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)

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."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises