Registered: 1571485621 Posts: 275
Reply with quote
What is everyone's favourite arguement countering Jacobitism or supporting Hannoverian Succession?
The Scottish Tory -
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
Registered: 1171461660 Posts: 537
Reply with quote
It's been a very, very long time that the current line has been in power. If you question everything back to 1688, you are saying that time does not make legitimacy. If you claim time does not make legitimacy, then every current regime, monarchist or not, is illegitimate, because at some point, some guy killed the rightful ruler, and that ruler's great-great-great-etc. grandson is the rightful ruler, and you have to trace it 6000 years or more back.
Which is silly. After some amount of time, after some number of generations, you just have to accept the ruling party as legitimate. I've said before, if I were alive in the late 1600's or early 1700's, I'd have been a Jacobite. In 2020, that seems to be an absurd position. The only thing agitating for Jacobitism could accomplish today is weakening the current monarch, possibly aiding in republicans taking over.
Registered: 1217151204 Posts: 7,496
Reply with quote
This is a topic I have posted on numerous times on numerous threads, and I don't think my views have changed in the 13 years or so that I've been present here. In no particular order, the main points:
1) James II and VII had reigned in an entirely unconscionable fashion, and proved himself nowise to be trusted. He was justly overthrown, in accordance with the precedents of Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI and Richard III. There were it is true no such precedents in Scotland, but that is mainly because the custom there had always been to quietly do away with rather than depose an unacceptable monarch. 2) Since becoming Protestant England had experienced two Catholic reigns and Scotland one. All three were calamitous, so the following was not an unreasonable provision for the 1689 Bill of Rights to contain:
And whereas it hath beene found by Experience that it is inconsistent with the Safety and Welfaire of this Protestant Kingdome to be governed by a Popish Prince
the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons doe further pray that it may be enacted That all and every person and persons that is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall professe the Popish Religion s hall be excluded and be for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the Crowne and Government of this Realme and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have use or exercise any Regall Power Authoritie or Jurisdiction within the same 3) The temper of the times must also be taken into account, with over a century and half of on-and-off religious warfare fresh in memories, and a vicious campaign of persecution against French Protestants ongoing at the date. 4) In view of the provision quoted in 2), the most senior eligible members of the royal line were the Princess of Orange, Princess Anne of Denmark and the Prince of Orange. Fourth in line was Sophia, Electress of Hanover, her children and further descendants following after. There was at the time no one else at all that was Protestant and in succession to both the English and Scottish thrones. 5) In view of the failure of issue from the first three mentioned, the succession of the House of Hanover was inevitable and entirely in accordance with law. I will mention also that precedent dating back to at least Henry IV gave Parliament rather than immutable laws of descent control of the succession, and that right up to Elizabeth I the monarch in succession to William I had more often than not been a different person to his genealogical heir of line. So what is supposed to have happened in 1688 to suddenly make the succession order sanctified and heaven-ordained? 6) I will also mention that right up until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 came into force, on 26th March 2015, the succession in Britain had been unchanged for 325 years. Every single surviving European monarchy had changed its succession in the intervening period, with the sole exception of Liechtenstein, which didn't actually exist as a principality of the Empire, never mind a sovereign monarchy, until well after the Hanoverians had settled on the throne. Some had changed it twice or more. No one has a problem with that, so why do they with Britain changing the succession way back in 1689? No one seems to have a problem either with the constitutional requirement in both Sweden and Norway that the monarch be a professing Lutheran, so why is it a terrible crime to require the British monarch to be a professing Anglican? 7) Finally, I agree with Aaron, the passage of time legitimises any dynasty, however it became established and whomever it replaced. Further, I do not believe the tracing of bloodlines can ever justify the spilling of blood. If a monarch is reigning well enough then let them reign, force would only be justified to remove an unconscionable tyrant or utter incompetent. For all these reasons and probably more that didn't occur to me right now, I believe the Jacobite cause was always wrong in both principle and practice, and would never have supported it even had I been around in the late 17th and earlier 18th centuries to do so, adhering instead to the Protestant succession as established by law.