WI: James III succeeds Queen Anne in 1714

She was the most senior heir who was protestant.
The idea was to exclude Catholics not Stuarts.

Yes, but they could have simply excluded Catholics, which they didn't do. They explicitly started it from Sophia, not the current reigning Queen, which skipped over several branches of the House of Stuart. This way all living Stuarts were eliminated from the line of succession even if they converted to Protestantism.
 
Yes, but they could have simply excluded Catholics, which they didn't do. They explicitly started it from Sophia, not the current reigning Queen, which skipped over several branches of the House of Stuart. This way all living Stuarts were eliminated from the line of succession even if they converted to Protestantism.
They did actually.
They eliminated everyone Catholic or married to a Catholic and her line was the only one left!
And even her line had Catholics who were excluded.
 
Succession limited to the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover.

The succession specified being Protestant and being legitimate. It hopskipped 50+ better claimants to land in Sophie's lap. Anyone of those other 50 might've decided that being king of England is better than being prince of Salm. It wasn't so much anti-Stuart as anti-papist/anti-French.
 
The succession specified being Protestant and being legitimate. It hopskipped 50+ better claimants to land in Sophie's lap. Anyone of those other 50 might've decided that being king of England is better than being prince of Salm. It wasn't so much anti-Stuart as anti-papist/anti-French.
What's interesting is that conversion seems have been ignored as a possibility. Tho I assume that converting to protestantism would only have got one added onto the succession not bumped back up to where you would have been.
 
56 I think in 1714 to be precise - all of whom were members of the Roman Catholic faith. Sophia was named as has been pointed out she was the senior heir of James VI and I who was not a Catholic. The framers of the act didn't want to entertain the idea of conversion partially I suspect because it wouldn't have been considered to be a genuine one (in the same way the proscribed the idea of a Catholic Consort - the last two Henrietta Maria and Mary of Modena had actively promoted and encouraged Catholicism to the views of early 18th century polticians). The reality was that someone who converted in order to be enthroned would be viewed with suspicion irrespective of whether their conversion had been genuine of not. Sophia was an easy option - she was genuinely protestant and had a secure succession - naming her excludes the Catholic's above her completely and the rest of the act ensures that any Catholic among her descendants would be excluded.
The Act was certainly anti-Catholic, anti-absolutist and absolutely anti-French (the bulk of the claimants were French or of French descent - though to be fair the anti-French element was largely driven by a fear of French-style absolutism and French Catholicism).
 
It would not be James III as it would be the eighth James on the Scottish throne, or the first James on the British throne. I believe it is stated it will always be the highest regnal number.
 
It would not be James III as it would be the eighth James on the Scottish throne, or the first James on the British throne. I believe it is stated it will always be the highest regnal number.

James VI and I proclaimed himself King of Great Britain etc in 1604 so technically i suspect James III would have been the choice even if the political entity hadn't existed at the period of James VI and I and James VII and II. He can't opt for VIII and III as the Kingdom's of England and Scotland had ceased to exist.

At the period the English regnal number would probably prevail (being the larger and more influential part of the union) - William IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII and Elizabeth II all used English regnal numbering (in Scotland they would have been William III, Edward II *if you count Edward Balliol*, Edward III and Elizabeth I

The present sovereign issued a suggestion that future British Monarchs should opt for the highest regnal number in future due to Scot's protests about her being Elizabeth II north of the border.
 

James VI could proclaim himself whatever he wanted but there was no legal basis in his titles, just his personal desire to unify the Kingdoms. It's perhaps evident in the fact that it took another hundred years (and it was a really half assed union where even the laws were separate). to demonstrate how unwilling the two nations were to combine. If he actually was King of Great Britain then the regnal number for William and Mary would have been I.

I agree that they can't have both but I wouldn't be surprised if they tried it anyway.

1. The Highest Regnal Number (works with both England, Scotland and Great Britain)
2. Multiple Regnal Numbers
3. Great Britain Regnal Number as of 1605
4. Great Britain Regnal Number as of 1707
5. English regnal number
6. Scottish regnal number

Two is weird but possible
Three requires retroactive fixing
Four would be weird but again clearly Mary and William didn't think it was a new Kingdom, whereas after the Acts of Union it clearly is. Potentially look for Spain for comparison, Spain was apparently not a reason to restart on regnal numbers but I think the choice by Alfonso was particular to his situation, he wanted to make it look like a real monarchy again and having a big number imports history.
Five will annoy the Scots but you can delay it for 300 years potentially
Six will annoy the English and requires careful name selection though for a while it may look like any of the other options
 
The regnal number used on legislation depended on the parliament and titles they recognised - English, Scottish, or Irish - though each monarch had their own personal style .
Recall the Acts of Union were acts unifying the Parliaments rather than Kingdoms themselves since they were already unified in one person, under the nebulous Kingdom of Great Britain, and intended to prevent them separating.
 
The easiest solution was to chose a name that had never been borne by a monarch of either country lol or one where the numbers were equal - Charles Anne Mary and George etc - clearly those ruling preferred to go with the English regnal numbering which the Parliament of the UK used.
For 130 years or so it was of course irrelevant - it was only the accession in 1830 of William that it was pointed out he should be William I of Great Britain and Ireland rather than William IV.
Edward VII's number was sometimes omitted in Scotland and of course there were real protests when Elizabeth II's cypher was used on mailbox's etc in Scotland following her accession.
I suspect that given the current climate in terms of Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK - the next row on this will be William's accession (he's the only direct heir currently with a name where regnal numbering becomes an issue William (II of GB, IV of Scotland, V of England)) but by then it might be a moot point if the Scots have another independence ref.
 
The easiest solution was to chose a name that had never been borne by a monarch of either country lol or one where the numbers were equal - Charles Anne Mary and George etc - clearly those ruling preferred to go with the English regnal numbering which the Parliament of the UK used.
For 130 years or so it was of course irrelevant - it was only the accession in 1830 of William that it was pointed out he should be William I of Great Britain and Ireland rather than William IV.
Edward VII's number was sometimes omitted in Scotland and of course there were real protests when Elizabeth II's cypher was used on mailbox's etc in Scotland following her accession.
I suspect that given the current climate in terms of Scotland's relationship with the rest of the UK - the next row on this will be William's accession (he's the only direct heir currently with a name where regnal numbering becomes an issue William (II of GB, IV of Scotland, V of England)) but by then it might be a moot point if the Scots have another independence ref.

I really hope we don't vote for independence, considering how suicidal that would be.
 
I doubt there would be a row as I suspect they'll preempt it with a declaration of using the highest numeral. Unless they go for a complete rename of GB & NI.
 
Top