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)

eya 03-31-2016 04:06 PM

Unique Bonnie Prince Charlie painting secured for Scotland - Edinburgh Evening News

An Ard Ri 05-12-2016 11:07 AM

10 things you (probably) didn’t know about Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites

10 facts about Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites | History Extra

CyrilVladisla 07-17-2016 10:08 PM

Did James, Duke of Monmouth take the surname of Scott because of his marriage to Anne Scott?

Countessmeout 07-17-2016 10:37 PM

:previous: Yes, when he married Anne Scott, 4th Countess of Buchleuch, he took not only her title (which got upgraded to Duchess of Buchleuch), but her surname. He would have been James Fitzoy previous.

Quote:

On April 20, Monmouth was married to the wealthy Scottish heiress Anne Scott, countess of Buccleuch; they were created duke and duchess of Buccleuch, and he took the surname of Scott
https://www.britannica.com/biography...ke-of-Monmouth

The Monmouth title was lost when he was beheaded, the Duchy of Bucchleuch was restored to his grandson, and the subsidiary titles.

An Ard Ri 02-11-2017 09:10 AM

A king without a crown: James II’s years in exile

A king without a crown: James II’s years in exile | History Extra

eya 02-18-2017 03:38 AM

700-year-old king gets new face, thanks to Sackville forensic artist - New Brunswick - CBC News

eya 05-27-2017 11:05 AM

"The portrait, by Louis Gabriel Blanchet, shows Charles Edward Stuart at 19, in full princely regalia. It was painted in Rome in 1739. The Stuarts by this time had been in exile in Europe for over 50 years, first in France and then Rome, where Charles grew up. By September 1745, the Prince was holding court at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, where he stayed for around six weeks before marching south for London."


Painting of Bonnie Prince Charlie to be loaned to the National Museum of Scotland | The Edinburgh Reporter

eya 06-24-2017 04:54 PM

Most people have heard of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites but their story is often only vaguely known or misunderstood.

The myths of Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites - BBC News

CyrilVladisla 03-30-2018 05:28 PM

1745 Jacobite Rebellion Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6gOcXrvmtg

CyrilVladisla 09-19-2018 07:53 PM

The articles of the Acts of Union presented by the Commissioners to Queen Anne in 1706.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the...145877610.html

An Ard Ri 02-20-2019 07:17 AM

Having led the Jacobite rebellion I never thought of him as weak by as pert this article Bonnie Prince Charlie 'was a tough guy'

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland...lands-47224985

Mbruno 04-04-2021 02:16 PM

Here is a more detailed look on the Jacobite line of succession to the thrones of England and Scotland. Persons who were once first in line in the Jacobite succession are shown in boldface. Maiden names were used for women.



1) Descendants of James II and VII of England & Scotland


James II of England & VII of Scotland > James Francis Edward Stuart > Charles Edward Stuart > extinct.


James II of England & VII of Scotland > James Francis Edward Stuart > Henry Benedict Stuart (brother of Charles Edward Stuart) > extinct.


2) Descendants of Henrietta of England


In the absence of living descendants of James II, the Jacobite succession passed to the descendants of his sister, Henrietta of England, and her husband Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, passing successively to four Roman Catholic dynasties: Orléans, Savoy, Habsburg-Lorraine (Austria-Este branch), and Wittelsbach.



Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia > extinct.


Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (brother of Charles Emmanuel IV) > Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy > Francis V, Duke of Modena > extinct.


Charles I of England and Scotland > Henrietta of England> Anne Marie of Orléans > Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia > Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia > Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia (brother of Charles Emmanuel IV) > Princess Maria Beatrice of Savoy > Archduke Ferdinand of Austria-Este (brother of Francis V) > Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria-Este > Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria > Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria > Franz, Duke of Bavaria (current successor; no issue).


3) Future line of succession


Franz, Duke of Bavaria > Max, Duke in Bavaria > Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria > Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein.

Tatiana Maria 04-04-2021 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2386927)
Here is a more detailed look on the Jacobite line of succession to the thrones of England and Scotland.

[...]

3) Future line of succession


Franz, Duke of Bavaria > Max, Duke in Bavaria > Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria > Prince Joseph Wendell of Liechtenstein.

If Prince Joseph Wenzel has a daughter and then a son, which one will be acknowledged by Jacobites as Queen/King?

Mbruno 04-04-2021 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2386942)
If Prince Joseph Wenzel has a daughter and then a son, which one will be acknowledged by Jacobites as Queen/King?


Thanks for correcting my typo.

I suppose the son will be acknowledged as first in line since the Jacobite line applies male-preference cognatic primogeniture. At least, that is the rule that was applied in all cases above.

Tatiana Maria 04-04-2021 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2386944)
I suppose the son will be acknowledged as first in line since the Jacobite line applies male-preference cognatic primogeniture. At least, that is the rule that was applied in all cases above.

I wonder because that was the rule applied by the actual British Parliament at the time of those previous cases, and that circumstance has now changed.

Mbruno 04-04-2021 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2386947)
I wonder because that was the rule applied by the actual British Parliament at the time of those previous cases, and that circumstance has now changed.


My understanding is that, in theory, they do not acknowledge the legal validity of any act of Parliament post-1688 since they were assented to by "illegitimate" Kings/ Queens. For example, they don't acknowledge the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 and that is why one talks about the Jacobite pretender to "the thrones of England, Ireland and Scotland" and not "to the throne of the United Kingdom". Obviously, they don't accept the validity either of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.



The succession rule that they would apply then is, in my opinion, the rule that was in force in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at the time James VII & I was deposed.

Tatiana Maria 04-04-2021 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno (Post 2386952)
My understanding is that, in theory, they do not acknowledge the legal validity of any act of Parliament post-1688 since they were assented to by "illegitimate" Kings/ Queens. For example, they don't acknowledge the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800 and that is why one talks about the Jacobite pretender to "the thrones of England, Ireland and Scotland" and not "to the throne of the United Kingdom". Obviously, they don't accept the validity either of the Act of Settlement of 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

The succession rule that they would apply then is, in my opinion, the rule that was in force in the Kingdoms of England and Scotland at the time James VI & I was deposed.

Their position is interesting because the rule of primogeniture with priority to sons was arguably only consolidated by post-1688 Acts of Parliament.

Mbruno 04-04-2021 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria (Post 2386953)
Their position is interesting because the rule of primogeniture with priority to sons was arguably only consolidated by post-1688 Acts of Parliament.




I do not speak for them of course. The line of succession acknowledged by the Royal Stuart society, however, seems to apply male-preference primogeniture and coincides with the one I described above.


Royal Stuart Society - Succession

Alison H 04-04-2021 05:00 PM

James VII and II, just to be pedantic :-) .


There wasn't really a rule pre 1688. Everyone at the time of the Wars of the Roses opted for whichever succession rule suited their own purposes, including the Salic Law. Henry VIII and Edward VI both claimed the right to name their own successors. And, if Elizabeth had chosen to name Lady Katherine Grey's son or Arbella Stuart rather than James VI of Scotland, I think people would have accepted that she had the right to do so. Then the future James II was nearly booted out of the succession during the Exclusion Crisis.

Mbruno 04-04-2021 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2386960)
James VII and II, just to be pedantic :-) .


There wasn't really a rule pre 1688. Everyone at the time of the Wars of the Roses opted for whichever succession rule suited their own purposes, including the Salic Law. Henry VIII and Edward VI both claimed the right to name their own successors. And, if Elizabeth had chosen to name Lady Katherine Grey's son or Arbella Stuart rather than James VI of Scotland, I think people would have accepted that she had the right to do so. Then the future James II was nearly booted out of the succession during the Exclusion Crisis.


Right, James VII & II.

I don't think any of the successors in the Houses of Savoy, Austria-Este or Wittelsbach ever made an actual claim to the throne, however. Do you know if that is the case?


Anyway, it is extraordinary IMHO that George I was only 56th in line when he became king and, apart from the Jacobite rebellions, his succession was relatively uncontested. International politics may have helped him too as France had to accept the Hanoverian succession in exchange for Britain accepting the Bourbon succession in Spain.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises