Talk:Jacobite risings

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: Jacobite monarchs were the British Government in exile, the Stuart form specifically.  Lord Loxley 03:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hanoverian? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Copied from [[WP:RD/H]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Risings or Rebellions?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Highland schools after the '15 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: My changes, and more needed

message: (Originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, but got no reply Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Indeed there should. See WP:SUMMARY for how it's done. . . dave souza, talk 07:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Edward Stuart's Flight and the 'Forty-five 

message: 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 — 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:
* - in modern English.
* - in the original Scots.
Some of the experiences of those living in Argyll under Protestant rule:
* - 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.
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 ..."
*  
Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citing references 

message: 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)
replies: text: As there are no objections, I created an article on the '45.--Britannicus (talk) 01:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: 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)
thread_title:  here is the reason they were called Jacobites 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: A point covered in the #Cultural references section of this article.. dave souza, talk 21:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walter Scott's Rob Roy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  General copy edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jacobite rising of 1689 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What did the Jacobites want 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Jacobite risings]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Disambiguate