From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Stuart Royal Motto[edit]

After all, the Stuart kings used the motto a Deo rex, a rege lex (the king comes from God, the law comes from the king) in their quarrels with Parliment. --

True enough. I don't see your point though. -- Derek Ross 04:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Derek, The Stuart motto I mentioned showed their disdain for the authority of Parliament. At the end of the so-called Glorious Revolution Parliment passed the Bill of Rights of 1689 which declared that the king was an official chosen by and subject to Parliment. A power Parliment used in 1701 by passing the Act of Settlement. -- Anon
Ahh, now I understand what you mean. Thanks for explaining. If it was clearly worded perhaps you might want to add that to the article. Cheers -- Derek

(The above refactored from my talk page to this more appropriate position -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:21, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC))

Jacobite wars[edit] 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)This may not be so relevant to the acuall subject, but i dont know how to start a new discussion so hear goes. I just want to know what the acuall "jocobite wars" were? but like a defeniton or like a short summary, because i cant fin this any where and i need it for some help with coarsework. Thanks -- Pratyesh86.133.238.164 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, among other things this article discusses the "Jacobite uprisings". I suppose that they are the same thing as the "jocobite wars" although I might be wrong. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


The campaigns mentioned were, of course, rebellions from the POV of the Hanoverian government. However the article has until now avoided using the word "rebellion" to describe the campaigns in order to discuss them from a more neutral point of view. To keep the neutral approach, it is more appropriate to describe the use of the word rebellion for the campaigns rather than using it as a title for two of them. -- Derek Ross | Talk

these articles overlap oddly: the Second Jacobite Rebellion links to Jacobite Rebellions, while the first Jacobite Rebellion links back to Jacobitism! Jacobite Rebellions fits under the category Scottish wars, otherwise there's a lot of overlap - should these articles be amalgamated? - dave souza 22:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think so, Dave. I'd rather have one decent article on Jacobitism. Most of the information in the Rebellions article already appears in this one after all. As I recall, the other article was supposed to be a more detailed look at the campaigns but it ran out of steam fairly quickly. If it had been more detailed, there would have been justification for the separate articles -- but it didn't. And, as must be apparent, I've never liked the POV term "Rebellion" anyway even if that is how they are often described. "Uprising" or "campaign" is more neutral in my view. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:42, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
altogether in agreement - if my dodgy memory serves me well, it was always the "Jacobite rising" which seems more neutral. Will maybe try to merge the articles under Jacobitism when I can get up the energy. - dave souza 22:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go and tried to expand Jacobitism a bit, including setting the political background for those not already aware of the context. This is still very much a work in progress. Any additions welcome, if you feel I've added too much please discuss - dave souza 10:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pretty good. That's an informative background section, you've added. There's some typo's to fix but I like the new content a lot. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:53, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)

Thanks - I was hoping it wasn't too long or off-topic. A bit more added, think just the Irish bit needs extended now - dave souza 21:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

getting quite big now, but hopefully there's advantage in having things in context - dave souza 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Agreed that Jacobitism belongs in "Category:History of Britain", but why not "Category:History of Scotland" and "Category:History of Ireland" as well? To me the categories are a useful way of finding articles, and it seems natural to look for Jacobitism along with other articles about Scotland: given that Ireland, France and Spain were also involved and taking this to an extreme it would appear only under "Category:History of Europe", but this would be unhelpful to most people. - dave souza 22:08, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Items should be categorised at the lowest relevant level. The only problem with putting Jacobitism into "Category:History of Scotland/Ireland" is that it gives the incorrect impression that Jacobitism did not exist in England. However it did. Jacobitism was a British phenomenon. It just happened to be strongest in Ireland and Scotland. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:02, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Mary Queen of Angles[edit]

I'd like to see a reference for this claim that Jacobites thought of Mary Queen of Scots as Queen of England too. It's plausible but some contemporary evidence to prove it would be good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:02, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

The earliest I can find is a page on the Net, reproducing a 19th century magazine article about legitimist monarchists. It refers to a movement of English Jacobites then currently active, who published a journal called 'The Jacobite' and printed labels bearing the head of Queen Maria of Bavaria with the title 'Mary IV'. Jacobites today also count Mary Queen of Scots in the English numeration - see the 'Jacobite Heritage' web page. -- Jess Cully | Talk 09:21, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
Jacobite numbering of Marys wasn't an issue until 1824 when King Victor (Victor Emanuel I of Sardinia) died and was succeeded by his daughter Maria Beatrice. Scottish Jacobites knew her as Mary II (Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, being Mary I of Scotlans). English Jacobites certainly had Mary Tudor as Mary I of England. While there are no contemporary opinion polls on the matter, in 1824 the majority of English Jacobites were profoundly legitimist in their sentiments and certainly many (of that small number) considered that Mary Stuart had been Mary II of England. But it was not unanimous. Noel S McFerran 22:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why do the two Jacobite "Queens" named Mary have two numbers? Until now I've thought that the wife of William II and III was Mary II of both kingdoms, having Mary I Stuart, daughter of King James V, and Mary I Tudor, daughter of King Henry VIII, were the only Queens named Mary in England resp. Scotland before 1689. --VM 19:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's because William of Orange and his wife Mary are regarded as usurpers by the Jacobite supporters, and so find no place in the succession. Instead James II was succeeded by James III (Bonnie Prince Charlie's father). Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn and the future Elizabeth I was born while his first wife Catherine of Aragon was still alive. Hence Elizabeth I is regarded as illegitimate by Jacobites. Mary Queen of Scots was next in line due to being Henry VIII's grand-neice, and so in the Jacobites' opinion, she was the true successor of Mary I.

Good stuff[edit]

Wow. More good stuff, from you, Dave. I learned from reading the new material which you have added to the article. Thanks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:24, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

All this info from Szechi's very informative The Jacobites (smallish paperback, already in References) rushed together as it seems time to stop renewing it and let the library have it back. Some more gems from this book added today, will try to finish on Monday..dave souza 14:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jacobites and Klansmen[edit]

While I'm not denying that there was a Scottish influence in the roots of the Klan and while I also realise that many prominent Jacobites, including Flora Macdonald settled in the Carolinas, the recent addition by User:Borderer making a connection between Jacobitism and KKK seemed a bit hard to credit. For one (big) thing the Jacobites were pro-Catholic and the KKK was anti-Catholic. The paragraph which I removed made a number of parallels between Jacobites and Klansmen but didn't show an actual link. Now if the Klansmen had been looking to replace the US president with a US king that would have been a real link but sadly they seemed to follow the same liberal line on that topic as their fellow US revolutionaries ... Derek Ross | Talk 05:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

So the KKK are anti-leftfoot. Something tells me that they would not like people who are Monarchists, and that is before you even mention those who are ultra-Monarchists. -- (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jacobitism in Ireland[edit]

No mention of the Siege of Limerick and the Treaty of Limerick? zoney talk 18:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the note above that subsection states: "This section focusses on the political context. For military aspects of these campaigns see the Williamite war in Ireland and Jacobite Risings.", and the siege and treaty seemed more like military aspects in terms of Jacobitism, so are covered briefly in the Wm. war article, but feel free to expand either or both articles...dave souza 00:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought the Treaty to be quite a political turning point - for Ireland anyway. The Treaty gave certain guarantees on the treatment of Catholics in Ireland, which were later broken. The Treaty was not solely a military resolution of the siege (that only formed some of the content). zoney talk 11:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ruprecht and "Robert Iv and I"[edit]

The article seems to suggest that Robert is a variant of Ruprecht. It is not. --Wetman 20:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regnal numbers[edit]

The article presently identifies sovereigns using their Scottish regnal numbers before their English regnal numbers (e.g. James VII and II). The Stuart kings always preferred the use of their English regnal numbers (in fact these are the only numbers on their tombstones where they are identified as "of Great Britain"). I suggest reversing the numbers (i.e. James II and VII, etc.) Noel S McFerran 22:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Name origin[edit]

How is it that Jacobitism was "named for James VI/I", who was long gone when the movement began after the deposition of James II? Sfahey 15:00, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, good point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II[edit]

What an amusing and delicious quirk that EIIR might actually be the Jacobite heir. And the reasoning is quite plausible. Thanks for that, anonymous editor! -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:20, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

This gives credibility to George IV's claim to be a Jacobite monarch, if not a highland chieftain! I've tried to incorporate this into the section...dave souza 1 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the line

The argument is weakened by the fact that the Scottish-born James VI and I had been allowed to succeed to the English throne without opposition in 1603

until we correct something. My first thought was that the argument didn't apply because James was a Scot and Scots are British and according to previous paragraphs, being British born was what was required. But then it occurred to me that in fact the previous paragraphs may have meant English born rather than British born. so perhaps it is those that should be changed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I realize that tracing the Jacobite line down the byways of various European royal houses has long been a cottage industry, but it all seems to ignore one simple fact. The death of 'Henry IX' exhausted the senior line descending from James VI and I. The succession would, by all legitimate calulations, surely pass through James' daughter Elizabeth, the Winter Queen,through her daughter Sophia to the House of Hanover. Rcpaterson 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No, the Bavarian royal family have precedence as they descend from Charles I's daughter so are before the descendants of Charles' sister in the legitimate line of succession. Jess Cully 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition to Minette's descendants, the descendants of Elizabeth's sons Charles and Edward would also have had genealogical preference over the descendants of their sister Sophia. In the former case, that means the whole of the House of Orleans and Habsburg-Lorraine and their descendants, and in the latter case various members of the Salm family and the House of Bourbon-Condé. Sophia's descendants were in fact the most junior descendants of James VI and I. john k 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the line of the true successors goes even further back than that all the way to King Edward IV. When he died and his brother King Richard II died, the next in line was their brother George. Since he was dead, his son Edward and his daughter Margaret were the heirs to the throne not Henry VII. Margaret Plantagenet had descendents, so in theory all her descendents would be the real heirs to the British throne. They carry the original British Royal Bloodline. Queen Elizabeth II is only Queen based on lucky circumstances. She and her ancestors starting with George I are really usurpers to the throne. It matters little now, however, there were fifty-two possiblities other than George I and as stated above they came from the lowest junior line. RosePlantagenet 18:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Michel Lafosse[edit]

Should we add something on Michel Lafosse. Because if what he claims (being decended from Bonnie Prince Charlie) is true then he is really the Legitimate Jacobite Claimant.

Yes but it's pretty obvious that what he claims is bullshit, so he really isn't the Legitimate Jacobite Claimant. He's the only person who thinks that he has anything to do with Jacobitism, so I see no need to add him to this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
"The European Council of Princes"? Not even Archduke Otto had heard of such a thing. The Bonnie Prince Charlie had unhealthy ambitions too, but atleast he was not insane.-- (talk) 13:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but we should at least talk about him in the article and discuss his claims --

Well he and his claims are discussed in the article about him so I see no need to repeat that information here. However I don't suppose that it would do any harm to make a link for him in the "See also" section, if you feel strongly that there should be some mention of him in this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Shirts or Skirts?[edit]

The note under the painting says they wore "only their shirts". Should it actually say "only their skirts"? -- Anon User

No. They removed their kilts, which were more like large cloaks or blankets (that's what a plaid is) than skirts, leaving them clad only in long loose shirts. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Republicanism in Germany[edit]

I have my problems with the part in this article about the current pretender to the throne. Franz Prinz von Bayern may style himself Duke of Bavaria, but he is not. Germany and Bavaria are both republics, and the choice of some kind of pseudonym by a private citizen of these republics are not to be presented as facts in an encyclopedia. There are no existant feudal titles in Germany. But somehow this is exactly what this article implies. If one had no knowledge of Germany's constitution (and let's face it, I suppose many people don't), one could very well assume from this article and countless others that Germany is a monarchy. -- Blur4760 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the fact that hereditary titles were made illegal by the Germn Republic in 1919, Franz Herzog von Bayern (in English, Franz Duke of Bavaria) is commonly addressed as "Ihre Königliche Hoheit" (Your Royal Highness) by the German President, the German Chancellor, and the Minister-President of Bavaria. The facts are that in English-language works Franz is most frequently called Duke of Bavaria, just as in German-language works he is most frequently called Herzog von Bayern (the laws of the German Republic notwithstanding).
Wikipedia is not concerned with how things "should" be. Wikipedia is NPOV. It neither supports the present form of government in Germany nor supports an alternative form. It does not say that the laws of the Germany Republic are valid or invalid. Wikipedia is neutral. Noel S McFerran 18:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr McFerran, considering your previous contributions and your website I suppose you are right about the fact that Franz Herzog von Bayern (I am sorry, for the life of me, I am having a hard time finding out his real surname) is called Ihre Königliche Hoheit by the President and the Chancellor.
Yet I would still claim that the present way some members of former royal families of Germany are adressed in Wikipedia gives a false picture. I think it is possible that even the patterns of speech of a majority of people do not neccessarily give a NPOV. Example: If the majority of people refer to Franz Herzog von Bayern as HRH The Duke of Bavaria, it implies to me that he is in fact the Duke of Bavaria, but he is not, and it is my personal view that it would be less misleading to simply refer to him under his legal name. Blur4760 00:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
One quick afterthought. You yourself refer to the person in question as "Franz Herzog von Bayern", and then give an English translation as "Franz Duke of Bavaria". However, "Franz Herzog von Bayern" is a name, and as thus not to be translated. I find that a very important point, because it may be possible that many German writings refer to him as "Herzog von Bayern", simply because that is in fact his name. Would he be duke, he would be Herzog Franz von Bayern. Blur4760 00:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A brief search of the Internet will show that I generally refer to Franz Herzog von Bayern as "His Majesty The King", but I do not impose this usage upon others (and certainly not upon Wikipedia).
Blur4760 is absolutely incorrect about German usage. A search of German-language newspapers on Factiva finds ten references to "Franz Herzog von Bayern", but 134 references to "Herzog Franz von Bayern". It's pretty clear that Franz's title is widely used in the German Republic, even if it is contrary to the laws of that same republic. Noel S McFerran 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to claim that one version of his name was more used than the other. I have one question though: You speak of Franz's title. How can that be his title, if Germany is a republic? I believe Herzog Franz von Bayern to be an alias, which he is free to choose but I do not see how it can be his title. Blur4760 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It was you who wrote, "Would he be duke, he would be Herzog Franz von Bayern." It does not really matter if I call it a title, and you call it an alias. The point is, that is the way he is most commonly referred to in German print. Equally in English print, he is most commonly referred to as "Franz, Duke of Bavaria" or "Duke Franz of Bavaria". Noel S McFerran 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
One last think: I wrote that "Franz Herzog von Bayern" is a name, and that is correct. I just don't know if it is the name of the person in question. As far as I know, his legal name could be Franz Prinz von Bayern, Franz Herzog von Bayern or Franz von Wittelsbach. I believe you, Mr McFerran are more competent than I am to clarify that matter, which is of course minor in regards to my issue with the article. Blur4760 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Until 1955 Franz used the surname "Prinz von Bayern". In that year his grandfather Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria died, and Franz began using his new title "Erbprinz von Bayern" (Hereditary Prince of Bavaria) as his surname. In 1996 Franz's father died, and Franz began using his new title "Herzog von Bayern" as his surname.
I don't see your point there. Those are all aliases, not his legal surname. He got a legal surname when he was born and that has never changed throughout his life, becuase changing one's surname under German law is only permissible in exceptional cases. 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that you are absolutely incorrect when you say that he has never changed his surname. Please provide evidence of this. Noel S McFerran 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
In Germany the daughter of a man with the surname "Graf von Quadt" (Count of Quadt) does not have the same surname as her father; instead she has the surname "Gräfin von Quadt" (Countess of Quadt). This may sound peculiar, but it's the way it is. Noel S McFerran 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
That's true. Propably legally wrong, and propably wouldn't be decided like that in the court nowadays, but you are right that that's the way it is under German law. Don't see how that relates to the discussion though, besides showing that legal surnames that imply a title of nobility are treated differently under German law as other surnames. 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Mr McFerran, thank you for your feedback.
The way I see it, there are two options: you can either use the legal name of a person or an alias. I personally don't see how the use of the legal name of a person rather than his alias is less NPOV. I do of course agree that a person may be more widely known under his alias than under his legal name. But in cases such as the present, I find the use of the alias highly misleading, because calling him Duke of Bavaria strongly implies to me that he in fact is Duke of Bavaria. Therefore, I believe it would be preferable to use his real name. People who know him propably know him under his legal name as well as under his alias, because in German the two would be rather close. As concerns native English-speakers: it seems to me that members of former German royal families who are simply famous for that fact and for no doing of their own ( I know Franz Herzog von Bayern has done many honourable things, but that is not what he is famous for. He is "famous" for being the offspring of a deposed king) are mostly known only to experts on the subject anyhow, and not known to too many people besides. So the experts would know Franz Herzog von Bayern (or any other person for that matter) under his legal name or under his alias "Duke of Bavaria", but use of the former has the advantage of not giving the impression that he actually is the Duke of Bavaria, which, I think we can agree on that, he is not. I am German and there is no dispute in my home country as to whether we are a republic or not. So clearly he cannot be the Duke of Bavaria. Of course he may choose to be called that way, but in following him in doing that, Wikipedia implies to the reader that he is, and he simply isn't. That is my entire point. 08:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to log in. User: was me. Blur4760 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Your main concern seems to be that somebody might read the phrase "Duke of Bavaria" and conclude that Germany is not a republic. That's a big leap. One might just as well be concerned that a reference to the musician Prince might lead people to believe he is royalty, and so therefore his legal name (whatever it is) should be used. Noel S McFerran 14:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Mr McFerran, to wrap up our long discussion: Our disagreement lies exactly in what you described in the paragraph above. I believe that calling somebody Duke of Bavaria could imply he is in fact a duke. I also believe that one is rather likely to draw this conclusion if he reads about a somewhat less well-known person called Duke of Bavaria in an article dealing with a royal family. On the other hand, this very conclusion seems rather unlikely to me if somebody reads about a well-known artist called Prince in context dealing with arts. But that is only my humble opinion, and only time will show what the community consensus is. (Regarding your suspicion I am absolutely incorrect regarding the name change. I decided to comment that on your userpage because I admit it is irrelevant to the content of our discussion. Blur4760 20:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because some rebels and usurpers in Germany have destroyed the system of monarchy does not erase the fact that Franz has a legitimist claim to the Duchy of Bavaria, as given to him by God. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gaelic Language[edit]

No attempt was ever made to proscribe the Gaelic language. Rcpaterson 00:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie or Bloody?[edit]

I think both of these titles were invented long after the death of Dundee. As far as I am aware it was Sir Walter Scott who first discribed him as 'Bonnie Dundee.' Rcpaterson 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating point. I've changed the headings to Dundee's rising which is a term used by Michael Lynch: please comment if you've a better term for this rebellion which Britannica's article "Jacobite" doesn't even mention, though it lists "five attempts at restoration of the exiled Stuarts" including the abortive French and Spanish boat trips. This link suggests that the nickname was used in another "poem, described as contemporary, but unattributed". However a march tune appearing c. 1615‑1620 as "Adew Dundee" shares the title, from a ballad called "Jockey's Escape from Dundee," which ends, "Adieu to bonny Dundee."[1], and Scott himself didn't use the nickname in Old Mortality of 1815, though he put the song or poem in a play of 1830. Now to add this and other info to Bonnie Dundee! ..dave souza, talk 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacobitism today?[edit]

The article implies that Jacobitism exists to some extent today. I assume that it is quite a small extent, but I would be interested in knowing exactly what the provenance of Jacobitism is in the present. Acsenray 21:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended that the article should imply that Jacobitism exists to some extent today. It certainly doesn't exist as a political movement. It may still exist as a romantic ideal but that's about it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that it would be nice to have a section in the article saying something to this extent, even if it's something as simple as there are people who claim to be Jacobites today, but it is not a political movement, but rather etc etc. Acsenray 14:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
As a loyal subject of His Britannic Majesty King Francis II, I take some exception to Mr Ross's use of the term "romantic ideal" (not that it was intended provocatively, I am sure). I know a number of people who share my convictions. We honestly believe in Jacobitism as a political movement, but as loyal subjects of the king, we accept the fact that he does not wish us to rise up in open rebellion.
Having said that, it is also true that there are a much larger number of mere "romantic Jacobites". Noel S McFerran 19:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow! I feel like I should fetch the Giant Butterfly Net and add you to a collection, <grin>. My apologies for saying that political Jacobitism was dead. I had no idea you still existed! -- Derek Ross | Talk

Noel, you are an expert. Please convince Whig history fans (or the lazy minds) about how Bonnie Prince Charlie did not want to dissolve the Union, that the United Kingdom began with the Stuarts as opposed to the Hanoverians. Tell them how the Whigs rewrote history to blame everything on the Stuarts, whom are credited as ultimate failures with no positive contributions to the foundations of Great Britain in their Stewart and Tudor blood. The Sovereign's will is the Realm, or else it is not a kingdom. The British might as well be living in a republic, at least if the Parliamentarians had their way. Even the Hanoverian heirs recognise that the Stuarts founded the UK. Please debate that here & thanks. Lord Loxley 01:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do! Anne was a relative of the Stuarts (founding the UK 1707), just like the Georges were - that's what the Act of Settlement says.--FlammingoParliament 19:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This must surely be some kind of silly joke! Ah well, any free exchange of information has, I suppose, to embrace all modes and manners of eccentricity. I really hope 'Francis II' changes his mind; I would simply love to see a modern Jacobite rising. No tedious marches from Glenfinnan to Derby: the whole party, I image, could comfortably fit in the back of a taxi, broadswords and all. Rcpaterson 02:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics and History[edit]

Unfortunately some appalling political bias and factual inaccuracy has crept into this piece, especially in the 'Political Background' section, much of which is irrelevant nonsense. Consider this:

Alone among the peoples of the British Isles it was a minority of landowners and a related minority of wealthy merchants and financiers who had the right to be represented in the Parliament of Scotland, Parliament of Ireland, or Parliament of England. The parliamentary representatives of this minority were unashamed in the use of parliament to further the interests of their own class in politics, economics, social questions and religion.

In addition to excluding the rest of the population from public life the representatives of this dominant minority expected the monarch to rule with their particular views. The quasi-oligarchical model of rule of government was the ancestor of the constitutional monarchy of the Ninteenth and Twentieth Centuries.

Not only is this very poor English, but the understanding of parliamentary history is abysmally bad. Was there no difference, then, between the Long Parliament and the Cavalier Parliament? Was the Parliament of England no different in its make-up from the parliaments of Scotland and Ireland? I will expand on this point below, but here are some of the factual errors-and simple silliness-I have removed.

ROYALISTS. 'Royalists' also supported William, Anne and George I. This should not need saying, but it clearly does. Parliaments, moreover, had interfered with royal successions for ages past. The Scottish Parliament of 1309 declared that John Balliol-a legitimate monarch if ever there was-had been 'wrongly' imposed on Scotland. Similarly if the Succession Act of 1544 had been heeded the Stuarts would never have sat on the English throne in the first place. The Jacobites supported James because they believed him to be the legitimate monarch, and thus were prepared to disregard parliamentary restrictions-no more than that.

RELIGION. I do not believe that many Catholics-if any-looked to James, or any other Stuart, to restore their 'preeminence', which would have made him the exact equivalent of Bloody Mary. What they wanted was the end to discriminatory laws and, In Ireland, some revision of previous land settlements. There were Catholics in England, moreover, concerned that James was moving too fast in his use of the royal prerogative.

The Commonwealth may have ended with the Restoration, but England did not stop being Protestant.

The Church of Scotland was Episcopal before 1638 (not Anglican), and this particular form of church government was restored in 1661. Charles was not personally involved in this-and had initially expressed some concern about both the timing and the political advisibility of such a move. The Scottish church settlement was by and large the work of John, Earl of Middleton, Charles' first High Commissioner to the Scottish Parliament. After Middleton was replaced as High Commissioner by John Maitland, Earl of Lauderdale, some attempt was made at accommodation with the more moderate shades of Presbyterian opinion in the two Indulgences I mentioned. The later actions against the Cameronians was not against Presbyterians as such but against dangerous forms of political sedition.

James unilateral attempts at toleration alarmed rather than 'offended' the political and religious establishment in England. Catholicism was by now associated with European despotism; and it is important to remember that there was always a political, as well as a confessional element, in parliament's hostility. These two could, from time to time, be seperated. The English Parlaiment's attacks on Lauderdale's 'absolutism' in the 1670s were just as hot as the attacks on James' Catholicism.

SUCCESSION. William's contacts were with the English political elite, not 'Whigs' specifically.

Whig politicians did not 'succeed' in excluding James Francis on the death of Anne; he was excluded by the Act of Settlement. George I came to the throne under the terms of the same Act, not by 'invitation'.

Oh, yes, on a sheer point of silliness, Dundee may have attended the Edinburgh Convention, but his cavalry certainly did not!

PARLIAMENT. Monarchs in the British Isles have always ruled 'by consensus'; it is when the consensus is absent that the trouble starts. There are too many examples of this to mention here; but one medieval case that springs to mind is the Merciless Parliament during the reign of Richard II. Henry VIII's Reformation-and his own particular brand of royal absolutism-would have been inconceivable without the active co-operation of Parliament. Parliaments of the middle ages and later were exclusive by their very nature, only allowing direct participation by those who had some stake in the landed wealth of the kingdom. During the 1647 Putney Debates in the New Model Army what most alarmed Cromwell, Ireton and the other grandees was the suggestion that men (and it was just men) could be represented at the highest political levels without such a stake. The true point is that parliaments became-in England especially- more and more inclusive over time, as definitions of wealth and public interest changed. It was different in Ireland, of course, where parliament represented the Protestant ascendancy. In Scotland the Covenanter revolution could not have taken place but for the inclusion of the 'middleing sort'-especially the clergy- from the early 1640s onwards. Parliament was indeed used to further particular sectional interests; but these sectional interests could-on occasion- embrace the general good. Extra-parliamentary taxation-like Ship Money-was just as resented by those who had no political representation.

Finally, I question the 'absolutist' agenda of Charles II. He may have wished to have ruled in the fashion of Louis XIV, but most of his reign was spent in an active dialogue with the Cavalier Parliament, which deserves to be better known as truly the longest assembly of its kind in English history. Rcpaterson 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, some (but by no means all) of the nonsense was mine. I'd already looked over your edits and found nothing to take issue with, but here's my comment on a couple of points:
ROYALISTS - this was my clumsy attempt to concisely get over the point that it wasn't just Catholic highlanders, but that those who took Royal rights to have precedence over parliament were also in support of Jacobitism. Waverley's family in Scott's novel being an example. Your wording conveys the point much better.
The silliness about Dundee's cavalry comes from Prebble, who describes the Convention of the Estates in March being "helped to a proper choice" by 3 Regiments of Mackay's and a band of highlanders brought by the new Earl of Argyll. "The only armed opposition to this show of democratic force was a troop of fifty horsemen gathered by Graham of Claverhouse". I'd be interested to know if I've used the wrong wording, or if Prebble is incorrect. ..dave souza, talk 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

They were in Edinburgh, alright; it's just that the previous version read as if they actually sat in on the Convention! Rcpaterson 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, I've amended it to suit: hope it's right that he actually sat in on it. ..dave souza, talk 08:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

About the RfC[edit]

I've walzed over here from the RfC page, but do not see much of a debate. Do you all want a fresh pair of eyes on what seems to be a complaint of OR and/or NPOV? --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually realise that this article was the subject of an RfC until you mentioned it. But since you're here by all means check it over. The sentences mentioned in the RfC certainly display a rather pro-Jacobite agenda. This is probably the result of recent interest in the article by pro-Jacobite contributors. As far as I can tell the main contributors to the article, including myself, are staunch Hanoverians who would be most unlikely to say such things. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I found only one mild potential problem and commented it out. If someone wants to put it back, that's fine. I'm just being very picky. --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning the RfC and commenting out the point you found. I've left a note for User talk:Bhuck who raised the RfC pointing out that the problematic sentence was added by an anon in March of this year, and not noticed and sorted until 9 / 10 July. I've now commented out the sentences concerned, which related to developments during Jacobitism rather than background, and have added useful detail from them to the Hanoverians section which already covered the matter. I also found that someone had distorted the point I'd added a while ago about the proportion of Jacobite lowlanders and their use of tartan etc. as a uniform, sourced from Szechi and Pittock, so have restored that paragraph. Guess that's the danger of corruption creeping in, additional checks always welcome. ..15:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) noticed my sig went astray, this comment was by . . dave souza, talk 12:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

You have done a great job but to be honest it is a bit too detailed. I would suggest some sort of introduction that is simpler and shorter with less details. --Filll 00:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Burns and Jacobitism?[edit]

To what extent was Robert Burns actually associated with Jacobitism? Of course, Burns reworked a large amount of material from traditional sources. But I also seem to remember that Burns wrote a song satirizing Jacobitism, Ye Jacobites by Name, which was his own work and as such may have presented his own opinions. The lyric doesn't so much seek to repudiate Jacobitism and professes no allegiance to the Hanoverians, but instead points to Jacobitism as a foolish and dangerous sort of agitation. It is marked by a sense of political realism:

What is right and what is wrang
By the law, by the law,
What is right and what is wrang
By the law?
What is right and what is wrang?
A short sword and a lang,
A weak hand and a strang
For tae draw.

- Smerdis of Tlön 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Burns was personally associated with Jacobitism at all. He collected Jacobite material but that was about it. Remember that Burns thought of himself as a champion of Liberty. Jacobites on the other hand were supporters of Absolute Monarchy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Burns wasn't, & none of his contemps could be, Jacobites in the same sense as those who rebelled a generation & more earlier, because the Stuarts themselves had given up on trying to re-establish themselves by that point. It seems to me that he was a Scot from a post-Jacobite era who put on different historical & political bonnets while writing different poems & songs. No Jacobite would ever have celebrated 'Our Covenant True Blues', as Burns did in his 'Battle o' Sheramuir'; his 'Dumfries Volunteers' supports the Union & Britishness, but 'Parcel o' Rogues' regrets the Union. (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP is confusing Jacobitism with Jacobinism? He is known to have leanings towards the radical movement at the time and some of his poems (A mans a man for example) show influences of this movement. Flashleg8 (talk) 11:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not catch who is called OP, but Flashleg8 is right to mention there is a difference between Jacobites and Jacobines. One is an ultra Monarchist, the other are so ultra Leftwing. For mentioning Mr Burns, the Jacobines could make him look like a Tory.-- (talk) 12:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Jacobite Catholic line of English monarchy?[edit]

With the actions of Henry VIII, which Catholic "usurper" declared the Throne vacant or their own? Was Mary his daughter (who had not yet wed Philip II of Spain) considered the rightful monarch at the time, or Henry FitzRoy both instead of Edward VI, Jane and Elizabeth? After that, it passed to Mary Stuart and Lord Darnley. What about when Kings James I and Charles I came to the throne, since they were both Protestant? The line would obviously pick up again with Charles II and James II, which is where this article focuses on. Les Invisibles 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well the article is about Jacobitism, not about Catholic monarchs of earlier times. Jacobitism was named after James II and didn't exist before his replacement by William, so the points that you raise are off-topic for this article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was James I who was the Jacobite era. There is a Simpsons episode where Homer is evicted with the Mayflower, because he questioned how he could live in the Jacobite era, even if the King was called James.-- (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you don't have it within you to simnply answer my question, which was the point of this section of the talk page? Les Invisibles 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No of course I don't. My limited expertise lies in the area of Jacobite history and your questions concern events from before the Jacobite era which I don't feel qualified to comment on. This talk page is actually for discussing changes to the Jacobitism article, not for discussing Jacobitism in general, nor for answering questions on related topics. A better place to get answers to your questions might be the Wikipedia:Reference desk which, unlike this talk page, is intended to help people with general questions. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the stiff, undemonstrative responses. Les Invisibles 01:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Jacobite claimants to the thrones of France[edit]

this is the highest pitch of arrogance isn'it? Paris By Night 03:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Stuarts were not known for a lack of arrogance. Mary Queen of Scots was married to the Dauphin with the intent that they and their heirs would become monarchs of France, Scotland, and England and Wales as well as Ireland for that matter. .. dave souza, talk 08:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The claims to the French throne date back to the Middle Ages. The Hanoverian kings also made the same claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It will belong to any descendant of King Louis the XV. Ok, it will not happen within my lifetime.-- (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary deposition of the Hanoverians?[edit]

Check this out and tell me what you think: Talk:Ernest_Augustus_I_of_Hanover#King_instead_of_Victoria 00:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Entertaining speculation; for it to appear in the article a reliable source making the argument is required, and original research drawing on facts to synthesise the argument cannot be accepted. .. dave souza, talk 07:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I could have used the reference desk, but did not expect any rude responses. Thanks, "pal". 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that if you want rude responses, you'll have to look elsewhere. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Making negative inferences about one's questions, to imply a supposed behaviour that is obviously against the rules, is mean-spirited and patronising. So, you are on the apathetic brigade too? Don't bother piping in, without WP:AGF. 02:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Na, not apathetic enough to join that mob. Now, the Mean-Spirited Brigade: that's the one for me, rushing from outbreak to outbreak, hoses at the ready, dowsing the flames of ill-humour! And you get to wear an outstanding hat!! Excellent!!! -- Derek "Captain Shaw" Ross | Talk
Troll. 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hanoverians, Jacobites and scholarship[edit]

It would be helpful if the participants in the recent reverting could give more specific references to what justifies their claims. For example, an actual quote from Georgian Monarchy could be offered here on the Talk page. If (talk · contribs) has the book available he might tell us what the ultimate sources were that were used by Smith to determine that the Hanoverians were popular. Since this is a contested issue, some of the underlying sources might even be worth quoting here in the article. Maybe some sources on both sides, for completeness. The question of the name we should use for the Young Pretender might be submitted to an WP:RFC if no easy solution can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the matter is simply this: an anonymous user has changed long-standing consensus in a number of Jacobite-related articles without providing specific references to justify said changes. That his changes seem to have a Hanoverian-leaning POV only makes matters worse. Putting the title of one book in the bibliography, and saying that references exist in one article to justify changes to another article will not do. All I ask is that some clear justification be given for these sweeping changes. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The ultimate sources for Smith's conclusion that the Hanoverians were popular are literally hundreds of diaries, broadsheets, sermons, poems, ballads, works of art &c - the bibliography of primary sources alone runs to 19 pages. To pick just one example, there's an anonymous 'Congratulatory Poem upon the Coronation of His Majesty King George' that was published in Edinburgh in 1714, that's listed on Smith p255.

I've given an explanation of my approach re terminology on another talk page, but I'll paste it in here: "My editing has not thoroughly 'Hanoverianised' the article - e.g. I've left 'Rising' as the main title and in its place in the opening sentence. I'm not sure how anyone can have formed the impression that 'rising/prince' is more common usage than 'rebellion/pretender' - I've just googled both "Jacobite Rising" & "Jacobite Rebellion" & got 40,400 & 68,700 returns respectively. In my own experience, frequency of use of 'rising/prince' tends to be inversely proportional to the academic merit of the book in question & I note that the bibliography contains no Whig polemics, but at least one piece of shameless Jacobite propaganda (Pittock). What historians who strive to achieve NPOV tend to do is to use a mixture of Jacobite & Whig phraseology, since there are very few neutral options. That's what I've done, e.g. by changing the thoroughly Jacobite "the following clans "came out" to join the Prince" to the mixed "the following clans "came out" to join the Pretender" rather than replacing it with the thoroughly Hanoverian "the following clans rebelled to join the Pretender". It only looks like I've gone for an uncompromisingly Hanoverian result because the article was so heavily biased towards the Jacobite POV previously, so the changes necessary to achieve a mixture of terminology were all Jacobite>>>Whig. 'Rebellion', 'Pretender' &c are also preferable because they reflect the facts of British constitutional history. An adherent of either party could argue that 'their' dynasty was De Jure royal, according to whether they favoured Acts of Parliament or the Divine Right of Kings when deciding what was lawful, but even a Jacobite would be forced to admit that the Georges were also De Facto Kings & Charles Stuart a De Facto Pretender. It is true that HRH trained his troops with new bayonet tactics, but it is unsubstantiated speculation that these & the choice of battlefield defeated the Highland Charge, which had never before been tested in a head-on attack against prepared troops armed with socket bayonets. The new reference, Smith's 'Georgian Monarchy', is a serious academic work, not the "government viewpoint". It is based on successful doctoral research, so has been subject to the most rigorous scrutiny known to the modern academic system, unlike any of the other works cited."

The so-called consensus re using Jacobite terminology was arrived at by inertia rather than discussion. I don't need to ask for "clear justification" of RepublicanJacobite's vandalism because I know childish sour grapes when I see them. It would be constructive of himn to stop screaming 'POV' every time he encounters a verifiable historical or historiographical fact that undermines his self-proclaimed bias & to stop removing references that I add in support of my edits at the same time as accusing me of providing "not a single reference". (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the quality of the evidence you have offered above, but your point would be even stronger if you would cross out your ad-hominem commentary on RepublicanJacobite, who is a valued contributor, just as you are. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:V, where an editor who adds a claim to an article must be ready to provide evidence for it, I'm requesting evidence for the 'Scottish blue bonnet' and the 'Jacobite white cockade.'

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question

EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous 'Jacobite blue bonnet' caption was just written carelessly & that my edit is unlikely to be disputed. The white cockade is very well known as a Jacobite symbol & this is noted in whe Wiki article Cockade. The Blue Bonnet was worn by Scottish 'national' armies before Jacobitism existed as a phenomenon. E.g. the invasion of England in 1638 gave rise to the song 'All the Blue Bonnets are over the Border' (verifiable by, e.g.; Ian Devlin, 'Kirkcudbright - A Town At War', Orders of the day, Volume 32, Issue 2, 2000. (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Divine Right of Kings[edit]

Perhaps a mention of the concepts behind the ideals of a legitimate monarch? a reference to the Divine Right of Kings would perhaps clarify the Jacobite philosophy. would it not make clear the different thinking (at the time) between how the protestants and catholics differed in their view of the role of the King? This could in turn clarify the political struggle (which religion played an excuse for power) and make clear why parliament(s) was more keen for a Hanoverian monarch, i.e a power struggle which ultimately meant more power for parliament. Czar Brodie (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think this was a protestant – catholic issue at that time, from memory it was more non-juror episcopalians along with catholics (possibly for different reasons) vs. calvinists, puritans and low church. Expert advice would be welcome. . dave souza, talk 15:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There were surely protestant absolute monarchs at the time, for instance in Denmark-Norway, and I suppose in Germany too. So it wasn't a catholic thing. (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


This article is quite obviously written from a certain political viewpoint. Sadly as an historical article it is too bias and inaccurate to be of any use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Legitimists are not Jacobites[edit]

The only living descendants (in the paternal line) of James II are the House of FitzJames and if their current head doesn't get a move on and have some children, James' descendants will become extinct entirely in the next generation. Franz, Duke of Bavaria is not from the House of Stuart, nor is he a descendant of James II: thus logically anybody who claims to be his follow is not a Jacobite, but simply a legitimist. The article should get this point across. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The adherents of Franz, Duke of Bavaria ARE called Jacobites; that is a fact. Whether they ought to be or not is a different matter. Many words are used in a way which doesn't make sense etymologically. The word "Jacobite" does not necessarily mean "adherent of the descendants of James II". It can just as easily mean "adherent of the senior co-heir general of James II". Noel S McFerran (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
agree with Noel S McFerran; I think Jacobitism refers to a cause, a belief and a movement which seems to follow a kingly line rather than a paternal line of Stuarts. The line follows the usual English/Scottish crown succession of Primogeniture, rather than the more continental Salic law in my view. The term seems to be an indication of the founder, but the successors to the leader of this cause need not be called James in my view (even though this may cause confusion to an outsider) or be male or of male descent. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
on a sub note there are several direct male descendants of the Stuarts kings. The House of FitzJames is by no means the only male descendant. Another line to Stuart kings is the Duke of Buccleuch, direct male descendant from the eldest son of Charles II. However, all Stuart male lines are descended from natural sons and thereby are bared from becoming king (or becoming the figurehead of the Jacobite cause). Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobbin' John[edit]

I can't find a reference right now but i believe its just Bobbin John not Bobbin' John (as in the sewing type) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really a question of references. This is merely a spelling difference and you will be able to find references for both spellings. Bobbin John is a Scots nickname. The equivalent English nickname would be Bobbing John. The standard method of spelling Scots words whose English equivalents ended with -ing used to be -in' but more recently there has been a movement to discontinue the apostrophes. So Bobbin' John and Bobbin John are just alternative methods of spelling the same word. Bobbin' John is the one that would have been used during the eighteenth century. But it doesn't matter much which Wikipedia uses. The word, "bobbin", (as in "sewing bobbin") is a different word which happens to be spelled the same way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Heirs of Charles I, not James II[edit]

In the opening sentence, "to restore the Stuart King James II of England and his heirs to the thrones of England ...", I wonder if an alternate phrasing would be better. "Heirs of" sometimes implies "descendants" but James II's descendant heirs went extinct and the Jacobite claim is to the heirs of Charles I, through James II's sister, Henrietta Anne. (Perhaps the distinction is pointless, since claims after Henry IX are synthetic and unrelated to the real Jacobite movements.) Septimus.stevens (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


The article provides only a pronunciation (/dʒeɪˈkɒbaɪtɪsm/) with an unusual stress — on the second syllable, "cob" — and, even stranger, an /s/ sound instead of /z/ in the suffix "-ism". I am going to

  • add a pron with initial stress, on "Jac" -- /ˈækəbˌtɪzm/ -- as per the American Heritage Dictionary and at least one other source, with references, and
  • change /ɪsm/ to /ɪzm/ in the present pronunciation.

(I'll do those in a few hours, I must go now.) --Thnidu (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm citing the OED as well as the AHD. I haven't found any source that gives the odd pron that I found here (*/dʒeɪˈkɒbaɪtɪsm/), so I'm deleting it. --Thnidu (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Regnal numbers of pretenders[edit]

Currently the infobox lists the Old Pretender as "James III and VIII of England". I removed "of England" since he certainly wasn't James VIII of England. Besides that, the Young Pretender is listed as "Charles III" and his successor Henry Benedict Stuart as "Henry IX". Considering that they were neither crowned nor generally recognized as kings, and especially that we will probably see a generally recognized Charles III of the United Kingdom in my lifetime, I don't think such regnal numbers are appropriate in a neutral (i.e. not pushing a Jacobite agenda) article on the topic of Jacobitism; they should be listed with their ordinary names instead. The only exception in this infobox is James II and VII, who was not merely a pretender - everyone acknowledges he really was King of England and Scotland. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

"Renaissance Latin"?[edit]

"Jacobus, the Renaissance Latin form of Iacomus, the original Latin form of James" Where is this from? "The name James came into the English language from the Old French variation James of the late Latin name Iacomus. This was a Vulgar/Later Latin (proto-Romance) variant of the earlier Latin form Iacobus, from the New Testament Greek Ἰάκωβος (Iákōbos), from Hebrew יעקב (Yaʻaqov) (Jacob)." from James (name). I suspect this is simply backwards: "Jacobus, the classical Latin form from which the English name "James" descended."--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacobitism. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote: Not to be confused with (...) Jacobite[edit]

The article has a hatnote: Not to be confused with (...) Jacobite, where Jacobite points to a disambiguation page in which many items relate to Jacobitism. I understand that pointing hatnotes to a disambiguation pages is not ordinarily considered good practice, but it might make sense here to help readers find the other kinds of Jacobites. Is there a less confusing way of doing so, please? --Frans Fowler (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)