Wha Widna Fecht For Charlie ? That is the question !

[Lachlan09]

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 ?

[davidlpope]

I think this thread is heading for trouble...

Remember this is a KILT forum
Posts and/or threads containing topics not related to kilts or topics deemed questionable by the forum staff may be deleted, without cause. This includes but is not limited to threads concerning kilt accessories used as weapons or used to carry weapons, what is worn under the kilt, the "is a kilt a skirt?" issue, the gender of those wearing kilts, National pride issues, etc...

Cordially,

David

[Lachlan09]

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

[Bugbear]

I have read the book, along with some other books on Scottish history.

I have no idea what Scotland would be like if it had gone the other way. There is a trend of unintended consequences, or an extreme leading to something the extreme would be against, in Scottish history, as best as I can tell: John Knox/David Hume...

All I can really say is that Scottish history is a good study for Emergent Complexity, which happens to partly take it's origins from the work of Adam Smith et al., and the Scottish Enlightenment... Strange...

And now that I have made an idiot of myself, again, I'll shut up. Hope the thread stays reasonable.

[Phil]

Had Bonnie Prince Charlie regained the throne I have no doubt whatsoever that he would have followed his predecessors, James VI & I, and Charles I and II in ensconcing himself firmly in London surrounded by fawning courtiers and concentrating on leading an existence of debauchery and excess. Scotland would have been far from his thoughts and whether he would ever have visited the place is doubtful in the extreme. His forebears certainly did not!
Also remember that he, as a Catholic monarch, would have come up against the Presbyterian church in Scotland which had ensured through much bloodshed in the preceding century that no episcopal religion would be foisted upon them with its bishops looking to the monarch as their head.
I have no doubt that a fresh civil war would have ensued, perhaps magnifying the religious conflicts which exist even to this day.

[thescot]

Phil, you make an excellent analysis. The bonnie prince was not so bonnie, and his later years were exactly as you predicted they would have been in London.

The romance of Scotland and the Highlands is one thing. The inability of our Scottish forebears--especially the nobility--to consistently support the welfare of Scotland over their own personal interests is legend. One would do well to remember tha much of the nobility began as Norman conquereors who came with William and accepted the spoils of war. I suspect that the spoils were pretty important to them. And . . . it seems to me that much of Jacobitism come from Northern England. It was definitely not a purely Scottish movement. It's probably that most Scots weren't Jacobites.

I have heard similar thoughts about the American War Between the States: what if the CSA has won, or at least been left alone to live its own nationhood. I believe it would have abollished slavery since it was already crumbling under its inherent inefficiency, turned to industrialization, and gradually become much of what it objected to from a heavily industrialized, capital-centric North.

The march of History is much like a river's flow, irresistable and constant.

But who knows. Not me, for certain. An interesting question to ponder.

[slohairt]

No, I don't think it would have been. As I mentioned in another thread, the Stuarts would have probably maintained the central authority in London, there wouldn't have been a return to the two parliament system as they promised to some supporters. As Phil has hinted, that would have been too much work!

Instead, much time and effort would have been wasted fighting over religious establishment issues. Scotland (or 'North Britain' by that point) itself would have just languished and the Highlands would have become even more of a 'Land Before Time'.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Bonnie Price Charlie, huh? Well, if you really want to speculate on something of earth shaking importance to the Scots:

WHAT IF, INSTEAD OF WITHDRAWING FROM FIFA IN 1950, SCOTLAND HAD GONE ON TO WIN THE WORLD CUP?

[ronstew]

When I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in 1981, I swore an oath to Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors. I gave up the right to one side of the dispute on that day.

[McClef]

This has been discussed in various threads before.

There are many "ifs" in history and it's pure speculation to wonder what might have been and more heat than light ends up being generated.

Other royal houses have come and gone before the Stuarts and many countries that were once monarchies are now republics.

I doubt that anything new can be learned from this thread.