Jump to content

Talk:Charles Edward Stuart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maclennan123 (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 16 May 2012 (→Pretender=Claimant: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


At the risk of starting fresh debate on this, can we fix the inconsistency between the first paragraph name and the name slightly lower down. If we agree on a correct set of names we should then use this throughout. AndrewJFulker (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]



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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Betty Burke

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

dogs

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

Stuart

Why does this article state that he was not a stuart This is absurd in the extreme. The one thing that price charles cannot be argued as beign, was a stuart. The artical list the various countries such as Poland, Italy, and France, with which he is decended from the maternal line as though this makes any differene to the fact that he is a Stuart from his fathers line. The only argument that he was not of the Stuart line, would be if one belived the baby switching story, in which case his mothers relatives would of couse be just as irrelevent as his fathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.95.33 (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps strangely for a future "Scottish Hero," Prince Charles wasn't Scottish in the strictest sense. His mother, Maria Klementyna Sobieska, was a Polish noblewoman, the granddaughter of the Polish king John III Sobieski. His paternal grandmother, Maria of Modena, was Italian; and his paternal great-grandmother, Henrietta Maria of France, was a French Princess, making the young Stuart an unlikely candidate as a claimant to the throne by Stuart lineage"
What patent tosh. Prince Charlie was the son of James VIII of Scots, and grandson of James VIII of Scots, and would have been King Regnant of Scots, were it not for the utterly unjust Act of Settlement 1701. Further, despite the breadth of nationalities amongst his ancestry(which was the rule rather than the exception at this time), Scotland, England, and elsewhere used a system of Male primogeniture, and still does whereby the eldest male inherits title. Section removed. Brendandh (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland & Ireland?

Shouldn't it be that he was pretender to the throne of Great Britain? Remember, his father died in 1766, which is 59 yrs after the Act of Union. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles didn't recognise the validity of the Act of Union. See the Declaration of the Prince Regent, October 10, 1745, where he refers to the "pretended union". Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if we look just outside the me myself and I, what did he recognise? --85.164.223.189 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of Charles and his father James III, England and Scotland were two separate nations which shared the same monarch. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would he really have thought of them as nations? The various James's (after James V) and Charles's would more consistently have thought in terms of Kingdoms to which they had been appointed monarch by Grace of God, an appointment which a mere parliament could not annul. Don't forget that 'Enery 8 had made Ireland into a kingdom to overcome the difficulties of losing Papal blessing of ruling it as a Lordship, so James would also have considered himself monarch of Ireland, and somewhere in the line of succession to the throne of France though doubtless this was played down when he or his son wanted the support of the French king. Claims maintained by Charles on the death of his father. . . dave souza, talk 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of the following because it is unreferenced. It should not be restored until citations are added. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

  • Peter Watkins' 1964 Culloden, with Olivier Espitalier-Noel as the Prince, presents the battle through the eyes of a documentary crew as though they were actually present. The film utilises a number of other dramatic devices to create a tense realistic interpretation of the event. Similarly, the 1994 film Chasing the Deer depicts the 1745 Jacobite rebellion from the point of view of the commoners caught in the struggle. The Prince, played by Dominique Carrara, makes a brief appearance in the movie and is never actually seen by any of the commoners fighting for his cause.
  • The television series Highlander features two episodes with the series' main protagonist, Duncan MacLeod, aiding the Bonnie Prince's campaigns. "Take Back The Night" depicts the Prince's escape into exile, and "Through a Glass Darkly" depicts him in the aftermath of the failed campaigns, a broken, often drunken man.
Why? These are just links to further pages with their own refs. Restored. Brendandh (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know nothing of Wikipedia's rules requiring citations? It is not enough that these are "links to further pages with their own refs." With that kind of precedent, we would have pages filled with unreferenced trivia and utter garbage. Do not restore this without sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources requires an inline citation for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged". No editor has so far suggested that any of these statements is inaccurate. The same policy says, "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself (emphasis added) that support such material, and cite them." Only in the case of biographies of living persons are certain statements removed immediately. I have restored the section and added an "unreferenced" tag. That gives other editors the chance to add appropriate citations. I wonder, however, if the concern is not so much a lack of citations, but the appropriateness of including "trivia and utter garbage". If THAT is the case, then a discussion should occur on this talk page. I myself concur that some (but not all) of the material is trivia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Failure

While the Jacobite Cause was a "heroic failure" akin to a "lost cause" in that it elevated some of the combatants to heroic status (even in defeat); the term does not apply to the prince. The prince was motivated by self interest, not love of Scotland, or love of the Scottish people, or even love of freedom. Stuart was not a "heroic failure", he was an ordinary failure. Some might even say a cowardly failure. MajorCrespo (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your assessment. He is however widely regarded as a heroic figure - he's see as a hero who failed.--Scott Mac 02:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scott Mac. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we need some more opinions. MajorCrespo (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've registered so I can participate in this discussion. My user name incorporates my IP address. While I wouldn't go so far as to call Stuart a coward, many have and still do. The statement of "heroic failure" should be sourced at the very least. Every instance I've found of this term in regard to Stuart is a direct lift from this wiki article. Spirit of 76.237.234.238 (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MajorCrespo, I think you may be misreading the sentence. It does not imply that CES was a "romantic figure" or a "heroic failure" just that time has led the public to see him as one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular scholar has used this term about Charles Edward, then it might be appropriate to say that "So-and-so has described Charles Edward as an heroic failure". But otherwise it's inappropriate to use this term in the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is the case. I think here it is talking more about the public's perception of CES rather than a scholarly and, I would assume, a more factual appraisal of the man. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is based on the public's perception of Stuart, it should be come from a reliable source, not parroted from an anonymous website. Spirit of 76.237.234.238 (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so you are disputing the source, not the term. Unless the opinion that he is a heroic failure is controversial, or contrary to the mainstream thought, then it doesn't need to be specified who called him thus. Imagine if every sentence started with so and so said that, or according to whathisname etc. If it is controversial then there will be scholars arguing against it. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the Hannoverian agent?

In the first paragraph under exile, who is "she" in the last sentence? Grammatically, it has to be his daughter, Charlotte, but does this make sense?

75.72.247.8 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretender=Claimant

The fact should be noted that the commonly used word "Pretender" actually means "Claimant," a more respectable term. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Edward_Stuart&oldid=492805627"