#THE JACOBITE POST

[defensivelee]

I realize I have not spoken much about the Jacobite I actually know so I am going to YELL about him here now in a very disorderly fashion bc he has recently left and i am actually kinda sad :((

ok so he's a catholic priest and he is mexican. if you know anything about us you will know that we are not the target audience for jacobite propaganda (whatever that may entail), so obv i was never suspecting any jacobite shenanigans from this guy nor from any other guy where i live

but THEN one night after mass i was hoppin back outside and on my way out i hear this man say one (1) thing that made me STOP IN MY TRACKS. he says "ustedes conocen los jacobitas, seguidores de jaime el segundo..." ("you all know of the jacobites, followers of james ii...")

idk what he was talking about and i didn't stay to listen. but that was all i needed. HE KNEW ABOUT JAMES THE GODDAMN SECOND AND HE KNEW ABOUT THE JACOBITES

so i go and tell @acrossthewavesoftime and we decide that i should talk to this guy and see what he knows. originally i was legit not gonna talk to him but i'll admit i was curious too. from there i talked to him many times, i would say like about 7-8 times, and he said plenty of stuffs that i told Radegonde (which was always hilarious). here are the highlights, all the spicy opinions!!

-the first time i spoke to him, i asked him his thoughts on James (under the guise that i needed the knowledge for school). he went on a bit of a rant that i dont remember much of, but i do remember he said that what James did was honorable (something like that i think??) and that giving up his kingdom for catholicism isn't something anybody would do. said he would be fine with making James a saint but that he isn't a jacobite (implying he knows that there are some still around)

-also in that first time, he called William an enemy of the bible (which Radegonde referenced on her blog once and it made me choke)

-for some reason i thought it was a brilliant idea to tell him of the green stockings kink. he made a face at it and said he would look into it. idk if he ever did bc he never mentioned it again............

-i asked him if he thought it was weird that spanish wikipedia has James as "Jacobo" rather than "Jaime" (which is more correct honestly) and he said it was very strange, implying that he has been on wikipedia

-on that note, he called James "Jaime" but didn't call William "Guillermo." understandably so bc it is very funny

-apparently he has been to France (and speaks French!!! wow!!) and that's how he learned of James. i can only imagine what he saw there

-i asked him his thoughts on Mary and it was really interesting bc it seems that he thinks of her as a victim! specifically he said that he couldn't blame her bc she was obeying what her husband wanted and claimed that even if she hadn't wanted to go depose James, William would have done it anyway

verdict: a jacobite even if he denies being one. i get the vibe that he does NOT like William......

so i think this guy's really interesting bc he's actually. not that bad of a priest?? like one time this dickhole at church was ranting things against trans people yknow the usual insults and my jacobite priest was sort of...side-eyeing him. he did not look too happy. an ally? something else? i have no idea. idk how openly trans i look but he was at least very much willing to talk to me.

and thats the thing that i'm actually sorta sad about, bc i feel like i got to know more about him than just the jacobite part of him. like this post is about his Very Fascinating Opinions but also sometimes i had a rough time at church and listening to him talk was funny so it made me feel better. he also genuinely said hello to me sometimes and would listen to MY opinions very attentively

he recently switched over to another church, which means i won't get to see him as much anymore if at all, but last sunday i saw him he said he hopes he gets to see me again

in conclusion. very strange thoughts but not a terrible priest by my standards! oddly i miss him now but it is what it is :(

[duchessofyorkreincarnated]

[thebaffledcaptain]

Keith Windham’s Uniform: A Long and Highly Speculative Deep Dive into the Royal Scots’ Uniform in 1745

This is something I’ve wanted to research for a while—uniformology tends to be my favorite aspect of military life, so naturally, provided with a redcoat officer protagonist who quickly stole my heart as a character, I wanted to be able to do his uniform justice in my depictions of him. Let me first start by saying that there is no shortage of excellent art in this fandom, and furthermore, most of the uniforms I have seen depicted in said art actually seem quite well-researched and accurate, especially given the limited information available. I by no means pretend to be an expert on this matter—I am much more familiar with late 18th century AWI era uniforms, and even then I am no scholar—but this time period in uniform history is surprisingly elusive, and I felt inclined to find out more by doing a bit of a (admittedly self-indulgent) deep dive. This will be a long post, intended to be something of a reference, largely for myself, detailing the specific appearance of our Major Windham’s uniform as best I can.

It must first be established, however, that information on this specific period of uniform is scant. My first “launching point” was this excellent post by Bantarleton discussing British uniforms during the Jacobite Rising (which I highly recommend checking out for more qualified Speculation), which also served to corroborate what I was already beginning to see in my research: between the years of 1742 and 1751, we lack any solid evidence as to what British uniforms may have looked like. The hypothetical image I am assembling here is based, therefore, largely on educated speculation, as are most of the modern depictions of uniforms during this time period. Take all of this with a grain of salt, as you would any other historical post by a user on Tumblr, and bear in mind once again that I am not a scholar. But with that being said, we can begin in the closest place that we do have visual evidence: in 1742.

It was during this year that the Cloathing Book was commissioned by the Duke of Cumberland for King George II, which depicts the regular soldier’s regimental uniform across the military. Here we take a look at the 1st Royal Regiment (Royal Scots, though they would not be officially called that until the 19th century) uniform, which our Keith presumably would have worn some three years prior to canon, though assumedly not as a regular, which this soldier is.

Our second concrete visual of the same regimental uniform comes from 1751, portrayed by David Morier, who was commissioned probably by the Duke of Cumberland to paint a grenadier from each regiment. Why grenadiers, we can’t know—maybe for their fancy caps—but the uniform is essentially the same as would be the regular’s, with the exception of the cap (interestingly, I discovered the flanking company “wings” would be introduced only in 1752). The officers and the battalion men would all have been wearing cocked hats similar to the one portrayed in the previous photo.

Comparing the two, we see some changes in the silhouette and the smallclothes (in 1751 the breeches change to be blue instead of red), but nothing too drastic. I for one hadn’t realized that the Royal Scots would have been wearing red smallclothes during the mid century, as opposed to the white or buff. The one thing which does confuse me is the lack of lacing on the cuffs in 1742. Take this example, from the same collection, of a soldier from the 34th Regiment—notice the split cuffs and their elaborate lacing.

The artist seems to have been very deliberate in his depiction of the 1st’s uniform to include full cuffs without that extra lacing. Unfortunately I can’t seem to corroborate whether this was intentional or not, but my best guess is that it might have been a deliberate sign of the 1st Royals’ seniority: most regiments (like the 34th seen here) wore their own specific patterned lace, but the Royal Scots (at least during the mid 18th century) specifically wore plain white lace as a nod to the fact that they were the first and oldest regiment established in the British Army. It seems not impossible that this simpler cuff design might have been intended to convey the same sentiment. However, I can‘t say for sure whether this was the cuff in use during 1745, unfortunately. I would lean more toward the 1742 uniform for Keith’s just because it’s closer time-wise, but given that new uniforms were issued every year, it’s impossible to truly know how similar it would have been.

All that being said, it is important to acknowledge that we have been discussing regular soldiers up until this point: our Major Windham’s uniform would have borne some distinctions. This is a modern (so once again, speculative) illustration of an officer of the 7th Dragoon Guards in 1745, who, while not being an infantry soldier, would still have had a comparable uniform at the officers’ level, and provides a pretty good example of what some of these officers' distinctions might have looked like.

With regard to lace, officers’ uniforms of the 1st Royals were faced with gold lace as opposed to white, including on the hat. As mentioned before, as an officer, Keith would have been wearing a cocked hat with a black cockade on the left side, unlike the grenadier in the previous painting. While on duty, it seems likely that he would have worn a gilt gorget, though in a broader kind of half-moon shape than would be seen at the end of the century, and a sash, over his shoulder and the rest of his uniform rather than around his waist. He also would not have worn the crossbelts we see the regular soldiers wearing, and instead probably only a waist belt to hold his sword. Another important distinction would have been the gold aiguillette, a decorative knot to denote rank, rather than an epaulette like we see in the later century, on his right soldier, like the one on the dragoon officer’s shoulder here. An interesting but subtle detail would have been the fact that officers’ coats generally did not have the turned-back skirts associated with regular soldiers; the idea was that those soldiers would be moving around a lot more than the officers and therefore would need the extra room.

Another thing not specific to being an officer, but simply which differs from the paintings here, is that while on duty all soldiers (officers included) would have been wearing black gaiters, and not white. While, in my opinion, they do look fantastic (especially the full length mid century ones, unlike the late century half-gaiters…), white gaiters were reserved for parade because of how easily they could get dirty. While I’m here I suppose it’s worth listing off a couple general period details I often tend to forget about the mid-18th century, as someone who mentally lives in the 1770s: for one thing, military cocked hats were almost always worn slightly off to the side with the “point” angled over the left eye (you can kind of see it in the 1742 depiction). This was so that men could shoulder their firelocks without knocking their hats right off their head, and it became so much of a fashion that not only were officers (who were not bearing muskets) doing it, too, but also some civilians (and this lasted for a long time, pretty much until the army stopped wearing cocked hats). Also, it didn’t occur to me until recently that cravats were much more in fashion than stocks were during this period, and would have been tucked into a waistcoat that might have been even nearly half unbuttoned from the top, as was the fashion at the time.

But now I’m just rambling. I had fun learning about this and if someone else learns from it too, that’s just a bonus to me. Again, I'm not an expert; this is in no way meant to “correct” any of the depictions of Keith I’ve seen, or come off at all as being in bad faith. Almost everything I’ve said in this post is stuff I wasn't sure of myself until looking into, because this kind of thing is hard to know! As I said, most of the Keiths I see actually seem very well-researched and faithfully depicted. I just happen to love uniforms, and this man happens to have one (and a very good one at that). I would lean most heavily toward the 1742 version for Keith’s canon uniform if only because it’s closer in time to anything else we have, but who can really say what it looked like in real life? Some part of me is saddened to know we’ll likely never know, but thus is history. Hopefully knowing all this I’ll be able to do it some justice.

[the--highlanders]

do you guys KNOW how frustrated this thing makes me. like it's literally from the regiment that jamie would most likely have been in AND the story lines up so well with the plot of the highlanders and I'm just. constantly itching to retcon the episode a little bit in my head and make this the standard

but no!! the serial kind of depends on the standard being prince charles' rather than nust a regimental standard!!!! and it kills me every single day

[werewolfetone]

Mad that the outbreaks of Whiteboyism in the late 18th century in Ireland were blamed by the Ascendancy class and the British on the Jacobites rather than on the very very obvious fact that the wealthy were starving the peasants and the peasants had had enough--something that the Whiteboys themselves made clear as their motivation. they really said "is it possible we've fucked up and that's why our tenants are torturing us to death while screaming at us that we've fucked up? no, it must be the catholics who are wrong"

[youruncleolaf]

think every show set in a historical setting should have one minor background character who has a few items of clothing that are from a wildly different period that no one ever really seems to pay attention to. it does not affect the plot at all but they’re probably a time traveler

[meadowlarkx]

first heard "ye jacobites by name" today and i just have to say. it doesn't compare at all to donald mcgillavry (boss and superior song). there i said it

[duchessofyorkreincarnated]

YOU THINK I'M GONNA FORGET IT???

HOW COULD I?! YOU'RE JUST A SWEET CATHOLIC DORK WHO GETS A BAD REP FOR LITERALLY JUST BEING A CATHOLIC OH MY GOD.

AND ALSO A WOMANISING MESS WHO NOW HATES HIS ELDEST DAUGHTER AND A TERRIBLE PERSON WITH DECISION MAKING. GREAT IDEAS FOR TOLERATION, JUST TERRIBLE EXECUTION OF THESE IDEAS AND YOU'RE ALSO A STUBBORN RETARD.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JAMIE YOU MAKE ME WANNA CRY THINKING ABOUT YOU (affectionate kind of)

my birthday is october 14 1633 you better not forget it

[scotianostra]

Happy Birthday Sam Roland Heughan, born 30th April 1980 in Balmaclellan, Dumfries and Galloway.

Sam got his name from the Lord of the Rings character Samwise Gamgee. his parents were big fans of the Tolkien books. He attended Kells Primary School in New Galloway before the family moved to Edinburgh when he was 12, he went to James Gillespie’s on the edge of the meadows before finishing his school education at the prestigious Rudolph Steiner School.

After leaving School at 18 Sam worked and travelled before returning to Scotland and enrolling in the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, graduating in 2003.

Sam built a solid career in theatre in both Scotland and England starring in productions of Plague Over England, Macbeth, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Amphibians, and King John. He has also been featured in notable indie films, Emulsion, and Heart Of Lightness but of course it is one particular role that has catapulted him into worldwide stardom, that of Jamie Fraser in Outlander.

For those who don’t know Outlander it follows the story of Claire Randall, a married combat nurse from 1945 who finds herself hurled back in time to the 1740’s in and around the time when The Jacobites and Bonnie Prince Charlie made the final ill fated attempt to put the Stuarts back on the throne. Sam plays Claire’s “love interest” she is forced to marry. Further series are set in the US in the 1770’s, their remains a strong Scottish presence in the cast, and the show is filmed in studios in Cumbernauld. Sam has won a number of awards for the series.

In the movie To Olivia he played Hollywood star Paul Newman and in the adaptation of the Andy McNab book, SAS: Red Notice, he played SAS soldier Tom Buckingham. Oor birthdat boy also teamed up with fellow Outlander star Graham McTavish Men in Kilts: A Roadtrip with Sam and Graham. The series follows the pair as they explore their homeland delving into the culture and history of Scotland, in a light-hearted way. The second series of the show aired last year, the reviews were mainly positive. The duo are already looking at a third journey, this time to North America but that will likely involve indulging Heughan's thrill-seeking side - much to his friend's dismay

Sam also appeared in the psychological series The Couple Next Door last year, I am yet to catch this, it has average reviews on IMDB of 5.6 out of ten. Born to be Great the story of Alexander The Great's early life has been completed but is yet to recieve a release date.

According to reports Sam celebrated his birthday in Edinburgh at the weekend while also running his My Peak Challenge which included workouts, outdoor activities and a gala night with dinner and dancing. He posted on Instagram describing the event as a 'unique blend of wellness, camaraderie, celebration and more'. The peakers, as they are known has raised millions for charities including Marie Curie.

[sgiandubh]

JAMMF, 303

James Alexander Malcolm Mackenzie Fraser is today 303. Born to both strife and greatness, on Beltane Day.

Fictional characters never die for good, their energy keeps on lingering somewhere, in a corner of our heart. So, here's a heartfelt Happy Birthday to a formidable character that one day chose to possess Herself's imagination and brought us all together, in this strange digital limbo of sorts.

Despite his rock-solid appearance, JAMMF is a real chameleon. My favorite JAMMF is perhaps the least talked about one. The Diplomat. Of course.

This guy, playing chess at Versailles (in reality, it's Prague, and a sizably different kind of Baroque, but let's not nitpick, here). A wonderful metaphor for what diplomacy was, is and always will be: a sophisticated game of chess.

While in Paris, JAMMF is acting, in plain sight, as a diplomatic agent of sorts on behalf of Bonnie Prince Charlie's embryo of a government in exile. Desperately hoping and fruitlessly waiting for more. And making a very bad, emotional job of it all, when emotions are least needed, despite all those best laid plans. Still, he does exactly what a diplomat posted abroad would do. He meets all the important honchos, he brilliantly entertains all those people at his open table, he mingles with princes and beggars alike and of course, he dutifully reports in writing about all this, back to Scotland.

It is, therefore, a pity and a shame that Herself did not utter a single word, in Dragonfly in Amber, about the real Jacobite meeting place in Paris: Sorbonne's Collegium Scoticum/Scots College, or Collège des Écossais, founded in 1333, by an edict of the Parliament of Paris (what we would call today the local council) and as a belated, yet important consequence of the Auld Alliance treaty between France, Scotland and Norway:

This is a place with a rich and minutely documented history, so much so that the adjoining street soon came to be known as the rue des Ecossais (Scots' Street), instead of rue des Amandiers (Almond Tree Street).

The building is still there, albeit with a different destination, a private Catholic elementary school. And a plaque inside the main building tells part of the story, in Latin:

Meaning:

In 1325, under the reigns of Charles the Fair, in France and Robert the Bruce, in Scotland, David de Moravia, bishop of Murray founded this college. In 1604, Jacques de Bethun, archbishop of Glasgow made a seminary out of it, given to the perpetual administration of the Carthusian Order's Superior of Paris [later edit, forgot to translate that properly and the French version I eventually took out is incomplete, sorry!]. In 1639, the whole was placed under the authority of the King of France and the Archbishop of Paris, their supreme authority being solemnly ratified by the Parliament of Paris. In memory of the founders, the priests and the alumni, may they rest in peace!

[Later edit]: the eight year difference in records reflects the time it took for the Parliament of Paris to acknowledge the College's existence and offer its due legal protection. So: founded by the bishop of Murray in 1325 and legally authorized by the Parliament of Paris in 1333. Both dates are legit founding landmarks and can be quoted accordingly.

[dangermousie]

So I started reading The Captive based on your post the other day (I am invested) and now I’m hoping you have other period romance novel recs because I love them when they hit but they don’t always 😭

Oh, I dooooooooooo!

The King's Falcon by Stella Riley

Earlier stuff by Elizabeth Hoyt

Anna Campbell's The Captive of Sin

MJ Putney's One Perfect Rose

Anything by Laura Kinsale but especially Flowers from the Storm

Meredith Duran's At Your Pleasure and The Sins of Lord Lockwood

Stuff in this post: https://dangermousie.tumblr.com/post/164254742936/three-book-series-with-jacobites-named-alex-and this post https://dangermousie.tumblr.com/post/44264765206/janoda-said-omg-you-read-romance-i-really-like and this post

and here https://dangermousie.tumblr.com/post/56327193377/who-are-your-top-5-romance-novel-otps

and here https://dangermousie.tumblr.com/post/45584789003/seeing-that-i-am-currently-stuck-in-santiago-while

Also:

[werewolfetone]

The are the same picture

Discuss.

[the-busy-ghost]

Men Called Him Sir Gray Steele

Having many Strange and Norrell thoughts at the moment, but since I'm not exactly the type of fan who goes through and annotates and analyses I'm probably missing things or overthinking other details that have already been noticed.

That being said I've arrived at Chapter 51, "A Family by the Name of Greysteel" and this reminds me of my old theory about Flora Greysteel's name. Potentially the most famous Flora in British history was Flora MacDonald, who in 1746 assisted Charles Edward Stuart in escaping to Skye in the aftermath of the failed Jacobite Rising. I may be overthinking this aspect, since as a Scot I'm naturally conditioned to associate the name Flora with both that story, and stories about women who help historical and mythical "heroes" generally (note- no opinions are to be given on the character of Jacobite claimants in this post, but I have many).

What I am now less convinced that I'm overthinking is the 'Greysteel' aspect. Now Greysteil was a ballad which was extremely popular in sixteenth century Scotland (though like many popular ballads and poems from this period it may have its roots on the other side of the border in northern England as well). The references to Greysteil in Scottish history are probably related to the poem Sir Eger and Sir Grime, which may be fifteenth century in origin, but chiefly survives from 17th century versions, including in Bishop Percy's collection. The plot synopsis on wikipedia makes it clear that this is a poem replete with strange knights, and, perhaps more importantly, helpful female characters who go around giving gifts of magical swords to the heroes or generally acting as 'cunning' leeches (a leech was the term often given to a medical person, but it's more ambiguous than the rather more specific terms 'surgeon' or 'physician'). The name Greysteil refers to the antagonist of Eger and Grime in the poem- he is a mysterious knight who lives in the 'forbidden' country.

In preparation for reading chapter 51, therefore, (and while my food is cooking), I'm skim-reading a copy of the version of this poem in the Percy folio and trying to keep any important details in mind so I can compare it with Strange and Norrell. (Copy printed here)

What I do notice immediately is that when Greysteil (clad in red and gold) defeats knights who have the misfortune of coming across him, as a prize he takes the little finger of the man's right hand. This is his calling card.

It's a bit early in my read to say for certain but this absolutely calls to mind the fact that the gentleman with the thistle-down hair takes the little finger of Lady Pole's left hand as a token of the agreement when he agrees to help Norrell bring her back to life. Now taking a little finger may be a common motif in other literature too, I'm not sure, but given that there are other reasons to connect Strange and Norrell to the old poem Greysteel I have to wonder if this is significant.

In heraldry, the man's coat of arms often went on the right or dexter (viewer's left) and the woman's on the left or sinister. From what I've come across over the last decade this tends to be seen in other depictions of male-female relations in mediaeval and early modern culture, with maleness associated with the right and female associated with the left (bearing in mind that these were often married couples where the straightforward gender binary was at its most evident). So I have to wonder if Greysteil taking the little finger from the right hand of his (presumably all) male enemies, and the fairy in Strange and Norrell taking the little finger of the left hand of the woman he enchants, can be compared.

Again I have no idea yet what this may mean for the significance of Flora Greysteel, and whether we are to assume that her family has some connection to either the figure in the ballad or the gentleman with the thistle-down hair- I have yet to actually re-read chapter 51 and find out. But I'm posting this here in case it's useful to more observant fans than me and in case anyone can offer any insight. It was always a question I'd have loved to ask the author if there was ever a Q&A but I may be twenty years too late on this one.

Anyway, on with my re-read of Sir Eger and Sir Grime (and dinner)!

[lostwords-found]

Hmm. I could definitely go either way on this, but I am leaning sliiightly more towards team "that wasn't Jonah" at the moment. Been reading a bit and I think it's possible, though very far from certain, that the unfortunate "young" Archibald Cameron was the Scottish physician of the same name who served Bonnie Prince Charlie in the Jacobite uprisings. If this were true, however, it would make him about, uh, 140 years old as of the case in tmagp 27. Which in turn would make the other members of the Magnus Institute even older. Which in turn would suggest that these were all people who found ways to sustain their lives well past their natural span...

Will get a more thorough post up about my thoughts on this when I have more time and energy, am pretty wiped at the moment.

[maximumwobblerbanditdonut]

No, Sam, You have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the rebellion or simply don't know Scottish history.

The Battle of Culloden on 16th April 1746 led by Charles Edward Stuart, the "Young Pretender" ("Bonnie Prince Charlie") was not lost for Scottish independence, but it was a defeat for the Jacobites and the end of their hopes for a Stuart restoration.

Bonnie Prince Charlie leads his men at the Battle of Culloden

The aim was to overthrow the Hanoverian monarchy in Britain and return a Stuart king to the English throne. So, it's not true to say that Scotland lost its fight for independence as a result, when Bonnie Prince Charlie fought to restore the Stuart monarchy to the British throne, not for Scottish independence.

Posted 25th November 2024

[elancholia]

Well,

(They're pootlingly minor, of course.)

But the difference is that Scotland has strong preexisting fault-lines to cleave across. It has a national identity and a memory of independence, and it's a first-level political entity within the UK.

I feel like there's a whole thing about Scotland being...like subjugated by England and it's not clear to me how real this is? It seems like it's not significantly different between like. The part of France around Paris and the rest of France. As opposed to say the Ireland situation which was like normal colonialization