Talk:Jacobite risings

Untitled
I'm working on updating some of the battle pages for the Jacobite Risings, especially Battle of Prestonpans. I've created a Campaignbox for the second rising (but it's probably incomplete now) and have updated the Prestonpans article to use the Battlebox template. A campaignbox is needed for the first rising, and the battle pages need to be updated to use the Template:Battlebox infobox. See also my comment at WP:Battles. Would appreciate help anyone could provide in filling in the missing pieces. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 15:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hanoverian?
Forgive me if I seem to be splitting hairs, but the Jacobites were defeated at Culloden by the British Army, not by 'Hanoverian forces', which, I imagine, were probably stationed in Hanover. I realise that the use of this label is a long-established convention, but that does not make it correct. I've substituted 'government forces', which would seem to cover all possible angles. Rcpaterson 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jacobite monarchs were the British Government in exile, the Stuart form specifically. Lord Loxley 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, government forces is better. I believe 'Hanoverian' was referring to the fact that they were loyal to the Hanoverian monarchy, not that they were in any way native to Hanover. Rshu 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

London Threatened?
The main article says:

''It is also said that London was never threatened by the Jacobites; In fact at that time, London had no significant defending forces and the Jacobite army was only two to three days march away. London officials had made evacuation plans for themselves.''

The Jacobite army was at Derby, 125 miles from London. In 1745 this was not 'two or three days' march. It would be lucky if a rag-tag army could get ten miles a day, and that is without meeting any opposition. (Look at the march rate of the march from Scotland) So London was never imminantly threatened at any time, though that is not to say panic did not set in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.35.166 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 May 2007

Copied from WP:RD/H
It is certainly true that the Jacobite adventure exposed both the fragility of the Hanoverian state and the incompetence of the British government of the day. Charles came to Scotland with no troops and few arms; yet within a matter of weeks he had taken control of most of the country, sweeping aside an army of inexperienced recruits at Prestonpans. Yet the invasion of England that followed in early November was one of history's great gambles. It was, moreover, contrary to the assertion of generations of armchair Jacobites, never more than a 'reconnaissance in strength'; a way, firstly, of testing the resolve of the English Jacobites, and secondly, of prompting the French into launching a cross-Channel invasion. On both of these points Charles had given lavish but vague assurances to the Highland chiefs who followed his banner. No commander in Charles' army, even the most sanguine, believed that the Stuarts could be imposed on a reluctant English nation by arms alone. By the time the army reached Derby in early December the illusion was gone: the English did not rise and the French did not come. At a council of war all of the Jacobite commanders, Charles excepted, decided to return to Scotland and wait there for the promised French aid.

By December 1745 this was a very real danger. An invasion force under the Marshal-Duke de Richelieu was poised at Dunkirk, ready to make the crossing. With favourable winds, a landing could have been affected in much the same fashion as that of William of Orange in 1688. Admiral Vernon, commanding the British fleet in the Downs, was well aware that the French might have slipped westwards, unobserved by his own ships. But even if the French had landed, and advanced in support of Charles in London, England would still have to have been conquered as thoroughly as it had been in 1066; for there is no evidence at all that the nation, beyond some of the Tory fringes, would have settled down to a fresh period of Stuart rule, one that would have reversed all of the prevailing currents of English history. Also the French bill, in political terms alone, is likely to have been extraordinarily high, as Geogre has indicated, the payment of which would have transformed the country into a client state of the Bourbons. A Jacobite victory would almost inevitably have entailed permanent French occupation. It could not have worked any other way. Clio the Muse 22:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Entertaining speculation, but this seems to have missed quite a few points about the mindset of the various parties and the military and political complexities. Are there attributable suggestions for improving the article? . .. dave souza, talk 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Risings or Rebellions?
The article's been stable for quite some time using "risings", but evidently wants the article to take as default the Hanoverian position of "rebellions" and "the Young Pretender" rather than the "Prince", etc. In my opinion the previous description is more common and so preferable, this is something open to discussion. 80.229.9.98 also made a number of changes, omitting for example the well documented points that Cumberland trained his troops in bayonet tactics which successfully dealt with the highland charge, and that Charles insisted on an unsuitable battlesite for that tactic. The new reference looks less specialised than the others, presumably presenting the Government viewpoint. .. dave souza, talk 15:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

My editing has not thoroughly 'Hanoverianised' the article - e.g. I've left 'Rising' as the main title and in its place in the opening sentence. I'm not sure how anyone can have formed the impression that 'rising/prince' is more common usage than 'rebellion/pretender' - I've just googled both "Jacobite Rising" & "Jacobite Rebellion" & got 40,400 & 68,700 returns respectively. In my own experience, frequency of use of 'rising/prince' tends to be inversely proportional to the academic merit of the book in question & I note that the bibliography contains no Whig polemics, but at least one piece of shameless Jacobite propaganda (Pittock). What historians who strive to achieve NPOV tend to do is to use a mixture of Jacobite & Whig phraseology, since there are very few neutral options. That's what I've done, e.g. by changing the thoroughly Jacobite "the following clans "came out" to join the Prince" to the mixed "the following clans "came out" to join the Pretender" rather than replacing it with the thoroughly Hanoverian "the following clans rebelled to join the Pretender". It only looks like I've gone for an uncompromisingly Hanoverian result because the article was so heavily biased towards the Jacobite POV previously, so the changes necessary to achieve a mixture of terminology were all Jacobite>>>Whig. 'Rebellion', 'Pretender' &c are also preferable because they reflect the facts of British constitutional history. An adherent of either party could argue that 'their' dynasty was De Jure royal, according to whether they favoured Acts of Parliament or the Divine Right of Kings when deciding what was lawful, but even a Jacobite would be forced to admit that the Georges were also De Facto Kings & Charles Stuart a De Facto Pretender. It is true that HRH trained his troops with new bayonet tactics, but it is unsubstantiated speculation that these & the choice of battlefield defeated the Highland Charge, which had never before been tested in a head-on attack against prepared troops armed with socket bayonets. The new reference, Smith's 'Georgian Monarchy', is a serious academic work, not the "government viewpoint". It is based on successful doctoral research, so has been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny known to the modern academic system, unlike any of the other works cited.80.229.9.98 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Highland schools after the '15
Removed: "On the whole, the government adopted a gentle approach and attempted to 'win hearts and minds' by allowing the bulk of the defeated rebels to slip away back to their homes and committing the first £20,000 of revenue from forfeited estates to the establishment of schools in the highlands." Left nothing in its place, but if anything is to go there, it might be: "Adding insult to injury, the Scottish government continued its policy of attempting to obliterate both the Gaelic language and the Catholic religion by committing the first £20,000 of revenue from forfeited estates to the establishment of Scots-speaking, Presbyterian-supervised schools in the Highlands (Gaelic-speaking, Catholic schools were already outlawed, as were Episcopalian-supervised schools)." Not sure why the myth persists that there was not malice and active "cultural warfare" on the part of the Scottish government, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary. Have a look at the stated objectives (and origins) of the School Establishment Act 1616, for example, the basis for all subsequent Scottish education-related acts until the nineteenth century; and have a look at the references. The disaffection for Highlanders and their culture was palpable, it was official policy, and it was unofficial policy for hundreds of years before. There's no need to beat it into the ground, but referring to these Highland school establishments as an attempt to 'win hearts and minds' is a myth that we are better off without.

However, that's all tangential to the subject of the article, and detracts attention from it (or so I think). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The statement was factually correct & has been restored. Any attempt to win hearts & minds with schools can be seen as cultural warfare if you so choose. I suspect that 'anti-highlandism' prior to 1746 is often ignored because it suits those with a sentimental attachment to the C18th Jacobites and those who like to confuse Scottish nationalism with Jacobitism to portray anti-highlandism as something imported by the dastardly English after Culloden.Thoskit (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My changes, and more needed
I altered headings of sections to reflect common usage among Scottish historians. Imagine that--using the terms Scottish historians use to discuss their history. Also, the article needs to be restructured somewhat, since The Forty-five rising was done in the name of James VIII & III, not that of Bonnie Prince Charlie; there's a reason, after all, he's called "Prince". In addition, the section on The Eight needs to show that not only were the Cameronians participants on the rebel side but that they did so in protest against the Union. Hawkeye (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To the extent that historians use these terms, they're useful, but why give alternatives? Section titles should be kept simple, and The Rising of '15, or 'The Fifteen' overemphasises the rising viewpoint against the rebellion view, while simply duplicating the important title. Good point about the later risings being the young pretender attempting to restore daddy, a brief note under the main heading could cover that point. As for the Cameronians, they seem to have been sort of participants in the abortive '06 troubles, without agreement of their leaders and no connection with the jacobites. Evidence is needed for any claimed association with the '08. . . dave souza, talk 11:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, the risings are referred to both ways (i.e "Rising of" and simply "The"), and second, I don't care about dispute over "rising" and "rebellion" because Rising is what they were called at the time and Rising is how they are usually referred to. As for the Camerorians and The Eight, I don't suppose you'll take Donald's word for it so I'll have to wait till he gets back to me about his sources, since I can't remember my own. Hawkeye (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I do care about 'rising' & 'rebellion' because I regard them as rebellions & so did the vast majority of Scots & other Britons at the time. Use of the terms by historians has been discussed above and 'risings' has not been shown to be at all preferable or more common - use of mixed terminology is essential for NPOV. Also, as a Scottish Historian I'd be the first to point out that it's British History, not exclusively Scottish History, especially for the rebellion of 1715.Thoskit (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Charles Edward Stuart's Flight and the 'Forty-five
(Originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, but got no reply Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

An article entitled Charles Edward Stuart's Flight has appeared. It appears to draw heavily on a single source, but not to the extent of being a copyvio. As a first contribution by User:Dragonfly in Amber, its pretty impressive, in fact. It covers the escape of Mr Stuart following the Battle of Culloden, ending the Jacobite rising of 1745. Clearly it needs a bit of work, not least wikifying, but it makes me think: surely its time that The 'Forty-five had its own article, rather than being squished in with all the other Jacobite activities. Perhaps this new article, renamed and expanded, can form the basis for a more detailed, stand-alone article on the '45 and its after effects? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good on the flight itself, and appears to me to form a useful basis of an article on that aspect of the '45. Possibly a bit too much detail for an article on the whole of that rising / rebellion, and the section on that aspect needs a lot of work, but the idea of a main article on the '45 is good, and if it gets too large the escape of the prince briefly known as Betty Burke would make a good split section. . . dave souza, talk 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be a "Main Article" on the '45, but there should still be at least a paragraph or two here. Natty4bumpo (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed there should. See WP:SUMMARY for how it's done. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Citing references
Have again removed the paragraph "On the whole, the government adopted a gentle approach and attempted to 'win hearts and minds' by allowing the bulk of the defeated rebels to slip away back to their homes and committing the first £20,000 of revenue from forfeited estates to the establishment of schools in the highlands." It is unsourced POV. If it is returned, please accompany it with references. And note that this is a Scottish government issue; not Highland/Lowland; not pro/anti-Jacobite; not nationalist/unionist; not English nor even British; and not simply Scottish: it is an issue concerning the past Scottish government.

Attempting to lay this potentially inflammatory issue to rest &mdash; the obligation is to source material for inclusion, not to provide sources of why it is false. Nevertheless, here is some of that information.

The act of 1616 (specifically ratified by the 1633 education act) stating that the objective of schools was (in part) to obliterate Gaelic: Some of the experiences of those living in Argyll under Protestant rule: An article praising the establishment of schools but noting that government efforts in the Highlands were anti-Gaelic and not pro-education. An article (by a lawyer in the 19th century) noting that the above-mentioned act with an objective of obliterating Gaelic was still in effect (though by then I suspect that it was mostly an embarrasment; he only mentions it by its date, 1616). A 1695 act with the stated objective of "... bestow upon erecting of English schools for rooting out of the Irish language, and other pious uses ..."
 * - in modern English.
 * - in the original Scots.
 * - The sections titled "Episcopalians" and "Presbyterians" recount some of the experiences of Argyll's people at the hands of these Protestant factions from 1567 to 1695, including efforts to convert their language from Gaelic to Scots.

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'unsourced' complaint seems like a red herring - there'd be no article left if everything without a page ref were removed. I don't see what was POV about the original para - any sane person comparing the response to the '15 with the response to the '45 or to Stuart persecution of the Covenanters would agree that it was far gentler & the point about 'hearts and minds' is that HMG attempted to secure the submission/allegiance of the disaffected by means of propaganda rather than brutality. I've never disputed that the aim was to undermine Gaelic & have tweaked the para to include this point.Thoskit (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Thoskit, let's live with your compromise, and well done in making it. That said, the sourcing request is most applicable to areas of (potential) dispute; I don't see it as being a red herring since credible sources were provided to dispute the original wording (though that isn't required, and though those sources themselves are subject to challenge). Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article
I think the Jacobite risings should have their own separate articles. I think a page which included full descriptions of each Jacobite rising would be too unwieldy. I also think it goes against Wikipedia practice of having individual articles for each subject even if they are connected to others. For example articles on various Anglo-Dutch wars are not just covered in one article but have been split over many.--Johnbull (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As there are no objections, I created an article on the '45.--Britannicus (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization; move back to Jacobite Rising?
I think "Rising" should be capitalized, just as "War" is capitalized in "Korean War" and "Uprising" in "Mau Mau Uprising". It was a mistake for the article to be moved here from Jacobite Rising. The text no longer matches the article title, but it will take an admin to make the move, as the redirect has a history. To save you the effort of research, there are now 374 links directly to the current capitalization, and 185 links to the Jacobite Rising redirect. Chris the speller (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I found this in WP:MOSCAPS -- "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized". There now seems no doubt that this should be moved back, and that 374 articles (at least) have the wrong capitalization. Chris the speller (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added template:db-move to Jacobite Rising. Will fix dbl redirects when an admin has acted on it.

here is the reason they were called Jacobites
The Jacobites' were so named after the last Stuart King, James from the Latin form is Jacobus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.157.189 (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization
See discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. The advice of MOS:CAPS seems to have been misinterpreted here. Dicklyon (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Walter Scott's Rob Roy
Scottish writer, Sir Walter Scott, placed his 1817 novel "Rob Roy" in Scotland at the time of the 1715 rising. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Roy_%28novel%29 83.249.137.51 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A point covered in the #Cultural references section of this article.. dave souza, talk 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

– These pages were capitalized a few years ago based on an erroneous reading of MOS:CAPS. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters. These terms are not "accepted" as official proper names, per evidence discussed there. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jacobite Risings → Jacobite risings
 * Jacobite Rising of 1715 → Jacobite rising of 1715
 * Jacobite Rising of 1745 → Jacobite rising of 1745


 * It is my suspicion that there is a distinction to be made by usage such as "during the Jacobite risings" and the more formal "Jacobite Rising of 1715" - both are certainly used in the literature. Why this should matter very much I am not sure, but I will check what sources I have.  Ben   Mac  Dui  10:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that there are various different descriptions:
 * risings
 * rebellions
 * the '15
 * The Fifteen etc.
 * I don't have a great deal of appropriate literature on this subject to hand but here is a selection taken at random.


 * The New Encyclopedia Britannica (1978) only has a brief article on "Jacobites" which states "after two rebellions were put down in 1715 and 1745"
 * Keay, J. & Keay, J. (1994) Collins Encyclopaedia of Scotland:
 * the 1715 Jacobite Rising p. 865
 * the '45 Jacobite Rising p. 964
 * Hunter, James (2000) Last of the Free: A History of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland:
 * Jacobite rebellion of 1715 p. 191
 * Jacobite rebellion of 1745 p. 192
 * Mackie (1970) History of Scotland capitalises "The Fifteen" p. 268 and "The Forty-Five" on p. 270 and "Jacobite Risings" in the index.
 * Herman (2006) The Scottish Enlightenment uses the "Jacobite revolt" and "the Forty-five"
 * Not a lot of consistency to be had in these sources. Arguably Keay & Keay are the most definitive from an encyclopaedic point of view. However all the above list really does is suggest that there is no single commonly used style - and as a corollary that we should be using our own in-house style. Except of course that in our zeal to be "neutral" we try to avoid this, style-wise. So - what do we do if we have to rely on reliable sources, but they do whatever they feel like?
 * In short, I am opposed to any move unless some definitive information can be produced (not including scattergun ngrams). Do the readership care? I suspect not. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the definitive policy is where MOS:CAPS says in its lede "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." You have provided the evidence that there is no such consistency in sources, so we downcase.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - it is quite clear that "Jacobite risings" as a generic term is used inconsistently, but the position may well be different with regard to the Forty-Five (or the Forty-five, or The Forty-Five etc). I will take a look and revert. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per check at Google Scholar, "France and the Jacobite rising of 1745", "lacking the romantic imagery of the 1745 uprising of supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Jacobite rebellion of 1715 has received far less attention from scholars." etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
 * Damn - I did look into "the Forty-five", crafted a long edit with 10 random sources, all of which showed that capitalisation was used except in two literary studies. I must have failed to press "save". No matter, the absurdity of having one capitalised and others not is avoided at least.  Ben   Mac  Dui  14:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

General copy edit
I think this article needs a general rewrite, especially the second half where it runs together. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Jacobite rising of 1689
There ought to be a separate article on the Jacobite rising of 1689 (there are articles for 1715 and 1745), the first major Jacobite rising. Also, the information on 1689 in this article appears to have no citations. —General534 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right there ought to be, so if you want to go ahead and write the article with citations then please do so.QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What did the Jacobites want
The main issue was religion, with the Stuarts representing toleration or restoration of Catholicism, facing off against the majority that wanted to protect Protestantism in Britain.

This ought to be rewritten because it is a very simplistic statement. No problem with that per se but it's also very misleading and completely changes perspectives. One of the conundrums of the 1745 Rebellion was why it was both the most successful but also the last. A key element was Scottish disillusionment with Charles' autocratic style and views on a Unionist absolutist monarchy

In the 18th century (and arguably for another century beyond) Catholicism was tied directly to political doctrine. The Stuarts represented a political perspective that combined Catholicism with the divine right of kings and absolutism (as with Louis XIV). That was the issue; James II might have got away with tolerance for Catholicism but it was his decision to ignore the Scottish and English Parliaments and rule by diktat that did for him - in Scotland just as much as England.

It's not a simple 'we don't like Catholics' but an issue that dominated British politics for nearly 200 years, caused a series of devastating civil wars in England, Scotland and Ireland (the mortality rate for which was proportionately higher than 1914-18) and arguably was at the heart of the US War of Independence. So it's pretty important :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point, and the sentence you've quoted isn't supported by the source given, so I've removed the sentence – questionable if the source supports the rest of the paragraph. It's a source about Catholicism in England, but Episcopalians in Scotland and nonjuring Anglicans in England also supported Jacobitism, so as much about the powers of monarchy over the churches and the two parliaments concerned – the divine right of kings was developed by James VI, promoted in England when he became James I, and hamfistedly imposed by his son Charles I leading directly to the arguments underlying the Jacobite civil wars. . dave souza, talk 11:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In that context, worth noting five of the seven Anglican Bishops whose trial in June 1688 sparked the Revolution were later removed for refusing to swear allegiance to William.

I've done a lot of work on articles connected to this topic eg the 45, Glencoe etc so I'd like to have a go at updating this one at some point; I tend to pick topics I known something about but am hazy on specifics so I research as I go. That means it makes more sense to update this article once I've done that so it's consistent.

Robinvp11 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jacobite risings
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Jacobite risings's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "us": From Ruthven Barracks:  From Berwick Barracks:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguate
This is a long yet largely unsourced article. I think it might be better if we aim to make it a disambiguation page with links to each of the articles about the individual risings (1689, 1708, 1715, 1719, 1745 etc). Of course, we would need to have articles for each of the risings first.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

As you know, I've done 1745 and I'm currently working through the 1689 battles or incidents ie Loop Hill, Killiecrankie, Glencoe; as above, its easier for me to do the detail first, then work backwards so its consistent. The other risings are on the list (so long as I can stop myself getting distracted - its like pulling on a thread).

Robinvp11 (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why my suggestion to include the 1717 Swedish plot was taken out? As well as this plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atterbury_Plot and some Pirates swearinga allegiance to James III/VIII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 13:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)