The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 02-09-2019, 06:46 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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....
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:04 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,510
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-09-2019, 07:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,150
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
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-09-2019, 01:57 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:32 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan
Posts: 8
First of all thank you all for all the information on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 05-07-2019, 02:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,244
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.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 05-07-2019, 03:57 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

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?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 05-07-2019, 04:09 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: pinner, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,969
^ 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'.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 05-07-2019, 06:56 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 05-07-2019, 08:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:17 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 05-07-2019, 11:24 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 05-07-2019, 11:54 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
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!
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 05-07-2019, 12:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, danish royal family, dutch royal family, norwegian royal family, swedish royal family


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are the Orleans-Braganza in the line of succession to the French throne? Lecen Royal Families of France 7 12-27-2014 08:49 PM
Line of Succession to the British Throne David Lewis Royal Genealogy 22 02-17-2012 10:49 AM




Popular Tags
alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig birthday celebration bracelets british royal family charles of wales christian ix corruption countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife current events cypher denmark discussão duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex extramarital affairs family search felipe vi french royalty general news germany hamdan bin mohammed head of the house her children introduction jack brooksbank jerusalem juan carlos king letter meghan markle member modernization mohammed vi monaco christening monarchism nelson mandela bay official visit patron prince harry prince laurent prince of wales prince peter princess princess beatrice princess benedikte princess claire princesses princess royal prince william public opinion queen elisabeth royal tour rumania sarah ferguson siblings spain state visit sweden trump windy city wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises