Actually Charles Edward Stuart had a fairly strong claim to the throne. And came very close to succeeding. He actually had the residents of London in a panic because he was just days away, but took bad advice and turned back. A decision that ultimately led to Culloden.
nuh-uh ... Chuck got
good
advice but
he
chose to ignore that advice. He was a pompous, incompetent, selfish wanker who thought he knew better than the clan chieftans who answered the call. He may have had a good claim on the throne but he knew nothing about Scotland and had never even set foot on Scottish soil until he arrived to claim his "crown." If he'd listened to his generals, Culloden never would've happened and the history of Scotland, England and the rest of the world, would be radically different.
And Culloden was not Scotland against England. It was more Highland/Catholic versus Lowland/Presbyterian sensibilities than anything else. There were many Scots fighting on the side of Cumberland.
I agree to a certain extent, except that I believe the Jacobite uprising
was
about Scotland against England. The Scots who fought on the side of England were following their Lairds, who were more English than Scottish. Religion certainly played an integral part (gee, what a surprise, huh?) but ultimately it was all about one country wanting to maintain their control over another country.
Not that I'm an expert or anything.
Yes, the Gordons fought on both sides, so I have to be all sort of ambivalent about the Jacobite Rebellion.
yeah, shame on you.
*ducking*
Just checked the TV section of my local rag and
Buffy
is listed for 10:30PM next Tuesday, while
Angel
is listed for 10:30PM next Wednesday. Woo and Hoo!
evil jimi: His main advisors were Lord George Murray and John William O'Sullivan. O'Sullivan was an Irishman and a favourite of the Prince, and to be honest a bit crap. Unfortunately it was his advice the Prince took. As for setting foot in Scotland, that's not an issue as to his claim on the throne. He was the grandson of James VII and II. George II's line went through James VI daughter.
And you could also say that about any moment in History. When Mr and Mrs Cromwell got frisky one night, I don't think they thought it would ultimately lead to Charles I getting his head lopped off.
And you can't think of Scotland and England of 1746 in today's terms. The split wasn't Scotland/England it was Highland/Lowland. An old dying way of life compaired to the new expanding one. A lot of the landowners had lands in both countries. Old loyalities and grudges between clans could decide whose side they fought on as much as anything else. But as usual religion was right in there in the mix. That's why the Stuarts lost the throne in the first place.
I've only heard this sung in Maryland accents by a folk song group
Gah! And you were able to listen to this and not wind up sticking forks in your ears?
Note: Even though places such as Dundalk, Glen Burnie, etc. may call to mind a lovely Scots accent, the true Bal'mer accent is pretty amazing, hon.
Caroma,
Actually that song is by Shel Silverstein.(It's called "Son of a Scoundrel"). And you know of Clam Chowder? Yay!
I don't think any of them sing in Bal'mer accents, so no need to wince.
Oh yeah, they don't have thick accents or anything, but they do have that lovely cadence from the Mason-Dixon area. I have two live cassettes from Boskones and a record.
Shel Silverstein was American. Heh. Have any Aussies heard of the song?
Y'know I have access to a couple of CDs with recent Clam Chowder
recordings on them.(Ok, they have songs by other people on them too,
as they are recordings from cons.) Let me know if you're interested...
t /shameless dealer
Just checked the TV section of my local rag and Buffy is listed for 10:30PM next Tuesday
I made these points earlier, but fine, no one listens to me. Allan Lang "Previously 1: The Who Whating How With Huh?" Feb 3, 2003 6:07:05 pm EST
