Jacobite?? Or not!

[j1mwallace]

Interesting looking at all the posts . instinctively are you pro or anti Jacobite?
I am a definite anti !

[Ben Waterhouse]

Pro - Just to be contrary...

[Belg]

Interesting looking at all the posts . instinctively are you pro or anti Jacobite?
I am a definite anti !

Instinctively, I am pro Highlanders.
So, if the Highlanders are pro Jacobite, I must be pro Jacobite too.

Cheers,
Sergio

[Rebel]

Jim,

an intesting preposition, and I would (personally as opposed to being a part time scribbler) place myself with the Jacobites.

After all, James followed the legal and established line of succession, whilst William merely staged a coup purely to ensure the use of another country's armed forces....Mary's interests never came into it - consider William's reaction to being told that he would be King consort and not King regnant.

And before anyone bites on that, if it was simply a matter of England/Scotland/Ireland (and Wales) having a Protestant sovereign, would ask you to consider William's actions during the whole Monmouth episode and if you counter with that was 1685 not 1688 then there were still enough of Charles II's offspring running around who despite their father's strictures could still be considered to have a better claim than William.

[j1mwallace]

Aye but James had already been disavowed by the vast majority of the Scottish population who actually supported him to begin with. The English monarchy were entirely against him almost to a man because of his actions. You have to remember that both countries counted themselves as very Protestant He had alienated the almost the entire nobility of both countries.
William surely was invited but made himself pretty unpopular with his appointment of Dutchmen to most of the positions.
It was only when Ann came to the throne that there was any form of tolerance.
I ask not for political or religious reasons. I just thought it was interesting to find out forum members "gut" feeling.

[Rebel]

Jim,

wasn't implying anything. What I find interesting is the politics. If William was as unselfish then why did he act as he did ? And if James was so universally hated then why did the army not go over, and why was the fleet prepared to go over before La Hogue ?

Would argue about James alienating the ulk of the nobility, and likewise I believe the declaration inviting William was signed by a mere 7 individuals.

These are arguments that can be cut a number of ways and this makes them that much more interesting (to an amateur historian). Consider the English Succession, after Anne passed away, her half-brother nearly did get the Crown......

Will enjoy seeing some of the answers you'll get.

Mike.

[Russian James]

Jacobite of course...!

Not only was James the hereditary monarch, but as a Scot I have to support the Stuarts.

As someone brought up in the Scottish West Coast traditions, it never failed to amaze me how many 'real Scots' celebrated the Battle of the Boyne, even though it was a defeat of the Scottish crown by a foreigner...

As Rebel has said, the invitation to William of Orange had only seven signatures, hardly a majority...


Religion has nothing to do with my feelings, as the Presbyterians / Puritans would likely have burnt me at the stake only slightly faster than the Catholic authorities!

Similarly, how can the SNP try for independence from England when it was the Scots crown which inherited the English throne? Surely it should be England seeking independence from Scotland?

[j1mwallace]

I find it very strange that people think they are somehow more Scottish because they support the Jacobites. Only a very small proportion of the Scottish people supported James. As usual Hollywood has skewed history for most folks. Bonnie prince tartan shortbread tin!

[Cameronian]

Anti. As a Republican, I have little sympathy for crowned heads in general, even less for deposed ones trying to make a come-back.

[Russian James]

Mr Wallace, I can assure you that I have never looked to Hollywood for my history!

Just because a significant number of Scots were opposed to James did NOT remove the fact that he was the anointed King and therefore they owed allegiance.

[obriendavid]

Although I am painting an Irish Jacobite force my sympathies are more with the Irish than James who brought all the troubles on himself.
I'm currently reading John Miller's biography on James II and as I read through it I can't help cringe at the crazy ideas he came up with and managed to pee off virtually everyone and William didn't appear to do much better when he came to the throne.
Cheers
Dave

[Rebel]

Jim - Rather blame Sir Walter Scott .......

Cameronian - But who deposed him, and why ?

Dave - Will be honest, the main reason he lost the war is (and I hate to admit it, but then again we did win the All Ireland yesterday) because he had no other option to listen to Tyrconnel, who was pursuing his own agenda.

Militarily his plan for Scotland was potentially a war winner: Derry was simply to be blockaded and starved into submission (and please consider that the defenders outnumbered the attackers) whilst the cream of the army was to be shipped to Scotland, the crux being the availability of sufficient shipping. But consider this as a scenario - James gets the (I think it was 18,000 which still leaves 32,000 effectives in Ireland) army to Scotland, Killiekrankie isn't fought and potentially the highlands rise (again that was the plan). Large army sitting on Anglo Scots' border means that to meet his commitments William needs to deploy in England Ireland, Scotland and Flanders. From where does he get all the troops ? All it needs is a Walcourt or a Fleurus and the equation changes critically - If no english troops are in Flanders then the Allies will sue and William is isolated. In any event he can't really afford to reinforce Ireland and so his supporters there are left to win or lose through their own efforts.

Against this, one could argue that the Jacobites couldn't arguably suffer another Newtownbutler without severely damagng the cause and that is true, but would - in the above instance - they have been trying to take it ?

[obriendavid]

Dave - Will be honest, the main reason he lost the war is (and I hate to admit it, but then again we did win the All Ireland yesterday) because he had no other option to listen to Tyrconnel, who was pursuing his own agenda.

Militarily his plan for Scotland was potentially a war winner: Derry was simply to be blockaded and starved into submission (and please consider that the defenders outnumbered the attackers) whilst the cream of the army was to be shipped to Scotland, the crux being the availability of sufficient shipping. But consider this as a scenario - James gets the (I think it was 18,000 which still leaves 32,000 effectives in Ireland) army to Scotland, Killiekrankie isn't fought and potentially the highlands rise (again that was the plan). Large army sitting on Anglo Scots' border means that to meet his commitments William needs to deploy in England Ireland, Scotland and Flanders. From where does he get all the troops ? All it needs is a Walcourt or a Fleurus and the equation changes critically -

Mike, I couldn't agree more with your comments and so much is made of the 'siege' of Derry and there was very little chance of the Jacobites taking the town on their own because of the differential between defenders and attackers. If they had just blockaded the town, defended the river more strongly and shipped the rest of the army to Scotland then the result could have been very different but could he have persuaded the Irish to leave their own country is another story and I also doubt the French would have followed them. It's all these what ifs that makes this period so interesting.
Cheers
Dave

[Rebel]

Dave,

thanks for the support! Basically it's all down to Tyrconnel who was behaving exactly as everyone else who had held his position had done.
Patronage in the army is no good if the army is overseas, (even if only on the Stranraer - Larne run). An understanding of the politics of the period is essential - To go back to Jim's point earlier, what had changed so much in two scant years to make a number of the original conspirators decide to offer to support James and turn on the Dutch at La HIgue ??

Must dash, but will try to write further later.

BTW Can highly recommend John Callow's 2 volume biography of James.

- Mike.

[flick40]

...the pride that divides when a coulorful rag is unfurled

I have to side with the Jacobites, but as Dave stated, more for the Irish cause than James'.

Not a big fan of the German side of the monarchy either. Different debate.

What a tangled web we weave..

Joe