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)

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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises