Talk:Battle of Prestonpans

Untitled

The article as it stands now refers to what Charles considered his father's two kingdoms, Great Britain and Ireland. Actually, he would have considered his father to have had three kingdoms: England,Scotland, and Ireland. The Jacobites would not have recognaized as valid the 1707 Acts of Union passed by the English and Scottis parliaments, just as they did not (and do not) recognaize any other laws passed since the revolution in 1688 (no royal assent from the true sovereign, passage by parliaments not lawfully summoned, with valid members [such as lords] excluded and invalid members included, etc.)

Tommymic999 (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jacobite Risings

Here-and elsewhere in Wikipedia-the rebellion of 1745 is refereed to as the 'second' Jacobite rising. In point of fact it is the fourth in a sequence beginning in 1689, through 1715 and 1719. I admit the abortive sideshow of 1719 is probably best placed to one side, but not surely Dundee's rising in 1689. Rcpaterson 01:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Those names are common enough, but if you wanted to change them to "the Fifteen" and "the Forty Five" for clarity I doubt anyone would object. --Craig Stuntz 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've lived in Scotland all my life and I have never heard anyone referring to the first and second Jacobite risings. Rcpaterson 01:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Flags

Even if the Young Pretender's forces had been 100% Scottish other than himself (he was half Polish & half mixed English, Scottish &c), they were still not representative of Scotland, a Scottish national army or engaged in a Brito-Scottish battle. Cope's forces were overwhelmingly English, but that doesn't mean we should use St George's Cross by their name.80.229.9.98 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

They were a Scottish army with backing from France, they happened to be fighting for control of Great Britain, but that still does not make them a British force. -RiverHockey (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Must I repeat that the Jacobites were not representative of Scotland? The thing here is that a colourful flag icon in the summary box grabs the eye & is likely to be one of the first things a reader sees. If I leave the flags as you want them then the danger is that a reader's first impression will be of a 'Brito-Scottish' battle, & possibly that the rebellion was an attempt at a Scottish 'War of Independence', which is simply not true - it was a pan-British civil war.80.229.9.98 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Jacobites were a Scottish force, albeit representative of about 2/3 of Scotland. Jacobites were not representative of Great Britain (they wanted control of it again) but they never utilized the flag. It was not a war of Independence, but it was fought in the same regard in that the survival of the clan systems and Celtic culture depended on its outcome. I find it best that we cannot agree, and it would be more appropriate to leave the flag box blank rather than you to continuously defy the three RV rule.... -RiverHockey (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the flags from the Jacobite bits, since that seems to be what you want - I'm just damn sure that the Saltire shouldn't be there. Not sure where you get the idea that the Jacobites represented 2/3 of Scotland from - they were a distinct minority concentrated between the Tay & the Moray Firth, amongst the Episcopalian & Catholic minorities. The way I see it, the Whigs were the majority in Scotland, but the Jacobites numerous enough that the Scottish Whigs needed support from English Whigs to guarantee victory.80.229.9.98 (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapped?

The article suggests that the battle features prominently in Scott's Waverley and also Stevenson's Kidnapped. I agree about the former, but isn't the latter a mistake? Richard101696 (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one responded to the comment above, and I have now removed the reference to Kidnapped. While it is true that the battle is mentioned (three times) in Kidnapped, these are glancing references and there is no extended treatment of the battle. Richard101696 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051122072403/http://www.historyscotland.com:80/features/unluckyorincompetent.html to http://www.historyscotland.com/features/unluckyorincompetent.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Lieutenant Generals"

@HLGallon: Wikipedia does not capitalize offices, titles, or positions (job titles) except "[w]hen followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name" or "[w]hen a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description:" This is per MOS:JOBTITLES. MOS:MILTERMS reinforces this for military ranks as well. MOS:JOBTITLES reaffirms that "[t]he formality (officialness), specificity, or unusualness of a title is not a reason to capitalize it.", negating your reason that it is a "specific appointment". When the title is plural and modified (by "his"), those are two more reasons not to capitalize. If the Jacobite army had more than one "lieutenant general" then it is not "a formal title for a specific entity", and it appears that there was more than one, so it looks like it's time to switch to lower case. Chris the speller ^yack 01:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

AS you wish. The title is capitalised in the source (Thomasson and Buist) nut that's not on overwhelming reason to keep the capirals. HLGallon (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)