|
|||||||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
3rd May 2005, 15:10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Although actually the population of the Highland rose considerably during the early 18th century due to the need for a large labour force in the highly profitable kelp industry, the population was over 200,000 by 1830. However kelp flourished when Britain was at war with France, when that war ceased this allowed foreign competition back in and kelp prices collapsed. Cattle prices also fell dramatically too, but there was now no longer a need for such a large population. Where once the landowners lobbied the government to make it difficult for people to leave, they then wanted the exact opposite! Down in the Lowlands urbanisation was increasing at the fastest rate in Europe so there was a big demand for labour that absorbed many of the highland émigrés. This also meant that agricultural improvements were needed to feed this rising urban population. Both these factors had a detrimental effect on the Highlands. 
|
|
3rd May 2005, 15:14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The Stuarts had no chance of regaining the British throne, they simply did not have the necessary support to do so. In England the Stuarts were kicked out precisely because their form of absolutist monarchy was the antithesis of the way English government worked. Charles the first lost his head because he was never able to grasp that simple fact. Even in Scotland the 1745 uprising never had more than 10,000 men, and more Scots fought against the Pretender than for him. Lots of ignorant people think Culloden was a Scotland V England match, but actually other Highland clans fought on the government side along with many Scottish soldiers. Presbyterian Scotland had no wish for a Catholic monarch. The whole farcical mess was a tragedy for Scotland, one of the saddest in her history. That makes the romanticisation of Bonny Prince Charlie all the more unpalatable, he was a spoilt and petulant young man who sent many good men to their graves in his pursuit of power. Lions led by an alcoholic donkey.
|
|
4th May 2005, 21:35
|
|||
|
|||
|
[quote]Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist
I am always amused when I hear people trying to justify what was essentially a failed right wing coup d'état to seize the British throne by a Catholic absolutist like Charles Edward Stuart. It usually never fits very well with their other options. "Right wing coup d'etat"? The Stuarts were the rightful monarchs of Great Britain. The House of Hanover was well down the list of claimants to the throne. The coup d'etat happened when Charles' grandfather was deposed in favour of his son-in law. What "other options" are you referring to? The Stuarts had no chance of regaining the British throne, they simply did not have the necessary support to do so. In England the Stuarts were kicked out precisely because their form of absolutist monarchy was the antithesis of the way English government worked. Charles the first lost his head because he was never able to grasp that simple fact. You are greatly oversimplifying the complex political and religious forces which led up to the Jacobite era. England and Scotland were in a state of civil war for much of the 17th century. It was as much about others wanting to grab the reins of power, as it was about a struggle between political and religious systems. The struggle for power was lost by the Stuarts and their supporters - and this led to the "way English government worked" . To state that the Stuart's had no chance of regaining the throne is erroneous. Many people planted themselves firmly on the fence and waited to see which way the struggle would go. A century of civil strife had taught many of the noble families that to declare on the losing side would invite disaster for them and their house. If the Earl of Mar had not been such an inept military leader in 1715, if Charles had waited for the French support, if they had marched on London instead of turning back at Derby, if, if if... Charles' father, King James was not even aware that his son had departed for Scotland, and was not in favour of the rising, he wanted to wait until the necessary support was in place. Even in Scotland the 1745 uprising never had more than 10,000 men, and more Scots fought against the Pretender than for him. Lots of ignorant people think Culloden was a Scotland V England match, but actually other Highland clans fought on the government side along with many Scottish soldiers. Presbyterian Scotland had no wish for a Catholic monarch. Along with a few Highland Clans, and some Lowland troops, there were also German mercenaries on the English line. Primarily however, the forces of William, Duke of Cumberland, were English, and those of Prince Charles were Scots. There are also some ignorant people who think this was a Protestant-Catholic struggle - while many in the Prince's army were Protestant. What many feared with the possible restoration of the Stuarts was not the imposition of Catholicism, but the prospect of greater religious freedom. The whole farcical mess was a tragedy for Scotland, one of the saddest in her history. That makes the romanticisation of Bonny Prince Charlie all the more unpalatable, he was a spoilt and petulant young man who sent many good men to their graves in his pursuit of power. Lions led by an alcoholic donkey. It has become fashionable over the past few decades to put the young Prince down. A revisionist backlash against the romanticisation of the '45 and its principals. Farcical? Hardly - they almost succeeded - Geordie was packing his bags. They had already taken Scotland, and had that been enough things may have ended differently. Spoilt? No more than any other young royal. He hardly acted spoilt - he demonstrated tremendous courage in undertaking the attempt to regain his father's throne. He was impetuous, and as many of his forefathers were, badly advised. But remember, he was a very young man. And his documented problems with alcohol were after Culloden. There are a number of contemporary accounts of the Prince, that speak of his courage and compassion - and in what esteem he was held by his followers. It was demonstrated when he spent months, hiding in the Highlands, with a huge price on his head, and no-one turned him in. Even Clanspeople that had not supported the Rising assisted him. It was a tragedy - but the tragedy was the violent, and often unthinkable acts that were perpetrated on the Highlands after Culloden. The revenge that was exacted on the people of the Highlands was indiscriminate. The genocidal brutality, and subsequent act of proscription, reflected a racist attitude towards the Highlanders, who were considered an ignorant, lazy, and violent people. The Prince sensed in the feelings of these Highlanders a nobility with which he had reason to be well content. They all knew the price on his head and that they could win a great fortune by handing him over. But so far were they from being tempted that they were the more incensed against the Government, protesting that they would rather suffer the cruellest death than harbour such a horrid thought. What is more, their wives cried out against the barbarous ways of the Elector of Hanover in offering so much money for the assassination of so lovable a Prince, and said that they would weep no more for the deaths of those near to them if these evils could at last bring down the blessings of God on their true Prince... An excerpt from Mémoire d'un Ecossais by Donald Cameron (The Gentle Lochiel) XIX Chief of Clan Cameron,April 1747 From the archives of the Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Paris. MD Angleterre, vol. 82, fos 216-21
|
|
5th May 2005, 13:12
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think it is probably true that there were as many Scots fighting for the Hanoverians as there were fighting for the Jacobites.The foot regiments which became the Kings own Scottish borderers and the Royal Highland Fusiliers were at Culloden fighting for the Hanoverians alongside the Argyll militia and a detatchment of Edinburgh volunteers.One of the regiments defending London against the Jacobite threat was the Royal Highland regiment (Black Watch) and it would have been interesting had a confrontation taken place to see whether they would have fought their fellow highlanders to defend the English capital.The Jacobite army at Culloden had been reinforced by a detatchment of French and Irish volunteers so a large proportion of the army were not Scots.Also for the rebellion to have succeeded it would have required an outpouring of popular support from Jacobites and Tories in England along with direct intervention by France,which was unlikely given the logistical difficulties of transporting an army over the channel patrolled by the Royal Navy.I was recently in Derby,the southernmost point rerached by the Jacobite army,and their museum has a large and impressive exhibition dealing with the rebellion and the short occupation of the city.Apparently the townspeople cheered the arrival of the Jacobites and the Tory dignitaries of the city were hepful to them,raising funds etc. but how much of this was due to a genuine support for the Stewart cause or out of fear of the clansmen is difficult to say-the Jacobites did also apparently extract one or two "voluntary" donations from the Whigs of the city.
|
|
23rd May 2005, 15:11
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Rightful monarchs? The ‘divine right of kings’ theory was sent packing by the English at the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Bill Of Rights passed in 1689 was followed by the 1701 the Act of Settlement. The provisions and implications of these bills gave political supremacy to Parliament. Englishmen then possessed certain inviolable civil and political rights that an absolute monarch (like the Stuarts were) could not set aside, and these were well established by 1745. That is why Charles couldn’t take the British throne and why the Jacobites found little support in England (and not that much in Scotland either). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
26th May 2005, 19:49
|
|||
|
|||
|
[quote]Originally posted by TheScottishEconomist
Rightful monarchs? The ‘divine right of kings’ theory was sent packing by the English at the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. What so agitated those who wished the King ill will was not "the divine right of Kings" - but his issuance of the 1687 Declaration of Indulgence - which stopped the laws which persecuted both Catholics and Protestant dissenters. Sent packing by the English? William arrived in England with 60 warships, 500 smaller vessels and an army of 14,000 men. The King disbanded the English army - and the Scottish army under Viscount Dundee arrived to late to do anything. The King was sent packing by the Dutch (and this army actually included a Scottish brigade under Captain Hugh Mackay - later to be immortalized as the defeated Commander at Killicrankie). No doubt memories of his grandfather's fate were fresh in his mind. The Bill Of Rights passed in 1689 Was the result of a convention held in London to rationalize the replacement of King James with his daughter and her Dutch husband. The King had not abdicated - he had simply left - and even if he had abdicated, the lawful male heir to the throne was the infant Prince James (later to become known as "the old Pretender"). This convention declared that the King "had broken the original contract between King and people" and that even if he had not abdicated de facto, he had abdicated de jure. The "Bill of Rights" stressed the primacy of parliament, no laws could be suspended, no monies levied, no standing army maintained without the consent of parliament. It also stated that no Roman Catholic, or spouse of a Roman Catholic, could hold the crown (Oliver Cromwell would have been proud!). A similar convention was held in Scotland - which declared that no Catholic could be King, Queen, or any officer of state in Scotland, and any religion other than Presbyterianism was 'contrary to the inclination of the generality of the people' and that prelacy should be abolished. Anyone familiar with the civil wars would see a carryover from those times in these pronouncements. was followed by the 1701 the Act of Settlement. The Act of Settlement was in response to a political crisis which arose on the death of the 11 year old William Stewart, Duke of Gloucester and heir to the throne. The choice then became one between the lawful heir, in the direct line of Stewart descent, James Francis Stuart, or find a successor in some other collateral branch of the House of Stewart. To avoid a Catholic monarch - they turned to the House of Hanover, descendants of King James VI - through his daughter Elizabeth (Even though there were 34 people with a stronger claim to the throne). The Act of Settlement was passed by the English parliament without consultation, or even informing, the Scottish parliament. The 'Glorious Revolution' was then brought to a close by 'the wee gentleman in black velvet'. The provisions and implications of these bills gave political supremacy to Parliament. Englishmen then possessed certain inviolable civil and political rights that an absolute monarch (like the Stuarts were) could not set aside, and these were well established by 1745. That is why Charles couldn’t take the British throne and why the Jacobites found little support in England (and not that much in Scotland either). To demonstrate that this (to the English) was not about "absolute monarchs", but religion, King William negotiated with the young Prince James' court, as did his successor Queen Anne. If the Stuart would renounce Roman Catholicism and become a Protestant he would have been restored as heir. One of Queen Anne's ministers, a man named Bolingbroke was involved in the discussions, and he said to James Francis "England would as soon have a Turk as a Roman Catholic for a King". Loyalty to the Stuarts remained a powerful force in the Highlands. The Clans had fought for the Stuarts so many times over the previous century, that that loyalty had become part of the gaelic culture. In religious matters, the Higlanders had little in common with the Presbyterian lowlands. Many of the Highlanders were Episcopalian or Catholic, and those that were Presbyterian mostly lived in peace with their neighbours. Blood and clan alliances were more important to them than religion. The Clan Chiefs were almost all Episcopal or Catholic. There was another factor that set the Highlands apart - language. Apart from the gentry, very few in the Highlands could speak English. Thus your statement about support in Scotland is correct, but only partially so - as it pertains to the lowlands. No it couldn’t as I have already explained! Oh - because you say it couldn't have succeeded then it couldn't. They did not have the necessary support, a kingdom is not run by one man and a few lackeys, it required the consent of the nobility, Charles didn’t have that. His quest for the British throne didn’t come anywhere near succeeding. Charles did come within a few days march of attaining the throne for his father. He reached this point as a result of his boldness and courage. He had a military force which was light and mobile, and initially ran rings around the cumbersome British army (forshadowing tactics which would be used to great success in the soon to follow American revolution). His force had momentum and was not greatly opposed as most of the common folk really didn't care who sat on London's throne. When General John Cope tried to raise the people of Edinburgh to defend the city, he was only able to muster 400 men, from a city of 40,000. When, the next day, he intended to march out to fight the Prince's army, only 42 of them remained. Where the Rising was lost was when the decision was made to turn around at Derby. The French were preparing troopships - and there was no force between them and the Capital that would have been able to withstand the Jacobite army. As I said earlier - much of the nobility were planted firmly on the fence, and had Charles taken London probably would have jumped down on his side of it. Much of this is obvious after the fact, but it was not to them at that time, so northward they turned. England's Prime Minister Walpole declared "no-one is afraid of a rebellion that runs away". Aristocrats like Charles were there to be flattered, it is what always happened to such people. It was people who saw young Charles as a potential King of Great Britain who wrote the glowing contemporary accounts of him. Not so - even many of Charles' opponents thought highly of the young Prince. When Edinburgh Castle, with its virtually impregnable defenses, remained in Hanoverian hands - Charles, naturally, ordered a blockade. Word came from the castle that if the blockade was not lifted they would turn their guns on the innocent citizenry of Edinburgh. So Charles ordered the blockade lifted. At Prestonpans the Prince ordered quarter be given to all who surrended. He personally tended to wounded, on both sides. He constantly reminded those around him that he considered all these people his subjects, and they were to be treated as such. Well what did they expect, to be slapped on the wrist and told not to be bad boys again? Taking part in an armed uprising against the government was a serious matter that carried the severest punishments. Your flippant comments are offensive. The Butcher's troops, at his orders, murdered and mutilated not only the wounded, defenceless troops left on the battlefield, but women and children and anyone they could chase down and catch, Jacobite or not. In the words of Lord Rosebery, Liberal Prime Minister in the 1890's "No blacker, bloodier page will be found in the history of any country than that which records the atrocities against a brave but vanquished enemy perpetrated at the command and under the eyes of a British monarch's son." On the road from Culloden to Inverness everyone wearing highland clothing, men, women and children was slaughtered. And of the 20 regiments in the Hanoverian force that day, some of which still survive under other names - none has Culloden among its battle honours. This went on for days - the Highland glens were scoured. Men were murdered, women raped, families evicted from their burning homes and left to starve, their livestock having been driven off to Fort Augustus. Quote:
I am assuming by that you mean that Cumberland's treatment of the Highlands, and the government policy was stupid - and that you are not stating the Highlanders were stupid. Yes it was all the things you say it was, but Charles showed scant regard for this in his later years, in fact his lack of gratitude in criticising the highlanders for failing him is staggering. Again this is not true - Charles criticized Lord Murray, with whom he had a stormy (at best) relationship, and held a grudge against him - but not against the Highland clansmen. He found it difficult to speak of them without weeping, and would not tolerate criticism of them. He did criticise English Jacobites, and of them said sarcastically "I will do for the English Jacobites what they did for me, I shall drink their health". That’s hardly an objective appraisal from a disinterested source! If you read other accounts of Charles it is clear he was a young man who had a good deal lacking in his character. The appraisal is from a man who knew Charles very well, and spent a great deal of time with him. Lochiel had every reason to despise the Prince - his legs were broken at Culloden, he watched Cumberland's forces burn his home. His property was forfeited, and he was exiled and lost virtually everything. But he kept his honour - and his assessment of the young Prince was honest. I have read a number of other accounts of Charles - and can quote from them. I have read other contemporary accounts, from common men as well as Clan Chiefs who thought very highly of their Prince (and this is after Culloden, when it was apparent that he was not going to be King). As far as I am aware there are no contemporary "objective appraisals from a disinterested source". I would submit that the appraisals from those who actually knew the Prince would be more accurate than those who hated and feared him. Perhaps you are aware of an objective source, and can provide us with a quote. The Dead at Culloden by Anne Carola Edmond Bravely we fought, as men will always do. Now our green tombs are moistened by the dew. Our graves are nameless. Only on the moor Where rose the mighty shout 'claymore, claymore,' And for our Prince we dared to fight and die, Grey stones upraise their silence to the sky. One word on each is carved: it stands for all Of that name who, obedient to the call For King and Faith, and at their Chief's first word, Took from the thatch the long-secreted sword And, caring not for politics, or aught Save that his son, for whom their sires had fought Was trusting to their oft-proved loyalty, Rose as one man and vowed their fealty. Read the proud names upon the weathered stones: Camerons, Grahams, here repose our bones. Next to our kin we sleep, both rich and poor United by our deaths upon this moor. We ask no other fate. Men know our worth Who love the cause for which we were called forth.
__________________
Walk tall, walk straight and look the world right in the eye Val Doonican
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Home | Site Index | Blog Index | Establishments Index
Advertising | About Us | Contact Us | Privacy | Use Policy | Submit an Article | Directory
Algeria | Bangladesh | Ecuador | Morocco | Nepal | Nicaragua | Puerto Rico | Russia | South Africa | Ukraine
All Rights Reserved © 1995 - 2008 | NewMedia Holdings, Inc. The Scotland Channel is operated under license to Paley Media, Inc. which is solely responsible for its content, unless expressly provided otherwise. All trademarks and web sites that appear throughout this site are the property of their respective owners. No part of this site shall be reproduced, copied, or otherwise distributed without the express, written consent of Paley Media, Inc. This site is not affiliated with any government entity associated with a name similar to the site domain name.
Linear Mode
