My research agrees with your statement (although she does have bloodlines through a daughter as well)Who are the 4 sons of Charles II Princess Diana are descended from? I can only think of two, the Duke of Richmond and the Duke of Grafton.
My research agrees with your statement (although she does have bloodlines through a daughter as well)
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton 1663-1690
Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond 1672-1723
Mary Scott 1651-1693
I know that James III had a son named "Charles III" in the Jacobite succession.Charles had an illegitimate daughter named Charlotte.Did she have any legitimate heirs to the succession?Who are their actual descendants?
Very interesting information,thank you!I just wonder how many Stuart pretenders were around the centuries.
I get my "opinions" from books i read over the incident. Granted, it was mostly parliament who wanted him out, but he was not a popular monarch with most of the people. And the absolutist thing is true, he did believe in it from what i have read. Also, most absolute monarchies in Europe were abolished, so had it continued, the Stuarts might have lost the throne anyway.IAs for the things you write, you can always talk about stuff and most of your writings are opinions, nothing proven.
I have not heard any rumours that HM will abdicate next year. Elizabeth is a Queen who will stay on the throne until she dies, she made that promise herself.
No, HRH Princess Sophie is the descendant of James II's sister, Henrietta, who's heirs were made the Jacobite successors by their supporters. They never actaully claimed it themselves, only James II and his heirs did that.Is the actual Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein the descendant of Stuarts via James III?I wonder if it caused problems with the present House of Windsor.If they are catholics,they probably dropped out from the Line of Succession to the British throne.
Well, it is just a rumor, so it might be not true. Personally, i hope she remains on the throne, but you never know. Allegedly, she is abdicating to give Prince William the throne over Charles, and Charles allegedly agrees to it, which just makes it more unbelievable in my eyes.
I get my "opinions" from books i read over the incident. Granted, it was mostly parliament who wanted him out, but he was not a popular monarch with most of the people. And the absolutist thing is true, he did believe in it from what i have read. Also, most absolute monarchies in Europe were abolished, so had it continued, the Stuarts might have lost the throne anyway.
Fine, i concede.Ahh it's one of those rumours.
Just cause your opinions come from books, doesn't mean they're right and believed by everyone.
He was an absolutist yes but the fact hat no one liked him, or that he was only tolerated due to his daughter or that the prince would have been like his father - is all opinion.
oh, really? well, that still doesn't answer the question of the Wittelbachs' claimsThat had nothing to do to whatever they make a claim to the throne. The main Jacobite argument is that parliament had no authority to determine that James II flee to France was an act of abdication (in effect deposing him) nor did they have any authority to interfere with the normal line of succession.
Well, it is just a rumor, so it might be not true. Personally, i hope she remains on the throne, but you never know. Allegedly, she is abdicating to give Prince William the throne over Charles, and Charles allegedly agrees to it, which just makes it more unbelievable in my eyes.
In a pervious thread, the Jacobite pretenders were discusssed, but this thread is not general discussion of them, it is to discuss whether the current successors are actually rightful claimants. Upon the death of Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart, the direct line of James II came to an end. The Jacobite claims then passed to King Charles Emmanuel of Sardinia, the great-great grandson of Duchess Henrietta Anne of Orleans, James II's sister. The line from her, The Savoy-Austria-Este-Wittelsbachs, have never claimed the throne nor did they seem to be aware of their claims until told by someone. On those grounds, is the Jacobite succcession even still legitimate?
Had the Duchess renounced her faith and become Protestant, or if her daughter had done so before 1714, the outcome could have been very different.. and that line could be sitting on the throne today.
The point is: there was no need for Henreitte Ann of England and Scotland to renounce her faith as long as she lived. Plus she had married the brother of Louis XIV. and to be allowed to do that, she had to renounce her inheritance rights to the Crowns of England and Scotland (this was common for princesses marrying into foreign Royal houses, especially when there was a female inheritance right in the family they came from). At no point did the British want a French or Italian princess plus husband as their souverains, no matter how closely she was related to the Stuarts by blood.
If in 1714 - at Queen Anne's death - her half-brother James had converted from Catholicism to Anglicanism, could he have succeeded her?
I
When the British deposed James II, they first settled the crown on his daughter Mary II and her husband William III, since both were Protestants. When both the lines of Queen Mary II and her sister Queen Anne (also a Protestant) failed to produce an heir, they reverted back to the sister of his grandfather James I, and settled the crown upon a Protestant heir from her line.