Wha Widna Fecht For Charlie ? That is the question !

[Lachlan09]

You are right. There is no future in continuing this discussion if discussion stops and things get personal, though I don’t understand how anyone in 2009 can feel “personal” about someone like Bonnie Prince Charlie. One’s as well feeling personal over something as relevant as Lara Croft. Frankly, I don’t understand people getting het up over something like Jacobitism.

I would disagree however about “what if” not being a valid tool for historical discussion. Whilst it is of dubious purpose if used to re-write or manipulate history to present a more favourable outcome or to recruit present support for some disreputable ‘lost cause’ (eg the Nazis), reputable historians do often consider what might have happened had history rolled the dice differently.

History would be less interesting if limited to reciting facts and dates, without the possibility of considering “near things” such as:-

What if Hitler had not given the Halt Order to his forces besieging British and allied troops before Dunkirk ?

What if Germany had concentrated on Britain’s airfields and knocking out the communications networks, instead of switching to terror raids ?

What if Japan had cancelled any idea to attack Pearl Harbor or other American assets, so as not to push the USA into war ?

What if 1st AB Div had captured and held Arnhem bridge until XXX Corps arrived ?

Without pondering such issues, history risks becoming what drives so many young people away at school stage:- “In Fourteen Hundred and Ninety two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue”, though I can live with that, having a high boredom threshold.

I love history, though after my qualifications, I decided not to follow it as a career. It is my cherished hobby however. ith:

[Bugbear]

It looks like, Alternate Generals III, edited by Harry Turtledove, has a story dealing with Prince Charlie's alternative history. The story is, "Over the Sea from Skye," by Lillian Stewart Carl, if anyone's intrested.
I've done my good deed for the day. And with that, I hope I can now avoid talking about books so much.

[WClarkB]

Indeed, the "what if" presupposes one's theory of history:
1) History is accidental, hinging itself of random events, personalities etc
2) History has a great plan which makes broad changes inevitable
3) History is cyclical; past is prologue
4) History is dictated from Hagurri the Trasbidite of Khuri of the Blembites

[Woodsheal]

This ought to stir the pot a bit! I believe that much of the Jacobite support by many clans was not so much that they were enamoured of the Stewarts, but that the various Risings (going back to the Civil Wars of the 1640's) afforded opportunity to strike at old rivals in the Highlands. The chance to hammer back at the Campbells and other powerful pro-Government clans was a big motivation for many chiefs. The Campbells especially were consummate political players (and one has to admire their savvy!). They would by-and-large cozy up to the ruling regime, then use those relationships to advance their power in the Highlands, obviously at the expense of neighboring clans. Anti-Campbell sentiments spurred on many a so-called "Jacobite."

Local concerns - and old animosities - were bigger factors for most clanfolk than whoever occupied the distant throne in London....

[macwilkin]

This ought to stir the pot a bit! I believe that much of the Jacobite support by many clans was not so much that they were enamoured of the Stewarts, but that the various Risings (going back to the Civil Wars of the 1640's) afforded opportunity to strike at old rivals in the Highlands. The chance to hammer back at the Campbells and other powerful pro-Government clans was a big motivation for many chiefs. The Campbells especially were consummate political players (and one has to admire their savvy!). They would by-and-large cozy up to the ruling regime, then use those relationships to advance their power in the Highlands, obviously at the expense of neighboring clans. Anti-Campbell sentiments spurred on many a so-called "Jacobite."

Local concerns - and old animosities - were bigger factors for most clanfolk than whoever occupied the distant throne in London....

I think Brian's reasoning is spot-on here; one other factor that others have touched on in earlier posts is religion; while conventional wisdom makes the Jacobites out as RC's, and the government supporters as Presbyterians, it should be noted that a number of Jacobites were Episcopalians, who were discriminated against by the established church, the Church of Scotland, which had been established as the state church under William of Orange.

In fact, at least one historian has suggested that BPC would have done better to have converted to Episcopalianism before he tried to rally the clans, as a pisskie would have been easier for some Calvinists to stomach than an RC. That, however, is just a theory, and I'm not so sure I endorse it.

Regards,

Todd

[Bigkahuna]

I must state that I have some very personal feelings re: Laura Croft, but I will not go into that at this time.

[Phil]

The BBC are running a debate on this at the moment - http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/histor...tes/jacobites/ - as part of their History of Scotland series if anyone wants to contribute.

[Panache]

...The Jacobites were a bunch of losers and Scotland soon hitched its future to the English star and helped create one of the most successful empires in history. That's something to be proud of. God Save The Queen.

It has been decided by the Forum Moderators that the Original Poster has far crossed the line about our rules concerning politics at this point and because of this this thread will be closed.

Sincerely

Jamie and The Forum Moderators