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)

HM Queen Catherine 09-14-2011 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1316363)
Actually Elizabeth was the daughter of James I.

Sorry.. I meant to say daughter.. not sister. :eek:
I've corrected that post, and thank you for pointing out the error.
You are right.. accuracy is necessary in a thread like this. :flowers:

XeniaCasaraghi 10-09-2011 11:24 PM

IMO, there comes a time when you need to letitgo. Said exactly like that, as one word letitgo. This whole argument reminds me of the people who were against the Tudors and called them usurpers. Kings are made through conquest, inheritance, and since the 1700s, through acts of Parliament, politicians, and revolutionaries who state "we don't want you on our throne so get the heck out or we will take you out".

Duke of Leaside 11-13-2011 08:41 AM

I agree with this. It's definitely true and been said in this thread umpteen times, that legally, there's no question the Windsors are rightfully on the throne due to the Act of Settlement.

The "Jacobite succession" is fun to talk and muse about but not to be taken too seriously - like any "alternative history" discussion. It can be fascinating to say "what if?", but the fact is "it didn't".

One final interesting scenario:
Let's say the planned changes to the Succession announced at the CHOGM meeting last month go through and heir's no longer lose their place for marrying a Roman Catholic and younger sons can't leapfrog older daughters in the line.

And let's say the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are blessed with a son in 2012 or 2013.

And let's say young Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein (born May 24, 1995 in London no less) get married around 2020 and has a child soon after, say a daughter. If he has no more children then the throne of Liechtenstein would have to pass to his brothers but the young daughter would under British law theoretically still be in line for the Jacobite throne notwithstanding the Act of Settlement. So the daughter could not (under Liechtenstein law) become Ruler of Liechtenstein but would hold the Jacobite inheritance.

She then marries the son of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (he would by then be allowed to marry an RC) and THE CHILD OF THAT UNION would be a Jacobite claimant on the British throne. (as long as he/she was raised protestant like father and was in Communion with Church of England.

Talk about closing the circle!

Fun to think about.:smile:

Tiberivs 11-14-2011 09:31 AM

Actually in order to ascend to the English/British one need to be a British subject, I don't think it could be said of any of the Jacobites pretenders after Cardinal York to have been British subjects.

When Parliament chose Electress Sophie as heir it passed an act making her and all of her descended British citizens.

Now I never checked it but its highly likely that from the pre glorious revolution line of succession the senior person who is British citizen is also the senior descend of Electress Sophie, AKA Elizabeth II :eek::lol::eek:

NGalitzine 11-14-2011 08:31 PM

The right to British citizenship for descendents of the Electress Sophis was abolished and now only applies to those born before 1948.

Duke of Leaside 11-14-2011 10:05 PM

Well, citizenship for descendents of Sophia of Hanover is not the issue here anyway. But young Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein was born in London, so could that mean he has British citizenship (perhaps dual citizenship)? I'm not a citizenship law expert but I think the fact he was born in London makes this whole thing slightly more intriguing.

Historian1 04-08-2013 11:55 PM

The question of succession to the ancient crown of Scotland is likely to become a real matter of contention. It is not a fanciful and absurd idea as some seem to think including the moderator or convenor of this site. Scotland is set on the road to independence from England. Scotland is governed by the SNP which has majority Scots support. The SNP is committed to Scottish independence. That means above all else independence from an English Monarch. Ireland has already achieved that independence, Scotland is next and then Wales will also follow. There are certain events which will trigger Scotland move to independence. The most significant being the end of the QE2 monarchy. The SNPs best chance of success is when QE2 goes. That is why she cannot abdicate in favour of Charles. It will be the end of the UK with Scotland taking indepence. If the UK breaks up, then other countries like Australia will become Republics. That is the most likely couse of events after QE2 demise. Scotland will have to choose whether to be a Republic like Ireland or to ressurect their own Scottish monarchy. The House of Hanover/ Windsor has little chance of becoming the Monarch of an independent Scotland. They are identified by all as the Kings and Queens of England which is indeed their most used title. There is no such thing as the King or Queen of Britain. There are separate titles for England and for Scotland both held by qE2, which is unlikely to continue after Scottish independence. The titles will be separated. The legitimate heirs to the Scottish Crown will then have to be determined.

Kataryn 04-09-2013 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Historian1 (Post 1537696)
There is no such thing as the King or Queen of Britain. There are separate titles for England and for Scotland both held by qE2, which is unlikely to continue after Scottish independence.

It is true that Elizabeth since 1953 holds an individual title for each of her realms. Before that it was simply Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the faith.

Today, the British dominons each have their own title for their queen, eg Queen of Australia or Queen of Canada.

But ever since the Act of Union in 1701 the "English" monarch has held the title of "Great Britain", with no extra titles for England or Scotland. Though sometimes she is referred to in Scotland as "Queen of Scots", but that's not an official title.

Historian1 04-09-2013 10:01 AM

Thanks for the legal and constitutional clarification. However I was speaking in a historical and practical sense. A purely constitutional focus results in the sort of comments made by your members that the replacement of the current House of Hanover/windsor is an impossibility. The reality is that the day the UK Monarch ceases to be queen or king of Scotland will be the day that she or he ceases to be queen or king of Britain. The historical and present reality is that being Queen of britain depends on being queen of Scotland and queen of England. Those two titles have a greater reality than Queen of Britain which is an artificial construct joining the two kingdoms into the United Kingdom. The mere name of the United Kingdom acknowledges the Union of the two kingdoms in name and fact. It is not one kingdom but a union of two kingdoms and that union is dependent on both parts remaining in the United kingdom. As you say there is reference to the queen of Scots but most often the reference is to the Queen of England, and hardly ever to the queen of Britain. The people themselves recognise the reality of the United kingdom joining together two kingdoms. Again let me say if you think and focus one dimentionally that there is only one "official" kingdom then you are ignoring the historical reality and will also be unable to anticipate potential changes which are not only possible but increasingly likely. "Official" titles cannot preserve the "Kingdom of Britain" if the Kingdom of Scotland decides to withdraw from the United Kingdom. One dimentional thinking gives a false sense of security of the Hanover/Windsor "Kingdom of Britain" which is increasingly unlikely to survive the 21st Century judging by scottish intentions of independence. While you may be oblivious to these fact I am sure that those in higher office are very concious of it which explains the maintenance of palaces and presence in both England and Scotland. I should also point out that I am no sympathiser of the extinct House of Stewart which was a somewhat cursed house of debauched kings and pretenders, and executed monarchs. They were certainly not blessed by God as some would have us believe. Nor were they or are they the legitimate kings or queens of Scotland or England. Long may the Kings and Queens of England "rule" over England!

NGalitzine 04-09-2013 10:58 AM

Given that polls show support for Scottish independence at around 25% it would seem Alex Salmond has a long way to go in convincing his countrymen to separate from the UK and go their own way. I would think worrying about who to place on a vacant Scottish throne is the last thing they should be worrying about.

Ish 04-11-2013 02:31 PM

This is what I never understood about the Stuart succession.

To me, it makes sense from a perspective of the rightful heir being the male-line descendants of James II, over his daughters Mary and Anne and their heirs. I especially understand it from the perspective of supporting the male-line descendants of James II - in the form of the Old Pretender, James III, and the Young Pretender, Charles III - during the reigns of the Georges.

Where I get lost a bit, however, is the continued support of the so-called Stuarts, as if the current Jacobite pretender (who himself doesn't actually claim the throne) is still of the House of Stuart and is somehow more Scottish than the Windsors. This isn't true, owing to the fact that the Jacobites today are descended from Charles I through a female line (the Hanovers and Windsors descend from James I through a female line). The Jacobite successor has not been a Stuart for over 200 years now, nor have they been "Scottish" for that long. The current pretender is a Bavarian Duke. He has less of a connection to Scotland today than the Hanovers had to England 300 years ago.

I would argue that if on separation from the UK (if it in fact happens - I don't know the stats to show how much support said separation has) and it's decided that Scotland will not be a Commonwealth Realm, but a monarchy in itself should be retained I would think it would make more sense to have a member of the current British Royal Family renounce his or her succession rights to the British (or English) throne and take the Scottish throne - comparable to what happened when Queen Victoria's second son became Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. A (currently) British prince or princess has, in my opinion at least, more of a connection with Scotland than Franz of Bavaria, and a better claim to the Scottish throne than any descendant of Charles II (owing to the illegitimacy of Charles' children). But that's just my two cents.

CyrilVladisla 06-29-2014 10:05 PM

Louise Adelaide d'Orleans, the daughter of Philippe II, Duke of Orleans, was at one time suggested as a wife for James Francis Edward Stuart.
Who suggested Louise d'Orleans as a wife?
On September 17, 1745, Charles Edward Stuart entered Edinburgh.
In Edinburgh he proclaimed his father King James VIII of Scots.
Were any plans made for a coronation of King James VIII to occur?
In Kings & Queens, Richard Cavendish and Pip Leahy wrote:

James, Duke of Monmouth, Charles II's son by Lucy Walter, was the obvious Protestant alternative to his uncle James, and to legitimize his claim that he was the rightful heir to the throne he and his backers maintained that Charles had married Lucy Walter. Papers proving the marriage were supposedly contained in a mysterious black box.

Ish 06-30-2014 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 1682351)
Were any plans made for a coronation of King James VIII?

I somehow doubt it.

Charles landed in Scotland in July, formerly proclaimed his father King in September, then began losing the rebellion by December (although not completely until April). At no point did James travel to Britain. I would think that the plans for a coronation would have waited until after the throne was actually secured - which it never was.

ETA...James traveled to Scotland during the '15 Rising, where plans were made for a coronation at Scone. These were cancelled after James failed to establish himself and fell ill, instead he returned to France. If memory serves, he never returned to Britain again and ended up spending the rest of his life in Rome.

CyrilVladisla 09-25-2014 08:14 PM

In The Kings and Queens of England, Ian Crofton wrote:

James Francis Edward Stuart's most effective supporter was Viscount Bolingbroke, a Tory politician who had held power under Queen Anne, and who, after her death, joined James in exile. But Bolingbroke was among those who had begged James to convert to Protestantism, and the two soon fell out.
In Kings & Queens of Great Britain, David Soud wrote:

But Bonnie Prince Charlie was no military leader, and proved to callow to handle any adversity with the poise of a king.
In The Kings and Queens of England, Ian Crofton wrote that "had the Old Pretender gone through with his promise to resign his claim to the throne in favour of his son."

In what year did James Francis Edward Stuart indicate that he would resign his claim to the throne in favor of Charles Edward?

Curryong 09-25-2014 09:00 PM

Yes, Bolingbroke, who moved unhappily between France and England for many years after being pardoned, took no part in the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. He'd perhaps learned his lesson! I think he later became friendly with Frederick, Prince of Wales.
Bolingbroke's writings were a great influence on the founding fathers of the United States.

CarlLewis 09-28-2014 07:13 AM

Just a thought.
As the Hanoverian army defeated the Stuarts at Culloden, could George II have been considered King "by right of conquest" from 1746?

Rudolph 09-28-2014 08:12 AM

There is no disputing who is the rightful and lawful Queen of the United Kingdom. The Act of Settlement 1701 makes it clear the family of Queen Elizabeth II and not the Stuarts are the legal sovereigns. The "Jacobites" have absolutely no claim to the throne.

An Ard Ri 11-01-2015 08:43 AM

Losing it all of James II and his crown

https://annabelfrage.wordpress.com/2...and-his-crown/

An Ard Ri 12-28-2015 04:53 PM

12 facts about the Stuarts

12 facts about the Stuarts | History Extra

Valerie Rose 01-12-2016 01:34 AM

" with the gracious permission of Her Majesty The Queen" a wreath is laid at the tomb of ‘Bonnie’ Prince Charlie’s father:

History and healing: remembering the Stuarts | Foreign Office Blogs


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises