Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
The major problem with the English Act of Settlement in 1701 (aside from the fact that Scotland had its own Parliament until 1707) was that it was a nullity outside of England. No foreign power recognized it, and Scotland was divided on the issue. I'm not sure if my family was "out" in the 1709 Rising, but I do know we were out in both the '15 and the '45-- the issue being (for us, at least) the imposition of a foreign king on Scotland.

But, if you think the Royal Stuart Society, et al, have got it wrong... drop 'em an email!
The provisions were duly incorporated with the union of the parliaments with the proviso that the Monarch would also defend the Church of Scotland as the established Church in Scotland.

The Crown of Stuart do not talk of the line through Henriette and their genealogy in their portrait gallery ends with Cardinal York (Henry IX). So I would only take issue with their omission of the female Stuart monarchs Mary and Anne.

The Jacobite site lists differences of opinion as to whom they should recognise for the legitimate descent but such things are common when it comes to vanished thrones also - who should be the legitimate heir to the French throne (Bourbon or Bonaparte)for example.

As to the "no foreign power recognised it" - I think you will find that the Protestant powers did and also the Catholic powers played both sides with their often lukewarm support for the Stuart cause no doubt due to seeing the difference between actual power and claimed power

I am sure that the English were not keen on foreign kings at the time, especially the first two Georges, especially the first one who not only did not bother to learn English but, having imprisoned his wife for adultery, openly sported his two mistresses whom he brought over with him. Hardly the most auspicious of starts you might say.