Stuart Succession and Jacobite pretenders

[hillary_nugent]

[quote=Iain]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

Queen Elizabeth isn't even the rightful monarch of Britain never mind of France.

WHOA...noway!!! holy...thats shocking hahaha

well who's the rightful monarch of Britain???

[Iain]

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

WHOA...noway!!! holy...thats shocking hahaha

well who's the rightful monarch of Britain???

The Stuarts are the righful monarchs. They were ousted, though not by the people, and replaced by the Hanovarians. Today in Scotland many still have loyalty to the House and Stuart and refuse to accept Elizabeth as Queen. There are a few Stuart claiments including, I have been told, the father of the Crown Princess of Leichtenstein.

[Aubisse]

Originally Posted by Iain

The Stuarts are the righful monarchs. They were ousted, though not by the people, and replaced by the Hanovarians. Today in Scotland many still have loyalty to the House and Stuart and refuse to accept Elizabeth as Queen. There are a few Stuart claiments including, I have been told, the father of the Crown Princess of Leichtenstein.

There are Stuarts in Scotland too, but they arenatural branches (Lennox, Gordon...)

As a French living in South West France, I vote for the Duke of Beaufort, who is the head of the Plantagenet family : he may claim as duc d'Aquitaine et de Normandie, comte de Poitiers, de Limoges et d'Anjou :-)

[Aubisse]

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

Thanks for replying Iain and Aubisse wow...i never knew this its really amazing...so is there members of the Stuart house in Scotland that call themselves royals?

I don't think they dare. And in fact they don't have to : some are very rich and everyone there knows who they are.

Four families now

Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon
The titles Duke of Richmond and Duke of Lennox were created in the peerages of England and Scotland respectively in 1675 for Charles Lennox, llegitimate son of Charles II of England. The Duke of Richmond and Lennox was created Duke of Gordon in 1876. Thus, the Duke holds three dukedoms, more than any other person in the realm.
The subsidiary titles are: Earl of March (created 1675), Earl of Darnley (1675), Earl of Kinrara (1876), Lord Methuen (1675) and Baron Settrington (1675). The titles Earl Darnley and Lord Methuen were created in the peerage of Scotland along with the Dukedom of Lennox. The titles Earl of March, Earl of Darnley and Baron Settrington were created in the peerage of England along with the Dukedom of Richmond. Finally, the title Earl of Kinrara was created in the peerage of the United Kingdom with the Dukedom of Gordon. The eldest son of the Duke uses the courtesy title of Earl of March, Darnley and Kinrara.
(For their coat of arms see : http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org...s/Lennox_2.htm )


Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry
The title of Duke of Buccleuch was created in the Peerage of Scotland on 20 April 1663 for James Crofts, eldest illegitimate son of Charles II of England, who had married Anne Scott, Countess of Buccleuch. In 1666, Anne was created Duchess in her own right, so that the title was not affected by Monmouth's attainder in 1685. It passed on to his descendants, who have borne the surnames Scott or Montagu-Douglas-Scott. In 1810, the Duke of Buccleuch inherited the title of Duke of Queensberry, also in the Peerage of Scotland, thus separating that title from that of Marquess of Queensberry. Thus, the holder is one of the only four people to hold two or more different dukedoms, the other being the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon.
The subsidiary titles associated with the Dukedom of Buccleuch are: Earl of Buccleuch (1619), Earl of Doncaster (1663), Earl of Dalkeith (1663), Lord Scott of Buccleuch (1606), Lord Scott of Whitechester and Eskdale (1619), and Baron Scott of Tyndale (1663). (All, except for the Earldom of Doncaster and the Barony of Scott of Tyndale, are in the peerage of Scotland.) The courtesy title used by the Duke's eldest son and heir is Earl of Dalkeith.
Coat of arms : http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org..._Buccleuch.htm
Princess Alice, duchess of Gloucester was a Montaigu Douglas Scott.

Duke of Saint-Albans
Beauclerk:The title Duke of St Albans was created in 1684 for Charles Beauclerk when he was fourteen years old. King Charles II had accepted that Beauclerk was his illegitimate son by Eleanor Gwynn , an actress, and had awarded Beauclerk the dukedom, just as he had awarded the dukedoms of Richmond and Lennox , Buccleuch and Grafton on his other illegitimate sons.
The subsidiary titles of the Duke are: Earl of Burford (1676), Baron Heddington (1676) and Baron Vere of Hanworth (1750). The titles created in 1676 were in the peerage of England, while that created in 1750 was in the peerage of Great Britain. The eldest son and heir of the Duke of St Albans is known by the courtesy title of Earl of Burford. The present Earl of Burford became briefly prominent in 1999 when he ran from the steps of the throne to stand on the Woolsack in the House of Lords to denounce the House of Lords Bill which would remove hereditary peers from the House.
(coat of arms : http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org.../Beauclerk.htm )
House : http://www.oldprints.co.uk/prints/cs/morris/93451.htm


Duke of Grafton
The title of Duke of Grafton was created in 1675 by Charles II of England for his 2nd illegitimate son by the Duchess of Cleveland, Henry Fitzroy .The most famous duke was probably Augustus Henry Fitzroy, 3rd Duke of Grafton who served as prime minister in the 1760s.
The Duke of Grafton holds three subsidiary titles, all created in 1672 in the peerage of England: Earl of Euston, Viscount Ipswich, and Baron Sudbury of Sudbury. The Duke's eldest son and heir uses the courtesy title Earl of Euston.
Coat of arms : http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org...he_Grafton.htm

[Iain]

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

Thanks for replying Iain and Aubisse wow...i never knew this its really amazing...so is there members of the Stuart house in Scotland that call themselves royals?

Well there is a Belgian gentleman living in Edinburgh who calls himself Prince Michael Stuart and claims the throne. I don't think anyone takes him seriously though. In the late 1800s there were two brothers by the name of Sobieski-Stuart who claimed to be decended from, I think, Charles II. They lived in Strathglass in the North of Scotland and used to cross the loch to attend Mass at Strathglass church wher the congragation addressed them as Royal Highness. Many of the local clan cheifs accepted their claim. The real claiments to the throne are the House of Wittelsbach and you can find out about them on www.jacobite.ca

[Von Schlesian]

"So in due course the future reigning Josef Wenzel, Prince of Liechtenstein, will be (in the eyes of the Stuart legitimists) the rightful King of Great Britain."-Originally posted by Warren in the other thread..


True, (but for the huge obstical that His Serene Highness shall be a Roman Catholic, as are both of his parents), and the successions act of 1701 prevents any such person from being within the line of succession, although as you so rightly put Warren, "(in the eyes of Stuart/[Stewart] legitimists)".


"wow interesting...lets say if the Dauphin did survive and his descendents exist, would they have the rights to claim any properties or items of the royal family? sorry for these silly questions but i'm very curious =]"Originally posted by hillary_nugent in the other thread..

If an heir were able to proove their claim, then they'd have every right to claim back the property titles etc that were removed from their family in the revolution(s). A personal view would be that, considering the modern world, Frances' position in the EU etc, that some action would have to be taken. I doubt there would be a restoration, but certainly I think the French government would have to act, it would be too easy for the claiment (if genuine), to get the world media (and therefore the people) on the side of their cause. All they'd need to do is show primary source material from the times (diaries/newspaper etc), about the brutality of the revolutionaries to win over the people.

[Warren]

Hi Von Schlesian. I enjoy the historical and dynastic quirk that means one day the Stuart/Jacobite legitimists will be swearing allegiance to their "rightful" King, the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

Taking into account the "fortuitous" marriage of the Hereditary Prince with Duchess Sophie, perhaps Prince Hans Adam has an ambitious long-term plan! Liechtenstien is obviously too small for all of those Princes, so its only a matter of time before a challenge is made to the legitimacy of the House of Windsor. Liechtenstein rules the waves, and claims a Kingdom!

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

A more "almost came true" what-if: Assume Crown Prince Philippe leaves no living descendants; Astrid would succeed to the Belgian throne, to be followed in due course by the Archduke Amedeo of Austria-Este. Obviously he would be using his other second name of "of Belgium", but in reality the Imperial House of Habsburg would have regained a Kingdom! Until Mathilde made her dazzling appearance on the scene, there was a possibiliity that this scenario would come true. Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?

cheers,
W

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Warren

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

Hi Warren, that is scarey!! How did you respond? As soon as the holy oil anoints the Royal forehead, and the St. Edwards' Crown is blessed and placed on the head, our Soverign (and her Windsor family before her), became so, our undoubted Queen. Still, it's not all that difficult to get a Scot upset when it comes to the line of succession..:)

[Von Schlesian]

That other point you mentioned Warren, also very interesting.

That the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would be succeeded by one of it's former great rivals... My goodness me.

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by Warren

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

Well it sounds like he needs to get with reality (not to mention get a life). The notion of a 'Stuart' (and I use the name loosely) restoration is a fantasy like Alice in Wonderland.

The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian

Still, it's not all that difficult to get a Scot upset when it comes to the line of succession..:)

Yes, as I found out!
.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Sean.~

The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

Here here!!:)

[tiaraprin]

Originally Posted by Sean.~

Well it sounds like he needs to get with reality (not to mention get a life). The notion of a 'Stuart' (and I use the name loosely) restoration is a fantasy like Alice in Wonderland.

The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

However, if the tie between religion and the succession is abolished, then wouldn't the Stuarts who are alive today have a greater claim?? There is clamoring to have the rule about Catholics marrying the British Royals abolished.

[Sean.~]

Originally Posted by tiaraprin

However, if the tie between religion and the succession is abolished, then wouldn't the Stuarts who are alive today have a greater claim?? There is clamoring to have the rule about Catholics marrying the British Royals abolished.

No. They're not Stuarts per se, and it won't be a retroactive law. Besides, the Windsors are the recognized RF by the British people, so that's all that matters.

[Elspeth]

This topic was touched on briefly in another thread, but it's probably worth its own thread.

Does anyone have any information about the current Stuart and Jacobite pretenders to the British throne? I remember seeing a book by a certain Prince Michael of Albany who claims to be the rightful Scottish king. The Jacobite claimant is someone else again.

How do these claims stack up against each other (apart from being pure fantasy, of course)? Should the Queen be worried?

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Should the Queen be worried?

Only about laughing too hard when hearing some of the claims..

Michael Lafosse/of Albany, seems to base his entire claim on a marriage 200 years ago, which only he knows about! (A marriage which if true, may have lead to him being in the running somewhere along the lines, but as we all know, never happened).

[Warren]

Originally posted by Lady Marmalade here

From Wikipedia:

Jacobite Claimants to the Thrones of England, Scotland, (France), and Ireland

• James II and VII (February 6, 1685 – September 16, 1701).
• James III and VIII (September 16, 1701 – January 1, 1766), James Francis Edward Stuart, also known as the Chevalier de St. George or as the Old Pretender.
• Charles III (