At one level Jacobitism is easy to define – simply followers of the Stuart line that wanted to see the Stuarts returned to the Scottish and hopefully English throne.
After the execution of the Stuart King Charles I and the removal of the monarchy there was a certain forced order in the British Isles under Cromwell’s republic. The disenchantment in Scotland of this regime ended in the Covenanters acting with Charles the II (who landed and signed the contract in Garmouth). His subsequent restoration to the throne was seen as a victory.
This history was however not long lasted. All the Stuart kings saw themselves in the context of the European kings, and in the case of Charles II, particularly Louis XIV. In the Britain at the time there was tendency to a more parliamentarian view – a more consensual rule – and thus the attraction for many to the Cromwellian model.
So when James II and VII, a Catholic, came to the throne his natural tendency was to move away from this parliamentarian model and (back) towards an absolute model of rule.
This included a clear strategy to strengthen the position of the Catholic religion and religious tolerance in general for dissenting and in general higher church protestants. This was strongly opposed in England. In 1688 James second wife had a son, a Catholic heir to the throne. The prospect of a continued Catholic dynasty was too much and William of Orange along with James’s daughter by his first marriage, Mary, were invited to take the throne. In February 1689, the Glorious Revolution formally changed England’s monarchy and James fled to France.
However left behind after these changes were many Catholics, Episcopalians and Tory royalists that still supported the Stuart line as the constitutionally legitimate monarch.
In fact Jacobite ideology is not easy to classify because of the different factions that made up the groups that “belonged” to Jacobitism. As McLynn (1) states:
As for Jacobitism, its ideology is difficult to articulate, since it was composed of many heterogeneous strands. The ideology of English Jacobites was a ‘partial’ view of the world. It embraced the pre-1688 Tory notions of hereditary and indefeasible right, passive obedience and non-resistance. It took in the ‘Country’ critique of corruption and its nostalgia for a lost ‘golden age’. The ideology of Scottish Jacobitism came nearer to being a Weltanschauung. Apart from its role as an ideology of nationalism, stressing the importance of a unique Scottish culture, it depended on a providential and mystical view of the world.
So in terms of followers of the Jacobite cause we can identify various factions:
- the nationalists: there were those that thought that after Union in 1707 the only way that Scotland could become a sovereign nation once again was through the restoration of the Stuart line in Scotland. This in itself already implies that Union was an undesirable status for Scotland.
- the families that had most to gain from a Stuart king on the throne, those that in general that were royalist and conservative and took opposition to the Cromwellian parliamentary model – in general they broadly aligned with the Tories (from the Irish tóraidhe meaning outlaw). These same Tories were later effectively prohibited from parliament as opposition to the Hanoverian Whigs. They naturally became allies of mainstream Jacobite cause many of them coming out in favour of the Stuarts. In 1714 the French Ambassador noted that there were so many and their feeling so strong that [there were] “heading for civil war which they regard as their only resort”2.
- Catholics in general, which were in the main from Scottish Gaeldom characterised by the Highland clans. It is important to recognise that there were Highland clans that were not Catholic such as the Campbells of Argyll and in some ways the division was more about a Highland power struggle rather than a clearly delineated religious division. Equally the Sutherlands, the Mackays and the Frasers remained with the Hanoverian cause. In particular the decision by Simon Fraser was surprising given that he had been a Jacobite supporter in the French court. His decision was more about solidifying his own power base within the clan than his true political leanings.
- Episcopalians. This group were again seen as conservative protestants, in the sense that they were traditionalists in the church structure wanting power to lie in the hands of the clergy or more often quoted as wanting the existence of a bishopric. In this sense they were opposed to the Presbyterians that used the devolved structure where Elders ran the church. It needs to be stated that the Episcopalians and the Catholics were odd bedfellows and that it can not have been easy to reconcile the differences of such a religious chasm given the history of the previous 100 years.
Basically if we take a view of all of these groups we can see a thread of conservatism running through them – opposition to the new Royal lineage when a more traditional one was available, opposition to the radical parliamentary model, the traditional Catholic Church and the traditional Protestant church. The maintenance of the status quo.
At times this might have been easier to make public at others it meant taking up arms against a much larger force. As Andrew Mackillop says (3):
Whislt in England, Jacobitism was nearly always a social form of political disaffection, which preferred getting on the wrong side of a claret bottle than a bullet or bayonet, its Scottish counterpart was consistently more threatening.
In particular the 1745 rebellion must have been a more difficult choice to take. Many lands were seized after the 1715 rising and notable people executed or forced to flee the country. It is maybe therefore understandable the decisions of the likes of Simon Fraser and Cosmo Gordon who came from traditional Jacobite (and sometimes Catholic) families not to support the Young Pretender. This having been said there is a clear evidence that Fraser was hedging his bets and there is some evidence to suggest Cosmo Gordon, the Duke of Gordon did the same. There is some doubt as to his real loyalties.
In correspondence from Lord Atholl (4) we have the following written in September of 1745:
DUKE OF ATHOL TO THE DUKE OF GORDON.
BLAIR CASTLE, 25 Septr , 1745.
MY LORD, As His Royal Heighness the Regent has been pleased to confirm the Commition formerly given me by the King, to be Comander-in-Chief on this side the Forth, allow me to say here I should be glad to see your Grace will quickly Joyn with all your folowers to assist in Restoring him to his Crown. The former Loyalty of your Prediceflbrs gives me no room to doubte your cheerfull and readie inclinations to second the desires of our Royal Master; and as I have the honour to be nearly allied and related to your Grace, hopes you’ll have some regaird for the request of a well-wisher that entreats he may soon have the pleasure of seeing you appeare as is necessary for advancing our King and Countrey’s service on this happy occasion, whereby you’ll give much satisfaction. I hope your Grace will be so good as to communicat this to my Nephew the Earle of Aberdeen, to whom I had writte had not I heard that you are together at Kelly. I beg your Grace will most affectionatly remember me to my Lady Duchess.
We do not have the reply. However on 8th November 1745 a letter from John Hay to Henry Pelham (5) stating that the Lord Advocate has had letters from the Duke of Gordon and Lord Fortrose promising to provide intelligence and to work for the government. It is interesting that he does not promise help other then intelligence and work not committing men to to that task or even logistical support.
Later we have the confirmation the Lord Lewis was actively recruiting within the Duke of Gordon’s lands with no apparent opposition from Cosmo Gordon.
DUKE OF ATHOLL TO MONALTRIE.
SIR, With pleasure this day I received your’s of the 19th, and in answer, as pressed by the Prince’s commands to join him without delay, I am sorry to tell you how unable I am at present to be useful to you in raising the Braemar-men. You’ll see by what I writ to Balmarall, as well by the two enclosed Letters, the one from Mr. Steuart of Keinachan, & the other from Meinzies of Shian, that I have done all I could for being effectually useful to you. Since nothing has as yet succeeded, I spoke last night to Lord Lewis Gordon, who was here in his way to raise the Duke of Gordon’s people, to be assisting in getting out your men, which he frankly promised to do, so soon as he could be on his march Southward. This is all remained further practicable to do for the King’s Service towards effectually raising your people. I heartily wish more were in my power. It should be soon performed by, SIR, Your most obedient humble Servant.
PERTH, 21 Octr. , 1745.
There are also fundamental questions surrounding the time immediately leading up to the crossing of the Spey. How was it that during that time the Duke was not taken prisoner or as we have seen ransomed for cash that the Jacobites apparently needed so badly? It also seems very convenient that he was “allowed” to slip away just at the right time when we know that there were increased patrols. How good would have been mis-information fed directly to Cumberland from the Duke’s mouth.
On 26th November 1746 seven months after Culloden, Cosmo Gordon received a letter from John Hamilton who was a factor in Huntly for him:
John Hamilton, jacobite, New Gaol, Southwark, to Cosmo George, duke of Gordon.
Written under sentence of death.
I could not in Duty & Gratitude leave this miserable World without taking Leave of your Grace, & as this is the only methode left me, shall only wish your Grace … all possible Happiness & Prosperity this side of Time, with Everlasting Happiness hereafter, & humbly beggs leave to Recommend my Poor Wife to the Honour of your Graces Countenance & Protection, which in all Appearance she will greatly stand in need off.
It could be implied that the Duke had a moral duty to look after his wife after Hamilton paying the ultimate price for his involvement.
There is also some evidence the Cosmo Gordon actually gave some funds to the rebels(6). This was done very discreetly through his old private tutor, Gregory Farquharson. Farquharson was a Jacobite and present on the field at Culloden. He died in May 1746 and his testament makes references to bonds made in the estate (valued at only £159 while his debts amounted to £982) that were to the value of 1000 merks from Cosmo Gordon.
There is all in all quite some doubt as to the true loyalty of the Duke of Gordon however at no time did he put at risk his tenants.
It would appear as though the Loggies were not Jacobites. Certainly during the whole period there were members of the family that were Church Elders suggesting that they fully embraced the Presbyterian church and would therefore unlikely to be sympathetic to the Jacobite cause.
Furthermore being listed as the first petitioners in the plea for the recuperation of funds from the occupying Hanoverian forces they are likely to be identified with the phrase:
That your Petitioners are all of the Presbitarian Religion as established by law in Scotland and tho’ poor, have been always known to zealously attached to the interest of His majesty’s Person and Government.
- Jacobitism and David Hume: The Ideological Backlash Foiled F. J. McLynn Hume Studies Volume IX, Number 2 (November, 1983) 171-199 ↩
- Eveline Cruickshanks, Political Untouchables; The Tories and the ’45 (Duckworth, 1979)↩
- Lynch, M. (2001). The Oxford companion to Scottish history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ↩
- Burton, J. and Laing, D. (1840). Jacobite correspondence of the Atholl family. Edinburgh: Printed for the Abbotsford club. ↩
- Ne C 1634/1 – Letter from John Hay , 4th Marquess of Tweeddale to Henry Pelham ↩
- HALLORAN, C. (2006). Home Page. online Scalan.co.uk. Available at: http://www.scalan.co.uk/scalannews33.htm Accessed 11 Aug. 2015. ↩
