Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I suppose because he didn't fully understand the law and was willing to try anything in order to become King. (1) He didn't realize that all Roman Catholics were barred from the throne, including former Catholics, and (2) his religion technically wasn't even relevant because the succession had already been limited to the descendants of the Electress Sophia before he was born. The Act of Settlement eliminated him twice. Or actually thrice, once he married a Roman Catholic.

Thank you. I know he was rather a dim bulb.. but I thought that there was a possibility, if Anne did not have heirs that the Jacobite cuase still had a chance if Charles would accept the C of E....(and married a Protestant wife - of couse he did not marry till late in life....

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not familiar with the events under discussion, but a Parliament which had twice altered the succession laws could theoretically alter them a third time if a claimant gained sufficient popularity, and a converted Anglican claimant would presumably obtain more support than one who continued to be Catholic.

[Denville]

In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Denville

In theory yes, but in practice I think that while there was still a Jacobite faction, CE didn't have enough support to pull it off. THe Stuarts were not wanted overall because of their Catholicism, their tendency towards Absolutism and a general ineptness at ruling.. But in theory, if Charles had turned Anglican married a Protestant princess, he might have had a chance of the law being changed in his favour….However OTOH the Stuarts had been restored in 1660, and although Charle II had stayed away from the Roman Church, he had still been something of an absolutist, he had married a Catholic wife.. and his broter had been more inflexible as a Catholic.. so maybe they weren't willing to give them another chance

Except the Stuarts weren't overthrown; after James II was deposed his daughter and her husband (who was a grandson of Charles I and James' nephew) reigned, then after their deaths James' other daughter reigned.


Charles II is noted as having been a popular monarch during his reign. James I was a popular monarch as well. Both had their issues, but they were not really worse than many other monarchs. James II, however, was because of his Catholicism.



Charles Edward Stuart's willingness to convert to Anglicanism came up after his defeat in 1745; he decided that he was willing to convert in order to gain further support in England. He wasn't a strong candidate for the throne regardless of his religion - his claim came through his then still living father, he had just been hugely defeated in a rebellion to overthrow the monarch, and the monarch (George II) had no shortage of eligible, Protestant heirs.

[danishjaveed]

First of all thank you all for all the information on this thread.

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Only being confirmed as Roman Catholic would do that.

As a Roman Catholic will not be in the line of succession only after he/she is confirmed, this means that Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina Windsor and Lord Nicholas Windsor were not in the line of succession only after they were confirmed. So. Does anyone know when were their confirmation dates? Plus who else converted to Roman Catholism and was concequently not in the line of succession and what were their confirmation dates?

[Iluvbertie]

Lord Nicholas Windsor converted in 2001.

Baron Downpatrick converted in 2003.

Lady Marina did so in 2008.

The other person who has lost their place due to conversion is Princess Alexandra of Hanover who converted last year.

Exact dates aren't given anywhere - only years - that I can find.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

In 1714, there were children too young to have been confirmed as Roman Catholics who were nonetheless skipped, including the crown prince of France (age 4) and the crown prince of Spain and his brothers (ages 2 to 6).

How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?

[wyevale]

^ The future Louis XV was certainly baptised as a Catholic, within days of his birth, so would [under the act of Settlement] have been excluded from the succession to the British throne..
Given the appalling rates of infant mortality, babies tended to be baptised asap.. sometimes within 24 hours of birth, lest they die 'unsaved'.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

How were the Crown princes of France (who reigned as Louis XV.) and Spain (later Louis I. of Spain) in the line to the British throne?

They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

They were both great-grandsons of Henrietta Anne Duchess of Orleans, the daughter of Charles I.


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Adelaide (m. Louis Duke of Burgundy later Dauphin of France) > Louis XV


King Charles I > Henrietta Anne (m. Philippe Duke of Orleans) > Anne Marie (m. Victor Amadeus Duke of Savoy & later King of Sardinia) > Marie Louise (m. Philip V King of Spain) > Luis I

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.

[Duke of Leaside]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Interesting article. However it lists the future George I's brother Maximilian as #65 in line. But as a convert to the Roman Catholic faith (1692) Maximilian was disqualified.

At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside

At the top of the line of succession in the article it says that eligible Protestants are listed in italics. Maximilian is not italicized as he wasn't eligible, because as you say he had converted to the Roman Catholic faith.

Ah, I didn't catch that, thanks!

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Wikipedia has an article with the Jacobite line of succession in 1714 . Apparently, the future King Louis XV of France and the future Luis I of Spain were actually fifth and sixth in line to the thrones of England and Scotland (the Jacobites of course not recognizing the legal validity of the Acts of Union of 1707).



Interestingly, the future King George I of Great Britain was only 56th in line under the Jacobite succession, which really highlights how dramatic the Act of Settlement was. I am surprised there was so little opposition to the legitimacy of the Hanoverians, but I understand it in the context of the time when the Act of Settlement was passed.

You are right, I didn't think of the Savoy-girls! Thank you.