31/12/2025
ON THIS DAY:
If you’re enjoying the posts and my research on this page, please consider supporting my business aims with a small contribution at: ko-fi.com/highlandhistorian or www.paypal.me/highlandhistorian
The 31st December 1720 was the birthday of a powerful, romanticised and perhaps controversial figure.
Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Severino Maria Stuart was born on this day in 1720 and was the first born son of James Francis Edward Stuart and Maria Clementina Sobieska.
Charles’ Grandfather, James VII of Scotland and II of England, had been forced to abandon the thrones of Scotland and England in 1688. In Scotland in 1689, his supporters (whose name “Jacobite” came from the Latin “Iacobus”, meaning supporter of James) made their first attempt to return his lineage to the throne.
In 1708, 1715 and 1719, Charles’ father’s supporters had also made unsuccessful attempts to reclaim the monarchy for James, son of the deposed James. The birth of Charles in 1720 almost certainly kept the notion of Jacobitism alive at a point where it, debatably, otherwise seemed likely to have been abandoned.
As leader of the Jacobite army in 1745-1746, Charles was aiming to win the throne from the Hanoverian household for his father, James. This is why the term “Jacobite” was still relevant by its definition.
Without Charles’ existence, the Jacobite movement had experienced blows between 1689-1720 which would have been difficult to recover from. It is my belief that Charles’ birth almost singularly kept alive a movement which he witnessed the virtual destruction of at the age of 25 in April 1746. Although Jacobitism as a concept certainly existed after that, it was never again present as a military force.
Recently we have seen many considerations of Charles being discussed and his character and his actions are under the spotlight as much as they have ever been. I have not, however, read anything that changes the opinions I formed about Charles whilst studying the period at University:
He was an intelligent young man who had grown up being taught about military tactics and siege warfare. He was also strong and fit himself, which not all members of the aristocracy or royal families were. He employed many of his skills in his attempt in 1745 and saw successes as well as failures - but he often learned from his failures very quickly. In the end, he was unable to sustain a rising against overwhelming and growing odds. It’s hard not to be frustrated when reading depictions which accuse him of weakness or stupidity in that regard.
As is seen in the painting which was painted by John Pettie, c.1892, Charles’ image and his character have long been open to academic, artistic and creative interpretation. That is likely to always be the case and appears more-so today, over 300 years after his birth.
I am not throwing my arms around Charles as a hero - far from it. I intend to maintain an objective and well-researched view on any individual in history; but having been around the notion of Charles as many different things to many different people over many years; I am more convinced than ever that he was a strong leader and a skilful and intelligent young man…
But he was a young man and young men often react to stressful situations in ways they might not later in life or with experience… And being a skilful and intelligent young man is not always everything that is needed to achieve an objective against the odds...
