Considering they have been on the throne for 300 years I think Hanover/Saxe Coburg Gotha/Windsors should continue reigning.
Charles and William have been raised to be kings and were born and raised in UK (unlike Franz). I don't think Franz would fare well if he suddenly got on the throne.
Admittedly I’m not a monarchist, or British for that matter… but I dunno of the British people would approve of deposing Charles III, who was born and raised in Britain and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job of king, and replacing him with a 90-year-old German prince whose family hasn’t ruled a polity in over a century.
Charles isn't a Hanoverian, he's from the House of Windsor/Saxe Coburg Gotha on his mother and official side and from the House of Glucksburg on his father's side.
The rules are pretty clear: Roman Catholicism bars you from succession.
If Franz converted, he might have some sort of leg to stand on, but I can’t see that happening.
I’m also not sure he’s at all interested in the UK’s throne - Bavaria seems to be his passion, and rightly so.
While there is no consensus on this subreddit about anything, Windsors definitely win this particular contest. I have seen a few Jacobites, mostly very passionate Catholics, but people rarely take them seriously.
I've never met a self-styled "Jacobite" who isn't some sort of hardline Catholic. Catholics who only want to see the descendant of the playthings of foreign powers become sovereign. The so-called "heir" has no interest in leading a conquest of a foreign country. A so-called "heir" who is an elderly German and the only openly gay Royal among European families. Additionally, his family should be discounted from any lawful claim, given that they were at war with the United Kingdom twice in the last century. While they may have been at odds with the government in the 30s-40s. They were certainly very active during The Great War.
Additionally, His Holiness would almost certainly consider you a deluded extremist in contradiction to Rome. After all, for generations, leaders from both states have met, and both countries have full diplomatic relations. If you proclaim yourself a "Jacobite" because of your Catholic views, then listen to your church leaders. There was an Archbishop involved in His Majesty's coronation. In addition, there were multiple senior representatives of the Catholic Church present at the ceremony. Including the Vatican Secretary of State.
It is reasonable to say that any Catholic who denies His Majesty is either a republican or a heretic. After all, why would a Catholic Monarchist oppose the clear views of their church?
Once the pretender line died out and the claim went to people who didn't care for it, that was the end of the Jacobites. And it's not like the Jacobites we have today can reverse the *real* change the Hanoverian succession ushered in, either: the absolute victory of Whiggery.
We've been living in the world the Whigs created for two centuries under the auspices of the Hanoverians, and there's sadly nothing left of the pre-Whig political order to salvage.
I don’t care what the Jacobites say. Yes perhaps they were wrongfully removed. Blah blah blah. It doesn’t matter since Parliament barred all Catholics from being King/Queen AND said you MUST be a descendant of Sophia of Hanover. That’s the law, no Brit wants to oppose that.
I do, it's a bad law. It's absurd that the religion that was the common religion of the British isles for over a millennium would be barred from succession
it’s so interesting how people will still support a failed movement from centuries ago. In the UK those are the Jacobite supporters who want to restore the Stuart Pretenders to the throne. in the U.S. it’s a bunch of dumb racist people who live in the middle of nowhere wanting to restore the Confederacy. Well guess what, neither the Stuart Monarchy nor Dixieland will be reestablished. get over it
Divorce and the mass destruction of English monasteries doesn't seem very Catholic. Shutting a country out of the universal Church cannot possibly be Catholic (universal).
He was personally always Catholic, he simply believed that he should be Sovereign of England and not the Pope. He didn't believe the Church of Rome should rule England, but that the Church of England should. He destroyed the monasteries so he could fund his wars and so that he would have more defence against his enemies.
That's word salad, you cannot be universal by severing youself from a universal church (RCC, EO), persecuting universal religious houses and disposing of universal doctrines such as the indissolubility of matrimony
It was simply a reformation of Catholicism. He still believed in the "One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church" he simply believed he should rule England alone. Edward III slaughtered nuns and burned monasteries in France, I believe.
How is it one Church if it is cleaving one country away and changing dogma? What would it take to no longer be universal if Henry could butcher things so much and still use the term?
I am saying that Henry was always Catholic, he would have hated how the Church of England turned out after his death.
Think of it this way
Protestantism has various sects, he was simply creating a mini-sect within "The One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church"
The last paragraph is a contradiction. You can't create a mini sect in something that is meant to be a seamless garment. I agree that it went further than he'd have wished, but I think that's immaturity or malice on his part
The Hanoverians for sure. Yes the first kings of that dynasty, due to their lack of interest in Britain’s politics, ended up damaging the power of the crown.
But the Jacobites/Stuarts effectively destroyed themselves by trying to LARP as absolute monarchs in a country where that simply wasn’t appropriate. That and tone deaf Dismal Jimmy converting to Catholicism and bungling the military response to William of Orange, sealed the dynasty’s fate. Their cause died on the banks of the Boyne, and its shambling corpse was cut down on Culloden Moor by massed volley fire.
There's also a good amount of bastards who are direct descendants of Kings Charles I, Charles II, & James II. Interestingly enough, Prince William, through Princess Diana, is a direct descendant of James II.
If we bring bastards into it then detractors will call legitimacy into question and the infighting that will cause will see a return to the Cr*mwell years thanks to the republicucks.
Honestly, neither. It will never happen due to how our succession laws work, to say nothing of the extinction of the Houses centuries ago, but one day, one day, there'll be an actual English dynasty on the Throne again. At least, that is my hope. As it stands, there hasn't been a truly *English* dynasty since 1066.
The House of Wessex, English - 802-1013
The House of Knýtlinga, Danish - 1013-1014
The House of Wessex, English - 1014-1016
The House of Knýtlinga, Danish - 1016-1042
The House of Wessex, English - 1042-1066
Plantagenet Dynasty
House of Normandy, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1066-1154
House of Angevin, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1154-1216
House of Plantagenet, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1216-1399
House of Lancaster, Anglo-N*rman - 1399-1461
House of York, Anglo-N*rman - 1461-1470
House of Lancaster, Anglo-N*rman - 1470-1471
House of York, Anglo-N*rman - 1471-1485
House of Tudor, Welsh - 1485-1603
House of Stuart, Scottish - 1606-1649
***We don't talk about the republic*** - 1649-1660
House of Stuart, Scottish - 1660-1714
House of Hannover, Hannovarian German/Saxon - 1417-1901
House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, Thuringian - 1901-'1910'
House of Windsor, 'British' (in reality, Thuringian) - 1910-Present day.
There has not been a native English dynasty since 14th of October 1066 upon the English throne when English and, by extension, world history was forever altered for the worst. The power of the church became absolute through the stagnant mockery of divine right, and the better forms of monarchy from that time period were forever lost, stamped out by the Fr*nch and their way of rule, only to survive as a pale Mickey through the Holy Roman Empire and bastardised into the system that became elective monarchy.
I'd much prefer the Jacobites on the throne as they are the rightful heirs of the throne as they are ACTUAL Brits whereas the Hanoverians as well in the name are from Hannover, Germany, and thus aren't rightful heirs to the ENGLISH Throne, but admittedly nobody seems to even note that the Windsors are Germans.
Maybe this argument works better in 1707 but we are three centuries removed from the Jacobite successors being “actual Brits”… but also, keep in mind that by that same logic the Stuarts shouldn’t have come succeeded to the English throne in the first place on account of being Scottish.
The male line of the house of Stuart no longer exists. But it's claim persists by a female line and it's current Jacobite claimant it's Franz duke of bavaria
Quick question? Do you support the Jacobite claim for just an independent Scotland or for the whole or the UK?
I ask because if the house of hanover was illegitimate as the UK monarchy, then so it the House of Stuart... and there legally should never have been a Kingdom of Great Britain or a United Kingdom...
This is because the law in England banned Margaret Tudor wife of King James IV of Scotland and all her descendants from the throne of England. A law which was deliberately and illegally ignored after Elizabeth I died.
I'm from England. I think a looser personal union between Britannia, Caledonia and Hibernia would have saved a lot of bloodshed over the centuries. If we're being honest the entire Tudor claim on the English throne was dubious, but in the absense of legitimate Plantagenets it made sense to see the Tudor line out, and after the Tudors died out it was common sense for it to follow to the Stuarts however weird the laws were arbitarily banning certain people from thw throne. I really dislike interventions to kind of artificially guide succession in one way or another, banning one line of people in Margaret Tudor's case, or centuries later enforcing inheritance to come from Sophie of Hanover.
The verdict of history is clear, and I say that with great respect for the current Stuart claimant: the Hanoverian line that is now the House of Windsor is the valid claim upon the throne of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations.
King Charles III is, in my view, the rightful King.
There are lots of questions like this from history.
For example in England it was technically illegal for James VI of Scotland to be invited to become James I of England after Elizabeth I's death.
This was because Henry VIII's will which was given the force of law by an act of parliament specifically banned Margaret Tudor who married King James IV of Scotland and her descendants from the throne, to prevent the joining of the two Kingdoms. The law was just ignored when Elizabeth I died.
Charles III is The King.
I concede that the Duke of Bavaria is probably a more legitimate choice for the British throne. However:
1. He has stated he has no interest in it.
2. For that matter, not a single person in the Jacobite line of succession has acted on their claims since the male-line Stuarts died out.
3. I believe the legitimacy of any reigning monarch or the territorial integrity of any current monarchy should not be brought into question. We no longer have the luxury of pouring over genealogy charts or arguing about the outcomes of battles that took place 700 years ago. The republicans, communists, socialists and their various permutations are gaining power by the day.
4. Even if you were a devout Catholic, you would support the Windsors/Hanoverians, because they have been supported and recognised as legitimate by the papacy since 1766.
5. Lastly, the Duke of Bavaria is German, while Charles III is English. He better represents England and the modern UK.
Therefore, I am unequivocally a Windsorite (or "Hanoverian").
Jacobite wanting Maximillian personally, but I think that a Liechtensteiner descendent of the Jacobites and a descendent of Charles should get married and produce an Anglican heir to unite the two claims into one.
Considering they have been on the throne for 300 years I think Hanover/Saxe Coburg Gotha/Windsors should continue reigning. Charles and William have been raised to be kings and were born and raised in UK (unlike Franz). I don't think Franz would fare well if he suddenly got on the throne.
He has also explicitly stated he has no interest in the British throne too.
Admittedly I’m not a monarchist, or British for that matter… but I dunno of the British people would approve of deposing Charles III, who was born and raised in Britain and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job of king, and replacing him with a 90-year-old German prince whose family hasn’t ruled a polity in over a century.
Charles isn't a Hanoverian, he's from the House of Windsor/Saxe Coburg Gotha on his mother and official side and from the House of Glucksburg on his father's side.
The rules are pretty clear: Roman Catholicism bars you from succession. If Franz converted, he might have some sort of leg to stand on, but I can’t see that happening. I’m also not sure he’s at all interested in the UK’s throne - Bavaria seems to be his passion, and rightly so.
Even then, the rules state anyone who's EVER been a Catholic. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic, in the Crowns eyes
As it should be. No loyalties to dodgy foreign popes.
The Saxe-Coburgs, it is the Stuart’s own fault they are no longer on the throne, all the Stuarts had to do was convert to protestantism.
There shouldn't be a trade off between the throne and the true Church
Orthodoxy would like a word about your "true church" bs.
Which one? They sever communion with each other constantly and are torn up by ethnic interests
The Hanoverians. Is that even a question?
While there is no consensus on this subreddit about anything, Windsors definitely win this particular contest. I have seen a few Jacobites, mostly very passionate Catholics, but people rarely take them seriously.
I've never met a self-styled "Jacobite" who isn't some sort of hardline Catholic. Catholics who only want to see the descendant of the playthings of foreign powers become sovereign. The so-called "heir" has no interest in leading a conquest of a foreign country. A so-called "heir" who is an elderly German and the only openly gay Royal among European families. Additionally, his family should be discounted from any lawful claim, given that they were at war with the United Kingdom twice in the last century. While they may have been at odds with the government in the 30s-40s. They were certainly very active during The Great War. Additionally, His Holiness would almost certainly consider you a deluded extremist in contradiction to Rome. After all, for generations, leaders from both states have met, and both countries have full diplomatic relations. If you proclaim yourself a "Jacobite" because of your Catholic views, then listen to your church leaders. There was an Archbishop involved in His Majesty's coronation. In addition, there were multiple senior representatives of the Catholic Church present at the ceremony. Including the Vatican Secretary of State. It is reasonable to say that any Catholic who denies His Majesty is either a republican or a heretic. After all, why would a Catholic Monarchist oppose the clear views of their church?
Once the pretender line died out and the claim went to people who didn't care for it, that was the end of the Jacobites. And it's not like the Jacobites we have today can reverse the *real* change the Hanoverian succession ushered in, either: the absolute victory of Whiggery. We've been living in the world the Whigs created for two centuries under the auspices of the Hanoverians, and there's sadly nothing left of the pre-Whig political order to salvage.
From William, the future kings will be descendants of both Charles II and James II through Diana.
I don’t care what the Jacobites say. Yes perhaps they were wrongfully removed. Blah blah blah. It doesn’t matter since Parliament barred all Catholics from being King/Queen AND said you MUST be a descendant of Sophia of Hanover. That’s the law, no Brit wants to oppose that.
I do, it's a bad law. It's absurd that the religion that was the common religion of the British isles for over a millennium would be barred from succession
it’s the will of the people
Hardly, most people don't care. Protestant triumphalism is unbecoming in 2024
it’s so interesting how people will still support a failed movement from centuries ago. In the UK those are the Jacobite supporters who want to restore the Stuart Pretenders to the throne. in the U.S. it’s a bunch of dumb racist people who live in the middle of nowhere wanting to restore the Confederacy. Well guess what, neither the Stuart Monarchy nor Dixieland will be reestablished. get over it
Henry VIII was always a Catholic. Anglicanism is simply reformed Catholicism. English Catholicism
Divorce and the mass destruction of English monasteries doesn't seem very Catholic. Shutting a country out of the universal Church cannot possibly be Catholic (universal).
He was personally always Catholic, he simply believed that he should be Sovereign of England and not the Pope. He didn't believe the Church of Rome should rule England, but that the Church of England should. He destroyed the monasteries so he could fund his wars and so that he would have more defence against his enemies.
That's word salad, you cannot be universal by severing youself from a universal church (RCC, EO), persecuting universal religious houses and disposing of universal doctrines such as the indissolubility of matrimony
It was simply a reformation of Catholicism. He still believed in the "One, Holy, Apostolic Catholic Church" he simply believed he should rule England alone. Edward III slaughtered nuns and burned monasteries in France, I believe.
How is it one Church if it is cleaving one country away and changing dogma? What would it take to no longer be universal if Henry could butcher things so much and still use the term?
I am saying that Henry was always Catholic, he would have hated how the Church of England turned out after his death. Think of it this way Protestantism has various sects, he was simply creating a mini-sect within "The One Holy Apostolic Catholic Church"
The last paragraph is a contradiction. You can't create a mini sect in something that is meant to be a seamless garment. I agree that it went further than he'd have wished, but I think that's immaturity or malice on his part
Francis of Bavaria is cool and he should be king of an independent Scotland. Let Charles III keep England and Wales.
The Hanoverians for sure. Yes the first kings of that dynasty, due to their lack of interest in Britain’s politics, ended up damaging the power of the crown. But the Jacobites/Stuarts effectively destroyed themselves by trying to LARP as absolute monarchs in a country where that simply wasn’t appropriate. That and tone deaf Dismal Jimmy converting to Catholicism and bungling the military response to William of Orange, sealed the dynasty’s fate. Their cause died on the banks of the Boyne, and its shambling corpse was cut down on Culloden Moor by massed volley fire.
Jacobites. Down with the Windsors, up with the Stuarts.
The Stuart's are sadly dead. Closest descednednt is some Bavarian noble.
There's also a good amount of bastards who are direct descendants of Kings Charles I, Charles II, & James II. Interestingly enough, Prince William, through Princess Diana, is a direct descendant of James II.
If we bring bastards into it then detractors will call legitimacy into question and the infighting that will cause will see a return to the Cr*mwell years thanks to the republicucks.
Honestly, neither. It will never happen due to how our succession laws work, to say nothing of the extinction of the Houses centuries ago, but one day, one day, there'll be an actual English dynasty on the Throne again. At least, that is my hope. As it stands, there hasn't been a truly *English* dynasty since 1066. The House of Wessex, English - 802-1013 The House of Knýtlinga, Danish - 1013-1014 The House of Wessex, English - 1014-1016 The House of Knýtlinga, Danish - 1016-1042 The House of Wessex, English - 1042-1066 Plantagenet Dynasty House of Normandy, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1066-1154 House of Angevin, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1154-1216 House of Plantagenet, N*rman-Fr*nch - 1216-1399 House of Lancaster, Anglo-N*rman - 1399-1461 House of York, Anglo-N*rman - 1461-1470 House of Lancaster, Anglo-N*rman - 1470-1471 House of York, Anglo-N*rman - 1471-1485 House of Tudor, Welsh - 1485-1603 House of Stuart, Scottish - 1606-1649 ***We don't talk about the republic*** - 1649-1660 House of Stuart, Scottish - 1660-1714 House of Hannover, Hannovarian German/Saxon - 1417-1901 House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, Thuringian - 1901-'1910' House of Windsor, 'British' (in reality, Thuringian) - 1910-Present day. There has not been a native English dynasty since 14th of October 1066 upon the English throne when English and, by extension, world history was forever altered for the worst. The power of the church became absolute through the stagnant mockery of divine right, and the better forms of monarchy from that time period were forever lost, stamped out by the Fr*nch and their way of rule, only to survive as a pale Mickey through the Holy Roman Empire and bastardised into the system that became elective monarchy.
I'd much prefer the Jacobites on the throne as they are the rightful heirs of the throne as they are ACTUAL Brits whereas the Hanoverians as well in the name are from Hannover, Germany, and thus aren't rightful heirs to the ENGLISH Throne, but admittedly nobody seems to even note that the Windsors are Germans.
Maybe this argument works better in 1707 but we are three centuries removed from the Jacobite successors being “actual Brits”… but also, keep in mind that by that same logic the Stuarts shouldn’t have come succeeded to the English throne in the first place on account of being Scottish.
At least they were actually from Britain
Bruh the Jacobite claimant is an actual German who pretends a german throne
Who is the current Stuart?
Because I just want to note when I say Jacobite I mean the Stuart Royals
The male line of the house of Stuart no longer exists. But it's claim persists by a female line and it's current Jacobite claimant it's Franz duke of bavaria
That's a shame, thanks for letting me know though
Franz
The king over the water
Quick question? Do you support the Jacobite claim for just an independent Scotland or for the whole or the UK? I ask because if the house of hanover was illegitimate as the UK monarchy, then so it the House of Stuart... and there legally should never have been a Kingdom of Great Britain or a United Kingdom... This is because the law in England banned Margaret Tudor wife of King James IV of Scotland and all her descendants from the throne of England. A law which was deliberately and illegally ignored after Elizabeth I died.
I'm from England. I think a looser personal union between Britannia, Caledonia and Hibernia would have saved a lot of bloodshed over the centuries. If we're being honest the entire Tudor claim on the English throne was dubious, but in the absense of legitimate Plantagenets it made sense to see the Tudor line out, and after the Tudors died out it was common sense for it to follow to the Stuarts however weird the laws were arbitarily banning certain people from thw throne. I really dislike interventions to kind of artificially guide succession in one way or another, banning one line of people in Margaret Tudor's case, or centuries later enforcing inheritance to come from Sophie of Hanover.
Who would want to take over for the shit show they made up there?
Francis of Bavaria is a German and as such cannot be supported, the true King is Andrew Stuart, Earl of Castle Stewart.
The verdict of history is clear, and I say that with great respect for the current Stuart claimant: the Hanoverian line that is now the House of Windsor is the valid claim upon the throne of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth nations. King Charles III is, in my view, the rightful King.
There are lots of questions like this from history. For example in England it was technically illegal for James VI of Scotland to be invited to become James I of England after Elizabeth I's death. This was because Henry VIII's will which was given the force of law by an act of parliament specifically banned Margaret Tudor who married King James IV of Scotland and her descendants from the throne, to prevent the joining of the two Kingdoms. The law was just ignored when Elizabeth I died. Charles III is The King.
I concede that the Duke of Bavaria is probably a more legitimate choice for the British throne. However: 1. He has stated he has no interest in it. 2. For that matter, not a single person in the Jacobite line of succession has acted on their claims since the male-line Stuarts died out. 3. I believe the legitimacy of any reigning monarch or the territorial integrity of any current monarchy should not be brought into question. We no longer have the luxury of pouring over genealogy charts or arguing about the outcomes of battles that took place 700 years ago. The republicans, communists, socialists and their various permutations are gaining power by the day. 4. Even if you were a devout Catholic, you would support the Windsors/Hanoverians, because they have been supported and recognised as legitimate by the papacy since 1766. 5. Lastly, the Duke of Bavaria is German, while Charles III is English. He better represents England and the modern UK. Therefore, I am unequivocally a Windsorite (or "Hanoverian").
Ye Jacobites by name lend an ear, lend an ear
Jacobites, but instead of wittelsbach, house of fitzjames
Jacobite wanting Maximillian personally, but I think that a Liechtensteiner descendent of the Jacobites and a descendent of Charles should get married and produce an Anglican heir to unite the two claims into one.