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

[Sean.~]

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.....

Hmm. I don't know about him, but the current 'legitimate' "Stuart" claimant would be the Duke of Bavaria. Maybe you already know that. In any case, I posted on this topic somewhere on this forum a few months ago, although I can't recall where. IMO, the few Stuart supporters are quacks living in a fantasy land. QE II is the legitimate Queen of the UK, since she is recognized as such by the Briitish people, which is all that matters. But I digress. In any case, if you want to know more about the Bavarian 'claim', visit the link below. The site is owned by an ardent Jacobite, and I think you'll learn more than you've ever wanted to on the subject ;-) http://www.jacobite.ca/

 

[Oppie]

The Stuart and the guy with a website must be two different people.

This is the irony that I love, one of the heirs to the Stuart claim (the present person then goes to his brother then to her) is Sophie who is married to the Herditary Prince of Liechtenstein.

ETA I am always posting at the same time as someone else

I looked at the website the Stuart claim is The Duke then to his brother Max then to Sophie then to her son Joesph. So Joesph will be the prince of Liechtenstein and the Jacobite Pretender to the Untied Kingdom throne. I love the irony. Although I don't think any of them (the Duke Max and Sophie) have ever claimed to be.

There is also an Australian guy who has a claim because Edward III (I think) was illegitmate. He said he doesn't want it.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you Sean. I knew you could help shed some light on this, and by the way, welcome to thread again after being gone a while.

Okay, now is there anyone else, other than the current Duke of Bavaria, and the current legitimate list of succession, who has tried in the past few years to make a legitimate claim?

The reason I ask, is I would like to explore any other men and women's claims out there whose lineage, could be linked as a direct heir to the throne. And if the circumstances were different, could make a legal claim if they wanted to.

We already listed the five dukedoms who would have a claim had their descendents been born into wedlock to either the current king or heir to the throne at the time.

Just trying to seek out all the other claims and proclamations..

 

[Lady Marmalade]

From Wikipedia:

Jacobite Claimants to the Thrones of England, Scotland, (France), and Ireland

• James II and VII (February 6, 1685 – September 16, 1701).
• James III and VIII (September 16, 1701 – January 1, 1766), James Francis Edward Stuart, also known as the Chevalier de St. George or as the Old Pretender.
• Charles III (January 1, 1766 – January 31, 1788), Charles Edward Stuart, also known as Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Young Chevalier, or as the Young Pretender.
• Henry IX and I (January 31, 1788 – July 13, 1807).

Since Henry's death, none of the Jacobite heirs has actually claimed the throne. They are as follows (given with their Jacobite regnal titles):

• Charles IV (ex-King Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia (July 13, 1807 – October 6, 1819), who was descended from the youngest daughter of Charles I).
• Victor (King Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia) (October 6, 1819 – January 10, 1824), his brother.
• Mary III and II1 (Maria Beatrice, Princess of Sardinia and later by marriage Duchess of Modena) (January 10, 1824 – September 15, 1840), his daughter.
• Francis I (Duke Francis V of Modena) (September 15, 1840 – November 20, 1875), her son.
• Mary IV and III1 (Maria Theresia, Princess of Modena and later Queen consort of Bavaria) (November 20, 1875 – February 3, 1919), his niece.
• Rupert (or Robert I and IV, Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria) (February 3, 1919 – August 2, 1955), her son.
• Albert (Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria) (August 2, 1955 – July 8, 1996), his son.
• Francis II (Franz, Duke of Bavaria) (July 8, 1996 – present), his son.

1Mary III/II and Mary IV/III were numbered in such a way because some Jacobites regard Elizabeth I of England as illegitimate, and therefore consider Mary Queen of Scots to have been the rightful Queen of England from the death of Mary I

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I thought I would post the list to the present day Duke of Bavaria so those not as familiar will understand why he has the claim.

 

[branchg]

Ironically, both the Queen and Prince Philip were quite friendly with Albert, Duke of Bavaria, whom they met in the 1960's through Princess George of Hanover. After the Queen made her first state visit to Germany, the Duke was invited privately to Balmoral a few times with Princess George in the summer.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Honestly, there have been numerous quacks and imposters that have popped up over the years, none that anyone took seriously, I don't think. The most noteable was "Prince Michael of Albany". Sorry I can't help more.

That is the one I was referring to who has that website, "Prince Michael", thank you for clearing that up.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Doesn't he call himself King Michael of Scotland? Or does he stick with a lesser title?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/

Here is his link to his site.

 

[Elspeth]

So he's just sticking with the modest title "HRH Prince Michael of Albany." I hope the Queen isn't losing any sleep....

 

[BeatrixFan]

I hope the Queen isn't losing any sleep....

If I were her I'd be very worried. He looks as if he could do terrible things with a battered pizza.

 

[Sean.~]

http://www.royalhouseofstewart.org.uk/

Here is his link to his site.

I r eally didn't know that's who you were referring to. In any case, the guy is a complete fraud. IIRC, he published a book several years ago under his Michael of Albany name. There have been many discussion about him on the various internet boards and usenet groups. You might want to check-out the archives of alt.talk.royalty via advanced google groups search for discussions going back several years.
Also, for an interesting read, see the esteemed (IMO) Guy Stair Sainty's debunking of Lafosse's/Albany's claims at http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htmAs well Sean Murphy's page on lbany's false birth and marriage certificates. http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/lafosse.htm

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Two interesting alternative successions as listed by Wikipedia in regards to the Jacobite claim:

However, it seems all roads still lead to the current Queen Elizabeth in the end.

While Franz, Duke of Bavaria, is the most universally acknowledged Stuart heir there are two others. If one discounts the marriage of the Duke of Bavaria's ancestress Maria Beatrice of Savoy as being invalid in British law (she married her uncle) then the succession would have passed from her to her younger sister Maria Teresa who married the Duke of Parma. Her representative today is HRH The Infanta Alicia, dowager Duchess of Calabria (b. 1917) and mother of the heir of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.


The second alternative succession is rather suprising to many. In the book The Highland Clans, by The Honourable Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk it is stated that "by the fourteenth century it had become common law [in both England and Scotland] that a person who was not born in the liegeance of the Sovereign, nor naturalized, could not have the capacity to succeed as an heir. He was in the strictest sense "illegitimate," though not of course born out of wedlock. This legal incapacity of aliens to be heirs applied to all inheritances, whether honours or lands.

The effect of the succession opening to a foreigner was that, if he had not been naturalized or if his case was not covered by some special statute, the succession passed to the next heir "of the blood," who thus became the only "lawful" heir. It was of course always open to the Sovereign to confer an honor or an estate on a foreigner; the rule of law merely prevented aliens from being "lawful heirs" to existing inheritances. This "common law" principle was rigorously applied until the Whig Revolution of 1688 after which it was gradually done away with by the mid-nineteenth century. It was precisely because of this law that Queen Anne found it necessary to pass special legislation naturalizing all alien-born potential royal heirs under the "Act of Settlement" provisions. But, of course, from the Jacobite point of view, no new statute could be passed after 1688, and the old law remained static until the death of Cardinal York [King Henry IX] in 1807.
At that time, Henry IX's nearest heir in blood under this argument was not as is sometimes supposed the King of Sardinia, for he had not the legal capacity to be an heir in Britain, unless naturalized which he was not. The nearest British-born heir of Henry IX would have been, in fact, George III, hence his son could indeed legitimately claim to be a Jacobite monarch as portrayed during the visit of King George IV to Scotland.
Thus, following this argument, the de jure and legitimist heir to the crown of Great Britain would, ironically, be the de facto sovereign Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I r eally didn't know that's who you were referring to. In any case, the guy is a complete fraud. IIRC, he published a book several years ago under his Michael of Albany name. There have been many discussion about him on the various internet boards and usenet groups. You might want to check-out the archives of alt.talk.royalty via advanced google groups search for discussions going back several years.
Also, for an interesting read, see the esteemed (IMO) Guy Stair Sainty's debunking of Lafosse's/Albany's claims at http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/stuart.htmAs well Sean Murphy's page on lbany's false birth and marriage certificates. http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/lafosse.htm

No, thank you for your help with the title and all , I knew it was Prince Michael..but I could never remember of what it what it so I could look him up online.

 

[Queen Mary I]

I love all this info! Maria Beatrice Of Savoy married her uncle?? Eeeuw!

 

[Sean.~]

I love all this info! Maria Beatrice Of Savoy married her uncle?? Eeeuw!

Back then, to paraphrase Queen Victoria, such marriages were considered to make 'strong royal blood' stronger.

 

[Queen Mary I]

Back then, to paraphrase Queen Victoria, such marriages were considered to make 'strong royal blood' stronger.

I know-like the Egyptians Royals married siblings. But still-eeuuuw! Very immature I know but YUCK! It makes me all queasy inside LOL!

 

[Iain]

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.

This is not the case. If it were then James VI and James VII would not be referred to as James I and Jmes II. As is always the case in the so called "United" Kingdom the English must have things done their way.

And Mapple, you are confusing the Sovereign with Sovereignity but they are two different things.

Princejonnhy25, the post boxes actually don't have any reference to the queen on it. They just have the Scottish crown.

Skydragon, I don't think there are a million English in Scotland, it just feels that way sometimes. Unlike other foreigners living in the country they refuse point blank to assimilate with the locals and do nothing but complain because things are not done here the way they are done in England. "Why do the Scots always have to be different" is their constant moan. My answer is if they are not happy then they should go back to their own country. I once overheard two of them speaking, the one said to the other, "you know how these Scots are all Catholics and Presbyterians, well being Church of England it makes you feel like you're a missionary doesn't it?" And the poor souls wonder why nobody likes them.

 

[Von Schlesian]

There is also an Australian guy who has a claim because Edward III (I think) was illegitmate. He said he doesn't want it.

The claim of Michael Hastings, (or rather Tony Robinson on his behalf), all hinges on dates being entered correctly, facts being recorded accurately, and any other amount of circumstancial proof. The reality is, that a claim can not be persued, as for approximately 1000 years, members of the same (extended), family have occupied the throne of Britain, and nearly 600 years after Michael Hastings' technicality may have occured, a Monarch is well loved, legitimate, and was anointed our sovereign 52 years ago. God Save the Queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The claim of Michael Hastings, (or rather Tony Robinson on his behalf), all hinges on dates being entered correctly, facts being recorded accurately, and any other amount of circumstancial proof. The reality is, that a claim can not be persued, as for approximately 1000 years, members of the same (extended), family have occupied the throne of Britain, and nearly 600 years after Michael Hastings' technicality may have occured, a Monarch is well loved, legitimate, and was anointed our sovereign 52 years ago. God Save the Queen.

In addition, even if his claim is accurate and Edward IV was illegitmate then the throne would have gone to Edward's brother Richard III. The Battle of Bosworth would have happened and the rest they say is history as Henry VII didn't claim the throne so much through blood as through right of conquest.

In addition to that there is the simple little matter of the Act of Settlement which denies the throne to anyone who is not a legitimate descendent of Sophia of Hanover - and the senior descendent of that lady is currently our gracious majesty.

The third point is a common law one - in England if a child is born in wedlock and accepted by the father as his then regardless of who the natural father is the child takes the father's name and place, including his entitlement to titles etc. This is why it is also stupid of those people who say that Hewitt is actually Prince Harry's biological father because Prince Charles has accepted Harry as his (and personally I believe he is Charles's son) and therefore under common law Harry is Charles' second son and heir to everything that goes with being Charles' second son. In the same way Edward IV was recognised by his father as being the father's son and therefore Edward was the legitimate heir of the father regardless of his biological parentage.

 

[Mapple]

This is not the case. If it were then James VI and James VII would not be referred to as James I and Jmes II. As is always the case in the so called "United" Kingdom the English must have things done their way.

And Mapple, you are confusing the Sovereign with Sovereignity but they are two different things.

...

The Stuart Jameses reigned over kingdoms that were in a personal union, thus they had a different ordinal in each state. The present Queen reigns as a monarch of the United Kingdom.

As for sovereignty, you are mixing up the concept in the British constitutional law (parliamentary sovereignty) and the right of Elizabeth II to exercise supreme authority over a certain land or a group of people. The first of them may or may not apply to Scotland, the second certainly does so.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

There will always be a certain amount of disagreement in the Scotland and England claims of how each monarch is viewed numerically. I have several friends from Scotland who take Iain's views as well.

 

[Mapple]

There will always be a certain amount of disagreement in the Scotland and England claims of how each monarch is viewed numerically. I have several friends from Scotland who take Iain's views as well.

Some future king can reign under different ordinals in England & Wales and in Scotland, that's for sure. Thankfully Charles is going to be the third king of that name in all of the constituent countries of the UK.

 

[wymanda]

Lines of Succession - Historical

Does anyone have a "Line of Succession" table for 1910 & 1930?

 

[Warren]

Does anyone have a "Line of Succession" table for 1910 & 1930?

I used to have a 1910 'Pears Cyclopaedia' but it just had the family and grandchildren of Edward VII. I'm afraid if you want to go past the immediate family members you may have to trawl through the family trees and piece it together; it depends on how far down you want to go: the first 20 or 30, or up to 100?

 

[wymanda]

This is what I've managed to work out for 1909

 

[elenaris]

Is it possible to see it bigger?

Thanks!!!
At

 

[wymanda]

1. George, Duke of York
2. Edward (later Duke of Windsor)
3. Albert (later George VI)
4. Henry (Duke of Gloucester)
5. George (Duke of Kent)
6. John
7. Mary (Later Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood)
8. Princess Louise (Princess Royal, Duchess of Fife)
9. Princess Victoria
10. Queen Maud
11. Prince Olav of Norway
12. Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught
13.
14. Princess Margaret of Connaught (Crown Princess of Sweden)
15. Princess Patricia of Connaught (Later Lady Patricia Ramsay)

 

[Kat]

hello! This is a very interesting thread here ... I have one question / comment though ... what would happen if (in the future - assuming the laws remain the same) the heir to the throne had one son & one daughter & the son was the eldest, but married a Catholic / became a Catholic? Would it still go to the daughter? What if she also became a Catholic? ... *just a thought*

 

[BeatrixFan]

If the heir, lets say William, had a son and he married a catholic he would be out of succession and his sister would become Queen after William. The same for if he converted. If William's daughter did the same then the throne would go to Harry.