Anglo-Scottish Split

Supposedly in 1703, the Scottish Parliament was prepared to elect a monarch other than Electress Sophie of Hanover if certain conditions were not met. I'm not really interested in the fallout of the Scottish Parliament elected a different monarch, but what I am curious about is whom they would have elected.
 
Supposedly in 1703, the Scottish Parliament was prepared to elect a monarch other than Electress Sophie of Hanover if certain conditions were not met. I'm not really interested in the fallout of the Scottish Parliament elected a different monarch, but what I am curious about is whom they would have elected.
Probably someone from Scotland with a claim.
 
Maybe the descendant of James V's illegitimate son the 1st Earl of Moray - that would be the 6th Earl, Charles Stuart. It's quite hard to find an alternative who isn't Catholic in the Stuart family tree. The choice of an illegitimate son may be odd as a claim but the 1st Earl was well regarded by the protestant half of Scotland.
 
Supposedly in 1703, the Scottish Parliament was prepared to elect a monarch other than Electress Sophie of Hanover
Probably someone from Scotland with a claim.

For info, the act you're referring to was the Act of Security (see here for a summary and here for the text). Essentially the Three Estates of Parliament would choose Q.Anne's successor from amongst the descendants of Scottish monarchs, without reference to the English succession. It didn't necessarily have to be someone living in Scotland, but had to be a descendant of the Scottish crown.
 
For info, the act you're referring to was the Act of Security (see here for a summary and here for the text). Essentially the Three Estates of Parliament would choose Q.Anne's successor from amongst the descendants of Scottish monarchs, without reference to the English succession. It didn't necessarily have to be someone living in Scotland, but had to be a descendant of the Scottish crown.
Very true, though it does seem likely that they'd want a Scot no?
 
Very true, though it does seem likely that they'd want a Scot no?
Very probably - it's just that the Act doesn't specify born or resident in Scotland. I guess the thinking would be that any descendant of Scottish kings would automatically be considered a Scot anyway - this is well before passports ;).
 
Very probably - it's just that the Act doesn't specify born or resident in Scotland. I guess the thinking would be that any descendant of Scottish kings would automatically be considered a Scot anyway - this is well before passports ;).
Aha very true, so long as they weren't Catholic eh?
 
Yes the Act was refused Royal Assent initially - the only real proviso was that they would chose a different protestant successor to the English - it was in part a reaction to the fact that the English Parliament didn't consult the Scots about their decision to appoint Sophia of Hannover as the English heiress. The English retaliated in financial terms and ultimately that all lead to the Act of Unionl.
Candidates were few and far between to be truthful - Sophia was the only legitimate Protestant in descent from James VI (with the exception of the morganatic children of Sophia's brother Charles of The Palatine). The only other option was to go right back to James II and then you have Anne Duchess of Hamilton (though she was by then quite elderly she died in her 80s in 1716 and she and her husband were loyal to William and Mary) her son James abstained from the Act of Union vote in the Scots Parliament but had he been firmly committed to the nationalist cause then you might have had King James VIII of Scotland and the House of Hamilton (or more correctly Douglas Hamilton) ruling north of the border (he however had been an investor in the abortive Darien Scheme which ultimately pushed many powerful Scots towards Union).
 
Lets be honest here; realistically if the Scots went independent from England they'd chose James Francis Edward as their King. He'd bring French support, which the Scots would need if they were to resist the inevitable English invasion. Plus James, Duke of Hamilton was considered a do-nothing by most of the Scottish nobility and none of them would elevate one of their own as Sovereign.
 
Lets be honest here; realistically if the Scots went independent from England they'd chose James Francis Edward as their King. He'd bring French support, which the Scots would need if they were to resist the inevitable English invasion. Plus James, Duke of Hamilton was considered a do-nothing by most of the Scottish nobility and none of them would elevate one of their own as Sovereign.
The religion issue would be an issue though
 
Lets be honest here; realistically if the Scots went independent from England they'd chose James Francis Edward as their King. He'd bring French support, which the Scots would need if they were to resist the inevitable English invasion. Plus James, Duke of Hamilton was considered a do-nothing by most of the Scottish nobility and none of them would elevate one of their own as Sovereign.
I'm not sure this is correct about Hamilton.

Hamilton was leader of the leading opposition party, the Country Party inside Parliament and seen as the best hope for opponents to the Union to succeed. He was, prior to 1706 seen as a great leader. The reason this changed was, I suspect him being skint. As the Union vote was going through the Estates, a last-ditch attempt was made by those opposed to propose the union talks be abandoned in exchange for Scotland accepting the Hanoverian succession. He met secretly with Queensberry, the leader of the Government the night before and then ignored the debate due to "toothache." He was the largest beneficiary of the Equivalent, above what he invested and lost in the Darien Company.

I very much doubt that the Estates would have chosen the Old Pretender as the successor. This was the assembly which had in 1689 declared that James VII had forfeit the crown(unlike in England where Jamess VII was marked down as having abdicated) with the following wording..

"Therefore the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland find and declare that King James the Seventh being a professed papist, did assume the regal power and acted as king, without ever taking the oath required by law, and hath by the advice of evil and wicked counsellors, invaded the fundamental constitution of the Kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power, and hath exercised the same, to the subversion of the Protestant religion and the violation of the laws and liberties of the Kingdom, inverting all the ends of government, whereby he hath forfeited the right to the Crown, and the throne is vacant."

The Old Pretender never met the most important qualification as he was a Catholic and not only that, a restoration of the Pretender would openly invite war with England, never mind the further restriction in trade a different choice for the succession would have made. The choices that I can see are Hamilton, Buccleuch or even Ernest Augustus, the younger brother of George I.
 
Top