The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/stuart-succession-and-jacobite-pretenders-8506.html)

hillary_nugent 11-01-2004 07:25 PM

Stuart Succession and Jacobite Pretenders
 
[QUOTE=Iain]
Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
Queen Elizabeth isn't even the rightful monarch of Britain never mind of France.

WHOA...noway!!! holy...thats shocking hahaha

well who's the rightful monarch of Britain???

Iain 11-02-2004 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent
WHOA...noway!!! holy...thats shocking hahaha

well who's the rightful monarch of Britain???

The Stuarts are the righful monarchs. They were ousted, though not by the people, and replaced by the Hanovarians. Today in Scotland many still have loyalty to the House and Stuart and refuse to accept Elizabeth as Queen. There are a few Stuart claiments including, I have been told, the father of the Crown Princess of Leichtenstein.

Aubisse 11-02-2004 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain
The Stuarts are the righful monarchs. They were ousted, though not by the people, and replaced by the Hanovarians. Today in Scotland many still have loyalty to the House and Stuart and refuse to accept Elizabeth as Queen. There are a few Stuart claiments including, I have been told, the father of the Crown Princess of Leichtenstein.

There are Stuarts in Scotland too, but they arenatural branches (Lennox, Gordon...)

As a French living in South West France, I vote for the Duke of Beaufort, who is the head of the Plantagenet family : he may claim as duc d'Aquitaine et de Normandie, comte de Poitiers, de Limoges et d'Anjou :-)

Aubisse 11-03-2004 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent
Thanks for replying Iain and Aubisse wow...i never knew this its really amazing...so is there members of the Stuart house in Scotland that call themselves royals?

I don't think they dare. And in fact they don't have to : some are very rich and everyone there knows who they are.

Four families now

Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon
The titles Duke of Richmond and Duke of Lennox were created in the peerages of England and Scotland respectively in 1675 for Charles Lennox, llegitimate son of Charles II of England. The Duke of Richmond and Lennox was created Duke of Gordon in 1876. Thus, the Duke holds three dukedoms, more than any other person in the realm.
The subsidiary titles are: Earl of March (created 1675), Earl of Darnley (1675), Earl of Kinrara (1876), Lord Methuen (1675) and Baron Settrington (1675). The titles Earl Darnley and Lord Methuen were created in the peerage of Scotland along with the Dukedom of Lennox. The titles Earl of March, Earl of Darnley and Baron Settrington were created in the peerage of England along with the Dukedom of Richmond. Finally, the title Earl of Kinrara was created in the peerage of the United Kingdom with the Dukedom of Gordon. The eldest son of the Duke uses the courtesy title of Earl of March, Darnley and Kinrara.
(For their coat of arms see : https://www.heraldique-europeenne.org...s/Lennox_2.htm )


Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry
The title of Duke of Buccleuch was created in the Peerage of Scotland on 20 April 1663 for James Crofts, eldest illegitimate son of Charles II of England, who had married Anne Scott, Countess of Buccleuch. In 1666, Anne was created Duchess in her own right, so that the title was not affected by Monmouth's attainder in 1685. It passed on to his descendants, who have borne the surnames Scott or Montagu-Douglas-Scott. In 1810, the Duke of Buccleuch inherited the title of Duke of Queensberry, also in the Peerage of Scotland, thus separating that title from that of Marquess of Queensberry. Thus, the holder is one of the only four people to hold two or more different dukedoms, the other being the Duke of Hamilton and Brandon, the Duke of Argyll and the Duke of Richmond, Lennox and Gordon.
The subsidiary titles associated with the Dukedom of Buccleuch are: Earl of Buccleuch (1619), Earl of Doncaster (1663), Earl of Dalkeith (1663), Lord Scott of Buccleuch (1606), Lord Scott of Whitechester and Eskdale (1619), and Baron Scott of Tyndale (1663). (All, except for the Earldom of Doncaster and the Barony of Scott of Tyndale, are in the peerage of Scotland.) The courtesy title used by the Duke's eldest son and heir is Earl of Dalkeith.
Coat of arms : https://www.heraldique-europeenne.org..._Buccleuch.htm
Princess Alice, duchess of Gloucester was a Montaigu Douglas Scott.

Duke of Saint-Albans
Beauclerk:The title Duke of St Albans was created in 1684 for Charles Beauclerk when he was fourteen years old. King Charles II had accepted that Beauclerk was his illegitimate son by Eleanor Gwynn , an actress, and had awarded Beauclerk the dukedom, just as he had awarded the dukedoms of Richmond and Lennox , Buccleuch and Grafton on his other illegitimate sons.
The subsidiary titles of the Duke are: Earl of Burford (1676), Baron Heddington (1676) and Baron Vere of Hanworth (1750). The titles created in 1676 were in the peerage of England, while that created in 1750 was in the peerage of Great Britain. The eldest son and heir of the Duke of St Albans is known by the courtesy title of Earl of Burford. The present Earl of Burford became briefly prominent in 1999 when he ran from the steps of the throne to stand on the Woolsack in the House of Lords to denounce the House of Lords Bill which would remove hereditary peers from the House.
(coat of arms : https://www.heraldique-europeenne.org.../Beauclerk.htm )
House : https://www.oldprints.co.uk/prints/cs/morris/93451.htm


Duke of Grafton
The title of Duke of Grafton was created in 1675 by Charles II of England for his 2nd illegitimate son by the Duchess of Cleveland, Henry Fitzroy .The most famous duke was probably Augustus Henry Fitzroy, 3rd Duke of Grafton who served as prime minister in the 1760s.
The Duke of Grafton holds three subsidiary titles, all created in 1672 in the peerage of England: Earl of Euston, Viscount Ipswich, and Baron Sudbury of Sudbury. The Duke's eldest son and heir uses the courtesy title Earl of Euston.
Coat of arms : https://www.heraldique-europeenne.org...he_Grafton.htm

Iain 11-04-2004 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent
Thanks for replying Iain and Aubisse wow...i never knew this its really amazing...so is there members of the Stuart house in Scotland that call themselves royals?

Well there is a Belgian gentleman living in Edinburgh who calls himself Prince Michael Stuart and claims the throne. I don't think anyone takes him seriously though. In the late 1800s there were two brothers by the name of Sobieski-Stuart who claimed to be decended from, I think, Charles II. They lived in Strathglass in the North of Scotland and used to cross the loch to attend Mass at Strathglass church wher the congragation addressed them as Royal Highness. Many of the local clan cheifs accepted their claim. The real claiments to the throne are the House of Wittelsbach and you can find out about them on www.jacobite.ca

Von Schlesian 07-15-2005 09:09 PM

Stuart Succession and Jacobite pretenders
 
"So in due course the future reigning Josef Wenzel, Prince of Liechtenstein, will be (in the eyes of the Stuart legitimists) the rightful King of Great Britain."-Originally posted by Warren in the other thread..


True, (but for the huge obstical that His Serene Highness shall be a Roman Catholic, as are both of his parents), and the successions act of 1701 prevents any such person from being within the line of succession, although as you so rightly put Warren, "(in the eyes of Stuart/[Stewart] legitimists)".


"wow interesting...lets say if the Dauphin did survive and his descendents exist, would they have the rights to claim any properties or items of the royal family? sorry for these silly questions but i'm very curious =]"Originally posted by hillary_nugent in the other thread..

If an heir were able to proove their claim, then they'd have every right to claim back the property titles etc that were removed from their family in the revolution(s). A personal view would be that, considering the modern world, Frances' position in the EU etc, that some action would have to be taken. I doubt there would be a restoration, but certainly I think the French government would have to act, it would be too easy for the claiment (if genuine), to get the world media (and therefore the people) on the side of their cause. All they'd need to do is show primary source material from the times (diaries/newspaper etc), about the brutality of the revolutionaries to win over the people.

Warren 07-16-2005 12:56 AM

The Liechtenstein Ascendancy pt2
 
Hi Von Schlesian. I enjoy the historical and dynastic quirk that means one day the Stuart/Jacobite legitimists will be swearing allegiance to their "rightful" King, the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

Taking into account the "fortuitous" marriage of the Hereditary Prince with Duchess Sophie, perhaps Prince Hans Adam has an ambitious long-term plan! Liechtenstien is obviously too small for all of those Princes, so its only a matter of time before a challenge is made to the legitimacy of the House of Windsor. Liechtenstein rules the waves, and claims a Kingdom!

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

A more "almost came true" what-if: Assume Crown Prince Philippe leaves no living descendants; Astrid would succeed to the Belgian throne, to be followed in due course by the Archduke Amedeo of Austria-Este. Obviously he would be using his other second name of "of Belgium", but in reality the Imperial House of Habsburg would have regained a Kingdom! Until Mathilde made her dazzling appearance on the scene, there was a possibiliity that this scenario would come true. Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?

cheers,
W

Von Schlesian 07-16-2005 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

Hi Warren, that is scarey!! How did you respond? As soon as the holy oil anoints the Royal forehead, and the St. Edwards' Crown is blessed and placed on the head, our Soverign (and her Windsor family before her), became so, our undoubted Queen. Still, it's not all that difficult to get a Scot upset when it comes to the line of succession..:)

Von Schlesian 07-16-2005 03:19 AM

That other point you mentioned Warren, also very interesting.

That the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would be succeeded by one of it's former great rivals... My goodness me.

Sean.~ 07-16-2005 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

Well it sounds like he needs to get with reality (not to mention get a life). The notion of a 'Stuart' (and I use the name loosely) restoration is a fantasy like Alice in Wonderland.

The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

Warren 07-16-2005 07:11 AM

Irascible Scots
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian
Still, it's not all that difficult to get a Scot upset when it comes to the line of succession..:)

Yes, as I found out! :eek:
.

Von Schlesian 07-18-2005 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

Here here!!:)

tiaraprin 08-20-2005 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean.~
Well it sounds like he needs to get with reality (not to mention get a life). The notion of a 'Stuart' (and I use the name loosely) restoration is a fantasy like Alice in Wonderland.

The Windsors are legitimate because the vast majority of their subjects recognize them as such, and have done so for centuries. That's all that matters.

However, if the tie between religion and the succession is abolished, then wouldn't the Stuarts who are alive today have a greater claim?? There is clamoring to have the rule about Catholics marrying the British Royals abolished.

Sean.~ 08-20-2005 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
However, if the tie between religion and the succession is abolished, then wouldn't the Stuarts who are alive today have a greater claim?? There is clamoring to have the rule about Catholics marrying the British Royals abolished.

No. They're not Stuarts per se, and it won't be a retroactive law. Besides, the Windsors are the recognized RF by the British people, so that's all that matters.

Elspeth 01-14-2006 11:25 PM

Stuart and Jacobite pretenders
 
This topic was touched on briefly in another thread, but it's probably worth its own thread.

Does anyone have any information about the current Stuart and Jacobite pretenders to the British throne? I remember seeing a book by a certain Prince Michael of Albany who claims to be the rightful Scottish king. The Jacobite claimant is someone else again.

How do these claims stack up against each other (apart from being pure fantasy, of course)? Should the Queen be worried?:D

Von Schlesian 01-15-2006 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Should the Queen be worried?:D

Only about laughing too hard when hearing some of the claims..

Michael Lafosse/of Albany, seems to base his entire claim on a marriage 200 years ago, which only he knows about! (A marriage which if true, may have lead to him being in the running somewhere along the lines, but as we all know, never happened).

Warren 01-15-2006 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Lady Marmalade here

From Wikipedia:

Jacobite Claimants to the Thrones of England, Scotland, (France), and IrelandSince Henry's death, none of the Jacobite heirs has actually claimed the throne. They are as follows (given with their Jacobite regnal titles):Mary 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 Mary1.

Margrethe II 01-15-2006 12:57 AM

Most interesting Warren...

Thanks mate ;) :)

"MII"

Warren 01-15-2006 12:59 AM

Current Jacobite heirs
 
The current "representative and heir of King Charles I of England" is Franz, Duke of Bavaria, Head of the Royal House of Bavaria.

He is unmarried, so the claim will pass to his brother Duke Max Emanuel, Hereditary Prince of Bavaria and Duke in Bavaria.
Duke Max has five daughters and the Jacobite claim will pass to the eldest...

Princess/Duchess Sophie (b 1967), who is married to Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein. Their eldest son is Prince Josef Wenzel, b 1995.

So at some stage in the future the Jacobite Claimant to the British Throne will be none other than the reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

Elspeth 01-15-2006 01:19 AM

Quote:

Since Henry's death, none of the Jacobite heirs has actually claimed the throne.
So we're not likely to see the Queen dragged into the European Court of Whatever to answer charges of usurping the British throne, then?

Margrethe II 01-15-2006 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
So we're not likely to see the Queen dragged into the European Court of Whatever to answer charges of usurping the British throne, then?

HAHAHAHAHAHA...That is gold Elspeth, pure gold!

"MII"

Warren 01-15-2006 10:12 AM

Here is a good Jacobite website with the past and current line of succession (with pics and photos!).

Avalon 01-15-2006 10:22 AM

Thanks Warren for the link, it was funny.
I wonder if due to some freak circumstances Duchess Sophie of Bavaria did become the heir to the British throne (let's just imagine it), would Liechtenstein and Britain be united???

Warren 01-15-2006 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon
Thanks Warren for the link, it was funny.
I wonder if due to some freak circumstances Duchess Sophie of Bavaria did become the heir to the British throne (let's just imagine it), would Liechtenstein and Britain be united???

The two countries would share a monarch (like Britain and Hanover 1714-1837), but the Liechtenstein dynasty would have achieved a grandeur previously undreamed of. :)

Zonk 01-15-2006 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
Here is a good Jacobite website with the past and current line of succession (with pics and photos!).

Wow! They are serious aren't they :)

Makes you think about how the world would have been different if not for the Glorious Revolution!

Elspeth 01-15-2006 03:36 PM

Well, the chances are that if the Stuart kings had stayed on the throne, they'd have made different marriages from the ones they made while in exile, so the current monarch would no doubt not be the same person as the current claimant.

ysbel 01-15-2006 03:38 PM

Wasn't Bonnie Prince Charlie's son illegitimate? Doesn't that put into question the whole lot of them?

Zonk 01-15-2006 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Wasn't Bonnie Prince Charlie's son illegitimate? Doesn't that put into question the whole lot of them?

Ysbel...according to Wikipedia he did not have a son.

In 1783 Charles signed an act of legitimation for his illegitimate daughter Charlotte, his child born in 1753 to Clementina Walkinshaw (later known as Countess von Alberstrof). Charles also gave Charlotte the title "Duchess of Albany" in the peerage of Scotland and the style "Her Royal Highness". But these honours did not give Charlotte any right to the succession to the throne. Charlotte lived with her father at Florence and Rome for the next five years.

He was suceeded by his brother Henry Benedict Stuart, who was a Catholic bishop.

But really its all for naught...they were Catholic so they were excluded anyway. I mean if we really want to get technical, I am sure a lot of others could have a more serious claim to the throne. And by that I mean the descendants of Edward IV. What a court case that could be :)

ysbel 01-15-2006 04:05 PM

Thanks Zonk. I knew Bonnie Prince Charlie didn't have legitimate issue and just assumed that Henry was the child he tried to legitimize. It appears that the current Michael of Albany makes his claim from Charlotte.

So the legitimate claim seems to go from the Stuarts to the House of Italy to Bavaria.

Elspeth 01-15-2006 04:08 PM

If this is a religious thing, which it seems to be from reading the Jacobite website (where they talk about the monarch being monarch by divine right rather than by consent of Parliament and the people), then do the Jacobite claimants have to be Catholic?

Zonk 01-15-2006 04:12 PM

Elspeth...are you referring to my comment about Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother being Catholics?

I only referenced that because of the Act of Settlement. IMO (and again I am not a historical scholar) I was under the impression that the Jacobite's main point of contention is that throne was usurped from James II and illegally seized by Mary and William. My point being seized or not, because they were Catholic they were automatically excluded. Does that make sense?

Iluvbertie 01-15-2006 04:43 PM

However, the Act of Settlement that excluded the Catholics was passed AFTER the Glorious Revolution. Act passed 1701, Glorious Revolution 1788.

In theory then William and Mary usurped the throne in 1688 by allowing the removal of the legitimate king James II and his son - the old Pretender (both of whom were Catholic but who at the time of their removal were not barred by legislation that had not yet been passed.

The legislation was passed when it become obvious that there would be no immediate protestant successor to either Mary or Anne. To prevent the eventual heir being RC the act was passed. I believe there were over 50 claimants with a better blood claim than George I but they were all RC so George got the gig.

ysbel 01-15-2006 04:47 PM

Well George I wasn't the first king to snatch the crown under indoubtible circumstances. Henry VII had the weakest claim to the crown of any during the War of the Roses and was nevertheless crowned. His defeating Richard III in battle had a lot to do with it though as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, Richard's niece.

Zonk 01-15-2006 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57
However, the Act of Settlement that excluded the Catholics was passed AFTER the Glorious Revolution. Act passed 1701, Glorious Revolution 1788.

In theory then William and Mary usurped the throne in 1688 by allowing the removal of the legitimate king James II and his son - the old Pretender (both of whom were Catholic but who at the time of their removal were not barred by legislation that had not yet been passed.

The legislation was passed when it become obvious that there would be no immediate protestant successor to either Mary or Anne. To prevent the eventual heir being RC the act was passed. I believe there were over 50 claimants with a better blood claim than George I but they were all RC so George got the gig.

Chrissy57..you are correct...but the Act was passed before the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother.

Toledo 01-15-2006 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon
Thanks Warren for the link, it was funny.
I wonder if due to some freak circumstances Duchess Sophie of Bavaria did become the heir to the British throne (let's just imagine it), would Liechtenstein and Britain be united???

That reminds me of the Peter Sellers' 1959 movie The Mouse that Roared :D
Imagine if, like in the movie's Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a tiny European nation which "lies in a precipitous fold of the northern Alps", Liechtenstein declares war on Britain and they win!

Avalon 01-16-2006 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
That reminds me of the Peter Sellers' 1959 movie The Mouse that Roared :D
Imagine if, like in the movie's Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a tiny European nation which "lies in a precipitous fold of the northern Alps", Liechtenstein declawres war on Britain and they win!

That was really funny. But I can't imagine that. To amuzing...:) :p
The movie is called Duchy of Grand Fenwick? I want to watch it, sounds very funny.

Toledo 01-16-2006 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avalon
That was really funny. But I can't imagine that. To amuzing...:) :p
The movie is called Duchy of Grand Fenwick? I want to watch it, sounds very funny.

The movie is worth making a new version of. The tiny nation was based on Liechtenstein or Monaco, from what I read on those great reviews on that link. So, kind of goes with the idea of the Princes of Liechtenstein imposing their 'right of succesion' over Queen Elizabeth II's land. An idea so funny is worth making a new parody movie similar to The Mouse that Roared. I like the lines of Peter Sellers, in drag as Gloriana XII, explaining the reason for attacking a bigger country:
"...as I said before, there is no more profitable and sound step for a nation without money or credit to take, than declare war on the United States and suffer a total defeat."

Von Schlesian 01-16-2006 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo
"...as I said before, there is no more profitable and sound step for a nation without money or credit to take, than declare war on the United States and suffer a total defeat."

This line was a Sellers observation about the extent to which the United States invests it's time and resources into re-building countries (such as Germany and Japan), which it defeats (or is on the 'winning side'), during war. It's a fantastic film, and one which I think highlights (with humour), a few of these correct observations.

Iluvbertie 01-17-2006 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk1189
Chrissy57..you are correct...but the Act was passed before the birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie and his brother.

The Glorious Revolution itself though was brought about in no small measure because of the birth of their father.

As long as James II had only his daughters, as heirs, and their existed the possibility of either of them having a legitimate descendent then there was no need for the Act of Settlement at all.

It was only once the possibility of a RC claiming the throne, be it the Old Pretender (father of Bonnie Prince Charles and his brother) or some other descendent of Charles I that the Act was brought into play.

Elspeth 01-17-2006 12:54 PM

Were there any Instruments of Abdication signed by James II, or did he just sort of slink away? I mean, regardless of birth and so on, if a monarch formally renounces the throne for himself and his descendants, then his descendants several hundred years later are wasting their time doing anything other than just tracing their descent to a long-ago king.

I'm being asked by a non-member to post the following. Does anyone have any response? It hadn't occurred to me that the situations in England and Scotland might be different.

As we all know James 'abdicated' the English throne which should have passed to his son James (he was only a few months old). So instead of the baby becoming King, William III (James son in-law) was invited to take the throne with his wife.
I propose that it was a perfectly legal move because William did (technically) take the throne of England through conquest which is exactly how the Tudors took the Throne. The only problem was that James had no army.

Scotland is a different matter. The Scots Privy council was rather confused. The throne was empty but James claimed it back and William II (Scots title) also put in a claim.
The difference is that were Williams claim was decent, James threatened the council that if they did not keep him as King, he would punish them. So they chose William.
This is perfectly legal in Scots law as the people (or at least the gentry) have the right to depose a bad monarch and replace him. As it was the council decided that James had forfeited the Crown by abondining it for France. William's was the only other claim, so he won the throne.

Thus it was all perfectly legal. :)

Besides, if the Stuarts believed in the Divine right, you would think that they would have noticed that God didn't want them on the thrones. :D

Toledo 01-17-2006 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Von Schlesian
This line was a Sellers observation about the extent to which the United States invests it's time and resources into re-building countries (such as Germany and Japan), which it defeats (or is on the 'winning side'), during war. It's a fantastic film, and one which I think highlights (with humour), a few of these correct observations.

The film is a rare jewel hardly anyone remembers or knows about. When you read those descriptions you think of the news today, the nation-building frenzy. And the film is so timeless since it was done half a century ago and the same issues are still in the news today.

That's why I propose and actualized version of it using this thread as the background, Liechenstein's vs Britain! But making it a modern comedy-political film. ;)

Toledo 01-17-2006 10:26 PM

Can Scotland separate itself from Britain/England on a legal technicality? Anyone from the British threads expert or knowledgeable on the matters of Royal laws? :confused:

Von Schlesian 01-18-2006 12:27 AM

Under the terms of the Act of Union 1707, no.

Lady Marmalade 01-25-2006 11:42 AM

And even if there was some substance...aren't the Liechtenstein's Catholic?

Warren 01-25-2006 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
And even if there was some substance...aren't the Liechtenstein's Catholic?

Never let facts spoil a good fantasy! :)

Lady Marmalade 01-25-2006 11:48 AM

Uh oh....sorry Warren.. ;)

heh heh...:)

Elspeth 01-25-2006 12:06 PM

Well, the whole point is that the Jacobites reject the provisions of the Act of Settlement, so the fact that the claimants are Catholic wouldn't be relevant to them.

Thing is, would a conversion to Protestant Christianity remove any of the Jacobite claimants from the - er - "succession"? Are they are theologically selective as the present lot?

HRH Kerry 01-25-2006 12:44 PM

Until reading this thread, I never understood why some have said that HRH Sophie of Liechtenstein was the rightful heir to the British throne. Since the Jacobites consider Elizabeth I to be illegitimate, who if any is suppose to "overturn" this?...Parliment? Also, are we just suppose to erase everything that was established/occurred during her reign? If Elizabeth wasn't suppose to ascend to the throne, then a lot of the free world or however one wants to word it, wouldn't exist as we know it. Whew!!! They didn't call it The Golden Age for nothing. JMO though.

Warren 01-26-2006 12:26 AM

Yes Kerry, Parliament would have to overturn the succession, tear up the Act of Settlement, and turf out the Windsors, all unlikely prospects. :eek:
There may be a few serious Jacobite supporters but for the rest of us it is just an amusing diversion from the main game; even more so because the Jacobite claim has passed into the Bavarian Royal House and will eventually pass to the reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

HRH Kerry 01-26-2006 07:35 AM

Warren,
I agree that it is amusing but it is also a mess! Kind of reminds me of "he said/she said" gossip. Can't see it happening either.

Thanks for the insight.:)

Elspeth 01-26-2006 12:22 PM

Oh, I don't suppose anyone really seriously thinks it'll ever happen. It's just that some people find the "what if" scenarios interesting.

Von Schlesian 01-27-2006 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
Oh, I don't suppose anyone really seriously thinks it'll ever happen. It's just that some people find the "what if" scenarios interesting.

Yes, comparable to a 'what if the Axis powers won the Second World War' etc.

Jo of Palatine 03-09-2006 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiaraprin
I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

I did a bit of research into the topic and found that currently there is no claimant from the Stuart line with inheritance rights. All living descendents of the Stuarts are derived from the marriage of princess Henrietta Maria Stuart(sister of Charles II) and Philippe, duke of Orleans, the brother of king Louis XIV. of France. In order to marry duke Philippe, henrietta Maria gave up all her british rights for herself and her children. Thus, after the death of cardinal Henry Stuart, the brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie, no claimant with a real right was there, as these rights had been forfeited by Henrietta Maria.
The current head of the Royal House of Bavaria, who would have been c claimant if Henriette Maria had preserved her inheritance rights, which she didn't, publicly asked Jacobites not to use British Royal titles in connection with him and his family.

EmpressRouge 03-09-2006 03:04 PM

Anyhow, when William ascends the throne, a direct descendent of Charles II (several times over) will be king.

Iluvbertie 04-01-2006 05:00 AM

Actually the present Windsors ARE descendents of the Stuarts - James I to be precise.

James I's grand-daughter was the Sophia, Electress of Hanover from whom the Hanoverians claimed the throne.


The current Royal Family's legitimate descent from James I of England and VI of Scotland is as follows - James 1 - Elizabth - Sophia - George I - George II - Frederick Prince of Wales - George III - Edward, Duke of Kent - Victoria - Edward VII - George V - George VI - Elizabeth II - Charles - William.


As you can see William will not be bringing Stuart blood back to the throne of England - it has never left it!!!!


After the death of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne in 1714 the succession passed to Anne's father's (James II) father's (Charles I) sister's (Elizabeth) daughter's (Sophia) son (George I) i.e. it went to the next who could claim descent from a Stuart monarch - to do so meant going back to James I and VI as all the descendents of Charles I were Roman Catholic as were any more senior claimants to Sophia.

Elizabeth had married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and the Rhine and their 12th child. Those ahead of her in claiming the throne were denied due to being either deceased or Roman Catholic.

Jo of Palatine 04-06-2006 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57

After the death of the last Stuart monarch Queen Anne in 1714 the succession passed to Anne's father's (James II) father's (Charles I) sister's (Elizabeth) daughter's (Sophia) son (George I) i.e. it went to the next who could claim descent from a Stuart monarch - to do so meant going back to James I and VI as all the descendents of Charles I were Roman Catholic as were any more senior claimants to Sophia.

Elizabeth had married Frederick V, Elector of Palatine and the Rhine and their 12th child. Those ahead of her in claiming the throne were denied due to being either deceased or Roman Catholic.

If German sources that I read are correct, then it is not that simple. Both the sisters of Charles I (Elizabeth Stuart) and Charles II/James II (Henrietta Maria) had renounced their inheritance rights on marrying. Elizabeth had married the prince-elector of the Palatinate, king of Bohemia (for one winter...) and Henrietta Maria the brother of Louis XIV, Philippe, duc d'Orleans.

But - when Elizabeth's son prince Rupprecht (Rupert the Cavalier) of the Palatinate became a very sucessful general in the fight against Cromwell and helped his cousin Charles II to regain his throne, he was not only created duke of Cumberland, but his mother was put again into the line of succession with the idea that maybe Rupprecht might come in handy one day. Alas, Rupprecht left no legitimate issue and died in 1662.

So it is a fact that prince-electress Sophie, Rupprechts' sister had a right to the throne while Henrietta Maria's kids had not. Sophie's 8 brothers left no legitimate male descendants and the one daughter, Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate had renounced her inheritance rights as well when she married Henrietta Maria's widower.

it is true that the Act of Settlement was against the catholic Stuarts, but the last legitimate Stuart claimant with a senior right to the Hanoverans died in 1761 (Henry, son of James II.). So in 1761 the throne would have passed to the Hanoveran George's, even if the Act of Settlement had never been.

Thus, there is no Jacobite claimant anymore. It's just the Windsors...

Skydragon 09-16-2006 02:24 PM

Bells ring out for Clan Cameron

A 260-year-old tradition has been revived for the triumphal return of a historic clan to Glasgow.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/5348800.stm

foiegrass 09-17-2006 03:27 AM

When William comes to the throne, he would be able to claim descent from Charles II through his mother. Or he could marry a descent from the Stuarts/Jacobite pretenders! Probably by then, the Scottish would be happy!

flcty 10-14-2006 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
Hi Von Schlesian. I enjoy the historical and dynastic quirk that means one day the Stuart/Jacobite legitimists will be swearing allegiance to their "rightful" King, the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein.

Taking into account the "fortuitous" marriage of the Hereditary Prince with Duchess Sophie, perhaps Prince Hans Adam has an ambitious long-term plan! Liechtenstien is obviously too small for all of those Princes, so its only a matter of time before a challenge is made to the legitimacy of the House of Windsor. Liechtenstein rules the waves, and claims a Kingdom!

As an aside, I was talking to a guy here in Sydney last week who was a fierce Stuart Legitimist. He referred to the Windsors as "illegitimate usurpers" (amongst other things), and he was serious. Scarey!

A more "almost came true" what-if: Assume Crown Prince Philippe leaves no living descendants; Astrid would succeed to the Belgian throne, to be followed in due course by the Archduke Amedeo of Austria-Este. Obviously he would be using his other second name of "of Belgium", but in reality the Imperial House of Habsburg would have regained a Kingdom! Until Mathilde made her dazzling appearance on the scene, there was a possibiliity that this scenario would come true. Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?

cheers,
W

i really learnt a lot in this thread. thanks for the info. so the rightful king to the british throne is the current Prince Hans Adam of Liechtstein. wow. king hans adam of england :flowers: . i was thinking about that to "Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?" (didn't really realise that he was eventually going to be king, if phillipe never had kids). do you think that the hasburg family [secretly wishes] to gain a throne or are they now a days just living a normal life?

Simeon 11-28-2006 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flctylu
i really learnt a lot in this thread. thanks for the info. so the rightful king to the british throne is the current Prince Hans Adam of Liechtstein. wow. king hans adam of england :flowers: . i was thinking about that to "Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?" (didn't really realise that he was eventually going to be king, if phillipe never had kids). do you think that the hasburg family [secretly wishes] to gain a throne or are they now a days just living a normal life?

No, not Hans Adam.:bang: - (Not directed at you Flctylu, this thread seems bent)

I am a noob, knob, definitely not nubile nobility (yep, definitely knob:bang:), but I think this much was clear:
The current pretender is Franz, Duke of Bavaria. He has no issue/heir, whatever.
It then goes to his cousin once removed, Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, and descends to his daughter the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, then her son Prince Joseph Wenzel, heir to the throne of Liechtenstein will tie them together.

Good idea for a thread, but this thing wanders all over the page.

Where's Oppie when you need her?

The Habsburg catch was interesting, props

wbenson 11-30-2006 10:54 PM

The Stuarts, under British law, have no claim to the throne. The Act of Settlement, 1701 gives the throne to the lawful heir of the Electress Sophia of Hanover. That heir is Elizabeth II.

Jo of Palatine 12-01-2006 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flctylu
i really learnt a lot in this thread. thanks for the info. so the rightful king to the british throne is the current Prince Hans Adam of Liechtstein. wow. king hans adam of england :flowers: . i was thinking about that to "Were some Habsburgs gnashing their teeth when they married?" (didn't really realise that he was eventually going to be king, if phillipe never had kids). do you think that the hasburg family [secretly wishes] to gain a throne or are they now a days just living a normal life?

The Habsburg-Este branch never had a throne to begin with - it was started when a younger son (the 14.th child and 4.son) of Empress Maria-Theresia named Ferdinand Karl married the Este-heiress Marie-Beatrix. Though this marriage brought Lombardy (with Milan) to Austria, in fact Ferdinand Karl never gained the power there because the land became part of the empire which was reigned first by his mother and then by his brother Joseph II. But the marriage was a happy one.

Since then, the Habsburg-Este are reknown for making their spouse happy! Thus it seems Astrid of Belgium chose the right husband - one with only the ambition to make her happy.

The current head of the house of Habsburg-Lothringen is Dr. Otto von Habsburg, who often said in interviews that he considers a monarchy as a special form of democratic organization of a state and himself as a mere citizen. He tells people that they need not call him Your Imperial Highness but that Herr Habsburg is enough. He even declared the marriage of one of his children with a commoner as "ebenbürtig" according to the house law, which strongly indicates that he really believes what he said. As he is quite old now and his eldest son Karl has been involved in a corruption scandal which forced him to give up his membership of the European Parliament I doubt there will be another chance for the Habsburgs to become monarchs. Especially as soon all their former belongings will be part of the European Union which should prove that their current political system (republic) is pretty stable.

Marengo 12-01-2006 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simeon

It then goes to his cousin once removed, Prince Max, Duke in Bavaria, and descends to his daughter the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, then her son Prince Joseph Wenzel, heir to the throne of Liechtenstein will tie them together.

Duke Franz of Bavaria and Duke Max-Emanuel in Bavaria aren't cousins once removed but brothers. A cousin once removed (Prince Ludwig?) will only inherit the claim to the Bavarian throne.

Warren 12-01-2006 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
A cousin once removed (Prince Ludwig?) will only inherit the claim to the Bavarian throne.

Ludwig it is, a grandson of the last King of Bavaria, Ludwig III.
Prince Ludwig was born in 1913, and will be succeeded by his son Luitpold, known variously as "Poldi", "Prinzregent Luitpold von Bayern" and "The Beer Prince of Bavaria".

King Ludwig married Archduchess Maria Theresia of Austria-Este, Princess of Modena, who succeeded her paternal uncle Duke Francesco V of Modena as "representative and heir of Charles I, King of England" and as such was recognised by British/Stuart/Jacobite legitimists as "Queen Mary IV and III" [of Scotland and England].

The claim passed to their eldest son, Crown Prince Rupprecht, to his eldest surviving son, Duke Albrecht, and passed in turn to his eldest son, the current Duke Franz, in 1996.

Line of descent:
Maria Beatrice of Savoy > Ferdinand of Austria-Este & Modena > Maria Theresia > Rupprecht of Bavaria > Albrecht > Franz ( > Max > Sophie > Josef Wenzel of Liechtenstein)

Marengo 12-01-2006 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren
Ludwig it is, a grandson of the last King of Bavaria, Ludwig III.
Prince Ludwig was born in 1913, and will be succeeded by his son Luitpold, known variously as "Poldi", "Prinzregent Luitpold von Bayern" and "The Beer Prince of Bavaria".
)

Isn't Prince Leopold of Bavaria known as Poldi? He seems to be more visible in the press then Princes Ludwig and Luitpold anyway. And I believe Leopold also is a godfather to Princess Madelaine of Sweden. Or are there 2 Poldi's?

Warren 12-01-2006 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marengo
Isn't Prince Leopold of Bavaria known as Poldi? ... Or are there 2 Poldi's?

I've got notes with both Leopold and Luitpold referrred to as "Poldi". Will the real Poldi please step forward?

Vita 12-24-2006 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry
Until reading this thread, I never understood why some have said that HRH Sophie of Liechtenstein was the rightful heir to the British throne. Since the Jacobites consider Elizabeth I to be illegitimate, who if any is suppose to "overturn" this?...Parliment? Also, are we just suppose to erase everything that was established/occurred during her reign? If Elizabeth wasn't suppose to ascend to the throne, then a lot of the free world or however one wants to word it, wouldn't exist as we know it. Whew!!! They didn't call it The Golden Age for nothing. JMO though.

I suppose that many peoples would be happy for then they would be left alone to go along with their own customs and government. LOL.

But I for one would miss reading about all the "scandals" she caused just for being a smart and independent woman.

HRH Kimetha 05-06-2007 11:16 PM

Why Scotland was denied a prince
 
Why Scotland was denied a prince

THE government considered changing the title of Prince of Wales to Prince of Scotland as a response to Irish independence in the 1920s.
The previously unpublished revelation, contained in restricted files, shows how the government was concerned about quashing nationalist sentiment north of the Border.

Scotsman.com News - Scotland - Why Scotland was denied a prince

Skydragon 06-21-2008 04:56 AM

Art experts say a portrait in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery that is purported to be of Prince Charles Edward Stuart is actually of his younger brother Henry Benedict, Cardinal, Duke of York.

Portrait identified as wrong royal

:lol::lol:

brandon 07-18-2008 01:27 PM

A few comments...

Henry, Cardinal York actually died in 1807 and not in 1761 as someone previously stated in this thread. (Actually, that year was probably the one when he was appointed a cardinal by the Pope).

The Jacobite claim and the years of Jacobite exile all make for fascinating reading, as does the issue of any continued succession claims made in the centuries since based on the immediate Jacobite princes. However, it's also interesting to note that the Act of Settlement doesn't only divert the succession away from the heirs of James II. It also takes care of other business, so to speak, elsewhere in the overall dynasty and in earlier generations. I'm referring for one example to the descendants of Henry VII through his younger daughter Mary Tudor, Queen of France, later Duchess of Suffolk, and her "heirs general".

Legitimism is an interesting word, because once you consider all the possible outstanding theories and what they're based on not only in the U.K. but also for instance in France and Spain, you begin to understand that "Legitimism" has a variety of definitions that seem to vary based on the claim involved!

Jo of Palatine 07-19-2008 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 800556)
However, it's also interesting to note that the Act of Settlement doesn't only divert the succession away from the heirs of James II. It also takes care of other business, so to speak, elsewhere in the overall dynasty and in earlier generations. I'm referring for one example to the descendants of Henry VII through his younger daughter Mary Tudor, Queen of France, later Duchess of Suffolk, and her "heirs general".

Yes, you're right, this is interesting. Obviously the Act of Settlement tried to do it both ways: on the one hand it excluded the line of Charles I. via Henriette Anne Stuart, duchesse d'Orleans. Her heir today would be Franz of Bavaria. James II. line ended with Henry Stuart, the Cardinal - he died of course without issue - the other heirs would have been queen Mary II. and queen Anne and both did not leave issue as well, which led to the Act of Settlement).

Henriette Anne renounced her rights to the thrones of England and Scotland on her marriage to the brother of the French king, because she married the same year as the king himself, so any son of her had a serious chance to become king of France. Okay, the queen was faster in bearing children than the duchess and the queen gave birth to a dauphin, but noone could have known that in 1660 when the marriage contracts were drawn up.

The Act of Settlement did not discuss this problem of renounciation of inheritance rights on marriage because it wasn't an actual problem at that time - after all though James II. had died in 1701 around the time the Act was passed, there were still the Older and Younger Pretender and James II's widow Marie Meatrice of Modena trying to influence the French king and court at Versailles for their side.

And IMHO the authors of the Act knew what they did: there had been a princess before who had renounced her rights to the throne of England on marrying the king of Scotland: Margaret Tudor, elder sister of Henry VIII. Consequently her brother had thrown her line from his line of succession as ruled by his will. But Elizabeth thought differently, especially when the family affairs of the Greys (heiresses via the line of princess Mary Tudor, younger sister of Henry VIII.) became muddled by claims of illegitimacy for the children of Catherine Grey and when Mary Grey died childless before Elizabeth's own death. So Elizabeth accepted that the legitimate line was via Margaret Tudor - James V.Stuart - Mary I.Stuart - James VI. Stuart.

But surely it made sense that the Act of Settlement removed these claimants, especially as they were "peers", so could have served to split the peerage into fractions which the Hanovers could not have done.

brandon 07-20-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 800900)
But surely it made sense that the Act of Settlement removed these claimants, especially as they were "peers", so could have served to split the peerage into fractions which the Hanovers could not have done.

The Act of Settlement was never accepted by those that supported legitimism or the Jacobite claims. Of course it turned out, that it did succeed in diverting the succession in the way that those in power wanted it to -- namely toward the Hanovers and to exclude Catholics in future. In that respect it made sense to the people that wanted it. I don't think it made sense if that means everyone accepting it, as events in 1715 and 1745 showed. Then GII had various peers under attainder for their participation in those rebellions, so in fact the peerage was "split" in that respect. Aside from the descendants of Henry VII that were excluded by it, however, there were even Plantagenet descendants who were excluded by it -- through George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence and his grandchildren through his daughter Anne Countess of Salisbury. Personally I view the Act as a form of legitimizing a power grab by one branch of a dynasty and enshrining this in law. Of course that's happened many times in history, the question is whether you see this as a just event or an unjust one but probably one also that cannot be undone just by amending or doing away with this Act. Many lives have already been altered by it, and that can't be undone.

Warren 07-21-2008 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon (Post 801334)
Personally I view the Act as a form of legitimizing a power grab by one branch of a dynasty and enshrining this in law.

The Hanovers were certainly the beneficiaries but it can also be seen as a "power grab" by the Parliament. By enacting legislation it took control of the Succession for itself.

Jo of Palatine 07-21-2008 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren (Post 542624)
I've got notes with both Leopold and Luitpold referrred to as "Poldi". Will the real Poldi please step forward?

Warren, AFAIK Leopold of Bavaria is the "original" Poldi. He even uses this nickname for the Tracht-fashion line he designs and sells via Loden Frey, Munich's leading tailor and fashion house for traditional Alpine Costumes (Trachten). If you're interested: LODENFREY, then click English, menswear and "Poldi" to see examples. Luitpold is called by some non-Bavarian media outlets "Poldi" but most of the time they mean his cousin (when it comes to race driving or friendship to king Carl XVI. Gustaf of Sweden) or they are wrong about the nickname. Luitpold normally is referred to as "Luitpold" by the Munich based media.

brandon 07-21-2008 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren (Post 801582)
The Hanovers were certainly the beneficiaries but it can also be seen as a "power grab" by the Parliament. By enacting legislation it took control of the Succession for itself.

But it was acting on behalf of those who wanted an exclusively protestant succession and to punish James II and his descendants, it wasn't acting on the principle so much of wanting to invest itself with the matter of succession in future and for all time although that's how it's become since with the primacy of parliament and specifically the Commons. Even so, if the present succession is changed further, for instance, to make it eldest succeeding rather than male preferred, they will still only act on the assent of the monarch. If he or she was opposed then they would never presume to alter the succession or system of succession.

windsorbrides1 10-14-2008 05:18 AM

Princess Diana deftly made up for the fact that the Windsors weren't blood relatives to any Plantagenets in her own bloodline. Therefore, Princes William and Harry is related to all the royal branches - some of which are Stuart, Plantagenet, Hanoverian. Tudor, and Windsor (Saxe-Coburg Gotha).

Jo of Palatine 10-14-2008 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsorbrides1 (Post 837145)
Princess Diana deftly made up for the fact that the Windsors weren't blood relatives to any Plantagenets in her own bloodline. Therefore, Princes William and Harry is related to all the royal branches - some of which are Stuart, Plantagenet, Hanoverian. Tudor, and Windsor (Saxe-Coburg Gotha).

Diana's closest claim to be descended from all those mentioned Royal dynasties came through descent from 4 illegitimate sons of king Charles II. Charles II. himself was the son of Charles I. and his French wife Marie Henriette de Bourbon. I doubt Charles II. claim of descent from the Plantagenet came from his French mother, rather from his Royal father, Charles I. Stuart, wouldn't you think so as well?

But the current queen is a direct line descendant from Charles I. full sister, Elizabeth of Scotland and England, who was, like him, a legitimate child of James VI./I. Stuart and his queen Anne of Denmark. So how can it be that Diana is related to the Plantagenets through her descent from James VI./I. when you claim that the "Windsors" are not even though they, too, are descended from James VI./I, only that the Windsors are descended through a legitimate line and not like Diana through an illegitimate line?

Please, check the facts before posting such obviously false information.
Especially in a threat where this topic has been discussed again and again.

Diana, though connected to a lot aristocratic families, was not of overly Royal descent as she has only very few Royal ancestors of legitimate descent and those date back to Plantagenet times. While Charles is the senior descendent of the senior legitimate line of descent of the Plantagenets, Tudors and Stuarts according to the law of the UK (which excluded the line of descent from Henrietta Ann Stuart after her marriage to the French king's brother - her children were according to her renounciation of her inheritance rights pre-wedding not in the line of succession when parliament discussed to disown the male Stuart-line. and they weren't re-entered because they were Catholic anyway.)

So it is absolutely clear that princes William and Harry got their Royal blood from their father, not their mother.

Jo of Palatine 10-14-2008 06:19 AM

What I personally find amusing is that those who are willing to accept the claim of the Jacobite line as the senior claim to the UK are OTOH willing to accept that this claim is going to pass through Sophie of Wittelsbach, wife of the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein, to her eldest son. But they are not willing to accept that Sophie of Wittelsbach, wife of the elector of Hanover could have left the senior claim to her son king George I. of the UK...

Emeralds and Opals 02-07-2009 05:36 PM

Bonnie Prince Charlie's stone found in grandmother's rockery - Telegraph

Emeralds and Opals 03-21-2009 05:56 AM

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Highlands and Islands | Planting trees amid chaos of war

"Hugh Rose, the 17th Baron of Kilravock was host to Charles Edward Stuart('Bonnie Prince Charlie,' and the Duke of Cumberland days prior to the Battle of Culloden."

Emeralds and Opals 04-19-2009 01:28 PM

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Highlands and Islands | Curtain returns to prince's base


"Bonnie Prince Charlie-Culloden House, near Inverness, Scotland."

Emeralds and Opals 05-26-2009 12:04 PM

Courtesy of Telegraph.
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5385835/Divers-discover-wreck-of-ship-sent-to-help-Bonnie-Prince-Charlie.html

"(The wreck is located off the coast of the Isle of Anglesey-Northern Wales)."

Vasaborg 05-29-2009 09:34 AM

Diana
 
Who are the 4 sons of Charles II Princess Diana are descended from? I can only think of two, the Duke of Richmond and the Duke of Grafton.

MAfan 05-29-2009 09:38 AM

Diana descended from Mary Scott, the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Richmond, children of King Charles II.
Albero

RoyalistRiley 06-23-2009 06:12 AM

This article : BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Move to change succession laws discusses the recent moves to bring in gender equality to the line of succession but will preserve the requirement that the monarch and their heir's must be Anglican/Protestant.

I guess that the Stuarts will be stuck whining about how they were robbed for a while longer.

Warren 06-23-2009 07:00 AM

:previous:
It should be noted that the BBC story is not current but dated April 2008.

RoyalistRiley 06-24-2009 03:54 AM

:previous:Even though the article is not recent, it highlights that the Stuart family still faces major problems in returning to power.

Even though the requirement that the monarch cannot be a Catholic is a tad out of place in a multi-faith world, it should not be seen as a deliberate attempt at discrimination - the Hanover's were chosen to rule in order to uphold Protestantism, something that was seen as necessary at the time

pacomartin 10-02-2009 06:22 PM

Although I don't consider it likely, I don't think it is impossible for Scotland to have a personal union with the sovereign of Liechtenstein. The boy is only a teenager now, but if he grows up to be very popular in the world, it may make him popular in Scotland.
Thesongs still resonate. Skye Boat

Skydragon 10-03-2009 11:29 AM

:previous: IMO, It will never happen! :flowers: But then what would I know, being of Scottish/English descent and living part of the year in Scotland! :biggrin:

Kasumi 12-07-2009 11:51 PM

Royal Stuart Society activities
BONNIE Prince Charlie was defeated again in Derby – this time in front of one of his descendants

Rafael 01-07-2011 03:04 AM

Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany
 
Does anyone know anything about this guy who claims to be a remnant of the Stuarts?:ohmy:

Kasumi 01-07-2011 04:17 AM

Royal Stuart pseudo claimant - "Prince Michael of Albany"
This pretended heir of the male line of the Royal House of Stuart like some other pseudo-princes, has based himself in Belgium, a country which also has an over abundance of self-styled "Orders".
The Royal House of Stuart became extinct in the male line with the death of Henry (IX) Stuart, Duke of York, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and Bishop of Frascati, in 1807. He had succeeded his elder brother, Charles (III) Stuart, sometimes known as "Bonnie Prince Charlie", in 1788, on the latter's death without legitimate issue (he left one illegitimate daughter, Clementina, who also died without issue). Both were the sons of James (III), Prince of Wales, only son of James II, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, (illegally) deposed as King of England and Scotland on 10 Dec 1688, and as King of Ireland six months later, who died in exile in 1701.
With the death of Cardinal Henry of York, representation of the House of Stuart passed to Charles Emmanuel of Savoy, King of Sardinia. The latter's present heir is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

Kasumi 01-07-2011 04:27 AM

Report on the Pedigree of Michel Lafosse, Styled Prince Michael of Albany
 
Michel Lafosse, also known as Prince Michael of Albany, is not an Irish Chief or Prince, but by virtue of his claim to be the Stuart heir to the Throne of Scotland he does appropriate some Irish lineage and therefore deserves attention.
Who is Lafosse and what is the nature of his claim?
By his own account, Lafosse was born in Belgium in 1958, has made Scotland his permanent home since 1976, and in addition to being the 7th Count of Albany, he goes by the style of Alexander IV, Head of the Royal House of Stuart (or Stewart) and Prince de jure of Scotland. Other more exotic titles include Titular Prince of France and Poland, Head of the Sacred Kindred of Saint Columba, Archpriest of the Celtic Apostolic Church, President of the European Council of Princes, Knight Grand Commander, The Chivalric Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem, and much more. - Full article

Kataryn 01-07-2011 04:45 PM

I think I read often enough about this guy and still he is fake. I wonder how my ancestors got their documents right in order to claim an Aryan pass for the Nazi authorities when this guy is not able to produce documents for any of his claims...

pacomartin 04-18-2011 10:48 AM

Charles II to Diana
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasaborg (Post 944857)
Who are the 4 sons of Charles II Princess Diana are descended from? I can only think of two, the Duke of Richmond and the Duke of Grafton.

My research agrees with your statement (although she does have bloodlines through a daughter as well)
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton 1663-1690
Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond 1672-1723
Mary Scott 1651-1693

HM Queen Catherine 04-19-2011 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pacomartin (Post 1234430)
My research agrees with your statement (although she does have bloodlines through a daughter as well)
Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Grafton 1663-1690
Charles Lennox, Duke of Richmond 1672-1723
Mary Scott 1651-1693

Diana was also descended from James II and Arabella Churchill through their daughter, Henrietta FitzJames.

The lineage: James II --> Henrietta FitzJames, Countess of Newcastle --> James Waldegrave, 1st Earl Waldegrave --> James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave --> Lady Anne Horatia Waldegrave --> Sir Horace Beauchamp Seymour --> Adelaide Horatia Elizabeth Seymour, Countess Spencer, who married Frederick, 4th Earl Spencer of Althorp.

Frederick and Adelaide were Diana's great-great grandparents.

Incidentally, Henrietta FitzJames' second husband, Piers Butler, was the 3d Viscount Galmoye and was given a Jacobite Peerage as the 1st Earl of Newcastle in 1692.

The English Parliament attainted him in 1697, and his Irish titles were forfeited, presumably because he was a Jacobite supporter, fought in the War of Spanish Succession and had become a Lt. General in the Spanish Army.

Lenora 07-09-2011 12:25 PM

James III and Charles III
 
I know that James III had a son named "Charles III" in the Jacobite succession.Charles had an illegitimate daughter named Charlotte.Did she have any legitimate heirs to the succession?Who are their actual descendants?

HM Queen Catherine 07-09-2011 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora (Post 1283924)
I know that James III had a son named "Charles III" in the Jacobite succession.Charles had an illegitimate daughter named Charlotte.Did she have any legitimate heirs to the succession?Who are their actual descendants?

"Charles III" aka Bonnie Prince Charlie aka The Count of Albany did have an illegitimate daughter named Charlotte, styled Duchess of Albany.

Being illegitimate herself, Charlotte could not have any legitimate heirs to the Jacobite Succession.. in fact, Charles didn't even recognize her until she was 30 years old.

She never married - and was explicitly forbidden to marry by her father. Although she had three children, they were all illegitimate as well.

Charlotte was the mistress of the Archbishop of Bordeaux and Cambrai, Ferdinand de Rohan. Their children were: Marie Victoire Adelaide de Roehenstart (1779), Charlotte Maximilienne Amelie de Roehenstart (1780), and Charles Edward de Roehenstart (1784). Their surname was was a play on Rohan-Stuart, which apparently was also sometimes attributed to them.

These children were so secret that even Charles himself had no knowledge that they existed, and Charlotte did not mention them in her will. Cardinal Henry Stuart didn't know about them either.

They were apparently legitimized and/or recognized at some point as the children of the Duc de Montbazon, the elder brother of the Archbishop, and were taken into the Rohan family. Charlotte's mother Clementina Walkinshaw cared for them in Switzerland until her death in 1802, and it is thought the girls were then sent into the care of Thomas Coutts, a London banker and distant relative.

Charlotte de Roehenstart died relatively young in Paris, after giving birth to a stillborn son. She left no issue.

Charles de Roehenstart styled himself "Count Roehenstart" and there is no record of any issue for him, though he was twice married. He was educated by his father's family in Germany, became an officer in the Russian army, and a General in the Austrian service. He died in Stirling, Scotland in 1854.

Marie Victoire de Roehenstart married three times, having a son with her first husband, Paul Anthony, Chevalier de Nikorowicz. Her son was Antime de Nikorowicz, and he was known to have two children - Charles and Julia-Therese.

Julia-Therese married Polish Count Leonard Pininski and had at least one son, Alexander August, whose grandson Stanislaus was born in Paris in 1925.

Stanislaus' son Peter Pininski did the genealogical research on his ancestry, and has published a book about his family and their direct link to Charles Stuart. At least one chairman of the Royal Stuart Society has accepted his evidence as genuine.

Lenora 07-09-2011 03:56 PM

Very interesting information,thank you!I just wonder how many Stuart pretenders were around the centuries.

HM Queen Catherine 07-09-2011 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenora (Post 1284029)
Very interesting information,thank you!I just wonder how many Stuart pretenders were around the centuries.

There has always been a Stuart pretender in the Jacobite Succession, even today.

The current pretender is "Francis II" whose real name is Franz Bonaventura Adalbert Maria, Duke of Bavaria, born in 1933. He is also the head of the Wittelsbach family and a descendant of the Kings of Bavaria. Franz has never married, so his heir is his younger brother Prince Max, whose eldest daughter is the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein.

After the death of Cardinal Henry Stuart, the Jacobite succession went to Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia (House of Savoy). He was the descendant of Charles I through his youngest daughter Henrietta Anne Stuart.

In 1842, Marie Beatrice of Savoy married the Duke of Modena, and their son Francis V inherited the Jacobite claim. Francis was of the House of Austria-Este, and when his daughter Maria Theresia married Ludwig III of Bavaria, the claim passed to the House of Wittelsbach.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises