WI Jacobite Rebellion Of 1715 Suceeds
- Thread starter Pericles
- Start date
Well, as far as James III & VIII and his followers were concerned, he always was King. And the Acts which excluded a Papist from the Throne were no law. So no Hen IV is needed. Presumably, gratitude for sanctuary received , and common religious and political ideals would facilitate an Anglo-French rapprochement. After all, preventing such an alliance was one of the main reasons for William III's invasion.
As a Legitimist I hate to say this but the 15 wouldn't have succeeded. The army the Jacobites had was disorganized irregulars who refused to march into England. What you need is an organized conspiracy ready to act in 1714, right after or preferably while, Queen Anne was dieing/ died. If you want I can Link in a discussion I had about this conspiracy.
great way to spoil the thread
However, they could be made into a more efficient force. The Jacobites nearly won in OTL.You know you've said that term several times but I really don't get what you mean by legitimist, at first I thought you meant you supported a bourbon restoration in France but it's clear now you have some meaning I've never heard of for the term.
Both actually. I guess the best description would be conservative Royalist. I'm against the overthrow of Monarchies. And by Legitimist I mean I support the original Bourbons (up to Henri V) and the Jacobites (up to Henry IX). I kind of combined the definitions.
Not entirely. A legitimist would support the election of a Doge of Venice, not succession by hereditary right. A legitimist (I also am one) is one who believes that succession (and much else) should be according to the understood rules of law. So, in the case of a male succession hereditary monarchy like France, the legitimate right is in the oldest male in the line of descent. No usurpers seizing thrones by revolution, conquest, election , or anything else. No second sons (or more remote relations) being "granted" the throne because it seems cool (amazing how many people think this is a legitimate form of succession) .What says the law? Then , obey it. That is the legitimist doctrine.
Which in the case of France , supports the Bourbon right , and in the case of Britain, the Stuart right. In the case of Venice, where by law , the succession was elective, then the legitimate successor is the one elected by the proper lawful process (no bribery, corruption etc) .
This can get a bit complex in the case of some of the German territories, because of house rules on succession. And in some older kingdoms where an ancient elective succession either genuinely exists , or is believed to exist because later ages do not understand the ancient process of attournment (the latter far the most common- genuinely elective monarchies were rare, and most retained the elective principle to the end - or to modern times , such as the Papacy) but is no longer functional . One example of the latter is the HRE in the eighteenth century.
There are still jacobites? Not even the Jacobite claimant is a jacobite.
Okay, sorry to derail the thread, but...
The House of Stuart was only on the throne because it succeeded the House of Tudor, which undeniably rose to the throne by usurpation / conquest. Now, there is an argument that would say the House of York itself had rose through usurpation which would legitimise the House of Tudor as last descendants of the House of Lancaster - except this House itelf became Kings through the overthrow of the legitimate monarch (in this case Richard II overthorwn by Henry IV), returning legitimacy to York... In either case the House of Platagenet (of which both were branches) took the throne of England through direct descent to the House of Normandy (ish - via the Anarchy ending agreement of Stephen and Matilda - which I suppose you can't support either?) - who took it through conquest over the king selected by the Anglo-Saxon witangemot (Harold II), as was the law of the kingdom.
So, either you ignore all but the last elements of the claim, or this legitimist stance is a romantic throwback which doesn't acknowledge the realities of power politics through the ages, or you should be looking for the heirs to Harold (or the Aetheling selected after him).
In the case of France, you've got an easier time of it - but the Capetians still overthrew the Merovingians (sp?) to take the throne...
Then you should be supporting the heirs of Richard III (as legitimate heir of Richard II), not the bloody Stuarts...
Which one?
Actually, I suppose one could argue that the Jacobites -- with their descent through various Scottish royal ines from the Atheling's sister St Margaret-- were the legitmate successors to the House of Wessex.
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
Then you should be supporting the heirs of Richard III (as legitimate heir of Richard II), not the bloody Stuarts...
Which one?
Actually, I suppose one could argue that the Jacobites -- with their descent through various Scottish royal ines from the Atheling's sister St Margaret-- were the legitmate successors to the House of Wessex.
In this order:
By your logic, the legal monarch would actually be the Pre Roman Kings of Britain, since they were the first to be deposed, but in all seriousness, I see no problem with supporting the Jacobites, even though the original family sought to usurp the throne from Elizabeth I. That and all the lines before them no longer exist.
Also, the Jacobite claimant currently is Francis Von Wittelsbach, who is also the current pretender to the Bavarian throne.
Finally, if James III/VIII does succeed, I don't know how popular this reign will be, even if Parliament's members are executed.
There's a Jacobite line of succession which passes through an uncle-niece marriage (an arrangement that would have been considered invalid under English and Scottish laws even as those stood before the 'Glorious Revolution') and an alternative lineage that doesn't do so: One is the Bavarian line that you mention, whilst the other is the line of one or another of the Italian princes (Bourbon-Parma? Modena?), but I can't remember offhand which is which...
Yep. That's the problem with stating that the throne can only be passed on by the law of the land, and that conquest and usurpation and so on are non valid.
Actually the Roman kingdom of Britain ceased to be after the saxon invasion of Britain, so technically the legitimate claimant of England would be the saxon claim because the Roman kingdom wasn't usurped, it was destroyed.