Talk:Jacobitism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Bobbin' John

I can't find a reference right now but i believe its just Bobbin John not Bobbin' John (as in the sewing type) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.156.138 (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a question of references. This is merely a spelling difference and you will be able to find references for both spellings. Bobbin John is a Scots nickname. The equivalent English nickname would be Bobbing John. The standard method of spelling Scots words whose English equivalents ended with -ing used to be -in' but more recently there has been a movement to discontinue the apostrophes. So Bobbin' John and Bobbin John are just alternative methods of spelling the same word. Bobbin' John is the one that would have been used during the eighteenth century. But it doesn't matter much which Wikipedia uses. The word, "bobbin", (as in "sewing bobbin") is a different word which happens to be spelled the same way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Heirs of Charles I, not James II

In the opening sentence, "to restore the Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England ...", I wonder if an alternate phrasing would be better. "Heirs of" sometimes implies "descendants" but James II's descendant heirs went extinct and the Jacobite claim is to the heirs of Charles I, through James II's sister, Henrietta Anne. (Perhaps the distinction is pointless, since claims after Henry IX are synthetic and unrelated to the real Jacobite movements.) Septimus.stevens (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article provides only a pronunciation (/dʒeɪˈkɒbaɪtɪsm/) with an unusual stress — on the second syllable, "cob" — and, even stranger, an /s/ sound instead of /z/ in the suffix "-ism". I am going to

• add a pron with initial stress, on "Jac" -- /ˈdʒækəbaɪˌtɪzm/ -- as per the American Heritage Dictionary and at least one other source, with references, and
• change /ɪsm/ to /ɪzm/ in the present pronunciation.

(I'll do those in a few hours, I must go now.) --Thnidu (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm citing the OED as well as the AHD. I haven't found any source that gives the odd pron that I found here (*/dʒeɪˈkɒbaɪtɪsm/), so I'm deleting it. --Thnidu (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regnal numbers of pretenders

Currently the infobox lists the Old Pretender as "James III and VIII of England". I removed "of England" since he certainly wasn't James VIII of England. Besides that, the Young Pretender is listed as "Charles III" and his successor Henry Benedict Stuart as "Henry IX". Considering that they were neither crowned nor generally recognized as kings, and especially that we will probably see a generally recognized Charles III of the United Kingdom in my lifetime, I don't think such regnal numbers are appropriate in a neutral (i.e. not pushing a Jacobite agenda) article on the topic of Jacobitism; they should be listed with their ordinary names instead. The only exception in this infobox is James II and VII, who was not merely a pretender - everyone acknowledges he really was King of England and Scotland. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Renaissance Latin"?

"Jacobus, the Renaissance Latin form of Iacomus, the original Latin form of James" Where is this from? "The name James came into the English language from the Old French variation James of the late Latin name Iacomus. This was a Vulgar/Later Latin (proto-Romance) variant of the earlier Latin form Iacobus, from the New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos), from Hebrew יעקב (Yaʻaqov) (Jacob)." from James (name). I suspect this is simply backwards: "Jacobus, the classical Latin form from which the English name "James" descended."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacobitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116082113/http://celticcastles.com/castles/forter-castle/history.html to http://www.celticcastles.com/castles/forter-castle/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote: Not to be confused with (...) Jacobite

The article has a hatnote: Not to be confused with (...) Jacobite, where Jacobite points to a disambiguation page in which many items relate to Jacobitism. I understand that pointing hatnotes to a disambiguation pages is not ordinarily considered good practice, but it might make sense here to help readers find the other kinds of Jacobites. Is there a less confusing way of doing so, please? --Frans Fowler (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A Jacobite is someone who espouses Jacobitism (q.v.); as such, this is the primary topic for that term and {{distinguish}} is therefore inappropriate. I've replaced it with {{distinguish-otheruses}}. Hairy Dude (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Political background section

This has a request for inline citations etc which I'm happy to do. No quarrel with the content per se but I've been doing some work on other pages (e.g. Glorious Revolution in Scotland, 45 Rebellion, Glencoe) and so it would be relatively easy to tighten it up and make it more structured.

Does anyone have objections to this or guidelines they'd like to be followed (e.g. what it should include).

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacobitism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106050248/http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/resources/archival_%26_special_collections/the_collections/digital_collections/scottish/Jacobite_site_0.htm to http://www.lib.uoguelph.ca/resources/archival_%26_special_collections/the_collections/digital_collections/scottish/Jacobite_site_0.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311005348/http://www.yourphotocard.com/Ascanius/Home.htm to http://www.yourphotocard.com/Ascanius/Home.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff

Wow. More good stuff, from you, Dave. I learned from reading the new material which you have added to the article. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:24, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

All this info from Szechi's very informative The Jacobites (smallish paperback, already in References) rushed together as it seems time to stop renewing it and let the library have it back. Some more gems from this book added today, will try to finish on Monday..dave souza 14:00, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

Jacobitism in Ireland

No mention of the Siege of Limerick and the Treaty of Limerick? zoney ♣ talk 18:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the note above that subsection states: "This section focusses on the political context. For military aspects of these campaigns see the Williamite war in Ireland and Jacobite Risings.", and the siege and treaty seemed more like military aspects in terms of Jacobitism, so are covered briefly in the Wm. war article, but feel free to expand either or both articles...dave souza 00:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought the Treaty to be quite a political turning point - for Ireland anyway. The Treaty gave certain guarantees on the treatment of Catholics in Ireland, which were later broken. The Treaty was not solely a military resolution of the siege (that only formed some of the content). zoney ♣ talk 11:02, 15 February 2005 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Angles

I'd like to see a reference for this claim that Jacobites thought of Mary Queen of Scots as Queen of England too. It's plausible but some contemporary evidence to prove it would be good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:02, 30 November 2004 (UTC)

The earliest I can find is a page on the Net, reproducing a 19th century magazine article about legitimist monarchists. It refers to a movement of English Jacobites then currently active, who published a journal called 'The Jacobite' and printed labels bearing the head of Queen Maria of Bavaria with the title 'Mary IV'. Jacobites today also count Mary Queen of Scots in the English numeration - see the 'Jacobite Heritage' web page. -- Jess Cully | Talk 09:21, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Jacobite numbering of Marys wasn't an issue until 1824 when King Victor (Victor Emanuel I of Sardinia) died and was succeeded by his daughter Maria Beatrice. Scottish Jacobites knew her as Mary II (Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, being Mary I of Scotlans). English Jacobites certainly had Mary Tudor as Mary I of England. While there are no contemporary opinion polls on the matter, in 1824 the majority of English Jacobites were profoundly legitimist in their sentiments and certainly many (of that small number) considered that Mary Stuart had been Mary II of England. But it was not unanimous. Noel S McFerran 22:53, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

Why do the two Jacobite "Queens" named Mary have two numbers? Until now I've thought that the wife of William II and III was Mary II of both kingdoms, having Mary I Stuart, daughter of King James V, and Mary I Tudor, daughter of King Henry VIII, were the only Queens named Mary in England resp. Scotland before 1689. --VM 19:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's because William of Orange and his wife Mary are regarded as usurpers by the Jacobite supporters, and so find no place in the succession. Instead James II was succeeded by James III (Bonnie Prince Charlie's father). Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn and the future Elizabeth I was born while his first wife Catherine of Aragon was still alive. Hence Elizabeth I is regarded as illegitimate by Jacobites. Mary Queen of Scots was next in line due to being Henry VIII's grand-neice, and so in the Jacobites' opinion, she was the true successor of Mary I.

Regnal numbers

The article presently identifies sovereigns using their Scottish regnal numbers before their English regnal numbers (e.g. James VII and II). The Stuart kings always preferred the use of their English regnal numbers (in fact these are the only numbers on their tombstones where they are identified as "of Great Britain"). I suggest reversing the numbers (i.e. James II and VII, etc.) Noel S McFerran 22:53, 9 April 2005 (UTC)

Name origin

How is it that Jacobitism was "named for James VI/I", who was long gone when the movement began after the deposition of James II? Sfahey 15:00, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers

The info box claims a "size" in 1745 of 12,000 French soldiers, 4000 Highlanders, and 700 Irish volunteers. What exactly are these numbers refering to? I'm not aware of any significant French contribution to the '45, but according to our articles there were 8000 Jacobites at the Falkirk Muir and 7000 at Culloden, so there must have either been a lot more Highlanders, or a large contingent of "others" that have been missed from the info box. Iapetus (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right that the figures are wrong - I think the 700 refers to the Scots and Irish regulars in French service but 'strength' is used incorrectly here (not military but size of the movement, which is a very different thing). Tbh, this article needs a lot of work; I've removed it for now.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ruprecht and "Robert Iv and I"

The article seems to suggest that Robert is a variant of Ruprecht. It is not. --Wetman 20:39, 31 March 2005 (UTC)

You'll be wanting to take it out of Robert, then. —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Damned cowardly Italian"

Isn't that supposed Elcho phrase traceable only as far back as Walter Scott? Svejk74 (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I've come to the conclusion Scott has a lot to answer for :). Although Elcho seemed to have disliked anyone who wasn't from Perthshire (see biography).

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There is that very vivid contemporary description of Elcho by a minister who claimed to have encountered him and a group of his fellow officers looking for a pub on the night following Falkirk. He wrote that he thought Elcho would have happily killed him if he'd said the wrong thing, or words to that effect.Svejk74 (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of Scottish section

In Lowland Scotland, the Catholics tended to come from the gentry and formed the most ideologically committed supporters, drawing on almost two centuries of subterfuge as a minority persecuted by the state and rallying enthusiastically to Jacobite armies as well as contributing financial support to the court in exile. Highland clans such as the MacDonnels/MacDonalds of Clanranald,

The Roberts reference has no page, only goes as far as 1692 (and the Glencoe Macdonalds were Episcopalian); the Tartan Authority is (a) a sales website, not a historical document, and (b) the reference provided does not relate to the claim that they were 'largely still Catholic.'

To the Gaelic-speaking Scottish Highland clans, to whom the supporters of Jacobitism were known as Seumasaich, the conflict was more about inter-clan politics than about religion, and a significant factor was resistance to the territorial ambitions of the (Presbyterian) Campbells of Argyll.[citation needed] There was a precedent for post-1689 Jacobitism during the period of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, when clans from the western Highlands had fought for James's father Charles I against the Campbells and the Covenanters.[citation needed] Another factor in Highland Jacobitism was James VII's sympathetic treatment of the Highland clans. Whereas previous monarchs since the late 16th century had been antagonistic to the Gaelic Highland way of life, James had worked sympathetically with the clan chieftains in the Commission for Pacifying the Highlands.[citation needed]

This contains a number of debatable points, not backed up by references. I've incorporated what I can but I believe it's better to start with what is accurate (or at least, can be sourced), then add anything missing. Happy to discuss.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole thing needs redoing from the ground up.

I'm not sure what "In Lowland Scotland, the Catholics tended to come from the gentry" actually means, but...in 1715 and particularly 1745 gentry support was more a matter of familial connections more than anything else (e.g. in Perthshire) or due to residual 'feudal' relationships (e.g. in the Gordon estates).

Most Catholics stayed well clear and as you note it was the Episcopalians who showed a degree of ideological commitment - in 1745 many of the Catholics seem to be either exiles or from families who had fallen on hard times (e.g. Crichton of Auchingoul).

As for the clans I thought the "territorial ambitions" of Argyll were really only an issue in the conflict of the 1640s. Family connections around Lochiel and Glengarry were certainly a factor; the ongoing issue caused by the Keppoch lands was also a source of trouble as the government recognised. This is not to say the Jacobitism of the West Highland chiefs wasn't genuine, more that it was a complex, variable set of motives of which religion and old grudges were only a small part, while family connections or financial hardship were a rather larger one.Svejk74 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I made a few insertions into the article which might suggest further improvements - first, the very different character of Jacobitism in Ireland and its survival (in Irish language poetry, at least) until the 1780s as a militantly Catholic ideology.

I've also added a bit to the Scottish section, i.e. how grumbles about the post-Union regime fed into even the motives of unionists like Lord George. Similarly, I've expanded the England section to include the Tory 'mobs'.

I think the material could do with major reorganisation: the 'England' 'Scotland' and 'Ireland' sections could just as well be characterised as fitting under a Politics section as a Religion section, seeing as political ideology had a strongly confessional component. The stuff coming after about 'opportunists' has little value at present, similarly the 'ideology' section which could be helpfully expanded by examining the themes often used by Jacobite / High Tory writers, e.g. dynastic right, opposition to a standing army, etc Svejk74 (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Irish Land League

Bearing in mind the Wikipedia injunction to be polite and assume good faith, rather than simply undoing stuff you don't like, here's an alternative approach; 'The link between Jacobitism and the Land League is not clear to me; can you explain.'

The point about Jacobitism in general is how far it can be seen as a consistent ideology versus a catch-all for reform. Hence, the importance of Land Reform as an issue that long outlasted any lingering affection for the Stuarts. The previous version makes the same claim about Catholicism and if I wanted to be really picky, I could point out it was De Valera who recast Irish history through the lens of religion.

This article has had flags on it for a long time and Wikipedia is a collaborative forum. Its about respect; people have put work into this. I don't agree with some of the additions but if I'm going to object, I should explain why. That's not unreasonable.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing personal about this. Nor is it about what I like or don't like. Jacobitism of the 17th and 18th centuries simply had nothing whatever to do with the land league of the 1880s. It is entirely anachronistic to say that it did. Leaving aside the 150 years roughly in between the two movements (the end of Jacobitism after 1745 and the land war of the 1880s), Irish Jacobites wanted the landed estates restored to their pre-Cromwellian Catholic landowners. The Land League wanted improved rights for tenant farmers and ultimately redistribution of land to tenants. One was certainly not the continuation of the other and there is no basis to say that it was. Best, Jdorney (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am of course delighted to hear its not personal; I hope you'll take the same stance on my edits.

However, my comment referred to your edit of 14 November; restore version prior to recent edits. While old version not perfect, it was far better than incoherent and opinioniated recent version.

What you removed is not my work so I'm neutral on the content. Incoherent and opinionated hardly seems designed to drive a collaborative environment but perhaps you have a different interpretation of what constitutes polite debate.

Re land reform; that sounds suspiciously like a rationalisation. If you read the debates inside and outside Parliament (as I have elsewhere), that's not an accurate reflection of the reality, either in 1690 or 1720 (or 1737). Luckily, Dr Ó Ciardha agrees with me, so we don't have to debate it.

The article's been improved, so great.

I must say I do not agree with any of your recent edits. The issue here is, was there any commonality or continuity between the Jacobites of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the Land League of 1880s. There simply was not. Nor does Eamonn O Ciardha make any such claim. To repeat, the Jacobite Irish parliament of 1689 did not nor did it ever propose legislating for tenants' rights or for a redistribution of land. This is fundamental difference, not a rationalisation. It simply proposed that Catholic landowners be restored their landed estates that had been confiscated under the Cromwellian regime.

Eamon O Ciadhra argues in 'Ireland and the Jacobite cause' that agrarian secret societies such as the Whiteboys of the 18th century sometimes used Jacobite rhetoric, reflecting 'popular Jacobitism'. So it might be said that to a degree, mid to late eighteenth century popular Jacobitism had some connection with tenant grievances, but it is still a massive stretch to connect it with the Land League of the 1880s, by which time about 40% of landlords in Ireland were Catholics. There is simply too great a gap of time and ideology between them. Jdorney (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments (new heading so I can keep track)

I've had a bit of a think. I can certainly see why the counter-examples given of Protestant Jacobites, Protestant supporters of Irish administrative independence, James's differences with the Pope, etc are valuable in themselves, but I suppose I think that by devoting 2-3 paragraphs out of 6 or so to them we are giving an impression of the nature of Stuart support in Ireland that doesn't accord with the "unquestioned orthodoxy" O Buchalla describes. Connolly, remarkably, suggests that the majority of the population held these views up until the early 18th century - not sure how he has quantified that but that is what he states. The tendency of the past 20ish years of Irish scholarship has been to argue Jacobitism was indeed significant in Ireland in the period.

I've also now had the opportunity to read Richard Hayes' article in full, but in all honesty I think he is a bit of an outlier himself. He says Irish Jacobitism was a very different beast to English and Scottish Jacobitism (no disagreement there) and that the return of confiscated estates was a primary motive (again no disagreement) but says it was not primarily a matter of religion. I disagree with this, partly as you cannot divide religion from the exercise of civic rights in the period, but also as the contrary examples he gives (the remaining Protestant peers in the Irish Lords, the CoI bishops, the non-Jurors) are not especially representative, while very interesting in themselves. He also says that it was not about administrative independence either, despite this being exactly what we argue further up. Lastly it was written in the '40s and while I think old sources are just as valuable, he is comparing Irish Jacobitism to stuff like a perceived 'romantic attachment to the Stuarts' in Scotland - an idea we have disposed of elsewhere as largely, if not entirely, a 19th century misunderstanding of more pragmatic bonds. Svejk74 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The central dilemma is many of the things stated as 'Jacobite' were opposed by James (and the Stuarts in general), be it Irish autonomy, land, or even the nature of Catholicism. That can't just be ignored; neither can the fact Ireland played no role in 1715 or 1745.

(2) Perceived 'romantic attachment to the Stuarts' in Scotland - an idea we have disposed of elsewhere I don't disagree but I haven't used it in this article, so I don't understand the relevance. Plus if that's the case, then (as below) using limited quantities of pro-Jacobite Gaelic poetry, written by members of the literati in a largely illiterate society, to support the idea of a popular Jacobite movement can't stand up either.

(3) The points on Protestant support are relevant, not just 'interesting'; they underline the complexity of Jacobite support and why people were later willing to die for an autonomous Ireland but not the Stuarts. James' differences with the Pope (and the Irish church in general) are relevant to understanding why Jacobitism later became associated with militant Catholicism.

I'm not sure why Hayes keeps coming up. I read every source (especially my own) with a critical eye; that's why I committed his point on independence, because there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. All I've used Hayes for is as a reference for this point; As a result, some historians claim it is difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. He doesn't appear anywhere else in the article, for which I've provided eight separate sources.

Its complex; I've made suggestions to ensure that complexity is reflected in the article, I haven't demanded the removal of anything (apart from three paragraphs of boiler plate Irish history, which were neither relevant or referenced). I'm not sure why that's absorbed so much energy.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)