Talk:Jacobitism

Edits on Irish Jacobitism and Gaelic Poets
After doing some reading, I have a number of queries; I'm not alone in thinking O'Ciardha is mixing cause and effect (praise poetry is common in all cultures) but as I've said on various occasions, balance is all :).

Reading O'Ciardha in detail;

(1) I've changed the wording to more accurately reflect what the text says;

(2) ....Gaelic poets like Aogán Ó Rathaille and prose writers Nicholas Plunkett and Charles O'Kelly etc. I've removed Plunkett, because he died in 1680 (technically before Jacobitism was even a thing), while O'Ciardha doesn't mention Aogán Ó Rathaille, so not sure how he fits into this.

Two questions (simple curiosity, not urgent)

(1) There are plenty of 18th century Gaelic writers, Catholic and Protestant (Michael Coimin), whose purpose was entirely different. This seems to focus on 1685 to (vaguely) 1701; what (if anything) changed?

(2) Given the vast majority of Irish (both Gaelic and English-speaking) were illiterate, how does this provide evidence of a popular Jacobite movement?

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative, but your opinion on the internal contradictions of Jacobitism in Ireland is not relevant. A wikipedia article is supposed to reflect the existing sources, not make new interpretations. Irish historians, notably Eamon O Ciardha, Brendan O Buachala, Sean Connolly, Padraig Lenihan and others are all in agreement that Jacobitism was dominant political ideology of Catholic Ireland in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. But currently the article the article states that Jacobitism was not important in Irish history. The trope of James as the true king who was set to return was a staple of the 'aisling' in 18th century Gaelic poetry and and songs. But currently the article imp;lies that it was just one or two isolated writers. Re Nicholas Plunkett, problem was the link to the wrong man, but the Nicholas Plunkett in question was the author of the Jacobite tract 'A light to the blind'. Online |here. Whether poetry and prose can b seaid to reflect popular attitudes is indeed debatable but it is simply not for us to say. Jdorney (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I've come to the conclusion I don't understand Wikipedia collaboration. I don't mind an argument and I'm not trying to persuade you. I pick topics I'd like to learn about - I can assure you six months ago I had no fixed views on Irish Jacobitism.


 * I haven't just made statements, I've also done the work ie read the sources (provided by others, not just me) and look at others. It feels as if you've kept saying the same thing over and over. Here, I've asked two very specific questions, because I'm genuinely interested, and you've blown straight past them.


 * Irish historians, notably Eamon O Ciardha, Brendan O Buachala, Sean Connolly, Padraig Lenihan and others are all in agreement that Jacobitism was dominant political ideology of Catholic Ireland in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. If that's correct, just produce the reference (with page numbers) and then its all sorted; no objection from me.


 * "But currently the article states that Jacobitism was not important in Irish history" No, it says Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts.[16] That's very far from being the same thing and when I tried to link it to long-term divisions within Irish society (eg land), I was told I was wrong.


 * The last two paragraphs are not written by me; I simply queried a couple of links. Produce some more, I don't have any problem with that. I will say based on Scottish Jacobitism I'm sceptical but that's a personal view and I recognise it as such.


 * I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable and I don't think we can ignore the fact the Stuarts disagreed with 90% of what is claimed as Jacobitism. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you response. I am indeed saying the same thing again and again, as it is the only relevant point. You may think that Irish Jacobitism was not Jacobitism, but the existing secondary sources say different and that is the only point at issue. I don't mean this to be disrespectful but if you are coming to this with only six months knowledge you cannot claim to have a monopoly on interpretation.


 * Regarding your questions: Your point seems to be that because there were contradictions between Irish Jacobites, which here essentially means Catholics, and the Stuarts, that Irish Jacobitism did not exist or that support for the Stuarts was not genuine. And both of these are massive leaps of interpretation. Most politically active Catholics judged support for the Stuarts to be the best way of advancing their agendas until about the middle of the 18th century. And there also a religious and ideological dimension. Jacobite writers in Ireland consistently made the point that they had been punished for loyalty to the true monarchs while Protestants had been rewarded for disloyalty - both at the time of Cromwell and William II. Land was indeed an important issue but it was incorrect to link the 17th and 18th century land questions with the 19th century one. They were quite different. The 17th century land question hinged on the dispossession of Catholic gentry since the plantations of the 16th century but especially since the Cromwellian confiscations of the 1650s - themselves a punishment for Catholic support for the Stuarts. They had nothing to do with tenant rights or land redistribution like the 'land wars' of the 1880s.


 * I will come back and reference as you require after Christmas. Best, Jdorney (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations re Irish Jacobitism

 * A few refs to get started with: Connolly, describing the argument of his own book: "the claims of the exiled house of Stuart remained, for several decades after the treaty of Limerick, the primary political allegiance of the majority of politically conscious Catholics" (Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr vol. 18 (2003), p.63)


 * Connolly in Oxford Handbook of Modern Irish History: "The political allegiance of the great majority of Irish Catholics, by contrast [to 18thc. Protestant 'patriots'] was to the exiled Stuart dynasty. It was a commitment that incorporated them into a pan-British movement firmly rooted in the confessional and dynastic loyalties of ancien regime Europe. In this respect, attempts to establish a direct line of succession leading to the nationalism of the Victorian and Edwardian era are misconceived".


 * O Ciardha; Jacobitism had a "pivotal place in the Irish Catholic ethos and [...] it percolated down to the lower echelons of Irish society" (Ireland and the Jacobite Cause, p.30); elsewhere he describes it as the ideology "which principally sustained Irish Catholic nationalist identity between the Glorious and French Revolutions". (p.21)


 * O Buchalla describes the legitimacy of the Stuarts as an "unquestioned orthodoxy [...] in Ireland James was looked on, by the Catholic majority, as their saviour" etc etc (The Irish Review no. 12 (Spring - Summer, 1992), p.40) Svejk74 (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, Vincent Morely in the Princeton History of Modern Ireland, (chapter 13, the Irish Language) p. 333, 'Jacobitism was the dominant ideology in the political literature of the period but it was distinctively Irish Jacobitism that emphasized the Milesian ancestry of the Stuarts, their loyalty to Catholicism and Ireland's status as a kingdom with a Crown of its own.'


 * Also in the Princeton History of Modern Ireland, Ultan Gillen, p.59, 'Many Irish Catholics clung to their politics almost as firmly as they clung to their church. Loyalty to the Stuarts and hopes that another restoration would mean a revival in Catholic power persisted for decades.' (He also writes however that Irish non participation in the risings of 1715 and 1745 could) 'suggest caution about how far rhetorical Jacobitism reflected support for the Stuarts as opposed to discontent with the status quo for religious national or socio-economic reasons'... 'The Catholic elite abandoned Jacobitism in the 1750s as the activities of the Catholic Committee from 1751-1791 illustrate'.


 * Padraig Lenihan in Consolidating Conquest, Ireland 1603-1727, p.199 Re the Irish Brigade in France, 'It would be naive to discount the lure of pay and uniform but there remained for recruits a tangible sense of commitment to the Stuart cause.' p244-245, 'The Munster poets in turn nurtured cultural solidarity and a shared Jacobite loyalty between native gentry and the common people. The recruiting grounds of Irish soldiers in the French service suggests that Jacobitism was countrywide and that the Jacobite counter culture was strongest in Munster and above all in Cork.' (regarding the aisling poetry popular in the 18th century), 'the absent mate is usually the Stuart King in exile who may be referred to by the lexicon of Stuart legitimacy and monarchy "mac Seamus prionsa an Ri ceart (the son of the James the prince of the true king)" or by Jacobite cant and symbolism, by the lanugage of love or by mythology'. P.245 'the aisling has been dismissed as irrelevant pub talk and as formulaic...Yet the reverie indicated an acute grasp of contemporary politics... it is clear moreover that the message was intended for "the people" the Gaelic speaking peasantry of Munster'


 * Further to Eamon O Ciadhra, 'Ireland and the Jacobite cause. p374, 'Contemporary Irish poetry indicates that Jacobitism survived as a popular ideology until the transition from Jacobite to Jacobin and (Daniel) O'Connell's emergence as heir to the Stuart mantle. Irish Catholic undoubtedly displayed a fatal attachment of Jacobitism. Thousands died at Aughrim and on the battlefields of Europe while many more were killed as raparees and recruits. On a more general level, the Jacobite threat ensured the continual implementation of the penal laws which affected all Catholics. In spite of this many Irish Catholics clung grimly to the Stuart cause.'... ''Anti Jacobitism played a pivotal role in the political ethos of Irish whigs, Catholic hopes and Protestant fears mirrored each other throughout the 18th century... to dismiss these fears of the Jacobite threat as delusions is to accuse Irish Protestants of collective paranoia for most of the 18th century.' Jdorney (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Great. I appreciate the research that has gone into this.


 * This is my opening paragraph; Irish Jacobite demands included religious toleration, legislative autonomy and land ownership, issues that pre-dated the cause and continued long after it ended, while participants in the 1689 to 1691 Williamite War in Ireland showed little enthusiasm for James. Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. Based on your input, which of these points do you think are wrong?


 * ...that Irish Jacobitism did not exist or support for the Stuarts was not genuine. This accusation has been levelled at me several times. I've never suggested either of these things, nor disputed any of the points listed above (apart from the idea a few Gaelic writing intellectuals equals a widespread working class movement but as I've stated before, its a personal view). I've never insisted on my view to the exclusion of all others; I do believe in balance.


 * Take this; Anti Jacobitism played a pivotal role in the political ethos of Irish whigs, Catholic hopes and Protestant fears mirrored each other throughout the 18th century etc etc. I introduced Bishop Berkeley because the 1750s was the point when religion ceased to be the automatic arbiter of state loyalties and hence when Jacobitism ceased to be a relevant political movement. I removed it when challenged because the effort wasn't matched by the benefit.


 * This is an article about the ideology of Jacobitism. My theology is hazy but if God turned up and said ‘Listen, that Jesus bloke is a plant, Commandments 1 thru 8 are wrong, 9 and 10 optional’, would he be a Christian? I can't recall who it was who said ten minutes with James was enough to understand why he was in exile but the disconnect between the Stuarts and their supporters matters. Both Sarsfield and Tyrconnell toyed with the idea of making Ireland part of France for that reason; meeting Charles in 1745 ended Scots Jacobitism. Maybe too complex for a Wikipedia article but just ignoring that reality seems wrong.


 * I don't need more input; I've got what I asked for, it just seems a shame its taken so long. But I think I'm entitled to ask that before you remove sourced material, you explain why. There's no reason why there isn't room for both but I'm going to take this off my Watch list.


 * Off diving for two weeks, enjoy the holidays.Robinvp11 (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Listen, you're not getting it. You keep talking about your motivations for writing here, and your understanding of and opinions on, the subject. You might think the Irish Jacobites were wrong and their ideology misguided and inconsistent, but, I'm going to repeat again: this is absolutely irrelevant. A WP article is supposed to reflect the secondary sources in a NPOV manner, not make new interpretations.


 * Regarding this  This is my opening paragraph; Irish Jacobite demands included religious toleration, legislative autonomy and land ownership, issues that pre-dated the cause and continued long after it ended, while participants in the 1689 to 1691 Williamite War in Ireland showed little enthusiasm for James. Some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. Based on your input, which of these points do you think are wrong? 


 * Answer: Most of it. As you can see from the sources myself and another user have posted above, the consensus among historians is that there was indeed a great deal of support among Irish Catholics for James II and his successors. Moreover, the consensus among historians is that 'Jacobitism' was the dominant political ideology among Irish Catholics from the 1680s to the 1750s. They argue, per Vincent Morely (above) not that it was 'not distinctively Jacobite' but that Irish Jacobitism was 'distinctly Irish'. Furthermore regarding 'long before and long after', Irish Jacobites wanted a reversal of the Cromwellian and Williamite land settlements so that the Catholic gentry would recover their lands. This demand did not in fact outlive the Jacobite cause because by and large the Catholic gentry class was no more by then. The 1790s United Irish movement's demands were quite different from the Jacobites in that they supported secularism and an independent Irish Republic, not Catholic establishment and a Catholic king. So it is not true to say that Jacobitism in Ireland was just part of a continuum of Irish nationalism. It was distinct from what followed in many ways. Enjoy the holidays Jdorney (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Genuinely my last word; leaving the lounge and I'm exiting this article. For someone who doesn't like interpretation, you do a lot of it, because none of the points above are ones I've made.


 * I do not understand why it has taken two months and way more energy than is required to arrive at this point. This article (and many others - take a look) has been radically improved because I'm prepared to challenge. And back that up with research. I'm not going to apologise for asking others to do the same.


 * I have never suggested my content can't be changed and is the only view; add whatever you want, but if you remove Sourced content, it needs explanation. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Right then, best of luck. Jdorney (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Irish Jacobitism
The rewrite is a great piece of work and I've learnt a lot, so thanks both.

For future reference, that's how I assume collaboration works ie not persuading, but challenging each other, rather than being obstructive for the sake of it. I often find understanding why I don't agree is really helpful.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! In that spirit I'm wondering, re. your recent edit, why the paragraph on Catholic support needs to concern itself with why James lost the throne seeing as the previous section is supposed to describe this?


 * I find the point about the Welsh Methodist Revival a bit dubious / unimportant as the riots you are talking about (in Wrexham) mostly preceded it. They involved attacks on 'dissenting' congregations but had more to do with the legacy of the Civil War-era politics of East Denbighshire than the Revival. More to the point I'm not even sure "Stuart Catholicism prevented Jacobitism becoming a widespread movement; many pre-1745 "Jacobite" demonstrations in Wales stemmed from hostility to the 18th century Welsh Methodist revival" makes a great deal of sense as a sentence to someone coming to this looking to find out who the Jacobites - committed or opportunist - might have been!


 * To explain Stevens (and Blackbourne): I am making the point that an initial nucleus of officers and administrators joined James in France almost immediately after he fled. Stevens' Diary explains what happened to these men; many were Catholic, or had the usual links of patronage to the Stuarts, and a number later joined him in Ireland. As such they are the core of the 'exile' community that was so significant in maintaining the Jacobite links of families remaining in England.


 * Szechi also points out that the Duke of Norfolk's attempts at reconciliation were derided by most Catholics - something worth mentioning.


 * Re. the non-jurors, I think you have taken out the most important bits: that though the church was small it was disproportionately involved in all risings; also that it was ideologically committed to the idea of indefeasible dynastic right. Both of those are Szechi talking, not me.Svejk74 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, thanks for the kind words on Irish Jacobitism section, but again, you seem to have misunderstood the process of wikipedia editing. We are not not supposed to be either challenging or explaining our opinions, or persuading others of them. Only presenting the secondary sources in a way that explains the topic as simply as possible for the average reader. To avoid conflict we supposed first to establish consensus, not on our own opinions but but how to represent the sources, on the talk page. The recent re-write of the 'political background' section is, to my mind, extremely confusing and leaves out much relevant information that was in the previous version. I think the same is true of the most recent edits on English and Scottish Jacobitism sections. Jdorney (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The edits to the 'Jacobitism in England section' seem to predicate on a statement "Active support for the Stuarts was restricted to a nucleus of Catholic families in the Northwest" - and that's not even what the original reference says. There was other 'active' support at various times.


 * If Jacobitism as a 'popular movement' did not exist in England in any form (however opportunistic) except for a few Catholics, then frankly I'm unsure how Szechi, or Monod, or McLynn, have written entire densely-argued books about it. As mentioned, some academics have described the Tories as essentially a crypto-Jacobite party until 1745; others have provided evidence of 'popular' (i.e. plebian) Jacobitism through the period. I think either way there needs to be some indication of what, exactly, in Toryism or the beliefs of Tories about the nature of the state and the Church led them to be "sympathetic" to Jacobitism. I think it is not necessarily simple for the general reader to understand the ins and outs of 18th century patrician ideology without some kind of background - so while simplifying things is in general a good thing, I'm not sure it makes things clearer. Fair enough if it's "overwritten" in style terms but I will challenge sourced, significant points being removed.


 * Incidentally I had to raise an eyebrow at the line "The 1649 to 1652 Cromwellian conquest of Ireland was designed to enforce the Adventurers Act and re-establish English government credit"(!) That may have been one purpose, but not even Bottigheimer expresses it quite like that...Svejk74 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * On the adventurers act, this is symptomatic of wider problem, getting caught up on a detail which is given far too much significance and obscures the wider point. First: the Adventurers' Act was passed to finance putting down the Irish rebellion of 1641, yes, and yes Charles I acceded to it in 1642. But the Catholic Confederates nevertheless claimed that they were fighting for the king against the parliament. There was indeed on and off negotiations and hostilities hostilities between the Royalists and the Irish Confederates int the 1640s. But a peace treaty was concluded between them in January 1649. In the Ormonde peace of 1649, they got Charles to revoke support for confiscation of Catholic owned land (among other things) in return for their putting their armed forces in Ireland under royalist control. So the Cromwellian conquest was designed primarily to put down a Royalist/Catholic resurgence in Ireland that was a threat to the new regime in England. And secondly to punish the 'barbarous' rebellion of 1641 and thirdly, yes, to confiscate land to pay off the Parliament's creditors. But 1652 Act of Settlement went much further than this and confiscated all Catholic-owned land east of the Shannon river as well the land of some Protestant Royalists. It was a punitive settlement above all.


 * Now the article here does need to go into all this; it's not an article about the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, but the current wording is confusing and misleading. The key facts to summarise here are that the majority of politically active landowning Catholics in Ireland were in support of the Royalist cause in 1649 and as a result almost all lost their land under the Commonwealth regime. For an article on Jacobitism that is the salient point. Jdorney (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
There are many issues with the recent spate of rather radical edits. Users need to try to gain consensus on the talk page before making such sweeping changes. The alternative we are left with now is to revert all the recent edits and start again and/or to debate each point of change here. This makes the editing process far more laborious than it needs to be.

Regarding the political background section, there are a number of problems, the summary of the Civil Wars in mid 17 C is very inadequate and misleading, as if the paragraph on the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, re the Adventurers Act etc. The work that was done on the English and Scottish sections has been undone in favour of what is rankly a very confusing and confused narrative.

At the heart of the problem is that the editor in question seeks to present Jacobitism as the ideology of the Stuart Kings and proceed from there, pointing out at all points the inconsistencies between those kings and their supporters. When in fact Jacobitism was not a defined ideology -like, say Marxism - but a very broad term term for all of those who supported the Stuart kings. Nor is it clear that all Stuart monarchs shared the same ideas at all times at all. Because of the agenda of one user we are constantly being moved back to a very argumentative and confusing article. And not, as the article is supposed to be, a summary of the topic for the general reader. Jdorney (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Proof of Jacobite Rioting
First, the whole point is whether the riots that occurred in Dublin in 1720s can be viewed as "Jacobite'; so stating 'these Pro-Jacobite riots are proof of Jacobitism' is nonsense.

Second, every time I've been challenged, I've gone away and looked at Sources (look at the list). I didn't think I needed to remind a 'historian' of the considerable body of work done by George Rude and others on the role of crowds in the 18th century. But obviously I did, so I provided a direct reference and two others - why not read them? The idea rioting around a Jacobite celebration therefore means it was Jacobite is similar to arguing the current Dublin gang warfare is about Irish union, because some members used to be part of Continuity IRA.

Third I strongly object to having edits reversed on the grounds of non-neutral POV, particularly by someone who so far has displayed zero willingness to say 'Yeah, I might be wrong' and is still using the same two sources they started with.

Fourth I say I'm not an expert deliberately because it stops me assuming I'm always right and makes me challenge myself.

I don't want a response; I don't need to be told yet again I'm wrong. What I'd like is for others to be willing to do what I've done and challenge their views. That's not unreasonable.

Robinvp11 (talk)


 * I know that some contemporary reports put the rioting down to "Popish rabble", but my own understanding (bearing in mind I'm just coming to this part of the discussion myself) is that Jacobite typology was quite clearly followed, down to the adoption of the slogan "High Church and Ormond" (showing that at least some of the disturbances were not Catholic in origin) and followed widespread reports that Ormond was involved in an invasion plot; this is why several academics have characterised them as "Jacobite" and as evidence of Jacobite discourse permeating a 'popular' level (O Ciardha, Connolly), which I thought was the whole point of that particular section. I don't really see that the description of the clashes as 'ritualised' by Garnham (sourced to the same 'Popish rabble' commentator) necessarily negates the idea of the riots as Jacobite in character. His point is that urban violence was "discriminating and controlled", not that they can be regarded in isolation from theur political context. Svejk74 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They're not my views. I'm just making sure the sources are accurately represented. And will continue to do so. BestJdorney (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Principle or law?
The lead says I thought that it was more than a principle, that it was actually enshrined in laws like the English Bill of Rights?&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There’s nothing in the Bill of Rights or any other statute that explicitly says anything like that. It’s not law. But the unstated principle underlying the Bill of Rights and inspired by John Locke was exactly that, and that was part of the ideology of the Whigs subsequently. The sentence wording is a little overstated in that it “created the principle” in the minds of some but by no means all (eg Tories) of the political class of the time. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just made an edit to my original question, changing the template to a one; I was attempting to quote the article, not invoke a Wikidata item.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. I realize now that you are right. I had effectively mentally translated the quote I provided into "constitutional monarchy". &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 14:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps saying that it 'validated' the principle might be most accurate - as you noted, contract theory was part of political discourse a little earlier than the Revolution itself.


 * I suppose it's important to remember that, in an era when government was still seen to reflect a larger moral order, that the rapidity and (initial) bloodlessness of the Revolution was perceived as confirmation of divine approval. Its success gave proof that it was, after all, the right thing to do; the morally correct interpretation of how power should operate. Conversely, James began to believe God did not want him restored, after setbacks in Ireland.


 * Something I've touched on in parts of the article is that a lot of Jacobite discourse, like the sermons of Episcopalian ministers in Scotland, made a great deal of various subsequent national misfortunes as proof that the nation, having collectively sinned by backing the wrong horse, was suffering a kind of ongoing divine wrath. It links in to an observation by someone (McLynn? Szechi?) that one of the few shared traits among senior Jacibites was that they tended to be more devout in general, whether Catholic or Anglican. Svejk74 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think ‘validated’ probably overstates it even further. The issue with that sentence is that it implies that it was universally accepted (excluding the Jacobites of course). It was however a partisan Whig point of view. Non-Jacobite Tories (I.e as the 18th century progresses) wouldn’t have accepted it. There’s a difference between the ‘official’ position between England and Scotland. The Claim of Right in Scotland explicitly had James losing the crown in consequence of his misdeeds. However, the English Convention Parliament stuck to the theory that his flight constituted abdication. I think that sentence should begin “For the Whigs and their sympathisers the Revolution affirmed the principle of a contract...” DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that first, you have to then define "Whigs" beforehand in the lead and second, this doesn't really articulate the fact that many Tories were complicit in the Revolution (albeit using a fair bit of ideological sleight of hand around indefeasible right to justify participation). Perhaps "for much of Parliament", rather than "for the Whigs..."? Svejk74 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The benefit of Wikipedia’s pipe linking is that you wouldn’t have to define it - just link to Whigs (British political party). Tories were complicit of course and ultimately all became Hanoverians later. But that doesn’t mean they signed up to that principle. Nevertheless, I’d be happy with your suggestion. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re Peace and War factions
This is in response to the question raised as to whether divisions within the Patriot Parliament and Peace and War factions are the same. Just here for the record.

Most historians view 1691 as a dividing line in Irish history and date the so-called ‘Protestant Ascendancy’ from that point. Before that, the Irish political/economic elite was split (broadly) into three main factions; Protestant nonconformists, Gaelic Catholics and a moderate centre consisting of Church of Ireland Episcopalians and Old/New “English” Catholics.

That is a simplification but good enough here; the Restoration land settlement was specifically designed by Ormond to exclude Gaelic Catholics, with the exception of Clancarty (the main Confederate supporter of the 1649 alliance) and Antrim. You can trace a direct link from divisions within the Catholic Confederacy in the 1640s (Rinuccini excommunicated those Catholic leaders who signed up to the alliance with Ormond), to arguments within the Patriot Parliament and the “Peace” v “War” factions in 1691.

The basic split was between negotiation and military action; Tyrconnell opposed the land reforms in 1689 because he recognised that (a) confiscations would inevitably create a Protestant clique akin to O’Neill who would oppose any settlement and (b) it would set the scene for further confiscations of Catholic land if they lost. Before 1691, some sort of negotiated settlement was possible; after, it was not. And so yes, the general issue was the same and it matters because it was from that point onwards that Irish Catholics and Protestants saw themselves as distinct nations. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ...with the caveat that the "Old English / Old Irish" division used by 19th century and earlier historians isn't always that helpful - as I noted in the Williamite War article, many of the 'War Party' leaders were 'Old English' (or in the case of Dorrington, actually English).


 * Part of the issue is, I think, that Jacobite historiography around the 1689-91 war itself reflects the factional split, as other than James's memoirs the two main sources are A Light to the Blind (pro-Tyrconnell) and Macariae Excidium (very much the 'Old Irish' perspective). The two 'parties' were undoubtedly real but the narrative around them is harder to untangle, having been exploited for a long time to rationalise Jacobite failure amongst other things.


 * I suppose I should also add, how much detail do we need to go into here? Would some of this material make more sense in the Williamite War article itself? Svejk74 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources. No doubt there is an ideological and class/ethnic similarity in some ways between Confederate Catholic divisions over the Ormonde Peace treaties in 1646 and 49, the debates of the Parliament of 1689 and the war and peace factions of 1690-91. But the fact is that they were not the same contexts and not the same people and not the same issues. To take just the most obvious example; Patrick Sarsfield, who led the 'war' faction was of mixed 'Old English' and 'Old Irish' ethnicity, his family was a beneficiary of the 1660 Act of Settlement that restored their lands and not as far as I know, an opponent of Tyrconnell's land proposals in 1689. Which clearly shows that the 'war vs peace' argument in Irish Jacobitism in 1690-91 cannot be reduced to those terms. Jdorney (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(a) Since I've never made any reference to Jacobite divisions being Old/New, whatever Irish, the reference to Sarsfield is irrelevant.

(b) I've removed any mention of the "Land issue" in regards to the War and Peace Party, since that seems to be an issue.

(c) ''The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources.'' Using this criteria, please list those sections you consider irrelevant and I will happily remove them. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * (A) See the extensive talk section above where you did just that.
 * (B) Ok, but there are other problems. In the latest version, e.g. the explanation of the land issue, of necessity short anyway, relating to the 1652 Cromwellian confiscations and 1660 partial restoration of such lands has been deleted. So now meaningless to reader unless they already know these things.
 * (C) The principle problems are: an intro, the 'political background' section, which per your edits, now no longer mentions that the Stuart monarchy was overthrown in 1649, briefly, but tangentially, mentions that it was restored in 1660. But does manage to include three (faulty) paragraphs on the Irish wars of the 1640s (e.g. the English Parliament did an army, they just would not agree that it be under Charles I's command), musings on the nature of divine right in Catholicism, and the edicts of Fontainbleu (all irrelevant). Nor does it include anything on why Jacobites regarded the 1688 Revolution as illegitimate. :::Finishing with the (to say the least highly debatable) contention that no foreign power wanted the Stuarts restored, presented as fact.
 * Whenever anyone tried to tackle any of these areas you always either revert or edit until unrecognisable. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

chronology broken
This chronological ordering of this article is severely broken. It starts off well enough, but then starts over again from the beginning. Needs some serious editing... Tstexture (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific, bearing in mind the Lead summarises the article, with the detail appearing in the body, so no article would necessarily be purely chronological. Plus its isn't intended to be structured in that way; ie "Background" (what was it all about), then separate sections on how that played out in the three kingdoms. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Given it's a complex subject with very different characteristics in each of the three kingdoms, the current structure is the best I could come up with. Not sure a purely chronological approach could even be made to work.Svejk74 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)