Talk:Jacobite rising of 1745

Current edits

We need to be careful with the effect of some of the current edits, e.g the following:

"In 1745, Charles wanted to reclaim the throne of a united Great Britain and allow tolerance for Catholics, with a political philosophy was based on the outdated concepts of the divine right of kings and absolutism"

Other than the above not making grammatical sense, I would point out that Charles wanted to extend tolerance to nonconformists as well as Catholics (a key tactic of James II when in power as well). I would certainly shy away from saying things like "the outdated concepts of..." given that absolute monarchy was alive, well and kicking strongly in Europe's greatest power at the time. (I'd also suggest that belief in divine right was still a key component of English Toryism, although recent edits have made it sound like their only motivating factor was resentment at exclusion from power). The repeated incremental changes are making this sort of thing very hard to review and track.Svejk74 (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

And again - the edit just made has removed key, properly sourced information (i.e. that the Jacobites were recived with enthusiasn in several English towns). I'm all in favour of 'tightening' wording but it strikes me that the 'tightening' seems to be occuring in particular areas. I am not in the business of reverting but perhaps you would like to discuss your aims first? Svejk74 (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As there has been no response to the above, I'm going to start making some additions to address what I see as weaknesses in the article as it presently stands. Specifically:

Sorry, I haven't been consciously ignoring this, although I don't think responding on the morning of the 11th to comments made on the 7th is being discourteous but I take the point on explaining. I've consistently applied the criteria of Relevance and removed Sourced material of my own.

• Little or no treatment of the context of 'popular' Jacobitism, particularly in England, in the years around 1745

N The challenge is keeping the article to the right length; we had a discussion some while back on this, which led to the addition of the section 'Post-1715.' Good discussion and improved the article but the changes were made some time back and this is the first time the issue of popular English Jacobitism has been raised. That level of detail should be in the article on Jacobitism.

@Robinvp11: Just so you're aware, this article is currently at 28k characters of readable prose, and splitting the article is only recommended past 60k. Personally, I think more detail can and should be added in many areas. Catrìona (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I'm not trying to persuade you, so this is simply to explain my approach. Designing online learning is what I do for a living; that doesn't make me the expert but its based on research and real life.

Beyond a certain point, the more detail you add, the less likely people are to read it; research shows if I give you one 6 minute video, you won't watch it; if I give you three 3 minute videos, you watch all of them. This is called bite-sized learning; Can I add more detail is not the same as Should I add more detail. I do masses of research because its what I enjoy and 75% of it isn't even in this article because there's loads of stuff that's interesting to me (eg the impact of 18th century evangelism in Northern Wales, why it upset people like Sir Watkyn and responses to that) but may not help the user.

One way of handling this is to expand other articles or 'Chunking;' I've started rewriting the one on Jacobitism. Sveik is updating the Jacobite Army. I've expanded Stub articles on Sir William Watkyn, the Duke of Beaufort; the 1708 failure; the 1719 one - that's what the links are for and it's a virtuous circle because it improves other articles.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, designed for people to use and too many articles seem to ignore that. For example, adding pictures is classic engagement policy - many articles are simply huge blocks of text. If you track my edits, I'm equally ruthless with my own stuff; and (per Oscar Wilde), being concise requires far more work. I'm being consistent.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: While I respect your approach, this is potentially in conflict with the A-class criteria: A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. Whether the content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia is immaterial to whether it belongs in this article. This is a complicated and sometimes disputed conflict, and personally I doubt that it can be covered to A-class standards under the current length. Švejk's comments below corroborate my initial assessment. Catrìona (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: As I said, I'm not trying to persuade you.

'Švejk's comments below corroborate my initial assessment; Where does that concern appear in your initial assessment?

{tq|A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, 'and does not go into unnecessary detail.'}} Tell me where you think this needs to be improved, based on this list and I'll see what I can do.

Whether the content exists elsewhere on Wikipedia is immaterial to whether it belongs in this article. No disagreement from me, since that's not what I said; but it does impact the level of detail required.

16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Incomplete account of Tory motives and involvement

N first, re a previous Comment, 'Divine right' as a political ideology does not mean the same thing as right to the throne, which is what Tories generally believed and second, its incorrect to claim there was a consistent Tory ideology on that.

• Other than a single line I added re. Lochiel's tenantry, practically no discussion of the recruitment of the c.8000 Jacobite army itself, who presently appear from nowhere

N My understanding was that you're doing an article on the Jacobite Army, which is great; again, its the length. Even saying 'Lochiel's tenants' is a simplification, because many were effectively press-ganged by Archibald Cameron, and its why he was betrayed in 1753.

If you can summarise in a sentence, then fine but I've mentioned sources of support, the landings of regular troops. 'Morale was high, with recruits from the Frasers, Mackenzies and Gordons and reinforcements from Scottish and Irish regulars in French service bringing Jacobite strength to over 8,000.' The 'Legacy' section also includes this 'The Jacobite Army is often portrayed as largely composed of Gaelic-speaking Highlanders; while predominantly Scottish, it also contained significant numbers of French and Irish regulars, as well as the English Manchester Regiment. Many were Highlanders but some of the most effective units came from the Lowlands, thus making it a Scottish force, not simply Highland.[96] This confusion still exists; in 2013, the Culloden Visitors Centre listed Lowland regiments such as Lord Elcho's and Balmerino's Life Guards, Baggot's Hussars and Viscount Strathallan’s Perthshire Horse as 'Highland Horse.'[97] Seems a stretch to interpret that as not covering the topic.

• Tendentious wording in places (e.g. "outdated concepts" as mentioned above).

Y In the British context, it was outdated and was one of the major sources of dispute between Charles and his Scots supporters. I'll change the wording to reflect that but I don't think its wrong.

• the Jacobites were recived with enthusiasn in several English towns...

N I took this out because if you read the literature, it is unclear whether this was true; people turning out to see the show is not the same thing as enthusiasm (one source writes that many of the 'enthusiasts' at Manchester were members of the Jacobite army). It was their reception at Preston in particular that made some Scots want to turn aback there (3 recruits) and it makes it misleading. I'll change the wording.

If there's a controversy or disagreement between RS, that should be mentioned rather than elided. Catrìona (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

All additions will be sourced and can be discussed here.Svejk74 (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for only just getting round to responding here.

As you've mentioned, I'm in the process of compiling an article on the Jacobite Army itself. This will expand on some areas, but I'm hoping that its existence should not be at the expense of relevant information in this article - hence my interest in the shape it's currently taking. I suppose the process of sharpening up the wording has meant that I've not only been compelled to re-read it, it's also thrown the aspects I feel have issues into sharper relief.

To elaborate a little on some of my previous points:

English Jacobitism: I agree we've touched on this issue before, but my concern is that on re-reading the article in its most recent incarnations, Tory ideology appears almost devoid of content other than resentment at exclusion from power, rather as Scottish Jacobite ideology is presented as almost exclusively driven by proto-nationalism. While this might reflect the biases of some of the sources used here - Szechi particularly - I don't think it presents a rounded or wholly convincing view of why Jacobitism remained an active idea, particularly at levels below the landlord / political class. (Duffy's most recent book includes a large amount of contemporary correspondence which throws a bit more light on the attitudes of other social groups). As I mentioned Pittock talks of the rebellion's failure to engage what he calls the 'carnival' aspect of English Jacobitism, rather than of the total evaporation of English support. It's all important context and particularly context for the decision to cross the border - which, let's remember, even Elcho supported at the time. While the 'Charles swayed by out-of-touch Irish advisors' story remains a potent one, the fact is that a majority of the Scots also considered an an English rising to be credible.

• The problem is that the government successfully co-opted Wynn and Cotton by giving them positions :) but I take your point. Let me come up with something.

Composition of Jacobites: yes, some of this is likely to be addressed by the article on the Jacobite Army, but irrespective of space considerations I still think that the sudden appearance of 8000 men in Edinburgh requires some kind of explanation, even if it's just a couple of sentences.

• You're probably better equipped to comment, so if you have suggested wording, please feel free.
  • Y I've added some detail, partly because the reference is worth looking at.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I note that you've altered the "outdated" wording in subsequent edits (which, incidentally, have further improved the article elsewhere) so will drop that bit for now!

As I can see the article is currently undergoing a lot of work (and my points are probably of limited interest to a general audience) it may be easier if I leave aside the above concerns for now, but I may well return to them when it appears more stable again - does that suit? I would hope to have the companion article complete by that point.Svejk74 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Svejk74. You are probably aware that this article is currently a FAC. It may be worth putting your concerns on the FAC discussion page so that concerns about weaknesses and potential weaknesses in the article are all in one place. And so that the editors assessing it against the FA criteria are fully aware of your concerns. On the face of it, the four issues you raise above are just the sort of thing which should be sorted out during a FAC. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That's indeed the correct link, but it is an A-class nomination, not an FAC, which means different criteria. Anyway, your input there would be much appreciated, Svejk74. Catrìona (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look there, though as mentioned above it may be simpler for everyone if I hold back on a few of the issues until you've got through the changes immediately relevant to the A-class review.Svejk74 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Svejk74: Quite the contrary, I think that your points are clearly relevant to the A-class criteria, and I hope you comment there, either now or later. Catrìona (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Svejk74: I would second Catrìona's suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Volunteers on "L'Elisabeth"

I note a couple of sources, presumably including Riding, give the total of Franco-Irish volunteers on 'L'Elisabeth' as 700. However Reid (2012) gives the total of what he describes as the "Compagnie Maurepas" as just 60 men, recruited by Lord Clare. There are a couple of other older sources for this lower number too, and it seems more in line with the bargain-basement nature of the initial expedition. Reid's assertion is that they were intended only to make a good show in the Highlands as they had, in Charles' own words, a "pretty uniform". Is it possible that the figure "700" comes from a mistranscription of "70" which has been copied by more recent authors?Svejk74 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly possible and I've changed the wording. Tbh, now I think about it, there's no way they could fit 700 soldiers on Elizabeth; it also makes French 'support' essentially minimal - a privateer (lots of those) and an outdated small warship. So I've changed this aspect as well.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to references format

In this article's current A-class Review, several comments were made about the references. Citations should be complete and consistently formatted.

I'll happily fix all the references etc. if I can convert them all to my preferred format (see Bengal famine of 1943 for example). In fact, I've already done 95% of the work in my sandbox. Will be off-wiki for maybe two weeks starting maybe tomorrow. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine by me and I appreciate the help; apologies for the delayed reply - I've been away myself :) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Made a good start, more later. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Culloden battle plan

Another minor point, but the battle plan for Culloden recently added (though drawn in 2007) isn't especially accurate. The enclosures shown to the south are not "Culloden Park", but the Culwhiniac enclosures. Culloden Park, which was on the north flank of the Jacobite position, is missing entirely from the diagram and instead there is a "forest" not present in 1746 - perhaps it's using a modern topographical map its basis?

Also it is doubtful that Wolfe was behind the walls at Culwhiniac, though Ballimore probably was: see the diagram below:

Svejk74 (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I just cribbed it from the article page on the battle, so not sure how to correct it :). You're right on Ballimore's so I've changed this (Loudons Highlanders). Tx.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I need to learn how to use some map creation software, particularly as Aughrim is crying out for a decent map. Svejk74 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"ended [...] as a serious threat"

(Note - the below doesn't mean I do not think the article is of 'A' class, or indeed higher, as it stands).

"The Jacobite cause did not entirely disappear after 1746, but the exposure of the key factions' conflicting objectives ended it as a serious threat"

I've never been entirely comfortable with this conclusion; but recently had a look through Doron Zimmerman's book (cited as a source elsewhere in the article) again and what struck me was its forceful argument that Jacobitism remained a "serious challenge" to the state up to and even after 1746.

Amongst other points Zimmerman argues that the French regime was sincere in its support for the Stuart cause, rather than seeking a mere diversion from events in Europe, and that the 45 was potentially (in Black's words) "the biggest crisis to affect the eighteenth century British state". He suggests a polarity of debate on the issue of the potential of Jacobitism, rather than a general attitude of 'parochial' "Jacoscepticism" (great word, that) amongst historians. I note the current form of the article tends to downplay how concerned the government actually was.

Svejk74 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Svejk74, evidence that the Westminster goverment was weary of the threat well after 1745 can be found in the founding of the Highland Fencible Corps rather than creating Highland militias. -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess you meant to write "wary" not "weary". But I think your point is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.208.134 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Dutch soldiers

@Robinvp11 as you know I appreciate the work you do. However, in this case I think you are wrong. 6,000 troops landing in England is a very significant event and changes the balance of power quite a bit. Also you say: "Dutch troops who never got closer to the action than London". This is just not true. Coates writes clearly: "As part of Wade's command, the Dutch troops marched under that commander in a series of fruitless marches; an attempt to intercept the rebels at Carlisle in November, then in the following month, a bid to come at them south of the Pennines and a final one in an attempt to cut off their retreat to Scotland."

and: "They also helped to quell the outbreak of anti-Catholicism which occured in Northumberland and Durham in January 1746." DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, this is not new information to me, it appears in Jacqueline Riding's 2016 book "Jacobites". She gives it half a page out of 600.

Regardless of whether there were Dutch troops in Wade's command (how many actually made it to Newcastle, and their condition, is debatable), they played no significant part in suppressing the rebellion. Their numbers did not "alter the balance of power", since the Jacobites were outnumbered at least six to one when they entered England.

Any Dutch troops that did make it north played a minimal role in the Rising because the presence of Jacobite officers with French commissions meant the Dutch government (then technically neutral, despite contributing to the Pragmatic Army), was worried their participation might give France an excuse to declare war.

As I said earlier, I've left out a lot of peripheral information, particularly on defence measures taken in England, in order to keep the article within reasonable limits. Dutch involvement doesn't seem more important than any of those. As the article says, Wade's army fell apart and never made it anywhere near Carlisle, while "suppressing Catholicism in Northumberland" means zero. As the article says, the failure to gain recruits in areas of England strongly Jacobite in 1715 was one of the reasons the invasion failed. And that had nothing to do with Wade.

I appreciate your input on articles which involve the Dutch Republic, because it's a perspective which would otherwise be missed. I don't think the 1745 Jacobite Rising is one of those.

This information is probably relevant in the article on the War of the Austrian Succession, just not here. Or at least not more so than any of the other stuff that's been left out. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I certainly see your point an you are right that they played a minor role in the Rising, but what is important and what isn't is just a matter of perspective. I am more interested in the international context of the rebellion than the things you mentioned. The landing of 6,000 Dutch troops is significant, because it relates to the war in Europe and touches upon the Anglo-Dutch Alliance/close Anglo-Dutch relationship of the period.

I also would rather put more information in an article then less. Even if some readers might be frightened away because of it.

Anyway, to compromise I propose, as long as there is no seperate article on the auxiliary force or on the Anglo-Dutch alliance, that the information should be included in a even more concise way or in a footnote. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)