← Not Just the Tudors
Not Just the Tudors
Bonnie Prince Charlie & the Jacobite Rebellion
00:49:53
Exploring the Jacobite cause which sparked some of the most devastating events in British history
Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:00]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb. If you'd like Not Just the Tudors ad free to get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to historyhit with a historyhit subscription. You can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my own recent two part series A World Torn the Dissolution of the Monasteries and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com forward/subscribe.
- [00:33]
Alan McGuinness
You say you'll never join the Navy, that living on a submarine would be too hard. You'd never power a whole ship with nuclear energy, never bring a patient back to life or play the national anthem for a sold out crowd. Joining the Navy sounds crazy. Saying never actually is. Start your journey@navy.com America's Navy Forged by the Sea USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a'@usaa.com bundle restrictions apply.
- [01:19]
Don Wildman
Acast powers the World's Best Podcasts Here's a show that we recommend.
- [01:27]
Unknown Speaker
So what does it mean to live a good life?
- [01:29]
Alan McGuinness
Really accepting the fact that happiness requires.
- [01:32]
Don Wildman
A little bit of training? These are the questions we explore on the top ranked Good Life Project podcast, which has been downloaded and viewed over a hundred million times.
- [01:41]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Spend your time and energy on the things that actually matter to you.
- [01:45]
Don Wildman
Remember what's already good and stay curious.
- [01:48]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
About what could be good.
- [01:50]
Don Wildman
On Good Life Project, we sit down with leading voices and legends in health, art, science, spirituality, entertainment, industry and culture.
- [01:57]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, I'll just say what just came to mind, which is to be careful with yourself.
- [02:02]
Alan McGuinness
Be yourself.
- [02:03]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's. You know what? It's not easy always, but it's simple.
- [02:07]
Don Wildman
Check out Good Life Project wherever you get your podcasts now. ACAST helps creators launch, grow and monetize their podcasts everywhere. Acast.com.
- [02:25]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Hello, I'm Professor Susannah Lipscomb and welcome to Not Just the Tudors From History Hit the podcast in which we explore everything from Anne Boleyn to the Aztecs, from Holbein to the Huguenots, from Shakespeare to samurais, relieved by regular doses of murder, espionage and witchcraft. Not in other words, just the Tudors, but most definitely also the Tudors. In 1688, fashioned as an act of stability, the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland was acceded by William of Orange and Mary ii. This was the so called Glorious Revolution and with it came nearly a century of division, rebellion and bloodshed from early conflicts In Ireland in the late 1680s to the Scottish conflicts of the 18th century. From the massacre at Glencoe to the final fatal stand at the Battle of c. The Jacobite vs Royalist cause was at the heart of some of the most famous and devastating events of British history, events whose divisive politics continue to be felt today. So what was the Jacobite cause? Who was Bonnie Prince Charlie? And why will Scots today still raise a toast to the king over the water or the gentleman in the velvet waistcoat? To explain these mysteries, I'm delighted to welcome Alan McGuinness, professor emeritus at University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, as a scholar of early modern history with a particular interest in the politics of the three kingdoms. Professor McInnes has written numerous books, including the British Revolution, 1629-60 and Living with Jacobitism, 1690-1788, the Three Kingdoms and Beyond. His new critical history of the period, conflict and Jacobiteism in Europe and beyond aims to re examine the Jacobite course through its global impact. I'm Professor Suzanne Lipscomb, and this is not just the Tudors from History Hit. Thank you so much for joining us, Professor McInnis.
- [04:40]
Don Wildman
Thank you for inviting me.
- [04:43]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So let's start with the thing that most people have heard of, the innate glorious revolution of 1688. What caused this disruption in Stuart rule?
- [04:56]
Don Wildman
The big issue really is James VII and 2nd, 7th of Scotland, 2nd of England. He had been quite a successful monarch, governor of Scotland, but when he came to England, he never really handled the situation well and began to insist increasingly on his powers, his prerogative powers to dispense and suspend laws. And in the case, he himself was a converted Catholic and he was determined to promote toleration for Catholics, which he did. But this caused particular ire in England and Scotland, to a much lesser extent in Ireland. And because of this pressure and because of the use of this power without really consulting Parliament, a bit like Donald Trump in the present day, was decided by the Whigs and the Tories in England to invite across William of Orange and Mary, Mary was the daughter of James, to take over. And this got support in Scotland, not less so in Ireland. But that's really what kicked off the whole revolution.
- [05:57]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So you're saying that it's as much of a political issue as a religious one?
- [06:01]
Don Wildman
Absolutely. It's about power, how you exercise power. Do you exercise power in a consultative manner or do you exercise it in an autocratic manner? And James was clearly came down in the latter side, although it must also be said that James believed very much in an Organic form of government, not contractual. So therefore he saw himself as the head, and as the head he should be able to do within reason what he wanted.
- [06:27]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So what happened in the actual events of this revolution?
- [06:32]
Don Wildman
Well, in England there were protests and street protests and various things in both sides. But it was Ireland and Scotland that became major theaters of war. Now, again, the bigger background to this is that Louis XIV of France was expanding his power espece territories. And he was doing so. It was being resisted by William of Orange from the Netherlands. And this triggered off the Nine Years War which started in effect of 1688. And the Jacobite episode became a theater of art war. And that meant that there were considerable armies in Ireland and lesser numbers force mobilized in Scotland. But it was a much bigger picture than just the three kingdoms affair.
- [07:15]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So why was the support from France for James vii?
- [07:23]
Don Wildman
And second, Louis XIV became a major ally of James. He was very heartened by James conversion to Catholicism. And James also supported Louis Gallican views. That is, he wanted to exercise more control over the church than the papacy was sometimes prepared to concede. And this led to the rather anomalous position that the papacy, three successive popes all backed the succession of William of Horns against the Catholic James and Louis the 14th.
- [07:56]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And how does this already strong cause get galvanized into active rebellion?
- [08:03]
Don Wildman
There is strong support in the country and the three kingdoms for a traditional, a more traditional viewpoint than a contractual, but the Whigs would call contractual government. The organic government idea had quite a considerable appeal. And this is backed up by what might be called hierarchical religions, both Catholicism and in Scotland, Episcopalianism. So these are the two props of this. And Jacobitism subsequently in Scotland developed another feature when it became very much a means of protesting against the Union. But in 1688, 89, the Three Kingdoms could be mobilized for some very traditional leader, backed up by hierarchical religion as against a government that wanted contractual government and preferred what might be called either Presbyterian or Low Church Anglicanism. So there's these issues, but there are common issues in all three kingdoms. In Ireland, this particular situation of the country is still predominantly Roman Catholic. So they were natural in supporters of James.
- [09:04]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes, and it's with Ireland that we start really, because whilst the majority of the Jacobite theater of conflict occurs in Scotland, the first major uprising is in Ireland. So what can you tell me about the events of 1689-91?
- [09:21]
Don Wildman
Well, just as a caveat, Ireland was the major theater, but Scotland was a minor theater, a bloody theater. But the major theater really kicks off with the siege of Derry, the unsuccessful siege of Derry. And that led to various battles at the Boyne Ocherum and subsequently ended up with the Siege of Limerick. Now, none of it was particularly successful, but at the end of the day, the forces for William of Orange Garrick won and forced out the Irish supporters of James. We have what's called the Flight of the Wild Geese. The Treaty of Limerick did settle this. Who allowed the Catholic forces to leave Ireland and they went off and established themselves as Irish brigades in the service of France and then service of Spain. But it was large. I mean, the Irish theater in 1688, 91 was the biggest theater, 1689-91 ever, in the Jacobite rising. More people were engaged in that rising in Ireland than were ever engaged to 15 and 45 in Scotland.
- [10:25]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Oh, let's break it down then. So let's think about that siege of Derry. Who is besieging whom and what exactly takes place?
- [10:32]
Don Wildman
Well, James VII II is besieging Derry. His forces are besieging Derry, and it's mainly Scottish Presbyterians and other Presbyterians who are holding out. And then eventually relief comes when the forces of William do come and help raise the siege of Derry. But it was a long, prolonged siege and, you know, it's very much scarred into the history of the north to the present day.
- [10:57]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And what was his plan in doing that? Was he assuming that he could get support in Ireland if he somehow just eradicated the Protestant resistance?
- [11:09]
Don Wildman
Well, he sought to mobilize. There was large scale support for James in Ireland and he was seeking to mobilize that. The siege of Derry was very much the Presbyterian minority holding out, and indeed successfully, if bitterly, until they were relieved by the Williamite forces. And that helped change the battle. But there was vast numbers of troops poured in from the Netherlands and its allies, the Dutch allies, the Danes, the Swiss, et cetera, and of course, the French and others. There was naval blockades, naval battles. It was a major European theatre, major event.
- [11:46]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So we've got these vast numbers of European regiments arriving with William. And this comes to a head at the River Boyne. What happened there?
- [11:59]
Don Wildman
Partly it's Boyne, but we have. That has been slightly distorted by what might be called the Orange Order in Ireland. There is the. There is the date changes, you know, in 1752, 12 days shifted. So the Boyne was actually fought on the 1st of July in 1689-90, whereas the battle of Aughrim, which was much more important, was actually fought on the 10th of July. But because the Boyne becomes a folklore, it's easier to say Boyne, the Ohrim, but that was decisive. But the Boyne, James and William actually faced up to each other at that battle and that made it significant. And James effectively fled after that. And you could see with advantage of hindsight that after the Boyne, James cause was lost. But that, you know, is this being very much advantage of hindsight.
- [12:54]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
What was the effect at the time then, with James fleeing?
- [12:58]
Don Wildman
With James fleeing, the James fled. And effectively in England he was held to have abdicated. In Scotland he was actually deposed. And so there was a complete change in the sense that you moved away from the main Stuart line and you came into James daughter until she died in 1695. And then William was succeeded by Mary's sister in law and she died in 1714 when it really brought the end of the major Stuart line. But the Stuarts themselves by this time were in exile and they had male heirs. And that was really why the cause continued after this period.
- [13:38]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And you've mentioned that we remember the Boyne, but actually we don't remember the deadliest engagement in Irish history. So how did that battle take place and what happened there after James had fled?
- [13:53]
Don Wildman
It was different forces, different commanders came in, and the Dutch commanders were particularly brutal. And they were also able to bring in troops from Scotland by this juncture as well. So that was really the decisive battle of the whole war. Because James did not win, the forces of James did not win, which meant the whole situation became much more fluid subsequent to Ohrim, when they could not lift and take Limerick, Limerick did not fall. The Irish were able to negotiate some terms which allowed them to leave. And so therefore the aftermath of the Irish campaign, although it was a very bloody campaign, was never witnessed. The atrocities that were to happen in Scotland after the 45 rising.
- [14:39]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And it's very interesting, given what we know about Ireland since and what you said earlier about the Orange movement. How much do you think we can trace the sectarian and political divide in Irish identity to these events in the late 17th century?
- [14:59]
Don Wildman
It certainly is a factor, but clearly there had been tensions in Ireland since the Reformation. The Reformation had very limited impact in Ireland and was more associated with those that came in and were brought in to dispossess the Catholic lords, et cetera. And so there had always been tensions there. It really started with the Tudors and carried on under the shirts, and then was really set in stone by the succession of William of Orange and then eventually the Hanoverian succession in 1714. And by this time the Irish had been excluded. James was A much more inclusive monarch than William. And James had included Irish, regardless of Protestant or Catholic in his government. But the Catholics were rigorously excluded thereafter. And also by this time, much of the land had passed from Catholic into Protestant hands. So there was ingrained tensions in Ireland which were to continue in present day.
- [15:58]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Now, you've made a link between the Catholic support for James in Ireland and the Episcopalians, those who supported a church hierarchy in Scotland supporting the Jacobites. Was there anything distinctive about Scottish Jacobitism?
- [16:17]
Don Wildman
Oh, yes. I mean, first of all, Scottish Jacobites were predominantly Episcopalian, 70%, roughly Episcopalian, 20% Catholics, because the Catholics were in a minority in Scotland. But there's even a few Presbyterians joined in in the Jacobite cause as well, but not too many. And in Scotland, it had the religious divide between the Presbyterians on the one hand and the Episcopalians and the Catholics on the other. And that was often the geographic divides, what we call Scotland north and south of the Tay. North of the Tay was particularly Jacobite heartlands in the Highlands and in the Northeast. The political side as well is that the Scots were not necessarily contractualists. It became so and increasing. And the other factor, of course, was the union with England in 1707. And that introduced a unique Scottish dimension to Jacobism. That is positively, you can call it patriotism, negatively, you can call it anti Unionism for the Scots and only the Scots, if the stewards had succeeded, the union would have ended. So was the belief. So Jacobitism of Scotland was also very much an anti Union force. He had things like Sorbs, you know, for the Stewarts, and no union and return for free Scotland and no union, etc. So it very much took that. But not everybody subscribed to all three things of the dynastic appeal of the Stuarts, the religious appeal, Episcopal church and the patriotic appeal of ending the Union. But it was a mixture and it had few elements, but it could lead to confusion and it did lead to difficulties in terms of strategy, Both in the 15 and in the 45. In the bulk of the support is Scottish. They wish to end the Union, but they're fighting for the Stuarts, who above all want to reclaim the British thrones. I mean, the prize is England, not Scotland and the English Empire. So that's affected the campaign in the 15 and again in the 45.
- [18:17]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And you mentioned there that this was a set of attitudes that particularly became embedded among Highland clans. Why there and why with them, not just Highland clans?
- [18:31]
Don Wildman
It was very strong in the northeast, north of Scotland, but it was in the more traditional society, where you had powerful lordship or you had clan chiefs, in many cases, the chief was the trustee for his followers, and Stuarts were projected as the trustees for Scotland. So many. Much of the images of how clans were set up was projected onto Scotland and they had the same power. The clans, however, were not supporters of divine right, monarchy necessarily, or the right to suspend and dispense with laws, but they very much supported tradition and the traditional values, traditions that were being undermined by their own chiefs effectively. But there was a strong sense of tradition, a strong sense of religion, and there's also a strong sense of patriotism. And that applied in the Highlands, as in Lowlands. It was also. That was also very big in the Scottish border, although it's been much underestimated in Jacobite studies.
- [19:27]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
One of the things that King William III did to try and secure loyalty from the Highland clans was, was to offer a pardon for any clan chief who swore allegiance to him by the 1st of January 1692. And this leads us to perhaps the most famous event of the early uprisings in Scotland, the massacre at Glencoe. Remind our listeners what happened and why.
- [19:54]
Don Wildman
Well, a small clan, the McDonald's of Glencoe, who were detached from most of the McDonald's, they were marked out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who want to demonstrate that he was the power in Scotland and that William could rely on him to keep Scotland quiet and provide finances and troops, etc. So they decided that an example, if they defaulted, partly the reason for the default was the delay in getting permission from James vii. And second, in Paris, he was very late in providing permission for the clans to accept this. And it led to the MacDonalds of Glencool having insufficient time to get to the major shire town, which was Inverary. So they went to the garrison town at for William, but they defaulted and the military wouldn't accept that, so they had to go to Inverary. And it was dutifully recorded in Edinburgh that they had not taken the oath of allegiance in time. And this set in motion a scheme with the Secretary of State for Scotland, Stair and the military. And they brought in a very pliant clan chief, the Campbells, who became the first Duke of Argyll. They were brought into this. They did the dirty work, but it was very much planned and indeed, William also gave a conditional approval. He said that if McDonald's could be separated from the bulk of the Jacobite forces, go ahead and basically wipe them out. And he did nothing to stop it, and he did nothing to provide any reparations for the reprisals that were taken against the 38 people that were actually killed on that occasion, it was done as a treasonal act by the actual Crown and the government, because what it was was slaughtered under trust. The McDonald's were under trust. The troops had got into Glencoe and asked for hospitality and they were given hospitality. And then the early morning of 13th February, they turned on the population and murdered them. So in many cases, it was a treasonable act committed by members of the government in which William was also himself implicated. And that didn't exactly endear William to many of the clans thereafter.
- [22:10]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes, I can imagine that this massacre had a huge effect on the cause.
- [22:15]
Don Wildman
Boasted the cause to a certain extent. But equally on the other side, it became an example of how you could discipline clans. And you found people at the 15 suggesting the term war clan should be Glencoed to discourage them from Jacobism. And it became a watchword at the time, but it was well surpassed by the atrocities after the 45. So in terms of. It was a shock to the system and it was actually a technical act of treason against the people conducted by the government. The volume of arms, it breaches the slaughter under trust acts. There's a whole series of enactments going back to the 17th century. They were usually used against nobles or clan chiefs for atrocious behavior. But in this case, it was the Scottish Crown and the people representing the Scottish Crown who carrying them out.
- [23:04]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's absolutely shocking. And I suppose we also ought to put the events in the context of the devastating and prolonged famine of this period. How was the Jacobite cause affected by that?
- [23:19]
Don Wildman
That became a major element of propaganda. The famine was very intensive. It lasted from 1695 to 1700. But Jacobites, not worrying too much about numeracy, claimed seven years, the seven ill years of rolling. To go back to the Biblical term of the ill, you. So that became a major propaganda issue. The famine obviously weakened all families. Famines don't take political sides, but it was projected in Scotland. And top of that, you had the Darien disaster, where William let down Scottish interest in the interests of his European diplomacy. So the things came together. You had the famine blamed on William unfairly, the failure of Darien blamed on William quite fairly, and the ongoing issues of Scots wanting to develop colonies, et cetera.
- [24:08]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So take us on, then, to the Scottish uprising of 1715, the one known as the Fifteen. How was it triggered and what happened?
- [24:16]
Don Wildman
Well, really, it's triggered by the Hanoverian succession of 1714. It's also triggered by the ambitions of the Earl of Mar, who had been very pro union and very much been a pillar of the government even under the William period. But he then switched sides. Well, he lost. When the Hanoverians came in, it was a major victory for the Whigs, who saw themselves as really the defenders of the revolution. And there was quite substantive changes in government and Mar lost out. And Mar used this. And there was no obvious leader. The Jacobites had had a brilliant leader in 1689, Viscount Dundee, but he was killed at Killiecrankie in his moment of victory. They never really successfully replaced him and Mar stepped into the breach. But he was a politician, not a general, and that was not necessarily the best move. He was also more concerned to put the Stuarts back on the British throne. The 15 was triggered by, first of all, the Hanoverian succession, but also the changes in government that followed on from the Hanoverians. The Whigs really came in as triumphant. Those that were persuaded for Tory part interest lost out. And on the Scottish side, the most significant figure to lose out was the Earl of Mar, who had been very much a pillar of government post union and even before that. So he played on this, and the Union at this time in Scotland was very unpopular and he played on anti Unionism strongly. But having said that, despite his appeal to patriotism in Scotland, he was not a particular distinguished military leader and he did not take out the military strategy arguably should have done. Can I just say, the military strategy the Jacobites had was laid out by Captain Nathaniel, Colonel Nathaniel Hook, an agent of Louis XIV who came to Scotland at the time of the Union. And he suggested that what the Jacobites should do is what the Covenanters had done way back in 1640. That is, you only go into England as far as Newcastle, but you take Newcastle and you create a financial crisis. You cut off coal and deal with the stocks and shares. That was a very sensible solution. But Mar wanted to go all the way, wanted to press on, and he saw that he was very influenced by a minority of English Jacobites who rose and didn't take Edinburgh. And his failure to take Edinburgh was really the beginning of the end of the Rising. And he didn't move in against Newcastle. And by the time he was prepared to move against Newcastle, the British forces had there to guard the town and the teasing of time. So he was innate as a military commander. He just spent most of his time politically around Perth and in Stirling and failed. And he had good commanders available to him if he used them, but he never deployed this at all properly. Well, they didn't lose at Sheriff Muir. They drew at Sheriff Muir. But if you're planning a rising against the government and you draw, you might as well lose because you can't take over. And he lost to this time the 2nd Duke of Argyll, who was a much more able military commander, who'd served a long time with Marlborough in the War of Hispanic Succession. So Mar really was somebody who would say up in Scotland, he snatched defeat from the joyous victory. He had bigger, more forces. He had a groundswell of huge support, but he did not develop a strategy which allowed the Jacobites to win. And in the case of James VII and second, he turned up rather late for the event, and that meant there was no great rallying. But also because the 15 was close, there was not the same level of reprisals in the aftermath of the 15. There were some show trials and there were some people transported off to the Americas, but there weren't mass executions and there wasn't people being burned out of the massive burnings out of homes and such things.
- [28:20]
Alan McGuinness
Wait, you're not a Hotels.com member, so you're choosing to pay full price? Did you not hear the song?
- [28:29]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
How could you not be a member and save up to 20%?
- [28:34]
Don Wildman
That's less than 50%, but it's more than 0%.
- [28:38]
Alan McGuinness
You're welcome. See, the math is mathing. Save up to 20% on hundreds of thousands of hotels. With hotels dot com.
- [28:52]
Unknown Speaker
What started the Civil War? What ended the conflict in Vietnam? Who was Paul Revere? And did the Vikings ever reach America?
- [29:02]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Don.
- [29:03]
Unknown Speaker
I'm Don Wildman, and on American History hit my expert guests and I are journeying across the nation and through the years to uncover the stories that have made America. We'll visit the battlefields and debate floors where the nation was formed, meet the characters who have altered it with their touch and count, the votes that have changed the direction of our laws and leadership. Find American History at twice a week, every week, wherever you get your podcasts. American History Hip. A podcast from History Hip.
- [29:52]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
It's fascinating because we. What you're suggesting is that actually the 15, the events of 1715, were very close to working out quite differently. The whole succession of the British royal family would have been entirely different. Everything would be different. There would not perhaps be a union anymore if he had won, if Marr had won at Sheriff Muir. And you have suggested that military strategy was weak. I mean, do we also need to think about political division, religious difference? Are there other factors at play?
- [30:28]
Don Wildman
The fact is, no, really. Well, there was Mar was met by fairly resolved forces of guile, who had strong Presbyterian support. And Presbyterianism by this time had become clearly the majority confession in Scotland, and he had that. But the Mar had a reservoir of support among the clans and among the families of the northeast and the borders, and he didn't develop that properly. He didn't provide proper command structures, he didn't create clear strategic aims which everybody knew about and could achieve. He was not a very effective commander at all, as it turned out. When he escaped to the continent and became a diplomat at the Jacobite courts in exile, he was also very divisive.
- [31:14]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And incompetent in how not to lead.
- [31:17]
Don Wildman
You'd be somebody that's in Baldrick's category, you know, organization.
- [31:23]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Very good. Given that James had fled back to France in early 1716, that's the end of the uprising. When did the Jacobites begin to refocus their efforts behind Bonnie Prince Charlie?
- [31:36]
Don Wildman
The Jacobite monarch in 1715 was the son of James VII and 8th James 3 and 8, if you want to call him that. And his son born in 1720, his eldest son was Charles Edward, and he became the hope of the last major rising. But Charles had very, very limited military experience. Charles was age of about 14. He went with his uncle, the Duke of Berwick, took him to the siege of Geta, which is down near Naples. And although he was there and he was under fire, that was his total military experience before he came across to Culloden. So he had no military experience worthwhile. He was just taking shelter in Gaeta when he was young and then he came. But he was very determined to fight Shibikari, but in Chanos case for channels more so than his father was very much intent on getting England. England won the prize for Charles and always was, although he paid lip service to no union and stuff like this, for Charles, the prize was to get and take England. And even after Culloden, he was still pushing for that. And he actually was to turn up in London in 1750. He became an Anglican at that time and he was still trying to plot to take England. So that was Charles was. And he would no attempt to think of again securing Scotland. He'd outperform Mar if that was possible. And failure to he threw away his advantages. I mean, the Jacobites had in the 15, they had taken several towns and they'd become running these towns and in Scotland continued in the less cases in 45, but they'd taken Edinburgh and that was a major achievement. And you know, something Mar had failed to do. They took Edinburgh quite easily. And again the argument was move on Newcastle. But he wanted to go down in glory. They want to go down more the Catholic side of England to Lancaster, pick up forces there, which proved to be a pipe dream. And they actually mobilized a regiment in Manchester known as the Manchester Regiment, and that was the sole recruitment Charles managed, when at the same time thousands were pouring into Edinburgh to join him. And he also left the country, Scotland, without effective defences and likewise foreign powers like France, who did provide some backing. They had no obvious place if he was marching to England, where they were going to bring in troops. And he was overland all the time, he's against port. So he went really overland, which was the least desirable route. If you were planning it to oppose Charles, you would be wishing that he went overland and he got as far as Derby and that was it.
- [34:24]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
I mean, it's quite extraordinary because, as you say, he's done better than Mar, insofar as he's captured Edinburgh and he's even held court at Holyrood. And it's all looking like, you know, he really could secure the country. But he fails to consolidate and he overreaches, is what you're suggesting.
- [34:43]
Don Wildman
Mm. See, he did not at any time hold a parliament, which he'd promised to do. He did not end the union, which they'd promised to do. He did not introduce toleration, things that all of which were pillars of the Jacobite manifestos. He just ignored them and carried on. And he also had, in this occasion, a very, very good commander, Lord George Murray. And Murray wanted to have, or he felt the officers in the field should have some initiative. Charles didn't want that. He wanted to be micromanagement and that did not aid the cause at all. To be fair to Charles, though, both going in and out of England, he actually held the army very well together. It was very well disciplined. And that was mainly down to Charles. He has to be given some credit. He wasn't a total disaster, as he's often been made out to be.
- [35:34]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So, I mean, one has to ask what you think he was trying to achieve. I mean, he gets 150 miles away from London. What does he think he can do?
- [35:46]
Don Wildman
He thinks he can force the Hanoverians to leave and he thinks he can take London. The difficulty is there are troops back from the Continent, they're mobilized. He has not got the backup and he hasn't a base in Scotland worthwhile, but he was hoping to force them out. Now it's very difficult to mount an invasion, as William Warren discovered in 1688. But Charles had a clear strategy in his eyes, and he was convinced that everybody would flock to him. Sort of an ego trip in the sense that he felt, well, here am I charismatic figure, I'm coming down to England, they'll all flock to me and we'll take over, everybody will flee. And that wasn't England, was the Derby to London was very well defended. But there was also one other aspect of this that tends to be underwritten, and that was nothing to do with Charles. That is that when they got as far as Derby, the bulk of the army were Highland Highlanders. Their living was based on the droving of black cattle, and they made significant funds from that. But cattle disease was rampant in England, particularly in the Midlands and such things. So at that particular time, it was thought that the cattle disease could be transmitted via humans. So many of the clans got very, very wary, got into this area thinking that, well, if we can bring back and destroy our own trade. So that was an aspect that again worked against Charles. I mean, he couldn't plan for that. And nobody could accuse Charles of incompetence in that score. But it was one of these quite important ancillary factors that people were very worried about. The fact that cattle disease could come rife and end up destroying one of the main pillars of Scottish trade.
- [37:31]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
That's fascinating. Now, the decisive battle we've mentioned a few times already, the Battle of Culloden, is fought on 16 April 1746, near Inverness. So explain to me why the decisive battle happens there when we've seen Charles go all the way down to Derby.
- [37:49]
Don Wildman
Indeed, the retreat from Derby was quite well managed. They had a minor victory in the north of England, but when they came back to Scotland, they had defeated in various skirmishes. And then they won the Battle of Falkirk and quite decisively on the Battle of Falkirk. But then the situation between Murray and Charles was really a breaking point. The army, higher command was just at each other's throats more than anything else. So the army split. One part went into Athol and another went up via Aberdeen. And then it was decided again, further families, clans, particularly in the north, The Frasers, the MacKenzies and some of the Rosses, and they rose for the Jacobites. So Inverness appeared attractive proposition, although by this time Cumberland was well behind them, was well in their tails and the navy were supplying better supplies into Aberdeen area and Inverness area. Then Charles could march, but they split the forces and then eventually regrouped. But that's why they regrouped Inverness. But the Decision of C. I don't know if you've ever been to Culloden. I mean, the whole basis of Highland armies, again, the Cuban was killy, cranky. The Highland charge is based on being able to come down a hill, discharge the. The guns and then get in about people with the swords and all the rest of it. Charles picked a battle site that actually had to run slightly uphill, so you didn't get any momentum. You're running uphill. He also had not prepared. Cumberland had prepared very good drills with bayonets and rapid fire musketry. So what it became was slaughter. They were going uphill, they were not prepared. And if you go to Culloden, if he turned his army 90 degrees and was at the top of the hill and the people were coming up the hill, it would have been a different picture. But he didn't. He wanted to. Almost like the siege of Gaeta, almost flat land. And the whole thing worked against them and so they became a slaughter. The night before the battle, Charles had tried a surprise attack in Cumberland near Nairn, but forces were not properly supplied and they were half starved, some of them, and so they had to turn back. So he had lost about a third of his fighting men through this march, and he didn't have all the forces he should have had. But he wanted a final solution and he got one, but not the one he hoped for.
- [40:26]
Alan McGuinness
Gas, groceries, eating out. It all adds up fast. With the Verizon Visa card, you get rewarded every time you spend. Get 4% in rewards on gas, dining and at grocery stores. And you can put those rewards toward your Verizon bill or on new tech like a smartwatch and earbuds. Apply today at Verizon. Application required. Subject to credit approval. Must be a Verizon mobile account owner or manager or FIOS account owner. See verizon.com Verizon Visa card for terms and restrictions. The Verizon Visa signature card is issued by Synchrony bank pursuant to a license from Visa usa, Inc.
- [40:58]
Unknown Speaker
What started the Civil War? What ended the conflict and Vietnam? Who was Paul Revere and did the Vikings ever reach America? I'm Don Wildman, and on American history hit my expert guests and I are journeying across the nation and through the years to uncover the stories that have made America. We'll visit the battlefields and debate floors where the nation was formed, meet the characters who have altered it with their touch and count the vote. Votes that have changed the direction of our laws and leadership. Find American history hit twice a week, every week, wherever you get your podcasts, American history. Hit a podcast from history. Hit.
- [41:55]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
What happened to Charles after the loss?
- [42:00]
Don Wildman
Well, Charles and the Jacobites actually regrouped. They regrouped at Ruffin Barks in Badna, and they were joined at that juncture by other clans that come in from the West Highlands. And there was a possibility they could have fought a guerrilla campaign. But Charles and Murray, Lord George Murray, had had enough of each other, so they just. They abandoned, effectively, their own clan, the army, the Highland army, as it was called. And then Charles took to the hills and we have what's called the Flight in the Heather. He spent several months touring around the West Highlands and Islands before he was taken off on a French ship. But again, that's probably partly the legend of Charles, his survival against all the odds. Then he goes back to Paris and starts kicking up Olympus at the French court because of lack of support and wanting more support. And eventually he's to be expelled, he gets expelled from Paris. But he'd also quite divided this forces. He tried to say to the Scots, they should become like the Irish Forum, Scots Brigades and French service. That would have ended any whole hope of getting forces again. They would have become, let's say, Irish would be called, people who specialized in fighting for France or Spain, not for fighting for Ireland. So that was very much resistant. So in a short time, he alienated most of his Scottish support. And then eventually he became somebody who really relied on patronage and support from increasingly diminishing number of noble families. The one thing he had going for him was he was a big Freemason and he was able to use his Freemason connections to travel around and get protection in Europe. And it was only in his latter years, he sort of just fell into the drink and didn't really do it and just became a drunken old sod. But he lived an interesting life. But he was somebody whose main life was in his 20s. After that, it was downhill all the way till his death and 1788.
- [44:10]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Goodness me. And meanwhile, for the Jacobite Highlanders, what sort of reprisals did they face?
- [44:18]
Don Wildman
Well, I mean, one thing is very similar to what's happening in Gaza just now. It was total atrocities. It was war crimes. It was not just in killing people on the field, but starving them to death, removing the livelihoods. In the case of the Jacobites, government forces went round and the islands, and they hold the boats, the fishing boats, so they couldn't fish. They took away their cattle and so they could, you know, they were starving. And it was only sometimes there was Some quite decent British or English garrisons who did provide food, but there was just left to it. I mean, people were left to their own devices. And Cumberland had a policy that if they were a suspected Jacobite, wipe them out, take them out, you know, and even if they'd never been near Culloden, but they'd known somebody who was at Culloden. So there was monumental atrocities that were documented by the man who became a bishop in the Episcopal Church, Robert Forbes. And it is a time of just horrific atrocity. And it lasted from April 1746 well into 1747, probably till about November 1747. And that's a tremendously long time just to be killing and starving people. And that's basically what happened at that particular juncture. It was one of the lowest points, I think, in British history and has not often been accepted from the belief of Britain always being more fair, et cetera. But there was a time of utter atrocities, and it wasn't the English against the Scots. There were Scots involved in the government side starving and all the rest of it. And indeed, the public discourse that led to, indeed almost public outrage was led actually in the English press. It was done people like the Craftsman, et cetera, who pointed out that what were you gaining by starving people, you know. And so there was a whole meaningful debate about policies that were leading to atrocities. And that really is, I think, probably the lowest point I can think of in British history. Certainly in the early modern period into the modern period.
- [46:29]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
And this period of atrocity and starvation was accompanied by forms of cultural suppression. At least that's how I read it. What do you make of the 1746 act of Proscription?
- [46:43]
Don Wildman
Well, this again, there have been various acts. Often disarming acts have been there, but they don't. Clans that were disarmed often were. The Whig clans did support the Whigs, Presbyterian clans. They were the ones that were mostly disarmed. But then when they began to prescribe things like cultural trappings, the tartan and all the rest of it, that was just rubbing it in. That was just telling people that they were no longer regarded as citizens, they were just second rate people. But the way out of that, of course, if they joined the armies, formed Highland regiments in British service. But there were changes, however, that were overstated. One change was what they call the Heritable Jurisdictions act, the removal of powers, institutional powers. But very few clan chiefs had these powers. Their authority was a personal, not institutional authority. What they were doing was they were compensating landowners in Scotland who stayed loyal to the Hanoverian regime. So some of that has been quite overstated. Likewise, you know, the playing of the bagpipes is not actually prescribed, but although it was felt to be because of the general disarmament, importance of the legislation was just to demonstrate who had won. Gaelic was certainly Gaelic was not encouraged, but there was no specific measures that said you would be killed if you spoke Gaelic. That just didn't have it.
- [48:05]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So I wonder, thinking about the sort of enduring spirit of Scottish Highlanders today, or whether you feel that in response to this attempt to dismantle the power of the clans, at least in response to this period of atrocity, there's a resilient spirit that responds by continuing to exert itself. Or maybe that's too romantic a legacy.
- [48:39]
Don Wildman
No, romanticism really did matter. But the other issue is that the clans themselves were breaking up by this period. Clans were being undermined commercially. The chiefs were being more interested in being commercial landlords than being the Trustees. And so many chiefs actually welcomed. There's some grotesque examples of chiefs recommending and supporting Cumberland's behavior. And there was also, in the last rising of 1745, clans went out in defiance of their chiefs. There's about five or six clans went out and others even threatened to rise against their chiefs. And chiefs saw in the post 45 situation, a chance to throw over the old social constraints of clanship, and that's what paved the way for clearance. It wasn't an enactment by the British government, however atrocious they had been, that said, you must evict these people. This was the chiefs and others who saw their opportunity to beat profits. There were far more profits from black cattle and sheep than they did from people. Loyalist junction.
- [49:40]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
So would it be fair to say that this division between the Jacobites and the Loyalists, or amongst the Scottish themselves, continued, therefore to shape the landscape of Scotland politically, culturally, et cetera, long after the fighting was over.
- [49:57]
Don Wildman
It did. But the real changes were the changes that took place in agricultural industry. Scotland went through, as in England, a vast agricultural industrial revolution that led to a high degree of social mobility. So there was, to a certain extent, some Highland ghettos in cities, et cetera, but there wasn't a sort of areas that would say, you know, like Brigadoom, turn the clock back, et cetera. People had to live and get on with it and adjust, sometimes brutally, but they had to do so. I think the remarkable feature of the Highland life is the resilience and how people did recover and did develop meaningful lives. Of course, there was big emphasis on Jacobitism as a romantic and a lost cause and such things. Playing for a lost cause and the Romanticism attached. It's like the American Confederacy in this 19th century. It had all the best songs, but it lost. And that basically is what boiled down to it. But the Clearances themselves paved the way for the acceleration of Clearances and that's what changed Highland society even more than the atrocities of Cumberland.
- [51:08]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Yes, there's a comparison in terms of a lost cause, although I do believe that the Jacobites had a slightly more noble aim in mind than the Confederates. But let us end.
- [51:18]
Don Wildman
Oh, yes, no, no, I'm not suggesting that, but I just would suggest that the Jacobites did have this romanticism. So it became a cause above all. People like Robert Burns became to a certain extent Jacobites in the sense that Jacobites, for them represented a moral economy. It wasn't a class and exploitation, it was a more united, community based society. And that's what Jacobitism continued to appeal to, particularly at times of class and transference and whole scale transition.
- [51:53]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
That's so interesting. So it sort of adopts qualities of social justice and opposition to corruption and all of these kind of ideas that make it continue to be a movement worth supporting.
- [52:08]
Don Wildman
I would hesitate to say it was an anti capitalist movement, but it was a movement that certainly did not welcome the naked market forces. It was a sort of, you can't just interests of class and nobles. It had to be the interests of the community. And I think that's what appealed. And various people also. Lady Caroline, well, Lady Nairn, Caroline Oliphant, she was a more conservative person in Burns, but she again, in the middle of the 18th century, 19th century, another person that was greatly affected by this, believe it or not, was Queen Victoria, who became a romantic Jacobite in a latter years in the Highlands. And so that's what continued in that sense. But Junko Buddhism was always a sort of an appeal to a better world, however imaginary that was. But it did appeal to the world we have lost. It's not a unique theme to the Highlands by any manner of means.
- [53:06]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, finally then, can we end by thinking about perhaps one of the ways in which that Romanticism plays out with the Scottish toasts I mentioned earlier? What do you think they tell us about the memory of these events?
- [53:22]
Don Wildman
Well, that's just. There's also a bit of social insubordination into that as well. It's just quite enjoyable. In my own university days, it was quite common to put your glass across the water when they had to do the loyal toasts and such things. Other times it would be straightforward booing. If you went to rugby matches, for example, before Flair of Scotland was introduced as the national anthem, the British anthem was always booed. Well, that was another just form of a more subtle form of protest. As you put your glass across the other one, the little green gentleman, that's the mole. William of Orms was supposed to have died when he fell from his horse and into a molehill, etc. But that's a less common toast. But they King of the Queen over the water is certainly one. It's also very amusing to do.
- [54:08]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Well, we have ended somewhere humorous and light after going into quite dark territory. But professor, thank you so much for talking us through these really important events and giving us a sense of how different things could have been.
- [54:25]
Don Wildman
Thank you.
- [54:28]
Professor Susannah Lipscomb
Thank you you for listening to this episode of Not Just the Tudors From History hit. Thank you also to my researcher Max Wintool, my producer Rob Weinberg, and to Amy Haddo, who edited this episode. We are always eager to hear from you, including receiving your brilliant ideas for subjects we can cover. So do drop us a line@notjusthetorshistoryhit.com and I look forward to joining you again for another episode. Next time on Not Just the Tutors, but from history hit.
- [55:04]
Don Wildman
The McDonald's snack wrap is back. You brought it back. Ranch snack wrap. Spicy snack wrap. You broke the Internet for a snack? Snack wrap is back.
- [55:19]
Alan McGuinness
Beth, you're in charge of ordering the.
- [55:21]
Don Wildman
Tacos for the meeting today.
- [55:22]
Alan McGuinness
Yeah, I'm not going to order the tacos.
- [55:24]
Don Wildman
Uh, what?
- [55:25]
Alan McGuinness
I'm going to Easy Cater the tacos. With Easy Cater, you can order from a huge variety of restaurants, track expenses and save time.
- [55:33]
Don Wildman
Nice.
- [55:34]
Alan McGuinness
Oh, by the way, you're emailing the meeting notes, right? No, I'm going to Easy mail them. Where's my music? Sorry, Ben, there's no Easy Cater for that Ezcator. The easy way to order food for work. Order now@easycator.com.