Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 August 14
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < August 13 | << Jul | August | Sep >> | August 15 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
Active monarchist pretenders
It seems many royal pretenders have a "no comment" or "will of the people" stance. Are there currently any royal pretenders who actively campaign for the restoration of their respective monarchies? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Restoration of their families in place of the current occupants (e.g. a 21st-century Bonnie Prince Charlie), or restoration of their families in place of a republic, or both? Nyttend (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Jamalul Kiram III appeared to have been involved in the 2013 Lahad Datu standoff although that was only part of his claimed territory and he's now dead (not from standoff as far as we know). Nil Einne (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We have List of current pretenders - you could check individual names? 174.88.11.218 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mentioned there is Gyanendra of Nepal who doesn't seem at all interested in the will of the people. In 2012, stating his intention to restore the monarchy with himself as king: "He asserted that since the politicians had not asked the people via a referendum to abolish the institution, a referendum to bring him back was not needed" according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- We have List of current pretenders - you could check individual names? 174.88.11.218 (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- According to our article on Michael I of Romania, he campaigns to restore the monarchy (but doesn't join monarchist political movements) but concedes that it won't happen without the will of the Romanian people (which isn't going to happen any time soon). Smurrayinchester 13:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
After Culloden
What were the plans that the Duke of Cumberland and the Hanoverians had for Charles Edward Stuart had they capture him after the Battle of Culloden? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article you already linked to specifically states what happened to Jacobites they DID capture. Since they didn't actually capture him, any think else to add would be counterfactual speculation. But we do have the examples of those that were captured and to whom something was done. --Jayron32 23:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that they had documented plans on what to do in such an event. Iapetus (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- They may have... Though often times, it seems like these things are made up as they go along... c.f. English Civil War, French Revolution, etc. In those cases (execution of Charles I, Reign of Terror) there was not a clear plan of what to do and when to do it. During tumultuous times when revolution and anarchy reign, there isn't much respect for constitutional principles. If we go by parallel moments in history from other times, we should not expect there to have been a clear plan, much more than a show trial and beheading if that. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Though I was not able to find government plans, I did find one reference to a plan of Charlie's. According to this book, he had registered as a soldier in Spain in the hopes that if captured by the English, he would legally be required to be treated as an ordinary prisoner of war. Taknaran (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- I hardly think that would have stopped them had they intended to execute them, realpolitik being what it is. Had he been captured, I don't think they would have chuckled and said "Whelp, you got us!" and let him go. It's an interesting ploy, and fantastic that you found it, but I'm not sure it put much restriction on Cumberland's plans... --Jayron32 18:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Though I was not able to find government plans, I did find one reference to a plan of Charlie's. According to this book, he had registered as a soldier in Spain in the hopes that if captured by the English, he would legally be required to be treated as an ordinary prisoner of war. Taknaran (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- They may have... Though often times, it seems like these things are made up as they go along... c.f. English Civil War, French Revolution, etc. In those cases (execution of Charles I, Reign of Terror) there was not a clear plan of what to do and when to do it. During tumultuous times when revolution and anarchy reign, there isn't much respect for constitutional principles. If we go by parallel moments in history from other times, we should not expect there to have been a clear plan, much more than a show trial and beheading if that. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that they had documented plans on what to do in such an event. Iapetus (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- William Boyd, 4th Earl of Kilmarnock, Arthur Elphinstone, 6th Lord Balmerino and Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat were all beheaded on Tower Hill.[1] 91 other leaders who were not peers were sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered in various parts of the country, although an account of one execution (that of Francis Towneley at Kennington Common) states that the victim was hung and beheaded, the rest of the unpleasantness being performed post-mortem.[2] A thorough Google search has not revealed any plans for the Young Pretender, but beheading at the Tower seems a reasonable guess. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)