Jacobites (House of Stuart) in Canada

[Gabriel1]

I'm not sure if I'm posting this question in the correct sub-forum - my apologies if I'm mistaken!

This question is directed to those familiar with the Jacobite claims, by which the legitimate King of England today would be Francis II (House of Wittelsbach), Duke of Bavaria.

If this were true, would that also make him King of Canada? Or not, since the British N. America Act was signed in 1867 - well after the "Glorious Revolution" and deposition of King James II and VII?

How would this work? Any thoughts or help much appreciated!

-Gabriel

[Countessmeout]

The British North American act didn’t make the monarch our head of state they already were. It simply confirmed the monarch would Remain our head of state with the new united country and its own governing body.

So yes we would recognize Francis as king. Though if the Jacobites had regained the throne marriages and children would have looked very different. Who knows who would actually be on the throne. Not the Francis we know.

[Alison H]

Interesting question! Logically, the monarch of the UK (OK, there was no UK as such at the time of the Glorious Revolution, but "the monarch of England and Scotland) would also be the monarch of any Commonwealth countries where the British monarch is head of state. However, as far as I can see, the British North American Act vested the executive government in Her Majesty Queen Victoria and her successors. Moot point anyway, seeing as the Duke of Bavaria isn't very likely to try to overturn the Act of Succession etc :-) , but it does seem that the wording referred to Queen Victoria and her successors rather than "the British monarch".

Having said which, you could argue that "successors" means whomever succeeds her on the British throne, whether or not they're her personal heirs!

[Gabriel1]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

The British North American act didn’t make the monarch our head of state they already were. It simply confirmed the monarch would Remain our head of state with the new united country and its own governing body.

So yes we would recognize Francis as king. Though if the Jacobites had regained the throne marriages and children would have looked very different. Who knows who would actually be on the throne. Not the Francis we know.

Do you know which document / act / proclamation established the British Monarch as our Canadian Monarch as well? I'm assuming it would be obviously well after 1688.

It makes sense to me that if Francis were King of England, he would also be King of the other Commonwealth realms, including Canada.

But I have some people who argue that since Canada was given to post-Glorious Revolution Britain, the legitimate Canadian Monarch would indeed be Elizabeth II, since her lineage obtained Canada after 1688 (and therefore they did not "steal" or "usurp it"). These same people draw the conclusion that Elizabeth II would therefore be legitimate Queen of Canada, Australia, etc. and all other countries obtained after 1688 --- but not be Queen of England, Ireland, Scotland...

Do you think one could still reasonably argue that Francis would be King of Canada?

[Alison H]

Canada became a monarchy, in its own right, in the 1867 Act. I think the question would be whether "Queen Victoria and her successors" meant her direct blood heirs or anyone who succeeded her on the British throne.

[Durham]

I would presume it means successors as monarch whether they are descendents of Victoria or not. Similar to the oath of allegiance.

Although an awful lot of people would have to disappear before any future monarch was not a descendent of Victoria of course. I have no idea how many though.

[Gabriel1]

Originally Posted by Alison H

Canada became a monarchy, in its own right, in the 1867 Act. I think the question would be whether "Queen Victoria and her successors" meant her direct blood heirs or anyone who succeeded her on the British throne.

When you put it that way, I think things actually become a lot clearer.

Article 2 of the British North America Act specifically states:

The Provisions of this Act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the Heirs and Successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

In other words: no, not her blood heirs - but rather her heirs, her successors (i.e. legitimate successors) to the British Throne.

In other words, if Francis is King of England, then he is automatically King of Canada, Australia, etc.

Elizabeth II, while a blood heir of Victoria - would not be counted among her "heirs and successors ... Kings and Queens of the UK..."

I would be interested to know if any one else follows this logic, sees things differently or has anything other insight to offer?

[Gabriel1]

Originally Posted by Durham

I would presume it means successors as monarch whether they are descendents of Victoria or not. Similar to the oath of allegiance.

Although an awful lot of people would have to disappear before any future monarch was not a descendent of Victoria of course. I have no idea how many though.

Indeed! - and that would seem to confirm what I say above.