Registered: 1148498020 Posts: 6,806
Reply with quote #1
I realize I've been rather neglectful of my own forum recently. I'm sorry. This is the first time I've actually logged in awhile, and I missed some private messages, which is inexcusable. I suppose lately I've been devoting more of my online monarchist communication energies to Facebook and Twitter, but that's no excuse since this is my own forum. One member of this forum and I had a falling out on Facebook but that's no reason for both of us not to remain active contributors here. I see I missed a big thread about Mad Monarchist (who I've known online since 2001), among other important topics. I realized today that I missed an online monarchist environment where no one is going to deny the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II (since that's against the rules here). I'll try to do better.
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #2
No need to apologise, I'm just grateful that you continue to provide the forum for us, as I'm sure we all are. To see you around more would definitely be nice, though. Apart from idiot Ricardians recyling his 500-year-old lies, most of the few people who are monarchists and deny the Queen's legitimate right to reign do so on the grounds that she is not the lineal representative of William I. Which she isn't, the Duke of Bavaria is. I've been thinking about this lately, and here is a list of English monarchs before 1688 but after 1066 who were on accession also not the heir of line; William II, Henry I, Stephen, John, Henrys IV, V and VI, Richard III, Henry VII, and (arguably) Mary I and Elizabeth I.
You will notice that the list includes the first three monarchs after William I, so I don't think anyone could claim that from the moment of his victory at Hastings the succession became irrevocably fixed. And indeed apart from the great Elizabeth, the best of them all, the legitimacy of none of these is ever questioned. Yet not to question admits that the succession can deviate from the strict line and the resulting monarchs still be accepted. So what was so different about 1688? Nothing, I would say.
Registered: 1195143426 Posts: 5,180
Reply with quote #3
I think the people who question Elizabeth II's legitimacy that have annoyed our Theodore in this case are those who reject her because she is not Roman Catholic. There was a rather ridiculous discussion of this in a certain facebook group to which both of us belong. It's a annoying to be faced with such a Taliban approach within Christianity.
__________________ The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.
Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)
"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
Registered: 1403955979 Posts: 1,095
Reply with quote #4
Peter, I suppose the issue is what does legitimate a monarch? In many of the cases you bring up, there were serious rival claimants. It's a very interesting issue. But I too don't understand a British monarchist who would seriously entertain removing Her Majesty (or bypassing HRH, for that matter).
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #5
My view is always that the only justification for removing a monarch is if their continued rule is unconscionable. A tracing of lineage can never be a good enough reason for risking war and bloodshed. Further, a monarch who has established him or herself and governed well enough is thereby legitimate. On questions of which monarchs of the past qualify, I would say those who are conventionally counted. If someone reigned for long enough and everyone at the time thought they were King, or Queen as the case may be, I don't see why we centuries later should decide we know better.
Registered: 1148498020 Posts: 6,806
Reply with quote #6
I think it's usually Americans (though one prominent online Jacobite lives in Canada) who seem to think they are entitled to judge HM's legitimacy. Obviously they will not be doing so here.
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #7
It occurs to me that I forgot someone in my list above, the person in question being Henry II, a remarkable ruler and a great man in his way. He on accession was by today's way of thinking second in line after his mother the Empress Matilda, which makes it the first
four monarchs after the Conqueror that were not when they came to the throne his lineal heir. I excluded Edward III, whose father Edward II remained alive at his son's accession, on the grounds that Edward II's deposition was legitimate and Edward III was anyway natural heir, and could have excluded Henry II on similar grounds, but didn't; I just forgot him. So I suppose if Henry II were included Edward III ought to be also. Others people might wonder about are William II and Henry I; their elder brother Robert remained alive throughout William II's reign and through nearly all that of Henry I. Robert incidentally had one legitimate child, his son William Clito, but he died six years before his father and was himself childless. Otherwise, it is quite possible that England's throne would never have been occupied by William I's heir of line! I think the rest are fairly obvious apart from Mary I and Elizabeth I; both were on accession technically illegitimate. This did not affect their succession rights, which had been enshrined in statute by their father, but would mean they were not as such heirs of line. Catholics of course will dismiss Mary's illegitimacy with scorn but insist on that of Elizabeth, yet both had the same legal basis.
Registered: 1226652036 Posts: 2,570
Reply with quote #8
An old thread, but I've been away for a while. My attitude toward American (and the prominent Canadian) 'Jacobites' was summed up in a post on my blog,
Reasons I reject the 'Jacobite Claim' to the British Throne. In it I said,
A more serious reason, in my mind, is that Jacobites, in common with Carlists in Spain, Orleanists in France, those monarchists who oppose HIH Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, and other groups which oppose a ruling House or oppose the Legitimate House in its attempt to be restored in a republic, are what I refer to as 'practical republicans'. By that, I mean that they weaken the concepts of monarchy and legitimism by their actions. It is difficult enough in this revolutionary age to convince people of the necessity of monarchy, without internecine squabbling amongst monarchists! I know there are those who will disagree with me on the Orleanists, but I think my general point still stands. __________________ 'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Registered: 1298611695 Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote #9
It's a shame this forum hasn't been what it was a few years ago. I've tried my best keeping it alive with posts. I can offer many explanations though.
Registered: 1265486117 Posts: 852
Reply with quote #10
Jovan, I for one don't think it's fair to put the Orleantists in that category. Unlike the Jacobites and Carlists they are not trying to overthrow any ruling monarchy. In the case of Russia the succession rules seem clear enough, but in the case of France genuine debate is possible about if the legitimist branch excluded itself after the Spanish Succession War. Also, I think most French monarchist organizations are Orleantist (?), so they are not more responsible for creating squabbling than the other side. I think an Orleantist is not a practical republican, as long a he is clear that any French monarch would be better than a republic; the same goes for the other side.
Registered: 1298611695 Posts: 4,815
Reply with quote #11
I frankly don't care about Legitimism v Orleanism so much as promoting a monarchical ideal to start with.
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 6,865
Reply with quote #12
I read your blog post with interest, Jovan. On Cardinal York's letter, I thought
I was long-winded, but I'm the soul of brevity in comparison! Nevertheless it was interesting and obviously arose from sincere and deeply-held feeling, though always doomed to fail in its object. On your arguments in general, while I certainly don't wish to persuade you back to Jacobitism I think they are flawed in two ways. One of these, the possible invalidity of the acts of the Convention Parliament, we have discussed before. I don't recall that we have the other, which is the requirement for any successor to England's throne to have been born in England. This was not ancient, dating it seems to me from the reign of Henry VIII. There was a 1350 statute, de natis ultra mare, the text of which I have been unable to find. However, from what I have read and know it seems most unlikely to have made any such provision regarding the succession, even though some claimed centuries later that it should be so interpreted. And I also haven't been able to find any actual statute or other legal instrument of Henry VIII expressly imposing the requirement; the closest was his will, given statutory force by prior Act of Parliament, which curtly excludes the descendants of his elder sister Margaret (all of which at the time were foreign-born) in favour of those of his younger sister Mary (all of those then living being native-born). In any case, before that native birth never seems to have been considered a necessity. William I, of course, William II, Stephen and Henry II were none of them born here. All subsequent sovereigns up to and including Elizabeth I were born in England, apart from Edward II, born in Wales which was in the kingdom if not the country, Richard II, born in Bordeaux which was then under English sovereignty, Edward IV, born in Rouen, then under English occupation and claimed sovereignty, and Henry VII, Wales again. But no one I have heard of ever bothered to argue whether these were or were not protected by the matters I mention from an exclusion that otherwise would apply, presumably since no one considered that any such possible exclusion existed, their birthplace having no bearing on their rights. There were also a number of children of English monarchs born abroad, most notably John of Gaunt, so-named for his birthplace Ghent and a child of Edward III in whose reign the aforementioned de natis ultra mare was passed. John of Gaunt seems particularly relevant, since in all the turmoil of the Wars of the Roses the question of his birthplace was never raised by the Yorkists as invalidating any claim through him. Nor did any Lancastrian raise the question of Edward IV's birth overseas. Even Richard III in his increasingly desperate attempts to find some way of justifying his planned usurpation did not. This can only be because the question was not seen to be in any way germane. Similarly no one at any time questioned the place in the succession of foreign-born children of a king. OK, but however made and however against precedent Henry VIII's provision was nevertheless law and not repealed, you could perfecly fairly argue. But I would argue in turn that the accession of James I, born in the Kingdom of Scotland and heir of a line excluded in the testament but accepted by all as rightful monarch, comprehensively invalidated any reliance on that fact. No one troubled to retrospectively change the relevant laws, since it was obvious they were dead letters devoid of all force. The native birth provision in fact had never been applied, Henry VIII being succeeded in turn by his three English-born children (hence no need of it) and the last of them by her Scottish-born first cousin twice removed (completely ignoring it). So I do not feel that either George III's birth in London or Charles Edward Stuart's in Rome affects the question one way or the other. Nor have I ever felt that the Holy See has or ought to have any voice in England's or Britain's succession law or any other law for that matter. I don't mean it can't express an opinion, but I do mean its approval or otherwise makes no difference to the validity of laws enacted here. And there I had better conclude lest I seem to be challenging the Cardinal's prolonged loquacity after all, except to say that with the one inevitable exception, which you acknowledge, I entirely agree with what you say above, if not with all of the longer post from which much of it is taken.
Registered: 1262548452 Posts: 378
Reply with quote #13
Thanks for the previous posts.
It was in 1766 that Henry, the Cardinal Duke of York, wrote his lengthy and comprehensive letter, hoping to convince the Pope to recognise his elder brother, Charles (Bonnie Prince Charlie), as king of England, Scotland, and Ireland, in succession to their father, the titular King James III (the Old Pretender), who'd recently passed away, after a very long titular reign. In his missive, Henry seems to be putting a great deal of emphasis on the old faded memories of Stuart glory, and contrasting them with the House of Hanover, which he presents as a foreign dynasty, the closest Protestant heirs. But the Papacy was probably taking a more realistic view, and waiting to see if France and Spain (traditional Stuart supporters) would first extend recognition, before taking any action. The great Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745 were long-gone memories, and charismatic young Bonnie Prince Charlie had become an overweight, late middle-aged bachelor who'd turned to alcohol for consolation, and evidently was quite estranged from his illegitimate teenage daughter Charlotte. He did marry late in life, but his marriage was a failure, and his wife soon left him. He had Charlotte legitimated, and created titular Duchess of Albany, but evidently remained estranged from her, and would not permit her to marry without his consent. In despair, unknown to her father, Charlotte became the maitresse of the French Archbishop of Bordeaux (Prince de Rohan), whom she presented with 3 children, whose existence, because of her own circumstances and that of the Archbishop's, had to remain secret. It had long been apparent, even to his father and older brother, that Henry himself would never marry or produce an heir. He sought out an honorable career in the Church, and resided in or near Rome, where he was known to enjoy the company of good-looking young priests as his servants and associates, though he took his religious vows, including chastity, very sincerely and seriously, and likely always remained faithful to them. After the glorious but ill-fated 1745 rebellion, Charles had evidently briefly considered converting to Protestantism himself, in a last-ditch effort to secure British support for his bid for the throne. But it would have cost him the diplomatic support of France and Spain, and he swiftly reverted to the royal Stuart's hallmark Catholicism. To his credit, immediately after the defeat of his supporters at Culloden, Charles had recognised the desperate position they were in. He released them from their allegiance to his cause, and advised them to do whatever was necessary to look to their own safety. It probably reflects the feelings of intense emotional loyalty brought about in his Scottish followers that in spite of the considerable monetary reward offered for his capture as he surreptitiously fled from one place to another in the highlands and islands, that he was never betrayed or apprehended, until his rescue by a French ship, several months later. By 1766, Charles' military aspirations for the throne were a distant memory. But Henry probably felt an obligation to support his older brother, and his letter to the Pope was an appeal to religious and historical sentiment, rather than to political reality. Its arguments for recognition of the royal Stuarts (what was left of them) appear to reflect nostalgia rather than realpolitik. I wonder if maybe the extraordinary length of his letter maybe reflects Henry's feelings of resignation while writing it. (Although for many years, closeted Jacobite gentlemen were said to always keep a glass of water in front of them on their dinner tables, and when toasting the king's health, they'd raise their glass of wine high, thus signifying their loyalty to "the king over the water".) France and Spain were more inclined toward political reality, and needed to deal with the political situation as it actually existed, which meant recognising the defacto Hanoverian British government, whether as a friend or as an enemy. The Papacy followed suit, evidently feeling that the situation of Catholicism in Britain would be better aided by cooperating with the British Hanoverians than by maintaining support for the long-lost grandeur of the declining Stuarts. And that put paid to Charles' and Henry's forlorn hopes, for whatever they were worth, for their family's recognition. Charles eventually died an embittered alcoholic old man, who'd lived almost his entire life as an exile. Apparently, as time went on, even the Hanoverian King George III felt some degree of compassion for the elderly Cardinal Duke of York, the sole remaining survivor of the royal Stuarts, who'd been living in impoverished circumstances, since his French properties were lost following the French Revolution. He quietly awarded the Cardinal a pension for the rest of his days, until he passed away, aged 82, in 1807. __________________ Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."