Talk:Jacobitism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts"

Not sure I agree with Hayes here. Rather than continuing to try and express my current understanding of Irish Jacobitism through edits or edit summaries I'll try and state it here.

19th century nationalist history was heavily based on the 'Faith and Fatherland' model; this cast the 17th and 18th century struggles as a matter of national consciousness and Catholicism. Its adoption of Sarsfield as a Catholic, distinctively Irish hero is a case in point. However, in the process (and in the post 1916 development of earlier Nationalist history) the 'Jacobite' content of these struggles was overlooked or excised, partly as a new, fundamentally republican concept of national identity had begun to form in the interim which tended to be mapped onto earlier conflicts.

This was heightened by the fact that (periodic 'agrarian' unrest aside) the 18th century was characterised as 'quiet' until 1798; that's what English language sources claimed anyway.

This has all changed in the past 25 years with the examination of a lot of Irish language sources which demonstrate the vitality of a distinctively Irish 'Jacobite' opposition in the period. In addition to O Ciardha (who is worth reading, not just his reviewers) I would highly recommend Breandán Ó Buachalla, Irish Jacobite Poetry, The Irish Review, No. 12 (1992) for a discussion of the factors involved. Or Morley's article. But one key characteristic of it is stressing the Gaelic descent of the senior Stuart line - specifically their links to the kings of Munster - and emphasising their right to the three (distinct) crowns. This is not really about affection, as such, for a specific dynasty (though arguably little of English Jacobitism was either) but is another form of legitimism.

While not wanting to underemphasise the land issue I would also say that religion was central to Irish Jacobitism; the post 1689 regime was not just sinful, as legitimist Anglicans might have conceived it: it was heretical. This is stated over and again in Irish language texts of the era. However, support for the Stuarts in exile was the framework through which it was expressed - particularly as many of the educated Catholic class would still have been closely involved with the exile community through foreign service. Jdorney I would also be interested to hear your thoughts.

If you want a dissenting perspective on the above, read S J Connolly's critique of Morley and O Ciardha (Eighteenth Century Ireland, vol 18) but even he limits this to the post 1750 era, eg the purported Jacobite sympathies of the Whiteboys, and is in agreement with O Ciardha and Morley that for the first part of the 18th century the "primary allegiance" of "the majority of politically conscious Catholics" was the Stuart claim.

Svejk74 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

First, its a good discussion to have and illustrates the problem. Even we can't agree centuries later what on earth Jacobitism meant, so no wonder George Murray was confused :)

I have read O Ciardha, his reviews and his response to those reviews. In this article, 'Jacobite' means some sort of belief in restoring the Stuarts; he uses 'Jacobite poets' as a catch-all for those who viewed Ireland as an ancient and independent kingdom in its own right. They're not the same thing, not least because the Stuarts didn't believe in it; how can it be Jacobite if the Stuarts didn't agree with it?

I made religion more central in the next edit - it became associated with Jacobitism because the exiled Stuarts were allowed to continue nominating bishops. Their power derived from patronage - that's not ideology, that's wanting a job/money.

In any case, its much more complex than simply practicing the rites - Flanagam's article on Occasional Conformity makes it clear this wasn't a problem for the vast majority.

De Valera recast Irish history as devotion to the church in Rome; topic for another day but Rinuccini was horrified in the 1640s by how far Irish Catholicism had deviated from the Roman model by rejecting many of the ceremonies (foot washing, incense etc). 18th century Popes used the Stuarts to regain control of the Irish church; so what exactly is the link between Catholicism and Jacobitism? Re-instating Papal control? (the main reason Charles wasn't recognised when his father died). Allowing people to hold office? Practising their religion? Its really hard to draw a causal link.

I don't agree with everything Hayes says but I do agree with the point its Difficult to identify what was distinctly 'Jacobite' in Irish support for the Stuarts. That's not the same thing as saying they preferred the Catholic Stuarts to Protestant Hanoverians; its like choosing between Boris Johnson and my old mate Jezza, God help us.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a central point, though: Jacobitism was a wide variety of things to different people, including elements the Stuarts themselves disagreed with until they later got desperate for support, but all of which are connected by being symptomatic of the Early Modern 'crisis' (or revolution, or whatever you wish to call it) that gave birth to the present (still...just) British state.

The link between Jacobitism and Catholicism seems clear to me in that we are still dealing with a time when the state and exercise of power had a strongly confessional

dimension. If James Jr, or Charles, came back then Catholic gentry would be able to hold lucrative official appointments, raise regiments (also lucrative, as many Catholic landowners found out in 1688-9 under Tyrconnell) and hold land freely: no chance of that with a particilarly bloody minded garrison in the form of the Anglo landowning class running the Parliament.

The interesting thing about Ireland, as I read in an academuc text I have unfortunately mislaid, though Connolly says some similar things, is that the proletarian class (unlike in England or Scotland) actually retained some loyalty to their dispossessed pre 1651 and 1691 landlords. I can only imagine there was a religious element to this too, perhaps in its own way a sort of analogy to the Episcopalian influence in Scotland.Svejk74 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Leslie and other Non-Jurors were Irish Jacobites who supported union of the Three Kingdoms (Doyle deals with this by categorising them as 'English'); that's my objection to categorising Gaelic poets as 'Jacobite', because they use the Stuarts for entirely different purposes.

No argument Catholics could hold office under a Stuart regime but is that a factor of religion ie if you took away the penal laws, would they still be Jacobite? Such offices were restricted to a relatively small number; if you're Catholic, left alone to practice your religion (as numerous articles confirm)), and not from the class that would get to hold office, would you be Jacobite simply because you didn't like being ruled by the English?

That's why I'm not (just) being bloody minded about the Land League but because land reform was the only distinctive and unique part of Irish Jacobitism and persisted long after the Stuarts. Before 1691, there was a residual belief that if my old landlord gets his land back, I may be allowed to reinstate my landholding. That disappeared after 1691; land reform didn't.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem here, I believe is that you are attempting to bring your own interpretation to bear on the article here, which supposed only to lay out the basic, essential facts on the topic. Regarding specific issues that I believe need to be addressed;

1. Irish Jacobitism was descendant of Irish Catholic support for the Stuarts in the mid century civil wars, as was noted and a source given. This has been deleted. Specific Catholic land greivances were down to the Cromwellian confiscations. This has also been deleted. Catholics were removed from the army and from public positions in the Cromwelliam era,but were restored by James. This again has been deleted. But these issues were in fact the principle motivating factors behind Jacobitism in Ireland. There are no ifs and buts here. Religion was the central axis of conflcit in 17th century Ireland and Irish Jacobitism was, with a very few exceptions, which should be noted, about Catholics rights, landownership and political power.

2. There is the claim that 'it is difficult to see what what Jacobite about them'. Apart from being argumentative beyond the scope of a wikipedia article, I find it difficult to understand this claim. Jacobitism was support for the Stuart dynasty and their restoration. This cause was explicitly supported by many people in Ireland in the 17th and 18th centuries. Hence it was Jacobite. Did it represent other interests and causes? Yes, but that does not mean it did not involve explicit support for a Stuart restoration.

3. I have to repeat: land league has nothing, but nothing, to do with Jacobitism. It should not be discussed in the article. Jacobitism was never about supporting tenants' rights. Eamon O Ciardha makes no such claim in his book. The parliament of 1689 voted to repeal the Cromwellian Act of settlement and restore land to those Catholic landowners dispossessed in the 1650s. O Ciardha says in his book that Jacobite symbolism was sometimes used by agrarian secret societies in the 18th century, but this is a very different thing. By the 1880s when the land war came about things were very very different. All anti-Catholic legislation had by that time been repealed and about 40% of landlords against whom the land league agitated were Catholic. To draw a link between the two is deeply misleading.

4. As User:Svejk74 notes, religion was absolutely central to Irish Jacobitism. There is, again, no way around this. Even the land ownership issue was down to religious affiliation in the end.

The point above about Eamon de Valera is also very flawed. The Irish Catholic counter reformation narrative was constructed in the 17th century. 19th century nationalists adopted and co-opted the Jacobite cause into their narrative. De Valera certainly did not support a narrative of Irish history as 'devotion to Rome'. There is absolutely no basis to that claim.

I hope we can resolve this on the talk page.

Best Jdorney (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• I’m a little puzzled by this thread. It seems to be based around what individual editors believe to be the stronger arguments based on historical facts. But that’s not how WP works. Per WP:DUE this discussion should be about the literature and where the preponderance of WP:RS is on this topic. What individual editors consider to be the stronger point of view isn’t relevant. DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Which is why I tried to rewrite the Irish section to simply lay out the basic history of Jacobitism in Ireland as seen in this version. (I believe the English and Scottish sections should do likewise, but I lack the knowledge to contribute there). Unfortunately, in my view, this version has been changed back to what I consider a rather opinionated and eccentric interpretation of what Jacobitism in Ireland amounted to. I would welcome your views on this. Jdorney (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m guessing you’re right, but I’m not familiar enough with the literature to say that you are right. I think if those who have that familiarity focus on discussing on what sources support their point of view (rather than the point of view itself) then it hopefully should become clearer to the rest of us where the preponderance lies. DeCausa (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

What I took away from O Ciardha, Morley, Connolly et al. was that Jacobitism in Ireland was fairly consistent until c.1750. It had a strong religious component and a strong legitimist component, both unique to Irish Jacobitism in that it was Catholic and presented the Stuarts as rightful, Gaelic monarchs of an Ireland only loosely connected to their other realms. The fact that some of these elements don't necessarily accord with the personal views of James or his son isn't a big issue for me; we know that they were often prepared to offer concessions through their agents or propagandists in order to cultivate support (Charles even more so).

From working with Robinvp11 on a number of articles (productively I hasten to add!) I know that his view of Jacobitism is centred very much on the divine-right, fundamentally Unionist ideology set down by James I and supported by his successors hence his contention that the Irish Jacobites were not really 'Jacobite'. As I'm sure he knows I disagree to some extent with this (though less as regards Scotland). Secondary sources can be found to support both views. Nevertheless I'm sure that between the three (four?) of us we can come up with a workable version, as we have done in the past? These discussions are helpful in getting consensus.

As far as the history goes there is a 'background' section above; I think the sections on the individual kingdoms are intended to describe who formed the support in each.Svejk74 (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Without meaning to be blunt, User RVP11's own views and interpretations (or any of ours) have no business being in a wikipedia article. It is supposed to lay out the basic facts for the reader. But on top of that, it seems clear to me that stating that Irish Jacobitism was not Jacotism or bringing in the nineteenth century land league are plain incorrect and misleading and should be removed.Jdorney (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Jdorney I have no problem with people being blunt, as long as you're prepared to take it in return. I enjoy discussion and I learn, because I'm prepared to critically examine my own input, not just that of others.

I think the idea there was a unified ideology of Jacobitism anywhere is balls, not just in Ireland; I defy anyone to define it, not least because the Stuarts didn't believe in most of the things people claim were Jacobite. That's based on a whole series of articles and as Sveik can attest, I like research, so its not just 'interpretation'.

I have never insisted that is the only view. For example, I think as in Scotland, claiming Gaelic/Irish poets were Jacobite because some of their writing refers to the Stuarts is a weak argument; again, that's not just me. They sometimes used the Stuarts as symbols of an ancient, independent Ireland (Charles I used the same idea to position the Church of Ireland as the direct descendant of the Apostles and thus undermine the Catholic church - my article on Church of Ireland refers), while simultaneously abusing them. Is that Jacobite? I don't think so but I haven't demanded its removal.

'bringing in the nineteenth century land league are plain incorrect and misleading I've provided references for every single word I've written. That includes 'hard to distinguish what Jacobitism is' - a direct quote from Hayes. The link between Jacobitism and Catholic tenant farmers - O'Ciardha. I'm not asking for anything I haven't done myself.

I've made links in other articles to the survival of Jacobite ideas ie anti-Unionism in Scotland resurfaced in the independence movement, so I've been consistent. It's not clear why the Land League annoys you so much (saying the 1690 Parliament was about ownership, ergo it was always about that is both incorrect and pure sophistry) but I've removed it.

I don't think this is about right or wrong but who's right; that's not an argument I want to spend time on. I've had my input, I'm happy to leave it; I trust Sveik, we've worked well before.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for taking the time to respond. But I think we have a number of problems here. Firstly, you say 'I think the idea there was a unified ideology of Jacobitism anywhere is balls'. You may be right, but this is totally irrelevant to a wikipedia page. This is your opinion and article must be NPOV. Jacobitism, whether it was a coherent ideology or not, meant support for the restoration of the Stuart dynasty. Hence those in England Scotland and Ireland who supported a Stuart restoration were Jacobites, even though they may have had very different reasons for so doing. To start to impose an interpretation beyond that is POV and OR and beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. Regarding the quote from the historian Hayes, I would consider this too to be giving Undue Weight to one viewpoint.

Telling you I think its balls is not the same as demanding the article reflects that view; what I said was I don't agree but I'm not demanding you remove it and I'd like it to work both ways - is that unreasonable?

Hayes is one example, supporting one point, and I've specifically said 'Some historians suggest.' If you are now suggesting we need multiple sources for every point in this article, I'm fine with that - as long as its applied consistently. You first.

The idea currently expressed as fact in the article that those who fought on the Jacobite side in in the war in Ireland had little enthusiasm for James is also deeply debatable. The consensus among historians, as far as I am aware, is that the accession of James II was deeply popular among Irish Catholics as expressed by Gaelic poets and others. Moreover Tyrconnell and the other Jacobites were deeply committed to his restoration in 1689. It was only James' desertion of his army after the Boyne in 1690 that turned this widespread popularity into derision and betrayal. If the point is that Jacobite supporters in Ireland were more concerned with securing their rights as Catholics, recovering landed property and securing the autonomy of the Irish parliament than with James and the divine right of kings, then I can take this point. However the fact is that in the 1680s and 90s and after, these objectives were pursued determinedly through the person of James II and his cause, who it was believed, would enable them to achieve these goals.

The consensus among historians, as far as I am aware, is that the accession of James II was deeply popular among Irish Catholics as expressed by Gaelic poets and others. I count five qualifiers in this sentence plus 'as expressed...' does not tie into the first part of the sentence. Tell me which historians, and I will take a look.

However the fact is that in the 1680s and 90s and after, these objectives were pursued determinedly through the person of James II and his cause, who it was believed, would enable them to achieve these goals. I've never disagreed with any of this; what I've said repeatedly is none of these are distinctively Jacobite.

I must repeat, on the land league thing, Eamon O Ciadhra simply does not say that Jacobitism was about tenant rights. Nor does the review you have cited. All he says is that mostly Catholic tenant farmers sometimes invoked Jacobite rhetoric and symbolism against mostly Protestant landlords in the 18th century. While, certainly there was agrarian agitation in rural Ireland from the 18th century Whiteboys through the Defenders (Ireland) in the 1790s to the Rockites of the 1820s and the Tithe War in the 1830s, to say there is a connection between the land league (founded 1879) and Irish Jacobitism (defunct, c.1750) is very simply wrong. The two things are not connected.

The 1689 land question addressed in the Jacobite parliament in Dublin was nothing like the land question Michael Davitt and Parnell and co addressed from 1879, apart from the fact that they were both about land. I have made this point before but let me repeat: the Catholic Jacobites in the parliament of 1689 were dispossessed landowners who wished to recover their estates, confiscated by Cromwell and given to Protestants. It was not about redividing land, or about giving rights to those who worked the land, but about replacing landowners from own ethno-religious community with those from another. In 1879 the land league wished first of all to prevent evictions of tenant farmers, to settle 'fair rent' by arbitration and ultimately to try to enable tenant farmers to buy the land they rented. The Irish Jacobites of 1689 would have found these demands to be against their interests as landowners. Best, Jdorney (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) Let me start by saying I assume we share an interest in improving this article (which has had a 'Needs improvement' message on it for several years). I've delayed responding, because I wanted to do you the courtesy of reflecting first.

(2) This update is the summation of over two years work, with Sveik and other editors, on numerous articles around this topic; it is not a one off. It's a complex topic and from our limited interaction, it's not clear to me you understand the depth of that complexity; that's not a knock, two years ago neither did I. I have a good record of collaboration - even when I disagree, I try to analyse why, rather than just removing stuff, so I'm happy to listen; but that needs to go both ways. So far, I don't feel that's happened.

(3) This is about the Ideology of Jacobitism, not its history; regurgitating English, Scots or Irish history is not the objective.

(4) The central problem is while there is very clear and distinctive Stuart ideology, that is not the case for Jacobitism. It's very complex and binary black and white does not work.

(5) I think its balls; I've identified that several times as a personal opinion. It stems from doing a lot of work on Scottish Jacobitism, where you have exactly the same thing going on with Gaelic poets - so its not uninformed. BUT I very specifically haven't demanded changes in the content, a point that appears to have escaped you and several other editors.

(6) Specific points; I strongly object to the invocation of Wikipedia single source policy on Hayes; he's one example, supporting one point in a four line paragraph and I've qualified it. The point was queried; fair enough, I provided a reference (finding it took 10 minutes). Now I'm told he's unreliable, and in using him, I'm imposing my personal views. That seems like a 'Heads I win, tails you lose' scenario.

(7) Specific points; The consensus among historians, as far as I am aware, is that the accession of James II was deeply popular among Irish Catholics as expressed by Gaelic poets and others. I count four qualifiers in this sentence, so its hardly a black and white statement. Which is the point I've been making ad nauseam for some time.

(8) Specific points; However the fact is that in the 1680s and 90s and after, these objectives were pursued determinedly through the person of James II and his cause, who it was believed, would enable them to achieve these goals. I've never disagreed with any of this; what I've said repeatedly is none of these are distinctively Jacobite. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.

(9) Specific points; You've gone into a lot of detail about land reform and although I appreciate the effort, I don't know why; I've removed it. Saying land ownership has been an issue in Ireland since the early 1600s is not particularly controversial. That's the only point I made and tbh, 'angels on a pinhead' qualifiers (tenants? Owners? Tenancy rights) doesn't change that.

(10) Specific points; there are three key elements; land reform, political autonomy and religion. Simple question; did these exist prior to Jacobitism? Did they exist after Jacobitism? The answer is Yes and Yes. That's the only point I've ever made.

(11) Yes, I'm irritated. When I read this, it reminded me of an old school master who'd return essays with 'Answer the question' in block capitals on it. You've wasted a lot of energy trying to convince me, when I don't need it. I've removed the bits you objected to, provided references for what I have included and qualified it where needed. What more can I do?

Robinvp11 (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for (Irish) academic opinions I suppose one useful summation of the ideology is given at the start of O Buachalla, Irish Jacobite Poetry (through JSTOR at https://www.jstor.org/stable/29735642), p.40.

This argues that the Irish belief in the legitimacy of the House of Stuart was an "unquestioned orthodoxy". −Connolly (eg in his excellent article here https://www.jstor.org/stable/30070994) disagrees with this and with O Ciardha only in the extent to which it persisted after 1750, i.e. were the Whiteboys crypto-Jacobites or not? Lots of interesting discussion Svejk74 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

To be really honest Rvp11, I think that you are shoehorning your own view of Jacobitism into the article and ignoring the points other editors are making here. We are making some simple factual points about Irish Jacobitism: viz that it was primarily an ideology of Catholic landowners who wanted to recover their estates lost since the Cromwellian plantation and their public and civil rights lost since the early 1600s. This was pursued through the Catholic King James, and the Gaelic poetry and prose (in both English and Irish) is very positive about him until he ran away after the Boyne. Regarding ideology, as Svejk is trying to explain above; Irish Jacobitism, expressed for instance through poetry, such as the aisling of the 18th century, has two features, one, that the Stuarts are the true, Gaelic kings of the Three Kingdoms, and that they, as Catholics will return and remedy Irish Catholic grievances. Whether this was a distinctively Irish cause, or as Sean Connolly argues, a part of the belief in the divine right of the Stuarts, is debated. The discussion of Jacobitism among agrarian rebels is indeed interesting but is a subsidiary part of the story. While there were no further Jacobite uprisings in Ireland after 1691 there were several Jacobite invasion 'scares' among the Irish Protestant establishment up to the 1750s. I'm sorry if you are irritated, but I must say I just don't agree with the edits you are making to this section at all. I think the Irish section, which essentially says that Jacobitism was not important in Ireland, is simply incorrect and that it leaves out the basic features of Jacobitism in Ireland. Regarding Irish Protestants, yes, some became sympathetic towards Catholic rights and more Irish independence in the late 18th century, but only after Irish Jacobitism as a Catholic cause was defunct. I am in not going to engage in an edit war on this article, but perhaps other editors would like to comment? 20:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I pick topics I want to learn more about so when I'm challenged, I do some research - its fun.

I'm irritated, because (a) you don't appear willing to do the same, (b) its hard to figure out what you object to and (c) you don't seem to actually read the content (if you had, you wouldn't have wasted however long you spent telling me about agrarian reform, when I'd already removed it).

I provided a series of very specific questions/observations, because I felt I should recognise the effort involved (however misguided), all of which you've ignored in favour of telling me (yet again) what your view is. How does that help?

Why not take a look at your contribution to this discussion and ask yourself what you could have done differently?That's a rhetorical question; I'm not going to spend more energy on this. This isn't an edit war because you haven't made any suggestions; if you do, make sure you provide sources and be specific. I trust Sveik, so I'll go with his view.Robinvp11 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)