The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:55 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
I hope the Queen isn't losing any sleep....
If I were her I'd be very worried. He looks as if he could do terrible things with a battered pizza.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 11-14-2005, 08:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/

Here is his link to his site.
I r eally didn't know that's who you were referring to. In any case, the guy is a complete fraud. IIRC, he published a book several years ago under his Michael of Albany name. There have been many discussion about him on the various internet boards and usenet groups. You might want to check-out the archives of alt.talk.royalty via advanced google groups search for discussions going back several years.
Also, for an interesting read, see the esteemed (IMO) Guy Stair Sainty's debunking of Lafosse's/Albany's claims at http://www.chivalricorders.org/royal...y/stuart.htmAs well Sean Murphy's page on lbany's false birth and marriage certificates. http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmur...fs/lafosse.htm
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,539


Two interesting alternative successions as listed by Wikipedia in regards to the Jacobite claim:

However, it seems all roads still lead to the current Queen Elizabeth in the end. :)

While Franz, Duke of Bavaria, is the most universally acknowledged Stuart heir there are two others. If one discounts the marriage of the Duke of Bavaria's ancestress Maria Beatrice of Savoy as being invalid in British law (she married her uncle) then the succession would have passed from her to her younger sister Maria Teresa who married the Duke of Parma. Her representative today is HRH The Infanta Alicia, dowager Duchess of Calabria (b. 1917) and mother of the heir of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.


The second alternative succession is rather suprising to many. In the book The Highland Clans, by The Honourable Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk it is stated that "by the fourteenth century it had become common law [in both England and Scotland] that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalized, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir. He was in the strictest sense "illegitimate," though not of course born out of wedlock. This legal incapacity of aliens to be heirs applied to all inheritances, whether honours or lands.

The effect of the succession opening to a foreigner was that, if he had not been naturalized or if his case was not covered by some special statute, the succession passed to the next heir "of the blood," who thus became the only "lawful" heir. It was of course always open to the Sovereign to confer an honor or an estate on a foreigner; the rule of law merely prevented aliens from being "lawful heirs" to existing inheritances. This "common law" principle was rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688 after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass special legislation naturalizing all alien-born potential royal heirs under the "Act of Settlement" provisions. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688, and the old law remained static until the death of Cardinal York [King Henry IX] in 1807.
At that time, Henry IX's nearest heir in blood under this argument was not as is sometimes supposed the King of Sardinia, for he had not the legal capacity to be an heir in Britain, unless naturalized which he was not. The nearest British-born heir of Henry IX would have been, in fact, George III, hence his son could indeed legitimately claim to be a Jacobite monarch as portrayed during the visit of King George IV to Scotland.
Thus, following this argument, the de jure and legitimist heir to the crown of Great Britain would, ironically, be the de facto sovereign Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
I r eally didn't know that's who you were referring to. In any case, the guy is a complete fraud. IIRC, he published a book several years ago under his Michael of Albany name. There have been many discussion about him on the various internet boards and usenet groups. You might want to check-out the archives of alt.talk.royalty via advanced google groups search for discussions going back several years.
Also, for an interesting read, see the esteemed (IMO) Guy Stair Sainty's debunking of Lafosse's/Albany's claims at http://www.chivalricorders.org/royal...y/stuart.htmAs well Sean Murphy's page on lbany's false birth and marriage certificates. http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmur...fs/lafosse.htm

No, thank you for your help with the title and all :), I knew it was Prince Michael..but I could never remember of what it what it so I could look him up online.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 11-14-2005, 11:42 PM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
I love all this info! Maria Beatrice Of Savoy married her uncle?? Eeeuw!
__________________
Happy New Year-Here's to Peace On Earth
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:09 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Mary I
I love all this info! Maria Beatrice Of Savoy married her uncle?? Eeeuw!
Back then, to paraphrase Queen Victoria, such marriages were considered to make 'strong royal blood' stronger.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:13 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
Back then, to paraphrase Queen Victoria, such marriages were considered to make 'strong royal blood' stronger.
I know-like the Egyptians Royals married siblings. But still-eeuuuw! Very immature I know but YUCK! It makes me all queasy inside LOL!
__________________
Happy New Year-Here's to Peace On Earth
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 11-15-2005, 04:05 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oppie
I'll try a hypothetical example. If Scotland had an Queen Oppie V and England had an Queen Oppie II, the next Queen Oppie of the Untied Kingdom would be Queen Oppie VI since Scotland has the highest number. :)
This is not the case. If it were then James VI and James VII would not be referred to as James I and Jmes II. As is always the case in the so called "United" Kingdom the English must have things done their way.

And Mapple, you are confusing the Sovereign with Sovereignity but they are two different things.

Princejonnhy25, the post boxes actually don't have any reference to the queen on it. They just have the Scottish crown.

Skydragon, I don't think there are a million English in Scotland, it just feels that way sometimes. Unlike other foreigners living in the country they refuse point blank to assimilate with the locals and do nothing but complain because things are not done here the way they are done in England. "Why do the Scots always have to be different" is their constant moan. My answer is if they are not happy then they should go back to their own country. I once overheard two of them speaking, the one said to the other, "you know how these Scots are all Catholics and Presbyterians, well being Church of England it makes you feel like you're a missionary doesn't it?" And the poor souls wonder why nobody likes them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 11-15-2005, 05:08 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oppie
There is also an Australian guy who has a claim because Edward III (I think) was illegitmate. He said he doesn't want it.
The claim of Michael Hastings, (or rather Tony Robinson on his behalf), all hinges on dates being entered correctly, facts being recorded accurately, and any other amount of circumstancial proof. The reality is, that a claim can not be persued, as for approximately 1000 years, members of the same (extended), family have occupied the throne of Britain, and nearly 600 years after Michael Hastings' technicality may have occured, a Monarch is well loved, legitimate, and was anointed our sovereign 52 years ago. God Save the Queen.
__________________
Thy choicest gifts in store, on her be pleased to pour, long may she reign. May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause, to sing with heart and voice, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 11-15-2005, 07:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Schlesian
The claim of Michael Hastings, (or rather Tony Robinson on his behalf), all hinges on dates being entered correctly, facts being recorded accurately, and any other amount of circumstancial proof. The reality is, that a claim can not be persued, as for approximately 1000 years, members of the same (extended), family have occupied the throne of Britain, and nearly 600 years after Michael Hastings' technicality may have occured, a Monarch is well loved, legitimate, and was anointed our sovereign 52 years ago. God Save the Queen.

In addition, even if his claim is accurate and Edward IV was illegitmate then the throne would have gone to Edward's brother Richard III. The Battle of Bosworth would have happened and the rest they say is history as Henry VII didn't claim the throne so much through blood as through right of conquest.

In addition to that there is the simple little matter of the Act of Settlement which denies the throne to anyone who is not a legitimate descendent of Sophia of Hanover - and the senior descendent of that lady is currently our gracious majesty.

The third point is a common law one - in England if a child is born in wedlock and accepted by the father as his then regardless of who the natural father is the child takes the father's name and place, including his entitlement to titles etc. This is why it is also stupid of those people who say that Hewitt is actually Prince Harry's biological father because Prince Charles has accepted Harry as his (and personally I believe he is Charles's son) and therefore under common law Harry is Charles' second son and heir to everything that goes with being Charles' second son. In the same way Edward IV was recognised by his father as being the father's son and therefore Edward was the legitimate heir of the father regardless of his biological parentage.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 11-15-2005, 11:30 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain
This is not the case. If it were then James VI and James VII would not be referred to as James I and Jmes II. As is always the case in the so called "United" Kingdom the English must have things done their way.

And Mapple, you are confusing the Sovereign with Sovereignity but they are two different things.

...
The Stuart Jameses reigned over kingdoms that were in a personal union, thus they had a different ordinal in each state. The present Queen reigns as a monarch of the United Kingdom.

As for sovereignty, you are mixing up the concept in the British constitutional law (parliamentary sovereignty) and the right of Elizabeth II to exercise supreme authority over a certain land or a group of people. The first of them may or may not apply to Scotland, the second certainly does so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 11-15-2005, 12:35 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,539
There will always be a certain amount of disagreement in the Scotland and England claims of how each monarch is viewed numerically. I have several friends from Scotland who take Iain's views as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 11-15-2005, 01:21 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
There will always be a certain amount of disagreement in the Scotland and England claims of how each monarch is viewed numerically. I have several friends from Scotland who take Iain's views as well.
Some future king can reign under different ordinals in England & Wales and in Scotland, that's for sure. Thankfully Charles is going to be the third king of that name in all of the constituent countries of the UK. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 12-10-2005, 01:40 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,443
Lines of Succession - Historical

Does anyone have a "Line of Succession" table for 1910 & 1930?
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 12-10-2005, 02:20 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by wymanda
Does anyone have a "Line of Succession" table for 1910 & 1930?
I used to have a 1910 'Pears Cyclopaedia' but it just had the family and grandchildren of Edward VII. I'm afraid if you want to go past the immediate family members you may have to trawl through the family trees and piece it together; it depends on how far down you want to go: the first 20 or 30, or up to 100?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 12-10-2005, 09:35 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,443
This is what I've managed to work out for 1909
Attached Images
File Type: bmp 1909.bmp (135.2 KB, 98 views)
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 12-11-2005, 05:08 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 228
Is it possible to see it bigger?

Thanks!!!
At
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 12-19-2005, 12:40 AM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,443
1. George, Duke of York
2. Edward (later Duke of Windsor)
3. Albert (later George VI)
4. Henry (Duke of Gloucester)
5. George (Duke of Kent)
6. John
7. Mary (Later Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood)
8. Princess Louise (Princess Royal, Duchess of Fife)
9. Princess Victoria
10. Queen Maud
11. Prince Olav of Norway
12. Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught
13.
14. Princess Margaret of Connaught (Crown Princess of Sweden)
15. Princess Patricia of Connaught (Later Lady Patricia Ramsay)
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 03-02-2006, 04:10 PM
Kat Kat is offline
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Arima, Trinidad and Tobago
Posts: 34
hello! This is a very interesting thread here ... I have one question / comment though ... what would happen if (in the future - assuming the laws remain the same) the heir to the throne had one son & one daughter & the son was the eldest, but married a Catholic / became a Catholic? Would it still go to the daughter? What if she also became a Catholic? ... *just a thought*
__________________
Luv Kat

"One day my music will unite. Fighting will be no more that's right. One day my people will know love and this war will over. And love will fall upon us ..." ~ from the song 'One Day' by Kees Dieffenthaller
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 03-02-2006, 04:18 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
If the heir, lets say William, had a son and he married a catholic he would be out of succession and his sister would become Queen after William. The same for if he converted. If William's daughter did the same then the throne would go to Harry.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


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 prince haakon 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 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 letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola 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 12:02 AM.

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]