Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Here is a more detailed look on the Jacobite line of succession to the thrones of England and Scotland. Persons who were once first in line in the Jacobite succession are shown in boldface. Maiden names were used for women.



1) Descendants of James II and VII of England & Scotland


James II of England & VII of Scotland > James Francis Edward Stuart > Charles Edward Stuart > extinct.


James II of England & VII of Scotland > James Francis Edward Stuart > Henry Benedict Stuart (brother of Charles Edward Stuart) > extinct.


2) Descendants of Henrietta of England


In the absence of living descendants of James II, the Jacobite succession passed to the descendants of his sister, Henrietta of England, and her husband Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, passing successively to four Roman Catholic dynasties: Orléans, Savoy, Habsburg-Lorraine (Austria-Este branch), and Wittelsbach.



Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia > extinct.


Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (brother of Charles Emmanuel IV) > Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy > Francis V, Duke of Modena > extinct.


Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (brother of Charles Emmanuel IV) > Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy > Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Este (brother of Francis V) > Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria-Este > Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria > Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria > Franz, Duke of Bavaria (current successor; no issue).


3) Future line of succession


Franz, Duke of Bavaria > Max, Duke in Bavaria > Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria > Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
Here is a more detailed look on the Jacobite line of succession to the thrones of England and Scotland.

[...]

3) Future line of succession


Franz, Duke of Bavaria > Max, Duke in Bavaria > Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria > Prince Joseph Wendell of Liechtenstein.
Click to expand...

If Prince Joseph Wenzel has a daughter and then a son, which one will be acknowledged by Jacobites as Queen/King?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
If Prince Joseph Wenzel has a daughter and then a son, which one will be acknowledged by Jacobites as Queen/King?
Click to expand...


Thanks for correcting my typo.

I suppose the son will be acknowledged as first in line since the Jacobite line applies male-preference cognatic primogeniture. At least, that is the rule that was applied in all cases above.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
I suppose the son will be acknowledged as first in line since the Jacobite line applies male-preference cognatic primogeniture. At least, that is the rule that was applied in all cases above.
Click to expand...

I wonder because that was the rule applied by the actual British Parliament at the time of those previous cases, and that circumstance has now changed.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
I wonder because that was the rule applied by the actual British Parliament at the time of those previous cases, and that circumstance has now changed.
Click to expand...


My understanding is that, in theory, they do not acknowledge the legal validity of any act of Parliament post-1688 since they were assented to by "illegitimate" Kings/ Queens. For example, they don't acknowledge the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 and that is why one talks about the Jacobite pretender to "the thrones of England, Ireland and Scotland" and not "to the throne of the United Kingdom". Obviously, they don't accept the validity either of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.



The succession rule that they would apply then is, in my opinion, the rule that was in force in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at the time James VII & I was deposed.
 
Last edited:
Mbruno said:
My understanding is that, in theory, they do not acknowledge the legal validity of any act of Parliament post-1688 since they were assented to by "illegitimate" Kings/ Queens. For example, they don't acknowledge the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 and that is why one talks about the Jacobite pretender to "the thrones of England, Ireland and Scotland" and not "to the throne of the United Kingdom". Obviously, they don't accept the validity either of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

The succession rule that they would apply then is, in my opinion, the rule that was in force in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at the time James VI & I was deposed.
Click to expand...

Their position is interesting because the rule of primogeniture with priority to sons was arguably only consolidated by post-1688 Acts of Parliament.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Their position is interesting because the rule of primogeniture with priority to sons was arguably only consolidated by post-1688 Acts of Parliament.
Click to expand...




I do not speak for them of course. The line of succession acknowledged by the Royal Stuart society, however, seems to apply male-preference primogeniture and coincides with the one I described above.


Royal Stuart Society - Succession
 
James VII and II, just to be pedantic :) .


There wasn't really a rule pre 1688. Everyone at the time of the Wars of the Roses opted for whichever succession rule suited their own purposes, including the Salic Law. Henry VIII and Edward VI both claimed the right to name their own successors. And, if Elizabeth had chosen to name Lady Katherine Grey's son or Arbella Stuart rather than James VI of Scotland, I think people would have accepted that she had the right to do so. Then the future James II was nearly booted out of the succession during the Exclusion Crisis.
 
Alison H said:
James VII and II, just to be pedantic :) .


There wasn't really a rule pre 1688. Everyone at the time of the Wars of the Roses opted for whichever succession rule suited their own purposes, including the Salic Law. Henry VIII and Edward VI both claimed the right to name their own successors. And, if Elizabeth had chosen to name Lady Katherine Grey's son or Arbella Stuart rather than James VI of Scotland, I think people would have accepted that she had the right to do so. Then the future James II was nearly booted out of the succession during the Exclusion Crisis.
Click to expand...


Right, James VII & II.

I don't think any of the successors in the Houses of Savoy, Austria-Este or Wittelsbach ever made an actual claim to the throne, however. Do you know if that is the case?


Anyway, it is extraordinary IMHO that George I was only 56th in line when he became king and, apart from the Jacobite rebellions, his succession was relatively uncontested. International politics may have helped him too as France had to accept the Hanoverian succession in exchange for Britain accepting the Bourbon succession in Spain.
 
Last edited:
I don't think any of them have claimed the throne since Bonnie Prince Charlie. And, yes, between the War of the Spanish Succession, the Great Northern War, unrest in Hungary, unrest in Catalunya, and Louis XIV being elderly by the standards of the time and having a young child as his heir, plus all the general messing about with bits of Italy and the Netherlands being swapped around, everyone had their own problems, as well as France agreeing to the Hanoverian succession as part of the terms of ending the war.


It is extraordinary, though, as you say. The current 56th in line to the throne is (thank you, Wikipedia!) Alexander Ogilvy. Imagine if he were suddenly declared to be the next heir. And at least he isn't a German prince who barely speaks a word of English.
 
CyrilVladisla said:
Engraving of Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender
http://www.maryevans.com/history/10684996
Click to expand...

One of my 7x Great Grandfathers was an infamous Jacobite leader (John Gordon, Laird of Glenbuchat) who visited Prince Charles in France. He led his Jacobite troops at various skirmishes, ending with defeat at Culloden. With a price on his head, he escaped to Norway and then France, where he died. The crown subsequently confiscated all of Gordon's Scottish lands except for one farm.
 
Lilyflo said:
One of my 7x Great Grandfathers was an infamous Jacobite leader (John Gordon, Laird of Glenbuchat) who visited Prince Charles in France. He led his Jacobite troops at various skirmishes, ending with defeat at Culloden. With a price on his head, he escaped to Norway and then France, where he died. The crown subsequently confiscated all of Gordon's Scottish lands except for one farm.
Click to expand...

Sadly your ancestor died in exile in 1750 at Boulogne living with the Jacobite exile community in France.
 
An Ard Ri said:
Sadly your ancestor died in exile in 1750 at Boulogne living with the Jacobite exile community in France.
Click to expand...

Thank you - I can't remember all the details without looking at my notes on him but I do know that I don't have a high opinion of him. He was ruthless when gathering men for his army and apparently forced a number of young men to join him, who were either slaughtered on the battlefield or hung for treason.
 
Lilyflo said:
Thank you - I can't remember all the details without looking at my notes on him but I do know that I don't have a high opinion of him. He was ruthless when gathering men for his army and apparently forced a number of young men to join him, who were either slaughtered on the battlefield or hung for treason.
Click to expand...

Here's a little I found on him
https://www.patrickspeople.scot/our family/1405.htm

I wonder if they were related to the Catholic Gordon's who were the Earls of Huntly and pro French Catholic?
 
An Ard Ri said:
Here's a little I found on him
https://www.patrickspeople.scot/our family/1405.htm

I wonder if they were related to the Catholic Gordon's who were the Earls of Huntly and pro French Catholic?
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. I haven't tried tracing all of his relatives but in my research I hadn't found any link to the Earls of Huntly. I have visited the ruins of the castle he once owned but I sort of lost interest in him when I learned more about him! I'm not anti-Jacobite at all, I just think the evidence points to him being a nasty piece of work! I'm descended from his son John and daughter-in-law Ann Lindsay. It's via my 6x Great Grandmother Ann that I have several lines back through various Scottish Earls to Marjorie Bruce and therefore King Robert (who has millions of descendants of course - the challenge is finding the paper trail back to him).
 
Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern (1752-1824) was the wife of Charles Edward Stuart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession 2, Sep 2022-
Replies
1
Views
205
Tatiana Maria
T
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
986
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
416
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
Anne, Queen of Great Britain (1665 –1714) and Prince George of Denmark (1653 – 1708)
Replies
10
Views
1K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
Kings Ferdinand I, Francis I, Ferdinand II, Francis II & Kingdom of the Two Sicilies
Replies
3
Views
570
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom