Talk:George Murray (general)

The wrong duke?
”In 1715, Atholl adopted the same approach. James Murray, later 2nd Duke of Atholl, took the government side. He wrote letters to his three sons forbidding them to participate in the Rebellion, which he later produced as evidence of his loyalty.[7] ”

This could hardly be James Murray later 2nd duke of Atholl, who in 1715 had no sons but must be his father John 1st duke of Atholl writing to his three sons William, Charles and George. James Murray, later 2nd duke of Atholl did take the government side though. 83.248.144.245 (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a sweeping statement
In 1717, the Murrays were involved in efforts to gain support for an invasion from Sweden, then in dispute with Hanover over Pomerania. This was resurrected as part of the 1719 Rebellion, whose main component was a Spanish landing in South-West England; its objective was to capture Inverness, and enable a Swedish naval expeditionary force to disembark. Charles XII of Sweden died in November 1718, ending any hope of Swedish support, and the entire purpose of the Scottish uprising.

The death of Charles XII of Sweden did not defeat the entire purpose of the Scottish uprising? This is a very sweeping statement, considering the rising went on ahead months after Charles died. Perhaps you could say the death of Charles was one factor that led to the failure, but to say his death ended the entire purpose of the rising is false considering Spain was willing to contribute at this time.

Also the source cited for this paragraph does not make any mention of George Murray, or at least it certainly doesn't in the page number provided. PizzaTime 20 (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The relevant part of the sentence is "ending any hope of Swedish support...", which did indeed render the entire premise of the Scottish uprising pointless, since it was intended to seize Inverness and permit the disembarkation of a Swedish expeditionary force. The main element of the 1719 Rising was a landing in England, the Scottish part was diversionary.
 * Read the article on the 1719 Rising (which I edited) because I think that will clarify matters.
 * I will check the page number for the reference, thanks Robinvp11 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how this made the entire premise of the Scottish uprising pointless? If the bulk of the Spanish force had landed in England, then the divisionary force would have still been effective? Perhaps they would have still been beaten in battle but it would have still been effective in keeping a British military presence in Scotland away from where the Spanish forces would have landed.
 * Personally I would argue that the storm that ruined the Spanish fleet made the Scottish uprising pointless. Without a Spanish presence then where is the need for a diversion. Perhaps this is too subjective to add to the page though. PizzaTime 20 (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)