![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
The article's been stable for quite some time using "risings", but 80.229.9.98 ( talk · contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) - in modern English.{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) - in the original Scots.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 ..."
{{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor-first=
(
help)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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#Military terms. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military terms. These terms are not "accepted" as official proper names, per evidence discussed there. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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
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)
The article's been stable for quite some time using "risings", but 80.229.9.98 ( talk · contribs) 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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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:
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) - in modern English.{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) - in the original Scots.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 ..."
{{
citation}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor-first=
(
help)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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#Military terms. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Military terms. These terms are not "accepted" as official proper names, per evidence discussed there. Dicklyon ( talk) 04:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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":
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)
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: /info/en/?search=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)