Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders

[Zonk]

Elspeth...are you referring to my comment about Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother being Catholics?

I only referenced that because of the Act of Settlement. IMO (and again I am not a historical scholar) I was under the impression that the Jacobite's main point of contention is that throne was usurped from James II and illegally seized by Mary and William. My point being seized or not, because they were Catholic they were automatically excluded. Does that make sense?

 

[Iluvbertie]

However, the Act of Settlement that excluded the Catholics was passed AFTER the Glorious Revolution. Act passed 1701, Glorious Revolution 1788.

In theory then William and Mary usurped the throne in 1688 by allowing the removal of the legitimate king James II and his son - the old Pretender (both of whom were Catholic but who at the time of their removal were not barred by legislation that had not yet been passed.

The legislation was passed when it become obvious that there would be no immediate protestant successor to either Mary or Anne. To prevent the eventual heir being RC the act was passed. I believe there were over 50 claimants with a better blood claim than George I but they were all RC so George got the gig.

 

[ysbel]

Well George I wasn't the first king to snatch the crown under indoubtible circumstances. Henry VII had the weakest claim to the crown of any during the War of the Roses and was nevertheless crowned. His defeating Richard III in battle had a lot to do with it though as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, Richard's niece.

 

[Zonk]

However, the Act of Settlement that excluded the Catholics was passed AFTER the Glorious Revolution. Act passed 1701, Glorious Revolution 1788.

In theory then William and Mary usurped the throne in 1688 by allowing the removal of the legitimate king James II and his son - the old Pretender (both of whom were Catholic but who at the time of their removal were not barred by legislation that had not yet been passed.

The legislation was passed when it become obvious that there would be no immediate protestant successor to either Mary or Anne. To prevent the eventual heir being RC the act was passed. I believe there were over 50 claimants with a better blood claim than George I but they were all RC so George got the gig.

Chrissy57..you are correct...but the Act was passed before the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother.

 

[Toledo]

Thanks Warren for the link, it was funny.
I wonder if due to some freak circumstances Duchess Sophie of Bavaria did become the heir to the British throne (let's just imagine it), would Liechtenstein and Britain be united???

That reminds me of the Peter Sellers' 1959 movie The Mouse that Roared
Imagine if, like in the movie's Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a tiny European nation which "lies in a precipitous fold of the northern Alps", Liechtenstein declares war on Britain and they win!

 

[Avalon]

That reminds me of the Peter Sellers' 1959 movie The Mouse that Roared
Imagine if, like in the movie's Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a tiny European nation which "lies in a precipitous fold of the northern Alps", Liechtenstein declawres war on Britain and they win!

That was really funny. But I can't imagine that. To amuzing...
The movie is called Duchy of Grand Fenwick? I want to watch it, sounds very funny.

 

[Toledo]

That was really funny. But I can't imagine that. To amuzing...
The movie is called Duchy of Grand Fenwick? I want to watch it, sounds very funny.

The movie is worth making a new version of. The tiny nation was based on Liechtenstein or Monaco, from what I read on those great reviews on that link. So, kind of goes with the idea of the Princes of Liechtenstein imposing their 'right of succesion' over Queen Elizabeth II's land. An idea so funny is worth making a new parody movie similar to The Mouse that Roared. I like the lines of Peter Sellers, in drag as Gloriana XII, explaining the reason for attacking a bigger country:
"...as I said before, there is no more profitable and sound step for a nation without money or credit to take, than declare war on the United States and suffer a total defeat."

 

[Von Schlesian]

"...as I said before, there is no more profitable and sound step for a nation without money or credit to take, than declare war on the United States and suffer a total defeat."

This line was a Sellers observation about the extent to which the United States invests it's time and resources into re-building countries (such as Germany and Japan), which it defeats (or is on the 'winning side'), during war. It's a fantastic film, and one which I think highlights (with humour), a few of these correct observations.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Chrissy57..you are correct...but the Act was passed before the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother.

The Glorious Revolution itself though was brought about in no small measure because of the birth of their father.

As long as James II had only his daughters, as heirs, and their existed the possibility of either of them having a legitimate descendent then there was no need for the Act of Settlement at all.

It was only once the possibility of a RC claiming the throne, be it the Old Pretender (father of Bonnie Prince Charles and his brother) or some other descendent of Charles I that the Act was brought into play.

 

[Elspeth]

Were there any Instruments of Abdication signed by James II, or did he just sort of slink away? I mean, regardless of birth and so on, if a monarch formally renounces the throne for himself and his descendants, then his descendants several hundred years later are wasting their time doing anything other than just tracing their descent to a long-ago king.

I'm being asked by a non-member to post the following. Does anyone have any response? It hadn't occurred to me that the situations in England and Scotland might be different.

As we all know James 'abdicated' the English throne which should have passed to his son James (he was only a few months old). So instead of the baby becoming King, William III (James son in-law) was invited to take the throne with his wife.
I propose that it was a perfectly legal move because William did (technically) take the throne of England through conquest which is exactly how the Tudors took the Throne. The only problem was that James had no army.

Scotland is a different matter. The Scots Privy council was rather confused. The throne was empty but James claimed it back and William II (Scots title) also put in a claim.
The difference is that were Williams claim was decent, James threatened the council that if they did not keep him as King, he would punish them. So they chose William.
This is perfectly legal in Scots law as the people (or at least the gentry) have the right to depose a bad monarch and replace him. As it was the council decided that James had forfeited the Crown by abondining it for France. William's was the only other claim, so he won the throne.

Thus it was all perfectly legal.

Besides, if the Stuarts believed in the Divine right, you would think that they would have noticed that God didn't want them on the thrones.

 

[Toledo]

This line was a Sellers observation about the extent to which the United States invests it's time and resources into re-building countries (such as Germany and Japan), which it defeats (or is on the 'winning side'), during war. It's a fantastic film, and one which I think highlights (with humour), a few of these correct observations.

The film is a rare jewel hardly anyone remembers or knows about. When you read those descriptions you think of the news today, the nation-building frenzy. And the film is so timeless since it was done half a century ago and the same issues are still in the news today.

That's why I propose and actualized version of it using this thread as the background, Liechenstein's vs Britain! But making it a modern comedy-political film.

 

[Toledo]

Can Scotland separate itself from Britain/England on a legal technicality? Anyone from the British threads expert or knowledgeable on the matters of Royal laws?

 

[Von Schlesian]

Under the terms of the Act of Union 1707, no.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

And even if there was some substance...aren't the Liechtenstein's Catholic?

 

[Warren]

And even if there was some substance...aren't the Liechtenstein's Catholic?

Never let facts spoil a good fantasy!

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Uh oh....sorry Warren..

heh heh...

 

[Elspeth]

Well, the whole point is that the Jacobites reject the provisions of the Act of Settlement, so the fact that the claimants are Catholic wouldn't be relevant to them.

Thing is, would a conversion to Protestant Christianity remove any of the Jacobite claimants from the - er - "succession"? Are they are theologically selective as the present lot?

 

[HRH Kerry]

Until reading this thread, I never understood why some have said that HRH Sophie of Liechtenstein was the rightful heir to the British throne. Since the Jacobites consider Elizabeth I to be illegitimate, who if any is suppose to "overturn" this?...Parliment? Also, are we just suppose to erase everything that was established/occurred during her reign? If Elizabeth wasn't suppose to ascend to the throne, then a lot of the free world or however one wants to word it, wouldn't exist as we know it. Whew!!! They didn't call it The Golden Age for nothing. JMO though.

 

[Warren]

Yes Kerry, Parliament would have to overturn the succession, tear up the Act of Settlement, and turf out the Windsors, all unlikely prospects.
There may be a few serious Jacobite supporters but for the rest of us it is just an amusing diversion from the main game; even more so because the Jacobite claim has passed into the Bavarian Royal House and will eventually pass to the reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

 

[HRH Kerry]

Warren,
I agree that it is amusing but it is also a mess! Kind of reminds me of "he said/she said" gossip. Can't see it happening either.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Elspeth]

Oh, I don't suppose anyone really seriously thinks it'll ever happen. It's just that some people find the "what if" scenarios interesting.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Oh, I don't suppose anyone really seriously thinks it'll ever happen. It's just that some people find the "what if" scenarios interesting.

Yes, comparable to a 'what if the Axis powers won the Second World War' etc.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

I did a bit of research into the topic and found that currently there is no claimant from the Stuart line with inheritance rights. All living descendents of the Stuarts are derived from the marriage of princess Henrietta Maria Stuart(sister of Charles II) and Philippe, duke of Orleans, the brother of king Louis XIV. of France. In order to marry duke Philippe, henrietta Maria gave up all her british rights for herself and her children. Thus, after the death of cardinal Henry Stuart, the brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie, no claimant with a real right was there, as these rights had been forfeited by Henrietta Maria.
The current head of the Royal House of Bavaria, who would have been c claimant if Henriette Maria had preserved her inheritance rights, which she didn't, publicly asked Jacobites not to use British Royal titles in connection with him and his family.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Anyhow, when William ascends the throne, a direct descendent of Charles II (several times over) will be king.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually the present Windsors ARE descendents of the Stuarts - James I to be precise.

James I's grand-daughter was the Sophia, Electress of Hanover from whom the Hanoverians claimed the throne.


The current Royal Family's legitimate descent from James I of England and VI of Scotland is as follows - James 1 - Elizabth - Sophia - George I - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles - William.


As you can see William will not be bringing Stuart blood back to the throne of England - it has never left it!!!!


After the death of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne in 1714 the succession passed to Anne's father's (James II) father's (Charles I) sister's (Elizabeth) daughter's (Sophia) son (George I) i.e. it went to the next who could claim descent from a Stuart monarch - to do so meant going back to James I and VI as all the descendents of Charles I were Roman Catholic as were any more senior claimants to Sophia.

Elizabeth had married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and the Rhine and their 12th child. Those ahead of her in claiming the throne were denied due to being either deceased or Roman Catholic.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

After the death of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne in 1714 the succession passed to Anne's father's (James II) father's (Charles I) sister's (Elizabeth) daughter's (Sophia) son (George I) i.e. it went to the next who could claim descent from a Stuart monarch - to do so meant going back to James I and VI as all the descendents of Charles I were Roman Catholic as were any more senior claimants to Sophia.

Elizabeth had married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and the Rhine and their 12th child. Those ahead of her in claiming the throne were denied due to being either deceased or Roman Catholic.

If German sources that I read are correct, then it is not that simple. Both the sisters of Charles I (Elizabeth Stuart) and Charles II/James II (Henrietta Maria) had renounced their inheritance rights on marrying. Elizabeth had married the prince-elector of the Palatinate, king of Bohemia (for one winter...) and Henrietta Maria the brother of Louis XIV, Philippe, duc d'Orleans.

But - when Elizabeth's son prince Rupprecht (Rupert the Cavalier) of the Palatinate became a very sucessful general in the fight against Cromwell and helped his cousin Charles II to regain his throne, he was not only created duke of Cumberland, but his mother was put again into the line of succession with the idea that maybe Rupprecht might come in handy one day. Alas, Rupprecht left no legitimate issue and died in 1662.

So it is a fact that prince-electress Sophie, Rupprechts' sister had a right to the throne while Henrietta Maria's kids had not. Sophie's 8 brothers left no legitimate male descendants and the one daughter, Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate had renounced her inheritance rights as well when she married Henrietta Maria's widower.

it is true that the Act of Settlement was against the catholic Stuarts, but the last legitimate Stuart claimant with a senior right to the Hanoverans died in 1761 (Henry, son of James II.). So in 1761 the throne would have passed to the Hanoveran George's, even if the Act of Settlement had never been.

Thus, there is no Jacobite claimant anymore. It's just the Windsors...

 

[Skydragon]

Bells ring out for Clan Cameron

A 260-year-old tradition has been revived for the triumphal return of a historic clan to Glasgow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5348800.stm

 

[foiegrass]

When William comes to the throne, he would be able to claim descent from Charles II through his mother. Or he could marry a descent from the Stuarts/Jacobite pretenders! Probably by then, the Scottish would be happy!

 

[flcty]

Hi Von Schlesian. I enjoy the historical and dynastic quirk that means one day the Stuart/Jacobite legitimists will be swearing allegiance to their "rightful" King, the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

Taking into account the "fortuitous" marriage of the Hereditary Prince with Duchess Sophie, perhaps Prince Hans Adam has an ambitious long-term plan! Liechtenstien is obviously too small for all of those Princes, so its only a matter of time before a challenge is made to the legitimacy of the House of Windsor. Liechtenstein rules the waves, and claims a Kingdom!

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

A more "almost came true" what-if: Assume Crown Prince Philippe leaves no living descendants; Astrid would succeed to the Belgian throne, to be followed in due course by the Archduke Amedeo of Austria-Este. Obviously he would be using his other second name of "of Belgium", but in reality the Imperial House of Habsburg would have regained a Kingdom! Until Mathilde made her dazzling appearance on the scene, there was a possibiliity that this scenario would come true. Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?

cheers,
W

i really learnt a lot in this thread. thanks for the info. so the rightful king to the british throne is the current Prince Hans Adam of Liechtstein. wow. king hans adam of england . i was thinking about that to "Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?" (didn't really realise that he was eventually going to be king, if phillipe never had kids). do you think that the hasburg family [secretly wishes] to gain a throne or are they now a days just living a normal life?

 

[Simeon]

i really learnt a lot in this thread. thanks for the info. so the rightful king to the british throne is the current Prince Hans Adam of Liechtstein. wow. king hans adam of england . i was thinking about that to "Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?" (didn't really realise that he was eventually going to be king, if phillipe never had kids). do you think that the hasburg family [secretly wishes] to gain a throne or are they now a days just living a normal life?

No, not Hans Adam. - (Not directed at you Flctylu, this thread seems bent)

I am a noob, knob, definitely not nubile nobility (yep, definitely knob), but I think this much was clear:
The current pretender is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. He has no issue/heir, whatever.
It then goes to his cousin once removed, Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, and descends to his daughter the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, then her son Prince Joseph Wenzel, heir to the throne of Liechtenstein will tie them together.

Good idea for a thread, but this thing wanders all over the page.

Where's Oppie when you need her?

The Habsburg catch was interesting, props