The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Scottish Independence And The Windsors (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/scottish-independence-and-the-windsors-32596.html)

KeepMovingForward 02-10-2012 02:08 PM

Scottish Independence And The Windsors
 
I recently read an article about Scottish Indpendence, and am wondering about a few things. If Scotland has a referendum and chooses to become an independent sovereign nation then what will become of the Windsors in Scotland? Will Scotland drop the Windsors and go with the Stuarts? Will they abolish the monarchy altogether? Is this plan by the SNP set in stone?

About the Scottish military forces. It is my understanding that members of the British military take on oath to the Queen. How will Scottish independence affect that oath for members of Scottish regiments, battalions, etc if Scotland becomes independent?

Note to Mod: I'm not sure if this is the correct forum, so please move if neccessary, thanks.

KittyAtlanta 02-10-2012 02:43 PM

Can't answer all your questions, but if Scotland becomes independent, then there would be no Scots regiments in the British forces. They would be Scottish forces and, presumably, would not take an oath to HM, but would swear allegience to Scotland and to uphold the (chosen) constitution of Scotland.

If they become independent, they may have to leave the commonwealth.

Not sure about any of that, but it is fodder for discussion.

Lumutqueen 02-10-2012 02:51 PM

I doubt very much that if it chooses to 'get rid of' the Windsors, they will not be replaced by other monarchs. Scotland, I believe, will become a republic. It's amazing how people seem to link the idea Scottish independence with the monarchy, and not with government.

Scotland, can still be part of the Commonwealth should it abolish the monarchy. The Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Realms are two separate organisations.

fearghas 02-10-2012 11:46 PM

Persoanlly I think that everyone in the United Kingdom should have a say in whether Scotland becomes independant because it will affect everone in the country. Essentially the UK would not exist anymore and the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England will affected by that. I often wonder if pro independence people consider how Scotland would survive without the inflow of money from the other parts of the UK, especially the tax payers of England.
As to whether Scotland would remain a monarchy I doubt it as many of the nationalists seem to be ardent republicans.

Iluvbertie 02-11-2012 01:15 AM

If Scotland, or any other realm, becomes a republic they apply to retain membership of the Commonwealth. So far, as far as I am aware, no such application has been refused. Sure some countries have been expelled/suspended from the Commonwealth e.g. South Africa, Pakistan, Fiji, Nigeria at different times and later re-instated but applications to retain membership on becoming a republic is a different matter.

As for Scotland remaining a monarchy - everything I have seen suggests that Elizabeth would remain as Queen of Scotland like she is now Queen of Australia.

Lumutqueen 02-11-2012 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1369287)
I often wonder if pro independence people consider how Scotland would survive without the inflow of money from the other parts of the UK, especially the tax payers of England.

There would still be an inflow of money from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the republic. It would be disastrous for both sides to cut off all economic links. This more has to do with government and the monarchy, not trade routes.

I certainly don't think England, Wales and Northern Ireland should have anything to do with Scotlands independence because we don't live in Scotland. You might want to have a read of this link which outlines the plans for independence.

KeepMovingForward 02-11-2012 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1369287)
Persoanlly I think that everyone in the United Kingdom should have a say in whether Scotland becomes independant because it will affect everone in the country. Essentially the UK would not exist anymore and the people of Wales, Northern Ireland and England will affected by that.

According to international law the Scottish people have the right to self-determination:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Charter of the United Nations

fearghas 02-11-2012 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1369335)
There would still be an inflow of money from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the republic. It would be disastrous for both sides to cut off all economic links. This more has to do with government and the monarchy, not trade routes.
.

No i was talking about tax money not trade.

fearghas 02-11-2012 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KeepMovingForward (Post 1369456)
According to international law the Scottish people have the right to self-determination:

"To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;"
Charter of the United Nations

Self determination and independence are two different things.

NGalitzine 02-11-2012 07:19 PM

All the economic studies I have seen indicate it would be very rough going for Scotland should they become independent. A lot of tax revenue flows north from Westminster to support Scotland since Scotland does not generate enough revenue to pay its own way. There is already talk of businesses relocating south of the border should Scotland separate, but that may be premature since most polls suggest independence won't happen.

Lumutqueen 02-12-2012 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1369571)
No i was talking about tax money not trade.

Actually if you look at some recent articles on the matter you see that Scotland can survive very well without the income of tax from England. If Scotland are truly considering independence from the UK then they will have examined all ways the detachment could effect scottish life, including the income of tax. However I doubt England has examined how Scotland effects its economy and the money it bring such as the North Sea Gas and Oil revenues. Apparently PM David Cameron is due to travel to Scotland this thursday, to discuss the apparent independence.

James VI 02-13-2012 10:12 AM

The SNP is committed to ending the Act of Union (1707) which united the parliaments of England and Scotland. The Union of the Crowns (1603) which effectively created what is now the British monarchy, is of course a seperate treaty, and would be unaffected by the end of the Act of Union. If Scotland voted to become independent, Elizabeth would remain head of state, as Queen of the Scots, which is her legal and moral right. However, as a Scotsman i can tell you that the SNP is a fundamentally socialist and republican organisation, hatred towards the Queen is deep rooted and springs from a complete ignorance of Scottish history. They would undoubtedly seek to make an independent Scotland a republic, by ending the Union of the Crowns, destroying the Scottish Crown, one of the oldest in Europe. So far, this ambition has yet to surface in the on going debate about independence, but make no mistake, there are many of us in Scotland who know what the SNP is all about and when the vote on independence happens (2014) i am fully confident that my fellow countrymen and women will vote NO!!!

Kataryn 02-13-2012 10:58 AM

It is sad that there is no Stuart descendant with a better claim to Mary Queen of Scots and James VI. Crown (of which there are thousends: all Habsburgs, all Wittelsbach, lots and lots of other Royals) who are of Scottish (that is: at the moment of British nationality). So besides the Windsors there is no Royal claimant who has any ancient but still existing relationship to
Scotland.

Okay, there were the illegitimate sons of Charles II. Has there be any illegitimate buit legalized birth in Scotland's Royal House of the Stuarts which led to a successful claim to the throne?

Otherwise they could offer the Crown of Scotland to Harry.... That has happened in 1905 when Norway became independant of Sweden and they offered the Crown first to the second son of their former ruler and only when he declinded gave it to a Danish prince with Norwegian Royal ancestry and close links to the Bernadotte dynasty of Sweden).

Al_bina 02-13-2012 11:13 AM

Why would Scottish people offer a crown to a person from the House of Windsor? Perhaps they would like a usual democratic state.

KeepMovingForward 02-13-2012 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearghas (Post 1369572)
Self determination and independence are two different things.

How so in international law? If a people, in this case the Scots, vote that they would like to become an independent nation then how is that not "self-determination"?

James VI 02-14-2012 08:29 AM

Self determination
 
Indeed so, the people of the Falkland Islands are exercising their right of self determination, in wishing to remain a British dependant territory, rather than be handed over to the Argentine republic. In reference to Scotland, when i vote in the referendum ( when the SNP finally has the guts to call one) i will not necessarily be voting on wether Scotland should become an independent state ( and eventual republic ) but on the idea of the Scottish people determining their own constitutional future, and here, i am more than optimistic that we will vote to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

James VI 02-14-2012 08:44 AM

In reply to Kataryn, there would be no need to offer the Scottish crown to anyone else. Elizabeth is the rightfull Queen of Scotland, as she is the rightfull Queen of England, her position is set in stone both legally and morally. Her heirs and successors also have an unquestionable right to both crowns. However, if Scotland did become independent, under SNP rule, they would eventually seek to break the Union of the Crowns. Then, the Scottish Crown would not be offered to a third party, but ABOLISHED COMPLETELY!! in favour of a republic, something which i will fight tooth and nail to oppose.

Kataryn 02-14-2012 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James VI (Post 1370402)
In reply to Kataryn, there would be no need to offer the Scottish crown to anyone else. Elizabeth is the rightfull Queen of Scotland, as she is the rightfull Queen of England, her position is set in stone both legally and morally. Her heirs and successors also have an unquestionable right to both crowns.

Actually no. Elizabeth is queen of Scotland because the parliament of the UK decided that the Crowns of the Uk would be inherited by the heirs of the Electress Sophie (youngest child of Elizabeth Stuart) after the death of Queen Anne Stuart. So Sophie's eldest son and heir George became George I. of the UK. But according to Scottish traditions, where catholic monarchs were possible, the legitime line after the House of Stuart became extinct in 1807 is another one. Most senior Stuart descendant of all lines, Catholic and Protestant, is currently Duke Francis of Bavaria, senior descendant of Henrietta Ann Stuart, daughter of Charles I. and sister to both Charles II. and James II., as her line is next according to the way the Scots Crown was passed down the line.

James VI 02-14-2012 10:36 AM

The Stuarts
 
The Act of Settlement does indeed place the Scottish and English crowns in the hands of Sophia and her descendants, and it is perfectly possible that if this act were to be revoked, the various Stuarts from the collateral branch you mentioned could make a claim on one or indeed both Crowns. However, i doubt the Scottish or English peoples would be willing to trade Queen Elizabeth for Duke Francis, and any legal claim would be unlikely to succeed. My wider point, as a Scotsman and a monarchist, is of far greater importance. If the SNP succeed in their political ambitions, ultimately, there will be no Scottish Crown, and any rival claims to it will become even more theoretical than they are at present.

EIIR 02-14-2012 11:02 AM

I agree, James VI. The SNP have no love for the monarchy, quite the opposite in fact. The only reason Salmond pledges to keep the Queen on as head of state of an independent Scotland is so that he can say to the more conservative elements that there will be a reassuringly familiar feel to things if they vote yes, they're not moving entirely into the unknown.

I have no doubt, however, that the SNP would be hoping for an end to the monarchy after the death of the Queen in an independent Scotland.

Kataryn 02-14-2012 11:08 AM

Isn't Charles and/or Anne loved in Scotland? So why should there be a change after the queen's death?

James VI 02-14-2012 12:02 PM

After the Queen
 
Republicans in the UK have tried to make political capital outof the personal lives of the Royal family, which i believe shows the complete paucity of their argument, they have nothing credible to offer and thus resort to spite. The Prince of Wales has long been a target, and it would be true to say that he is not as popular as his mother, however a monarchy is not a beauty contest, he is next in line to the throne and therefor he will be the next King. Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is very popular here in Scotland, Kataryn, amongst the many organisations and charities she works for, she is President of the Scottish rugby federation and was here in Edinburgh, just last weekend, presenting the trophy to the winners of our annual Scotland v England rugby match. Her son, Master Peter Phillips chose to play rugby for the Scottish boys team, and of course her daughter, Zara Phillips, was married in Cannongate Kirk in Edinburgh, last summer. Scottish people are essentially conservative in our outlook, despite what the leftists try to tell us. We have a deep and abiding loyalty to our Crown and Queen, and i believe PASSIONATELY that this sense of loyalty will ultimately save the United Kingdom and it`s two historic Crowns.

Kataryn 02-14-2012 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James VI (Post 1370492)
We have a deep and abiding loyalty to our Crown and Queen, and i believe PASSIONATELY that this sense of loyalty will ultimately save the United Kingdom and it`s two historic Crowns.

Yes, it is sad that those two Crowns after they historically became personified by one monarch in personal union should be divided again. It is sad, though, that the Stuart kings of the UK did not protect their Scottish Crown as well as their English and did not see to it that both parts of the realm had the same rank within the kingdom. Otherwise I don't think Scotland would seek to severe what history and tradition brought together in one person as their souverain.

fearghas 02-15-2012 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James VI (Post 1370397)
Indeed so, the people of the Falkland Islands are exercising their right of self determination, in wishing to remain a British dependant territory, rather than be handed over to the Argentine republic. In reference to Scotland, when i vote in the referendum ( when the SNP finally has the guts to call one) i will not necessarily be voting on wether Scotland should become an independent state ( and eventual republic ) but on the idea of the Scottish people determining their own constitutional future, and here, i am more than optimistic that we will vote to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Thank you, that explains what I meant quite well

tommy100 04-12-2012 03:35 PM

Alex Sammond has said that Queen will remain Scotland's Head of State. This has been said time and time again so I doubt he would turn round and say "sorry folks only kidding". Its been said before that Charles has actively gone out of his way to meet up with Alex Sammond, I believe he has even visited him at Birkhall.
I think its only a question of whether the Queen is Queen of a UK that includes Scotland or Queen of UK and separately Queen of Scotland just as she is Queen of Australia and Queen of Canada.

This piece explains more about what has been said so far and includes a quote from an SNP spokesperson stating the future will include "... the SNP's long-standing policy for the Queen and her successors to be head of state."

The Courier - 'A magnificent monarch'

Also:
Scotland would remain part of a United Kingdom even if it became independent, Alex Salmond declared yesterday.
The SNP leader said the Queen would still be head of state of a politically independent Scotland, meaning it would stay in ‘monarchical union’ with England.

Independent Scotland 'to keep Queen' despite majority in favour of break away | Mail Online

And:
Mr Salmond responded to suggestions on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show that voters should be asked if they want to leave the UK instead.
The First Minister said: "It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state.
"That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence.
Alex Salmond defends Scotland independence referendum question - Telegraph

And also from the BBC summarizing the SNPs published plans:
"The Queen would remain as head of state under independence, and the Scottish Parliament would gain full responsibility for governing Scotland."
BBC News - At-a-glance: Scottish government referendum consultation

I really think the Queen will remain Scotland's Head of State, Scotland seems to have an affection for the Royal Family, they have very strong links. The Queen mother was Scottish, William went to university in Scotland, Princess Anne has very strong links to Scotland, there even being a suggestion once she should be a "Princess of Scotland" dedicated to supporting the monarchy in Scotland.

NGalitzine 04-12-2012 04:27 PM

Poor Alex, he so desperately wants independence for Scotland but he just bumbles along saying nothing will really change. If there is no real change what is the point of independence and why vote for it? When it comes to the economic questions he and his supporters have an even harder time explaining what things will be like and why independence is desirable. Still keep the British pound with the currency controlled by Westminster and you are not independent. Will Scotlands small population/current tax base be enough to sustain current government expenditure and services? Unfortunately the debate is already causing businesses to question whether they would really want to open a plant in Scotland or expand current operations in Scotland.

EIIR 04-12-2012 04:37 PM

I have my doubts about whether the Queen would actually be kept on in an independent Scotland. Salmond knows that the idea of keeping the Queen reassures people, but the vast majority of SNP members and politicians are pretty vociferously anti-monarchy. I wouldn't be surprised if Salmond were pushed by his party into holding a referendum on the issue and who knows how that would turn out.

tommy100 04-12-2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1399101)
I have my doubts about whether the Queen would actually be kept on in an independent Scotland. Salmond knows that the idea of keeping the Queen reassures people, but the vast majority of SNP members and politicians are pretty vociferously anti-monarchy. I wouldn't be surprised if Salmond were pushed by his party into holding a referendum on the issue and who knows how that would turn out.

IMO it is quite likely that the SNP would call for a referendum on Scotland's Head of State if they gained independence but I think that would not come until along time after any referendum on Scottish independence. I think to do so soon after this referendum would be seen as the SNP going too far by many and would open Alex Salmond up to heavy criticism for his comments about the Queen staying on. I think its safe to say the Queen will always be Queen in Scotland (Whether Scotland is independent or not) for the rest of her lifetime, the same might mot necessarily be said for her successor.

NGalitzine 04-12-2012 06:23 PM

Will there be new elections for the Scottish Assembly before the 2014 referendum? A lot can change before there is an actual referendum but right now there seems to be more support south of the border for Scottish independence than there is north of the border.

James VI 04-27-2012 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NGalitzine (Post 1399114)
Will there be new elections for the Scottish Assembly before the 2014 referendum? A lot can change before there is an actual referendum but right now there seems to be more support south of the border for Scottish independence than there is north of the border.

Yes that`s true, support for independence in Scotland is currently stuck at the 30% level, below that which has been recorded in other parts of the UK. The referendum is still scheduled for some time in 2014, but of course Salmond is a devious character, he may well realise that 30% cannot be transformed into 51% simply by empty rhetoric. He will, i believe, seek a way of delaying the referendum, finding an obscure legal point to argue the toss over. He will then remain in office and lead the SNP into the next Holyrood elections which are scheduled for 2016. A defeat in these elections, will end him.

NGalitzine 04-27-2012 03:23 PM

Alex does seem to get quite flustered and blustery when questions about the economics of an independent Scotland are put to him.

James VI 04-27-2012 05:07 PM

" Fluster and Bluster " ? I would`nt be too surprised if Mr Salmond had a pair of Westies with those names. I think it is the economic question which is undermining the whole case for independence. I would like to believe that people were drawing away from seperation from a sense of loyalty to the Crown and there is some polling evidence to back this up. Support for "British" institutions: the Queen, the army, the BBC etc, is on the rise in Scotland, but ultimately the fear of what might happen in the economic sphere, post-independence, will ultimately decide the issue. Incidently, my theory that Mr Salmond will attempt to delay the referendum is quite widely shared. It would be extremely damaging politically (though far worse if he lost the vote) but the SNP would stand by him as party leader for the very simple reason that without Mr Salmond, the SNP is nothing.

agogo 04-29-2012 12:33 PM

It is not a question of "if" but "when" Scottis Indpendence will happen.

James VI 04-29-2012 02:05 PM

You are entitled to your opinion, though of course as an outsider you do not have a vote on the matter and therefor, i fail to see the relevance of your opinion.....

NGalitzine 05-13-2012 10:27 PM

Its either a case of Alex Salmond saying one thing to appease the public in order to win a referendum vote or it is a case of the SNP not being able to agree amongst themselves what an independent Scotland would like like, at least in as far as the monarchy is concerned.

Queen 'may not remain monarch of an independent Scotland' - Telegraph

RoyalistRiley 06-11-2012 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James VI (Post 1405605)
You are entitled to your opinion, though of course as an outsider you do not have a vote on the matter and therefor, i fail to see the relevance of your opinion.....

I really don't think comments like this are in the spirit of TRF.

Jacknch 06-11-2012 03:35 AM

I don't wish to "dumb-down" this thread, as the question of Scotland becoming independent is a very serious one. My question though is to do with the Union Flag. Will the Union Flag have to be redesigned? I love the flag because of it's colours and the jack design and on-line I have seen a picture of the flag without the blue background and saltire, which frankly I don't like.
Sorry if this is off-topic.

Iluvbertie 06-11-2012 04:25 AM

Obviously if Scotland leaves the UK then the flag of Scotland would have to be removed from the Union flag.

EIIR 06-11-2012 05:18 AM

There's absolutely no requirement for the Scottish element of the Union Flag to be removed. When the Republic of Ireland left the Union, the cross of St. Patrick was left in. I know Northern Ireland remains in the Union, but the cross of St.Patrick is representative of Ireland as a whole and in the new Republic some Irish lawmakers debated asking the British government to remove it from the Union Flag but decided not to.

In much the same way the harp of Ireland remains within the coat of arms of the sovereign, even though it is used by the Irish Republic as their national symbol.

The Union Flag is enough of an icon on its own that I can't see the blue being removed. We could just say the blue represents the sea which surrounds our islands or something. The rest of us Brits love it as it is and I'd bet my house that it stays as it is. Plus it would be enormously expensive.

RoyalistRiley 06-11-2012 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacknch (Post 1428888)
I don't wish to "dumb-down" this thread, as the question of Scotland becoming independent is a very serious one. My question though is to do with the Union Flag. Will the Union Flag have to be redesigned? I love the flag because of it's colours and the jack design and on-line I have seen a picture of the flag without the blue background and saltire, which frankly I don't like.
Sorry if this is off-topic.

I also think that this is a very serious matter. I know here in Australia this question has been raised as the Union Jack is a large part of our flag. In this context I would keep it as is as I believe it represents Australia's history, but I can't imagine a world without the Union Flag proper flying over a nation. And what on earth would a United Kingdom of England, Northern Ireland and Wales flag look like?

I have also read that Scottish independence may have constitutional implications for Australia and other realms - Scottish Independence 'Could See The Queen Lose Sovereignty Over Australia' - as there would no longer be a "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as specified in some constitutions.

Personally, I cannot imagine Scotland leaving the Union and a very good Scottish friend of mine doubts it will happen as Scotland enjoys a huge number of financial benefits that people elsewhere in the UK don't receive and would probably lose if independence was gained. He thinks its the SNP playing politics, which I think is very dangerous.

EIIR 06-11-2012 06:35 AM

The problem is Scots think they subsidise the English (with 'their' oil) and the English think they subsidise the Scots (thanks to the Barnett formula).

I feel I can say this as a Northern Irishwoman with Scottish ancestry; to me the issue of Scottish independence comes down to an enormous inferiority complex on the part of the Scots. England is much bigger than them, more influential, more successful in the arts (singers, actors, literature) and that annoys some Scots. They dislike the fact that the BBC has more English presenters and newsreaders that Scottish ones; but that's simply because the vast majority of people in the UK are English.

The SNP play into that by trying to 'out-Scottish' all the other parties. Saying you want Scotland to remain in the Union is translated by the SNP as saying you think Scotland can't succeed on their own; you're 'doing down Scotland'. That's why the campaign to maintain the Union needs to be a positive one; instead of saying Scotland can't make it alone, we need to reinforce the many and varied benefits and advantages to Scots of retaining the link with the rest of the UK.

Cory 06-11-2012 06:45 AM

The Duke Franz of Bavaria is the Catholic Heir to the Throne of Scotland.

RoyalistRiley 06-11-2012 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EIIR (Post 1428930)
The problem is Scots think they subsidise the English (with 'their' oil) and the English think they subsidise the Scots (thanks to the Barnett formula).

The SNP play into that by trying to 'out-Scottish' all the other parties. Saying you want Scotland to remain in the Union is translated by the SNP as saying you think Scotland can't succeed on their own; you're 'doing down Scotland'. That's why the campaign to maintain the Union needs to be a positive one; instead of saying Scotland can't make it alone, we need to reinforce the many and varied benefits and advantages to Scots of retaining the link with the rest of the UK.

That seems to be the feeling I get from living afar and talking to Scots. But we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Kataryn 06-11-2012 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1428932)
The Duke Franz of Bavaria is the Catholic Heir to the Throne of Scotland.

He is more than that if we only count relations: he is the senior line heir as the senior line was deposed in favour of the (senior) protestant line. But it is not clear if the English and Scottish princess he is descended of (Henrietta Ann) has not rightfully given up her rights to the Brtish thrones on her marriage. For if she had a son instead of only two daughters, this son would have been the Head of the Orleans-line of Bourbons, so very close to the French throne. I personally doubt the parliaments of England and Scotland would have accepted a marriage so close to the kingship of France without enforcing a forfeit of her inheritance rights (which was quite custumary at that time when princesses from houses who had a female inheritance possibility married).

So I'm not convinced at the moment that this isn't a reality.
Then we come to Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of James I./VI. If she forfeited her rights, too, then there is no other claimant than the currant queen (for her right goes back to an Act of parliament accepting her ancestoress Elizabteh' right to the succession for her descendants).
If we believe Elizabeth did never give up her claims, then her first son would have been her heir. He left two children from his first and official marriage: a childless son and a daughter who married the widower of her cousin Henrietta Ann and bore him a son. Thus the Head of the House of Orleans would be next. But the duchess of Orleans herself gave up her rights to her inheritance (which was revoked by France at a later moment, but still..) If her line is out, the children of the second marriage of the Prince-Elector might have a claim. This marriage was considered by German Law as a marriage to the left hand, so that the children could not inherit the Palatinate. - a fact which the British don't see. IMHO they could well have inherited a de jure right to the thrones of Scotland and England.

Then the line according to the British traditions of succession goes via Lady Frederica Schomburg to Charles Pelham, the 8th (and current) Earl of Yarborough. So why not ask him to become king of Scotland according to his senior descent from Elizabeth Stuart?

RoyalistRiley 06-11-2012 07:39 AM

:previous:I strongly doubt that the Duke would be under serious consideration for King of Scotland in the event of independence. He is even more foreign that the Windsor's supposedly are.

Artemisia 06-11-2012 08:54 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley (Post 1428921)
Personally, I cannot imagine Scotland leaving the Union and a very good Scottish friend of mine doubts it will happen as Scotland enjoys a huge number of financial benefits that people elsewhere in the UK don't receive and would probably lose if independence was gained. He thinks its the SNP playing politics, which I think is very dangerous.

Well, if the unthinkable were to happen and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ceased to exist, than the flag of the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland could look like this (provided, of course, that the Scottish blue is removed from the flag).

Brazilian_Empress 06-15-2012 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kataryn (Post 1370095)
It is sad that there is no Stuart descendant with a better claim to Mary Queen of Scots and James VI. Crown (of which there are thousends: all Habsburgs, all Wittelsbach, lots and lots of other Royals) who are of Scottish (that is: at the moment of British nationality). So besides the Windsors there is no Royal claimant who has any ancient but still existing relationship to
Scotland.

Okay, there were the illegitimate sons of Charles II. Has there be any illegitimate buit legalized birth in Scotland's Royal House of the Stuarts which led to a successful claim to the throne?

Otherwise they could offer the Crown of Scotland to Harry.... That has happened in 1905 when Norway became independant of Sweden and they offered the Crown first to the second son of their former ruler and only when he declinded gave it to a Danish prince with Norwegian Royal ancestry and close links to the Bernadotte dynasty of Sweden).

Or the Jacobites.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises