Possible Scottish Independence and the Monarchy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
All very interesting ideas.
As far as Joseph Wenzel of Leichtenstein goes, with his Douglas heritage from his mother, the Douglas heritage might be of some importance to Scots historians--and maybe the people. The Douglases were at one time as prominent as the Stuarts, if not more so. Princess Alice of Gloucester was a Douglas--Help, Ish, tell me if that's wrong, I think it's right.
It would be nice to give Beatrice a job as governor, though. She needs a job, doesn't she. Harry could be a very popular governor, with his red hair. Fit right in to a significant minority of the Scots population, including the Stuart descendants, of which there are many many many of us.
The Leichtenstein folks are rather arrogant, presumably, which would not go over well, but I think their Stuart creds are good, although of course very "thin". After so many generations, genetics get thin...but some things persist remarkably.
 
I was being facetious with my suggestions of course. I would expect them to demand a Scotsman for that job and as much as the BRF are called 'British' they don't really come across as anything other than English with no real connection to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
 
I was being facetious with my suggestions of course. I would expect them to demand a Scotsman for that job and as much as the BRF are called 'British' they don't really come across as anything other than English with no real connection to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

They may come across as that way to you on the other side of the world but the BRF have really strong connections with both SCotland and Wales.

The problem is NI and I dont the the issue is with the BRF rather thn with the Government (any flavour) because of security issues. I believe that left to themselves the BRF would be there more often, but Government says no.
 
All very interesting ideas.
As far as Joseph Wenzel of Leichtenstein goes, with his Douglas heritage from his mother, the Douglas heritage might be of some importance to Scots historians--and maybe the people. The Douglases were at one time as prominent as the Stuarts, if not more so. Princess Alice of Gloucester was a Douglas--Help, Ish, tell me if that's wrong, I think it's right.

The Douglas' were a very important clan and they did hold a lot of power during periods of Scottish history, but it's important to remember that they themselves were never royals. It's kind of like the Nevilles in English history; a very important family that even married into the English Royal houses at times, but not royal itself.

The Stuarts were a similar family, until fortune fell their way - a Stuart married the daughter of the King, then when the King's only son died without any children the line passed on through his daughter to the Stuarts - it doesn't make the Stuarts prior to then any more important, because the royal line didn't flow from them. A comparison would be the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. While the Royal House is extremely significant in British history they aren't all that significant - from a purely British royal perspective - prior to the marriage of Victoria and Albert.

Likewise, Joseph Wenzl of Liechtenstein isn't significant because his grandmother was a Douglas at birth. He's significant because his grandfather's brother is the senior descendant of Charles I, and thus the claimant to Charles' titles in the same sense that Elizabeth II is the senior descendant of George I and thus the claimant to George's titles (or at least his British ones). Owing to the fact that Franz of Bavaria has no descendants when he dies his claims pass on to his brother, and to his brother's descendants, of which Joseph Wenzl is in the direct line (consider how HM inherited a title that was once her uncle's).

The Douglas' do come into play here, although not in a way you might expect. If the Duchess of Alba can be considered a claimant owing to the fact that she is the senior descendant of James II through his eldest illegitimate son then there are actually 5 different lines of possible claimaints to the British throne(s) through the Stuarts (more come up if you consider the York and Lancasters).

The first two claims are the Fuke of Bavaria, as the senior legitimate descendant of Charles I, and HM as the senior legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover. A third claim brings forth the Dowager Duchess of Calabria, owing to a marriage leading to the Duke of Bavaria's line being illegal under British law. Under that argument, the Duke's line is illegitimate, and instead the Dowager Duchess' line is the senior legitimate line from Charles I.

Next is the Duchess of Alba, who is the senior descendant of James II through his eldest (illegitimate) son James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick. This only comes into play because James' legitimate line died out very quickly. The fifth claimaint would be the current Duke of Buccleuch, as the senior descendant of Charles II through his eldest (illegitimate) son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. The Duke of Buccleuch, Sir Richard Montagu Douglas Scott, is the only claimant other than HM to have any actual connection to the UK. And he is related to Princess Alice and the Gloucesters; his grandfather was Princess Alice's elder brother.
 
I saw the "Royalty of Scotland and Ireland" thread and was wondering if there were any Scottish clans that are related to the last Scottish Kings somehow. Could any of their members become King/Queen of Scotland if they decide to have a separate monarchy? Just a thought.
 
I saw the "Royalty of Scotland and Ireland" thread and was wondering if there were any Scottish clans that are related to the last Scottish Kings somehow. Could any of their members become King/Queen of Scotland if they decide to have a separate monarchy? Just a thought.

Personally I think either the McDonalds or the Campbells. The Campbells power was near to being equal to the Stewarts at times and at its height The Lordship of the Isles (McDonalds) was effectively a Kingdom of the Highlands and the Isles. That was why it was so important for the Stewarts to destroy the Lordship.
 
Thanks for your deep knowledge of history, Ish, applied to this matter.

And fearghas and HereditaryPrincess, that's a good idea to think of other clans besides the Stuarts. I am appalled that the Stuarts destroyed the Lordship of the Isles, but I suspected that were not always up to the highest standard of behavior, to put it mildly.
The Isles Lordship sounds promising indeed. I know little about them, but I know a woman who is a direct descendent of Joan of Acre and of "the Isles".
 
The current Lord of the Isles, of course, is Prince Charles who no doubt would cease to hold his many Scottish titles if his mother was no longer The Queen.
 
O.k. Maybe I'm not understanding this. The Duchess of Alba god forbid as Queen of Scotland, I find difficult to swallow considering Queen Elizabeth I presumed was already the Queen of Scotland. And when she is gone Prince Charles becomes King of Scotland. I thought this was part of her kingdom. Am I missing something? Maybe I'm not making the connection correctly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app
 
O.k. Maybe I'm not understanding this. The Duchess of Alba god forbid as Queen of Scotland, I find difficult to swallow considering Queen Elizabeth I presumed was already the Queen of Scotland. And when she is gone Prince Charles becomes King of Scotland. I thought this was part of her kingdom. Am I missing something? Maybe I'm not making the connection correctly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app

The Duchess of Alba story started because a journalist said it wasn't a done deal that the Queen would be Monarch of an independent Scotland and here is an alternative.

It will NEVER happen. It was a piece of mischief making.
 
O.k. Maybe I'm not understanding this. The Duchess of Alba god forbid as Queen of Scotland, I find difficult to swallow considering Queen Elizabeth I presumed was already the Queen of Scotland. And when she is gone Prince Charles becomes King of Scotland. I thought this was part of her kingdom. Am I missing something? Maybe I'm not making the connection correctly.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app


The Queen isn't Queen of Scotland. She isn't Queen of England or Wales either.

Her title is Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


The Scots may vote for independence and if they do they then have to decide what sort of country they wish to be - republic or monarchy. If they choose the latter then they have to decide on who will be the monarch - do they want to share a monarch with countries from whom they have just split for instance? or do they want their own monarch?

That is where the idea of The Duchess of Alba comes in.
 
Thanks for your deep knowledge of history, Ish, applied to this matter.

And fearghas and HereditaryPrincess, that's a good idea to think of other clans besides the Stuarts. I am appalled that the Stuarts destroyed the Lordship of the Isles, but I suspected that were not always up to the highest standard of behavior, to put it mildly.
The Isles Lordship sounds promising indeed. I know little about them, but I know a woman who is a direct descendent of Joan of Acre and of "the Isles".

It's not like the Stuarts simply decided that they wanted the Isles and as such took out the Lords. Alexander of Islay chose to support James Mor in his claim to the Scottish throne against James I - and ended up losing the subsequent war. Alexander lucked out and was granted grace by the king, but his son, John, wasn't so lucky - after John lead a revolt against James IV, which included signing a treaty with the English king Edward IV, the Isles were firmly brought under the control of the crown. The lesson of this was basically that if you lead a revolt against the king and lose you're going to end up losing the independence you had before hand. It's not poor behaviour on the part of the Stuarts; it's completely in line with how other monarchs would have reacted at the time.

The problem with looking at other "clans" is that it treats the Scottish throne as if it was one that was conquered by the English. This isn't true; Scotland didn't enter into a relationship with England in the same way that Ireland or Wales did. While the English did at times try to conquer Scotland, and after the union of the two thrones often did act as though it was the conqueror, ultimately what happened was the two thrones merged through marriage. The English Henry VII's daughter married the Scottish James IV, and when the male-line of Henry died out the English throne passed to the Scottish monarch, then James VI. To look at other clans who are descended from Scottish monarchs is to really make things unnecessarily complicated - at what point do you cut off the "Scottish" monarchs. James VI was also an English monarch, so do his descendants count (and if they do, you end up with the Duke of Bavaria, the Dowager Duchess of Calabria, or HM as the contenders)? If James VI doesn't count, then you kind of have to go back a bit - he was the only surviving child of the last purely Scottish monarch, Mary, who in turn was the only surviving legitimate child of the previous monarch, James V, who was also the only surviving legitimate child of the previous monarch, James IV. James IV wasn't the only surviving child of his father, James III, but his brothers didn't have children. You would literally have to go back to James II in order to find descendants of a Scottish king who was not also an English king.
 
Thanks iluvbertie. I guess I don't know as much as I thought afterall. Here I was under the impression that she was also Queen of Scotland. Hmm. I better do more reading or pay better attention to things. I get it now. :)

Sent from my SCH-I545 using The Royals Community mobile app
 
AristoCat said:

Right now she's Queen of Britain and the Commonwealth, but without Scotland, there is no "Britain" and she would no longer be a Queen in Scotland.

Actually, She is queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that it is Scotland that makes Britain 'Great'. The name Britain relates to the original Roman province that covered what is now England & Wales. Therefore the name post-Scottish independence should be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
The fifth claimaint would be the current Duke of Buccleuch, as the senior descendant of Charles II through his eldest (illegitimate) son, James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth. The Duke of Buccleuch, Sir Richard Montagu Douglas Scott, is the only claimant other than HM to have any actual connection to the UK. And he is related to Princess Alice and the Gloucesters; his grandfather was Princess Alice's elder brother.

Thanks for the wonderful information, but just a quick question.. Since we are now taking into consideration of the illegitimate lines of possibly succeeding the throne, wouldn't the natural children of James II preceed that of the natural children of his older brother Charles II? so after the Dukes of Alba who were the descendants of James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick, shouldn't be the next in line be the descendants of James II eldest daughter Henrietta FitzJames which includes the Earls Waldergrave, Dukes of Grafton and Earls Spencer? so wouldn't the Waldergraves, Graftons and Spencers somehow precede the Buccleuchs?
 
Actually, She is queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that it is Scotland that makes Britain 'Great'. The name Britain relates to the original Roman province that covered what is now England & Wales. Therefore the name post-Scottish independence should be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.

Well isn't Britain just a general term for the whole of the British area? I think it would be odd to have Northern Ireland listed as something separate in the name when it could be considered part of Britain as well.

It could just be the United Kingdom of Britain, or an even more simplified version would be the Kingdom of Britain (seeing as it wouldn't really be united any longer).
 
AristoCat said:



Actually, She is queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My understanding is that it is Scotland that makes Britain 'Great'. The name Britain relates to the original Roman province that covered what is now England & Wales. Therefore the name post-Scottish independence should be the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.

I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with you...the term "Great Britain" was devised as a way of distinguishing between the island of Britain (the areas now covered by England, Scotland and Wales OR as you say just England and Wales) and the French region of Brittany.
 
Last edited:
Well isn't Britain just a general term for the whole of the British area? I think it would be odd to have Northern Ireland listed as something separate in the name when it could be considered part of Britain as well.



It could just be the United Kingdom of Britain, or an even more simplified version would be the Kingdom of Britain (seeing as it wouldn't really be united any longer).


Great Britain is the name for the Island that is composed of England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain refers to the fact that it is a union between to kingdoms - that of England (and Wales) and Scotland.

Britain is a short form version of Great Britain. Therefore, without Scotland it ceases to be Great Britain or Britain at all, and resumes being England (and Wales).

If Scotland left, then it would be the United Kingdom of England and North Ireland.
 
Thanks for the wonderful information, but just a quick question.. Since we are now taking into consideration of the illegitimate lines of possibly succeeding the throne, wouldn't the natural children of James II preceed that of the natural children of his older brother Charles II? so after the Dukes of Alba who were the descendants of James FitzJames, Duke of Berwick, shouldn't be the next in line be the descendants of James II eldest daughter Henrietta FitzJames which includes the Earls Waldergrave, Dukes of Grafton and Earls Spencer? so wouldn't the Waldergraves, Graftons and Spencers somehow precede the Buccleuchs?


I don't really see why the illegitimate children of the younger son would have to come before the illegitimate children of the elder son, particularly as the eldest illegitimate son of Charles II claimed legitimacy in his lifetime.

My argument wasn't so much that we should be going through all the lines of the Stuarts to find a Scottish monarch. Instead I was trying to say "these are the people who are the senior most descendants in each of the lines that could possibly be seen as having a claim." The children of Henrietta FitzJames would have a claim after the children of James FitzJames, making them a more junior line. However, if we're considering illegitimate lines then I thought it significant to mention the senior most line of Charles II as well.
 
Great Britain is the name for the Island that is composed of England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain refers to the fact that it is a union between to kingdoms - that of England (and Wales) and Scotland.

Britain is a short form version of Great Britain. Therefore, without Scotland it ceases to be Great Britain or Britain at all, and resumes being England (and Wales).

If Scotland left, then it would be the United Kingdom of England and North Ireland.

But can Northern Ireland be classified as a kingdom in it's own right to warrant it being "united" with the Kingdom of England? Should it not be simply "The Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland"?
 
Ireland has long been a separate Kingdom from Britain.

Actually, now that I think of it (and google it) the "United Kingdom" part of the name refers to the fact that Great Britain is one kingdom (formed from the union of two Kingdoms, Scotland and England) while Ireland is another kingdom (and now, just Northern Ireland).

Without Scotland in the equation, Britain will cease to be united in one kingdom, but the United Kingdom will still consist of two separate kingdoms - England and Northern Ireland, no matter how small a part Northern Ireland plays.
 
Ireland has long been a separate Kingdom from Britain.

Actually, now that I think of it (and google it) the "United Kingdom" part of the name refers to the fact that Great Britain is one kingdom (formed from the union of two Kingdoms, Scotland and England) while Ireland is another kingdom (and now, just Northern Ireland).

Without Scotland in the equation, Britain will cease to be united in one kingdom, but the United Kingdom will still consist of two separate kingdoms - England and Northern Ireland, no matter how small a part Northern Ireland plays.

So where does Wales fit in?
 
Great Britain is the name for the Island that is composed of England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom of Great Britain refers to the fact that it is a union between to kingdoms - that of England (and Wales) and Scotland.

Britain is a short form version of Great Britain. Therefore, without Scotland it ceases to be Great Britain or Britain at all, and resumes being England (and Wales).

If Scotland left, then it would be the United Kingdom of England and North Ireland.

I don't think Britain is actually a short form version of Great Britain. Great Britain is, like you say, the name of the island that England, Wales and Scotland exist on but there are other islands that are part of these countries that aren't part of the island of Great Britain (Isle of Wight, Orkney etc.). And then you have other areas that are not part of the UK part are part of the British Isles, such as Jersey and maybe even Brittany. These can all be referred to as Britain.

I also don't think it's correct that Great Britain would cease to be if Scotland left because the island itself would still exist, it would just be politically divided.

Sorry for the rant, but I believe that Britain is also a common cultural/political term to refer to the sovereign state of the UK and thus I feel Northern Ireland can be included in that term.
 
So where does Wales fit in?


Something that I think people often forget is that as harsh as the English were with their conquests of Scotland and Ireland and subsequent treatment of the peoples and cultures, in some ways they were really worse with the Welsh.

Wales was never a kingdom - it was a principality - and it was conquered long before Scotland and Ireland finally submitted (in as much as they ever submitted).

The conquest of Wales happened in the 13th century, with only one major uprising between then and when the formal Union occurred in 1536. The Welsh didn't really begin to try for more autonomy again until the 20th century. As such, when it comes to the various naming schemes Wales is excluded as it was seen as a part of England.

In 1707 the Acts of Union formed the Kingdom of Great Britain (sometimes known just as Great Britain, sometimes known as the United Kingdom). This was a union of the Kingdoms of England (and Wales) and Scotland. Later, in 1801, another Act took this one Kingdom and united it with another one - Ireland - making the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. After the Irish Free State was formed and Ireland was partitioned, the name was changed to reflect this - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 
Ireland has long been a separate Kingdom from Britain.

Actually, now that I think of it (and google it) the "United Kingdom" part of the name refers to the fact that Great Britain is one kingdom (formed from the union of two Kingdoms, Scotland and England) while Ireland is another kingdom (and now, just Northern Ireland).

Without Scotland in the equation, Britain will cease to be united in one kingdom, but the United Kingdom will still consist of two separate kingdoms - England and Northern Ireland, no matter how small a part Northern Ireland plays.

Thanks for making it make sense to me at last! Of-course, I should have known all along considering my father's side of the family are from Northern Ireland!
 
Why?

She has already seen most of the countries over which she was Queen when she came to the throne tell her to go away so why would she be upset if another one did so (she started with over 50 and now is down to 16 so she is used to countries saying that they don't want her anymore as their Queen).
 
Back
Top Bottom