Well, this should open a can of worms...!  I was curious about the Forum's opinions re: today's "real" Jacobites, as opposed to those of us who simply portray 18th C. ones.
My clan group has some folks so inclined, as does this Forum: people who look towards an actual restoration of the Stewart line, as embodied in the person of one Prince Michael of Albany, who claims to be the legitimate heir of that dynasty.  Many experts on European royalty dismiss his claim as nonsense; others are convinced of his legitimacy.
Personally, I'm doubtful.  I fully support Scottish independence, but I think in that effort the Scottish people would do well to simply ditch the idea of kings and royalty!  In my Americanized opinion - who needs 'em...?!
Anyways, to learn more about Prince Michael, go to:

www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/

My thoughts...confused I have Prince Micheals book and its actulay a great read..and for a while i was afirm beliver...but evently there are alot of nay sayers out there,,that produced proof that Michael lafoose's claim is false....I'm up in the air
there is alot of people of tthat claim that the roya house of Liechtenstein is the only true Heir to the big seat....

so I'm up in the air

Personally, I don't see much difference in
a system that has a President as a head
of state (with the Prime Minister holding
the political power), versus one that has
a King or Queen as a head of state. Other than the extra money spent, there
is really no difference. The rub is whether
or not you want that continuity with the
past. It's said that Queen Elizabeth and
the royals bring more money into the UK
than they cost in tourism. If that's true,
then a monarchy alone is worth keeping
it around. Personally, were I in Scotland, I'd prefer the idea of swearing allegiance to a monarach rather than yet another
politician. And with a monarch, you have
a lifetime of continuity, and service to
the state, rather than to a party.

As for Michael, I'm pretty sure he's a
fraud. But there are others that claim
descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie, not
to mention the currently accepted
Stuart descendant, an Austrian I
believe. I'm not one to toss traditions
into the garbage just because they're
inconvenient or simply old. I've seen
too many old and aesthetically cool
buildings torn down in my time and
replaced by utter garbage, and it would
be a shame for that to happen to the
monaracy.

Alex

O.K...constitutional point...U.K does not have "rightful" kings,or "kings by descent"...all that matters is that they have been crowned as ruler(see "Johnny English..)...It doesn't matter what claimants turn up...they are only a historical curiosity until they get the Archbish. of Canterbury to do the Biz!....As for modern Stuart heirs...most believable follows a polish line...& I can't remember the author's name!.....Fought my way through Prince Michael's stuff...would have been easier to follow if it had started in the 18thcent......having said that,one of his "nobles"....has written a work showing Stuart descent from King Arthur,Roman Emperors, and....Jesus Christ..and people think reenactors are weird!                                                  
Steve(currently revising his claim to the Holy Roman Empire)

And by the way...The only "lost" claimants that would get my support would go by the name of Cromwell........
Steve

Alex, et al,

We (in the former "colonies") rejected allegiance to that same monarchy 225+ years ago, and it has worked out fairly well for us!
Similar bold steps might be in order for the Scottish nation; either that or remain simply the northern extension of Britain she's been since the Union of the Crowns (the 1707 Act of Union merely making "official" what was already a reality).  
I'll take politicians over kings any day!  The former can be voted out, recalled, impeached, jailed, etc, etc....

Orange Lodge's plan to mark Culloden'bizarre'
By Auslan Cramb, Scottish Correspondent
(Filed: 22/11/2003)


A plan to celebrate the English victory at Culloden in 1746, the famous rout of Bonnie Prince Charlie's Jacobite forces, was described as "bizarre and offensive" yesterday.

The Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland has not marched in the Highlands for nearly 15 years but officials said it was considering holding a religious service at the scene of the battle outside Inverness to remember the English soldiers who died there.

The Duke of Cumberland's Hanoverian soldiers defeated the Jacobite army in what many Protestants consider an important victory. Every year, Orangemen hold controversial marches celebrating the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 when King William of Orange defeated James II on a battlefield outside Dublin.

It has been suggested that similar celebrations might be held next April 16 on Culloden Moor. Robert MacLean, executive officer of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, said the battle was an important event in the history of the Scottish reformed church.

"I do not see us staging a march in the Culloden area but it is possible that we may arrange a service to commemorate the battle," he said.

However, Peter Kearney, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church, said a religious ceremony should only remember those who died on both sides. "The idea that anyone would like to celebrate the victory of the Hanoverian forces in the Highlands of Scotland is, to say the least, bizarre, if not downright offensive, bearing in mind the ethnic cleansing that followed," he said. "It is fair to say that the Highlands has never fully recovered from the onslaught."

Fergus Ewing, the local Scottish National Party MSP, said the proposed service was "madcap", adding: "There's no place for sectarianism in the Highlands."

After the battle, the clan system was brutally dismantled, the castles and the land of Jacobite chiefs seized and the wearing of the kilt and the speaking of Gaelic prohibited

As a latter day Jacobite I agree the mists of time and history have thrown up a number of claims ,as for Prince Michael he puts across his argument well,can we be 100% certain that he is who he claims to be? no but then again who in their right mind in the situation of the mid to  late 18th century would claim to be the true Stewart heir,they would keep their heads down it was only later when the Sobieskis and Rohanstarts came along and were not seen as a threat that it became fashionable.Back to Michael though,what I do believe firmly is that he believes that he is who he says he is, he is an articulate intelligent man who I am sure could well do without some of the problems he has to put up with yet he remains firm to his claim,he lives in Scotland and cares passionately about Scotland and her future and Scotland could do much worse than have him as head of state.

Believing that Prince Michael is legitimate is sort of like those who believe in God and those that do not ..... some things are difficult to prove ... but the sun will come up tomorrow ... it's a faith.

You can't judge a man simply by books and others opinions .... you must meet him for yourself and then decide.  I've met him several times and became an offcier in Army of loyal followers ...... but was not all convinced at first .... too many varibale both  pros and cons.  I am now totslly convince to his right to the title.  

My question would be .... why will lthe British government not allow him to leave and vist  America ....why do they hassle him on his trips abroad taking away visas and his Maltese passport....what do they fear ... why no passport?  Anyway, I keep in touch with my Scottish freinds daily and visit at least once a year.  Prince Michael is in the company during many public appearances with other notable and traditional Jacobites from the past ...... with the present Earl of Mar and Duke of Montorse to the chagrin of the royals

If Scotland wants a monarchy ... that's for Scotland to decide ....a Constitional Monarchy seems to work well in in many Europen countires.  WE broke away from the House of Hanover ... and it was the best thing that happened to us ..... I have no trouble with the house of Stuart.  

I re-enact, but I take it more seriously.  I do not do it because I have nothing better to do on the weekends ..... it history and it's blood...

Yours aye,

Caledonianreb

As a Jacobite living in today's Scotland I live with the oppression of the present English government. A government that has refused to allow Scotland her own freedom  and  is draining  us of our wealth our traditions and  in general using us for  their own means.
I visited the Grandfather Mountain games this year and it showed me clearly how over the years the British government have managed to brain wash people through the education system when I saw  Union Jacks flying over the clan tents, for example The St Andrews Society of North Carolina, this education, don't get me wrong, exists in Scotland as well.  Many Scottish schools are not teaching Scottish history in their classes as the Brit government  wouldn't put it on the curriculum. They mabye think there will be another uprising if they teach us the truth about the history of our own country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When we go to Culloden, Sherrifmuir etc  we go there as Jacobites not re-enactors to pay our respects to the fallen clansmen who fought for the House of Stuart, so when HRH Prince Michael of Albany landed on Scottish shores with his claims he was the only man willing to put himself forward for Scotland.  Ihave known the man for years and have become close, I see first hand how passionately he feels about Scotland  and  think that  if he is not who he says he is why would  he have stayed here for the last 20+ years fighting Scotland's corner while being hounded by the state.
Finally I would like to think that everyone who wears a WHITE COCKADE on their bonnet  is a true Jacobite and not a pretend one, for the House of Stuart still exists and the fight will continue to restore it to it's proper place regardless of any state persecution
Fear God Honour the King

I am a  latter day Jacobite and have met the Prince and I believe he is who he says he is.
I have heard him speak and spoken to himself on one to ones and you feel the passion he has for this country.
I firmly believe that he would make a great King of Scots and atleast we would have a King interested in this country not some German Queen who could not give a txss for this country.
As what has been said I do this for the love of my country not some hobby  and hopefully one day the Stuarts will rule  the Scots again
Fear God Honour The King

Ah Brian,you old worm can opener you.

My thoughts are just this-

I don't know about Prince Michael of Albany, never read his book.
I'm all for Scotlands independance but the Stuart reign of Scotland etc.,  
is finished.  

If  Prince Michael of Albany claims to be who he is, he must take a
DNA test, if he doesn't want to do it  or back it up he's just the "youngest of Pretenders"
(has he taken a dna test?)

dave

Hee!  I knew this would be fun!!  Brendan, you've done a fine job of rallying your troops...!
I'm too much of a Jeffersonian republican to overcome my abhorrance of royalty/nobility, but the numbers of Prince Mike's loyal supporters is rather impressive.  He must be a convincing fellow in person....
An independent Scotland is the main aim (and hopefully a trend AWAY from left-wing ideology!!!).

An independent Scotland is the main aim (and hopefully a trend AWAY from left-wing ideology!!!).

And from the other end of the spectruim lets hope he Doesnt...(Grin)

Opening a can of worms is something that the British Establishment don't like doing, the Stuart line in Scotland is definitely not finished, in fact HRH Prince Michael himself admits that there are 1000+ claimants to the throne of Scotland. If you look at a book written by Pininski from Poland who also claims he is a descendent you will find there are similarities between them. The reality of things in Scotland are very different to what you hear in the USA.

Pininski!..that was the book I was trying to think of...very well researched &(taking my life in my hands......),not full of conspiracy theories....Don't get me wrong, I'm quite prepared to believe Prince Michael is of Stuart descent...but I just can't take all the proposed CIA-like machinations seriously...Why? Because they're unecessary...
Steve

You may think they're unecessary but I can assure you living in Scotland these things do happen. Any threat to the Brit state is scrutinised very carefully.  Also why will the Brit government not allow HRH Prince Michael a passport when he has British citizenship

Ok we all know that He has been forbidon a travel visa..But he has been to Canada,,and to Italy poland...ect ect ect... I'ma little confused

Yes he does travel but on a Maltese Diplomatic passport but the point I was making was why will the Brit government not give him a Brit passport as he is a British Citizen with documents proving this issued by the government themselves also why do they want to restrict him from travelling on occasions when he is on Diplomatic business. The answer seems to be quite clear

His travel arrangements appear to be something of a lottery ,true in recent months he has managed to travel to Italy and Eastern Europe however on two other trips while trying to go to Eastern Europe he has had his passport confiscated and returned to Scotland,now the Prince takes all this in his stride but one of his travelling companions was shocked at what happend as he was also prevented from travelling simply for being with the Prince.
As I have said he is an intelligent man, as others have said no one who meets him can fail to be impressed ,I've seen even staunch republicans(the Scottish kind)talk with him at length and come away with a different view from what they were expecting they haven't become monarchists by any means but they respect Michael just as he respects their beliefs.
I hope he is allowed to travel to the US in the near future as I'm sure he will make a very interesting visitor.

I re-enact, but I take it more seriously.  I do not do it because I have nothing better to do on the weekends ..... it history and it's blood...

Yours aye,

Caledonianreb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Take it more seriously than WHO?  You have some nerve describing re-enactors that way.  Geographically removed a few generations ago does not neccesarily make a person a "hobbyist".  I am an American Re-enactor, and I feel a very strong connection to MY Scottish history and BLOOD.  I certainly hope you didn't mean to be so flip, but you really should learn that living in Scotland does not give you exclusive rights to love Her.  That's all I m going to say on this message thread about your completely inaccurate generalization of Re-enactors.  Keep on the subject!
    Sincerely,
          Malcolm

Okay, let's not descend into a slagfest pissing match over who has the sole rights to the superior attitude concession. Lively debate is fine, but I *do* have a big ol' pair of pruning shears and I am not in the least bit afraid to use them if anyone is looking to start a flame war. This isn't soc.culture.scottish, after all.

I strongly suggest that if you have a major problem with something that someone has posted, that you email them directly to determine whether or not you may have misconstrued or misunderstood their intent *before* you hit the reply button.

Most of us have strong opinions about this subject (believe it or not, so do I), but I'm going to ask politely that we all make an effort to temper our opinions with a modicum of civility. Next flame job gets this thread locked, and subsequent ones will be deleted without comment, persistent ones will move me to take the shears to posting privileges, both individual and global. I have the capacity to be extremely heavy-handed when I am so inclined, and though I'd rather not moderate that way, I will if I am given compelling reason.

Hear! Hear...!
I began this thread as a historic/political discussion separate from reenacting.  Everyone has different reasons for being involved in the reenacting hobby, and no one has a more "legitimate" claim to any impression than another.  You don't have to be an American southerner to portray a Confederate soldier, nor a Scot to represent an 18th C. highlander.  I myself am of English-Irish-Sardinian heritage, but I'll portray any historic incarnation I want to - as long as I'm doing it accurately and with respect for the "original."  Too often politics, modern or from a past century, intrude upon our hobby and sully it.  This discussion was meant to  be separate from the issue of living history and reenactment....

Brian,

Out of curiousity, how would you handle someone of
an obviously non-European ethnicity that wanted to
join your group as a Highland warrier, such as someone
of oriental descent? As much carping as we all do about
beards, hair, clothes, etc, wouldn't a non-European
person run in the same category? In fact, such a person
might even ruin it for others already participating. I'm
not sure what my own opinion is at this point, but if I
follow the logic of historical accuracy (as much as is
possible in 2003), the answer would be no?

Just curious.

Alex

Alex,
That problem (so far) has resolved itself in that such folk have never displayed ANY interest in such a portrayal.  I imagine that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
There was a black fellow at "Culloden `98" (the first one) portraying a Highlander, and initially I thought "What the hey?"
But, further reading did reveal the presence of black men in the entourages of one or two Highland chiefs.  Apparently, they had Caribbean holdings, or some such.  One black highlander even got into trouble for violating the Proscription Act by wearing highland garb!
As to your question as to how I'd handle it if, say, a Japanese-American inquired as to joining my clan group, I honestly don't know.  You'll note my statement regarding doing an "accurate" portrayal.  Perhaps I'd try to discourage that person on those grounds....
Anyways, we are straying off-topic for this thread.  

Hi Brian,

Yeah, so far the issue has handled itself. But
at some point it'll need to be addressed.
Hopefully things'll work out for the best.

Anyways, back to Prince Michael and modern
day Jacobites. Personally I think it would be
cool if Scotland had it's own monarchy. It
would go a ways towards giving an
independent Scotland her own sense of
identity, serving as a counterpoint to the
one already in London. That IS after all what
modern monarchs are for, right?

A link with the past, a draw for tourists, and an
embodiment of the state, as opposed to
the politicians. If Scotland ever managed to
secure independence though, I suspect that
many would want to keep the current
monarch, Queen Elisabeth the II and I. Why?
Well, for one, Scotland would likely need to
operate within the framework of the EU to
survive, much like Ireland does, in order to
gain the subsidies that allow their economy
to flourish.

There's a lot of debate about
whether a completely independent Scotland
would be eligible for EU membership. It might
have to go to the back of the line, which
might be bad for Scotland's economy. With
a shared monarch, a good arguement could
be made for continued membership in the
European Union.

There's been too much water under the
bridge I suspect for Scotland, I suspect, to
get rid of the Windsors. In many quarters
there is MORE support for them than in
England. I think at the moment, freedom
from Whitehall is more important than
who is monarch though. Of course, the
current crop of pols at Holyrood need to
start proving themselves before the
citizenry ever votes FOR independence.

Alex

Hi All,

I'm pro-Scotland, an independant Scotland, but a jacobite on weekends only, and here is why -

Being a student of history, with some aquaintance with the Stuart monarchy and it's handling of Scotland in general (they were quick to trade their throne for the one in Westminster, and never bothered with Scotland save to persecute it until they were in such desperate straights that they would turn to any source for succour), and Highlanders in particular (those of you with romantic attatchments to them *really* need to delve into 16th and 17th century Scottish history in depth, and see how they treated the clansmen, and the antics of their "viceroys", the Gordons and Campbells in particular) - I would say Scotland needs a Stuart monarch of the old mold as much as it needs a 12 guage hole through the back of it's allegorical head.

The Stuart monarchy post the early 16th century never brought anything but misery and destruction to the peoples of Scotland, and they make the treatment of Scottish peoples by the Duke of Cumberland seem to be the actions of a boyscout in comparison. The House of Hanover is no prize, but the Stuarts make them look good in comparison  - there was a reason they were bloodlessly deposed in the end, and it is typical of them that none of them remained true to the good men and women who risked all and laid down their lives and fortunes in their cause. Had Bonnie Prince Charlie (the real one, not our beloved reenactment leader) ousted the House of Hanover, I haven't the slightest doubt he would have gone back to treating the Scots as did his great-grandfather once his posterior began to warm the throne - Scotland would be well shut of any monarchy.

Exactally correct-
Well said Bob.

dave

Don't know how many posters are born and bred Scots living in Scotland only know of myself and Rebel Highlander,I've been to the Culloden event twice and been impressed and enjoyed every minute of it  it also demonstrated that those of the Scottish diaspora and some who are not have a better grasp of Scottish history than many of  those brought through a Scottish education where Scottish history is discouraged.I hadn't re enacted before the Culloden  event and it was great to learn from people who had went into great detail over what they were doing ,and to learn from US re enactors like Brian and Caledonian Reb that this was a small event compared to some of the civil war stuff was impressive.
The small group Na Fir Dileas which I belong to are more a battle commemoration group travelling to the battle sites to remember the Jacobites who fought and died there,and not just the big ones,and not just in this country having travelled to the Vatican and to England ,last week for instance we were at the site of the skirmish in Clifton,.in a few weeks we commemorate the Battle of Inverurie here in Aberdeenshire.so in relation to second third or even fourth generation Scots you will find no critcisim from me as I have certainly enjoyed meeting them only wish we could do some of the things you do over there here in Scotland.
Some of the other stuff posted,Scotlands place in the EU,it has already been accepted that Scotland would remain in the EU,at the point of independence the UK will cease to exist in its previous state so technically the position of all the countries would change not just Scotland and no country as yet has  been thrown out of the EU so Scotland would remain a member,and given the fact we are Europes biggest oil producer they aren't about to get rid of us,whether some of us want to remain in it is a different story given what has happend to our fishing.
Our constitutional position I believe will be the subject of a referendum in the first few years of independence what Prince Michael argues is that there should be a three part question,the status quo with the Windsors remaining as head of state,a republic or the restoration of a Scottish monarchy,he is also quite clear that if the last option is not available he will support a republic as would many Scots.

Prince Michael may or may not be the genuine article, but he sounds like an extremely reasonable man.  A referendum would be the way to go, of course....
We've loved having you guys over to our events, and hope you can come again soon!   And, I hope that we can reciprocate before long and bring a sizable contingent over for a Scotland-based event.  The various groups over there need to plan a major `45 event involving everyone; something that we could shoot for for future planning.

Aye Brian would love to come again don't know our plans for next year yet.As for doing something in Scotland that would great the problem with our guys would be convincing them that its re enacting and not the real thing.

Mornin' Brian, Alex, Brendan et. all.

Came back here after finding the link in a archived section of my favourites.

Interesting discussion, and here's my perspective as an ex-pat in Shandy-land.

As Bob said, the Stewart's have a far from healthy history with regards to their dealings with Scotland.  Given the opportunity they moved to Westminster, and Charles I made war against us in the 1630's.

During the '45, CES was most motivated by the English throne, and the 1715 rebellion was primarily an English uprising (out maneuvered by Marlborough).  

The fact that James II gave the throne up without a fight says more about him than anything else.  Why fight for someone who won't fight for themselves.

If the Stewarts had regained the throne, I think they would have turned their backs on Scotland as they had done previously (although we may have been spared the tartanalia epidemic kicked off by the Victorians)
The Stewarts were as English as they were Scots, and they looked on the Scots crown as "second best".

But if we want a Scottish monarch, of Scots stock, and not a bloody Norman white settler, my vote goes to Alexander Robertson, 23rd chief of the clan Donnachaidh, and heir of King Malcolm II (reigned from 1005 to 1034) who was also the last direct king from Kenneth MacAlpine, who united the Scots and Picts in 843 A.D.

And let us also remember that we should always address Lizzie and Queen Elizabeth the First  :o)

Just my thoughts.

Happy day,
Andy

Hear! Hear!  And welcome aboard, Andy...!

Aye Andy the twists and turns of history,the Stewarts were a hopeless lot and the person I've heard giving them the hardest time is Prince Michael.And I have to agree Charles Edward was in to much of a rush to get into England when a bit of patience may have paid dividends and I'm sure many of the ordinary men  would have thought their job was done, they had won Scotland.
As for Lizzie to me she is just an old woman who in reality should be living out her old age shopping in down town Hannover or wherever.
And if that programme that was shown a few months ago which traced the real English monarch to Australia was correct  the Stewarts would never of had a claim to the English throne at all,then again if only the Bruce  line had had more sons ,och we could go on for ever.

Hi fellow jacobites!

Here's a link that shows the jacobite line from James VI of Scotland & I of England, all the way to "Francis II" of Bavaria.
http://www.jacobite.ca/

Cheers,
Henrik

Just a thought, now that my friend Brian has opened the worm can.  
My read of history is that the Stuart dynasty was one of the worst enemies that the Highland clans had (no offense, Alex).  James I started the original clearances, the Stuarts spent most of their time in London becoming more and more continental and less and less Scottish, visiting Scotland seldom if ever.  
And the reason for the final military defeat, breakup and clearance of the Highland clans was the headstrong decisions made by Charles Edward Stuart, from arriving at Glenfinnan without necessary French troops and arms as required for the support of the Highland Chiefs, invading England against the better judgement of his Highland officers,  and listening to an Irishman that he should forget about the phenomenally successful Highland Charge and fight the Battle of Culloden on a moor (no offense, Chris).  Why would Scots, especially those of Highland ancestry, ever want a return of the house of Stuart to the throne of Scotland?  The only thing they had in common with Highland Scots was the Catholic faith.
Personally, I would love to see Scotland free and independent, with a modern day adaptation of the simplest and most democratic system of government the world has ever seen, the clan system.  Now wouldn't that be wonderful?  

Resurrecting an old thread....

I understand that "Prince" Michael (Michel LaFosse) has finally been exposed as an utter fraud, and has decamped to the Continent, much in the manner of his Jacobite non-ancestors of old:

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17431698&method=full&siteid=64736&headline=fake-king-of-scots-flees-to-belgium--name_page.html

Not surprising, I think. I really didn't think he had any credibility... I don't wish to piss any one off, so please don't try giving me a close shave with a broadsword for my statement!

Cheers,
Henrik

wrote on 12/10/04 at 11:26:48:

Here's a link that shows the jacobite line from James VI of Scotland & I of England, all the way to "Francis II" of Bavaria.

On the same lines as Henrik, here is another link you may find of interest.
http://www.defendersofscotland.org/

Interesting, Lee! I have a hard time accepting that OLR is a non-political organisation, since there are so many political matters that are referred to in their tenents :D
I'll read a bit more thoroughly through it later. Tomorrow I'll have a 5 hour drive to my sisters farm, and on saturday I'll be up in the Norwegian highlands herding sheep! It'll be great! And a perfect opportunity to bear and wear my new dirk! (I'll also wear the betlet plaid, of course, and a blue bonnet with a white cokade!)

Cheers,
Henrik

Henrik,

Aye, I thought the same thing. It will be hard to be non-political with so many political points in the agenda.
However, I am a sucker for a rebel cause (I think that's why I never stuck it out in the Royal Military Police ;D) and I am tempted...very tempted!

Aye,the  wee man has done a runner as we say here in Scotland.Questions were being asked by many and I made contact with a church in Rome with interesting results.
For what its worth I liked him and he caused mischief amongst the  establishment here,but thats the way it goes so its back to being a republican Jacobite.

And if any of you guys need a band  www.thetrybe.org all we need is air fares and a place to sleep, Jacobite songs for sure.