Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders

[Lenora]

Is the actual Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein the descendant of Stuarts via James III?I wonder if it caused problems with the present House of Windsor.If they are catholics,they probably dropped out from the Line of Succession to the British throne.

[Nice Nofret]

The Lichtensteins are very devoute Catholiks, like the Wittlesbacher (Duke of Bayern)

The bishop of Lichtenstein could be called ultra-orthodox. Bevor he became bishop of Lichtenstein, he was bishop of Chur (Switzerland); to the bistum Chur Lichtenstein belonged. But he (the bishop) caused many trobles, and his congregation didn't want him any longer. So Pope JP I created the bistum Lichtenstein on special demand of the Principes of Lichtenstein to give him a place to be, and because the Lichtensteiner put so much store into him

Zurich also belongs to the bistum Chur ... I'm catholic too (or so my tax certificated tell's me ) I can't stand that man - he is worse than Paulus ... can't stand that man eather. (mysogynist ... all of them)

[Nicolas of Albania]

I always find it sad that people cling the Jacobite fantasy. Look, James II was a absolutist who believed in the divine right of kings. Noone liked him and the only reason he was tolerated was because of his daughter being his heir. When his son came along, everyone knew they had lost hope because the prince would have been like his father most likely. I believe parliament did the right thing in the end. As for the Catholic part, most of the people were protestant, and they wanted another protestant on the throne. Besides, if the absolutist thing had continued, there would most likely not be a monarchy today. Furthurmore, do any of you actually think any of the Stuart scions want the throne? You can't support a claim if there is no claimant. Otto von Habsburg made it clear he doesn't pursue it, so why not put it to rest? Elizabeth is queen, and she'll be queen until she dies, or if the rumors are true, abdicates next year.

[Lumutqueen]

I have not heard any rumours that HM will abdicate next year. Elizabeth is a Queen who will stay on the throne until she dies, she made that promise herself.
As for the things you write, you can always talk about stuff and most of your writings are opinions, nothing proven.

[Nicolas of Albania]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

IAs for the things you write, you can always talk about stuff and most of your writings are opinions, nothing proven.

I get my "opinions" from books i read over the incident. Granted, it was mostly parliament who wanted him out, but he was not a popular monarch with most of the people. And the absolutist thing is true, he did believe in it from what i have read. Also, most absolute monarchies in Europe were abolished, so had it continued, the Stuarts might have lost the throne anyway.

[Nicolas of Albania]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I have not heard any rumours that HM will abdicate next year. Elizabeth is a Queen who will stay on the throne until she dies, she made that promise herself.

Well, it is just a rumor, so it might be not true. Personally, i hope she remains on the throne, but you never know. Allegedly, she is abdicating to give Prince William the throne over Charles, and Charles allegedly agrees to it, which just makes it more unbelievable in my eyes.

[Nicolas of Albania]

Originally Posted by Lenora

Is the actual Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein the descendant of Stuarts via James III?I wonder if it caused problems with the present House of Windsor.If they are catholics,they probably dropped out from the Line of Succession to the British throne.

No, HRH Princess Sophie is the descendant of James II's sister, Henrietta, who's heirs were made the Jacobite successors by their supporters. They never actaully claimed it themselves, only James II and his heirs did that.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania

Well, it is just a rumor, so it might be not true. Personally, i hope she remains on the throne, but you never know. Allegedly, she is abdicating to give Prince William the throne over Charles, and Charles allegedly agrees to it, which just makes it more unbelievable in my eyes.

Ahh it's one of those rumours.

Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania

I get my "opinions" from books i read over the incident. Granted, it was mostly parliament who wanted him out, but he was not a popular monarch with most of the people. And the absolutist thing is true, he did believe in it from what i have read. Also, most absolute monarchies in Europe were abolished, so had it continued, the Stuarts might have lost the throne anyway.

Just cause your opinions come from books, doesn't mean they're right and believed by everyone.

He was an absolutist yes but the fact hat no one liked him, or that he was only tolerated due to his daughter or that the prince would have been like his father - is all opinion.

[Nicolas of Albania]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Ahh it's one of those rumours.



Just cause your opinions come from books, doesn't mean they're right and believed by everyone.

He was an absolutist yes but the fact hat no one liked him, or that he was only tolerated due to his daughter or that the prince would have been like his father - is all opinion.

Fine, i concede.

[Nicolas of Albania]

In a pervious thread, the Jacobite pretenders were discusssed, but this thread is not general discussion of them, it is to discuss whether the current successors are actually rightful claimants. Upon the death of Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, the direct line of James II came to an end. The Jacobite claims then passed to King Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia, the great-great grandson of Duchess Henrietta Anne of Orleans, James II's sister. The line from her, The Savoy-Austria-Este-Wittelsbachs, have never claimed the throne nor did they seem to be aware of their claims until told by someone. On those grounds, is the Jacobite succcession even still legitimate?

[Tiberivs]

That had nothing to do to whatever they make a claim to the throne. The main Jacobite argument is that parliament had no authority to determine that James II flee to France was an act of abdication (in effect deposing him) nor did they have any authority to interfere with the normal line of succession.

[Nicolas of Albania]

Originally Posted by Tiberivs

That had nothing to do to whatever they make a claim to the throne. The main Jacobite argument is that parliament had no authority to determine that James II flee to France was an act of abdication (in effect deposing him) nor did they have any authority to interfere with the normal line of succession.

oh, really? well, that still doesn't answer the question of the Wittelbachs' claims

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania

Well, it is just a rumor, so it might be not true. Personally, i hope she remains on the throne, but you never know. Allegedly, she is abdicating to give Prince William the throne over Charles, and Charles allegedly agrees to it, which just makes it more unbelievable in my eyes.

Totally unbelievable as the Queen has no say in who will follow her on the throne. That is set by law and that person is Charles as long as he is alive.

For Charles to be passed over will take the parliament to agree and pass the necessary legislation and given the massive problems in Britain at the moment there is no way parliament would want to have to deal with a constitutional crisis of this type.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania

In a pervious thread, the Jacobite pretenders were discusssed, but this thread is not general discussion of them, it is to discuss whether the current successors are actually rightful claimants. Upon the death of Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, the direct line of James II came to an end. The Jacobite claims then passed to King Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia, the great-great grandson of Duchess Henrietta Anne of Orleans, James II's sister. The line from her, The Savoy-Austria-Este-Wittelsbachs, have never claimed the throne nor did they seem to be aware of their claims until told by someone. On those grounds, is the Jacobite succcession even still legitimate?

I really don't quite know what you're asking here.. but if you're asking whether the Jacobite succession is/was legitimate, the answer technically is no, since James II and his line were deposed by Parliament.

If James had not been deposed and history had developed in the exact same manner, then the answer is a resounding yes.. the Jacobites follow the same determination of succession as the British. They claim the line of Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, and her descendants, and that is/would have been the correct line of succession - as she was the only one of James' siblings to have legitimate issue.

When the British deposed James II, they first settled the crown on his daughter Mary II and her husband William III, since both were Protestants. When both the lines of Queen Mary II and her sister Queen Anne (also a Protestant) failed to produce an heir, they reverted back to the daughter of his grandfather James I, and settled the crown upon a Protestant heir from her line.

Since Parliament had barred Catholics from succeeding, that effectively nullified any claim that could be made by Henrietta. The Duchess of Orleans was Catholic, and her descendants have also mainly been Catholics, which then as now, prevents them from becoming claimants to the British crown.

Had the Duchess renounced her faith and become Protestant, or if her daughter had done so before 1714, the outcome could have been very different.. and that line could be sitting on the throne today.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

Had the Duchess renounced her faith and become Protestant, or if her daughter had done so before 1714, the outcome could have been very different.. and that line could be sitting on the throne today.

The point is: there was no need for Henreitte Ann of England and Scotland to renounce her faith as long as she lived. Plus she had married the brother of Louis XIV. and to be allowed to do that, she had to renounce her inheritance rights to the Crowns of England and Scotland (this was common for princesses marrying into foreign Royal houses, especially when there was a female inheritance right in the family they came from). At no point did the British want a French or Italian princess plus husband as their souverains, no matter how closely she was related to the Stuarts by blood.

There is an interesting book on google (free to read) about The Electress Sophia and the Hanoveran succession which has lots and lots of details about that.

[MAfan]

If in 1714 - at Queen Anne's death - her half-brother James had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, could he have succeeded her?

[Renata4711]

And while we indulge in speculation, the Battle of Prestonpans will be fought yet again - on Friday, Saturday and Sunday 23rd to 25th.

www.battleofprestonpans1745.org

Every year, this re-enactment gets better and better....

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

The point is: there was no need for Henreitte Ann of England and Scotland to renounce her faith as long as she lived. Plus she had married the brother of Louis XIV. and to be allowed to do that, she had to renounce her inheritance rights to the Crowns of England and Scotland (this was common for princesses marrying into foreign Royal houses, especially when there was a female inheritance right in the family they came from). At no point did the British want a French or Italian princess plus husband as their souverains, no matter how closely she was related to the Stuarts by blood.

Renouncing rights of inheritance may have been common practice on the Continent, but Britain had no Salic law. The succession of the crown had already been passed to women in Tudor England, and it was passed after James II to his daughters, Mary II and Anne.

The English people had no problem being ruled by a woman.. and if Henrietta or Anne-Marie had renounced Catholicism, their claim to the throne would have come before that of Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia because as the sister of both Charles II and James II, Henrietta was closer in line.

And Henrietta was not born a princess of France. She was a princess of England and Scotland, who was in fact, baptized in the Church of England.. it was only after her father's execution that her mother decided to raise her Roman Catholic while living in exile at the French Court.

I don't see how the spouse's nationality would come into it anyway.. Mary I married Spain, Mary II married the Netherlands, Anne married Denmark and Elizabeth of Bohemia married Germany.

Of course when you have a female monarch, there has inevitably been a foreign consort.. just as we have seen throughout British history - Queen Victoria also married a German prince, and Elizabeth II married a (former) prince of Greece and Denmark.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by MAfan

If in 1714 - at Queen Anne's death - her half-brother James had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, could he have succeeded her?

I don't think there was much possibility that James Francis Edward Stuart could have succeeded his half-sister Anne to the throne - even if he had become Anglican - given the fact that he was responsible for the Jacobite Rising.

He had already declared himself King James III of England and VIII of Scotland following his father's death in 1701. He was recognized as king in France, Spain, the Papal States and Modena.. and those states refused to recognize William III and Mary II as lawful sovereigns.

Because of this, "James III" was attainted for treason in London in 1702, meaning that all of his titles were forfeited under English law.

From that point forward, James Stuart had no English rights whatsoever.. although there is a small chance that had he converted to Anglicanism and agreed to whatever demands Parliament made of him, he could have been restored and succeeded Anne.. I seriously doubt that the parties could have reached any sort of agreement to make that happen, after the execution of Charles I and the rebellion that followed.

I believe the situation was too far gone long before Anne's death, and aside from his staunch Catholicism, James owed his loyalty and his very livelihood to the Pope in Rome, without whose support he would have been practically penniless.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

I
When the British deposed James II, they first settled the crown on his daughter Mary II and her husband William III, since both were Protestants. When both the lines of Queen Mary II and her sister Queen Anne (also a Protestant) failed to produce an heir, they reverted back to the sister of his grandfather James I, and settled the crown upon a Protestant heir from her line.

Actually Elizabeth was the daughter of James I. James had no siblings either.

Small point but one that I think, in a thread like this, is necessary.

The present royal family are the direct descendents of James I and VI through his daughter - James - Elizabeth - Sophia - George I etc.