The jacobite risings

Tell me more about bonnie Prince Charlie and the Trbrllion that would culminate on the death of highlander culture.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=QTRqUvjwkac
youtube.com/watch?v=TW8bhB5oxQI
youtube.com/watch?v=kjqR7OOPNmQ
youtube.com/watch?v=n1CTxa-FuKc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>dat portrait
more like princess charlie

...

Why are the Jacobites considered an "uprising"?

The Stuart line were the rightful, legal kings of Britain, despite being overthrown in a squalid putsch by Dutchmen.

Surely the Williamites were the ones undertaking an uprising?

Because the wrong side won my friend....

youtube.com/watch?v=QTRqUvjwkac

This is an excellent documentary about it. Very well-balanced and unique.

youtube.com/watch?v=TW8bhB5oxQI

What is the difference betwen Lowlander and Highlander Scots? Are Lowlanders just English with a thicker accent?

Lowlanders were more civilised. The Highland Clans governed themselves via a tribal system and were generally barbaric right up until the failure of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion.

It was more pronounced in the early days of the Scottish state but to put it shortly:

Highlanders are largely descended from Gaels from Ireland and the Picts. They traditionally spoke Scottish Gaelic, a Goidelic language which is descended from Old Irish. Lowlanders are largely descended from Brythonic Celts and various Germanic peoples like Angles, Flemings, Norwegians and the Dutch, and they traditionally spoke Scots, a Germanic language which is descended from Anglo-Saxon. They had very different cultures, aside from their languages, they had different styles of music, dress, government, law, all that stuff. Highlanders tended to associate more with Irish and sometimes Scandinavian culture, while Lowlanders tended to associate more with English and French culture.

If someone had been talking about a "Scot" from the 9th century until around the 13th, they would probably have meant a Highlander. The Highlands in this period were the seat of Scottish royal authority, equally populous as the Lowlands and considered to be the area of prestige, while the Lowlands were often thought of as a bit of a dump. From the 13th century until the 17th, they would probably have meant a Lowlander. In this period, the Lowlands had an insane amount of economic growth and the Scottish monarchy more or less abandoned the Highlands, leaving the Clan Chiefs to govern it themselves without much in the way of royal interference. As time went on, the Lowlanders started to think of the Highlanders as being barbarous and foreign, actively try to stamp out Highland culture, and they were sometimes helped by the King.

After that things get a bit weird. Even though the Highlanders were brutally put down in the Jacobite Rising and their way of life had more or less been destroyed, in the 19th century, Highland culture began to be what people (including Scots) thought of when they thought of 'Scottish' things, in terms of dress, music, literature, language, etc.

bump for prince charlie

...

charlie got dubs twice, this proves he had divine right

The wrong side won 2bh

youtube.com/watch?v=kjqR7OOPNmQ
Stay mad

the 'williamites' won and are considered legitimate because they had the support of parliament and the majority of the british people.

the king rules only with the consent of the people, the consent of the people had been withdrawn from the stuarts

the jacobite rebellion of 1745 was essentially a french sponsored attempt to force a foreign born king upon the british people against their will, supported only by a small fraction of disaffected backwoods throwbacks.

it failed because it deserved to fail

>the king rules only with the consent of the people
Tell that to William the Conqueror and his ilk.

The only legitimacy there ever was is force of arms.

Were the Jacobite risings like the Carlist Wars? Behind the dynastic bullshit, a legitimate movement of peasants fucked up by the introduction of private property and the abolition of common lands?

this
if charles had succeeded and been named king, william & the hanoverians would be the ones called "the pretenders"

Culloden was a massacre because Charlie listened to his drunk Irish mates.
>this highland charge has been working for us all this time
>let's fight on a flat swampy bog instead
>let's leave up this perfect cross-fire wall along our lines while we're at it

It would be really interesting to see what would have happened if they took London instead of turning back.

"Political power grows from the dankness of a meme."

No.

>It would be really interesting to see what would have happened if they took London instead of turning back.
A couple years later another civil war breaks out and he is kicked out.

and by 1688 that force of arms lay with parliament not with the king.

the principle that the king rules with the consent of the people stems from that shift in military power

>It would be really interesting to see what would have happened if they took London instead of turning back.

wasnt going to happen, stuarts had lukewarm support north of the border, and bollocks all support further south.

the retreat to culloden was made when it was realised that the jacobite army was too small and too weak to defeat both the english armies that were opposing it.

as it happened the scots werent just beaten at culloden they were crushed, despite near numerical parity

>as it happened the scots werent just beaten at culloden they were crushed, despite near numerical parity
More goes into a battle than just numbers. I'd take 50 well fed, well rested, well armed and well disciplined redcoats over 200 starving, tired clansmen armed with swords and ramshackle pistols who might flee at the first sign of things not going well. It's no coincidence that the Jacobites who performed best at Culloden were the Irish Picquets - professional soldiers.

I feel you...
youtube.com/watch?v=n1CTxa-FuKc

>It's no coincidence that the Jacobites who performed best at Culloden were the Irish Picquets - professional soldiers.

Because his Irish commanders chose the field of battle to suit their style of fighting. It was a long flat bog, absolute shit for the highlander's charge which had been extremely successful so far.
>as it happened the scots werent just beaten at culloden they were crushed, despite near numerical parity

The Scots won at culloden and were massacred, both sides were Scottish. It was Jacobites against the British army, not scots v english.

>s it happened the scots werent just beaten at culloden they were crushed
I want this meme to die. Scots fought on both sides. Not all of us are a traitorous catholic rabble.

>Traitors

>Fighting for the rightful king of Britain instead of some German/Dutch pretenders.

You're right, not all scots are traitors, but some like you definitely are.

>Jacobite """""""kings"""""""

I'd say questions of genetic descent are less important than culture.

The lowland Scots, by and large, were descended from the pre- Roman pictish population, but with significant continental admixtures too.

More about Norman and French culture than English culture too, if we're talking about the medieval era.

4 of 16 battalions were lowlanders, the rest english

>>Fighting for the rightful king of Britain instead of some German/Dutch pretenders.

parliament decides the rightful king, parliament decided against James II and his heirs, legitimacy for the crown in Britain is decided by the people via parliament, not by blood, there is no 'divine right'