The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 07-09-2011, 04:30 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,090
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-10-2011, 12:36 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 413
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)
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-08-2011, 04:43 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-08-2011, 05:48 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,190
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:15 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:19 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:30 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:40 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania View Post
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 09-09-2011, 12:43 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 09-13-2011, 11:52 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Legitmacy of the current Jacobite claimants

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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 09-13-2011, 12:02 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: ., Israel
Posts: 35
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 09-13-2011, 04:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: milledgeville, United States
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberivs View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 09-14-2011, 02:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 09-14-2011, 02:57 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas of Albania View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 09-14-2011, 03:36 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:08 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,456
If in 1714 - at Queen Anne's death - her half-brother James had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, could he have succeeded her?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
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....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:15 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 09-14-2011, 04:37 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 09-14-2011, 05:28 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, jacobite, line of succession, pretender, stuart


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]