Talk:Charles Edward Stuart

The current article says in part: "In 1743, Charles fought at the Battle of Dettingen, where the British army was led by his chief rival, King George II".

I can find no evidence for Charles fighting at Dettingen in any of the major biographies. There is a chapter entitled "Dettingen" in G.A. Henty's book "Bonnie Prince Charlie" - but this book is not really about Charles Edward Stuart. Noel S McFerran 00:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article said that the Battle of Culloden occurred in January 1746. As every source I have ever read indicated that Culloden's date was 15-16 April 1746, I changed this date. However, since I was rather confused by such a discrepancy in what seems to be an otherwise accurate article, I thought to post here to explain this change. echomikeromeo 00:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The date formerly given for the Battle of Culloden was actually the date for the Battle of Falkirk (at which Charles Edward was victorious). Noel S McFerran 02:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

I see. --echomikeromeo 00:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After Culloden

Can anyone elaborate why he did not continue the rising after his men regrouped at Ruthven after Culloden? Why did he feel himself betrayed and why did this lead him to flee? It is an important yet a point not deeply explored by the looks of it.

Baptismal names

Twice in the last week a contributor only identified as "128.239.196.238" has corrected the baptismal names of Charles Edward. But on both occasions this change has been reverted (once by Berek and once by Grace Note). Grace Note did have the courtesy to explain by stating "rv fanciful names".

In fact "128.239.196.238" is substantially correct. The most scholarly biography of Charles Edward (that by Frank McLynn) records the baptismal names as "Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silvester Severino Maria" (it doesn't include Philip). The source for these names is British Library Additional Manuscript 30,090 (the baptismal certificate itself). Noel S McFerran 03:46, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the source, Noel. Grace Note 04:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. The Battle of Culloden was fought as stated in the article, on April 16, 1746. 2. The Prince was not present at Dettingen. His sole military experience was his presence at the seige of Gaeta, near Naples, in 1734, at the age of 14. 3. The names given in the Prince's baptismal certificate are as follows: "Carolus Eduardus Ludovicus Joannes Casimirus Silvester Maria". The name Severino, although sometimes quoted, does not appear.

                                          Martin Kelvin

Regarding baptismal names: Has Mr. Kelvin actually seen BLAddMS 30,090? If so, great. If, however, he has not, then I think that I would rely on Frank McLynn. Noel S McFerran 00:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

25 October 2005

A copy of the Prince's baptismal certificate is illustrated in the excellent "Bonnie Prince Charlie", by Rosalind Marshall. It gives the names which I listed above. It is on loan to the National Library of Scotland from the Scottish National Portrait Gallery. I have been in touch with the library, and it appears that very little is known about the certificate, other than that it seems to be a presentation copy, signed by the Bishop of Montefiascone, and sealed with his embossed paper seal. Why the names would appear to differ from that in the British Library I am unable to say. I have as yet not been able to verify the exact wording of the latter, and shall comment further if I am able to do so.

                                              M Kelvin

29 October 2005

Baptismal names of Prince Charles Edward Stuart - the final word! I have asked the British Library to check the names on their copy of the Prince's baptismal certificate. As suspected, the names are exactly as the same as those appearing in the National Library of Scotland version, ie., Carolus Eduardus Ludovicus Joannes Casimirus Silvester Maria. The Prince was never named either Phillip or Severino. I trust that this will settle the issue for the future.

                                            Martin Kelvin

Returns to Ancestral home Florence

In the paragraph:

In 1772 Charles married Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern. They lived first at Rome, but in 1774 moved to Florence where Charles first began to use the title "Count of Albany" as an alias. This title is frequently used for him in European publications; his wife Louise is almost always called "Countess of Albany". In 1780 Louise left Charles. Her claim that Charles had physically abused her is probably accurate, but she had also previously started an adulterous relationship with the Italian poet, Count Vittorio Alfieri.

Since Charles is a descendent of the Medici, could it not state that in effect Charles was returning back to Florence. The last of the Medici, Anna Maria Luisa died in February 1743 after ensuring in her will that all of the Medici galleries, art etc be given to the people of Florence but never to be sold off. Surely Charles would have known of his linkage to the Medici?

I have included the linkage back to Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici.

Charles Edward Stuart aka "Bonnie Prince Charlie",
son of James Francis Edward Stuart,
son of James II of England,
second surviving son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria from France,
daughter of Marie de' Medici (1573–1642) Queen of France,
daughter of Francesco I de' Medici (1541–1587), Grand duke of Tuscany,
son of Cosimo I de' Medici (1519–1574), Grand duke of Tuscany,
son of Lodovico de' Medici (Giovanni dalle Bande Nere) (1498–1526), the most famous soldier of all the Medici
son of Giovanni the Popolano (1467–1498)
son of Pierfrancesco de' Medici (the Elder) (1431–1476)
son of Lorenzo de' Medici (the Elder) (1395–1440), brother of Cosimo de' Medici (the Elder) (1389–1464),
son of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici (1360–1429), founder of this line that has controlled and ruled so much of Europe.

Charles Edward was also descended from the kings of Denmark, Portugal, and Spain. One might just as well call Copenhagen or Lisbon or Madrid his "ancestral home". No, it's not a good idea. Noel S McFerran 23:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Derby-the end of the Illusion

Charles was not faced with 'conflicting' advice' at Derby, and he personally did not take the decision to return to Scotland: he had no choice but to do so when confronted by the unanimity of his council of war. The invasion of England had never been more than a reconnaissance-in-strength, urged on by Charles' lavish-and vague-promises of English Jacobite support. The illusion ended at Derby. Rcpaterson 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Or a reluctant agreement to Charlie's "inspired" attempt to fulfil his hopes of English Jacobite support and a French invasion, which foundered at Derby when his lies were exposed: see Jacobite Rising#The 'Forty-Five'. A TV historian (Sharma?) gave more credence than that article does to the notion that the court in London was panicking to the point of preparing to flee to the continent, the belated French invasion could have worked, and had the Jacobites pressed on they would have had a real chance.. ..dave souza, talk 08:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the great 'what ifs' of British history: if only this had happened and that had happened and the Moon turned green! A lot of the argument is really quite fatuous. I assume the Royal Navy, true to its traditions, would simply have allowed the French fleet a free passage across the Channel? There is, of course, a wider political point that Jacobites and neo-Jacobites have always failed to consider: it is highly questionable if the British people would have accepted a monarchy, overturning all the past acts of Parliament, at the point of a Highland sword. Even if Charles' ragged army had reached London, I have little doubt that the war would have gone on, as Cumberland and Wade, with some 18000 men between them, made their way south. But, of course, this is yet another imponderable! Rcpaterson 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If only the Pretender HAD gone on from Derby! There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that GIIR &c ever considered fleeing, as Hannah Smith noted in 'Georgian Monarchy' (2006), but we do have it on record that the King said that if the rebels approached he'd take personal command of the army that was assembling at Finchley (despite Jacobite fantasies of an undefended London). The Jacobites would've been crushed by this army &/or that under Cumberland that was coming after them, the Pretender would probably have been taken on English soil & smuggled away abroad by the Whigs like James (V)II had been (what else would they have done with him? He'd've been an embarrassment if caught), & we'd've been spared 260 years of sappy, romanticised 'Charlie hiding in the heather' nonsense...80.229.9.98 (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I much prefer the 'Charlie hiding in the heather nonsense' to the Unionist-Protestant backslapping that has been going on in "British" history books for the last 260 years. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.38.118 (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonie(?!) or Bonnie

I found a reference to Charles Edward Stuart in the article on Pretenders (in the section on "English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and British pretenders", stating that:

"there is only one 'n' in 'bonie' because he's male; 'bonnie' would make him female; the Scots word 'bonie/bonnie' being a translation of the French 'bon/bonne'"

I deleted the point because it does not belong there (even if it is true), but I offer this up to anybody else to categorise as either serious or vandalism. --217.16.87.168 09:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right: it is 'bonnie' not 'bonie.' The point you deleted is laughable in its absurdity. Rcpaterson 22:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Betty Burke

Betty Burke redirects here, but no mention is made in the text. -136.159.71.113 23:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - Patricknoddy (talk · contribs) 9:33am, February 10, 2007

Death date=

Why is the year of Charles's death different in the opening of the article (1823) to that at the end (1788). A slight difference, methinks. (83.9.96.194 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

Reference improvements

It seems to me that the article lacks references; of the four, one is not available online and another appears to be broken (can someone else verify whether they can reach the article at Scotsman.com). Additionally, many items stated as facts have no citation whatsoever. It seems to me that this article covers a topic that's been heavily researched by scholars and should have lots of good sources available. -- Kyle Maxwell (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

dogs

dogs are animals with 4 legs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.238.233 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References in popular culture

Should it be mentioned that the American singer Will Oldham is using the stage name Bonnie Prince Billy, or is that too irrelevant to this article? 84.198.246.199 (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about the two depictions in Highlander: The Series of the prince...'Take Back the Night' and 'Through a Glass Darkly' and whether they should be included in the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.144.231 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit like saying that Ellington is an actual Dutchy, but no one claims that Duke Ellington was royalty. One would also have to claim that Will Oldham is a Monarchist of some sort.(83.108.30.141 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC))

Dubious assertion

"His father was called the 'Pretender' because many believed he was not the King's true son".

No, he was called the 'Pretender' because he claimed ( pretended ) to be the legitimate claimant to the English and Scottish thrones. Which he arguably was. The rumours about baby-switching at his birth have nothing to do with the title of 'Pretender'. Is it being suggested that all of the other deposed royal lines in other countries who have been called 'pretenders' were thus called because of alleged illegitimacy of birth or baby switching ? Unless it can be convincingly substantiated, I plan to remove this silly assertion.Eregli bob (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)