That's quite the post title. Anyways, we were talking about the Jacobite rebellion in my British Lit class because a couple of the novels we're reading came out of that time and have some politics in them. The Jacobite uprisings are really complicated to understand and explain, but I shall try to understand them so I can sort of explain them. Here's a timeline for historical context:
1: Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir, so the English throne passed to her closest relative, James I of Scotland (Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots's son), who was Catholic. This was a problem because Elizabeth was Protestant, the queen before her (Mary, known as "Bloody Mary" for her persecution of Protestants) was Catholic, and their father Henry VIII was the one that formed the Church of England. Basically, the British didn't know what religion to be anymore after all the persecution.
2: After he died, the throne passed to his son, James II. He was also Catholic.
3: James II was overthrown by Parliament in what is called the "Glorious Revolution," and they put his Protestant relative Queen Mary on the throne.
4: Queen Mary's heir was Queen Anne, and Anne died without an heir. We have now arrived in 1714, and the new king is George I, a Protestant. Sound familiar?
People didn't much like King George, and this is one of many songs criticizing him. This is in pretty thick Scottish dialect and a riddle besides, but I'm not going to explain it all right now for our dear readers, because someone else has already done that quite well.
This breed of folk song is known as a Jacobite Song, which means that the people who wrote and sang it (putting themselves in danger of being accused of treason) were part of the Jacobite movement. They were about sick of George, who did just about everything other than rule England competently (refer to the song). The movement wanted to put James VII of Scotland ("Jacobus" in Latin, hence the name of the rebellion) and his descendants, the line that was deposed in the Glorious Revolution, back on the throne of England.
Mixed up in all of this turmoil is some new philosophy, questioning whether kings ruled by divine right or should rule by the consent of the people. The idea of Social Contract Theory came up, where the people do not only have a responsibility to accept the rule of the government, but that the government also has a responsibility to take care of its people.
I always wonder about these political philosophies that come up in history--are they dominant among all the people of the country, or just the philosophers and learned people of the time? Social Contract Theory also came up in the American Revolution, and I wonder of the common people were really worried about fancy ideas like "consent of the governed," or if they were just pissed of at being taxed by England, which pretty much ignored them except when it took taxes from the colonies. Maybe the founding fathers just leaned on John Locke's philosophy as a justification for a rebellion that happened for different reasons?
So, sister mine, what do you think? Did the common people of England and Scotland worry about political philosophies, or were the Scots just being patriotic and wanting a Scottish king on the English throne, and English people just sick of incompetent rulers? Do you find any hint of consent of the governed, or Social Contract Theory, in "Cam Ye O'er Frae France?" I'm worried I'm just being cynical here. o_0
Love, Dory
1: Queen Elizabeth I died without an heir, so the English throne passed to her closest relative, James I of Scotland (Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots's son), who was Catholic. This was a problem because Elizabeth was Protestant, the queen before her (Mary, known as "Bloody Mary" for her persecution of Protestants) was Catholic, and their father Henry VIII was the one that formed the Church of England. Basically, the British didn't know what religion to be anymore after all the persecution.
2: After he died, the throne passed to his son, James II. He was also Catholic.
3: James II was overthrown by Parliament in what is called the "Glorious Revolution," and they put his Protestant relative Queen Mary on the throne.
 |
| Why WOULDN'T you depose this guy? Look at that smirk. |
4: Queen Mary's heir was Queen Anne, and Anne died without an heir. We have now arrived in 1714, and the new king is George I, a Protestant. Sound familiar?
People didn't much like King George, and this is one of many songs criticizing him. This is in pretty thick Scottish dialect and a riddle besides, but I'm not going to explain it all right now for our dear readers, because someone else has already done that quite well.
This breed of folk song is known as a Jacobite Song, which means that the people who wrote and sang it (putting themselves in danger of being accused of treason) were part of the Jacobite movement. They were about sick of George, who did just about everything other than rule England competently (refer to the song). The movement wanted to put James VII of Scotland ("Jacobus" in Latin, hence the name of the rebellion) and his descendants, the line that was deposed in the Glorious Revolution, back on the throne of England.
Mixed up in all of this turmoil is some new philosophy, questioning whether kings ruled by divine right or should rule by the consent of the people. The idea of Social Contract Theory came up, where the people do not only have a responsibility to accept the rule of the government, but that the government also has a responsibility to take care of its people.
I always wonder about these political philosophies that come up in history--are they dominant among all the people of the country, or just the philosophers and learned people of the time? Social Contract Theory also came up in the American Revolution, and I wonder of the common people were really worried about fancy ideas like "consent of the governed," or if they were just pissed of at being taxed by England, which pretty much ignored them except when it took taxes from the colonies. Maybe the founding fathers just leaned on John Locke's philosophy as a justification for a rebellion that happened for different reasons?
So, sister mine, what do you think? Did the common people of England and Scotland worry about political philosophies, or were the Scots just being patriotic and wanting a Scottish king on the English throne, and English people just sick of incompetent rulers? Do you find any hint of consent of the governed, or Social Contract Theory, in "Cam Ye O'er Frae France?" I'm worried I'm just being cynical here. o_0
Love, Dory
Wow, great post! Love that song...
ReplyDeleteI think one of the keys to understanding the people of this time is to look at the historical relationship between England and Scotland. As you've pointed out, Scotland was under English rule at this time (as it is today), and had been for quite some time. But for centuries prior, Scotland had been fighting tooth and nail against English rule, and even by this time, England had in no way won the hearts of the Scottish people. I think you are very correct in guessing that the Scottish were wanting a Scottish king on the throne, and a Catholic one to boot, keeping in mind that much of the oppression they were being subjected to was religiously motivated. Though I don't see that as reason to become cynical about their aims. As far as political philosophies, I'm sure that there were many who understood the terminology and theories like consent of the governed and so on, but in those who didn't, their sentiments demonstrate that they certainly understood the concepts. Take this verse from "Cam Ye O'er Frae France":
We have tint our plaid,
Bonnet, belt and swordie,
Halls and mailings braid --
But we have a Geordie.
Read: "We have lost our plaid (or tartan, the symbol of the historical clans who were once the leadership of the Scottish Celts), helmets, belts and swords, land and livelihood, but we have our Georgie!"
or
"We've basically lost our entire culture to this conquest, but that's all right, we have George!"
Some scathing sarcasm there, eh?
So, I guess what I'm saying is, whether or not these people were familiar with political theories in a textbook sense is somewhat irrelevant in my opinion.
Also, wasn't Queen (bloody) Mary's father Henry ('Enery!) VIII? I though her psychotic mass murdering of protestants was stemmed from her alienation from her also crazy father?
ReplyDeleteyes indeed! Her mother, Catherine of Aragon, was Catholic, and she's the one Henry wanted to divorce because she didn't give 'Enery a son. So when he was denied, Catherine died under mysterious circumstances and he married Anne Boleyn, who had Elizabeth. When he wanted to divorce Anne and was denied, he formed the Church of England. So Mary was loyal to her mother and remained Catholic, but Elizabeth was raised Anglican. So Henry persecuted Catholics, Mary persecuted Protestants, and Elizabeth persecuted Catholics. Great family. :)
ReplyDeleteI can see why the poor Brits would have been confused!
ReplyDelete