Talk:Jacobitism

Recent edits

There are many issues with the recent spate of rather radical edits. Users need to try to gain consensus on the talk page before making such sweeping changes. The alternative we are left with now is to revert all the recent edits and start again and/or to debate each point of change here. This makes the editing process far more laborious than it needs to be.

Regarding the political background section, there are a number of problems, the summary of the Civil Wars in mid 17 C is very inadequate and misleading, as if the paragraph on the Cromwellian Conquest of Ireland, re the Adventurers Act etc. The work that was done on the English and Scottish sections has been undone in favour of what is rankly a very confusing and confused narrative.

At the heart of the problem is that the editor in question seeks to present Jacobitism as the ideology of the Stuart Kings and proceed from there, pointing out at all points the inconsistencies between those kings and their supporters. When in fact Jacobitism was not a defined ideology -like, say Marxism - but a very broad term term for all of those who supported the Stuart kings. Nor is it clear that all Stuart monarchs shared the same ideas at all times at all. Because of the agenda of one user we are constantly being moved back to a very argumentative and confusing article. And not, as the article is supposed to be, a summary of the topic for the general reader. Jdorney (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Proof of Jacobite Rioting

First, the whole point is whether the riots that occurred in Dublin in 1720s can be viewed as "Jacobite'; so stating 'these Pro-Jacobite riots are proof of Jacobitism' is nonsense.

Second, every time I've been challenged, I've gone away and looked at Sources (look at the list). I didn't think I needed to remind a 'historian' of the considerable body of work done by George Rude and others on the role of crowds in the 18th century. But obviously I did, so I provided a direct reference and two others - why not read them? The idea rioting around a Jacobite celebration therefore means it was Jacobite is similar to arguing the current Dublin gang warfare is about Irish union, because some members used to be part of Continuity IRA.

Third I strongly object to having edits reversed on the grounds of non-neutral POV, particularly by someone who so far has displayed zero willingness to say 'Yeah, I might be wrong' and is still using the same two sources they started with.

Fourth I say I'm not an expert deliberately because it stops me assuming I'm always right and makes me challenge myself.

I don't want a response; I don't need to be told yet again I'm wrong. What I'd like is for others to be willing to do what I've done and challenge their views. That's not unreasonable.

Robinvp11 (talk)

I know that some contemporary reports put the rioting down to "Popish rabble", but my own understanding (bearing in mind I'm just coming to this part of the discussion myself) is that Jacobite typology was quite clearly followed, down to the adoption of the slogan "High Church and Ormond" (showing that at least some of the disturbances were not Catholic in origin) and followed widespread reports that Ormond was involved in an invasion plot; this is why several academics have characterised them as "Jacobite" and as evidence of Jacobite discourse permeating a 'popular' level (O Ciardha, Connolly), which I thought was the whole point of that particular section. I don't really see that the description of the clashes as 'ritualised' by Garnham (sourced to the same 'Popish rabble' commentator) necessarily negates the idea of the riots as Jacobite in character. His point is that urban violence was "discriminating and controlled", not that they can be regarded in isolation from theur political context. Svejk74 (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

They're not my views. I'm just making sure the sources are accurately represented. And will continue to do so. BestJdorney (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Principle or law?

The lead says The Revolution created the principle of a contract between monarch and people; if that was violated, he or she could be removed." I thought that it was more than a principle, that it was actually enshrined in laws like the English Bill of Rights? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

There’s nothing in the Bill of Rights or any other statute that explicitly says anything like that. It’s not law. But the unstated principle underlying the Bill of Rights and inspired by John Locke was exactly that, and that was part of the ideology of the Whigs subsequently. The sentence wording is a little overstated in that it “created the principle” in the minds of some but by no means all (eg Tories) of the political class of the time. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I just made an edit to my original question, changing the {{q}} template to a {{ex}} one; I was attempting to quote the article, not invoke a Wikidata item. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Thank you for responding. I realize now that you are right. I had effectively mentally translated the quote I provided into "constitutional monarchy".  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  14:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps saying that it 'validated' the principle might be most accurate - as you noted, contract theory was part of political discourse a little earlier than the Revolution itself.

I suppose it's important to remember that, in an era when government was still seen to reflect a larger moral order, that the rapidity and (initial) bloodlessness of the Revolution was perceived as confirmation of divine approval. Its success gave proof that it was, after all, the right thing to do; the morally correct interpretation of how power should operate. Conversely, James began to believe God did not want him restored, after setbacks in Ireland.

Something I've touched on in parts of the article is that a lot of Jacobite discourse, like the sermons of Episcopalian ministers in Scotland, made a great deal of various subsequent national misfortunes as proof that the nation, having collectively sinned by backing the wrong horse, was suffering a kind of ongoing divine wrath. It links in to an observation by someone (McLynn? Szechi?) that one of the few shared traits among senior Jacibites was that they tended to be more devout in general, whether Catholic or Anglican. Svejk74 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think ‘validated’ probably overstates it even further. The issue with that sentence is that it implies that it was universally accepted (excluding the Jacobites of course). It was however a partisan Whig point of view. Non-Jacobite Tories (I.e as the 18th century progresses) wouldn’t have accepted it. There’s a difference between the ‘official’ position between England and Scotland. The Claim of Right in Scotland explicitly had James losing the crown in consequence of his misdeeds. However, the English Convention Parliament stuck to the theory that his flight constituted abdication. I think that sentence should begin “For the Whigs and their sympathisers the Revolution affirmed the principle of a contract...” DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Problem is that first, you have to then define "Whigs" beforehand in the lead and second, this doesn't really articulate the fact that many Tories were complicit in the Revolution (albeit using a fair bit of ideological sleight of hand around indefeasible right to justify participation). Perhaps "for much of Parliament", rather than "for the Whigs..."? Svejk74 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The benefit of Wikipedia’s pipe linking is that you wouldn’t have to define it - just link to Whigs (British political party). Tories were complicit of course and ultimately all became Hanoverians later. But that doesn’t mean they signed up to that principle. Nevertheless, I’d be happy with your suggestion. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re Peace and War factions

This is in response to the question raised as to whether divisions within the Patriot Parliament and Peace and War factions are the same. Just here for the record.

Most historians view 1691 as a dividing line in Irish history and date the so-called ‘Protestant Ascendancy’ from that point. Before that, the Irish political/economic elite was split (broadly) into three main factions; Protestant nonconformists, Gaelic Catholics and a moderate centre consisting of Church of Ireland Episcopalians and Old/New “English” Catholics.

That is a simplification but good enough here; the Restoration land settlement was specifically designed by Ormond to exclude Gaelic Catholics, with the exception of Clancarty (the main Confederate supporter of the 1649 alliance) and Antrim. You can trace a direct link from divisions within the Catholic Confederacy in the 1640s (Rinuccini excommunicated those Catholic leaders who signed up to the alliance with Ormond), to arguments within the Patriot Parliament and the “Peace” v “War” factions in 1691.

The basic split was between negotiation and military action; Tyrconnell opposed the land reforms in 1689 because he recognised that (a) confiscations would inevitably create a Protestant clique akin to O’Neill who would oppose any settlement and (b) it would set the scene for further confiscations of Catholic land if they lost. Before 1691, some sort of negotiated settlement was possible; after, it was not. And so yes, the general issue was the same and it matters because it was from that point onwards that Irish Catholics and Protestants saw themselves as distinct nations. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

...with the caveat that the "Old English / Old Irish" division used by 19th century and earlier historians isn't always that helpful - as I noted in the Williamite War article, many of the 'War Party' leaders were 'Old English' (or in the case of Dorrington, actually English).

Part of the issue is, I think, that Jacobite historiography around the 1689-91 war itself reflects the factional split, as other than James's memoirs the two main sources are A Light to the Blind (pro-Tyrconnell) and Macariae Excidium (very much the 'Old Irish' perspective). The two 'parties' were undoubtedly real but the narrative around them is harder to untangle, having been exploited for a long time to rationalise Jacobite failure amongst other things.

I suppose I should also add, how much detail do we need to go into here? Would some of this material make more sense in the Williamite War article itself? Svejk74 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources. No doubt there is an ideological and class/ethnic similarity in some ways between Confederate Catholic divisions over the Ormonde Peace treaties in 1646 and 49, the debates of the Parliament of 1689 and the war and peace factions of 1690-91. But the fact is that they were not the same contexts and not the same people and not the same issues. To take just the most obvious example; Patrick Sarsfield, who led the 'war' faction was of mixed 'Old English' and 'Old Irish' ethnicity, his family was a beneficiary of the 1660 Act of Settlement that restored their lands and not as far as I know, an opponent of Tyrconnell's land proposals in 1689. Which clearly shows that the 'war vs peace' argument in Irish Jacobitism in 1690-91 cannot be reduced to those terms. Jdorney (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(a) Since I've never made any reference to Jacobite divisions being Old/New, whatever Irish, the reference to Sarsfield is irrelevant.

(b) I've removed any mention of the "Land issue" in regards to the War and Peace Party, since that seems to be an issue.

(c) The problem here is one user's continual leaps of interpretation based on his own understanding and reading. All this article is supposed to do is give a clear factual overview, based on the secondary sources. Using this criteria, please list those sections you consider irrelevant and I will happily remove them. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

(A) See the extensive talk section above where you did just that.

(B) Ok, but there are other problems. In the latest version, e.g. the explanation of the land issue, of necessity short anyway, relating to the 1652 Cromwellian confiscations and 1660 partial restoration of such lands has been deleted. So now meaningless to reader unless they already know these things.

(C) The principle problems are: an intro, the 'political background' section, which per your edits, now no longer mentions that the Stuart monarchy was overthrown in 1649, briefly, but tangentially, mentions that it was restored in 1660. But does manage to include three (faulty) paragraphs on the Irish wars of the 1640s (e.g. the English Parliament did an army, they just would not agree that it be under Charles I's command), musings on the nature of divine right in Catholicism, and the edicts of Fontainbleu (all irrelevant). Nor does it include anything on why Jacobites regarded the 1688 Revolution as illegitimate. :::Finishing with the (to say the least highly debatable) contention that no foreign power wanted the Stuarts restored, presented as fact.

Whenever anyone tried to tackle any of these areas you always either revert or edit until unrecognisable. Jdorney (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

chronology broken

This chronological ordering of this article is severely broken. It starts off well enough, but then starts over again from the beginning. Needs some serious editing... Tstexture (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, bearing in mind the Lead summarises the article, with the detail appearing in the body, so no article would necessarily be purely chronological. Plus its isn't intended to be structured in that way; ie "Background" (what was it all about), then separate sections on how that played out in the three kingdoms. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Given it's a complex subject with very different characteristics in each of the three kingdoms, the current structure is the best I could come up with. Not sure a purely chronological approach could even be made to work.Svejk74 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits to Lead post 7 June

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on writing an effective Lead - not more than four paras, should provide a simple factual summary of key points contained in body of article, avoid controversy, stick to the subject ie the political movement known as Jacobitism etc.

If you want to expand or include new content, please do so in the body of the article first so other editors can discuss potential objections, do not simply rewrite the Lead. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)