Last battle between England and Scotland

[RF]

In the thread on military historical dates Karl claims that the Battle of Culloden in 1746 was ''debateable'' as a battle between England and Scotland.

The facts are that the Jacobite rebellion was based on the Stuart (Scottish ) line of succession to the combined English and Scottish thrones. That direct line of succession ended on the death of Queen Anne, who had no issue, and her successor was the German George I.
The Jacobites intended to reinstate the Scottish line of succession, by raising rebellion in Scotland. Having done that the Scottish clans invaded England in the expectation of raising support there.They failed to raise any support, and having got as far south as Derby had to retreat all the way back into Scotland.

The Battle of Culloden thus was the outcome of a Scottish invasion of England, the battle resulting in the re-imposition of the rule in Scotland by the house of Saxa-Coburg-Gotha in place of the Stuarts.

I don't think that the fact that the winning side included Scots detracts from the fact that it was an England versus Scotland conflict.

[neil hilton]

Wasn't George 1st of house Hannover?

[lwd]

But weren't there English on the Jacobites side as well? Indeed Charlie wanted all of Great Britain not just Scotland. I'm playing devils advocate here to some extent as I think both views are valid but perhaps not equally so.

[RF]

Wasn't George 1st of house Hannover?

Yes. Saxa-Coburg-Gotha was the rather long winded family name, which persisted in Britain as the surname of the Royal Family until it was changed to Windsor in January 1918.

[RF]

But weren't there English on the Jacobites side as well? Indeed Charlie wanted all of Great Britain not just Scotland. I'm playing devils advocate here to some extent as I think both views are valid but perhaps not equally so.

The Jacobites wanted English support, but very little came in their abortive invasion of England. Had they penetrated further south and taken their opportunity to seize London things might have changed. But most of their potential support sat on the fence, waiting to see whether they would be backing a winner...or a loser. They called it right.

Charles Stuart claimed the throne as Charles III by right of blood succession from James II. But he was seen in England as a pretender...a chancer. He never looked like succeeding. Hence lack of support. His rebellion and campaign was essentially a Scottish rather than British affair.