There are several reasons that I have changed my opinion and sworn allegiance to His Majesty Charles III, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth (Whom God preserve!)
Below, I will outline three serious and substantive reasons based on law and international practice, but some reasons are simply emotional. One is that, since the death of HERH Henry, Cardinal-Duke of York, with whom the Stuart Royal line ceased to exist, no heir-general of the Stuarts has ever made a claim to the Throne. In fact, about 60 years ago, I wrote to Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria, Head of the House of Wittelsbach, the de jure King of Bavaria, and then holder of the heir-generalship. I asked his opinion of the 'Jacobite Question'. He replied that he had 'no desire to disturb his cousin, Elizabeth, in the possession of her Throne'. It is difficult to support the 'restoration' of a House that has no interest in being 'restored'.
Another reason is that, whilst an active, albeit sentimental, Jacobitism remained in Britain for a century and a half after the demise of the 'Old Pretender', it died a rather sudden death in the 1914-18 War. The reason? The 'Jacobite Prince of Wales' at the time was HRH Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria. He was also a Field Marshall in the Royal Bavarian Army, a constituent formation of the Imperial German Army. He commanded Army Group Rupprecht on the Western Front, facing the British sector. The overwhelming majority of British Jacobites lost any interest they might have had in having an enemy Field Marshall as their King.
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!
Now for the substantive reasons.
Firstly, because succession to the English Crown (the Crown upon which all the arguments depend), unlike the Crown of France which descends by strict Salic Law, is not, and never has been determined on purely dynastic grounds. If this point be proven the Jacobite claims fail. Going back to the Witan of the pre-Conquest Kingdom, the 'Best Men' of the land often had a hand in the succession, whether it was by picking the new ruler or ratifying the choice of the deceased King. Exempli gratia, when St Edward the Confessor died, the Witan met and passed over Edgar Aeþeling, the dynastic heir, in favour of Harold Godwinson, Edward's brother-in-law.
After the Conquest, in 1399, when Henry of Bolingbroke's rebellion against King Richard was successful, Parliament declared him King Henry IV, passing over the dynastic heir, Edmund de Mortimer. In fact, on at least one occasion, Henry referred to himself as an 'elected king'.
Richard III, of ill fame, came to the Throne in 1484 by an Act of Parliament after dethroning the legitimate King, Edward V. Henry VII was selected by Parliament in 1485 as King after he defeated the previous King, the same Richard III.
James I&VI was not the nearest heir to Elizabeth I of England by statutory law, and the entire claim depends upon him being the legitimate King. If he is not legitimate, none of his successors are either. In fact, the heir, according to statutory law, was Anne Stanley, by marriage Baroness Chandos. However, since James was already the King of a neighbouring country, Parliament, using its established power to 'elect' a King, chose him for two main reasons: 1) It placed on the Throne a man of proven ability to rule, and 2) it cemented Scotland which, in its 'Auld Alliance' with France, was a hereditary enemy of England, to the Southern Kingdom in a Personal Union under James.
Another reason is that, whilst an active, albeit sentimental, Jacobitism remained in Britain for a century and a half after the demise of the 'Old Pretender', it died a rather sudden death in the 1914-18 War. The reason? The 'Jacobite Prince of Wales' at the time was HRH Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria. He was also a Field Marshall in the Royal Bavarian Army, a constituent formation of the Imperial German Army. He commanded Army Group Rupprecht on the Western Front, facing the British sector. The overwhelming majority of British Jacobites lost any interest they might have had in having an enemy Field Marshall as their King.
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!
Now for the substantive reasons.
Firstly, because succession to the English Crown (the Crown upon which all the arguments depend), unlike the Crown of France which descends by strict Salic Law, is not, and never has been determined on purely dynastic grounds. If this point be proven the Jacobite claims fail. Going back to the Witan of the pre-Conquest Kingdom, the 'Best Men' of the land often had a hand in the succession, whether it was by picking the new ruler or ratifying the choice of the deceased King. Exempli gratia, when St Edward the Confessor died, the Witan met and passed over Edgar Aeþeling, the dynastic heir, in favour of Harold Godwinson, Edward's brother-in-law.
After the Conquest, in 1399, when Henry of Bolingbroke's rebellion against King Richard was successful, Parliament declared him King Henry IV, passing over the dynastic heir, Edmund de Mortimer. In fact, on at least one occasion, Henry referred to himself as an 'elected king'.
Richard III, of ill fame, came to the Throne in 1484 by an Act of Parliament after dethroning the legitimate King, Edward V. Henry VII was selected by Parliament in 1485 as King after he defeated the previous King, the same Richard III.
James I&VI was not the nearest heir to Elizabeth I of England by statutory law, and the entire claim depends upon him being the legitimate King. If he is not legitimate, none of his successors are either. In fact, the heir, according to statutory law, was Anne Stanley, by marriage Baroness Chandos. However, since James was already the King of a neighbouring country, Parliament, using its established power to 'elect' a King, chose him for two main reasons: 1) It placed on the Throne a man of proven ability to rule, and 2) it cemented Scotland which, in its 'Auld Alliance' with France, was a hereditary enemy of England, to the Southern Kingdom in a Personal Union under James.
In fact, the number of Kings who were actually heir-general (the 'legitimate King' according to agnatic primogeniture) is smaller by far than those who were not heir-general upon becoming King. To illustrate: These are the monarchs following William I who were heirs-general at their accession: Richard I, Edwards I and II, Richard II, Edward IV, Edward V, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II.
None were after James II, and before him neither were these: William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry III, Edward III, Henrys IV through VI, Richard III, Henry VII. So prior to Henry VIII six monarchs were heirs of line at accession, and twelve were not. Twice as many. Beginning with him, and so long as you don't disqualify the two Queens as having been technically illegitimate at accession date, you have eight in a row that were lineal heirs, and these have been followed by fourteen and counting that were not. It is to say the least of it profoundly unlikely that any heir-general of the Conqueror will ever again occupy the English/British throne. Then again, what is so extremely special about being heir-general to a man who himself was a complete usurper with zero basis of claim besides that provided by his victorious army? Judging by the practice in the centuries immediately following him, not a lot.
Secondly because the Law of England in 1688 required that the King have been born on territory owing allegiance to the Crown of England.
Under the Constitution of England then, as now under the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the legislature consisted of the Crown in Parliament, the Monarch, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons. Missing one of these three elements means that Parliament does not exist and laws may not be enacted. Thus, the death warrant of HM King Charles I was unconstitutional since it was an act of only two portions of the Parliament, not the Crown in Parliament.
Given this fact, it is obvious that Parliament ceased to exist on 11 December 1688 when the King fled the Kingdom, only to become whole again if and when a Legitimate King was available to grant Royal Assent. Without Royal Assent, no Act of Parliament could become law. Therefore, if the Jacobite theory is correct (and I believe it is, up to a point), no changes could be made to existing law.
The 'Old Pretender', HM King James III&VIII, as well as his sisters, Mary and Anne, were born on British territory in conformity with this law. Even tho' during the life of their father and half brother, Mary and Anne were nothing but usurpers, it is instructive that there were no attempts to overthrow them on behalf of their father or brother. The first Jacobite rising did not take place until 1715, after the death of Anne without a direct heir, and the accession of George I, a descendant of King James I&VI, who was not born on territory in allegiance to the English Crown.
Neither was his his son, who acceded as George II, nor his son, Frederick, who died before he could succeed, all of them having been born in Hanover. However, Frederick's son, George was born in Norfolk House, St. James's Square, London, thus being born on territory owing allegiance to His Majesty King James III&VIII whether it was admitted or not.
Therefore, at least from 11 December 1688 until 1 January 1766, there was no King resident in the British Isles to either summon Parliament or grant Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament, and no changes could be made to existing law. Upon the death of HM King James III&VIII, the nearest heir to have been born within the law was George William Frederick, Elector of Hanover.
And thirdly, because the Holy See explicitly refused to recognise the 'Young Pretender', HRH Prince Charles Edward, a/k/a 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', as King upon the death of his father, the 'Old Pretender', de jure King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland. His brother, HERH Henry, Cardinal-Duke of York was an influential Curial Cardinal who petitioned the Holy See to recognise Charles Edward as King. This was refused. Here are links to the relevant documents.
The Memorial on "The Indispensable Necessity for the Holy See to Recognise the House of Stuart as the Only True and Legitimate Successors of the Kingdom of England" of His Most Eminent Royal Highness, Henry, Cardinal Duke of York, to the Holy See imploring recognition of his brother, His Royal Highness Charles Edward Stuart as King of England.
None were after James II, and before him neither were these: William II, Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, John, Henry III, Edward III, Henrys IV through VI, Richard III, Henry VII. So prior to Henry VIII six monarchs were heirs of line at accession, and twelve were not. Twice as many. Beginning with him, and so long as you don't disqualify the two Queens as having been technically illegitimate at accession date, you have eight in a row that were lineal heirs, and these have been followed by fourteen and counting that were not. It is to say the least of it profoundly unlikely that any heir-general of the Conqueror will ever again occupy the English/British throne. Then again, what is so extremely special about being heir-general to a man who himself was a complete usurper with zero basis of claim besides that provided by his victorious army? Judging by the practice in the centuries immediately following him, not a lot.
Secondly because the Law of England in 1688 required that the King have been born on territory owing allegiance to the Crown of England.
Under the Constitution of England then, as now under the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the legislature consisted of the Crown in Parliament, the Monarch, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons. Missing one of these three elements means that Parliament does not exist and laws may not be enacted. Thus, the death warrant of HM King Charles I was unconstitutional since it was an act of only two portions of the Parliament, not the Crown in Parliament.
Given this fact, it is obvious that Parliament ceased to exist on 11 December 1688 when the King fled the Kingdom, only to become whole again if and when a Legitimate King was available to grant Royal Assent. Without Royal Assent, no Act of Parliament could become law. Therefore, if the Jacobite theory is correct (and I believe it is, up to a point), no changes could be made to existing law.
The 'Old Pretender', HM King James III&VIII, as well as his sisters, Mary and Anne, were born on British territory in conformity with this law. Even tho' during the life of their father and half brother, Mary and Anne were nothing but usurpers, it is instructive that there were no attempts to overthrow them on behalf of their father or brother. The first Jacobite rising did not take place until 1715, after the death of Anne without a direct heir, and the accession of George I, a descendant of King James I&VI, who was not born on territory in allegiance to the English Crown.
Neither was his his son, who acceded as George II, nor his son, Frederick, who died before he could succeed, all of them having been born in Hanover. However, Frederick's son, George was born in Norfolk House, St. James's Square, London, thus being born on territory owing allegiance to His Majesty King James III&VIII whether it was admitted or not.
Therefore, at least from 11 December 1688 until 1 January 1766, there was no King resident in the British Isles to either summon Parliament or grant Royal Assent to Acts of Parliament, and no changes could be made to existing law. Upon the death of HM King James III&VIII, the nearest heir to have been born within the law was George William Frederick, Elector of Hanover.
And thirdly, because the Holy See explicitly refused to recognise the 'Young Pretender', HRH Prince Charles Edward, a/k/a 'Bonnie Prince Charlie', as King upon the death of his father, the 'Old Pretender', de jure King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland. His brother, HERH Henry, Cardinal-Duke of York was an influential Curial Cardinal who petitioned the Holy See to recognise Charles Edward as King. This was refused. Here are links to the relevant documents.
The Memorial on "The Indispensable Necessity for the Holy See to Recognise the House of Stuart as the Only True and Legitimate Successors of the Kingdom of England" of His Most Eminent Royal Highness, Henry, Cardinal Duke of York, to the Holy See imploring recognition of his brother, His Royal Highness Charles Edward Stuart as King of England.
Response of the Holy See to the Cardinal Duke of York, January 14, 1766.
Diplomatic relations were restored, under HM King George V, in 1914 with a ‘Special Mission to the Vatican’ which was renamed ‘His Majesty's Legation to the Holy See’ in 1923. The Mission was raised to full Ambassadorial status in 1982 in the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II.
Diplomatic relations were restored, under HM King George V, in 1914 with a ‘Special Mission to the Vatican’ which was renamed ‘His Majesty's Legation to the Holy See’ in 1923. The Mission was raised to full Ambassadorial status in 1982 in the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the Pontificate of His Holiness John Paul II.
To summarise: 1) Succession to the English Crown has never been strictly dynastic. 2) Prince Charles Edward did not fulfil the legal requirements to succeed, but George of Hanover did. And 3) the Holy See explicitly refused to recognise Charles Edward as King. Earlier I wrote, '(I)f the Jacobite theory is correct (and I believe it is, up to a point)', that point being 1 January 1766, the death of HM King James III&VIII. Before that, his father had remained King until his death and had been succeeded by him as King. However, upon his death, he was succeeded, not by his son, Charles Edward, but by his distant cousin, George, thus restoring Parliament and the Constitution. Thus, to be technical, George III should be numbered 'the First' and his successor Georges' ordinals each decreased by two. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.