It’s important to place the Jacobite risings within three important contexts.

First is the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the political settlement that it creates, European geo politics and finally the Act of Union between Scotland & England.

The term “Glorious Revolution” is a terrible misnomer and the result of an excellent propaganda campaign by William of Orange during his invasion.

The narrative that we get where “the English horrified at the Popeish tyranny of a Catholic king and fearful of a Catholic succession (James wife Mary having recently become pregnant with James Francis Edward Stewart the “Old pretender”), invited William to take the throne to safe guard Protestantism, parliament, English liberty, sliced bread and all thing good.”

Whereas in fact the overthrow of King James II & VII was a carefully orchestrated plan by William of Orange, the immortal seven (nobles and a bishop) who wrote to William asking him to come were prompted by Williamite agents and were elites and not representative of English public opinion. But more importantly these were elites who were losing out on political influence and jobs due to James policies of religious toleration.

The unopposed nature of the invasion was not a fait accompli, it was unopposed navally because of a fortuitous wind. Latterly called the “Protestant wind”, this change in wind direction left the Royal Navy down wind of the invasion fleet who sailed into Torbay.

Shocked by this and the defection of many of his officers James army and the man himself was in a state of panic and did not offer meaningful resistance. However again this bloodless nature was not a certainty - William did not take two months to get from Torbay to London sightseeing. He conducted a military campaign just one that was without concerted opposition and one with was very quick to be erased from history in Williamite propaganda.

In the aftermath a political settlement was reached which is the Bill of Rights 1689 and a similar law in Scotland being the Claim of Rights 1689 as it still was a separate kingdom with its own parliament.

Williamite propaganda and perhaps the rose tinted glasses of history remember this as a reforming document that reaffirmed parliamentary power against executive overreach however it included rights such as;

Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition and allowed by the law

All jurors in high treason trials must be freeholders [land owners]

Combined with reversing James attempts to repeal anti Catholic laws which banned them from worship and government jobs.

These bills created classes of people who were excluded from government and political influence

The next half century of rising and revolts culminating in 1745 is the series of attempts by these people to regain power.

Each of the risings took place within the context of European wars where France or occasionally Spain attempted to ferment a Jacobite revolt to distract British troops from other theatres. Hence France would often only commit token detachments of troops to try and form the nucleus of an army.

Jacobite uprisings were very peripheral to French interests who were primarily concerned with winning decisive battle in Europe and protecting their wide ranging colonial empire from Quebec to India.

And thirdly the act of union and differences between Scottish and English Jacobitisum. In Scotland religious persecution of Covenanters (a Scottish Presbyterian movement) as well as the act of union meant that anyone who wanted to change the established order would benefit from a Stuart restoration and provided a wider base from the where support could be drawn than in England.

That isn’t to say that there were no or very few English Jacobites there were plenty mostly catholics and concentrated outside of London in Lancashire, the West Country and Oxford. During the 1715 rising there were plans to rise all over England however many leaders were arrested and the risings prevented only a couple of smaller rising took place in Lancashire and in the North. The latter won a small battle at Preston but where outnumbered and forced to surrender a day after this.

The rising in Scotland was much better supported, however failed due to poor military leadership.

The resulting crackdown on English Jacobites forced many into exile, others reached accommodation with the new regime.

Which very round aboutly brings us on to 1745 I promise this will make sense.

11th May the French win a decisive victory at the Battle of Fontenoy in Flanders.

Charles purchases weapons and the French provide him with two ships and the Regiment du Clare a group of some seven hundred Irish volunteers in the French army.

On the 19th of July the ships were intercepted by HMS Lion a 40 gun frigate while she was forced to withdraw the largest of Charles ships the Elizabeth carrying the French soldiers and much of the weapons was forced to withdraw.

This meant that Charles arrived in Scotland on the 23rd of July with very little to show for himself. And found it difficult to convince clan leaders to back him.

It took until the 19th of August for him to raise his standard at Glenfinnan where it set off for Edinburgh while being drilled on the way into some sort of organised fighting force.

They arrive in Edinburgh unopposed on September the 21st, except the castle. And go on to defeat a poorly trained government force at Prestonpans east of Edinburgh securing the city.

At this point the interests of Charles and his Scottish backers diverged, remembering the war aims of the Scots were to nullify the Union. They therefore having seized the centre of Scottish political power wanted to consolidate by securing Stirling castle which controlled roads through the centre of Scotland connecting east west and the highlands with the lowlands and also other castle such as Edinburgh. Consolidation would also allow them to rally many to their cause who had sat on the sidelines thus far.

Charles wanted to press on and attack England and while it was approaching winter it was not entirely without reason as there were still very few troops in England and their continental army having been recently defeated presented a small window of opportunity.

So it was decided to invade England but Scottish members of the war council agreed on the condition that there would be significant English support and a significant French landing. The latter looked likely after the Marques d’Eguilles arrived with weapons and money he also promised large French landings.

So the question facing the council was how to go about it, and what the objective should be. The two options were to attempt to take Newcastle cut off London’s coal supply and hurt the financial markets. This was tried previously in Covenanter rebellions however General Wade was in Newcastle with a large force outnumbering the Scots, at this time they had not yet been well drilled.

The other option and what transpired was to take the west coast down to Carlisle whose castle was under manned and in poor shape, which they took before continuing on to Manchester and Derby arriving on the 4th of December.

By which time no French landing had been made despite the assurances of d’Eguilles, and support from the English was very limited the army received only token reinforcements in the form of a Manchester regiment. The lack of help is explained by my initial discussion of European geopolitics where I noted that the Jacobite rising was a minor theatre for the French within the wider War of the Austrian Succession and that English Jacobites had been repressed effectively after the 1715 Rising and were less numerous anyway than Scottish supporters who were more inclined towards disestablishmentarianisum due to grieves such as the Act of Union, it’s resulting recession and religious freedom.

So therefore with none of the conditions agreed in Edinburgh before the invasion were met and General Wade having initially been caught off guard by the novel strategy now approaching it was decided to withdraw. Prince William the Duke of Cumberland was also to the south west and they risked being caught between the two armies.

This is widely regarded as the correct military decision by historians. And further more because Charles had no troops of his own relying instead on those provided by others he could not over rule his council if he wanted to for fear of splintering the army.

Even if the army had taken London it would have been difficult to hold, and attempting to do so would have risked a field battle with two Government armies who were numerically superior and also qualitatively having better cannon and cavalry. If the army was defeated and destroyed there would be no chance of raising further recruits or gaining more French assistance. Charles had everything to lose and no certain victory to gain by continuing South and giving battle.

As for future resistance in Scotland, the army successfully evaded Wade in their retreat. Received both artillery and reinforcements in the spring - they then set about a siege of Stirling castle - the Government attempt to break the siege began the campaign that culminated in Culloden.

There is debate amongst historians around the choice of battlefield - Culloden proved very unsuitable for the Highland charge due to marshy terrain. While the conduct of the 1746 campaign was not perfect there were possibly other opportunities such as the decision to invade England in the first place vs consolidating in Scotland, the choice of London an unattainable political target as that campaign vs Wades army & Newcastle military and economic targets.

These decisions were much more critical in leading to the failure of the 1745 Rising than the decision at Derby which was correct. And perhaps could have created a more favourable situation for the campaign season of 1746.