View previous topic | View next topic

Culloden

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Flash
69548.  Fri May 12, 2006 9:31 am Reply with quote

If you tried to make a film about the '45 which was accurate on this point, you wouldn't get to first base, would you? You wouldn't sell a single ticket.

Let's do it.

 
MatC
69572.  Fri May 12, 2006 11:02 am Reply with quote

Even better, let’s make an entire 30-part TV series, called “Great Moments in History,” cunningly pre-sell it to the US, and then fill it entirely with debunkings of cherished Hollywood-approved myths, most particularly those involving Ireland, Scotland, and WW2. It would be the first example in world history when an entire nation dies overnight of a sense of baffled betrayal.

 
gerontius grumpus
153620.  Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:43 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
If you tried to make a film about the '45 which was accurate on this point, you wouldn't get to first base, would you? You wouldn't sell a single ticket.

Let's do it.


Mel Gibson wouldn't have anything to do with it anyway.

 
sheenareid
252239.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:55 am Reply with quote

I would like to point out that Charles Edward Stuart was Roman Catholic.
The only reason that George I was chosen to sit on the throne was because he was Protestant. Charles was the rightful King.

 
dr.bob
252265.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:02 am Reply with quote

Depends what you mean by "rightful", really. There hasn't exactly been a good history of monarchy descending through strict familial lines in the past, and there have been a few dodgy claimants to the throne long before Charlie or George came on the scene *cough*Henry VII!*cough*

Also, as a result of the so-called "Glorious" revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights, and the Scottish Claim of Right Act, laid down some important rules which would form the basis of Britain's parliamentary democracy. Whilst some of the blatantly anti-Catholic tenets of the Bill of Rights are regretful, one of the core ideas of the Bill of Rights was that the monarch would no longer be able to wield absolute power which, I can't help thinking, was a bloody good idea.

It also established the right of parliament to appoint whoever they damn well liked as monarch. Given that precedence in law, it's hard to argue about "rightful" monarchs and, to be honest, I'm quite glad about that.

 
sheenareid
252277.  Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:35 am Reply with quote

Dear Dr Bob,
yes I'm inclined to agree with all you say.
The Stuarts were also inclined to get carried away with their position, goaded I think by Louis (whichever at the time) in France.

 
dr.bob
253511.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:53 am Reply with quote

While we're on the subject of "rightful" succession, does anyone know when the Scottish kings started inheriting the throne from their fathers? I was under the impression that early on, around the time of MacBeth, the throne tended to be passed to the next senior person within the clan, who may or may not have been related to the previous king. I wonder when that changed.

 
Flash
253548.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:21 am Reply with quote

I'll let someone else answer that (ie, I have no idea), and I hope they do because I think this is an interesting area of General Ignorance: we're all conditioned to assume that primogeniture is the natural order of things (fairy tales in general, The Return of the King, The Lion King, and our present constitutional arrangements being among the sources that tell us so). This assumption seems quite pervasive across cultures even when they are ostensibly republican and anti-aristocratic - how else do you explain Napoleon III, Bilawal Bhutto and George Bush jr, amongst others? There seems to be an underlying tendency for democracies to resolve themselves into dynasties (to a greater extent than can be explained by chance, anyway). So is that human nature?

 
Davini994
253714.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:25 am Reply with quote

I would say socialogical reasons Flash, without any evidence.

i.e. money, class, expectations of parents and general population, knowledge and culture passed on, all that sort of business.

The Gandhi dynasty always seems a funny one to me, with them being the family of Nehru not Gandhi.

 
Flash
253750.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:43 am Reply with quote

Yes, an expectation that the apple doesn't fall very far from the tree, I guess.

 
dr.bob
253833.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:02 am Reply with quote

Which, while it might prove useful to someone like George W Bush, might be a tad unfair to someone like Rolf Mengele.

 
sheenareid
253860.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:37 am Reply with quote

I believe that the Pictish Kings had a matrilinear succession.
I suppose that meant any family member from that side.
One could always prove who the mother was!

 
Davini994
253866.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:42 am Reply with quote

sheenareid wrote:
One could always prove who the mother was!

Mother's intuition?

 
96aelw
253867.  Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:42 am Reply with quote

Annoyingly, I took the book about Picts I was reading recently back to the library even more recently, and I therefore cannot readily consult it. However, I think I'm right in saying that it asserted that the idea of Pictish matrilineal succession was most probably a myth. It is a myth, if myth it be, with considerable antiquity; it was something that was said about them by the Romans. The bit I can't remember is why it's likely to be untrue. However, I'll be back near the library tomorrow, so I shall try to remember to pop in and check this one out further.

 
96aelw
254421.  Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:30 am Reply with quote

I would like to take ths opportunity to apologise unreservedly to any Romans who may have passed by this corner of the interweb. The source for matrilineal succession among Picts was not them, but our old friend the Venomous Bede.

However, having consulted a relevant book*, it seems I was right to be sceptical. Hurrah. Bede refers to a particular instance when matrilineal succession occurred, but does not say that it was ever standard practise. Further, Pictish kings are referred to in king lists in patronymic form, i.e. "King, son of Bloke's Name, Next King, son of Different Bloke's Name" etc.. The king lists, what with no Pictish documents surviving, are Irish rather than Pictish in and of themselves, but if it was matrilineal descent that mattered, one would imagine that the list's compilers would have had better information about maternity than paternity, and that this, combined with maternity's greater importance in such a set up, would have led them to use matronymics, which they didn't. Even further, the absence of any other comments about what would have been a distinctly unusual practise is also suggestive, even with the usual caveats about arguments ex silentio.

The idea seems to belong with the idea that the Pictish language was non Indo European as one that was born of the notion that the Picts were a bizarre, peculiar, enigmatic people quite unlike any other in British history, which has always been a popular one.

*Picts, Scots and Gaels, Sally Foster.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group