"How the Jacobites were sent to war after Culloden" Topic

"A rebellion that was not a war for Scottish independence, but rather to see which royal house would rule Great Britain. In 1714, the ruling Stuart family had been deposed by the House of Hanover and the Stuarts, desiring to reclaim the throne, were known as Jacobites.

Much of the Jacobites' support was provided by the Scottish clans, particularly Western and Highland ones. The culmination of the rebellion at Culloden resulted in significant deaths for, and then subsequent persecution of, the Jacobite clans.

A little-known facet of that persecution was to enlist as many former Jacobites as possible into British Highland regiments. This was so they could be watched over by loyal officers and be sent abroad to fight for the Crown…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"In 1714, the ruling Stuart family had been deposed by the House of Hanover and the Stuarts, desiring to reclaim the throne, were known as Jacobites."

Thats a very odd sentence; the Stuarts were deposed in 1688, so you could say they had been deposed "By" 1714 but saying "In 1714" suggests it was much more recent. The second half implies that the reason they were called Jacobites was because they were trying to reclaim their throne and nothing to do with some bloke called James!

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

The Stuarts weren't deposed by anyone. James II was deposed, His daughter Mary Stuart was co-Sovereign with William III until her early death. His successor, Queen Anne was also a Stuart.

As Anne died childless the question turned on whether James' children had a right to the throne or whether they had lost it when James was deposed. Assuming James' children WERE out of the line of succession- then Sophia of Hanover was the next legitimate choice. She died shortly after Anne so her son succeeded as George I.

It was the question of whether James II's heirs were also out of the succession that was the heart of thre whole Jacobite thing.

Thanks also…

Amicalement
Armand

The writer of the article seems to be unaware that there were Highland troops in the King's pay before the '45, and appears to be under the impression that all Highlanders must have been Jacobites, that regiments of Highlanders formed for service subsequently were composed entirely of Jacobites, and that those recruited were not volunteers.

It also overlooks the immense esprit de corps of the Highland regiments.

And it doesn't quote Major-General Wolfe, "small mischief if they fall".

It is sad that a Scottish publication is so wide of the mark on some basics of Scottish history- although it helpfully does clarify that the Jacobite Rebellions were NOT a Scottish war on independence.

Waiting though for Mel Gibson's 're-imagining' of history in a movie theatre soon……

The biggest problem with this and many other accounts of the Highland Regiments formed in the SYW was the question of what 'Jacobites' actually were.

In the ancient clan system, the humble folk who made up the rank and file of the clan forces turned out to fight because the clan chief and his enforcers ordered them to turn out- if they wanted to keep a cottage roof over their family's head- not because they were personally supporters of King James or King George. Those questions of political allegiance were left strictly to their clan chiefs and other seniors.

After 1746, although many aspects of the clan system remained intact, one massive change was that clan chiefs could no longer call their tenants out to war. Many clan chiefs of course became Colonels in the British Army and could enlist fellow clansmen into their regiments as regular soldiers- but that was a fundamentally different relationship than previously.

So the 'Jacobite' recruits into the SYW Highland regiments were actually generally just 'men from clans whose chief had sided with the Jacobites' in 1746. There were also of course many recruits whose clans had taken the Hanoverian side in 1746. The first two regiments which went to Canada were recruited to strength so quickly, that two further regiments, which served in Germany, were formed with equal rapidity. All of these units distinguished themselves.

In fact, volunteer service in the King's army was almost certainly preferable to being called out to fight (by either side) in the clan system. You could certainly be sent a long way away, but pay and rations were a lot more regular, there was no corporal punishment in the original regiments, and most of all there was no hereditary compulsion on you or your children to fight just because they shared the same surname of some rich old guy who you had never met and probably dressed and talked like a sassenach- whichever side he was on.

Agree broadly, especially with the conclusion, and you know more of the SYW than I (didn't Flora MacDonald have something to do with a regiment serving in America, or her brother or husband?). I think that Thomas Pennant, traveller to Scotland a few years before Johnson and Boswell, states that some thirty-five thousand soldiers from Scotland had served in the British Army "since the late rebellion", a figure which seems scarcely credible. If MG ever makes a film based – very loosely, no doubt – on the '45, I wonder would he play Murray, being too old now for BPC? He certainly has a certain anti-English stance in several films, though I'm not sure which he directed, so no doubt the political complexities will be simplified. Ah well, at least the familiar mad dash to hand-to-hand combat will be appropriate to Gledsmuir (i.e. Prestonpans). By the way, as is maybe not as well known as it should be, the term "Sassenach" signifies to the Highlander not "English", but rather one who spoke some dialect of the English language, that is a Lowland Scot as well as someone from England or indeed Australia (from Irish for "Saxon").