The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 1: Ending 2022

[Warren]

Lost and found section

Thank you for all the info! I once found a great site on the Jacobites but my computer crashed over the summer and I haven't been able to find it again.

Consider it found:

http://www.jacobite.ca/

W

 

[Mapple]

Mmm..I don't think that is correct. She is not QEII in Scotland.

Actually, she is.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990427/text/90427-15.htm

'Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.


'Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point.'

 

[Mapple]

Thank you very much for the explanation! I just love the way the title rolls off the tongue -

Mary, Queen Of Scots, Robert King Of Scots, Elizabeth Queen Of Scots!

I have read all the books I could find on Mary I-I must have missed that part about Queen Mary I in my eagerness!

...

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm#1553

Mary Tudor's regnal style was 'the most high, most puissant, and most excellent Princess Mary the First...'

 

[ysbel]

Mary, Queen Of Scots, Robert King Of Scots, Elizabeth Queen Of Scots!

Kings in general were referred to at one time that way. Edward II was called King of the English in documents. The old Danish coins were imprinted with 'Rex Danae' King of the Danes. The diplomatic controversy during Edward's and Robert's time was whether Robert was actually called King of Scots. The pope held off for a long time. Philip, Edward's father-in-law played both sides of the coin. In letters to Edward II he referred to Robert as Scotlands regent but when he wrote to Robert himself, he addressed him as King of Scots. Edward found out and was furious.

 

[Mapple]

ysbel, several monarchs were considered to govern peoples rather than some (ill-defined) territories then. In the 19th Century this usage was revived in several countries; for example, Albert II is the King of the Belgians, not the King of Belgium.

 

[ysbel]

ysbel, several monarchs were considered to govern peoples rather than some (ill-defined) territories then. In the 19th Century this usage was revived in several countries; for example, Albert II is the King of the Belgians, not the King of Belgium.

I didn't know that was the reason but it makes sense. Thanks Mapple.

Queen Mary I, I'm still mad at Mel Gibson for making Robert look so bad in that movie.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Hi Everyone,

Thank you so far for your posts. We somehow have veered the bus we are all riding on in this thread towards Scotland and the correct titles of the current Queen and past monarchs.

Trivia question:

Which five dukedoms, NOT ROYAL ONES, can lay claim to throne of England, had they been legitimate children born in wedlock to certain sovereigns, or the children of soveregns?

One duke even gave Queen Victoria a real shake when he presented documentation proving his descendent was legitimate and therefore he should be king.....she thanked him kindly and when he left, burned the proof in her fireplace.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Well, three that I seem to remember something about are:

Northumberland

Norfolk and

Leinster

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Hmm.....any other guesses?

I'll give you one..

Henry Fitzroy, 1st Duke of Grafton, was the 2nd illegitimate son of King Charles II by Barbara Villers, Duchess of Cleveland. Born in 1663, Henry was created Baron Sudbury, Viscount Ipswich, and Earl of Euston in 1672 (ripe old age of 8-1/2). Henry was created Duke of Grafton in 1675, just before his 12th birthday.

This explains the Coat of Arms held by the Dukes of Grafton. The Royal Arms of Charles II debruised by a baton sinister showing that the 1st Duke was related by blood to the Sovereign but unable to succeed to the Throne because of being born out of wedlock.

 

[Mapple]

...

Trivia question:

Which five dukedoms, NOT ROYAL ONES, can lay claim to throne of England, had they been legitimate children born in wedlock to certain sovereigns, or the children of soveregns?

One duke even gave Queen Victoria a real shake when he presented documentation proving his descendent was legitimate and therefore he should be king.....she thanked him kindly and when he left, burned the proof in her fireplace.

Beaufort, Buccleuch, Richmond & Gordon, Grafton and St Albans.

It was the Duke of Beaufort with whom this legend is concerned.

 

[Von Schlesian]

IN that case, I must have been confusing my three with those Dukedoms into which members or Royal houses have married.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Good job Mapple!!

 

[Queen Mary I]

I didn't know that was the reason but it makes sense. Thanks Mapple.

Queen Mary I, I'm still mad at Mel Gibson for making Robert look so bad in that movie.

Robert looked good at the end though. Leading the final battle at Banachburn. (I KNOW I am spelling that wrong!)

I read in a book that HM Queen Elizabeth II can reign today because she has a certain percentage of Stuart blood ( forget how much but it seemed a minute amount!).

Because of my interest in the Tudor reign I have tried to figure out what her relationship is to Henry VIII? Cousins? I know that in his will he removed his elder sister Margaret, Queen Of Scots' heirs from the succession ( I think that Old King Hal the hypocrite was annoyed that his sister had divorced ) anyway in his will he left his younger Mary's heirs next in the succession after his children-but Margaret's heirs must have been restored at some point since James I and IV followed Elizabeth I to the throne. So what I am trying to figure out is what are the Tudors to the today's Windsors? Cousins? Great aunts and uncles 16 generations back? I live for Trivia!

 

[Iluvbertie]

Robert looked good at the end though. Leading the final battle at Banachburn. (I KNOW I am spelling that wrong!)

I read in a book that HM Queen Elizabeth II can reign today because she has a certain percentage of Stuart blood ( forget how much but it seemed a minute amount!).

Because of my interest in the Tudor reign I have tried to figure out what her relationship is to Henry VIII? Cousins? I know that in his will he removed his elder sister Margaret, Queen Of Scots' heirs from the succession ( I think that Old King Hal the hypocrite was annoyed that his sister had divorced ) anyway in his will he left his younger Mary's heirs next in the succession after his children-but Margaret's heirs must have been restored at some point since James I and IV followed Elizabeth I to the throne. So what I am trying to figure out is what are the Tudors to the today's Windsors? Cousins? Great aunts and uncles 16 generations back? I live for Trivia!

The present British Royal Family are direct descendents of Henry VII through James the VI and I.

When the last of the Tudors died she named James as her heir (he was the next legitimate heir if one ignores Henry VIII's decision over his sister. James VI and I's daughter married into Europe and her daughter (James' granddaughter) was Sophia of Hanover.

In 1714 the throne past to Sophia's son George I (James' great-grandson). From there the line is relatively easy - George II -Frederick Prince of Wales (predeceased his father) - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Queen Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth.

It always annoys me when people claim that Diana brought the true Stuart blood back into the Royal Family when it has been all the time through legitimate descent from James VI and I.

 

[Iain]

Au contraire, my good Iain, the Countess of Buchan herself crowned Robert the Bruce when she was just a child. It was de rigeur for the representatives of the most distinguised nobility to crown the King of Scots and the young Countess scandalized the medieval world by running away from her husband to take her brother's place in the ancient ceremonies.

Edward I paid her back though. On a mission to cut through Scotland, his forces captured her and he ordered that she be put in a wicker cage on the outside rampants of his castle open to the gaze of all who walked there. She was thus imprisoned for two years.

Yes, I Know that Robert I was crowned but what I meant was that I don't think he would be too bothered that the coronation service was abolished. Unlike the English the Scots have always regarded themselves as European and many visitors, especially those from England, remark how "different" Scotland is from England and how European it feels. So King Robert would have no problem with the country falling into line with other European countries.

 

[Iain]

Actually, she is.

http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990427/text/90427-15.htm

'Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Despite his very interesting essay on Scottish jurisprudence and the interpretation of the Act of Union, I think I am right in saying that Her Majesty the Queen is still styled Queen Elizabeth the Second in Scotland and to that extent the case must have been lost.


'Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, but I do not think it was lost on that point.'

It doesn't matter what the courts say, the Scots people will NEVER accept Elizabeth as the second. Unlike England where Sovereignty rests with parliament, in Scotland it rests with the people and the people have spoken!

 

[ysbel]

The present British Royal Family are direct descendents of Henry VII through James the VI and I.

When the last of the Tudors died she named James as her heir (he was the next legitimate heir if one ignores Henry VIII's decision over his sister. James VI and I's daughter married into Europe and her daughter (James' granddaughter) was Sophia of Hanover.

In 1714 the throne past to Sophia's son George I (James' great-grandson). From there the line is relatively easy - George II -Frederick Prince of Wales (predeceased his father) - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Queen Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth.

It always annoys me when people claim that Diana brought the true Stuart blood back into the Royal Family when it has been all the time through legitimate descent from James VI and I.

Its interesting that the British Royal House claims it lineage to the old dynasties through two elder daughters: Margaret Tudor, eldest daughter of Henry VII and Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of James I. As fascinating as the history of Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, Charles I and Charles II is, they didn't pass down their bloodlines to the present monarch. However, Margaret and Mary did. Having lots of children and grandchildren is sometimes the best revenge.

 

[ysbel]

Yes, I Know that Robert I was crowned but what I meant was that I don't think he would be too bothered that the coronation service was abolished. Unlike the English the Scots have always regarded themselves as European and many visitors, especially those from England, remark how "different" Scotland is from England and how European it feels. So King Robert would have no problem with the country falling into line with other European countries.

Robert was definitely close to the Scandanavian monarchies. His sister married the King of Norway and this was the original royal house - not the cadet branch of the Glucksborgs that is on the throne today. Still I don't see any medieval king giving up the crowning; people back then didn't accept a king unless he was crowned.

That's the reason that Edward I was so incensed against the Countess of Buchan for crowning Robert - it gave Robert a legitimacy among other monarchs that he otherwise would not have had.

Incidentally, the Stuarts trace their lineage back to Robert the Bruce through his eldest daughter, Marjorie who married Walter Stewart. The Stewarts were originally the High Stewards of the Kings Household.

 

[Mapple]

It doesn't matter what the courts say, the Scots people will NEVER accept Elizabeth as the second. Unlike England where Sovereignty rests with parliament, in Scotland it rests with the people and the people have spoken!

The sovereign in Scotland, as well as in England, is the Queen. The Queen has spoken.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I agree with Iain.

I thought she was not the QEII in Scotland with focus on the numerical part of her title.

I have heard many respected British historians speak on this manner in favor of the Scottish side.

 

[Saragli]

The scots are fighters and stand for there cause. I have always liked that about them. But the law is that the soverign goes with the largest number from the monarchys of Scotland, England, and Great Britian.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

That does not make any sense....to go with the largest numbers..please elaborate.

 

[Skydragon]

Damn Scots. Always need keeping in check

Don't worry with a million English living in Scotland, they are diluting the blood!!!

 

[Saragli]

Sorry Lady M. Im really sick and my mind is scattered everywhere. That was poorly written. The Law is that the monarchs go with the largest number from previous soverigns of England, Scotland, and Great Britian. So lets say that there was a King James X of Scotland but the last King James of England was King James V. If James were to be King after Elizabeth II he would be King James XI of Great Britian. Do you get my point. The larger number takes precedent in Great Britian.

 

[Oppie]

That does not make any sense....to go with the largest numbers..please elaborate

There was a Queen Elizabeth of England and none of Scotland. So they use the largest numeber (1) and Elizabeth uses II even though there never was an Elizabeth I in Scotland

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.

ETA : Sorry PrinceJohnny I posted at the same time as you

 

[Lady Marmalade]

But the Scots still call her Queen Elizabeth I, I have read and heard.

Just trying to be really clear.

Thank you, Prince Jonnhy and Oppie, for your clarifications.

 

[Saragli]

She is simply Queen Elizabeth to most scots. And the II is avoided on mailboxes in Scotland to. It just has a QE on it . Officaly she is QEII in scotland. I have also heard goverment officals in scotland refere to her as Elizabeth, Queen of Scots. The scots also started a quarrel of whether to use Her Majesty. They wanted to use the scots version and say Her Grace. If they had gotten their way she would be Her Grace Elizabeth, Queen of Scots

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Why Her Grace?

That style only precedes a non-royal duke and duchess......

 

[Mapple]

In Scotland, it was a proper way to address their monarch; just like it was in pre-Henry VIII England, I think.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Anytime Lady M. I have always been fasinated with Scotland. I love Monarch of the Glen. I have always wanted to buy a house in the Highlands or move to one of the cities. Africa and Scotland/Ireland are my dream places.

I know..I love that show! We get it on BBC America.

So can someone explain the current Stuart claim to the throne? I read somewhere there is a Scot who has his own website and makes his claim that he should be king of Great Britain, etc.

These are the gray areas which always confuse me.....