Talk:Charles Edward Stuart/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

dogs

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

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))

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)

"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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Popular culture

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)

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)



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)

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)
I agree with Scott Mac. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously we need some more opinions. MajorCrespo (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

Agreement with 124.168.38.118

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)

So do I. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

After Culloden: Query and Response

Query: 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.

Response: Check Christopher Duffy's book "The '45." It may contain an answer to your question. I own 2 copies of the volume, but I don't have either at hand. Otherwise, I'd check it for you. MacLennan123Maclennan123 (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty simple... The Italian Pretender had found out the hard way that the great majority of Scots felt nothing for him but loathing and contempt, and since the loyal clans had risen for the rightful king he couldn't hope to dominate even the highlands. The rebel rabble had been soundly thrashed in the field by a commander whose genius they couldn't match, and there was nothing for Carlo Eduardo to do but slink back to his Bourbon master liked a whipped cur.

Was Bonnie Prince Charlie Italian?

This is written in response to an anonymous person who keeps changing the introductory section to read "...Bonnie Prince Charlie was Italian and the second Jacobite pretender...".

Firstly, the fact that he was born in Italy is adequately covered in the Early Life section. It was certainly not central to his life, and should not be prominent in the introduction.

Secondly, although he was born in Italy, his mother was Polish and spoke mainly French, and his father was only half Italian. Almost all the royal houses of Europe frequently intermarried with people of other countries, the Stuarts before their exile as much as any. So 'nationality' was almost always mixed in royalty.

Thirdly, country of birth is not the same thing as nationality. For example, suppose a British or American couple today are working in China and their son is born there. Would their son correctly be referred to as Chinese for the rest of his life?

Fourthly, if you have an arguable point that you feel strongly about, please register with Wikipedia and present your arguments on this page. If they gain general acceptance, then they can be added to the main page. Repeatedly altering the main page and having it reverted won't achieve anything. Putting your point of view here may do so. Green Wyvern (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps more of a Roman in the Gloamin'? Since he predates Italian unification rather an anachronism, nationality then wasn't what it is now... dave souza, talk 17:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
And he returned to Italy because he couldn't resist the Pope singing Will ye no come back again  :-) Green Wyvern (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I was born in Edinburgh, but I'm not from there; and I claim Irish, English, French, German and Danish ancestry, and I'm about as Scots as you get! BPC was the heir to the thrones of the kingdoms of these Isles, if he had been crowned, he would have been the embodiment of such. Saying he's a 'mere' Italian, is like ca'ing his gret-uncle Charles II a Dane. (well his granny was!) Brendandh (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out in an edit note, even the Young Pretender's own followers regarded him as Italian, calling him such as he fled the Glorious Field of Culloden after our brave boys in red had whipped the wretched, Jacobite traitors' rumps and their French masters. He was NOT the heir to the throne of these isles, as GB&I had been parliamentary monarchies since 1689. The analogy with Charles II is ridiculous, because that tyrant was not born in Denmark. unsigned comment by IP 109.144.254.226
Ok, here we go-
  • Being Italian is nothing to be ashamed of (although BPC quite patently was not in his entirety, being only a quarter Italian), and the prejudice against them, is only something that seems to have arisen post WWII surrender. BPC was born in the Papal States.
  • Political/religious opinions pontificatedas fact, even of the 17/18th century variety, are not espoused on here, unless those views are being described. This is a (supposedly) impartial platform.
  • GB&I did not come into existence until 1801, the prior Union between England and Scotland was in 1707. Post 1689, there was still an alternative court in exile, much like De Gaulle's one in England during WWII.
  • George the usurping German, is not described as such (see, I'm also using leading words here!).
  • Sign your bloody posts!
Brendandh (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...

  • Nobody has suggested that the Young Pretender's Italian identity was shameful; that he was born and raised in Italy, had twice as much Italian blood as British, and was described as a 'cowardly Italian' by his own following are simply matters of historical fact. They require emphasis because many ignorant people are under the misapprehension that to follow the Pretender was to adhere to the Scottish national interest.
Yep, that interest, and the interest of rest of the realms that had been ruled by his grandfather.
  • If you want neutral language, please abandon the infantile and partisan term 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' and acronym 'BPC'.
Geordie Whelps, Wee German Lairdie...Bonnie Prince Charlie, all common parlance at one time or another.
  • Nobody mentioned the UK that came into existence in 1801. I described GB&I as 'monarchies', which is what we call a 'plural' noun ('plural' means there was more than one), not by the singular term 'monarchy'. Your English teacher should be happy to confirm this.
I'd suggest that you acquaint yourself with a few more tomes regarding the religious wars of the 17/18th centuries, rather a lot of 'English' to be read there.
  • It's silly to compare the Young Pretender's Italian identity with King George's German origins; by the time of the '45 rebellion, HM had been settled in Britain, as a naturalised Briton, for thirty years, whereas the Pretender was only here for a matter of months, as a puppet of the French.
Point of view, obviously of the Billyboy variety. What would you do if someone broke into your house and changed the locks?. HM?? To who?
  • Please don't use profane language. Nobody in the grown-up world of academic history takes WP remotely seriously, so it isn't worth getting wound up about it.
I'll bloody write what I want. So why are you here? Brendandh (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.255.64 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2014


What's your source for your assertion? Wikipedia policy is no original research, if you want this included in the article you have to show a reliable published expert source stating specifically that Charles Edward Stuart was italian. Your own arguments and views do not suffice. There's also the wp:weight policy, we should not be giving a minority view undue prominence, so good sources needed. Until these are provided, please stop trying to insert your view into the article . dave souza, talk 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to provide a heavyweight academic source, and it is hardly a 'minor point': the pretenders' foreign backgrounds and ideology were central to the loathing that the majority of Scots (both highland and lowland) felt for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.57.186 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like something was lost in translation. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I know better than to waste my time correcting an admin intent on playing wikilawyer games, but the 'cowardly Italian' tag is EXTREMELY well attested. Eg, Dr Rachel Hewitt (Wolfson College, Oxford), in the prologue to her 'Map of a Nation' book, states that the YP 'fled [Culloden], ignominiously, with the cry 'Run, you cowardly Italian!' ringing in his ears,'. John Prebble, in his 'Culloden', and others, attribute the cry specifically to Lord Elcho.91.85.208.0 (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That he was name-called him as an Italian is not the same thing as him being an Italian. You may hear the present incumbents of Buck House referred to as "a bunch of krauts" or the like; it does not make them truly so. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the cry should go in the narrative section on the rebellion. After all, it's one of the most famous quotations from the rebellion.91.85.208.0 (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


The issue here is not so much whether Charles Edward was Italian, but whether that statement is being made in order to promote a particular opinion of him. For example, consider these statements:

  • "Richard I, called the Lionheart, was a Frenchman who didn't speak a word of English, and was King of England from 1189-1199."
  • "Queen Elizabeth I, the legitimacy of whose birth was repeatedly called into question, was considered (by Protestants) to be the legal Queen of England from 1558-1603."
  • "George III was King of England in the later 18th and early 19th centuries, and approved of blood sports like fox hunting and partridge shooting."

All these statements are factually true, but are they objective? We immediately see that the writer has some axe to grind, and that the information is presented out of context in a biased way. The facts may be true, but the selection and presentation of facts is critical for objectivity.

Wikipedia aims to be as objective as possible. It's an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal opinions. That means that when you read a statement, you shouldn't feel that it's been written by someone with a chip on his shoulder. But stating prominently that Charles was Italian gives exactly that impression. Green Wyvern (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean this sincerely, you'll remove the bit about cumberland's troops committing 'numerous atrocities': it's a Tory POV value judgement, and, perhaps more importantly, tells us nothing whatsoever about the article's subject. Or are you another one who is, shall we say, prepared to be flexible when it comes to objectivity...? ;)91.85.208.0 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. (Steam slowly leaking from the ears. Although, I may take exception to Richard primo's chat there!) Brendandh (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and the anonymous seems to take exception to sanguine vocabulary. (see my talk page) Can't think of a more bloody subject than the bloody Jacobite uprisings, and the bloody repercussions by the bloody Hanoverians. Bloody all round in my bloody book! Brendandh (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


The anonymous poster seems to think that the reason Charles wasn't supported by most Scots at the time was because he was Italian. This is not correct. It was because he was Catholic. There were large numbers of strict fundamentalist Protestants in Scotland who really, really did NOT want a Catholic king. This was the reason why King James II & VII had been kicked out in the first place. If Charles had been Protestant he would probably have succeeded. The issue was not one of nationality, but of religion. Not that he was Italian, but that he was Catholic. Green Wyvern (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Not so simple, James VII had continued the suppression of Covenanters from his [Episcoplian] predecessor Charles II, and so was opposed by Scots Presbyterians. As James II of England his Catholicism resulted in the Glorious Revolution, which was affirmed by the Scottish parliament despite opposition ffom the Episcopalian Dundee. Prince Charles had extensive Episcopalian support as well as Catholic support and non-juring Anglican support in England, for broader support in Scotland he'd have needed to support the Presbyterian cause. The issue was more whether the monarch determined the religion of the people, or parliament[s] could place religious limitations on the monarch. . . dave souza, talk 07:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The Stuarts' penchant for arbitrary government was at least as significant as the pretenders' Catholicism. The Cameronian Declaration of Sanquhar had deposed Charles II in word, if not in deed, while that king was still officially Protestant, and the lack of English support for the Monmouth Rebellion suggests that most were willing to give a Catholic king (albeit one with Protestant heirs) the chance to prove himself as a moderate ruler. Of course, this is problematic for the neo-Jacobite lobby, who would much prefer to depict the Stuarts as victims of religious prejudice than as perpetrators of atrocities against the scottish people...91.85.208.0 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This has the potential to get a bit WP:FORUM without addressing the original debate. The basic question is can anyone provide a reliable source stating that CES was an Italian (or any alternative nationality British, Scottish, English (etc.)??). Obviously as this was before the Risorgimento, describing him as of "Italian nationality" is a bit problematic. And I suppose its further complicated by the Jacobite refusal to recognize the Act of Union, even if closer union between the Three Kingdoms had been a goal of the Stuarts during the 17th century. Ceirtianly by any modern standard of nationality he'd be eligible for British citizenship given that his father was born in London. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Edward Stuart. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. 2 working, 1 failed - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Edward Stuart. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pop culture section removed

I've removed the entire section as it has remained largely uncited for almost 7 years, and people keep adding to it, thinking that adding uncited material is just hunky-dory. It isn't.
Before adding anything from that section in, make sure it comes with a reliable source, or it will be removed pretty much as fast as you add it, resulting in a net waste of your time. I know that sounds aggressive, but shame on you for continuing to allow an embarrassment like that to continue for over half a decade. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Edward Stuart. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision of lead paragraph

There doesn't seem to have been much activity on this article recently so I've used Bold editing and made the changes. Happy to discuss them, let me know.

...second Jacobite pretender to the thrones of England, Scotland, Ireland...in 1745, he was heir to the British throne, not three different ones. This is an important point since dissolving the Union was a primary objective for Scottish Jacobites while Charles wanted the unified throne and is also inconsistent with the statement below restore his family to the throne of Great Britain.

Jacobites supported the Stuart claim because they hoped for religious toleration for Roman Catholics and because they believed in the divine right of kings. Both these statements are incorrect and in fact the truth is almost exactly the opposite; the different motives for the Scots, Irish and Stuarts requires a more detailed explanation in the body of the article.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Caption

In “Early life” we have a painting of the subject. The caption suggests the title of the painting is “Prince Charles Edward Stuart, 1720 - 1788 ... ... “ The caption concludes by noting: Painted by William Mosman around 1750

If it was painted around 1750 it would not have been possible to give it a title identifying the year of death as 1788! Perhaps the caption doesn’t accurately quote the title of the painting in which case quotation marks should not be used. Dolphin (t) 21:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I repaired the apparent anachronism by eliminating the quotation marks. Dolphin (t) 06:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Essortment?

The article cites the site http://www.essortment.com/. This seems to be a commercial collection of miscellaneous online articles and it remains unclear to me who writes and edits it, what makes it a reliable source or in any way a source superior to Wikipedia, and, thus, why it would make sense to base any statements in Wikipedia articles on it.--94.155.68.202 (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Essortment has the type of mass-produced (for little pay) articles that may or may not have high quality sources and may or may not be reliably true; neither sources nor authorship are listed. That makes Essortment a worse source to cite than the Daily Mail.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Offensive

As of the time I'm writing this, this article contains the sentence "In 1780, Louise left Charles. She claimed that Charles had physically abused her; this claim was generally believed by contemporaries even though Louise was already involved in an adulterous relationship with the Italian poet, Count Vittorio Alfieri". The use of the words "even though" implies that Louise already being adulterous has some bearing on whether or not her claim about Charles abusing her was true or not. This is offensive to women, it's offensive to reason, and it's offensive to scholarship. Whether or not a woman is cheating has no bearing on whether her husband really is, or is not, abusing her. In fact the woman committing adultery is MORE likely to be telling the truth about the abuse, for, were her husband NOT abusing her, she wouldn't be committing adultery, now, would she? And, looking at it the OTHER way, why would a woman who IS being abused continue to honor her vow of monogamy? There is also on this Talk-page an assertion that her claim is probably correct "but" and then the adultery. Each fact is true or not true independently of whether the other fact is true or not true. There is not, in logical deduction, any linkage between the two. Her adultery carries no weight in assessing whether her claim of abuse by her husband is true or not.2604:2000:C682:2D00:5D2D:B629:6EF7:225C (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Location of tomb

I edited "Death and Burial" to clarify the location of his tomb. The Monument to the Royal Stuarts does not mark his burial place. He was buried, along with his father and brother, in crypt below the monument. Also, the monument didn't exist at the time his body was moved to the Vatican; I clarified the wording accordingly. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Edward Stuart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Unlimitedlead (talk · contribs) 00:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


Hello, I am happy to review this article for GA status. Please keep in mind that I am a very particular reviewer, so this process may take days, or even weeks. Please reach out if you have any questions or concerns. I look forward to working with you! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

First round of comments: PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED BY PLACING A CHECK MARK:  Done

  • Maybe try to increase the size of the image in the lead. The caption could also be shortened.
Both  Done Coldupnorth (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the lead should be corrected: His life and the once possible prospects of a restored Stuart monarchy have left an enduring historical legend that continue to have a legacy today. → His life and the once possible prospects of a restored Stuart monarchy have left an enduring historical legend that continues to have a legacy today. (plural)
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation in lead: This resulted in Charles landing by ship on the West Coast of Scotland leading to the Jacobite rising of 1745. This sentence should have a comma between "Scotland" and "leading."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation in lead: On his return Charles lived briefly in France before he was exiled in 1748 under the terms of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. This sentence should have a comma between "return" and "Charles."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Diction: He had a number of mistresses and affairs but finally married Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern in 1772. The word "affairs" implies that Charles Edward Stuart was having a relationship outside of his marriage, but the sentence goes on to say that he was married later.
 Done 'Affairs' removed. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being picky, but the lead image suddenly got too large. Would you mind adjusting it to 285px? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem, changed it to 285px. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • should be added as a signature in the infobox.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Childhood and education: 1720–1734


  • Grammar: "Historians differ as to his presided over his baptism ceremony; Kybett reports that it was presided over by Pope Clement..." Please fix the sentence: the grammar makes no sense.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "Regardless, he was given the names Charles for his great-grandfather, Edward after Edward the Confessor, Louis for the King of France..." Please specify who Louis is. It could be referring to the King of France at the time, but my impression was that the name was derived from Saint Louis.
 Comment: The Douglas reference only says 'the King of France' and does not specify which King. I've checked four other sources but could find no comment to confirm which King. It could be Saint Louis, Louise XIV (friend of James Stuart) or Louis XV (King at time of Charles birth). Coldupnorth (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
If that's what we can get, that's what we'll take, I suppose. Thank you for checking. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Stay focused on the topic: "Charles was the son of the Old Pretender, James Francis Edward Stuart (himself son of the exiled Stuart King James II and VII), and Maria Clementina Sobieska, a Polish noblewoman (the granddaughter of John III Sobieski, most famous for the victory over the Ottoman Turks in the 1683 Battle of Vienna)."
    The bolded section should be trimmed or removed from the article: it is not particularly related to Charles Edward Stuart.
 Done Now reads "Maria Clementina Sobieska, a Polish noblewoman (the granddaughter of John III Sobieski)." Coldupnorth (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Diction: "Charles Edward's grandfather, James II of England and Ireland and VII of Scotland, ruled the countries from 1685 to 1688."
    "Countries" could be replaced with "kingdoms," but that is up to you.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Since the exile of James and the Act of Settlement, the "Jacobite Cause" had striven to return the Stuarts to the thrones of England and Scotland, which had been united in 1603 under James VI and I, with the parliaments joined by the Acts of Union in 1707 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain."
    "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is not a correct term, use Kingdom of Great Britain.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "However, Charles was instructed in a regime of exercise and dancing to help improve his constitution which strengthened his legs by later years." This sentence should have a comma between "constitution" and "which."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Multiple errors: "While several of the household were Protestant and there were initial concerns over his religious education by the Pope, Charles was raised as a catholic."
    • What does "several" refer to? Staff? Be more specific.
    • "there were initial concerns over his religious education by the Pope" should be reworded to make it more clear. Was the pope the one who has concerns?
    • I believe that "catholic" should be capitalized.
 Done Move the text to align with the education information. Now reads "Charles Edward's governor was the Protestant James Murray, Jacobite Earl of Dunbar. While the Pope had raised initial concerns over Charles's religious education under a Protestant governor, James agreed that Charles would be raised as a Catholic." Coldupnorth (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


Travels in Europe: 1734–1745


  • "Prince Charles Edward Stuart. Eldest son of Prince James Francis Edward Stuart (painted by William Mosman, around 1750)"
    This caption could be shortened to "Portrait by William Mosman, around 1750"
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "In January 1735, shortly after his fourteenth birthday, Charles mother Clementina died of scurvy." This sentence should have an apostrophe on the word "Charles," since it is clearly a possessive noun.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "In 1737 James sent his son on a tour through the main Italian cities, to complete his education as a prince and man of the world." This sentence should have a comma between "1737" and "James."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation and capitalization: "The Italian tour was a shock for Charles who had believed he would be welcomed as a Royal Prince." This sentence should have a comma between "Charles" and "who." Additionally, "Royal Prince" does not need to be capitalized in this context.
 Done Both amended Coldupnorth (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation and capitalization: "Instead most European courts, would only receive him as the 'Duke of Albany' (an historic title adopted by Scottish Royals in the 14th century)." This sentence should NOT have a comma between "courts" and "would." Instead, there should be a comma after Instead." Additionally, "royals" does not need to be capitalized in this context.
 Done All amended Coldupnorth (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Diction and capitalization: "While Catholic, many European States wished to avoid antagonising Britain, the only exception being Venice." Changing "Though" to "Although" of "Despite being" would be much more clear. Additionally, "states" does not need to be capitalized in this context.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "By the time he had reached 20, he had become a notable member of Rome society and developed a fondness for alcohol and fine clothes, often in excess of his allowance." "Rome" is not an adjective, so it cannot describe "society." Please adjust accordingly.
 Done Amended to "By the time he had reached 20, he had become a notable member of upper-class society in Rome and had developed a fondness for alcohol and fine clothes, often in excess of his allowance." Coldupnorth (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar/Clarity: "His father planned to rely on foreign aid in his attempts to restore himself to the British and Irish thrones, and the idea of rebellion unassisted by invasion or by support of any kind from abroad was one which was pursued by Charles Edward as he grew older." This sentence is very confusing grammatically. To be honest, I still have no idea what it is trying to say, but the impression I got was that Charles Edward's approach to invading Britain was different than that of his father. If that is the case, please use a contrasting word like "but" to make this clear.
 Done Amended to "His father continued to rely on foreign aid in his attempts to restore himself to the British and Irish thrones. However, Charles became increasingly supportive of the idea of rebellion unassisted by invasion or by support of any kind from abroad." Coldupnorth (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Hyperlink issues: "On 23 December 1743, owing to his limited ability to travel to Britain, James named his son Charles Prince Regent, giving him the authority to act in his name." The hyperlink "Prince Regent" redirects to George IV of the United Kingdom, which makes no sense in this article. Either find a more appropriate hyperlink, or just do not link anything.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Continuity and Punctuation: "However, neither the French Government or King Louis XV had officially invited Charles.[37] This would prove particularly problematic for the French authorities as they sought to balance the likely impact of supporting the Stuart restoration.[38] By February, the French government had agreed to support a planned invasion of England hoping to remove British forces from the War of the Austrian Succession." These sentences do not flow logically. If the French government did not wish to support the Stuarts, then why are they doing so three sentences later? Additionally, there should be a comma between "England" and "hoping."
 Done Agreed. Removed the sentence concerning actions of the French authorities Coldupnorth (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "However, when he could no longer afford the rent on the house in Montmartre, the Arch-bishop of Cambrai agreed to lend him his country estate near Paris." "Archbishop," not "Arch-bishop."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "Charles remained there until January 1745, when following repeated attempts by the French to encourage him to leave the Paris region, he withdrew to the country house of Anne, Duchess of Berwick in Soissons." The grammar of this sentence should be corrected: its present state is somewhat confusing.
 Done Amended wording for clarity Coldupnorth (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


Preparations and journey to Scotland: 1745


  • Writing style: "In Rome and Paris, Charles had seen many supporters of the Stuart cause, and he was aware that in every key European court the Jacobites were represented." Consider changing the wording of this sentence. It sounds stiff; I am not exactly sure if the later half of the sentence makes sense, but here is a suggestion for the rewording:
    "In both Rome and Paris, Charles met numerous supporters of the Stuart cause; he was aware that there were Jacobites representatives in every key European court."
 Done Thank you for the suggested rewording Coldupnorth (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Following conversations with Irish and Scottish exiles such as Sir Thomas Sheridan who advocated the strength of Jacobite support in Scotland..." → "Following conversations with Irish and Scottish exiles such as Sir Thomas Sheridan who assured him of the strength of the Jacobite movement in Scotland..."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Diction: "The ultimate aim was to bring forth a rebellion to place his father on the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland." → "The ultimate aim was to instigate a rebellion that would place his father on the thrones of Great Britain and Ireland." (or something to that effect)
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Encouraged by the French victory in May 1745 at the Battle of Fontenoy, Charles and his party set sail on the 5th July for Scotland." → "Encouraged by the French victory in May 1745 at the Battle of Fontenoy, Charles and his party set sail on 5 July for Scotland." (assuming this article is in British English)
  • Grammar: "During the voyage north, the Elisabeth fought an action with HMS Lion..." Fought an action? What does that mean? Please reword.
 Done New text added and additional reference to explain the sea battle. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


Early stages and victory at Prestonpans: 1745


  • Punctuation: "On 19 August he raised his father's standard at Glenfinnan and gathered a force large enough to enable him to march towards Edinburgh." There should be a comma between "August" and "he."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "Charles reached Perth on 4 September where his forces were joined by more sympathisers, including Lord George Murray." There should be a comma between "September" and "where."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "On 14 September Charles and his forces took Falkirk and Charles stayed at Callendar House where he persuaded the Earl of Kilmarnock to join him." There should be a comma between "September" and "Charles."
  • Punctuation: "Charles progress on to Edinburgh was helped by the action of the British leader, General Sir John Cope, who had marched to Inverness, leaving the south country undefended." "Charles" not having an apostrophe makes this sentence give off a completely different meaning. Additionally, "on to" is one word: "onto."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Repetition: "On 21 September 1745, Charles and his forces defeated Cope's army, the only government army in Scotland, at the Battle of Prestonpans..." "1745" is not necessary: the section is called "Early stages and victory at Prestonpans: 1745."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Repetition: "Charles was said to have been only 50 paces from the front-line of the battle[74] and he later expressed regret that the victory involved killing his own subjects." The word "regret" was used just a few sentences prior. Maybe replace it with a synonym like "remorse."
 Done Replaced with "remorse" Coldupnorth (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "Significantly, it was reported during the battle that Charles and Lord Murray had argued with each other over the disposition of forces." The word "significantly" sounds out of place here. I don't think it's necessary, but you may keep it if you feel strongly about it.
 Done Fair point, I've removed the word as arguably no more significant than other issues eg strength of government forces, lack of support from France, etc. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


Invasion of England: 1745–1746


  • "Following the battle at Prestonpans, morale was high and Charles returned to Edinburgh holding court in Holyrood Palace." → Morale was high following the battle at Prestonpans, and Charles returned to Edinburgh, holding court at Holyrood Palace.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Jacobite morale was further boosted in mid-October when the French landed supplies of money and weapons, together with an envoy, which seemed to validate claims of French backing." → Jacobite morale was further boosted in mid-October when the French landed with supplies of money and weapons, together with an envoy, which seemed to validate claims of French backing.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "By November, Charles was marching south at the head of approximately 6,000 men." → By November, Charles was marching south at the head of an army numbering approximately 6,000 men.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Date formatting: "Having taken Carlisle on the 10th November, his army progressed as far as Swarkestone Bridge in Derbyshire." → Having taken Carlisle on the 10 November, his army progressed as far as Swarkestone Bridge in Derbyshire.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "Charles admitted he had not heard from the English Jacobites since leaving France; this meant he lied when claiming otherwise and his relationship with some of the Scots became irretrievably damaged." → Charles admitted he had not heard from the English Jacobites since leaving France despite claiming the contrary; this caused his relationship with some of the Scots became irretrievably damaged.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Date formatting: "Charles and his forces then reached Glasgow on the 26 December where they rested until 3 January 1746." → Charles and his forces then reached Glasgow on 26 December, where they rested until 3 January 1746.
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "The decision was made to lay siege to Stirling Castle however while the town surrendered..." I do not have the sources (books) to research this event, but this sentence's grammar makes no sense. Please consult some sources and reword the highlighted section.
 Done Text reworded for clarity. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
There should be a comma between "However" and "while" in your edit. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Thanks. Apologies, my grammar knowledge is poor. Coldupnorth (talk) 07:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation and Grammar: "A failure to take the castle however, resulted in abandoning the siege and the Jacobite forces moving northward to Crieff then Inverness." → A failure to take the castle, however, resulted in the abandonment of the siege and the Jacobite forces moving northward to Crieff then Inverness. (comma between "castle" and "however")
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "With a halt in operations until the weather improved, Charles forces then rested at Inverness..." There should be an apostrophe in "Charles."
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


Culloden and return to France: 1746


  • Punctuation: "Charles ignored the advice of general Lord George Murray and chose to fight on flat, open, marshy ground where his forces were exposed to superior government firepower." There should be a comma between "ground" and "where." Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "He commanded his army from a position behind his lines, where he could not see what was happening." Please take a look at the source material and reword this sentence for clarity. For ease, please paste the new sentence here so I can take a look. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Reworded as 'To ensure his safety, his officers requested that Charles command his army from a position behind the front lines which resulted in him being unable to gain a clear view of the battlefield.' Coldupnorth (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Grammar: "The Jacobite attack was uncoordinated, charging into withering musket fire and grapeshot fired from the cannons, and it met with little success." There should be the word "was" between "and" and "it." Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "The Jacobites broke through the bayonets of the redcoats in one place, but they were shot down by a second line of soldiers, and the survivors fled." The phrase "in one place" is somewhat confusing. Please take a look at the citation and change the wording accordingly. For ease, please paste the new sentence here so I can take a look. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Reworded as 'In the center, the Jacobites reached the bayonets of the redcoats but they were shot down by a second line of soldiers. The remaining Jacobite survivors in the front line then fled.' Coldupnorth (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Punctuation: "However, the north-eastern regiments, as well as Irish and Scots regulars in the second line retired in good order, allowing Charles and his personal retinue to escape northwards." There should be a comma between "line" and "retired." Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Coldupnorth (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Clarity: "Charles hid first in the moors of Scotland and then made a flight to the Islands, always barely ahead of the government forces." What are "the Islands?" I could not tell when reading the article. Please adjust for clarity. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 Done Your comment got me thinking that this section needed more detail. The period was several months in length and so have added further information about his location/journey in evading capture. The text now reads: 'Charles hid first in the moors of the Highlands of Scotland and then made a flight to the Hebrides, always barely ahead of the government forces. Many Highlanders aided him during his escape, and none of them betrayed him for the £30,000 reward. Charles was assisted by supporters such as the pilot Donald Macleod of Galtrigill and Captain Con O'Neill who took him to Benbecula. From 16 April until 28 June, Charles travelled through Benbecula, South Uist, North Uist, Harris and the Isle of Lewis. On 28 June, Charles was aided by Flora MacDonald who helped him sail to the Isle of Skye by taking him in a boat disguised as her maid "Betty Burke". Charles remained on Skye until July when crossed back to the mainland. With the aid of a few loyal servants and local supporters, Charles hid from government forces in the western Grampian Mountains for several weeks. He ultimately evaded capture and on 19 September left the country aboard the French frigate L'Heureux. The Prince's Cairn marks the traditional spot on the shores of Loch nan Uamh in Lochaber from which he made his final departure from Scotland.' Coldupnorth (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds great! I will review the added text on a later read-through of the article. Please keep in mind that I will be doing this several times in order to catch any mistakes that may have slipped through, especially from revisions made for the GA review. I suspect that in total, there will be a dozen or so read-throughs, some oriented towards the content itself, and others like this one, which will look at simple errors like grammar and punctuation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, it is important to make sure we get the grammar and punctuation correct. While I understand the need to read the article itself several times, I had not realised you would be returning again and again to different levels of detail with a different focus each time and therefore new comments. While I have experience of the GA process in the past, I am quite concerned about how comprehensive this review is going to become. While it's great for the article, it is not a GA process. If you feel the article is needing so much work, then it really should be a fail or a hold. We are some 11 days in now and I feel like this GA could go on for months. I appreciate all your efforts so far but if that's the case, I don't think the GA process is working here. If you want to work together on the article to get it to GA if you think it isn't there, that's something I'd be happy to do further with you. For now it seems way more than the process for comparable GAs and I am quite concerned. Thanks Coldupnorth (talk) 07:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I would also add that if the article is on hold, then its generally 7 days for improvements. Please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions If you think it's a failure that would be a shame especially as I am here ready to take it to GA now for 2 weeks. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
You are right: I am only halfway through this article and there are tons of errors ranging from clarity to grammar. I will go ahead and put this review on hold so you have an opportunity to revise it. Thank you for voicing your concerns. I was not aware that you felt that way. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I need you to clarify exactly the changes you like by placing the article on hold. If you have tons of errors ranging from clarity to grammar then you need to specify these as part of the process. You then either fail the article outright or put it on hold, giving me time to work through them. Can you review the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions please and then act accordingly. Please use the 6 good article criteria to assist you. You can also ask for a second opinion, especially if you are unsure of the format of a GA review. Otherwise, just fail the article please and let me know the reasons why. I will then action any comments you have and then renominate again. Thanks Coldupnorth (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Reading through the article, the prose and content itself seems to be alright. The only glaring issue I see so far is the concerning amount of mistakes concerning grammar, clarity, and punctuation. As seen in the comments above, many sentences contain such errors. Unfortunately, due to time constraints (in real life), I am unable to read through the article and manually point out every single minor error in one sitting. The only thing I can say is to write carefully. The content is lovely, but the execution is poor. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please reach out. This is my first GA review, so I am still unexperienced. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Unlimitedlead, thank you for coming back to me quickly on this and for all your efforts so far. I will look at the last few sections and see if I can improve some of the prose, however, I think the next best step is to put in a request at Wikipedia:Cleanup for someone who is able to assist with improving the spelling, grammar, etc. Please leave it on hold for a while and hopefully someone is willing to assist. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
That sounds wonderful. Thank you for your consistent diligence and politeness. I apologize for any inconvenience my inexperience has caused you. As always, please let me know if there is anything I can do for you, and just give me ping when the article is ready for review again. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I would advise closely working and communicating with the user working on the cleanup. Since this is a historical biography, said user is unlikely to have the sources and knowledge required to accurately correct the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, there is no guarantee that another user helps with the cleanup so I've made several edits to the remaining sections this evening. I've used some of your previous comments as indicators as well as looking at the manual of style in terms of improvements to grammar, punctuation and the general prose. I would greatly appreciate if you could look at the later life section please and let me know if my changes have helped? Coldupnorth (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
The section looks significantly improved, but keep in mind that if a sentence has two clauses that are joined by a coordinating conjunction, there should be a comma before said conjunction.
Example: "On his return to France, he was initially received warmly by King Louis but as far as obtaining additional military or political assistance was concerned, his efforts proved fruitless."
  • There should be a comma before "but."
Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I will take another look if you'd like, just ping me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have caught most of them now, please do take another look. Coldupnorth (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I have just read through the section, and it is absolutely stunning. The prose, grammar, and punctuation appear to be correct. This section of the article should be a model for the rest of it. I will say, however, that there are several instances of "Charles" needing an apostrophe (example: In the sentence "In the years that followed, the Pope awarded Louise half of Charles papal pension, and Charles international reputation was much damaged," there should be an apostrophe in "Charles.") Other than that, I'd say you've vastly improved the issues I pointed out. I will continue to leave the article on hold so you can flesh things out and correct the punctuation issues I just stated. Thank you for your diligent work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, that's great, thank you for all your support with this. The user Metropolitan90 has kindly added the apostrophes. I've made some other changes too. Please let me know if there is anything outstanding or if you are happy it is now at GA standard. Coldupnorth (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I will give notes tonight/tomorrow and finish up the review by the end of the week. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing, I will probably just edit any remaining grammatical and punctuation errors myself to avoid more trouble for you. You can expect all such issues to be resolved by tomorrow night (EST) at the latest and for the GA Review to be finished by Saturday evening (EST), although I will likely finish it sooner. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you for all your time and effort in getting this article to GA. Coldupnorth (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No problem! I have just done a thorough read-through of the article and corrected all mistakes I see. By Saturday night, I will have done so again and leave my final remarks. I am confident that the article can be promoted to GA status; in the meanwhile, please review your sources and add citations to sentences/sections that lack them. The more of them, the better, but please don't overdo it. Once again, thank you so much for your patience and hard work. I look forward to consulting with you again in a few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I've added a few more references to unreferenced sentences. If you have any further queries, please let me know. Coldupnorth (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Conclusion

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
I feel like the article has improved significantly over the past few weeks and is ready to be listed as a GA article. Congratulations! Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Missing source

@Coldupnorth, could you add bibliographic information for Douglas 1997, which was added as part of the GA improvements? Alternatively if it's a reprint of Douglas 1975 with the same pagination you could change the sfns. I haven't been able to track it down online. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, very well spotted, it was an error carried over from using a Kaiser 1997 tag. All my Douglas references come from only the 1975 edition. I've made the change accordingly to all those references. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I've made one more change to the Pininsky sfns that you might like to check as well (I assumed they should all be to the source listed in the bibliography). If you use harv/sfn references a lot you might find this script helpful; it highlights any missing / duplicated sources very conveniently. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes I do, so thank you, that is a useful tool. Best, Coldupnorth (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

Agreed, I've changed this despite lacking authorisation, consensus would seem to permit it. Lord Farquharson (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Both words are interchangeable in the sense of 'a right to'. Both 'claimant' and 'pretender' are used widely in academic sources. At the time, he was often referred to as the 'Young Pretender'. However, claimant is fine in the lead, as the term 'Pretender' is used and explained elsewhere in context, supported by the references. Note that this should have been a new section on the talk page though as the original comment was ten years ago! Coldupnorth (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add info for the popular song, "Charlie is my darling"in Cultural depictions.

I'm surprised it's not mentioned here. Here is some background info. Please note--there are many different versions of this song, but they're all about Charles Edward Stuart coming to Scotland. https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Charlie%20he%27s%20my%20darling%20-%20song%20sheet.pdf (The insturctions to edit don't make sense to me--sorry!) Lhodskins (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Song and reference added to the article, thanks. Coldupnorth (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Exact Date of Death

The Info Box gives his date of death as 31 January 1788. But some histories give at as 30 January. Aronson says that the 30 January was "singularly ill-omened for it coincided with the anniversary of one of the blackest days in the Stuart calendar, the execution of his great-grandfather, Charles I. So 31 January was given out as the official date." (Source: Aronson, Theo. Kings over the Water: The Saga of the Stuart Pretenders (p. 361). Thistle Publishing.). -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the NEW Style date being used for his birth date, yet the OLD style date for his death?. He was born on december 20th - that is the date he would have recognised! So if the NEW style date is being used for his birthday, why use the OLD style date for the battle of Culloden?.In NEW style it is April 27th. Let us all either use the Julian OR Gregorian calendar dates exclusively, but not a mixture! [User talk:John Kirwin]] 20.20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I assure you that 31 December is the date he would have recognised. And it's not as wrong as you think for someone's life to be recorded as a mixture. Charles Edward Stuart spent almost his entire life under the Gregorian Calendar, but others were born in Europe as Gregorians and died in England as Julians. The correct date to use (imho) is whatever date they thought it was on the day and in the place it happened, which would be the date the people present would have written down, be it birth or death. I would apply this rule to America's Founding Fathers, amongst whom there is little such consistentcy. Silas Maxfield (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Culloden, taking place in Scotland 6 years before the calendar change, is recorded as Julian. Back in the day of the two Calendars people switched back and forth as they travelled as we do today with timezones. He set sail from France on 16th July, and landed in Scotland on 3rd August, whereupon he would have been told that it was actually the 23rd of July again. He would then have written letters and orders in Julian dates, but after he fled back to France would have reverted to the Gregorian Calendar (and six years later it became moot). Silas Maxfield (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Language

Was Charles's mother tongue Italian? Did he speak any English? 109.152.27.185 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Prince Charles was fluent in English. EPISCOPALIAN (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Lady Mackintosh

We seem to be missing the incident before Cullodden of Bonnie Prince Charlie staying with Lady Anne Mackintosh of Clan Farquharson. We have an article about her, which includes their interaction, but she's not mentioned at all in this article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 15:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Charles Edward Stuart → Bonnie Prince Charlie – Over the past few months, I've been involved in closing RMs regarding less well-known pretenders to various titles, and one thing has stuck in my mind: what about Bonnie Prince Charlie? Certainly in public British imagination, he is more well known by the epithet; I certainly remember it more from history lessons at school more well than his actual name. Google Ngrams also shows that in their corpus, he's been more well known by either of his popular epithets, with "Bonnie Prince Charlie" overtaking "[the] Young Pretender" about sixty years ago. Certainly, this is one of the few times where the "pretenders" section of NCROY applies; if the Young Pretender doesn't count for the purposes of that section, then I don't know who else would. Sceptre (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I think we should adopt the style used by serious reference works rather than that used in popular fiction and lower-standard works, which will be included in the ngram results. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Support as the common name. Furius (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"Bonnie Prince Charlie" appears in the titles of many of the works cited in this article's "sources" section. If they are "popular fiction and lower-standard works," they should be removed from the article. Furius (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per Celia Homeford. Why not, then, move James Francis Edward Stuart to Old Pretender? WP:CONSISTENCY applies here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose this sobriquet is slightly ridiculous, we should aim for an encyclopedic style. PatGallacher (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Although this point may now have been deleted from naming conventions, it did say that we should avoid colloquial titles if a far more encyclopedic alternative exists e.g. Octomum. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose - per Celia Homeford as Google Books returns nearly 5.6 million results for "Charles Edward Stuart" [1] while only returning 142,000 for "Bonnie Prince Charlie" [2]. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The first search has been done without quotation marks, so that it brings up vast numbers of irrelevant results. Several of relevant books in the first link, including the most recent, are actually titled "Bonnie Prince Charlie"; several of the other results are about other individuals. With quotation marks, there are 102,000 results for "Charles Edward Stuart" [3] Furius (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I figured something must've been done wrong. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Opppose per PatGallacher and WP:CONSISTENT as Tim O'Doherty said. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose This article is not about "British public imagination", but about a historical figure. Note that throughout the article he referred to as "Charles" and not "Charlie". Nicknames, however affectionate, are noted in the lede. Walrasiad (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is perfectly common and used in various sources. No need to move it to a nickname that does not sound encyclopedic. What is next? James Francis Edward Stuart to Old Pretender, Elizabeth I to Good Queen Bess, or Mary I to Bloody Mary? Keivan.fTalk 13:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current title is more encyclopedic.98.228.137.44 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, current title is commonly used and more neutral than what is proposed. It would only make sense to move, if the person was not commonly referred to by their actual name. Sahaib (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there are some biographies titled "Bonnie Prince Charlie", most of them refer to him in their text as Charles. "BPC" is a mere nickname. Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Edward_Stuart/Archive_1&oldid=1205820760"