
> >
> > Then why on earth did they retreat and REGROUP AFTER Culloden. A
matter of
> > honpour has nothing to do with your neighbours, it is a matter of
an oath, and
> > a willingness to fight to the death.
>
> Prove it!
Simple. Try picking up a history book and reading.
> As far as anything I have read, the survivors were too busy fleeing
for
> their lives and I don't mean in fear of being cowards. That they
weren't. But
> they were rational human beings and knew what would happen to them
if the English
> caught them.
Right, if they were caught BEFORE THEY COULD REGROUP.
>
> > I can tell you from personal experience,
> > when you are kitted out in kilt, (even battle dress with only the
toorie to
> > show you are the Highland Division), You have your arms, and thon
dam pipes
> > start, I do not know any Highland Soldier who would not fight
through the very
> > bowels of hell just for the hell of it. Why, if the Highlanders
were so
> > disgruntled, did the English Army have a much higher desertion
rate? Always
> > have had a higher desertion rate and probably always will. Why
were there only
> > ever 3 instances of Highland soldiers being flogged, (see Highland
Mutiny).
> > They rebelled after the liers in England recruited them under
written contract
> > that they would not be sent away from Scottish soil and then tried
to ship them
> > all over to the Hell Holes of the world.
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't follow you with these statements.
> I think you have been reading the wrong history books.
Oh please....and just what in the world makes you the authority on
history
books over someone who has actually been a Scottish soldier?
> > I do not want to seem inpolite, but to say such things is about
the Highland
> > soldier, the most honoured fighting force in the world, is totally
> > unacceptable. You will be, I am sure, that even when a reward of
30,000 pounds
> > sterling was placed on Our Dear Princes head, not one Highlander
turn over our
> > Tearlach to the army of occupation even under penalty of fire and
sword, death
> > and deportation.
>
> I doubt that they knew where he was. He was wisked out of Scotland
so fast.
Noooooo.....he was in Scotland for a reasonable amount of time after
Culloden. I think you've been "reading the wrong history books."
Skye, you might not be aware, is part of Scotland.
>
> > For honourable action against a superior force, for treating
> > the enemy and their families with compassion and kindness, and for
attempting
> > to put the rightful king on his throan and not accepting the
dictatorship of a
> > foriegn government we are called barbarians, though the blood of
our women and
> > children flowed so thick it turned the streams and rivers red. How
dare you
> > madam. How dare you dishonour the memory and proven actions of my
people with
> > such unresearched and cavalier flippent remarks.
>
> Get your head out of the clouds, Sir! I am not dishonouring anyone.
I'm only
> being logical, which is something you aren't.
Really? You hide it so well.....
>
> > >Just like today, I think there were a few "hot heads" that got
everyone
> > >stirred up for the "Glory of Scotland".
> >
> > Not at all. Several thousand men do not rise because of a few hot
heads. Just
> > like today you have many hot heads, and very few riots, fewer
revolutions, and
> > fewer still wars. His father sent him. It was what he had been
trained for all
> > of his life.
>
> I've seen one person cause a riot. Where have you been? I don't
believe his
> father cared, as long as he was left out of it.
::snort:: Tiss, are you *trying* to troll, here? ROFL...
>
> William had just as much right to the throne as BPC as you can see
below:
Oh please....this is just so ludicrous....William of Orange is not a
Stuart.
Stuarts are the royal house of Scotland. Period.
>
> > Charlie was
> > >not raised in Scotland, he didn't speak the language, he was only
22? and
> > >probably would have much rather spent his time at the French
Court.
> >
> > 1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real
name), was
> > fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had
spent his young
> > years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
> > 2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
> > 3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being
a prince in
> > Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
> > 4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
> > 5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into
retrurning to
> > Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of
his father.
>
> Where in the world did you get this information?
From the "right" history books.
> > (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by
debating it.
>
> I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
>
Pot, kettle, black. I suggest you do a bit of research before
attempting an unprovoked attack on someone that obviously
knows more than you about the subject matter.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:Kppw4.1492$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> There are two interesting points that arise from this topic that
don't as
> yet appear to have been discussed.
>
> First, I don't think that the Jacobite army would have succeeded in
taking
> London.
Again, since this can't be proven either way, we'll just have to agree
to disagree.
> The Jacobites at the time didn't think so either - while they may
> have been misled to some extent by government spies, they
nevertheless had
> their own information sources and there was undoubted truth in the
fact that
> enormously superior government forces were being massed against
them.
Some *did* think so, and the "misled to some extent" should be
"mislead to
a huge extent." Without Bradstreet's misinformation, I believe London
would
have been sacked.
What I think is strange is that if CES had not invaded England at all,
many people would be still saying "the Jacobites could have never
invaded England......" which of course we know is not the case.
> Had they remained in Scotland, would they have been able to
reconcile the
> essentially hostile lowland Scotland to the Jacobite cause before
the
> British Government initiated any meaningful action against them?
I doubt it, frankly. Perhaps over time, but certainly not
immediately.
> Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British
government
> would have done with Charles had he indeed been captured after
Culloden. It
> would have put them in an enormous quandary. Charles was clearly
guilty of
> treason and numerous other capital offences, but it would have been
> unthinkable to execute him. Confining him for the rest of his days
would
> have provided a constant focus for Jacobite resentment and
rebellion, a not
> dissimilar situation to that which faced Elizabeth of England when
she
> afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I suspect
that the
> Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a collective
sigh of
> relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it might
have
I don't think they were that smart. Else why would the Highlands have
been scoured to find him? Why the price on his head? Of course they
wanted to capture him.
> done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed himself to
be
> captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
(shrug) He was brave enough to start the last Uprising, to invade
England.....I don't think courage was a problem here.
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeņid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
James William Oliver
"Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)" wrote:
> This man may have been a Scottish soldier, but that doesn't make him an
> expert on military history. From what I've read of his posts, he
> certainly isn't that.
>
> > > 1: His Royal Highness, Prince Tearlach Eideard Stuart, (His real
> name), was
> > > fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had
> spent his young
> > > years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
> > > 2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
> > > 3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland, being
> a prince in
> > > Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
> > > 4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
> > > 5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into
> retrurning to
> > > Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right hand of
> his father.
> >
> > Where in the world did you get this information?
>
> From the "right" history books.
>
Hmm, I'm not sure why it is all highlanders believe that BPC and a special
affinity just for them. There is absolutely no evidence for this. If he
had won the rebellion, the one thing he certainly would not do is move the
capital to Inverness.
>
> > > (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by
> debating it.
> >
> > I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
> >
>
> Pot, kettle, black. I suggest you do a bit of research before
> attempting an unprovoked attack on someone that obviously
> knows more than you about the subject matter.
If you want my opinion Jeff (as a student of Scottish History, but only a
2nd year - I'm still fallable, for the now anyway ;- ) ), he knows very
little of what Jacobitism was all about.
What I really want to know, is where is Scotheritage. Why has he
disappeared without defending his arguments. I'd really be interested to
know where he got his information from. Come out and defend yourself.
James
CandL Garrett
NINETY 3RD wrote in article > Hmmm...am I kill-filed on most folks
browsers?
> Or was my previous post on all this just too dang long and no one (except
Lena
> G -- thanks for the compliment again, BTW..) has read it?
>
> Oh well....
> here we go...again...
>
I was probably speaking for most of those who read your post '93rd'. I
think people are more likely to answer a post if they disagree with it, or
if they see another side to it. You obviously know your subject and have
facts to back your statements. Who's to argue...? LOL
Please do not be put off.... the 'silence' is not empty... your posts are
appreciated and very welcome.
--
Lena G
NINETY 3RD
I posted the one you mention below as I noticed the thread continuing on the
same ground, without reference to any of that which I posted. I even allowed
for the possibility mine simply had not been "got to" yet, but yet this seemed
too generous after a time!
So I then had to get "pointed" about it. Now they are after me! Ahahaha!
;-)
Cheers!
"CandL Garrett" C.P.G...@bigpond.com
in
***"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" - Peter Sellers
NINETY 3RD
<< > Oh please....and just what in the world makes you the authority on
> history
> books over someone who has actually been a Scottish soldier?
>
> This man may have been a Scottish soldier, but that doesn't make him an
> expert on military history. From what I've read of his posts, he
> certainly isn't that. >>
I'll agree there. Simply having been a soldier does not make one automatically
an authority on history, let alone military history, let alone the military,
period! I have known many a soldier (and their officers) who were/are complete
dolts and could not even be able to find you Britain on a map of the world. Ask
them about the details of a certain time period and you'll get a look as if you
were speaking an unknown language.
More importantly a modern soldier still has no accurate view without study what
soldiering was like in another century. Not just the uniforms have changed.
I'll also hazard that the above mentioned poster IMHO was never in the
military.
Cheers!
NINETY 3RD
<< What I really want to know, is where is Scotheritage. Why has he
disappeared without defending his arguments. I'd really be interested to
know where he got his information from. Come out and defend yourself.
>>
Gone back to start other fires in the Troll Kingdom...?
CandL Garrett
David Thorpe wrote in article
> There are two interesting points that arise from this topic that don't as
> yet appear to have been discussed.
> First, I don't think that the Jacobite army would have succeeded in
taking
> London. The Jacobites at the time didn't think so either - while they
may
> have been misled to some extent by government spies, they nevertheless
had
> their own information sources and there was undoubted truth in the fact
that
> enormously superior government forces were being massed against them. As
a
> result, only two members of Charles' Council of War advocated pressing on
> from Derby to London.
Actually you have brought up 3 points David and I agree that they are all
interesting points of discussion. My only comment on the above is that I
can not see how it can be proven either way whether BPC had a chance to
reach and consolidate his presence in London. From what I understand... so
much rested upon whatever support came from the English.... and there is
no way of knowing what people MIGHT have done, there are too many unknown
factors involved. The religious factor alone is enough to distort
calculations of how the population was thinking or how they would have
reacted. Personally I suspect that the majority or the population was
anti-Hanover, Protestant or no... whether they thought BPC (or his Father)
was a valid replacement did not have time to crystallise and if in the
event
that the populous did decide to side with the Stuarts they must have been
aware that it would have to be fought out. Maybe they didn't dislike the
German Georges enough to risk sheding blood to evict him or maybe they just
didn't care. How will we ever know?
However, the situation isn't so clear as to what
> might have happened had the Jacobite army remained in Scotland after
> Prestonpans and consolidated the Stuart position there. They very nearly
> did just this - only by one vote did the Jacobite Council decide to press
on
> south of the border.
> Had they remained in Scotland, would they have been able to reconcile the
> essentially hostile lowland Scotland to the Jacobite cause before the
> British Government initiated any meaningful action against them? I think
it
> is highly arguable that if there was a relatively stable Scotland to
provide
> a firm base for Jacobite support the French might then have provided the
> desired support. Also, the Jacobites would have been financially
> strengthened as they would have commanded the Scottish Exchequer. With
> Jacobite forces firmly established in Scotland and effectively running
the
> government there, and with the French providing substantive and realistic
> military aid, Jacobites in Northern England (assuming that there were as
> many as present-day Jacobites claim) might then have felt sufficiently
> encouraged to rise in support. However, I personally think that the
> Jacobites would have had great difficulty in reconciling lowland Scotland
to
> their cause if only because of religion - I don't think that Charles
would
> have rejected Catholicism to win the Scots over and I don't think that
the
> Scots would ever have been won over by a Catholic monarch.
Well..! You know how to get the old 'grey cells' going, don't you....? I
have had to really think this one out..... pretty hard considering that for
*my* purposes an overall concept of the topic is generally good enough.
But because you are offering an abstract viewpoint... I am cheeky enough to
comment on this point as well.
IMHO I think that Charlie would have done anything to regain the British
throne... you can question his wisdom, but not his bravery, even if it was
fool-hardy. He landed on Scottish soil with nothing but a hunger for what
he thought belonged to him. My bet is that given the right circumstances
and the opportunity to be gracious about it.. he would have denounced his
faith to get the British crown on his head. Whether he had the foresight
to do it to have the Scottish crown put on his head is another matter.
Then, also, is the comment made by '93rd' in his excellent post.. there
were Protestants in BPC's army and Catholics in the English <G>.. (ok...ok)
Government Army. This indicates a profoundly complicated situation. There
really are so many different facets to this little episode in history...!
> Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British government
> would have done with Charles had he indeed been captured after Culloden.
It
> would have put them in an enormous quandary. Charles was clearly guilty
of
> treason and numerous other capital offences, but it would have been
> unthinkable to execute him. Confining him for the rest of his days would
> have provided a constant focus for Jacobite resentment and rebellion, a
not
> dissimilar situation to that which faced Elizabeth of England when she
> afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I suspect that
the
> Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a collective sigh
of
> relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it might have
> done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed himself to be
> captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
>
> David.
>
This has never occurred to me before... a very interesting proposal. Can't
really compare it with Mary and Elizabeth though, Mary had no real support
outside of the UK. Hard to gauge what the Pope or France would (or could)
have done about BPC being prisoner... probably only make a lot of noise. I
don't think that George or parliament would have been influenced by
anything outside the UK.
I wouldn't mind knowing if James the Pretender, or BPC for that matter,
made any entreaties or similar.. to anybody... regarding the ruthless
treatment dealt out by the Duke of Cumberland.
--
Lena G
--
Lena G
Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith
(93rd -- really -- it's just an awed silence)
Regards the Protestant/Catholic thing, didn't BPC eventually profess
to be converted to Church of England? (well after Culloden, and I
think after his brother became a cardinal) Too late...
--
Sally Smith, webmaster for the Clan MacLeod Societies, mac...@best.com
http://www.best.com/~macleod/
Disclaimer: the above posting is probably entirely my own opinion
NINETY 3RD
in
Message-id: <38c55061$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
wrote:
<< Regards the Protestant/Catholic thing, didn't BPC eventually profess
to be converted to Church of England? (well after Culloden, and I
think after his brother became a cardinal) Too late...
>>
He visited London ingognito in 1750, and was received into the Anglican Church.
(For the staunch CES followers, that reads as Church of ENGLAND. Note that it
wasn't even the Church of Scotland!)
He returned however to the Roman Catholic church in 1787.
His brother Henry became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church in 1747.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:38C4CBD1...@st-andrews.ac.uk...
him an
> > expert on military history. From what I've read of his posts, he
> > certainly isn't that.
>
> >
>
real
> > name), was
> > > > fluent in the Gaelic, Latin, French and Italian, where he had
> > spent his young
> > > > years, (Italy) and his last, NOT in France.
> > > > 2: He would not of been the King his father would of been.
> > > > 3: He was of Highland Blood and was probably more highland,
being
> > a prince in
> > > > Exile than most who were born and bred in Scotland.
> > > > 4: All of his teachers were Gaels and taught him in Gaelic.
> > > > 5: He was our futur king and never had to be coerced into
> > retrurning to
> > > > Scotland to take his legal and rightful place on the right
hand of
> > his father.
> > >
> > > Where in the world did you get this information?
> >
> > From the "right" history books.
> >
>
special
> affinity just for them. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
If he
> had won the rebellion, the one thing he certainly would not do is
move the
> capital to Inverness.
>
> >
> > debating it.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right
first?
> > >
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black. I suggest you do a bit of research before
> > attempting an unprovoked attack on someone that obviously
> > knows more than you about the subject matter.
>
only a
> 2nd year - I'm still fallable, for the now anyway ;- ) ), he knows
very
> little of what Jacobitism was all about.
>
I won't argue that one with you as I don't know enough about the
man personally. What I objected to was the tone Tiss was using
as well as simply dismissing the *facts* that he presented without
a shred of evidence to support the contrary.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> Whoever wrote what and when ---
on
> > history
> > books over someone who has actually been a Scottish soldier?
> >
> > This man may have been a Scottish soldier, but that doesn't make
him an
> > expert on military history. From what I've read of his posts, he
> > certainly isn't that. >>
>
>
automatically
> an authority on history, let alone military history, let alone the
military,
> period!
Oh, I agree. However, it stands to reason that military or
ex-military are
by and large more knowledgeable about the military than civilians.
Being a soldier does not make one a history expert, any more than
being
born in a certain part of the country does. Tiss has often asserted
that
people born in Scotland must know more about Scottish history than
someone that wasn't. Yet here, she believes that she knows more about
being a soldier than someone who was. I don't quite understand.
Tiss
"Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)" wrote:
I never said a word about the knowledge of being a soldier. I was
speaking strictly from a historical and logical point of view.
Don't put words in my mouth!
Tiss
Tiss
NINETY 3RD wrote:
> James William Oliver j...@st-andrews.ac.uk wrote:
> << What I really want to know, is where is Scotheritage. Why has he
> disappeared without defending his arguments. I'd really be interested to
> know where he got his information from. Come out and defend yourself.
> >>
>
> Gone back to start other fires in the Troll Kingdom...?
>
I've been wondering the same thing as I was wondering why he hadn't answer any of
our posts. He, either got scared off or perhaps he really is doing his homework.
LOL
Tiss
Tiss
CandL Garrett wrote:
> NINETY 3RD wrote in article > Hmmm...am I kill-filed on most folks
> browsers?
> > Or was my previous post on all this just too dang long and no one (except
> Lena
> > G -- thanks for the compliment again, BTW..) has read it?
> >
> > Oh well....
> > here we go...again...
> >
> I was probably speaking for most of those who read your post '93rd'. I
> think people are more likely to answer a post if they disagree with it, or
> if they see another side to it. You obviously know your subject and have
> facts to back your statements. Who's to argue...? LOL
>
> Please do not be put off.... the 'silence' is not empty... your posts are
> appreciated and very welcome.
> --
> Lena G
Ninety Third, I read it and filed it in my "keep" file. I thought it was
excellent.
Tiss
Tiss
"Jeff Ramsden (MacLeòid)" wrote:
"Sean MacUisdin" <sean.ma...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C2EE5D...@home.com...
> Tiss wrote:
>
> (big snip)
>
> > > (Personal) I love arguing this topic and have learned a lot by
debating it.
> >
> > I'm glad you do, but please, will you get your facts right first?
> >
> > Tiss
>
> Wow - anyone saying the lowlanders don't know how to fight haven't
been
> reading this ng.True. I wish she knew what she was talking about, though. It would
have SO much more effect.....
Oh come on Jeff, I've read as much as you have. The difference is that I don't have my head in the clouds. Neither of us are Native Scots. I love to read romantic tales of the Highlands as much as any other, but you have to step back and look at things logically.
We can debate all you want, but the truth, as Lena said, will probably never be known. Everyone has a different outlook on things.
Tiss
CandL Garrett
NINETY 3RD wrote in article
> (Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith) in Message-id: wrote:
>
> << Regards the Protestant/Catholic thing, didn't BPC eventually profess
> to be converted to Church of England? (well after Culloden, and I
> think after his brother became a cardinal) Too late...
> >>
>
> He visited London ingognito in 1750, and was received into the Anglican
Church.
> (For the staunch CES followers, that reads as Church of ENGLAND. Note
that it
> wasn't even the Church of Scotland!)
> He returned however to the Roman Catholic church in 1787.
> His brother Henry became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church in 1747.
>
ROFLOL......... and you have the 'hide' to wonder why everyone is silenced
by your post!!! <g>
In all that I've read , I have NEVER read any reference to the above.....
and you just pop up like a 'jack in the box' and plonk the facts on the
table.!!! LOL
OK! Is this obscure information or was I sloppy in my choice of reading
matter? <G>
The implications of your first sentence are profound. *HE* actually
toddled into London ? And was not betrayed ? AND became an Anglican (the
CofE was/is not Protestant).....? Why did he bother?
After learning that I will never again tolerate anyone describing BPC/CES
as cowardly or unbrave!
--
Lena G
CandL Garrett
the_...@my-deja.com wrote in article <89rfur$ghu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Also, I haven't been able to defend my arguments lately because I've
> been busy with essays. Been writing on an interesting topic relating to
> Scottish identity post Union. Quite interesting, I've a feeling that
> some members of the group would not be happy with my conclusions. I
> might raise a discussion when I've got time.
???? James, the incognito turnip (neep??)..... Tsk, tsk!!! LOL
Good luck with your essays, Lad.. do us proud!!
> Anyway...I'll try not to be so tardy with my responses this week (though
> I can't guarentee anything)
>
> PS Jeff, the Act of Union is a topic that I've been though in minute
> detail, far more so than Jacobitism...if your going to post on that (and
> if we differ in opinions) you can expect one mighty debate. I look
> forward to it. Regards
> James
I look forward to it too. Looks like we will be learning something
interesting.
Also James *take note* please.. I am relying on you to tell us when the
new History book is released, plus all relevant info... I for one am very
keen to have a copy.
--
Lena G
Lesley Robertson
CandL Garrett <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:01bf88fc$636717a0$31a2868b@default...
>
>
> NINETY 3RD wrote in article
> > (Clan MacLeod Society - Sally Smith) in Message-id: wrote:
> >
> > << Regards the Protestant/Catholic thing, didn't BPC eventually profess
> > to be converted to Church of England? (well after Culloden, and I
> > think after his brother became a cardinal) Too late...
> > >>
> >
> > He visited London ingognito in 1750, and was received into the Anglican
> Church.
> > (For the staunch CES followers, that reads as Church of ENGLAND. Note
> that it
> > wasn't even the Church of Scotland!)
> > He returned however to the Roman Catholic church in 1787.
> > His brother Henry became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church in
1747.
> >
> ROFLOL......... and you have the 'hide' to wonder why everyone is silenced
> by your post!!! <g>
> In all that I've read , I have NEVER read any reference to the above.....
> and you just pop up like a 'jack in the box' and plonk the facts on the
> table.!!! LOL
I've seen it before - can't think where. The fact that his brother was a
Cardinal is very well documented.
>
> OK! Is this obscure information or was I sloppy in my choice of reading
> matter? <G>
> The implications of your first sentence are profound. *HE* actually
> toddled into London ? And was not betrayed ? AND became an Anglican (the
> CofE was/is not Protestant).....? Why did he bother?
>
Politics. He knew that the reason the Stuarts had lost the throne because
James VII and II turned to the Catholic Church, and that noone could hope to
hold the throne of England without becoming a member of the Church of
England. Joining the Church of Scotland would not have impressed the
english - and it was the english throne that had all the associated money
and power. Scotland was a means to an end.
> After learning that I will never again tolerate anyone describing BPC/CES
> as cowardly or unbrave!
He seems to have been a pretty complicated person. However, I find it very
difficult to see any wife beater as a hero, and I can detect very little
concern for the real people of Scotland (or England or Wales for that
matter) in any of the accounts I've read. They were simply regarded as a
mean of getting himself into power.
It's not really fair to make judgements from this end of history, or by our
standards, but there were as many scots fighting against him as for him. If
you go strictly according to blood lines, his father was the rightful King.
However Parliament had (and has) the right to remove a Monarch if they feel
it's necessary (look what happened to Edward VIII), and that's what they
chose to do.
Lesley Robertson
James William Oliver
CandL Garrett wrote:
> the_...@my-deja.com wrote in article <89rfur$ghu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> > Also, I haven't been able to defend my arguments lately because I've
> > been busy with essays. Been writing on an interesting topic relating to
> > Scottish identity post Union. Quite interesting, I've a feeling that
> > some members of the group would not be happy with my conclusions. I
> > might raise a discussion when I've got time.
>
> ???? James, the incognito turnip (neep??)..... Tsk, tsk!!! LOL
>
> Good luck with your essays, Lad.. do us proud!!
>
Aye, neep is my nickname, don't ask how I got it because I don't know either,
lol
>
> > Anyway...I'll try not to be so tardy with my responses this week (though
> > I can't guarentee anything)
> >
> > PS Jeff, the Act of Union is a topic that I've been though in minute
> > detail, far more so than Jacobitism...if your going to post on that (and
> > if we differ in opinions) you can expect one mighty debate. I look
> > forward to it. Regards
> > James
>
> I look forward to it too. Looks like we will be learning something
> interesting.
> Also James *take note* please.. I am relying on you to tell us when the
> new History book is released, plus all relevant info... I for one am very
> keen to have a copy.
> --
> Lena G
Don't worry Lena, when I find out, you lot will too...
Regards
James (Neep)
CandL Garrett
Lesley Robertson wrote in article
> CandL Garrett wrote in message
> > NINETY 3RD wrote in article
<snip >
> > > He visited London ingognito in 1750, and was received into the
Anglican
> > Church.
> > > (For the staunch CES followers, that reads as Church of ENGLAND. Note
> > that it
> > > wasn't even the Church of Scotland!)
> > > He returned however to the Roman Catholic church in 1787.
> > > His brother Henry became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church in
> 1747.
> > >
> > ROFLOL......... and you have the 'hide' to wonder why everyone is
silenced
> > by your post!!! <g>
> > In all that I've read , I have NEVER read any reference to the
above.....
> > and you just pop up like a 'jack in the box' and plonk the facts on the
> > table.!!! LOL
>
> I've seen it before - can't think where. The fact that his brother was a
> Cardinal is very well documented.
I am aware of his brother the Cardinal but cannot recall even reading of
BPC returning to England, incognito or not... you have to admit it was a
very game thing to do.
> > OK! Is this obscure information or was I sloppy in my choice of
reading
> > matter? <G>
> > The implications of your first sentence are profound. *HE* actually
> > toddled into London ? And was not betrayed ? AND became an Anglican
(the
> > CofE was/is not Protestant).....? Why did he bother?
> >
> Politics. He knew that the reason the Stuarts had lost the throne because
> James VII and II turned to the Catholic Church, and that noone could hope
to
> hold the throne of England without becoming a member of the Church of
> England. Joining the Church of Scotland would not have impressed the
> english - and it was the english throne that had all the associated money
> and power. Scotland was a means to an end.
>
But why *after* being defeated at Culloden... I wondered if he had
something else planned obviously he had 'hopes' !! <g> I was under the
impression that he just zipped back to the Vatican and drunk himself into
oblivion, thanks to a pension from cousin George. I am surprised that he
lived so long. I agree that he had no real bond with Scotland and w/o a
shadow of a doubt there never was a Royal Stuart who could even be remotely
described as a Highlander.
> > After learning that I will never again tolerate anyone describing
BPC/CES
> > as cowardly or unbrave!
>
> He seems to have been a pretty complicated person. However, I find it
very
> difficult to see any wife beater as a hero, and I can detect very little
> concern for the real people of Scotland (or England or Wales for that
> matter) in any of the accounts I've read. They were simply regarded as a
> mean of getting himself into power.
> It's not really fair to make judgements from this end of history, or by
our
> standards, but there were as many scots fighting against him as for him.
If
> you go strictly according to blood lines, his father was the rightful
King.
> However Parliament had (and has) the right to remove a Monarch if they
feel
> it's necessary (look what happened to Edward VIII), and that's what they
> chose to do.
> Lesley Robertson
I have no argument with any of that except to say that Parliament at that
time was still in the process of consolidating its power vs the power of
the Monarch. And they knew that a Stuart King would not be manipulated as
easily as the German Georges were. It was the only reason why parliament
genuinely supported them. And of course it was the only reason that they
didn't support the Stuarts. Nobody seemed to like the 2 German Georges, you
may have noticed Lesley the name George did not become popular until the
1st English George (III) finally was accepted by the people. Up until then
I have noticed that there were many more James and Charles baptisms.
--
Lena G
Lesley Robertson
>
> But why *after* being defeated at Culloden... I wondered if he had
> something else planned obviously he had 'hopes' !! <g>
Maybe he was trying to emulate the Bruce - try, try and try again.
;}
Lesley Robertson
Alexander Maclennan
> <snip >
>>>> He visited London ingognito in 1750, and was received into the
> Anglican
>>> Church.
I think there was a BBC programme about this visit ten or twenty years
ago. The Anglican conversion part is new to me. Apparently his
visit was no secret from the British authorities but was ignored
because he was no longer any sort of threat.
--
Alexander MacLennan sand...@sandymac.demon.co.uk
Bryn Fraser
<l.a.ro...@stm.tudelft.nl> writes>news:01bf88fc$636717a0$31a2868b@default...
>>
>>
>> NINETY 3RD wrote in article
>> >
>> > << Regards the Protestant/Catholic thing, didn't BPC eventually profess
>> > to be converted to Church of England? (well after Culloden, and I
>> > think after his brother became a cardinal) Too late...
>> > >>
>> >
>> Church.
>> that it
>> > wasn't even the Church of Scotland!)
>> > He returned however to the Roman Catholic church in 1787.
>> > His brother Henry became a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church in
>1747.
>> >
>> ROFLOL......... and you have the 'hide' to wonder why everyone is silenced
>> by your post!!! <g>
>> In all that I've read , I have NEVER read any reference to the above.....
>> and you just pop up like a 'jack in the box' and plonk the facts on the
>> table.!!! LOL
>
>I've seen it before - can't think where. The fact that his brother was a
>Cardinal is very well documented.
Prince Henry Benedict 1725 - 1807
Bishop of Ostia, Velletro and Frascati. Called Cardinal York.
On the death of BPC became Henry IX. Reduced to penury during the
Napoleonic occupation of Italy in 1799, he was offered and accepted a
pension from King George III
>
>>
>> OK! Is this obscure information or was I sloppy in my choice of reading
>> matter? <G>
>> The implications of your first sentence are profound. *HE* actually
>> toddled into London ? And was not betrayed ? AND became an Anglican (the
>> CofE was/is not Protestant).....? Why did he bother?
>>
>Politics. He knew that the reason the Stuarts had lost the throne because
>James VII and II turned to the Catholic Church, and that noone could hope to
>hold the throne of England without becoming a member of the Church of
>England. Joining the Church of Scotland would not have impressed the
>english - and it was the english throne that had all the associated money
>and power. Scotland was a means to an end.
>
>> After learning that I will never again tolerate anyone describing BPC/CES
>> as cowardly or unbrave!
>
>He seems to have been a pretty complicated person. However, I find it very
>difficult to see any wife beater as a hero, and I can detect very little
>concern for the real people of Scotland (or England or Wales for that
>matter) in any of the accounts I've read. They were simply regarded as a
>mean of getting himself into power.
>It's not really fair to make judgements from this end of history, or by our
>standards, but there were as many scots fighting against him as for him. If
>you go strictly according to blood lines, his father was the rightful King.
>However Parliament had (and has) the right to remove a Monarch if they feel
>it's necessary (look what happened to Edward VIII), and that's what they
>chose to do.
>Lesley Robertson
>
>
>
Bryn Fraser
To the Phenomenologist, legend is an artifact.
David Thorpe
"Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)" <mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote
in message news:38c438f2$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British
> government
> > would have done with Charles had he indeed been captured after
> Culloden. It
> > would have put them in an enormous quandary. Charles was clearly
> guilty of
> > treason and numerous other capital offences, but it would have been
> > unthinkable to execute him. Confining him for the rest of his days
> would
> > have provided a constant focus for Jacobite resentment and
> rebellion, a not
> > dissimilar situation to that which faced Elizabeth of England when
> she
> > afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I suspect
> that the
> > Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a collective
> sigh of
> > relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it might
> have
>
> I don't think they were that smart. Else why would the Highlands have
> been scoured to find him? Why the price on his head? Of course they
> wanted to capture him.
>
I don't think that this follows at all, Jeff. British Governments may not
always be tremendously smart, but they have no equals when it comes to being
devious. I have no doubt that they wanted everyone to think that it was
their intention that Charles should be captured, but for the reasons set out
in my original posting I doubt very much whether they actually wanted to
capture him. I think it likely that they decided to put on a good show, but
not come up with the goods - and that's exactly what happened.
Besides which, Jeff, you avoided the question I posed - if the British
Government had captured Charles, what would - or could - they have done with
him?
>
> > done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed himself to
> be
> > captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
>
> (shrug) He was brave enough to start the last Uprising, to invade
> England.....I don't think courage was a problem here.
>
It was his behaviour after Culloden that did most to discredit him (although
his earlier requirement that the defenders of Carlisle, captured by the
Jacobites during their journey south, be disembowelled alive perhaps gives
some indication as to his character). Following the rout at Culloden - the
blame for which must lie with Charles for ignoring the advice of his ablest
military commanders - Charles fled into hiding and eventually to France,
leaving his supporters to shift as best they could for themselves. As he
left, one of his best captains, Lord Elcho, remarked bitterly: "There goes a
damned Italian coward". I think we have to take the opinion of one of his
own military commanders quite seriously when we consider Charles' personal
courage, don't you? Oddly, notwithstanding the fact that thousands of
highlanders were undergoing appalling hardships on his behalf, Charles never
forgave the Gaels for, as he saw it, failing him.
There is an awful lot of romantic tosh spoken about Charles Edward Stewart,
much of it, sadly, by descendants of the same Gaels who Charles despised so
much. I really think we should face up to the fact that CES was in fact a
thoroughly nasty piece of work.
David.
David Thorpe
>
>
> David Thorpe wrote in article
> > There are two interesting points that arise from this topic that don't
as
> > yet appear to have been discussed.
>
> > First, I don't think that the Jacobite army would have succeeded in
> taking
> > London. The Jacobites at the time didn't think so either - while they
> may
> > have been misled to some extent by government spies, they nevertheless
> had
> > their own information sources and there was undoubted truth in the fact
> that
> > enormously superior government forces were being massed against them.
As
> a
> > result, only two members of Charles' Council of War advocated pressing
on
> > from Derby to London.
>
> Actually you have brought up 3 points David and I agree that they are all
> interesting points of discussion. My only comment on the above is that I
> can not see how it can be proven either way whether BPC had a chance to
> reach and consolidate his presence in London.
I suppose, Lena, that I'm heavily influenced by the fact that by the time
Charles reached Derby the British Government, which was then involved in an
overseas war (the main reason so few troops were initially availably to
combat the Jacobite force) had recalled some of its regular troops from
Flanders, so that had Charles continued he would have been faced by three
battalions of Guards and seven infantry regiments on the one hand and with
6000 Dutch troops under the very able command of General Wade on the other.
The Jacobite forces, you will recall, numbered about 5500..........
Charles' cause would not have been helped by the fact that he had by then
fallen out with his ablest General, Lord George Murray - indeed, he had
tried to dismiss him after taking Carlisle but had to retract when it became
apparent that his highland troops wouldn't serve under anyone else.
Nevertheless, Charles was by this time giving far too much weight to the
largely incompetent but no doubt extremely flattering advice given by his
Irish favourites. Indeed, it was because Charles listened to his Irish
advisers and ignored Murray that he subsequently lost so heavily at
Culloden.
>From what I understand... so
> much rested upon whatever support came from the English.... and there is
> no way of knowing what people MIGHT have done, there are too many unknown
> factors involved. The religious factor alone is enough to distort
> calculations of how the population was thinking or how they would have
> reacted. Personally I suspect that the majority or the population was
> anti-Hanover, Protestant or no... whether they thought BPC (or his
Father)
> was a valid replacement did not have time to crystallise and if in the
> event
> that the populous did decide to side with the Stuarts they must have been
> aware that it would have to be fought out. Maybe they didn't dislike the
> German Georges enough to risk sheding blood to evict him or maybe they
just
> didn't care. How will we ever know?
I don't think that there's any evidence at all to show that the majority of
the English population was anti-Hanoverian any more than there's any
evidence at all to show that they were pro-Stewart. Had there been
appreciable support in England for the Jacobite cause in England I think it
likely that it would have made itself apparent, certainly in northern
England, by the time Charles, leading an undefeated army, got to Derby. In
fact, the Manchester Regiment, consisting largely of Catholics, was the only
English Jacobite unit raised during the invasion. Even if Charles had been
a delightful character who would clearly have made an excellent king (and he
wasn't) the mere fact of his Catholicism would have made him unacceptable to
the majority of the English.
David
David Thorpe
"CandL Garrett" <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:01bf884b$c022e3e0$LocalHost@default...
>
>
> However, the situation isn't so clear as to what
Why do you think he was brave? What evidence is there to support such a
contention? Certainly in his youth he apparently distinguished himself
during the Siege of Gaeta, but I'm not aware of any evidence as to
particular courage after that. After Culloden he fled, leaving his
supporters to fend for themselves, and it is telling that one of his own
commanders, Lord Elcho, remarked "There goes a damned Italian coward".
One could also look at his private life. In 1750 he visited London and
formed a relationship with a Miss Walkenshaw. She eventually fled from his
brutality. In 1772 he married Princess Louise of Stolberg, over 30 years
his junior. He beat her regularly and even arranged a system of alarm bells
to prevent anyone gaining access to her. She fled from him in 1780. Now
call me old fashioned if you like, but brave men don't beat up
women......... Oh, and just to put the seal on everything, his final
mistress, in whose arms, he died, was Charlotte, Duchess of Albany.
Charles, of course, created this title, possibly because it would have been
inconvenient to introduce his mistress as Charlotte Walkenshaw, his own
daughter by Miss Walkenshaw.........
> He landed on Scottish soil with nothing but a hunger for what
> he thought belonged to him.
Lena, this sentence reads rather like something out of a romantic Jacobite
novel <g> In fact, or at least according to him, he went "in search of three
crowns" to lay at his father's feet. (His father, James Edward Stewart, aka
The Old Pretender, was still very much alive and he, rather than CES, was
the Stewart heir).
>My bet is that given the right circumstances
> and the opportunity to be gracious about it.. he would have denounced his
> faith to get the British crown on his head. Whether he had the foresight
> to do it to have the Scottish crown put on his head is another matter.
> Then, also, is the comment made by '93rd' in his excellent post.. there
> were Protestants in BPC's army and Catholics in the English <G>..
(ok...ok)
> Government Army. This indicates a profoundly complicated situation. There
> really are so many different facets to this little episode in history...!
I'm sure there were - and where do you place Episcopalians who, although
protestant, have often been considered in Scotland as being a bit too close
to popery for their own good? By and large, however, I reckon that at that
time it would not have been possible for a Catholic to have successfully
ruled Great Britain. Indeed - and I don't know how many people living
abroad know this - it is still illegal in the UK not only for a catholic to
become monarch, but even for the heir to the throne to marry a catholic. I
must admit that I'd like to see Charles do just that and then challenge this
ridiculous law before the European courts.......
David
David Thorpe
"CandL Garrett" <C.P.G...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:01bf884b$c022e3e0$LocalHost@default...
>
>
> > Secondly, it is rather intriguing to consider what the British
I entirely agree with what you say regarding the pope and France. When JES
(The Old Pretender) died, the pope refused to recognise Charles as king.
And the French certainly wouldn't have wanted to make a great deal of fuss
over a Lost Cause like Charles - they would only have caused trouble if they
thought they would benefit from it. But I think it does bear analogy with
Elizabeth and Mary, if only domestically. Mary was a constant threat to
Elizabeth because she was a focal point for plots and unrest which
inevitably destabilised the kingdom. I don't see why the same wouldn't have
happened with a captured Charles - generally much safer for the government
to have him well outside the country. I suspect that had he accidentally
been captured, he would then have been allowed to "escape" after a short
period of uncomfortable (from everyone's point of view) imprisonment.
> I wouldn't mind knowing if James the Pretender, or BPC for that matter,
> made any entreaties or similar.. to anybody... regarding the ruthless
> treatment dealt out by the Duke of Cumberland.
Not as far as I know. I very much doubt if James did - do you know that
after returning to France from Scotland, his loving son Charles never
actually saw him again during the remaining 20 years of his life? Why, I
wonder? And Charles couldn't have cared less what was happening to the
Gaels, having been able to delude himself into believing that they had
betrayed and failed him.
David.
NINETY 3RD
in Message-id: <38c5a456$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
wrote:
"NINETY 3RD" <nine...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> I'll agree there. Simply having been a soldier does not make one
automatically
> an authority on history, let alone military history, let alone the
military,
> period!
>>Oh, I agree. However, it stands to reason that military or ex-military are
by and large more knowledgeable about the military than civilians.<<
I should expand on my previous remark.
Yes, being in or being ex-military does by and large make one more
knowledgeable about the military than civilians -- in the *modern* military.
Being a soldier in 1745 had it's similarities to being such today, but there is
a great deal which is now different and is not comprehended without a large
amount of study and/or immersion in the time period.
For instance, I was one day in a public park training a squad of reenactors in
the British drill of the Napoleonic era. A young fellow walking by with his
family stopped and watched for a moment then called out "Hey! It's like this.."
and proceeded to do a smart left face, about face and a salute. I said, "Very
nice -- US Air Force?" "Yep!" came the answer. "Thought so," said I, "take a
look at this.." and pulled out a copy of the 1807 warrant British Drill manual.
"See anything that looks familiar?" I asked. He gaped at several pages in utter
bewilderment, sheepishly handed it back, and said "What IS that?" I told him,
and he walked off, shaking his head.
This is just a very simple example of how things, experience, or ideas 200
years apart don't always mesh.
Cheers!
P.S. -- *How* did I know he was US Air Force? He was of an age, there are a
number of Air bases in the vicinity we were in, and he had that "look". (and if
you don't know what I meant by that last bit, you just don't know... <wink>)
NINETY 3RD
ninety3rd wrote:
> Now repeating myself from previously: Actually, some were trained,
some had a
> little training and others had almost no training. Those units from
France were
> trained regular soldiers. Some of the JACOBITE force were militia
units with
> varying amounts of training. Most of the so-called _clan_ regiments'
training
> (if any) came after they were raised for the campaign and so had not
as much
> time together under arms as regular soldiers would.
>>True, I'm with you......<<
> Knowledge of weapons and individual combat is one thing, working
together as a
> fighting force is another. On the battlefield the latter will
eventually
> dominate.
>>Um..........maybe. One word: Stirling. Okay, I lied - here's another
word: Prestonpans.
Determination plays a big role in battle, and can outweigh training.<<
Big maybe there...and all too often not the case.
I can only guess you are referring above to Wallace's Battle of Stirling Bridge
?
Or perhaps you mean Falkirk? As Falkirk was a battle of the 1745 (as well as
one of Wallace's way before in the 1200s). There was no Battle of Stirling as
such in the '45 (nor I think in the 89, the 15 or the 19). CES besieged
Stirling Castle, but never took it.
Pardon as I may vere off here on a seemingly barely related tanget: If we did
mean Wallace's Stirling Bridge battle-- then I might suggest less viewings of
"Braveheart" as what is depicted in that film concerning "The battle of
Stirling" (as the film named it) was not correct in the least detail, except
for the fact the Scots won the battle. In fact there are few and rare films
which depict pre-20th (or even 20th for that matter) century warfare
accurately. "Individual combat" in a set battle between large armies is simply
fantasy. Movies always like to depict these masses of men in solid, sturdy
formations all of a sudden rushing at each other and mixing all together to
hack away in one on one combats. Rubbish. One film which actually comes close
to an accurate protrayal of ancient sword and shield massed combat is "Alfred
the Great" from the 1960s, starring David Hemmings. Alfred's men in formation,
shoulder to shoulder and rank behind rank, forming a literal wall of shields,
fend off attack after attack of Norse/Danes -- who oddly enough seem intent on
that beserker/rush in/ mix it up/ kind of combat. Needless to say, the Danes
get their yarbles cut off and handed to them. The old melodramatic "300
Spartans" also gives some good credit to depicting the same sort of combat.
Now, this all actually does bring us back to 1745, as the idea of solid
formations still prevailed, and with many good reasons. Jumping ahead a bit in
time, the film "Glory" has a couple of good scenes showing the same sort of
thing in the age of rifles and bayonets.
(While on the topic of "film history", the best film I have yet to see on the
1745 rebellion is "Chasing The Deer".)
What the Jacobites did at Prestonpans and Falkirk was close to, but NOT the
same as what we too often see in films. A "charge" to be effective in cases as
this, must be "controlled", as odd as that word sounds in the context. It has
to be practiced, it has to be led, it has to have an order given to begin the
charge. These particular charges were not just the weeld hieland men going
beserk at the enemy. The charges were carried off in stages: as the charge
would begin, men in the front ranks armed with muskets would reach a certain
distance, stop, and fire in volley. Under cover of their own smoke (black
powder weapons throw out a very large amount of smoke) they would then throw
down the muskets (if not armed with a bayonet on the end), draw their other
edged weapons and join in the charge with the rest who were by now just
starting to come even with the musketmen. The shock of the volley followed by
the impetus of the massed force would then carry into the defensive line, which
hopefully would either: 1. break before the charge reached it (always the hoped
for outcome) or 2. be breached at one or more points and the line infiladed, or
3. overwhelmed and overrun by the impetus and numbers. These have always been
the goal through the ages of any attack (and not just charges) on another
massed formation.
The only times "beserker" type attacks have ever carried are usually in cases
of overwhelming numbers often added on to surprise.
And surprise was a key element at Prestonpans. During the night the Jacobites
were guided to a position opposite Cope's left flank -- another way to break
the enemy: hit them on the side -- in the flank, and if also done by surprise
before they can change front, as at Prestonpans, all the better.
CES then shows more sympathy to the enemy than many of his modern day
"followers" by ordering his men not to engage in a slaughter, as he says,
"..spare them, they are my father's subjects..". (Which again shows this fight
was nothing to do with any freeing of Scotland. It was for the throne of
_Britain_.)
Regarding Falkirk: the Jacobites occupied the high ground (another nice thing
to have if using a charge tactic) which impeded the advance of the Government
force. Clan Regiments charged Hawley's infantry, which broke EXCEPT for 2
regiments on the right wing which fired into the Jacobite left before retiring
in good order. The indiscipline of the Highlanders prevented Murray and CES
from exploiting the victory and pursuing the enemy. Hawley regrouped and
withdrew to Edinburgh.
Regarding >Determination plays a big role in battle, and can outweigh training<
-- here's a word: Culloden.
Here's another two: Rorke's Drift.
A lot of determination in those as well. In each, regular soldiers prevailed.
But we can play that seesaw game all day long.
Just to keep things a bit even, in note to the above determination factor;
Cope's troops at Prestonpans were for the large part inexperienced. Trained
soldiers yes, but little if any combat experience. Hit such by surprise,
quickly, in the flank and with sufficient force, and only their own
"determination" will hold them, if that. This in not making apologetics for
Cope's troops, merely stating what the reality was. But it also tends to once
again take some of the gleam off the vaunted "outnumbered Highlanders crushing
the professional soldiers" ballad.
Also regarding this same sort of analysis at Falkirk; better Gov't troops this
time, however they were led by a man even they despised, Hawley, who may have
even been drunk at the time. He not only ordered an attack uphill at the
Jacobites, but also during a driving wind and rain. (Technical note: flintlock
weapons have a tendency to not operate very well in wet.)
> OK...first off, the use of the word "usurper" shows a bias in the
conversation.
> George did not usurp anything. He was ASKED to come to Britain.
> Let's delve into this one more time: Both James the Old Pretender
and George I
>>So does "Old Pretender" but I don't mind if you don't. :) <<
Not at all, but I will mention "Old Pretender" is and was a standard appelation
for James, son of James II of Britain, dating back to the time period in
discussion here, and even used in Scottish publications with a pro-Jacobite
slant. As his father James II was kicked out of office and the country by
Parliament, and as James Francis Edward Stuart was never coronatted (nor
officially acknowledged in Britain) the title of "Pretender" is more than apt.
As "usurper" means one who has seized power or taken hold illegally, the
nomenclature is not appropriate as, as I have mentioned already, George was
asked by the Government to come to Britain, and as I have stated more than
enough times previously, he had just as much of the "Stuart line" as James
Stuart: James I was the great grandfather of both. The fact that his house was
called "Hanover" and not "Stuart" is about all the difference.
> had James I & VI as great
> grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland.
>>Which doesn't mean anything. Divine Right doesn't recognise
country boundaries and places of birth.<<
Yes it does. It puts a stop to those who whine on about "German George", but
seem to forget about "Roman Regent" or "Polish Princey". And such as CES were
raised with the idea of it, "Divine Right" had gone out in Britain even before
the time of Cromwell. (Even back to King Canute who, to prove there was no such
thing as "Divine Right" had his throne placed on the sea shore, and then he
commanded the tide to stop. As the waves continued to rise about him, he said
something along the lines of, "See? I told you so...".) Divine Right and
primogeniture, if we really want to "get Scottish" about it, were not part of
ancient Celtic law, and were introduced into Scotland from England by a *real*
usurper - Malcolm Canmore.
But as you say, if it "doesn't recognize country boundaries and places of
birth", then why all the fuss over George being from Germany? Hmm? Or is the
half Italian French born claimant and his half Polish boy from Rome ok then?
THAT sort of double standard doesn't wash, sorry.
> As for why a great many Highland clans did not send troops, it
indeed WAS
> because they thought his plans ill-conceived, didn't have much hope
for victory
> AND because of the cause or principle at hand.
>>I agree with the first, but I simply don't accept the second.<<
Well, I guess that settles that! No wait -- you have given absolutely no
reasons or support for your statement. So I don't accept *IT*!
I believe it is now my turn to stick out my tongue and say "nyaaahhh".
Or rather, how about some plain old facts? The Jacobite Army drew its recruits
from 3 sources. 1. Those who were told to do so. These were mostly in the
Highland regiments and were effectively feudal levies, and not always unwilling
ones though there is ample evidence of force being employed. 2. What was called
the "fencible" system, or, local militias. Using existing tax records the
Jacobites in the north east demanded landowners supply an able man, with kit,
for every 100 pounds Scots of valued rent, OR 5 pound Sterling in lieu of. A
considerable proportion of those in units from that area were raised this way.
But not all the gentry were willing to send their tenants off to fight, and not
wanting to incur any penalties from the Jacobites, they took to hiring men on
the open market (mercenaries). A list compiled for the government of men who
had joined the Jacobites in the Banff area shows, aside from officers, about a
third were "hired out by the country". 3. The volunteers. Provided the officer
corps and did most of the fighting. The reasons for their volunteering were as
many as the individuals themselves: profit, adventure, debt, family ties, etc.
The Jacobites were initially popular with farmers by promising to get rid of
the hated Malt Tax. There were also a good many deserters from the British
Army, some from the 43rd (Black Watch), the 64th (Loudon's Highlanders) --
drawn mostly by family ties, and a majority from prisoners taken at
Prestonpans, who possibly thought it better to not sit in prison.
(And the over hanging shadow on all this is that the Jacobites, from CES on
down, were pawns in a much larger game being played between the French and
British.)
> ...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars there
was for
> some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a
son on the
> other side.
>>That is a matter of opinion. If you define the term "civil war" as a
battle between countrymen, then fine. I agree with that.<<
Fine. Take it up with Phil Skeld and the National Trust For Scotland who wrote
that quote. And there is no opinion there concerning the rest of it -- It is
simple fact there were brothers, cousins, etc., on opposite sides facing each
other during some of the battles. Very much the Civil War....
> And your opinion is actually quite correct.
> Again: Charles Edward Stuart had not come to reclaim the throne of
Scotland or
> to *free* Scotland. He was there to gain the throne of BRITAIN
(which included
> England, Scotland, Wales and all other lands of Britain at the time)
for his
> father. Had he succeeded there would have been no *Scottish
freedom*, and his
> father would have been crowned in London and ruled from there. So
much for
> romantic hogwash.
>>Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
>CES wanted the throne of Britain, on that we agree, as a maximum. At
a minimum, the throne of Scotland. The point is not Scotland being
free, the point is Scotland not being ruled by the Hanoverian usurper.<<
There was no "throne of Scotland". Had not been since James VI / I. Such throne
was never an issue. Nor was Scottish *freedom*.
The *point* was one political faction of *Britain* vying for the throne of
*Britain*. Period.
If you can document sources stating otherwise, please do so!
> > > In the case of the Highland Gael, Charles was the rightful
Prince. > >
> Only to the handful who came out to support him. Most did not
support him, or
> could have cared less.
>>LOL! A handful?!? Check your numbers! You must have freightfully
large hands!<<
Compared to over 33,000 and more in the regular British Army of the period, and
that not even including yeomanry, militia, anti-Jacobite Scots, etc., yes, a
"handful". CES's force never got larger than 9,000 at its peak. It started as
only about 1000 at Glenfinnan, the size of only one regiment. To a group of 10,
sure, a thousand is a lot... But not to a group of 33,000.
> As to the "taking of London" question, I will (again) post from yet
another
> previous post of mine (what happens to all of these? I AM the
Invisible Man!):
> From what I can recall, the government had somewhere around 33,000
regular
> troops still in Britain, (with more on the way home) not counting
English
> militia raised at the threat of CES - 12 regiments of foot and 2 of
horse. Also not including Scottish militia raised against the Jacobites.
> I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the
most.
>>Which means exactly nothing. The Jacobites pulled off other battles
where they were outnumbered. And if there was no danger, then
why was London in such a state of panic?<<
Nothing, eh? Perhaps only to those who wish it so, no matter what facts are
placed in front of them. As Lord Chesterfield warned his son (who some years
after the '45 was departing for the continent and would no doubt run into
exiled Jacobites), "It is to no sort of purpose to talk to those people of the
natural rights of mankind and the particular constitution of this country.
Blinded by prejudices, soured by misfortunes, and tempted by their necessities,
they are as incapable of reasoning rightly as they have hitherto been of acting
wisely."
At Prestonpans, the Jacobites were not outnumbered -- they actually were about
even with or outnumbered the Government forces! Cope had anywhere from 2100 to
2500 men. CES had about 200 to 300 more than Cope. (Sort of takes the sting out
of the great "outnumbered but they won anyway" euphemism, doesn't it?) What
Cope did have, and what the Jacobites were worried about, was the Government
artillery. (Recall what that did to the Jacobite line at Culloden...)
Derby: They found themselves being surrounded by those 33,000 pesky soldiers of
the Government, a good many being veterans newly returned from fighting on the
continent in the War of Austrian Succession, and no support forthcoming from
anyone else (it has been said the apathy of the general populace to fight for
*either* side was a greater defense for George than all the military -- though
there were militias rising against the Jacobites, in Liverpool for instance 200
men had been raised and were ready to start for Derby), plus no supplies or
reinforcements from overseas due to those Royal Navy types. Thusly the chief
reasons for their retreat to Scotland.
Falkirk: I seem to recall Murray for CES had about 7 or 8000 men. Hawley, for
the Gov't, had about 7000..... so who is outnumbering whom ...?
Of course numbers sometimes depend upon whom one is reading!
Cheers!
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> << "Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)"
mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com
> wrote:
>
> "NINETY 3RD" <nine...@aol.comnospam> wrote:
> > I'll agree there. Simply having been a soldier does not make one
> automatically
> > an authority on history, let alone military history, let alone the
> military,
> > period!
>
> >>Oh, I agree. However, it stands to reason that military or
ex-military are
> by and large more knowledgeable about the military than civilians.<<
>
> I should expand on my previous remark.
> Yes, being in or being ex-military does by and large make one more
> knowledgeable about the military than civilians -- in the *modern*
military.
> Being a soldier in 1745 had it's similarities to being such today,
but there is
> a great deal which is now different and is not comprehended without
a large
> amount of study and/or immersion in the time period.
Of course there is. I totally agree with that.
> For instance, I was one day in a public park training a squad of
reenactors in
> the British drill of the Napoleonic era. A young fellow walking by
with his
> family stopped and watched for a moment then called out "Hey! It's
like this.."
> and proceeded to do a smart left face, about face and a salute. I
said, "Very
> nice -- US Air Force?" "Yep!" came the answer. "Thought so," said
I, "take a
> look at this.." and pulled out a copy of the 1807 warrant British
Drill manual.
> "See anything that looks familiar?" I asked. He gaped at several
pages in utter
> bewilderment, sheepishly handed it back, and said "What IS that?" I
told him,
> and he walked off, shaking his head.
> This is just a very simple example of how things, experience, or
ideas 200
> years apart don't always mesh.
ROFL.....excellent story. I'll have to send that to a few AF people
I know. >:)
>
> Cheers!
>
> P.S. -- *How* did I know he was US Air Force? He was of an age,
there are a
> number of Air bases in the vicinity we were in, and he had that
"look". (and if
> you don't know what I meant by that last bit, you just don't know...
<wink>)
Oh, and I *do*.....LOL
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Clann MhicLeņid Leódhais - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
news:38C61C48...@i1.net...
>
>
> "Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)" wrote:
>
> > True. I wish she knew what she was talking about, though. It
would
> > have SO much more effect.....
> >
> >
>
> Oh come on Jeff, I've read as much as you have.
Perhaps. (shrug) That isn't the point.
> The difference is that
> I don't have my head in the clouds.
Statements like that, Tiss, are indicitive of exactly the
attitude to which I object. If you want to debate, debate.
Present facts, argue your position, etc. Flippiant
remarks like this with no backing just aren't relevant.
My head is in the clouds? Why is that,
because I don't agree with you?
> Neither of us are Native Scots.
Which means exactly nothing - or am I missing the
point? Place of birth has no bearing at all on
scholarly persuits.
> I
> love to read romantic tales of the Highlands as much as any other,
but
> you have to step back and look at things logically.
Exactly. I couldn't agree more.
>
> We can debate all you want, but the truth, as Lena said, will
probably
> never be known. Everyone has a different outlook on things.
Of course! But insulting people for their views, rather than
debating intelligently, just isn't kosher.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
>
> "Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)"
<mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com> wrote
> in message news:38c438f2$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> > "David Thorpe" <skybl...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
> > news:Kppw4.1492$7F3....@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> > > afforded hospitality to her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. I
suspect
> > that the
> > > Government never wanted to capture Charles and breathed a
collective
> > sigh of
> > > relief when he scuttled off to exile again. In retrospect, it
might
> > have
> >
> > I don't think they were that smart. Else why would the Highlands
have
> > been scoured to find him? Why the price on his head? Of course
they
> > wanted to capture him.
> >
> I don't think that this follows at all, Jeff. British Governments
may not
> always be tremendously smart, but they have no equals when it comes
to being
> devious.
LOL...I'll agree with that one.
> I have no doubt that they wanted everyone to think that it was
> their intention that Charles should be captured, but for the reasons
set out
> in my original posting I doubt very much whether they actually
wanted to
> capture him. I think it likely that they decided to put on a good
show, but
> not come up with the goods - and that's exactly what happened.
Hmmmm...well, that's clearly difficult to debate...all that can be
presented
is what they DID...no one now-a-days can speak with any certainty
about what they *thought* at the time. I really don't believe that he
was
*allowed* to escape.
>
> Besides which, Jeff, you avoided the question I posed - if the
British
> Government had captured Charles, what would - or could - they have
done with
> him?
Oooops. Sorry David. Well, I'll suggest that they certainly would
not have
simply turned CES loose if he had been captured and the bounty paid.
And
I agree that the British Government would have been in quite a
position. I
think perhaps the humiliation of public surrender and banishment would
have
done the trick.
> >
> > > done the Jacobite cause far more good had Charles allowed
himself to
> > be
> > > captured, but I doubt if he was brave enough to do that.
> >
> > (shrug) He was brave enough to start the last Uprising, to invade
> > England.....I don't think courage was a problem here.
> >
> It was his behaviour after Culloden that did most to discredit him
(although
> his earlier requirement that the defenders of Carlisle, captured by
the
> Jacobites during their journey south, be disembowelled alive perhaps
gives
> some indication as to his character).
I agree that it was his behaviour after Culloden as well.
As far as the drawing of the Carlisle defenders, that was by no means
an uncommon practise in the past. Perhaps a bit unusual in 1745, but
nothing the English didn't do to...oh, Wallace, for example.
> Following the rout at Culloden - the
> blame for which must lie with Charles for ignoring the advice of his
ablest
> military commanders -
I agree there.
> Charles fled into hiding and eventually to France,
> leaving his supporters to shift as best they could for themselves.
As he
> left, one of his best captains, Lord Elcho, remarked bitterly:
"There goes a
> damned Italian coward". I think we have to take the opinion of one
of his
> own military commanders quite seriously when we consider Charles'
personal
> courage, don't you?
Note again that this is *after* Culloden. After the defeat of the '45
uprising,
CES was indeed a broken man - mentally, physically, emotionally - the
one reason for his existance was stripped away. I fully realise what
he
became after Culloden. Just as much as I know he was a different man
before it.
> Oddly, notwithstanding the fact that thousands of
> highlanders were undergoing appalling hardships on his behalf,
Charles never
> forgave the Gaels for, as he saw it, failing him.
Where is this from, David? Or did you mean his commanders? I
don't believe CES ever blamed the entire Gael race for the disaster
of the '45......?
>
> There is an awful lot of romantic tosh spoken about Charles Edward
Stewart,
> much of it, sadly, by descendants of the same Gaels who Charles
despised so
> much. I really think we should face up to the fact that CES was in
fact a
> thoroughly nasty piece of work.
Sure there is. There's "an awful lot of romantic tosh" about any
period
in history, and on all sides of a topic. In this case, stories built
around
"the final attempt to keep the declaration at Arbroath a reality"
sounds
better than "let's go beat up on our northern neighbours, take their
lands, and kill their people." (shrug) Anyone with any sense knows
that both statements aren't completely true, and certainly not for
all time periods.
And I don't know why you say he despised the Gaels.
CES *became* a nasty piece of work, on that I agree. "The best
laid plans of mice and men gang aft agley" and a' that.
I'll not defend CES as a person - like I've said before I personally
believe the Jacobites would have followed anything or anyone into
battle that had any credibility - anything would be better than the
Dutchman.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> "Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)"
mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com
> in Message-id: <38c43440$0$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com> wrote:
> ninety3rd wrote:
> >>Um..........maybe. One word: Stirling. Okay, I lied - here's
another
> word: Prestonpans.
> Determination plays a big role in battle, and can outweigh
training.<<
>
> Big maybe there...and all too often not the case.
> I can only guess you are referring above to Wallace's Battle of
Stirling Bridge
> ?
Yes.
> Or perhaps you mean Falkirk? As Falkirk was a battle of the 1745 (as
well as
> one of Wallace's way before in the 1200s). There was no Battle of
Stirling as
> such in the '45 (nor I think in the 89, the 15 or the 19). CES
besieged
> Stirling Castle, but never took it.
Right, I meant Wallace's Stirling. Falkirk works, too.
> Pardon as I may vere off here on a seemingly barely related tanget:
If we did
> mean Wallace's Stirling Bridge battle-- then I might suggest less
viewings of
> "Braveheart" as what is depicted in that film concerning "The battle
of
> Stirling" (as the film named it) was not correct in the least
detail, except
> for the fact the Scots won the battle.
I'm very well aware of that - my knowledge does not come from
'Braveheart', thank you. I'm assuming yours is from 'Brigadoon?'
> Movies always like to depict these masses of men in solid, sturdy
> formations all of a sudden rushing at each other and mixing all
together to
> hack away in one on one combats. Rubbish. One film which actually
comes close
(snip of warfare description) That has nothing to do with the fact
that a small, poorer equiped, "poorly trained" force won.
> "..spare them, they are my father's subjects..". (Which again shows
this fight
> was nothing to do with any freeing of Scotland. It was for the
throne of
> _Britain_.)
No one has ever denied it.
> Here's another two: Rorke's Drift.
> A lot of determination in those as well. In each, regular soldiers
prevailed.
> But we can play that seesaw game all day long.
Sure. Which all proves my point that the most organised and best
equipped force does not always win. (shrug)
> "determination" will hold them, if that. This in not making
apologetics for
> Cope's troops, merely stating what the reality was. But it also
tends to once
> again take some of the gleam off the vaunted "outnumbered
Highlanders crushing
> the professional soldiers" ballad.
Um....no, it doesn't. The facts remain, you can explain it away
any which way you choose. At the end of the day, that's what
happened.
> > OK...first off, the use of the word "usurper" shows a bias in the
> conversation.
> > George did not usurp anything. He was ASKED to come to Britain.
> > Let's delve into this one more time: Both James the Old Pretender
> and George I
>
> >>So does "Old Pretender" but I don't mind if you don't. :) <<
>
> Not at all, but I will mention "Old Pretender" is and was a standard
appelation
> for James, son of James II of Britain, dating back to the time
period in
> discussion here, and even used in Scottish publications with a
pro-Jacobite
> slant.
Sure, as was "that Hanoverian Usurper"
> As "usurper" means one who has seized power or taken hold illegally,
the
Exactly. The Stuarts were the Royal House of Scotland, and any
other person, while they live, that ruled Scotland usurped the power
illegally.
> > had James I & VI as great
> > grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland.
>
> >>Which doesn't mean anything. Divine Right doesn't recognise
> country boundaries and places of birth.<<
>
> Yes it does. It puts a stop to those who whine on about "German
George", but
> seem to forget about "Roman Regent" or "Polish Princey".
Neither of which ruled by Divine Right - this isn't relevant.
> But as you say, if it "doesn't recognize country boundaries and
places of
> birth", then why all the fuss over George being from Germany? Hmm?
Or is the
> half Italian French born claimant and his half Polish boy from Rome
ok then?
> THAT sort of double standard doesn't wash, sorry.
Very simple.....I'll type this slowly for you - George wasn't a
Stuart.
I said Divine Right doesn't recognise boundaries and places
of birth. Which means the Stuarts.
>
> > ...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars
there
> was for
> > some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a
> son on the
> > other side.
>
> >>That is a matter of opinion. If you define the term "civil war"
as a
> battle between countrymen, then fine. I agree with that.<<
>
> Fine. Take it up with Phil Skeld and the National Trust For Scotland
who wrote
> that quote.
Okay, so *he* has an opinion, too....what's your point? So do
a lot of people.
> >>Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
> >CES wanted the throne of Britain, on that we agree, as a maximum.
At
> a minimum, the throne of Scotland. The point is not Scotland being
> free, the point is Scotland not being ruled by the Hanoverian
usurper.<<
>
> There was no "throne of Scotland". Had not been since James VI / I.
Nooooo....it still existed, it was just waiting for another Stuart.
> Such throne
> was never an issue. Nor was Scottish *freedom*.
I never said it was, nor did anyone else.
> The *point* was one political faction of *Britain* vying for the
throne of
> *Britain*. Period.
> If you can document sources stating otherwise, please do so!
Jesus man......how many times do I have to agree with a point before
you stop typing it?
> >>LOL! A handful?!? Check your numbers! You must have
freightfully
> large hands!<<
>
> Compared to over 33,000 and more in the regular British Army of the
period, and
> that not even including yeomanry, militia, anti-Jacobite Scots,
etc., yes, a
> "handful". CES's force never got larger than 9,000 at its peak. It
started as
> only about 1000 at Glenfinnan, the size of only one regiment. To a
group of 10,
> sure, a thousand is a lot... But not to a group of 33,000.
Sure. It's a relative term. And you try to use it to show lack of
support
for the Jacobites. While I agree that there wasn't as much support as
was planned, 10,000 is quite a number, and they did an awful lot with
such a "small" number.
> > I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the
> most.
>
> >>Which means exactly nothing. The Jacobites pulled off other
battles
> where they were outnumbered. And if there was no danger, then
> why was London in such a state of panic?<<
>
> Nothing, eh? Perhaps only to those who wish it so, no matter what
facts are
> placed in front of them.
Like yourself, you mean?
> At Prestonpans, the Jacobites were not outnumbered -- they actually
were about
> even with or outnumbered the Government forces! Cope had anywhere
from 2100 to
> 2500 men.
That was more to the 'lack of training and organisation" topic, not
outnumbering.
Lachie Macquarie
<skybl...@freeuk.com> writes
>the English population was anti-Hanoverian any more than there's any
>evidence at all to show that they were pro-Stewart.
The cat has kittled in Geordies wig,
The cat has kittled in Geordies wig,
there's some of livin and some of them dead,
the cat has kittled in Geordies wig.
My old man used to sing that.
> Had there been
>appreciable support in England for the Jacobite cause in England I think it
>likely that it would have made itself apparent, certainly in northern
>England, by the time Charles, leading an undefeated army, got to Derby. In
>fact, the Manchester Regiment, consisting largely of Catholics, was the only
>English Jacobite unit raised during the invasion. Even if Charles had been
>a delightful character who would clearly have made an excellent king (and he
>wasn't) the mere fact of his Catholicism would have made him unacceptable to
>the majority of the English.
>
>David
>
>
--
Lachie Macquarie, Bod an Deamhain I wish.
Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)
> Jeff, I don't see much point in continuing.
(shrug) Your choice.
> You sidestep, backpedal, naysay without any support or backup, wave
off
> detailed points which explain a position and attitude of the time
period,
> completely ignore and selectively edit important sections of
facts -- in other
> words, and I repeat from before:
> As Lord Chesterfield warned his son (who some years after the '45
was departing
> for the continent and would no doubt run into exiled Jacobites), "It
is to no
> sort of purpose to talk to those people of the natural rights of
mankind and
> the particular constitution of this country. Blinded by prejudices,
soured by
> misfortunes, and tempted by their necessities, they are as incapable
of
> reasoning rightly as they have hitherto been of acting wisely."
Whatever. Explain it away all you wish. "To those that believe, no
explanation is necessary. To those that do not, no explanation is
possible." - Abraham Lincoln
>
> I may - and with great weariness, I might add - go through and
respond section
> by section yet again, but for what purpose? To have hundreds of
words from
> documented sources dismissed carelessly with half a dozen of
personal opinion?
> Well, I've got just two words for that Jeff - bull shit.
Uh huh....riiiiiight. You can regurgitate numbers and statistics
regarding battles all day long and twice on Sunday. I fully admit
that your military knowledge and resources are better than mine.
But that wasn't the argument, and "bullshit" is only one word.
Of course I dismiss irrelevant data. If we were arguing tactics,
numbers,
equipment, etc, then I would have answered it. As it is, your
knowledge
is so narrow that you don't seem capable of seeing the the larger
picture.
So you're right - there seems no point in continuing with you.
I really don't care either way.
Now then, back to some *intelligent* debating, hopefully without
your childish attempts at flaming.
David, James? Can we go back to discussing relevant facts
now?
93rd, d/eanaibh mar a thogras sibh, tha mi fh/in coma.
(Do whatever you want to, it makes no difference to me)
--
----------------------
Goraidh "Jeff" MacLeod Ramsden, FSA (Scot.)
Pacific Region Vice President Clan MacLeod Society USA, Inc.
Sìol Thorcuil - "I Birn Quhil I Se"
http://www.macleodpacific.org
NINETY 3RD
detailed points which explain a position and attitude of the time period,
completely ignore and selectively edit important sections of facts -- in other
words, and I repeat from before:
As Lord Chesterfield warned his son (who some years after the '45 was departing
for the continent and would no doubt run into exiled Jacobites), "It is to no
sort of purpose to talk to those people of the natural rights of mankind and
the particular constitution of this country. Blinded by prejudices, soured by
misfortunes, and tempted by their necessities, they are as incapable of
reasoning rightly as they have hitherto been of acting wisely."
I may - and with great weariness, I might add - go through and respond section
by section yet again, but for what purpose? To have hundreds of words from
documented sources dismissed carelessly with half a dozen of personal opinion?
Well, I've got just two words for that Jeff - bull shit.
Cheers!
NINETY 3RD
"Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)" mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com
in
Message-id: <38c6e10e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
wrote:
> ninety3rd wrote:
> Big maybe there...and all too often not the case.
> I can only guess you are referring above to Wallace's Battle of
Stirling Bridge
> ?
>>Yes.<<
Gosh. That clears all that up. Gee.
> Or perhaps you mean Falkirk? As Falkirk was a battle of the 1745 (as
well as
> one of Wallace's way before in the 1200s). There was no Battle of
Stirling as
> such in the '45 (nor I think in the 89, the 15 or the 19). CES
besieged
> Stirling Castle, but never took it.
>>Right, I meant Wallace's Stirling. Falkirk works, too.<<
Wow. What insight.
> Pardon as I may vere off here on a seemingly barely related tanget:
If we did
> mean Wallace's Stirling Bridge battle-- then I might suggest less
viewings of
> "Braveheart" as what is depicted in that film concerning "The battle
of
> Stirling" (as the film named it) was not correct in the least detail, except
> for the fact the Scots won the battle.
>>I'm very well aware of that - my knowledge does not come from
'Braveheart', thank you. I'm assuming yours is from 'Brigadoon?'<<
Gee Jeff, how tactful. Thanks for being a real moron and jerk.
See? -- now its MY turn to be rude like a 10 year old brat. Isn't this fun?
> Movies always like to depict these masses of men in solid, sturdy
> formations all of a sudden rushing at each other and mixing all
together to
> hack away in one on one combats. Rubbish. One film which actually
comes close
>>(snip of warfare description) That has nothing to do with the fact
that a small, poorer equiped, "poorly trained" force won.<<
Yes it does.
(Hey --- this easy! I wish I had no brain too! Why bother with all those stupid
facts that dolts are just going to snip and ignore? Just post utter crap!)
> "..spare them, they are my father's subjects..". (Which again shows
this fight
> was nothing to do with any freeing of Scotland. It was for the
throne of
> _Britain_.)
>>No one has ever denied it.<<
Yes they have.
(I love this!)
> Here's another two: Rorke's Drift.
> A lot of determination in those as well. In each, regular soldiers
prevailed.
> But we can play that seesaw game all day long.
>>Sure. Which all proves my point that the most organised and best
equipped force does not always win. (shrug)<<
You *have* no point. (roll eyes)
(I'm getting into this method of posting BIG time now!)
> "determination" will hold them, if that. This in not making
apologetics for
> Cope's troops, merely stating what the reality was. But it also
tends to once
> again take some of the gleam off the vaunted "outnumbered
Highlanders crushing
> the professional soldiers" ballad.
>>Um....no, it doesn't. The facts remain, you can explain it away
any which way you choose. At the end of the day, that's what
happened.<<
Uhhh...I wasn't explaining anything away. I was illuminating it.
So Charlie won some battles. Nothing to deny or explain away there.
But "at the end of the day", he got his ass kicked at Culloden, and *lost the
war*.
"That's what happened".
(Boy, that too was easier than dragging out all those tomes and sources...)
> Not at all, but I will mention "Old Pretender" is and was a standard
appelation
> for James, son of James II of Britain, dating back to the time
period in
> discussion here, and even used in Scottish publications with a
pro-Jacobite
> slant.
>>Sure, as was "that Hanoverian Usurper"<<
Sure, boys and girls. Can you say "stuck record"?
I knew you could.
> As "usurper" means one who has seized power or taken hold illegally,
the
>>Exactly. The Stuarts were the Royal House of Scotland, and any
other person, while they live, that ruled Scotland usurped the power
illegally.<<
Not at all.
Not when the government legally kicks them out and brings in someone else with
a blood line to the same ancestor.
But all that stuff I posted about all that doesn't matter.
Jeff says so.
> > had James I & VI as great
> > grandfather. Neither was born in Scotland.
>
> >>Which doesn't mean anything. Divine Right doesn't recognise
> country boundaries and places of birth.<<
>
> Yes it does. It puts a stop to those who whine on about "German
George", but
> seem to forget about "Roman Regent" or "Polish Princey".
>>Neither of which ruled by Divine Right - this isn't relevant.<<
Ditto what I just said.
Plus there was no bloody Divine Right. It had no legality. It only had power in
the mind of Charles Edward Stuart.
But all that's not true.
Jeff says so.
> But as you say, if it "doesn't recognize country boundaries and
places of
> birth", then why all the fuss over George being from Germany? Hmm?
Or is the
> half Italian French born claimant and his half Polish boy from Rome
ok then?
> THAT sort of double standard doesn't wash, sorry.
>>Very simple.....I'll type this slowly for you - George wasn't a
Stuart.
I said Divine Right doesn't recognise boundaries and places
of birth. Which means the Stuarts.<<
I ' l l t y p e e v e n s l o w e r f o r y o u . . . k?
(Insinuating a person is retarded is a low form of infantile wit Jeff. Good
going big guy.)
And I said: THAT sort of double standard doesn't wash, sorry.
Now WHY did I say that class?
Becaaaause -- Jeffy said, "Divine Right doesn't recognize boundaries and places
of birth."
And the upshot of that is what children? Yes! George I was born in another
country - another "boundary" that Divine Right is not supposed to recognize!
Just like James Stuart and son Charles E. Stuart! And Georgie's great granddad
was James (Stuart) I and VI!
Maybe we should try trigonometry next boys and girls as this subject seems way
over your heads!
(How did that feel, Jeff?)
> > ...Culloden was a battle in a CIVIL WAR. As in all civil wars there
> was for
> > some the special agony, facing the enemy, of seeing a brother or a
> son on the
> > other side.
>
> >>That is a matter of opinion. If you define the term "civil war"
as a
> battle between countrymen, then fine. I agree with that.<<
>
> Fine. Take it up with Phil Skeld and the National Trust For Scotland who
wrote
> that quote.
>>Okay, so *he* has an opinion, too....what's your point? So do
a lot of people.<<
Oh yeah?
So there!
So what's your point?
(Gee whilikers, guess I told HIM, huh!)
(I guess historians, scholars and the people that keep and take care of and
preserve and do digs and research on historic places like battlefields
"opinions" don't carry as much weight as Jeff's...)
> >>Sorry, you don't get off that easily.
> >CES wanted the throne of Britain, on that we agree, as a maximum.
At
> a minimum, the throne of Scotland. The point is not Scotland being
> free, the point is Scotland not being ruled by the Hanoverian
usurper.<<
>
> There was no "throne of Scotland". Had not been since James VI / I.
>>Nooooo....it still existed, it was just waiting for another Stuart.<<
Nooooo -- you're thinking of the loo in the wall there at Edinburgh Castle. But
you are right, I suppose that IS still waiting...
> Such throne
> was never an issue. Nor was Scottish *freedom*.
>>I never said it was, nor did anyone else.<<
And I never said anyone ever said otherwise nor did I.
(that's as good a rebuttal as his...)
> The *point* was one political faction of *Britain* vying for the
throne of
> *Britain*. Period.
> If you can document sources stating otherwise, please do so!
>>Jesus man......how many times do I have to agree with a point before
you stop typing it?<<
Christ man, how many times do I have to show how wrong you are before you stop
wiggling around on the hook?
> >>LOL! A handful?!? Check your numbers! You must have
freightfully
> large hands!<<
>
> Compared to over 33,000 and more in the regular British Army of the
period, and
> that not even including yeomanry, militia, anti-Jacobite Scots,
etc., yes, a
> "handful". CES's force never got larger than 9,000 at its peak. It
started as
> only about 1000 at Glenfinnan, the size of only one regiment. To a
group of 10,
> sure, a thousand is a lot... But not to a group of 33,000.
>>Sure. It's a relative term. And you try to use it to show lack of
support
for the Jacobites. While I agree that there wasn't as much support as
was planned, 10,000 is quite a number, and they did an awful lot with
such a "small" number.<<
Yes they did indeedy. I have never said anything to the contrary. I HAVE
however debunked some of the "glorious mythos" surrounding it.
> > I don't believe CES' forces ever got much larger than 9000 at the
> most.
>
> >>Which means exactly nothing. The Jacobites pulled off other
battles
> where they were outnumbered. And if there was no danger, then
> why was London in such a state of panic?<<
>
> Nothing, eh? Perhaps only to those who wish it so, no matter what
facts are
> placed in front of them.
>>Like yourself, you mean?<<
Make 7, Up yours, Jeff.
There now, how's that for a response on a like level?
> At Prestonpans, the Jacobites were not outnumbered -- they actually
were about
> even with or outnumbered the Government forces! Cope had anywhere
from 2100 to
> 2500 men.
>>That was more to the 'lack of training and organisation" topic, not
outnumbering.<<
And you completely ignore the drubbing I gave to your statement that, and I
quote: "The Jacobites pulled off other battles where they were outnumbered."
I merely stated numerical facts, and elsewhere gave some other tactical and
relevant details, which showed your statement of them being "outnumbered" at
these battles was not the case, and maybe not as "great" an achievement against
overwhelming odds or the like as the myth makers would like us to think.
All I got in reply was childish insults, a lot dithering, and not ONE shred of
decent rebuttal.
The insults and stupid remarks I made all through the above were down on the
level of the same I first received from you. If you wish to continue in that
vein, believe me, I can get MUCH nastier.
Now here's the topper, Jeff. You have the gall in another post to write this:
>>
"Jeff Ramsden \(MacLeņid\)" <A
HREF="mailto:mac...@EXTRACTTHECAPScentricsoftware.com">macleod@EXTRACTTHE
CAPScentricsoftware.com</A>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar, 2000 3:42 PM
Message-id: <38c6d700$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>
>>
***If you want to debate, debate. Present facts, argue your position, etc.
Flippiant remarks like this with no backing just aren't relevant.
My head is in the clouds? Why is that, because I don't agree with you?
But insulting people for their views, rather than debating intelligently, just
isn't kosher. ***
>>
Right back in your face, Jeff.
James William Oliver
"Jeff Ramsden (MacLeņid)" wrote:
> > Not at all, but I will mention "Old Pretender" is and was a standard
> appelation
> > for James, son of James II of Britain, dating back to the time
> period in
> > discussion here, and even used in Scottish publications with a
> pro-Jacobite
> > slant.
>
> Sure, as was "that Hanoverian Usurper"
James VII of Scotland, James II of England - there was no British Crown at
this point.
>
> > As "usurper" means one who has seized power or taken hold illegally,
> the
>
> Exactly. The Stuarts were the Royal House of Scotland, and any
> other person, while they live, that ruled Scotland usurped the power
> illegally.
>
You forget the deposition of James VII in 1689. You have to remember that
Parliament is the supreme authority. Parliament makes laws and Parliament
can disregard them as well. The same applies to Kings.
Also, George wasn't a usurper. By the English Act of Succession, he was
invited to take the throne as a decendent of James VI when Queen Anne
died. Scotland never made a firm move on this before the Union (though
the Scottish Parliament reserved the right to make its own decision
independently of England) and after the Union, this Act became part of
the British constitution. Therefore, by anyones definition, George was
not a Usurper, he was invited in by the supreme authority - Parliament.
> Very simple.....I'll type this slowly for you - George wasn't a
> Stuart.
> I said Divine Right doesn't recognise boundaries and places
> of birth. Which means the Stuarts.
>
So you support absolutist rule? Anyway, George was decended from a
Stewart, which was the important thing.
>
> > There was no "throne of Scotland". Had not been since James VI / I.
>
> Nooooo....it still existed, it was just waiting for another Stuart.
>
The throne and Crown of Scotland existed until the Union of Parliaments in
1707.
James
---------
"And what would you say to a cup?"
"FECK OFF CUP!"
- Father Jack to Mrs Doyle
"I love my Brick!" - Father Jack
----
The contents of this message are not endorsed by the University of St
Andrews (just in case)
ScotHeritage
Getty" <ann...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>Nope, that's not the case at all. I read it, but don't feel
>"qualified" enough to offer any comments on the subject. My knowledge
>of Culloden is pitifully inadequate to contribute to the conversation,
>but I'm grateful to you and anyone else who has offered comments in
>this thread for enlightening me.
>
>Ann
First I must appologise to the young lady I was debating with a week ago on
this sugject. Right after I wrote I removed all the files from the computer.
Yes by accident, then I proceeded to hit the empty trash bin.
Now as for BPC. He was like any King. (Royal etc.). But, and I confess I was
Nationalized at a very young age, it is better to die for a Scottish rouge than
to live with an English Saint. Does this statement make sence to any rational
person. No I fear it does not and that is why Nationalisme and the "45",
wearing a kilt and marching into battle with the pipes blaring so the enemy
knows where you are, and a thousand other irational acts and wants make
Scottish polotics and history a matter for the heart and not the head. It is as
simple as that. I have no bad feelings for the English. I even lived in London
for a while and it was no more foriegn than Glasgow or Edinburgh to a teuchter
like myself, the difference was that in Glasgow and Edinburgh I knew ma wee
paws were on Scottish soil. Does that make sence, probably not. Why do I want
to go through customs with a Scottish Passport? Will it make any difference
what the foriegn customs officer asks me? No it will not, but it will be MY
passport from MY country. Rational NO, I admit that but I am a Highlander. I
spoke Gaelic before I was whipped for speaking the English by the teachers and
ministers from Glasgow etc. Those are my glens and my mountains, couvered by
the blood of MY people. Would I follow a BPC today, your dam right I would!
Would it be rational. Hell no but like the scorpion and the frog, that is what
I am. I can think of no better death than with the pipes blaring and the first
few minutes of combat. Non of it is rational. We told the giant oil companies
to bugger off when they offered us millions for our land. Rational, no, but
what is rational. Could I smell the mist, could I have stood at my door and
looked across the Minch to see Skye on one of our few clear days, NO, could I
sleep with no lock on the door knowing that all my family slept around me in
the other houses, NO we would of changed. It is perhaps a case of values, the
heart, and what we hold dear and until you have marched behind the pipes, seen
the faces of my people, the wee rosey cheeks of the bairns, and the tears and
the grabbing when the boat train takes another load of us away then I wounder
if you can understand. There is little room for rational debate when it comes
to my land and my people. I love her with the passion of a 16 year old boy. It
breaks my heart every time I leave. I get great comfort when I know I am going
home. She is my Alba and I am Albannach a Gaidhealach and I shall be until the
day I die. It is not perhaps rational, but it is a reality. A reality you see
in the hearts of each and every person on this and all the other lists. Why
after 6 or 7 generations are many of these people who's feet have never touched
the heather still clinging to their heritage, their clan? It is a matter of the
heart, and Scotland is not a place it is a matter of the heart and the soul. No
it's not rational, but it is the reality.
DaveM.
PS: I appolgise for my spellings, but I have no spell check and I am dyslexic
in the extreme. Never mind as we say at the Dyslexic school, Dyslexics of the
world untie.
ScotHeritage
nine...@aol.comnospam (NINETY 3RD) writes:
>For instance, I was one day in a public park training a squad of reenactors
>in
>the British drill of the Napoleonic era. A young fellow walking by with his
>family stopped and watched for a moment then called out "Hey! It's like
>this.."
>and proceeded to do a smart left face, about face and a salute. I said, "Very
>nice -- US Air Force?" "Yep!" came the answer. "Thought so," said I, "take a
>look at this.." and pulled out a copy of the 1807 warrant British Drill
>manual.
>"See anything that looks familiar?" I asked. He gaped at several pages in
>utter
>bewilderment, sheepishly handed it back, and said "What IS that?" I told him,
>and he walked off, shaking his head.
>This is just a very simple example of how things, experience, or ideas 200
>years apart don't always mesh.
>
>Cheers!
While in Her Majesties service as a raw recruit in the mid 60ties, I was taught
the drill of the Napolion era. There is little difference dragging your rifle
30 to 40 miles a day now that there was then. Infantry is infantry, and a
Highland regiment is a Highland regiment.
The Highlander was a very well trained soldier. He was not (on average) train
as an European soldier, but he was expert in his/her form of military matters.
They were also much more didplined and organized than any European army, and
they had NO I repeat NO disertion.
Dave M. ex 42 RHR.
Lesley Robertson
> I don't think that there's any evidence at all to show that the majority
of
> the English population was anti-Hanoverian any more than there's any
> evidence at all to show that they were pro-Stewart.
Someone made a good point on the radio this morning when talking about
something entirely different. The majority of the population was so
exhausted by the effort needed to survive that they probably didn't care
either way. Many of them (both sides of the Border) would have turned out to
fight on the orders of their Landowner, and would have fought for the side
their landowner told them to fight for. Fight against your landowner's side
and your whole family is out of home and livelihood.
Lesley Robertson