Jacobite?? Or not!

[Ben Waterhouse]

It was the last successful invasion of England by a foreign power; whether or not the local Quislings (John Churchill for example) were instrumental in that invasion's subsequent success.

As an extreme monarchist (!) I could never support the usurpation of an anointed King - however much of a plonker he might have been personally...

[obriendavid]

Judging from the popularity of the Jacobites, I might conclude they won the war (Just as the popularity of anything Napoleon and anything German for 39-45 may vouch for a different turn in history).

My excuse is that I'm just a sucker for losing armies which is why I have a French army for the HYW who managed to lose most of the battles but won the war. An American army for the AWI who also lost most of the battles but won the war. An Austrian army for the 1866 war, unfortunately they didn't win many battles or the war and lastly an early WW2 French army who didn't win either.
Cheers
Dave

[j1mwallace]

Actually when I started this off I was really thinking of the later jacobite risings , how they are normally portrayed and my leanings. I have to say i am not particularly pro William as i think he was only interested in England to further his war against France.However James certainly made an arse of things and pretty much deserved what he got.
I always think it would be interesting to read what papers like the Sun or 24 hour news channels would make of the events at that time!

[obriendavid]

I always think it would be interesting to read what papers like the Sun or 24 hour news channels would make of the events at that time!

That's one of the reasons I like to watch the Russia Today news as it gives a completely different perspective to the normal BBC, ITV and Channel4 news. That's not to say that the RT news is any more accurate but at least you get a few different accounts and can make up your own mind.
Cheers
Dave

[Forlorn Hope]

Put not your trust in princes (specifically Stuart ones):

James VI/I - Lock up your good-looking sons.
Charles II - Makes war on his own people and imported an "Irish Army"
Charles II - In the pay of a foreign power.
James II/VII - Relgiously ambivilant. Imported an "Irish" Army like his Pappy. Then runs from a fight, not once but twice and abandons his country (at the second attempt). Does a Blair/Bush to Louis XIV, the great ethnic (well religious) cleanser of his age. It seems Stuart princesses - Mary II & Anne - were always the better bet.

The dual monarchy of William & Mary was accepted by both the English & Scottish Parliaments in early 1689 and heralded the constitutional monarchy and a Bill of Rights. IMHO always a better bet than the delusional "Divine Right of Kings".

The Scots, both Lowlanders and Highlanders of the Episcopalian persuasion, were never great supporters of the Jacobites.

The Act of Union of 1707 resulted in the dissolution of both the English & Scottish Parliaments, so the upcoming referendum should be interesting. Additionally,George I was also a Stuart (and a Tudor, Plantagenant et al) by blood (and having said that I realise I've shot myself in the foot - !).

Republicans should also be careful of what they wish for, especially after Cromwell and the Major Generals (the Puritan Taliban - No Christmas, no theatres [and by extension, no TV, Cinema, Radio or Dancing etc) or football [not sure of this but anything that could be classed as enjoyable was usually verboten]). Also you could end up with the Blessed Tony or Uncle Gordon as your Head of State.

So having lit the blue touch-paper, gentle reader, I shall retire to don my tin lid, clamber behind the sandbags and await the in-coming.

Regards (and hopefully to be soon suitably chastised)

[obriendavid]

Charles II - Makes war on his own people and imported an "Irish Army"

I assume you mean Charles I?
Cheers
Dave

[Forlorn Hope]

Dave

Indeed, a senior moment I'm afraid - You should never proof read your own text

However, having thought about it, if you were a "Cameronian" in 1679 the accusation of making war on your own people might fit Charles II aswell.

Regards

[Rebel]

So much to respond to, and only from a jury rigged lap-top...Will try to put more on paper later but three quickies:

Jim W - Thanks again for a really interesting thread.

Cameronian - As I said above, am on a jury rigged machine but AFAIR the repeal of the Test Acts was aimed (at least officially) in enabling all religious minorities to take up commissions/government sevice.

Motorway - Try as I might, I can't find any references to a Declaration of War by the United Dutch Provinces.

Ref Jonathan Israel's article it seems that he has never seen the OOB of which the bulk were from the Anglo-Dutch Brigade (English Establishment, but paid for by the Dutch and thus still English troops). IIRC The Dutch cavalry and the fleet itself were all leased to William, as were the services of Cornelis Evertsen (his naval 2/ic). Also the German forces mentioned (Celle, Hannover, Prussia etc) were all to cover the Rhineland, so technically not part of any invasion.

As for the Dutch occupation of London, and the exclusion zone for English troops, well William placed his trust in the GtV alone, but note that he wasn't prepared to take up residence in London until James had stood his forces down (cf. Earl of Craven & Coldstream Guards)...

More later,

Mike

[wdrenth]

Motorway - Try as I might, I can't find any references to a Declaration of War by the United Dutch Provinces.

Ref Jonathan Israel's article it seems that he has never seen the OOB of which the bulk were from the Anglo-Dutch Brigade (English Establishment, but paid for by the Dutch and thus still English troops). IIRC The Dutch cavalry and the fleet itself were all leased to William, as were the services of Cornelis Evertsen (his naval 2/ic). Also the German forces mentioned (Celle, Hannover, Prussia etc) were all to cover the Rhineland, so technically not part of any invasion.

I stand to be corrected, but with the total invasion force numbering anything between 15,000 and 20,000, the 3,000 for the six regiments of the Anglo-Dutch brigade can hardly be called 'the bulk'.
Nor have I seen that the regiments were on the English Establishment before 1689 (ok, save a few weeks in 1685).
(I would argue the reasoning 'English Establishment ... thus still English troops'. The Danish contingent was also on the English Establishment between 1689 and 1697, as was a considerable number of Dutch regiments.)

cheers,
Wienand

[Rebel]

Wienand,

am always pleased to be corrected - Will recheck what I have on the lappy ref the invasion force, the main machine is under the scalpel at the moment, a demonstration (if ever one were needed) to keep back ups.

Ref the ADB will recheck that and get back to you.

That said, definition of "arbitrary rule" anyone ?

- Cheers,



Mike

[wdrenth]

Hello Mike,

Regarding the invasion force, I have some stuff on my blog. For example on the infantry: http://britisharmylineages.blogspot.nl/ ... force.html You should find related blogs in a few clicks. I think the copy of my 'project in progress' (I think I emailed you a copy many years ago?) contains that info as well.

cheers,
Wienand

[Rebel]

Wienand,

yes, you did - and v.interesting reading it was, in fact that's one of the docs that I hope won't become a casualty of the recent meltdown.

Chaps, obviously this last is a bit off topic, so I'll stick to the point(s) and any personal stuff by pm.

- Mike

[barr7430]

Nice thread..

I would be a basket case then....

My politics would make me a natural for the Constitutional Monarchy but I could not support a foreign invader's cause particularly that of Dutch William who was an adroit if somewhat unscrupulous political player (bloody good at it though.. Malcolm Tucker eat yer heart out).
Birth would have placed me in the Jacobite camp if only to survive persecution but I would have been very much at odds with the leadership and decision making.
Conscience telling me one thing, heart telling me another.. I would probably have set sail for the Americas!

[quindia]

It's not too late, Barry...

[Russian James]

...America, the perfect advert for a monarchy!

(with the notable exception of Mr Obama)


Sorry guys, couldn't resist it...