The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 05-17-2020, 01:40 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4
Jacobites (House of Stuart) in Canada

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
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-17-2020, 01:48 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,531
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-17-2020, 01:52 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 521
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!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:31 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-17-2020, 03:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 521
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 604
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:14 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:18 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
canada, jacobite, stuart, wittelsbach


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lady Arabella Stuart (1575-1615) mary stuart British Royal History 9 03-23-2020 02:25 PM
Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders hillary_nugent British Royal History 150 02-20-2019 07:17 AM
Death & Funeral of Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba: Nov 20+21, 2014 Blog Real Royal Family of Spain 130 11-21-2016 07:25 AM
Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, Duchess of Alba and Alfonso Diez, October 5 2011 lula Weddings: Non-Reigning Houses & Nobility 66 08-01-2012 11:29 AM




Popular Tags
althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry bangladesh belgian royal family castles charles of wales chittagong cht clarence house crown princess victoria danish history denmark diana princess of wales dna duchess of cambridge dutch dutch royal family family tree foundation future games germany haakon vii hill house of bourbon house of saxe-coburg and gotha intro jacobite jumma kids movie king salman languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mailing mary: crown princess of denmark memoir monaco history nobel 2019 official visit pakistan palaces prince charles princess elizabeth princess margaret queen mathilde royal balls royal children royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding russian imperial family saudi arabia snowdon spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:37 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×