Were the Jacobites right?

>I really doubt the English would let him do that.

The UK at the time was embroiled in the War of Austrian Succession (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession), they had very few troops to commit to a war at home, and the highlanders alone managed to muster an army of several thousand with almost no notice in a few months (he landed on Eriskay on the 23rd of July, and crossed the English border, having smashed Cope's army at Prestonpans, occupied Edinburgh and begun tax collection from Glasgow and the rest of the central belt, on the 10th of November, with almost 6 thousand men).

If Charles had declared unilateral independence, he could potentially muster thousands more to commit to a defensive war (on ground notoriously difficult to invade), while the Hanoverians were under a very real threat of not only losing their German possessions (Hanover) to Prussia, but also a direct French invasion of the British mainland (which was planned to coincide with Charles' attack on London, but was delayed and then called off when he withdrew). In terms of actual French support, he'd already received enormous amounts of money, thousands of muskets and a number of artillery pieces, shipped from France, with the potential for more, as France was committed to removing the growing threat that a united Britain posed.

The Hanoverians in 1745 were in no real position to contest an independent Scotland, given that during the ensuing English campaign, they even had to deal with Jacobite rebels in England and riots in London, let alone an extremely aggressive and (most of the time) well led highland army, which in a defensive war could have potentially been supported with Scottish regulars if given time to train and arm them, and on top of that, the direct threat of invasion by France, and the loss of their German territories to France or Prussia.

As a catholic I wish they succeeded, but also gregorian British monarchy is best British monarchy, and if they hadn't chimped out then I would have declaration of indulgence laws earlier

>ywn feed his Flemish pony with carrots from the royal garden
Why even live
>GAELIC PRIDE
nah m8 that would not be accepted at the peace conference due to changing balance of power, also the Hanoverians would just focus everything on Britain

From which we have never recovered.Like most highland families mine fled to the lumber mills of Canada and we lost our culture,our tartan,our traditions, our language and our kilts.

>failing to preserve culture is the states fault
An actual cuckold you be you statist

stop trying to act like you know anything, faggot. the higlands were more populated than the lowlands until the 19th century, read a fucking book.

>skraggy barren land will have more people than the fertile low lands with constant migration from the south and Europe

Do your history ya cunt it was outlawed. The British government dismantled a complete way of life and all things attributed to it.Here I'll make it easy for you youtube.com/watch?v=TW8bhB5oxQI

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances

I think a better question is If the highlanders that remained in Scotland that sold out their clans men for sheep farming and turned in their own people for wearing tartan and keeping arms and true scots? wouldn't the true scots be the descendants of people that had to flee not the traitors that remained and bent the knee?

Yes

That's why I called you a statist cuckold
No true Scotsman fallacy

A statist is an advocate for state control over social affairs. I am not in favor of that since the state removed said culture you stunned ass.

>No true Scotsman fallacy.< That's the discussion what does constitute a true Scotsman a descendant across the ocean with the name and the blood, or the paki with a kilt in scotland?

A Scotsman would be someone indigenous to Scotland. Someone care to enlighten me as to who that might constitute?

the true scotts would be those who kept their cultural legacy alive

The Scottish people (Scots: Scots Fowk, Scottish Gaelic: Albannaich), or Scots, are a nation and ethnic group native to Scotland. Historically, they emerged from an amalgamation of the Picts and Gaels, who founded the Kingdom of Scotland (or Alba) in the 9th century, and are thought to have been ethnolinguistically Celts. Later, the neighbouring Cumbrian Britons, who also spoke a Celtic language, as well as Germanic-speaking Anglo-Saxons and Norse, were incorporated into the Scottish nation.

I concur to that.

Were the confederates right?