Comments on: Sweet William or the Butcher? http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/ Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today's issues and tomorrow's problems Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:05:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: John Redwood http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2612 John Redwood Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:58:55 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2612 I was interested to read your piece, and the discussion it provoked, about the Duke of Cumberland, who is the subject of my recently published book, Sweet William or the Butcher. I was, however, puzzled by your figures. The number of regular troops slain at Culloden was 50, plus another 259 wounded, of which many probably died. I was uncertain how the number 52 was reached. Jacobite prisoners. 222 French troops and 336 others are the figures quoted in contemporary sources, but of the latter, 164 had been taken on the previous day by loyalist Scots. Of Jacobite deaths, sources give between 1,000-4,000, and the latter is certainly far too high. I do not know of anyone who made an exact count. Best Wishes Dr Oates I was interested to read your piece, and the discussion it provoked, about the Duke of Cumberland, who is the subject of my recently published book, Sweet William or the Butcher.

I was, however, puzzled by your figures.

The number of regular troops slain at Culloden was 50, plus another 259 wounded, of which many probably died. I was uncertain how the number 52 was reached.

Jacobite prisoners. 222 French troops and 336 others are the figures quoted in contemporary sources, but of the latter, 164 had been taken on the previous day by loyalist Scots.

Of Jacobite deaths, sources give between 1,000-4,000, and the latter is certainly far too high. I do not know of anyone who made an exact count.

Best Wishes
Dr Oates

]]> By: Dr Jonathan Oates http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2611 Dr Jonathan Oates Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:13:49 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2611 The Duke of Cumberland was a competent military commander - the first British general to defeat the Jacobite army during the '45. Many at the time saw him as a great hero. There is no evidence that he ordered Wolfe to shoot a wounded Scot. Incidentally, Mr Redwood's figures for dead and prisoners are incorrect. My recent book, Sweet William or the Butcher offers a reappraisal of the campaign. The Duke of Cumberland was a competent military commander – the first British general to defeat the Jacobite army during the '45. Many at the time saw him as a great hero. There is no evidence that he ordered Wolfe to shoot a wounded Scot. Incidentally, Mr Redwood's figures for dead and prisoners are incorrect. My recent book, Sweet William or the Butcher offers a reappraisal of the campaign.

]]> By: Rose http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2610 Rose Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:37:54 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2610 Dear Adrian Your best hope of keeping us all together against the EU is to support the wee bairn David William Donald, son of Ian Cameron. Dear Adrian

Your best hope of keeping us all together against the EU is to support the wee bairn David William Donald, son of Ian Cameron.

]]> By: Adrian Peirson http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2609 Adrian Peirson Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:12:01 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2609 What is the Purpose of this Discussion, to Divide and ConqEUr Britain ? <a href="http://eutruth.org.uk/subversion.htm" rel="nofollow">http://eutruth.org.uk/subversion.htm</a> What is the Purpose of this Discussion, to Divide and ConqEUr Britain ?

http://eutruth.org.uk/subversion.htm

]]> By: Rose http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2608 Rose Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:38:33 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2608 I've just noticed your English good manners have struck out an epithet or two. Highland blood quickens the pulse, even in this soggy southern climate, but I shall forbear, other than to mention some superior and enlightened Scots I may have had in mind: Bute, Aberdeen, Rosebery, Gladstone, Campbell Bannerman, Balfour, Ramsay MacDonald, and Douglas-Home. And they were just the Prime Ministers. None of these made Englishmen feel oppressed, or a nation apart. I've just noticed your English good manners have struck out an epithet or two. Highland blood quickens the pulse, even in this soggy southern climate, but I shall forbear, other than to mention some superior and enlightened Scots I may have had in mind: Bute, Aberdeen, Rosebery, Gladstone, Campbell Bannerman, Balfour, Ramsay MacDonald, and Douglas-Home. And they were just the Prime Ministers. None of these made Englishmen feel oppressed, or a nation apart.

]]> By: Robert Lobell http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2607 Robert Lobell Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:13:49 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2607 Not too many of your correspondents directly address their remarks to your question even if some are quite amusing. Culloden was undoubtedly not one of Britain's finest hours and "Hail the conquering hero comes" (referring to Cumberland who was, apparently, a complete military dunce) would not find an echo in my songbook. However Culloden was also born of the stupidity of Charles Edward Stuart's commanders who first aborted an, until then successful, invasion of England and then eventually chose the battlefield on which the Highland army was massacred. Not too many of your correspondents directly address their remarks to your question even if some are quite amusing. Culloden was undoubtedly not one of Britain's finest hours and "Hail the conquering hero comes" (referring to Cumberland who was, apparently, a complete military dunce) would not find an echo in my songbook. However Culloden was also born of the stupidity of Charles Edward Stuart's commanders who first aborted an, until then successful, invasion of England and then eventually chose the battlefield on which the Highland army was massacred.

]]> By: Matthew Reynolds http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2606 Matthew Reynolds Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:34:53 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2606 King Charles III ( King over the water 1766 -1788 ) adopted the attitude or mercy towards any captured Hanoverian officers. If they pledged on their honour not to fight against the Jacobites then they where released without harm - what a contrast with the butcher Cumberland . What Cumberland did was on a par with the bloodshed as seen in the Balkans during the 1990's - yet the Orthdox Serbs get slated for that and the Protestant regime behind the murders of 1746 in Scotland get rewarded for their crimes against humanity. St Bernadette shows us in Lourdes how precious life is in the sight of God - the Duke of Cumberland shows how cheap life is in the view of too many human beings . As a Cardinal King Henry IX ( King over the water 1788- 1807 ) could hear confessions & forgive sins in the name of Christ - plenty of sins where committed by the Elector of Hanovers forces in 1746. I tend to recognise the Pretenders as rightful Kings because everyone today would rightly recognise the Prince of Wales as King in succession to HM The Queen - why should James Prince of Wales not be King by rights as James III & VIII ( 1701 - 1766 ) in succession to his father James II & VII ? Why is the hereditary principle wrong in 1701 for the monarchy and yet right now ? Surely principle is principle after all.... The French tried this with Louis Philippe in place of Charles X , Louis XIX & Henri V in 1830 and France is now a republic so tampering with time honoured principles is not always so wise . If you are going to have an hereditary monarchy then it should be just that - denying someone their rights on the grounds of faith is just discrimination. What happened after Culledon in 1746 was just a terrible tradegy that could have been avoided if the Prince of Wales had led his forces to London . Like the failure of the French Royalists to restore Henri V in 1849 & 1871-73 - not taking your chances to change things for the better can produce very bad results indeed. King Charles III ( King over the water 1766 -1788 ) adopted the attitude or mercy towards any captured Hanoverian officers. If they pledged on their honour not to fight against the Jacobites then they where released without harm – what a contrast with the butcher Cumberland . What Cumberland did was on a par with the bloodshed as seen in the Balkans during the 1990's – yet the Orthdox Serbs get slated for that and the Protestant regime behind the murders of 1746 in Scotland get rewarded for their crimes against humanity. St Bernadette shows us in Lourdes how precious life is in the sight of God – the Duke of Cumberland shows how cheap life is in the view of too many human beings . As a Cardinal King Henry IX ( King over the water 1788- 1807 ) could hear confessions & forgive sins in the name of Christ – plenty of sins where committed by the Elector of Hanovers forces in 1746. I tend to recognise the Pretenders as rightful Kings because everyone today would rightly recognise the Prince of Wales as King in succession to HM The Queen – why should James Prince of Wales not be King by rights as James III & VIII ( 1701 – 1766 ) in succession to his father James II & VII ? Why is the hereditary principle wrong in 1701 for the monarchy and yet right now ? Surely principle is principle after all….

The French tried this with Louis Philippe in place of Charles X , Louis XIX & Henri V in 1830 and France is now a republic so tampering with time honoured principles is not always so wise .
If you are going to have an hereditary monarchy then it should be just that – denying someone their rights on the grounds of faith is just discrimination. What happened after Culledon in 1746 was just a terrible tradegy that could have been avoided if the Prince of Wales had led his forces to London . Like the failure of the French Royalists to restore Henri V in 1849 & 1871-73 – not taking your chances to change things for the better can produce very bad results indeed.

]]> By: Matthew Reynolds http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2614 Matthew Reynolds Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:34:53 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2614 King Charles III ( King over the water 1766 -1788 ) adopted the attitude or mercy towards any captured Hanoverian officers. If they pledged on their honour not to fight against the Jacobites then they where released without harm - what a contrast with the butcher Cumberland . What Cumberland did was on a par with the bloodshed as seen in the Balkans during the 1990's - yet the Orthdox Serbs get slated for that and the Protestant regime behind the murders of 1746 in Scotland get rewarded for their crimes against humanity. St Bernadette shows us in Lourdes how precious life is in the sight of God - the Duke of Cumberland shows how cheap life is in the view of too many human beings . As a Cardinal King Henry IX ( King over the water 1788- 1807 ) could hear confessions & forgive sins in the name of Christ - plenty of sins where committed by the Elector of Hanovers forces in 1746. I tend to recognise the Pretenders as rightful Kings because everyone today would rightly recognise the Prince of Wales as King in succession to HM The Queen - why should James Prince of Wales not be King by rights as James III & VIII ( 1701 - 1766 ) in succession to his father James II & VII ? Why is the hereditary principle wrong in 1701 for the monarchy and yet right now ? Surely principle is principle after all.... The French tried this with Louis Philippe in place of Charles X , Louis XIX & Henri V in 1830 and France is now a republic so tampering with time honoured principles is not always so wise . If you are going to have an hereditary monarchy then it should be just that - denying someone their rights on the grounds of faith is just discrimination. What happened after Culledon in 1746 was just a terrible tradegy that could have been avoided if the Prince of Wales had led his forces to London . Like the failure of the French Royalists to restore Henri V in 1849 & 1871-73 - not taking your chances to change things for the better can produce very bad results indeed. King Charles III ( King over the water 1766 -1788 ) adopted the attitude or mercy towards any captured Hanoverian officers. If they pledged on their honour not to fight against the Jacobites then they where released without harm – what a contrast with the butcher Cumberland . What Cumberland did was on a par with the bloodshed as seen in the Balkans during the 1990′s – yet the Orthdox Serbs get slated for that and the Protestant regime behind the murders of 1746 in Scotland get rewarded for their crimes against humanity. St Bernadette shows us in Lourdes how precious life is in the sight of God – the Duke of Cumberland shows how cheap life is in the view of too many human beings . As a Cardinal King Henry IX ( King over the water 1788- 1807 ) could hear confessions & forgive sins in the name of Christ – plenty of sins where committed by the Elector of Hanovers forces in 1746. I tend to recognise the Pretenders as rightful Kings because everyone today would rightly recognise the Prince of Wales as King in succession to HM The Queen – why should James Prince of Wales not be King by rights as James III & VIII ( 1701 – 1766 ) in succession to his father James II & VII ? Why is the hereditary principle wrong in 1701 for the monarchy and yet right now ? Surely principle is principle after all….

The French tried this with Louis Philippe in place of Charles X , Louis XIX & Henri V in 1830 and France is now a republic so tampering with time honoured principles is not always so wise .
If you are going to have an hereditary monarchy then it should be just that – denying someone their rights on the grounds of faith is just discrimination. What happened after Culledon in 1746 was just a terrible tradegy that could have been avoided if the Prince of Wales had led his forces to London . Like the failure of the French Royalists to restore Henri V in 1849 & 1871-73 – not taking your chances to change things for the better can produce very bad results indeed.

]]> By: Rose http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2605 Rose Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:42:56 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2605 My grandmother kept her Culloden bell beside her [to summon help if necessary] till the day she died. My father always used to say the only thing which spoilt our relationship with the Scots was their inferiority complex, which was always there underneath, no matter how much they achieved. A west country stall holder said the same to me in the market today. Having a (adjectives deleted) Scotsman as PM seems to bring all this to the surface. My grandmother kept her Culloden bell beside her [to summon help if necessary] till the day she died. My father always used to say the only thing which spoilt our relationship with the Scots was their inferiority complex, which was always there underneath, no matter how much they achieved. A west country stall holder said the same to me in the market today. Having a (adjectives deleted) Scotsman as PM seems to bring all this to the surface.

]]> By: Rose http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2604 Rose Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:34:36 +0000 http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/04/16/sweet-william-or-the-butcher/#comment-2604 Cranmer: "Of all the members of the royal family, with the exception of Queen Caroline, he [the Duke of Cumberland] was the only one who possessed any remarkable ability." Mr Lecky. How fashions change in the teaching of history. Cranmer:

"Of all the members of the royal family, with the exception of Queen Caroline, he [the Duke of Cumberland] was the only one who possessed any remarkable ability." Mr Lecky. How fashions change in the teaching of history.

]]>