Wha Widna Fecht For Charlie ? That is the question !

[Deil the Yin]

I know one thing that I frequently overlook in my national sentiments and romantic view of BPC is that he was not after an independent Scotland, but only a Jacobite on the thrown of Great Britain. So maybe we could compare the fact that a Scotsman is both the current PM of Britain as well as the leading opponent to the PM's party? Not that I really want to go down that road, but it's a fact that continually amazes me...

[BEEDEE]

So maybe we could compare the fact that a Scotsman is both the current PM of Britain as well as the leading opponent to the PM's party? Not that I really want to go down that road, but it's a fact that continually amazes me...

Please don't go down that road. Moving this discussion into the realms of politics is the quickest way to get it shut down.

Brian

[WClarkB]

If polled, I’m pretty sure that most here would side with the Jacobites historically, rather than with the House of Hanover or staying neutral. Some might even today still state support for a Jacobite sovereign on the British throne.

But would a Jacobite victory in 1745/6 actually have been good for Scotland ?

Take off the tartan-tinted spectacles and the answer might be no, as Arthur Herman, argues in his book “How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe's Poorest Nation Created Our World and Everything in It”.

What do you think ?

I am currently reading Herman's book which I have found to be very well researched and thoughtful. To replace a Stewart, especially a catholic one, on the throne would have no doubt started another round of the wars on the continent, as GB would have changed the balance of power. However, the 45 was a Gaelic/Highland rising and represented not the previous regime but the one before that; feudalism rather than nationalism represented by John Knox, the Kirk and a strong centralized monarch. Moreover, the Rising of 1715 was a good deal more dangerous to the Hanovers; it was larger, better captained and supported by both High and Lowland Scots, the Union was not at that time producing much good for Scotland. I have always found BPC a romantic fool; allowing good honest men to die in his name for a cause that he was ill-prepared financially, militarily and by character to pursue. MHO, of course, and I will still defend the MacLellan decision to stay royalist in spite of it.

[Arlen]

I think good old Scottish level-headed debate (in raised voices) is called for

I disagree. We've had this come up on the forum before and there is a strong enough difference of opinion between so many of the folk on here that arguments frequently start. (And we have some real history scholars on here.)

I'd say this is a political subject even with it's historical significance and it's not something to stir up.

[Bigkahuna]

I see no further point in continuing this thread. I am therefore locking it. Oh wait................................I can't do that!!!!!

[ThistleDown]

I'd say this is a political subject even with it's historical significance and it's not something to stir up.

I agree. All that we will learn from continuing this discussion is that we should have known better and should have done more thorough research in other threads before contributing our oh-so-personal and theoretical opinions to this one.

[Bugbear]

Well... I looked through the Harry Turtledove books at the library and they didn't have any that appeared to be on this subject. It does look like he has written on Prince Charlie, though...

I'm trying to get the actuall history strait in my mind, so I try to avoid the speculative history.

[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.

[Phil]

I'd say this is a political subject even with it's historical significance and it's not something to stir up.

I would have to disagree with you here, Arlen, insofar as the politics of Jacobitism have long since disappeared even though the religious divisions they engendered persist to this day. What I would agree with, however, is the pointlessness of such "what if.." discussions. My own view is that the OP has a romanticised view of BPC and his fruitless campaign when in fact it was probably nothing more than a cynical manipulation of gullible clansmen, many of whom were led (from behind of course) to their inevitable slaughter. And, of course, BPC played no part in the aftermath when genocide was carried out throughout the Highlands as a direct consequence of his uprising, leading eventually to the extinction of the clanship system as it had existed before his ill-fated adventure.