© Robert Alexander/Getty ImagesBonnie Prince Charlie and the pan-European Jacobite movement is almost universally misunderstood
This month, 300 years after his birth, those myths are challenged head on by one of Scotland's leading historians.
Delivering the annual Gresham Lecture in London last month, Murray Pittock, pro vice-principal of Glasgow University, and expert on Jacobite history, argued that Charles Edward Stuart was a far more considerable figure than he has been given credit for.
There was nothing personal about his aims, Professor Pittock tells The Times. Charles came to Scotland at the forefront of a Europe-wide Jacobite movement, and had international backing; he led a disciplined army that came close to its objective; had he succeeded, all of European history would have been changed.
"He was undoubtedly an extremely charismatic, confident and determined individual," says Professor Pittock, "and also one with strategic vision, though not so good tactically."
He disagrees with nationalist critics who say that Charles overplayed his hand by invading south, and that he should have stayed in Edinburgh.
"Charles understood that his ancestor, Charles I, had made a fatal mistake in not attacking London in 1643," he says. "The resources of the British crown and parliament were enormous, and if you just stood still you would be wiped out. So his decision was astute."
He accepts that when Charles was forced by his generals to turn back at Derby he became moody and without French support he was "almost bound to lose" at the battle of Culloden in 1746, but argues that even there Charles made a better strategic decision than his general, Lord George Murray.
"When he was frustrated by people who had less vision than himself, he tended to throw his toys out of the pram," says Professor Pittock. "But when things were going for him he was extremely charismatic and visionary."
The Jacobites had backing from France, Spain and Italy. The aim was to restore the Stuart monarchy and repeal the Act of Union, introducing a "multi-kingdom" British Isles, with capitals in Edinburgh, London and Dublin.
"The 1745 rising has been seen as a purely private enterprise devised by Charles with financial and other support from exiled Jacobites," said Professor Pittock. "But it is more likely to have been a deniable special operation of the French government."
In three weeks of "wheedling, charisma, promises and hope", as Professor Pittock puts it, Charles gathered 1,200 men at Glenfinnan to raise the royal standard. He eventually led an army of 12,000 to 14,000 men, nearly a quarter of the size of the British army at the time. He won a string of victories, and though he recruited only 1,000 English Jacobites, that was more than his great uncle Charles II managed in 1651.
As to whether he could have taken London, Professor Pittock points out that there were only 1,500 Black Watch soldiers, at Finchley, between Charles's army and the city, and their loyalty was uncertain. The Duke of Cumberland's army was 48 hours away, and had a French promise to land troops at Essex been kept, Charles might not only have reached the capital, but held on.
As it was, he retreated, to face his nemesis at Culloden. Charles's critics say he chose the wrong ground and that Murray, who advised a site on the other side of the River Nairn, was overruled. "I walked that site," says Professor Pittock, "and a lot people have taken Murray on trust. In fact the [Murray] site was one that invited the British army to bypass them and head straight for Inverness without fighting."
For all that Culloden spelt the end to Jacobite ambitions, it was, says Professor Pittock, a pivotal moment in European history. "There were fewer than 14,000 men on the field that cold wet April day on the edge of Europe, but Culloden is still one of the decisive battles of the world," he said in his lecture.
If Charles had won, he argues, French domination would have been assured, the American revolution would have run the risk of French power in north America, the revolution of 1789 would not have taken place, and Napoleon would not have become emperor.
Comment: Perhaps, though a more immediate consequence is that English domination over the rest of the British Isles would have been replaced by peaceful co-rule with the other inhabitants. That is why the 'lost opportunity' is so lamented in song and verse from that time period. British colonialism may have continued around the world, but it's likely that it would have been far less ruthless.
Charles has been virtually written out of British history, says Professor Pittock, but his Jacobite movement would have radically altered the constitution of the United Kingdom.
"Jacobitism appears to represent an approach to an alternative constitutional reality in these islands which has in recent years become topical once again," he says. Far from being the "last hurrah" of a failed movement, the Jacobite rising deserves its place in history, says Professor Pittock. "It's still a live issue and a sensitive one."
Behind the story
Charles Edward Stuart was born in Rome on December 31 1720, son of James Stuart, "The Old Pretender" whose father was James VII of Scotland and II of England (Magnus Linklater writes).
The Stuart claim to the throne of England and Scotland lay in their belief in the "divine right of kings".
Comment: Specifically, in their belief that you can't just install foreign kings on a whim from the Netherlands and Germany, then expect the other parties in a political-religious 'united kingdom' to just accept rank constitutional usurpation, like the English parliamentarians did first in their 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 (really, a coup d'etat by the dominant European banksters of the day).
Charles planned to lead a French army to invade England in 1744, but the invasion fleet was scattered by a storm.
Comment: A recurring feature in risings/wars against England, by the way - the weather always seemed to go its way at key moments. Which of course emboldened England to believe Providence was on its side...
He landed with a small force on the island of Eriskay in July 1745 and raised a clan army at Glenfinnan.
He marched on Edinburgh and held the city, later defeating government forces at the Battle of Prestonpans.
He invaded as far south as Derby but turned back after failing to convince his generals to carry on to London. He was defeated by the Duke of Cumberland's army of Scottish and English soldiers at Culloden on April 16 1746.
He evaded capture, and was helped to escape by loyal clan supporters. In later life he struggled with alcoholism, and died of a stroke in Rome in January 1788 aged 67.
Comment: Here's a lecture from Professor Pittock on Charlie and the Jacobites: