The Battle of Prestonpans and King Charles III

There was a comment/meme on Facebook when the King of England, etc., after Elizabeth II's death and his immediate succession, announced that he would be known as King Charles III, that there'd already been a King Charles III! 

Of course, the meme was referring to the Young Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of King James II and VII, and the son of the Old Pretender, James Frances Edward Stuart!

On September 21, 1745, Bonnie Prince Charlie, fighting for his father's succession to the throne as King James III and VIII thirty years after the first attempt to invade England and claim the throne ("the Fifteen"), won a great battle at Prestonpans. 

This was last, best chance of the Catholic Stuarts to take the throne of Great Britain by force. The Act of Succession denied them the legal right to rule, so it had to be through conquest. 

The Young Pretender's forces won a stunning victory at the Battle of Prestonpans against a larger, better supplied, and supposedly more disciplined Hanoverian Army, defending King George II's occupation of the throne. This website describes the two armies:

In September 1745, an army of British regulars mustered near the village of Prestonpans on the shores of the Firth of Forth.

The commander of the Redcoats was Sir John Cope. He was supremely confident of victory. Although the two sides were equal in number, Cope had more cavalry and artillery, and his infantry was trained to deliver well-aimed volleys. Facing west, moreover – towards Edinburgh, from which his opponents had marched – there were the walls and dykes of two grand houses providing protection for his men.

Cope’s opponents were the Jacobite army raised in rebellion some weeks before by Prince Charles Edward Stuart, the ‘Young Pretender’; he was the son of James Edward Stuart, the ‘Old Pretender’, who was in turn the son of King James II, ousted in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. Charles’s shock troops were Scottish Highland clansman, most of whom spoke Gaelic, and were regarded as barbarians by most Lowland Scots and the English.

What was to happen at Prestonpans on 21 September 1745, however, was a signal humiliation for the British Army.

It was the charge of the Jacobite army that took the Hanoverian forces by surprise and routed them. The Young Pretender returned to Edinburgh and entered Holyrood House, as depicted in the painting above (Public Domain), by John Pettie, c. 1892. Sir John Cope and fewer than 500 survivors returned to England; Cope and his commanders faced a Court Martial.

King George II recalled his son Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and 12,000 troops from the War of Austrian Succession on the Continent to prepare a new army to prevent any further success of the Jacobites. And at the Battle of Culloden, Cumberland defeated the Young Pretender's army decisively on April 16, 1746. Charles Edward Louis John Sylvester Maria Casimir Stuart fled Scotland, protected by many Jacobite Highlanders, including Flora MacDonald, leaving on September 19 and arriving in France on September 29, 1746.

The Young Pretender never returned to Scotland, although he did travel to London in September, 1750. According to The Jacobite Heritage website, "It is commonly believed that on this occasion he apostasized from the Catholic Church and conformed to the Established Church of England." He thought that would strengthen his claim to the throne. He did return to the Catholic Faith before he died on January 30, 1788 (January 30 was the anniversary of his great-grandfather Charles I's beheading). He and his father and brother (Henry Cardinal Stuart) are buried in St. Peter's Basilica in Vatican City, Rome, in a monument to which the future George IV (the Prince Regent) donated funds to complete!

The Old Pretender Dies

James Francis Edward Stuart--James III to Jacobite supporters--died on January 1, 1766 in Rome at the Palazzo Muti. Popes Clement XI and Innocent XIII had supported his claim to the throne of England, and he could have become King James III, if he had renounced the Catholic faith and become an Anglican. Father Dwight Longenecker explains in a post from the Imaginative Conservative:

The story of King James III is a romantic tale of a man who refused to give up his Catholic faith for the throne of England. . . .

On his death in 1701 James’ II’s oldest son became the rightful claimant of the throne of England. James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales was recognized as King James III by France, Spain and the Papal States, but he was accused of treason at home and known by his enemies as “The King Over the Water” or “The Old Pretender.” In 1708 James attempted an invasion of England through Scotland but was intercepted by the English. The French admiral in charge of James’ fleet retreated. By 1710 James’ other half-sister Anne was on the throne of England. She offered for James to be restored to the throne if he converted to the Protestant faith. He refused.

Three years later Queen Anne was close to death. In 1714 her agents were in secret correspondence with James III. They told him the queen was dying and indicated that if he converted to the Protestant faith the way would be open for him to ascend the throne. He wrote, “I have chosen my own course, therefore it is for others to change their sentiments.” Because of James’ refusal to give up his Catholic faith, the English looked for another monarch. More than fifty members of the royal houses of Europe were a closer blood relation to Queen Anne, but they were barred from the throne by their Catholic religion. Therefore at the Queen’s death, a German prince from the House of Hanover was offered the throne of England and became George I.

Pope Clement XI offered the disappointed King the Palazzo Muti in Rome and James set up his court in exile. His attempts to regain the throne failed and he suffered from melancholy and depression. He became known as “Old Mr. Misfortunate” and grew increasingly frail and despondent.

The Old Pretender's marriage to Maria Clementina Sobieska, grand-daughter of the great victor of Vienna, was unhappy. She accused him of adultery and fled to a convent; it was two years before they reconciled. James III had been raised at St. Germain-en-Laye in France to be a king, receiving the education necessary to prepare him for that role; but he had also been raised as an observant Catholic and would not apostatize. His son, the Young Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie, would attempt a brief foray into Anglicanism, hoping to find support for the throne, but failed too and then repented and returned to the Catholic faith.

 

James III is rather the opposite of Henri IV of France--England was not well worth giving up the Mass! 

After his death, the body lay in state for five days at the Basilica of the Holy Apostles before being interred in the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica. Last year (2016!) marked the 250th anniversary of his death and the British ambassador to the Holy See laid a wreath at James III's tomb in memory of his funeral on January 8, 1766--with the permission of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II:

The commemoration ceremony consisted of a simple wreath-laying and the appropriate Collect (in English) by HM Ambassador Baker, the reading of the Rite of Commendation (in Latin) by HE Angelo Cardinal Comastri, Archpriest of St Peter’s Basilica, and the sung Antiphon In Paradisum Deducant Te Angeli.

[In paradisum deducant te Angeli; in tuo adventu suscipiant te martyres, et perducant te in civitatem sanctam Ierusalem. Chorus angelorum te suscipiat, et cum Lazaro quondam paupere æternam habeas requiem."May the angels lead you into paradise; may the martyrs receive you at your arrival and lead you to the holy city Jerusalem. May choirs of angels receive you and with Lazarus, once (a) poor (man), may you have eternal rest."]

HM Ambassador was accompanied by the Rt Rev Monsignor Charles Burns, Ecclesiastical Advisor at the British Embassy to the Holy See. H.E. Archbishop Paul Gallagher, Holy See Secretary for Relations with States, and H.E. Archbishop Arthur Roche, Secretary Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, attended from the Holy See.

Other participants included Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor, the Polish and Irish Ambassadors to the Holy See, the Rectors of the Pontifical Beda, Scots, Irish and Venerable English Colleges, and ecumenical representatives.

"The Man Who Wouldn't be King"--and Should Have Been

Father Dwight Longenecker writes for the Imaginative Conservative about James III, the true heir to the throne of England, who would  not give up his faith for the throne---even though, as Winston Churchill noted, the Tories would have supported him in 1714 if he became an Anglican and he would have become the King of England, Ireland, and Wales:

In 1660 Charles II was restored to the throne. Under the influence of his Catholic brother and wife, Charles II converted to the Catholic faith on his deathbed. His brother James then became King James II. James II was a Catholic. He assured his Protestant subjects that all he wished to do was to establish religious freedom, but at the birth of a male heir the Protestant powers, fearful that James would establish a Catholic succession, undermined him and installed his Protestant daughter Mary (from his first marriage) and her husband William of Orange on his throne. James fled to France where he established a court in exile.

On his death in 1701 James’ II’s oldest son became the rightful claimant of the throne of England. James Francis Edward Stuart, Prince of Wales was recognized as King James III by France, Spain and the Papal States, but he was accused of treason at home and known by his enemies as “The King Over the Water” or “The Old Pretender.” In 1708 James attempted an invasion of England through Scotland but was intercepted by the English. The French admiral in charge of James’ fleet retreated. By 1710 James’ other half-sister Anne was on the throne of England. She offered for James to be restored to the throne if he converted to the Protestant faith. He refused.

Three years later Queen Anne was close to death. In 1714 her agents were in secret correspondence with James III. They told him the queen was dying and indicated that if he converted to the Protestant faith the way would be open for him to ascend the throne. He wrote, “I have chosen my own course, therefore it is for others to change their sentiments.” Because of James’ refusal to give up his Catholic faith, the English looked for another monarch. More than fifty members of the royal houses of Europe were a closer blood relation to Queen Anne, but they were barred from the throne by their Catholic religion. Therefore at the Queen’s death, a German prince from the House of Hanover was offered the throne of England and became George I.

 Pope Clement XI offered the disappointed King the Palazzo Muti in Rome and James set up his court in exile. His attempts to regain the throne failed and he suffered from melancholy and depression. He became known as “Old Mr. Misfortunate” and grew increasingly frail and despondent.

The Old Pretender's marriage to Maria Clementina Sobieska, grand-daughter of the great victor of Vienna, was unhappy. She accused him of adultery and fled to a convent; it was two years before they reconciled. James III had been raised at St. Germain-en-Laye in France to be a king, receiving the education necessary to prepare him for that role; but he had also been raised as an observant Catholic and would not apostatize. His son, the Young Pretender, Bonnie Prince Charlie, would attempt a brief foray into Anglicanism, hoping to find support for the throne, but failed too and then repented and returned to the Catholic faith.

 

James III is rather the opposite of Henri IV of France--England was not well worth giving up the Mass!

Kings Over the Water and their Supporters' "Material Culture"

Coming soon from Cambridge University Press: The Material Culture of the Jacobites by Neil Guthrie:

The Jacobites, adherents of the exiled King James II of England and VII of Scotland and his descendants, continue to command attention long after the end of realistic Jacobite hopes down to the present. Extraordinarily, the promotion of the Jacobite cause and adherence to it were recorded in a rich and highly miscellaneous store of objects, including medals, portraits, pin-cushions, glassware and dice-boxes. Interdisciplinary and highly illustrated, this book combines legal and art history to survey the extensive material culture associated with Jacobites and Jacobitism. Neil Guthrie considers the attractions and the risks of making, distributing and possessing ‘things of danger’; their imagery and inscriptions; and their place in a variety of contexts in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Finally, he explores the many complex reasons underlying the long-lasting fascination with the Jacobites.

The Cambridge University Press website contains several .pdfs of excerpts from the book, including the Table of Contents:

Introduction
1. 'By things themselves': the danger of Jacobite material culture
2. 'Many emblems of sedition and treason': patterns of Jacobite visual symbolism
3. 'Their disloyal and wicked inscriptions': the uses of texts on Jacobite objects
4. 'Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis': phases and varieties of Jacobite material culture
5. 'Those who are fortunate enough to possess pictures and relics': later uses of Jacobite material culture
Bibliography

The National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia has an exhibition now of one of the most common Jacobite objects: the glassware used to toast the true Kings of England:

So the Stuart supporters, or Jacobites, instituted, amongst other things, the practice of drinking toasts to their King “over the water” in glasses engraved with cryptic symbols which reflected their Stuart loyalties.

The NGV possesses an extensive and important collection of these rare glasses, many of them generous gifts from the Morgan family of Melbourne. Kings over the water will explore the fascinating hidden symbolism of these beautiful objects, created as part of a doomed political adventure whose tragic history continues to cast a romantic spell even today. 

The exhibition site includes an essay on the glassware's manufacture and use, detailing the symbols etched in glass to represent the Stuart claimants:

Jacobite glasses were decorated with engraved cryptic symbols and mottos which, to those who understood their coded messages, spoke of the drinker’s loyalty to the Stuart dynasty. By far the most common symbol was the six-petalled white heraldic rose, an ancient emblem of the Stuarts. The white rose also had connotations of strict legitimacy. Its adoption by James III as his personal badge was particularly appropriate as rumours of his illegitimacy had been circulated by political enemies since his birth.

On its own, the white rose is believed to have stood for the exiled king. A rose bud to the right of the rose represented his heir apparent, Prince Charles Edward Stuart. A second rosebud, to the left of the rose, represented Prince Henry Benedict Stuart, Princes Charles’s younger brother. When there are two rosebuds, that representing Prince Charles is often larger and on the verge of opening.

And the Latin mottoes:

Audentior Ibo (I shall go more boldly). This motto probably derived from the sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid, in which Aeneas consults a mystic who warns him of grim fighting to come, but adds ‘sed contra audentior ito’ (‘but go forth against it with great daring’).

Radiat (It shines).

Redeat (May he return). This motto appears on a medal with a bust of Prince Charles, struck in 1752 for the Oak Society.

Rede (Return!).

Redi. Perhaps an abbreviation of Redii (I have returned).

Reditti (Restore).

Revirescit (It revives).

Fiat (May it come to pass). This is also a Latin equivalent of ‘Amen’.

Turno Tempus Erit (For Turnus there shall be a time). Turnus is a character in Virgil’s Aeneid who struggles against Aeneas for mastery of Italy. Aeneas defeats Turnus in battle and is inclined to spare his life, but notices that Turnus wears the sword of a friend of his whom he has killed. Aeneas slays Turnus in revenge. Turnus may be meant to stand for the Duke of Cumberland, who defeated the Jacobites at Culloden. The glass warns that the Hanoverian victory may be short lived.

Hic Vir Hic Est (This, this is the man). This motto derives from the sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid. After the fall of Troy, Aeneas escapes to Italy where he is permitted to descend into the underworld in order to gain a glimpse of the future. He sees the coming glory of Rome, and the appearance of Augutus Caesar is heralded with the phrase Hic Vir Hic Est.

Queen Anne of Great Britain, RIP

Anne Stuart, youngest daughter of James II and Anne, the Duchess of York, died on August 1, 1714. Her death, without an immediate heir, brought the Stuart Dynasty to an end. The succession of George the Elector of Hanover brought a new dynasty to England. Anne's half-brother, James Francis Edward (James III and VIII) attempted to retake the throne for the (Catholic) Stuarts in 1715, of course.

Mark Kishlansky's A Monarchy Transformed, 1603-1714 is the new history of that dynasty published in the Penguin History of Britain series (replacing Maurice Ashley's England in the Seventeenth Century, 1603-1714, #6 in the old Pelican History of England series). He speaks of Anne rather wittily and perhaps cruelly, as having only two pasttimes, gambling and eating, so that she lost pounds at one table and then gained pounds at another.

The official book description:
The seventeenth century, writes Mark Kishlansky, was 'a wheel of transformation in perpetual motion', a period of political and religious upheaval that defined the nation for decades to come and remains critical for understanding the nation today.

Beginning with the accession of James I and concluding with the death of Queen Anne, this compelling account describes the tempestuous events that took place during the Stuart dynasty and provides lively pen portraits of the many fascinating personalities involved. Conspiracies, rebellions and revolutions jostle side by side with court intrigues, political infighting and the rise of parties. In 1603 Britain was an isolated archipelago; by 1714 it had emerged as among the intellectual, commercial and military centres of the world.

At the beginning of each chapter he provides a separate narrative of an important event--for instance, chapter 3 begins with the discovery of Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder of the Gunpowder Plot; chapter 10 begins with the finding of magistrate Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey's body, which gave credence to Titus Oates's story about a vast Catholic/Jesuit plot to assassinate King Charles II; and chapter 13, dedicated to Anne's reign, begins with the furor over the Sacheverell sermon.

Contents:

List of Maps
Preface
Prologue
1 The Social World
2 The Political World
3 The Scottish Accession, 1603-1618
4 The Duke of Clubs, 1618-1628
5 The Reign of Charles I, 1629-1637
6 Rebellion and Civil War, 1637-1644
7 Civil War and Revolution, 1645-1649
8 Saints and Soldiers, 1649-1658
9 The Restoration Settlements, 1659-1667
10 For Church and King, 1668-1685
11 A Protestant Succession, 1685-1689
12 A European Union, 1689-1702
13 Great Britain, 1702-1714
Epilogue
For Further Reading
Index

James Francis Edward Stuart and the Settlement Act of 1701

Usually, the birth of a royal child is an occasion of great joy! When the royal child is a boy, the joy is usually even greater! The succession is assured--even though early modern rates of infant mortality might not guarantee that assurance--and the dynasty's future is secure.

In the case of the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart, son of King James II and VII of England, Ireland and Scotland and his second wife Mary Beatrice of Modena on this date in 1688--the response was muted to say the least. His half-sister Anne, James's youngest daughter by his first wife, Anne Hyde, helped spread the rumor that the baby boy was an imposter, smuggled in to the chamber in a warming pan while his mother pretended to give birth. Instead of receiving congratulations, his father had to testify to the fact that he was the father and his wife and queen the mother.

The problem for this baby boy was that he was a Catholic born heir to the throne of a Protestant country and the stability of a Catholic succession in England was not welcome news. It was received first by the Glorious Revolution in 1688 and then by the Act of Settlement in 1701, deposing his father and denying his right to succeed, respectively.

Recently I reported that the current UK government attempted to introduce reforms to the 1701 Act of Settlement, removing the restriction from any heir to the throne or occupant of the throne to be Catholic or married to a Catholic. That Act of Settlement is part of the British Constitution and Queen Elizabeth II herself may have prevented any changes to it, especially in view of the vows she took on her Coronation Day. (King George III prevented Catholic relief legislation during his reign from going any farther than it did because of those vows to protect the Church of England and the Protestant religion). Anglicans feared that James II and his son would not fulfill those vows, especially as the king was trying to prepare a Parliament that would pass his Declaration of Indulgence.

So remembering the birth of a baby boy on June 10, 1688 has current implications. That baby prince would live in exile from England from the age of about four months. His half-sister would repent of her lie about the circumstances of his birth--for his resemblance to her father and stepmother would advertise the truth--but not enough to even attempt to preserve his right to succeed their father, crowned and anointed king, in 1701. Upon Anne's death the Hanoverian dynasty would come to the throne of England.

I will be on the Son Rise Morning Show this morning at 6:45 Central, 7:45 Eastern to discuss this birthday and its current impact on the relationship between church and state in the United Kingdom.