Order of the Crown of Stuart

[gilmore]

It would be difficult to establish a legitimate Stuart line nowadays in any case given the number of legitimate male descendants drying up even if religion had not been an issue.

Having exhausted the male line descending from James I and VI the principle of male preference primogeniture would then have had to go through the female line from James in any case. We would have missed out on George I and George II (perhaps not overall a bad thing ) but otherwise would have pretty much ended up with what we have now (with a certain amount of regnal renumbering).

Not at all.

The present monarch of the UK, since 1996, would be Francis II, who now rejoices in the title Duke of Bavaria. See http://www.jacobite.ca/kings/index.htm for the ten Jacobite monarchs between James II and VI and King Francis, passing through the houses of Savoy and Hapsburg to the Wittelsbachs.

His heir is his brother, Prince Max of Bavaria, Duke in Bavaria, whose heiress would be his eldest daughter, Princess Sophie, wife of the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein. She would in time be succeeded by her eldest son, Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, born 1995 (or failing him, his younger brother, Prince Georg), thus uniting the thrones of the United Kingdom and Liechtentstein.

"Joseph Wenzel Maximilian Maria von und zu Liechtenstein was born May 24, 1995 at Portland Hospital in London. He is the son of Alois, Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein and of his wife, Duchess Sophie in Bavaria....Joseph Wenzel is the first [Jacobite] heir presumptive to the [British] throne to be born in England since King James III and VIII in 1688."

For a genealogical chart showing the Jacobite monarchs, see http://www.jacobite.ca/gentree.htm

BTW March 21 is the birthday of King and Cardinal Henry IX and I, born 1725 and died 1807, last of the male line of the royal Stuarts, younger brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Do any of you Lads/Lassies have any info on The Order of The Crown of Stuart. What it is or who its members are? Thanks John

John, this is an interesting group of folks who, by and large, are interested in the history of the Royal Stuart Family and all of there descendants. It has been around for ages, and the membership is comprised of some highly erudite (and entertaining, if not eccentric) people. It is not an order of chivalry, but rather more like a club for people who are interested in "what might have happened" had the Stuarts remained on the throne of the United Kingdoms.

[English Bloke]

Here's a nice lyric... It's all about the Queen, as in the real one! There's another version which relates to Kings but again, only the real ones.

Here's a health unto her Majesty
With a fa la la la la la la
Confusion to her enemies
With a fa la la la la la la
And he who would not drink her health
We wish him neither wit nor wealth
Nor yet a rope to hang himself

With a fa la la la la la la la la laaaaaaa
(Hold last note while a member of the assembled downs a drink)
With a fa la la la la la la

May she live in mirth and jollity
With a fa la la la la la la
And pass time with good company
With a fa la la la la la la
And he who would not join in glee
Must Puritan or Papist be
And him we curse with misery

With a fa la la la la la la la la laaaaaaa
With a fa la la la la la la

Let the Queen's good health go round and round
With a fa la la la la la la
And let her praises loud resound
With a fa la la la la la la
And he who would not have it so
May he be cursed with a gouty toe
And days of wrath and nights of woe

With a fa la la la la la la la la laaaaaaa
With a fa la la la la la la

Our goodly Queen is fair of face
With a fa la la la la la la
Endowed with every female grace
With a fa la la la la la la
And every woman in this shire
Who doth not to the like aspire
May her breast be dun and her hair be wire

With a fa la la la la la la la la laaaaaaa
With a fa la la la la la la

So now we've raised our tankards high
With a fa la la la la la la
We've raised them full and lowered them dry
With a fa la la la la la la
Elizabeth, long may she reign
God save the Queen
May all here join in this refrain
And fill our tankards up again

[gilmore]

John, this is an interesting group of folks who, by and large, are interested in the history of the Royal Stuart Family and all of there descendants. It has been around for ages, and the membership is comprised of some highly erudite (and entertaining, if not eccentric) people. It is not an order of chivalry, but rather more like a club for people who are interested in "what might have happened" had the Stuarts remained on the throne of the United Kingdoms.

That premise does raise some interesting questions.

Would there be a United States of Amerca? Probably not. France would have likely been allied with a Stuart-ruled Britain, or at least not antagonistic toward it, and thus not supportive of the rebellious colonies.

Would there be a British Canada? Probably not. What is now western Canada might well be French, or French-speaking now.

Would Louisiana be French or Spanish?

[Ruanaidh]

Would there be a United States of America? Probably not. France would have likely been allied with a Stuart-ruled Britain, or at least not antagonistic toward it, and thus not supportive of the rebellious colonies.

And without a George III and Lord North the colonies might not have been inclined to be rebellious.

[macwilkin]

And without a George III and Lord North the colonies might not have been inclined to be rebellious.

Not as simple as that, though. The colonists were not innocent in the events leading up the Revolution, especially when it came for paying for the French & Indian War and the British regulars that defeated New France.

One estimate I have read says that British subjects in GB were paying twice the amount of taxes American colonials were.

Not to mention all of the Americans engaged in illicit trade with the Dutch & French (in the case of the latter, even before the war ended).

George III really had nothing to do with the seperation, apart from declaring the US in rebellion after the first shots had been fired. Parliament bears more of the responsibility, but even MPs such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt spoke on behalf of the American view.

As I tell my classes, the Revolution is not "Star Wars", it was our first Civil War.

Todd

[Downix]

Not as simple as that, though. The colonists were not innocent in the events leading up the Revolution, especially when it came for paying for the French & Indian War and the British regulars that defeated New France.

One estimate I have read says that British subjects in GB were paying twice the amount of taxes American colonials were.

Not to mention all of the Americans engaged in illicit trade with the Dutch & French (in the case of the latter, even before the war ended).

George III really had nothing to do with the seperation, apart from declaring the US in rebellion after the first shots had been fired. Parliament bears more of the responsibility, but even MPs such as Edmund Burke and William Pitt spoke on behalf of the American view.

As I tell my classes, the Revolution is not "Star Wars", it was our first Civil War.

Todd

Indeed, the most often times misunderstood bit about the colonial taxation was not the amount of taxes at all. The majority of colonials agreed that the amount was very reasonable. It was that they were taxes with no say in government. "No Taxation without Representation" is the slogan, not "No Taxes."

[Bigkahuna]

John, this is an interesting group of folks who, by and large, are interested in the history of the Royal Stuart Family and all of there descendants. It has been around for ages, and the membership is comprised of some highly erudite (and entertaining, if not eccentric) people. It is not an order of chivalry, but rather more like a club for people who are interested in "what might have happened" had the Stuarts remained on the throne of the United Kingdoms.

Thank you all for your entries. Had I not known better, I might have thought you were describing US, substituting kilts for the "what might have happened". Thank you once again. John Walker

[Bugbear]

Ya, Todd, I remember some of the things from my college courses on the "Revolution," as well as, the founding fathers; those raskles. They were truely human.

[Bugbear]

Machiavelli of Rathdown.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.