The memior of john macky provides more details of the jacobite with respect to historic. it correlates to all of the other writings during it time. It describes many of the Noble JACOBITE.
Charles II, James II's brother, used to walk around London with only a secretary in attendance. Anyone could talk to Charles, making requests or declaring complaints, and Charles would listen while the secretary took notes. James told Charles that was very dangerous, anyone could assassinate Charles. He replied: "Jamie, nobody is going to kill me so you can become king." Charles died peacefully in his bed.
Not to mention everybody was so heartily sick of living under the Cromwell theocracy that assasinating Charles II was unthnkable. Cromwell singlehandly set back the cause of democracy globally by 200 years.
@@alecblunden8615 but that is a double edged sword because when you die you have to get rid of your closest relative too or else that person in the end does rule.
Video suggestion, who would be LORD PROTECTOR of Great Britain? Cromwell set it up as a hereditary office and passed it down to his son Richard. However Richard failed to maintain it as the monarchy returned, but What if the line of Lord Protectors continued?
@@StoneStoryHenriZ To be frank, "republic" didn't mean democratic in those times. The succession was de facto primogeniture, so the Protectorate would've functioned the same way North Korea does now. Both are "republics" but the heads of state are passed down just like in a monarchy.
@@Sunsetaren #1 is being gay a reason to exclude someone from the line of succession? At least in England/GB/UK? #2 that's a technicality based on your assumption that the answer to #1 would be yes. Even if it were, it wouldn't change anything that came afterwards. It would have switched one pretender for another and the rest continued as is #3 see #1 and also see #2 #4 that's an oversight on Matt's part which he should change. You're right #5 what happened in 1485? Oh yeah, the welsh Henry Tudor conquered England and was recognised by parliament as the new king.That's really all the claim you needed to be monarch of England. Every older claim was null and void from that moment onwards. Then you got the Republic, when - you guessed it - parliament decided, they didn't want a king no more, only to change their opinion again eleven years later. In 1701 parliament decreed they didn't want any catholics anymore etc which made the throne go to the Welfs, the Wettins and now the Oldenburgs. Three german dynasties in a row just bcs they didn't like the catholics xD
The Jacobites have a point. The throne was unlawfully taken away from James II and his son. Them being catholic didn't bar them from the throne. The "No Catholics" Law was only passed after they had unlawfully taken the throne away and ergo passed by an unlawful reign. James's II's descendants would probably still be on the throne as if they were on the the throne, their lives would have been different and they may have made different marriages and produced different children. Henry Cardinal for example would not have become a Priest as a Prince in line to the throne and may have married and produced children. Likewise, Bonnie Prince Charlie may have made a different marriage that produced children or have been more keen to ensure he produced legitimate child if he truly was on the throne.
The Monarch in the UK is the head of the Anglican Church just like the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. How can a catholic be head of the Anglican Church??
Nope, we haven't done the divine right of Kings since Magna Carta. The British monarchs are there by consent of the people. If they lose that consent, it's curtains.
If you think that's crazy, consider this: Charles III is descended from both William the Conqueror and Harold Godwinson, in both cases through the female line.
History Tea Time with Lindsay Holiday made a video about this topic, showing that all of them can trace back to Johan Friso of the Netherlands. Not sure if he's the latest though.
@@dorderre *John William Friso really was the nearest common ancestor of all european monarch, but that title passed to Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt when Charles III succeded his mother, Elizabeth II because he is a descendant of Louis through his father, Prince Philip. But it's unlikely that Matt would make such chart because Matt only does ROYAL (aka. at least a King/ Queen) family trees. (Licheinstein and Monaco are principalities and Luxemburg is a Grand Duchy.)
Two American tourists met the Queen who was out walking near Balmoral with a courtier, not realising who she was. After asking them were in the USA they came from, the Queen said she had a house nearby and alos in London and had been coming to Scotland for 80 years. The Americans said she must have met the Queen to which she replied "no but he has". "What is she like"? said the Americans? "Oh she can be a bit tetchy but has a great sense of humour". The Americans said goodbye and walked off. I'm unaware if they realised who they'd just met. Queen Victoria used to do something similar.
I love that story! That was Richard Griffin, the Queen's former Royal Protection Officer, by the way. If you look up "Richard Griffin on the Queen's sense of humour", you'll find him telling the story himself. Such a lovely story!
It actually gets even better. They asked to take a picture WITH the courtier (who had met the Queen) and the Queen took the photo then swapped with the courtier for a photo with them so they'd have a picture with her. Then when they left, she laughed saying she would love to be a fly on the wall when the Americans show their friends the photo and someone tells them who they took a picture with. Also, the actual words the courtier said to the tourists were, "Oh, she can be very cantankerous at times, but she's got a lovely sense of humor".
A similar story involves the earl of Harwood who was the queen's first cousin - he fought in world war two and at the end of that war he was demobilized .To make sure he could readjust to civilian life back in England he was interviewed by the army chaplain who. not realizing who he was. asked if he knew any people back in England.:To which he replied that he had an uncle who lived in central London. That uncle was of course king George VI but the earl did not let on
@@kaloarepo288 Not quite as portentous an occurrence but, many years ago, I was holidaying in Switzerland. Took a day trip to Lichtenstein and walked up the hills behind Vaduz for a view over the Rhine. A lovely day boosted the spirits and I issued a smiling greeting to an elderly gent walking down which was quietly but graciously returned. Back down in the town I bought stamps for the obligatory postcards and realized why the old man had had a vaguely familiar look - his face was on the stamps! Sadly no Kodak evidence had been secured! 🙄😉😊
Funny how part of the Jacobite resistance to King George and his heirs was that they were German... when the current heir to the Jacobite line is also - wait for it - German 😅European royalty really is one giant mish-mash of relatives!
It hasn't. The Jacobite line is the senior legitimate line of descent, according to male preference primogeniture, from the Royal House of Stuart. The lines of descent from the Stuart to Spencer are illegitimate, so they are entirely separate from the Jacobite line.
@@1CelloOne What line? The illegitimate lines of descent from Stuart to Spencer are separate from the Jacobite line. So "the Jacobite line has come full circle" is false.
Oh. My. Goodness. This was amazingly explained and contained all the perfect research I needed for an essay I'm writing on the Jacobite uprisings! Thank you so much.
When it comes to Useful Charts, he will pull the most interesting facts forth, and knowing how these types of things work, I had a suspicion that there was a Jacobite tie to the current dynasty, but I was not certain where it would lie. It is a most intriguing wet of facts.
5:32 A small correction: it was not "Jacob" being variation of James but really the other way around - James being anglicisation of "Iacobus", the Latin proper name. At the time, monarchs in Western Christendom, Catholic & Protestant alike, were formally referred with Latin names by default. At the time, then, James would have been referred in treaties, acts, diplomatic letters etc. as something like _Iacobus VIII Rex Scotiae & III Rex Angliae._
@@andrewbird6267 Thank you for the compliment. I am a student of history of some years, yes, but the information necessary for my contribution is readily available these days. Wikipedia alone goes a long way.
I'be seen that in Russian tradition of English king's naming, where Charles is called "Karl", William is called "Vilgelm (variation of Wilhelm)" and James is called "Yakov (variation of Jacob)". I think that in other languages (French, German etc.) it might be the same way
@@ГригорийКузярин-т1ъ Yeah, most probably. In Finland Charles III is the first British monarch whose ruling name will _not_ be translated (Kaarle III) but will be written and pronounced in native form. I guess it was deemed that the population has learned to pronounce English widely enough. Not sure whether this policy will be observed with new monarchs of other countries, though.
Yes even his coins all use the latin name Jacobus rex. . I think most kings from normans onwards used Latin spelling, William- Guellum ( wrong spelling but close enough) John - Johan. Others just had ius added. Edwardius. Henricus Charles- Carolos I think women stayed the same Anne Elizabeth Mary . Victoria.
The “group of nobles” who invited William to invade England did so at the behest of the bankers to whom they owed huge sums of money. William was also bankrolled by Dutch bankers, who financed for him the largest army the world had ever seen. The bankers were rewarded with royal charters for Bank of England, Barclays, and other major banks that still own Great Britain today.
Much of modern banking practice was invented by the Dutch banking system. Also one of the founding members of the bank of England bought into it with a tally stick. Effectively it was a contractual apparatus of a debt. Which is the most banking thing I can possibly immagine. Buying into an asset with an instrument of debt (another asset) and the asset being purchased is designed solely to be a debt instrument for funds to be raised for the crown/government which has to maintain the debt in perpetuity.
And so England again was conquered by a foreign monarch, which - against what the legend says - happened quite often. It was the last time however because soon the king would be a powerless figurehead.
@@str.77 The English themselves are descended from foreign invaders who originally came over from what is now Schleswig-Holstein and environs. Many also came over from what is now Denmark. But the Danes were present in almost all western European countries, in fact they established a Danish kingdom in Dublin! Most Europeans today have Danish ancestry, even as far south as Italy.
Bonnie Prince Charlie had an illegitimate daughter, Charlotte whom he later legitimised and gave the title of Duchess of Albany. In fact she took care of him til his death. She had three children but theu weren't legitimised. I suppose they could have been legitimised if Charlotte had seriously been considered the Jacobite heir. There is also scholarly debate as to whether her children had children or not as they were raised in obscurity because their father was a bishop. But a illegitimate daughter can be legitimised to inherit a throne. Prince Albert of Monico is on his throne today thanks to the legitamising of an illegitimate daughter.
Theoretically, but it tends to not happen. The Beaufort line was legitimized, but it was made clear that they were not legitimized to be included in the succession (nobody understood Henry Tudor to be King on the strength of the Beaufort line).
In general if Bonnie Prince Charlie had actual legimage sons (maybe by a British woman) the Jacobite claims would be a lot stronger than just following the Catholic succession that is also foreigner decendants of Elizabeth Stuart (the way Sophie of Hannover and her son George were). But practicality it never would have happened that the line would get the throne after parliament decided against it. Unless it was more official and legimage version of Charles and Diana match we saw here. The way happened after Norman invasion and the old Saxon claim being married into the new royal family.
As soon as the Earl Spencer popped up I went “oh shiiiiit” out loud. The idea that Diana could have a claim to Charles’s throne is hilarious. Edit: some of y’all are taking this way too seriously holy shit. I know how the actual line of succession goes. I just thought it was a funny twist.
As Matt has said in the video, quite a few ridiculous things happened that led to the current King Charles III. So, they do happen. It's just not really very possible or practical. Though, the population could get angry again at the current monarchs, and an idea gets spread to invite someone who seems more grounded/less inbred/more religious etc to be King or Queen once again!!
@@elderscrollsswimmer4833 He mentioned in the video that William wouldn't be the most senior member of that family line. It's just a funny little tidbit that Diana is from the family line that made a real effort to ensure that Charles' family line was kicked off the throne.
I lead tours in Scotland an explaining the Jacobites is always a challenge as there are so many people involved (as well as the added bonus of people having the same name as others and being called different things by different people) I think I'll offer to link them this video in the future if they're interested! Thanks for making it.
It can be presented at different levels of complexity. Most simply: the aristocracy chased the Catholic King James II out of the country and replaced his line with the most proximate Protestant line.
10:50 There are also some who consider the marriage between Maria Beatrice of Savoy (Duchess of Modena) and her maternal uncle, which was illegal in England, to be invalid. They consider that Maria Beatrice’s claim passed to her younger sister, Maria Teresa of Savoy, who was married to Charles II, Duke of Parma. Her claim passed to her grandson, Robert I, Duke of Parma. His claim passed to two of his unmarried sons, Henry, Duke of Parma and Joseph, Duke of Parma (who both had learning disabilities) and then to another son Elias, Duke of Parma. Elias had eight children with his wife, Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria. His claim was inherited by his son Robert Hugo, Duke of Parma. Robert Hugo had no children, and his claim was inherited by his elder sister, Elisabetta, who also remained unmarried. Her claim was inherited by her younger sister, Maria Francesca, who also remained unmarried. Her claim passed to her younger sister, Alicia. Alicia was married to Infante Alfonso, Duke of Calabria and they had three children together. Upon Alicia’s death in 2017, her claim was inherited by her grandson, Prince Pedro of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Calabria. Pedro's eldest son, Jaime married Lady Charlotte Lindesay-Bethune, a Scottish aristocrat descended from King Charles II Stuart in illegitimate line. Jaime and Charlotte are currently living in the UK. Also, Jaime is a version of James! So, instead of Joseph of Liechtenstein, I support Jaime de Bourbon.
This is very interesting. I recently made a chart of the Lindsay family that I posted on the useful charts subreddit, it features Prince Jaime as well!
Since Jacobites generally believe in succession by divine right, this “illegal” marriage between uncle and niece is of no consequence to them, plus all uncle-niece marriages between royals received Papal dispensations, so Franz is still the rightful Jacobite heir
The convention is to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions as valid so long as they were lawful in the jurisdiction in which the couple was wed, even if the marriage would not have been valid in the jurisdiction where its recognition is in question. What follows from this principle is that the Duke of Modena's marriage to Maria Beatrice ("Queen Mary III of England") should be recognized as valid for these purposes.
Fascinating! Very clearly explained, bravo. If anyone is interested, you can see the Stuart tomb in St Peter’s, Rome…James II, his sons Bonny Prince Charlie (the Young Pretender) and Cardinal Henry are buried there. And the Young Pretender’s widow is buried in Santa Croce, Florence. Their palace in Florence is now the faculty of architecture, University of Florence.
I think both are correct from a certain point of view. If it's a physical object you're the king of, then it's "der König des ..." (der König des Spielplatzes, der Bohrinsel etc). But if it's a political entity, you're saying "der König von ..." (der König von Deutschland, Großbritannien etc.). So when you imagine Great Britain not as the Kingdom, but as, say, the collection of islands that make up the physical lands of Great Britain, then "der König des Großbritannien" would be right, as weird as it sounds to our ears.
@@dorderre Well, I don't think old George would have spoken of himself as "King of a certain collection of Islands in the North Sea" but as king of this special entity that is Great Britain. "König des Großen Britannien" at best. You are right, "König des Großbritannien" sounds weird, that is why I called my correction proper German.
@@alexwright4930 I Guess it wouldn't be technically incorrect. But it would definitely sound weird to german ears. Average Klaus on the street would never say it that way.
I decided to check who the most senior mpp descendant of William the Conqueror is, and despite that line losing the crown many times, it often got the crown back through marriage, eventually leading to... James II & VII and therefore the Jacobite line. So Franz is not only the most senior mpp descendant of James I & VI, he's the most senior mpp descendant of *William the Conqueror*.
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Male-preference primogeniture” The inheritance system where the title passes to the holder’s eldest son - unless they have no sons, in which case it passes to their eldest daughter. If they have no daughters either then it will jump back a generation. The monarchy of England (& subsequently the United Kingdom) used this system* from the Norman conquest up until 2013, when it was changed to absolute primogeniture (the same, except gender is not a factor - the crown passes to the monarch’s eldest child). *With caveats like the no-catholics rule mentioned in the video.
By male-preference primogeniture he's the most senior descendant of Henry Tudor, Robert the Bruce, William the Conqueror, _and_ Saint Margaret of Scotland, the sister of Edgar Aethling, the last man elected to be King of England by the Witan. [EDIT]: The last bit about the Jacobite relation to Edgar Aethling turned out to be more complicated than I originally thought, and that is because of the Scottish succession crisis. Franz is indeed the senior heir of Robert the Bruce according to primogeniture, but Robert's claim to the Scottish throne was _not_ based on primogeniture. There may be more senior descendants of the pre-Bruce Scottish royal family.
Fascinating!!! After 42 years of hearing that Princes Diana had more blue blood than Charles and never knowing through what line, it all finally makes. This is amazing!!!! Thank you for a job extremely well done!! Looking forward to checking out your other videos!!!!
Hey Matt.. Love your work... It really makes history more interesting to learn, cause I learned a lot.. I have a request.. Can u make a video on the heirs to the Spanish throne (the prince/princess of Asturias) who never got the crown.. Thank you
You do such a thorough job and make it so understandable. You, Matt, are a great teacher and communicator. As a history buff, I must correct one tiny error You accidentally said illegitimate child of James II and ... here comes the error, "Charles I" when in fact it was an illegitimate child of James II and Charles II (brothers) which then makes Prince William a direct descendent and the 1st to sit on the throne of both Stuart kings .... if all goes as expected.
I’ve watched two of your videos and I am pleased with how easily you presented the complicated lines of succession in both videos. You have a way of synthesizing complex information into a concise and understandable summary. Very enjoyable and informative.
Same.... That was pretty incredible.... Maybe that was why the Queen hated Diana so much. Because she is the decedents of illegitimate offspring in the royal family
Which means William will at some point be the most senior heir of Charlemagne and the legitimate heir to the throne of England from the "classic" line AND from the Jacobite line. Man has some crazy family history.
William is unquestionably the heir of his father but he can claim only illegitimate ancestry from the Jacobites and thus cannot be their heir. And the most senior heir to Charlemagne? Not even close
The line of the Spencers is not legitimate and thus is not recognized by the Jacobites but even if it were William's uncle Charles Spencer would obviously hold a stronger claim than William because he was a male and thus ahead of Diana who was his sister not to mention they have 3 older sisters.
As for Scotland The family of Hay has many branches through Scotland, and can trace their history back to the Norman princes de La Haye who were part of William the Conqueror’s army that swept into England in 1066. Sir William Hay was created Earl of Errol in 1453, and this branch held the office of Hereditary Constable of Scotland from the time of King Robert the Bruce. The family still retains that title, giving them precedence in Scotland second only to the royal family.
That's interesting. I always thought the Normans were never able to gain a foothold in Scotland, although they were present all over England, Wales and Cornwall.
The Earldom of Erroll (not Errol) is one of the few that can be inherited by a female. The current Earl's mother was the only daughter of the 22nd Earl who was the victim in the notorious 'Happy Valley' murder in Kenya during WW2. She became, suo jure (in her own right) the 23rd Countess. His father was Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk. He assumed the name and arms of Hay upon his mother's death. The Barony of Easter Moncrieffe passed to his younger brother when Sir Iain died.
@God Save the King! Yes, the Carlist militias supported the nationalists in the Spanish civil war hoping that Franco would restore the monarchy under their claimant, unfortunately once the civil war ended they were stabbed in the back by Franco, but they still helped him win.
Either if failed or if it had happened all the male lines disappear basically that century but the female line don’t, by Harold Godwinson’s line, Gunhild’s line could give the same as the Bourbon claim to the French kingdom (Earl of Richmond -> Duchy if Brittany (house of Dreux) -> house of Montfort -> house of Valois -> house of Bourbon. The other daughter, Gytha, could give the current heir to the tsardom of Russia, but mainly because the actual line of the Riurikovich from the Kievan Rus got lost in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, making the Russian tsar the best claimant to the throne this way. By Edgar Aethling’s (the heir of the house of Wessex, as Harold ) line through his sister we get the king of Scotland and the house of Dunkeld, but the following succession crisis, make me think this claim as unviable
@@thenormann3773 Funny how the last Czar was a grandson of Queen Victoria. They probably would have been better off if they had kept him, considering recent history.
@@robinlillian9471 Perhaps so, but the tsar was not a grandson of Queen Victoria. His wife, Empress Alexandra, was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, however.
Of course, the Act of Settlement of 1701 confirmed that the Sovereign is whomsoever Parliament says it is. The Act of Settlement excluded 50 persons who were more closely allied to the succession as they were Catholic. This act set out how, following the future Queen Anne’s death (William III was still on the throne at the time) the throne was to be inherited by the children of Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hanover, and granddaughter of James I and VI. The Act had named Sophia and “the heirs of her body being protestants” as next in the line of succession. To this day, women may ascend the throne and rank equally in precedence with men since 2013 but Catholics cannot inherit the throne. Future developments will continue to be whatever Parliament decides. The Sovereign rules through Parliament and the succession to the throne can be and is regulated by Parliament. The Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
Seeing these family trees, you can't help but see the long-term thinking that some of these families have clearly done to ensure their positions of power. I'm picturing members with walls covered in family trees with strings tied from one end to the other and them all planning on how to get certain families married to others and keep the plans and family lines in positions where they will be secure. I can picture them planning in a room where the family trees are on display and them planning who to marry who to ensure security.
You neglected to say that James II's illegitimate daughter Henrietta FitzJames was Arabella Churchill's daughter, the Duke of Marlbourough's (John Churchill's) sister. These Churchill's merged with the Spencer line also which makes Prince William even more of a Stuart and Norman. He's got it all! Thanks Matt!
Interesting & enjoyable with great charting Re the twist at the end: if the Spencers inherited the claim, wouldn't that mean (via mpp) the current 9th Earl Spencer, Charles Spencer (Lady Diana's brother) is the extant claimant?
For anyone wondering about the religion of that illegitimate Jacobite line, the son of Henrietta FitzJames, James Waldegrave, converted to Anglicanism some time around 1720.
Thank you!!! So very cool!!! Love all your podcasts! I have Ancestry to almost all of the Royals in Europe. Princess Diana & I have 2 separate connections. We share the same 26th great grandmother, as does George Washington his 19th. Plus all my Scandinavian Royal blood and Vikings and Russian. I have always loved History. This just makes it so much more fun and real. I'm moving soon and will purchase most of your charts and laminate them and add them to my timeline charts and my massive family tree. I'm preparing one long hall way with these on both walls. Great teaching tools for great grand kids and others and I get to Geek out too!!! Looking forward to new podcasts
Very, very good indeed, However, I think it would be better to say, "Diana is descended from not one, but two illegitimate children of King Charles II of England: Henry Fitzroy and Charles Lennox, via two of her great-grandmothers, Adelaide Seymour and Rosalind Bingham." But really, an excellent analysis of what can be a very complicated subject.
I highly doubt Scotland would have chosen a Catholic monarch. The lords in Scotland fought Mary, Queen of Scots and tried to dethrone her several times because she was Catholic. They may have gone for another Protestant heir of a totally new House
When Mary I returned to Scotland, while the country was officially Protestant, the majority of the population remained Catholic and was so for over a century. Despite Knox's sermons denouncing the Mass, it continued to be celebrated openly in many places. Mary's brother had banned the Catholic lords, who outnumbered the Protestant lords, from court and so only the Protestant lords had access to her. Had the Catholic lords been allowed at court the course of Scottish history may have been very different. When Charles Edward Stuart arrived in Edinburgh he was welcomed with open arms, so even then, in the birthplace of the Scottish reformation, the people were willing to accept a Catholic monarch. Today the Catholic Church has a larger membership than the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament has voted to abolish the ban on Catholics on the throne.
Interesting enough, Diana is descended from King Charles II as well, through another illegitimate child. I seem to recall that during Napoleon's invasion of Italy, Cardinal Henry and George III came to an understanding, where Henry sent various royal regalia passed down to him to George and acknowledged him (at long last) to be king, and George in return established a badly needed pension for him. Which means that besides being descended from Charles II and James II, Prince William is the claimant to the throne. Well, HUH.
So what you're saying is, if they end up going with the Jacobite line again one day, the king would be a foreign German prince who may speak very little English? What a long way to go around for the same result :p
Yeah in fact they are of the same royal house, Sophia, Electress of Hanover (mother of George I) is descended from the House of Wittelsbach which is the same house belonged to current Jacobite claimant.
Not really because Prince Josef of Lichtenstein was born in London, schooled in Worcestershire and interned in America. I suspect he speaks far better English than you do.
@@thomasburke9060 True but the people in front of him are either elderly, lack heirs or have some other issue. Obviously this is all just fantasy but if there were some sort of major succession crisis today that made this line a serious contender for the throne, I suspect they would just go straight to Josef.
Fun fact: there's a spanish noble family called Fitzjames who are direct descendants of James II through his illegitimate sons. They're also related to Winston Churchill as James's mistress belonged to the Churchill family. Alex salmon once considered making that noble family, hereditary monarchs of an independent kingdom of Scotland. I'd want them next in line to the British throne, not just Scotland.
Another fun fact connected to the duke of Berwick, James' illegitimate son is that he lead the French/Spanish forces at a crucial battle in the war of the Spanish Succession - thus he was an Englishman (though Catholic) leading a Catholic Franco-Spanish army - on the other hand the leader of the English army was a Frenchman - a Huguenot Protestant refugee I think it was the battle of Almeria which led to Catalonia losing its independence as the French army supporting the French candidate for the Spanish throne won and the Catalans were supporting the Austrian Habsburg candidate who was supported by the British.
Sorry it was the battle of Almansa and it is a tradition for Catalans to mourn that day and they put the portrait of the duke of Berwick upside down for that day!
What if you don't recognize right-by-conquest? You could pick some deified figure and only their progeny no matter what are the True Heirs (tm). It's all silliness but it's interesting silliness. No one actually has the right to rule another, and certainly not millions of people.
Ah but if you believe in some kind of God, especilly the Christian and Islamic Gods, then it is by Divine Right that Kings and Queens, or Sultans or Caliphs, rule. You will find that throughout history that Religion exists to support and enhance the rule of the Elite over the ordinary people.
@@SevCaswell Monarchs do tend to use religion to support themselves throughout history, yes. Faith however is much older than the State, which only first appeared some eight to ten thousand years ago. I recall evidence of religion being around before modern humans, and some other creatures may have something like it. It's weird though that you separate those "two" gods. 'Allah' is just the Arabic word 'God'. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahá'is, and some Satanists all believe in the exact same deity.
If the right of conquest is not recognized, then we actually get the same result as in this video! Franz, commonly known as the Duke of Bavaria, is the senior descendant by male-preference primogeniture not only of Henry Tudor and William the Conqueror, but also of the last man the Saxon Witan elected to be King of England, Edgar Aethling.
@@SAOS451316 If you're required to follow different rules in order to believe in a god then you're not beliving in the same god as a different religion. Just because they all have the same root, does not mean that their beliefs or their god's intrinsic values are the same. Also King Henry VIII created the Church of Engliand soley so he could marry his mistress and remain King by Divine Right.
@@SevCaswell Does every Xtian denomination have a different god? Does every opinion difference between members of the same church have a different god? No, and the simple reason why is that they recognize that they have different opinions about what their god wants. Even the most violent fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants was done under the belief that each other was displeasing their god. Nowadays most religious philosophers and scholars agree that people are allowed to have different opinions about how they worship. The Abrahamic faiths use much of the same scripture and the major difference is about who the final prophet is. Of course in practice Xtians are very different from their siblings because there's a vastly corrupt worldview and other aspects of deep culture, but they do have the same deity.
It would be funny if, when Joseph becomes hereditary prince of Liechtenstein, he started making noises about his Jacobite claim. He could do it in a humorous way. Although I understand the Scots are not happy about being dragged out of the EU by the English, and if another referendum were to take place, the Scots would have a ready-made monarch to step in...it's not like Britain doesn't have a history of German-speaking monarchs. An interesting tidbit is that he was born in London.
Joseph's destiny is to be moanrch of Liechtenstein, but if Scotland did decide to restore the Stuarts it would probably be one of his siblings who would be offered the throne.
Matt you actually can make video about Oldenburg because King Charles is a member of Glucksburg in agnatic line, you may introduce that the Oldenburg not only included royal house of Denmark, Norway and Greece, also included Holstein-Gottorp Romanov and Mountbatten-Windsor
@@charmainelamont2020 yes it would be appropriate if King Charles III adopted "Glucksburg" as his House name, especially in honour of Prince Phillip, who even though was an exemplary Prince Consort, had a tough time with the then dowager Queen Mary, Elizabeth the Queen Mother and I suppose even Queen Elizabeth II, his dear wife when it came to his Royal patrilineal rights in the UK.
@Diana Stevenson If you mean the Liechtenstein the country with the duke of Liechtenstein I don't know if they are Catholic. The duke of Bad Urach who owns the castle Lichtenstein where I live has nothing to do with the duke of Liechtenstein. But the duke of Bad Urach once declined the right to be the monarch of Monaco. I actually was shocked to hear that it didn't expect that either.
There are several foreign royal houses with a claim to the British throne-- mostly through Queen Victoria. Norway, as I remember, is the most senior (via Edward VII's youngest daughter Maud).
I don't know if you watched the Jordanian royal wedding but you can see during the ceremony William is in fact seated beside Sophie. They seemed to be having a pleasant chat together whilst they waited for everything to begin. I do think Charles is where he is supposed to be today but to be perfectly honest, it is William's reign I am most looking forward to. And when you consider the happiest nations in the world like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, etc. are constitutional monarchies, it does give pause that rather than an antiquated institution it provides calm stability and unity in a fractious modern age.
The Stewarts/Stuarts were a french family who were given land and title by a Scottish king for services rendered. So too the Bruces. The last CELTIC monarchy was the House of Dunkeld. Trace that one out.
George I DID speak English. His mother Sophia knew English well and as a grand-daughter of James VI & I was well aware of her position (she had been spoken of as a potential wife of Charles II in the 1640's). In 1684 she spent extended time in London looking after her affairs. So she would have made a point of George's being able to speak English--especially after the 1700 death of Anne's last child when it became inevitable that Sophia would be the Protestant Heir. It helped that she had EIGHT living children. She missed by only six weeks becoming Queen Sophia at age 84! There was a Sophia Naturalization Act passed in 1708 under whose terms ANY descendant of Sophia could claim British Subjecthood. That Act was repealed in 1948 after a German Nazi had successfully used that Act to become a British Subject to forestall legal proceedings. At the time of that Repeal there were over FIVE THOUSAND descendants eligible to become British Subjects under its terms!
I noticed you have done many mythological family trees but I couldn’t find one for Japanese mythology, it would be nice if you do consider it. Thank you
But, of course, this is only a scenario, because had Bonnie Prince Charlie actually become King of England, all those people after him would have married differently (remember it's only very recently that princes and princesses have been allowed to marry for love, mostly they married politically and no one cared whether they were happy or not) so it's possible those names would have never emerged. Very, VERY interesting though. Thanks.
Great summary, thanks for posting this. John Spencer (Earl) had 5 children, the oldest is Lady Sarah McCorquodale (Spencer). Instead of it going to Diana who was second youngest it would go to Lady Sarah's line. She has 3 children (Emily Jane, George, Celia). Or if you follow the male first in line (primogeniture), it would go from John Spencer to Charles Spencer (Diana's brother and the current 9th Earl Spencer) because he was the only boy and youngest (his older brother John died at birth). Charles has 7 children from 3 wives with his son Louis (age 28) being heir (currently Viscount Althrop) and subsequent Prince of Wales. Ironically, his father Charles would be Charles III King of Britain. Weird how that could have worked out.
I think the point is the fact that one of the Spencer's children gave birth to someone who has a Jacobite claim AND will actually be the monarch, although I admit he's confusing the definitive line as it should be yes.
So if the line came through the Spencers, then the current king would be... King Charles; not Charles Mountbatten-Windsor but Charles Spencer, Diana's brother.
The monarch of the United Kingdom is whomever Parliament says it is unless the day comes when Parliament and people decide the country will no longer have a monarch. All other discussions about alternative candidates are purely academic. This especially includes the purported Plantagenet descendant living in Australia. But I would think that Prince William of Wales being a direct descendant of Charles I probably comes closest to resolving all the competing claims of the Jacobites even if he is descended from an illegitimate Stuart line. It is probably the best resolution the Jacobites can ever hope to get. British history will move on through time no matter who sits on the throne.
You could make a video on who would be the Emperor of México today, that would be a very interesting video since the independence of Mexico and Central America was a pact where Mexico would have a monarchy in stead of being a Republic.
Just a note, the Acts of Union were never in place for the Jacobites so they would've still to this day be monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland separately. This means we would in certain cases we would have double numbers, so the order would be (England's number first followed by Scotland's): James III & VIII > Charles III > Henry IX & I > Charles IV > Victor > Mary II > Francis I > Mary III > Robert I & IV > Albert > Francis II (> Max > Sophie > Joseph)
Actually, while your numberings for the Queens Mary are fine for Scotland, many Jacobites consider Mary Stuart ("Mary Queen of Scots") to have been the rightful Queen of England, as Mary II, so your "Mary II" (Maria Beatrice of Savoy) they consider Mary III of England, and your "Mary III" (Maria Theresa of Austria-Este) they consider Mary IV of England.
@@thomasburke9060 I was actually going to add that but I decided against it at the very last second. And yes, you are absolutely correct. Mary II would be Mary III & II and Mary III would be Mary IV & III.
Why should England's number be first? After all, Scotland is the older country, older monarchy and it was the Scots King who took over the English throne.
@@Dunsapie Either works. It was just the one I picked. Looks like James VI and I and James VII and II usually have their Scottish number first while William III is rarely seen with his Scottish number (which is William II). I think James III and VIII usually has the English number first, however. So again, you do you in this case.
@@Dunsapie It's a matter of context and relevance. In a context more concerning Scotland, the Scottish numeral should be used primarily or solely, e.g., "James VI and I" or "James VI". Whereas in a context more concerning England, Wales, and/or Ireland, the other numeral should be used primarily. This happened to be a case that primarily concerned the English succession, since I was pointing out that many Jacobites would call into question the _English_ numeral, since they understand Mary Stuart to have been the rightful Queen of _England_ given that Elizabeth Tudor was a bastard.
Fabulous explanation. None of it really matters, as what really decides who is monarch of the UK is Parliament. Parliament gave the blessing (in fact parliamentary grandees were party to the deal) to William & Mary, and to George. Parliament is sovereign. They went to war with Charles I to settle the argument, and got William to accept their role as the price for his accession. Without Parliament there's no tax, and without tax there's no army and navy, and without those, it's a bunfight between tribes for the throne. Obviously Scotland was brought into this regime in 1707. Besides which, claims of legitimacy through primogeniture had been set aside several times before the 17th century in both England and Scotland. Might being the ultimate 'proof' of 'right' to the throne, albeit with varying degrees of 'legal' cover, right the way back to 1066 and before.
Well, if you're a Jacobite; there is no United Kingdom. There are the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. The Act of Union is not recognized by supporters of the Stewarts.
Considering all the current shenanigans - and absolutely NOT wishing misfortune upon anybody (no traitor me), I'd pass it to Princess Anne as she's the most sensible / normal of QE2's brood. This would also help to dilute the German part of the Royal Family further, Elizabeth having been half-Scottish herself, but then been mugged into marrying a German. No ill will intended towards anybody - and an awful lot of serendipity would have to occur for Anne to inherit nowadays anyway. Great explanation video.
Charles II had a lot of illegitimate children before and after his legitimate marriage, William of Orange was gay, Anne had 17 pregnancies but no heirs and James became Catholic which is a big no-no in England. It seems fate really wanted the Stuart line off the throne.
@@ANGELSVEN no it was more because Mary had fertility problems. She had several pregnancies that resulted in miscarriages. There were rumours of William’s close attachment to a couple of male favourites, but both these men lived openly straight lives with wives and children (Camilla is descended from one of them). William denied any sexual interest in them. Mary’s sister Queen Anne also suffered from pregnancies where her children died in infancy, or were stillborn. And she too had a number of miscarriages. One of her sons lived to the age of ten, but was plagued with illnesses over most of his life.
This is still a matter of interest for many even though it lost political momentum. But the lineage is most interesting nonetheless. [To answer the question at the end: I believe Charles III actually has the true right to the throne of the United Kingdom.]
Loving the understatement of _lost political momentum._ There hasn't been any serious attempt to restore the Jacobite succession since the Battle of Culloden in 1746.
@@thomasburke9060 My verdict: Even though my thought process does resemble the Jacobite ideology but as much as King James I (self-proclaimed first King of Great Britain) would have preferred his line to stay Stuart, he would've wanted his throne to be independent of foreign powers unlike what happened with his son Charles I and grandson James II. Had he seen the future he would have preferred the Protestant succession because it maintained the monarch as a unifying symbol and the lineage of his beloved daughter Elizabeth who he did favour but as well as keeping a faint reminiscence of his interests in order. And I side with the same sentiment. What was more ironic is that the Jacobite line would have gone extinct anyway because of the polarizing behaviour of its heirs. Bonnie Prince Charlie refused to properly settle down, Henry (IX) the Cardinal-Duke of York was the dean of the College of Cardinals and recognised the Hanoverians as the rightful rulers and the successors (cousins) after Henry had a disinterest and disdain for the United Kingdom. So by too many defaults, the throne stays in Queen Elizabeth II's line. It is rather amusing that this hasn't been ascertained universally. Even though we all vary on who should have gone to including the Jacobites despite the future heirs having little interest in the UK. Not only did Crown Prince Rupprecht discourage his followers in the UK from staking his claim but his grandson Franz Duke of Bavaria has stated that his "familiar relationship" wasn't a matter of concern as well as his spokesman said it was a "hypothetical issue". As George, I didn't have too much interest in the throne during his reign, why give it to one who barely even contemplates it in the current era?
The fact that so much time has passed and the sucession line is so twisted, yet we arrive back where we started, means too few families have maintained power for too long.
There are about 5753 in line According to the 2011 succession list. That list includes the non protestants though who would actually be omitted. There could be more or less now since people have been born and people have died since then. The last one is Karin Vogel. Omitting the non protestants she would be about 4972nd or 4973rd in line (according to wikidata).
0:39 just a useful note for north Americans who are unfamiliar with British names incl. people and locations. There is usually very little emphasis on the final syllable whereas, understandably, Americans might read the word for the first time and then finish with a hard stop EG Bucking-HAM. If you want to appear more in-the-know and less touristy (and therefore better than everyone else) just assume the first syllable is the long one and the last one is an after thought (ED-in-bruh not ed-in-BUUUrgh; TIND-all not tin-DALL).
1) Please stop peddling the Scottish Lairds deal, it is built entirely on principles incongruent with Scots law, which lacks this supposed Laird custom. Referring to the owner of an estate as Laird and one's landlord as "My Lord" do not constitute the granting of a title. Scottish property law restricts the sale of land to plots capable of being reasonably located in person, having no place for micro-plots. Most importantly, Lairds and Lords are not interchangeable even though both words have a clear shared etymology. The environmental element of it all is admirable, and it is nice to see people take an interest in Scottish heritage and history, but please do not encourage the usurpation of titles. 2) An interesting note to the Jacobite Succession itself is that if the Jacobite theory is correct that Parliament cannot simply pick a favoured candidate and must follow previous law, one must follow the law of the Kingdom of England in 1688 that the King must be born on land loyal to the Crown of England. From this one must hold that George III was the rightful Jacobite heir alongside the Hanoverian heir, as those higher than he in dynastic succession to the House of Stuart were born abroad. Confusingly he would be the 1st King George for the United Kingdom or its predecessor states. Given that the numbering of the sovereign is a matter of royal preference rather than an absolute declaration of fact, as established in the dispute over Elizabeth II using the "II" label in Scotland, the labelling as "George III" would be strictly speaking legitimate even if Jacobitism were true. Given that the monarchs since George III have done nothing to reverse the shifts occurring in the period between James II and George III, most notably the Act of Union, it can therefore be indicated that there are no remaining outstanding effects to whether Jacobitism is true or false, and that Charles III is therefore the true King of the United Kingdom by both Jacobite and non-Jacobite reasoning. Fortunately for those of us who want to skip that whole mess, the crowns of England and Scotland have always had a non-hereditary element to their succession, most notably the appointment by the English Parliament of James VI of Scotland as James I of England over the otherwise heir Anne Stanley. The Glorious Revolution is simply the latest in a long line of crises in Scottish and English history in which the leading statesmen of the respective realms have recognised a king whose legitimacy is based on pragmatic, not strict hereditary, factors.
Where does this principle of needing to be born in English crown lands come from? And why did it not apply to William I, William II, Stephen, Henry II, Edward IV, James I, and Charles I?
For a chunk of this timeline they had a bit of an issue lol - Jacobite 1: ''hey, we've got a perfect excuse here, the other line is going through Germans! Nows the time boys, who is the currect Jacobite claiment?'' Jacobite 2: ''Um sir, you're not gonna like this, but he's a German...'' (or Italian) Jacobite 1: ''...''
@@thomasburke9060 well, except for the Old Pretender himself, they were all born in France or other European Countries, so the idea that they were foreigners too stands from BPC onwards.
@@DraconimLt James Francis Edward Stuart was the Jacobite pretender from 1701 until 1766. So even if the Britishness of his sons were somehow nullified, it would still be the case that the Jacobite pretender was wholly British throughout the core period in which the Jacobites were using the anti-German talking point. That said, how Charles and Henry are to be classified depends on what facet of identity we prioritize. True, neither were born in the Isles. But in every other respect they were British, such that I would say we should consider them ethnic Brits. And I think these other respects were precisely what the Hanoverians were targeted for. I see very little talk about where they were born. I see quite a bit of reference to their being Germanophones who were slow to pick up English. I have seen some discussion of their customs and mannerisms being offensively German. I've seen some discussion of their religion being German (Lutheran) rather than British. There's also the consideration of ancestry. In all of these respects, the Hanoverians were thoroughly German, whereas Charles and Henry Stuart were thoroughly British.
@@thomasburke9060 fair points. Yet the main facet of identity that the Hanoverians were supported for was their Protestantism, and the Jacobins lacked support was their Catholocism. So, by the argument that it is ok to prioritise facets of identity then you have removed the argument that being British alone was enough to secure the Jacobin cause as being the right one. As the majority were simply prioritising a different facet. As for the ancestry argument, it's not as strong as you think, because 'British' wasn't yet a thing, the Acts of Union weren't until Queen Anne's rule, so the Jacobins were SCOTTISH by ancestry, and during that time period that was worse than being German, to many of the English.
@@DraconimLt It sounds like you think I was arguing for the later Stuarts' Britishness and the Hanoverians' Germanness because this consideration is important to making a case for the Jacobite claim. In fact, I don't think it's at all important for that reason. Henry's successor was an Italian, yet much the same case one could make for Henry's claim to the Throne would apply to Charles Emmanuel. Foreignness is not a true barrier to inheriting the Throne. If it were, then the initial Stuart accession to the Throne of England should have been very questionable to begin with. But it was the cause of very little disturbance. The anti-German talking points that the Jacobites adopted were nothing more than rhetoric. The anti-German stance wasn't meant to present a sincere argument, and I'm sure if you caught the Jacobite leaders candidly they would have admitted as much. It was just useful to play upon the prejudices of the English people. So I'm not discussing this with you because I think it's truly relevant what the nationality/ethnicity of either the Hanoverians or Jacobite pretenders was. I'm only pushing back because I want it to be seen that the Jacobites were not actually as inconsistent as you initially made it seem like they were. The Jacobite pretenders during the late anti-German phase (the late 18th century) were not native-born, but otherwise were British, and they were British in ways the Hanoverians were not, these ways being the focus of the anti-German rhetoric leveled against them, rather than where anyone was born.
The irony for the Jacobites is that Charles has more Scottish blood, given that his grandmother was Scottish, than any of the so called Jacobite heirs.
@@andypham1636 Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Who was the mother of the Queen (she died aged 105 in 2002) and grandmother of the current King Charles, was Scottish, with Jacobite ancestors.
@@andypham1636 She had Jacobite ancestors, I don't remember who but you can look it up. She was also a great grand child of the Duke of wellington's father, lots of connections people don't know of
Download the chart for free:
usefulcharts.com/blogs/charts/jacobite-succession
The memior of john macky provides more details of the jacobite with respect to historic. it correlates to all of the other writings during it time. It describes many of the Noble JACOBITE.
11:46 how many of us hoped that somehow the daughter's name would still be james
Or at least Jamie
Me😂
"Who had a son named James, who had a son named James......named James......son named James."
Royal lines can be a bit of a broken record sometimes. 😁
That'd be very typical of a British comedy skit! Perhaps by the Pythons, or by Black Adder!
I thought I was the only one who hoped that. 🤣
Charles II, James II's brother, used to walk around London with only a secretary in attendance. Anyone could talk to Charles, making requests or declaring complaints, and Charles would listen while the secretary took notes. James told Charles that was very dangerous, anyone could assassinate Charles. He replied: "Jamie, nobody is going to kill me so you can become king." Charles died peacefully in his bed.
Not to mention everybody was so heartily sick of living under the Cromwell theocracy that assasinating Charles II was unthnkable. Cromwell singlehandly set back the cause of democracy globally by 200 years.
Ouch!!
@@williethomas5116A common Russian defence against assassination- ensure a ghastly heir no one wants.
@@alecblunden8615 but that is a double edged sword because when you die you have to get rid of your closest relative too or else that person in the end does rule.
Royals out and about with no, or minimal, security was common up until August 27, 1979 when Lord Louis Mountbatten was assassinated.
You explained a very complicated subject in a concise and easy to understand fashion. Great job!
Video suggestion, who would be LORD PROTECTOR of Great Britain?
Cromwell set it up as a hereditary office and passed it down to his son Richard. However Richard failed to maintain it as the monarchy returned, but What if the line of Lord Protectors continued?
Great suggestion. I see he had a ton of daughters and granddaughters.
Really funny that some random dude nearly created his monarchy.
Lord protector created a republic so there’s no succession at all. Case closed!
@@StoneStoryHenriZ He was actually offered the crown by Parliament, but refused after much deliberation
@@StoneStoryHenriZ To be frank, "republic" didn't mean democratic in those times. The succession was de facto primogeniture, so the Protectorate would've functioned the same way North Korea does now. Both are "republics" but the heads of state are passed down just like in a monarchy.
You forgot to mention that Prince Joseph of Liechtenstein is the first Jacobite claimant since the Old Pretender to be born in Britian.
He did this video once before, a few years back, and in this older version he did point out that fact you mentioned.
@@dorderre Ya, wondered why he did this video a second time.
He also british educated. He went to Malvern College.
@@Sunsetaren The "true" monarch of Great Britain is whoever parliament says it is, so meh to your hysterics.
@@Sunsetaren
#1 is being gay a reason to exclude someone from the line of succession? At least in England/GB/UK?
#2 that's a technicality based on your assumption that the answer to #1 would be yes. Even if it were, it wouldn't change anything that came afterwards. It would have switched one pretender for another and the rest continued as is
#3 see #1 and also see #2
#4 that's an oversight on Matt's part which he should change. You're right
#5 what happened in 1485? Oh yeah, the welsh Henry Tudor conquered England and was recognised by parliament as the new king.That's really all the claim you needed to be monarch of England. Every older claim was null and void from that moment onwards. Then you got the Republic, when - you guessed it - parliament decided, they didn't want a king no more, only to change their opinion again eleven years later. In 1701 parliament decreed they didn't want any catholics anymore etc which made the throne go to the Welfs, the Wettins and now the Oldenburgs. Three german dynasties in a row just bcs they didn't like the catholics xD
The Jacobites have a point. The throne was unlawfully taken away from James II and his son. Them being catholic didn't bar them from the throne. The "No Catholics" Law was only passed after they had unlawfully taken the throne away and ergo passed by an unlawful reign. James's II's descendants would probably still be on the throne as if they were on the the throne, their lives would have been different and they may have made different marriages and produced different children. Henry Cardinal for example would not have become a Priest as a Prince in line to the throne and may have married and produced children. Likewise, Bonnie Prince Charlie may have made a different marriage that produced children or have been more keen to ensure he produced legitimate child if he truly was on the throne.
Parliament can do what it can get away with was the outcome of the restoration
The Civil War had shown that "the divine right of kings" was unenforcable. The rest is details.
The Monarch in the UK is the head of the Anglican Church just like the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church. How can a catholic be head of the Anglican Church??
Tasha. Yours is the correct interpretation.
Nope, we haven't done the divine right of Kings since Magna Carta. The British monarchs are there by consent of the people. If they lose that consent, it's curtains.
The plot twist of the Spencer’s was crazy! Great video! Love this channel as always!
As was the 1997 twist
No way on Gods green earth is that a coincidence.
If you think that's crazy, consider this: Charles III is descended from both William the Conqueror and Harold Godwinson, in both cases through the female line.
@@redrackham6812 It's all one large spiders web of families that despite regularly killing each other manage to keep everything inside the web.
@@Lost_on_stage_again yea and that franz guy outing himself gay. The English royals are taking the jacobite claim seriously and took their measures
Would love to see a video about how Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt is the new Nearest Common Ancestor of all reigning European monarchs.
History Tea Time with Lindsay Holiday made a video about this topic, showing that all of them can trace back to Johan Friso of the Netherlands. Not sure if he's the latest though.
@@dorderre *John William Friso really was the nearest common ancestor of all european monarch, but that title passed to Louis IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt when Charles III succeded his mother, Elizabeth II because he is a descendant of Louis through his father, Prince Philip. But it's unlikely that Matt would make such chart because Matt only does ROYAL (aka. at least a King/ Queen) family trees. (Licheinstein and Monaco are principalities and Luxemburg is a Grand Duchy.)
@@mr.d8747 it is not John, the other person is right it is Johan Willem Friso
@@mr.d8747 I think Matt would do minor state hereditary items given the traceability of the people involved
Do you have a link that video?
Two American tourists met the Queen who was out walking near Balmoral with a courtier, not realising who she was. After asking them were in the USA they came from, the Queen said she had a house nearby and alos in London and had been coming to Scotland for 80 years. The Americans said she must have met the Queen to which she replied "no but he has".
"What is she like"? said the Americans?
"Oh she can be a bit tetchy but has a great sense of humour".
The Americans said goodbye and walked off. I'm unaware if they realised who they'd just met. Queen Victoria used to do something similar.
I love that story! That was Richard Griffin, the Queen's former Royal Protection Officer, by the way. If you look up "Richard Griffin on the Queen's sense of humour", you'll find him telling the story himself. Such a lovely story!
It actually gets even better. They asked to take a picture WITH the courtier (who had met the Queen) and the Queen took the photo then swapped with the courtier for a photo with them so they'd have a picture with her. Then when they left, she laughed saying she would love to be a fly on the wall when the Americans show their friends the photo and someone tells them who they took a picture with. Also, the actual words the courtier said to the tourists were, "Oh, she can be very cantankerous at times, but she's got a lovely sense of humor".
A similar story involves the earl of Harwood who was the queen's first cousin - he fought in world war two and at the end of that war he was demobilized .To make sure he could readjust to civilian life back in England he was interviewed by the army chaplain who. not realizing who he was. asked if he knew any people back in England.:To which he replied that he had an uncle who lived in central London. That uncle was of course king George VI but the earl did not let on
@@kaloarepo288 Not quite as portentous an occurrence but, many years ago, I was holidaying in Switzerland. Took a day trip to Lichtenstein and walked up the hills behind Vaduz for a view over the Rhine. A lovely day boosted the spirits and I issued a smiling greeting to an elderly gent walking down which was quietly but graciously returned. Back down in the town I bought stamps for the obligatory postcards and realized why the old man had had a vaguely familiar look - his face was on the stamps! Sadly no Kodak evidence had been secured! 🙄😉😊
Funny how part of the Jacobite resistance to King George and his heirs was that they were German... when the current heir to the Jacobite line is also - wait for it - German 😅European royalty really is one giant mish-mash of relatives!
Better a German than a Catholic, I guess.
@@TheeGrumpy Prince of Liechtenstein is a German speaking Catholic.
It's not that they sincerely believed that being German was an impediment to rightful inheritance. It's just that it was a useful rhetorical tool.
Ancient Egyptian Royal family trees are more extreme versions of a mish mash. Cleopatra’s Greek family had so many uncle, niece and sibling marriage.
It had nothing to do with him being German, it was because he wasn't the rightful King.
Wow, so the Jacobite line has come full-circle! I love your charts - thank you for all the charts you share with the world!
That's what I was thinking! Full circle. :D
It hasn't. The Jacobite line is the senior legitimate line of descent, according to male preference primogeniture, from the Royal House of Stuart. The lines of descent from the Stuart to Spencer are illegitimate, so they are entirely separate from the Jacobite line.
@@thomasburke9060 the line is still there though, illegitimate or not.
@@1CelloOne What line? The illegitimate lines of descent from Stuart to Spencer are separate from the Jacobite line. So "the Jacobite line has come full circle" is false.
300 years of inbreeding will do that. It’s surprising it took so long.
Oh. My. Goodness. This was amazingly explained and contained all the perfect research I needed for an essay I'm writing on the Jacobite uprisings! Thank you so much.
13:58 I was not expecting this plot twist lmao. That was amazing. Great video. Love the lore.
When it comes to Useful Charts, he will pull the most interesting facts forth, and knowing how these types of things work, I had a suspicion that there was a Jacobite tie to the current dynasty, but I was not certain where it would lie. It is a most intriguing wet of facts.
Bruh this video is 13:51 minutes long
5:32 A small correction: it was not "Jacob" being variation of James but really the other way around - James being anglicisation of "Iacobus", the Latin proper name. At the time, monarchs in Western Christendom, Catholic & Protestant alike, were formally referred with Latin names by default. At the time, then, James would have been referred in treaties, acts, diplomatic letters etc. as something like _Iacobus VIII Rex Scotiae & III Rex Angliae._
that is some crazy knowledge you know there, straight off the bat. You must be a historian of some sort?
@@andrewbird6267 Thank you for the compliment. I am a student of history of some years, yes, but the information necessary for my contribution is readily available these days. Wikipedia alone goes a long way.
I'be seen that in Russian tradition of English king's naming, where Charles is called "Karl", William is called "Vilgelm (variation of Wilhelm)" and James is called "Yakov (variation of Jacob)". I think that in other languages (French, German etc.) it might be the same way
@@ГригорийКузярин-т1ъ Yeah, most probably. In Finland Charles III is the first British monarch whose ruling name will _not_ be translated (Kaarle III) but will be written and pronounced in native form. I guess it was deemed that the population has learned to pronounce English widely enough.
Not sure whether this policy will be observed with new monarchs of other countries, though.
Yes even his coins all use the latin name Jacobus rex. .
I think most kings from normans onwards used Latin spelling, William- Guellum ( wrong spelling but close enough)
John - Johan.
Others just had ius added.
Edwardius.
Henricus
Charles- Carolos
I think women stayed the same
Anne
Elizabeth
Mary .
Victoria.
The “group of nobles” who invited William to invade England did so at the behest of the bankers to whom they owed huge sums of money. William was also bankrolled by Dutch bankers, who financed for him the largest army the world had ever seen. The bankers were rewarded with royal charters for Bank of England, Barclays, and other major banks that still own Great Britain today.
Much of modern banking practice was invented by the Dutch banking system. Also one of the founding members of the bank of England bought into it with a tally stick. Effectively it was a contractual apparatus of a debt. Which is the most banking thing I can possibly immagine. Buying into an asset with an instrument of debt (another asset) and the asset being purchased is designed solely to be a debt instrument for funds to be raised for the crown/government which has to maintain the debt in perpetuity.
And so England again was conquered by a foreign monarch, which - against what the legend says - happened quite often. It was the last time however because soon the king would be a powerless figurehead.
‘Dutch Bankers’
You nailed it,hermes logios
@@str.77 The English themselves are descended from foreign invaders who originally came over from what is now Schleswig-Holstein and environs. Many also came over from what is now Denmark. But the Danes were present in almost all western European countries, in fact they established a Danish kingdom in Dublin! Most Europeans today have Danish ancestry, even as far south as Italy.
Bonnie Prince Charlie had an illegitimate daughter, Charlotte whom he later legitimised and gave the title of Duchess of Albany. In fact she took care of him til his death. She had three children but theu weren't legitimised. I suppose they could have been legitimised if Charlotte had seriously been considered the Jacobite heir. There is also scholarly debate as to whether her children had children or not as they were raised in obscurity because their father was a bishop. But a illegitimate daughter can be legitimised to inherit a throne. Prince Albert of Monico is on his throne today thanks to the legitamising of an illegitimate daughter.
Rainier iii's mother was "adopted" thanks to the new law of succession in Monaco
@@cyrilmarasigan7108 yes but before it was considered invalid, she was legitimised.
Theoretically, but it tends to not happen. The Beaufort line was legitimized, but it was made clear that they were not legitimized to be included in the succession (nobody understood Henry Tudor to be King on the strength of the Beaufort line).
I thought that it was a prerequisites for legitimisation that the parents got married ?
In general if Bonnie Prince Charlie had actual legimage sons (maybe by a British woman) the Jacobite claims would be a lot stronger than just following the Catholic succession that is also foreigner decendants of Elizabeth Stuart (the way Sophie of Hannover and her son George were).
But practicality it never would have happened that the line would get the throne after parliament decided against it. Unless it was more official and legimage version of Charles and Diana match we saw here. The way happened after Norman invasion and the old Saxon claim being married into the new royal family.
As soon as the Earl Spencer popped up I went “oh shiiiiit” out loud. The idea that Diana could have a claim to Charles’s throne is hilarious.
Edit: some of y’all are taking this way too seriously holy shit. I know how the actual line of succession goes. I just thought it was a funny twist.
Ridiculous, more like. People are taking the idea of an illegitimate line having rights far too seriously. It doesn't work that way.
@@thomasburke9060 Hilarious and ridiculous aren't mutually exclusive 😁😇
As Matt has said in the video, quite a few ridiculous things happened that led to the current King Charles III. So, they do happen. It's just not really very possible or practical. Though, the population could get angry again at the current monarchs, and an idea gets spread to invite someone who seems more grounded/less inbred/more religious etc to be King or Queen once again!!
What of Diana's older sister?
@@elderscrollsswimmer4833 He mentioned in the video that William wouldn't be the most senior member of that family line. It's just a funny little tidbit that Diana is from the family line that made a real effort to ensure that Charles' family line was kicked off the throne.
I lead tours in Scotland an explaining the Jacobites is always a challenge as there are so many people involved (as well as the added bonus of people having the same name as others and being called different things by different people) I think I'll offer to link them this video in the future if they're interested! Thanks for making it.
It can be presented at different levels of complexity. Most simply: the aristocracy chased the Catholic King James II out of the country and replaced his line with the most proximate Protestant line.
That’s cool! Yeah this guy is such a great resource. Doesn’t help there is also the German Jacobins from French history too.
10:50 There are also some who consider the marriage between Maria Beatrice of Savoy (Duchess of Modena) and her maternal uncle, which was illegal in England, to be invalid. They consider that Maria Beatrice’s claim passed to her younger sister, Maria Teresa of Savoy, who was married to Charles II, Duke of Parma. Her claim passed to her grandson, Robert I, Duke of Parma. His claim passed to two of his unmarried sons, Henry, Duke of Parma and Joseph, Duke of Parma (who both had learning disabilities) and then to another son Elias, Duke of Parma. Elias had eight children with his wife, Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria. His claim was inherited by his son Robert Hugo, Duke of Parma. Robert Hugo had no children, and his claim was inherited by his elder sister, Elisabetta, who also remained unmarried. Her claim was inherited by her younger sister, Maria Francesca, who also remained unmarried. Her claim passed to her younger sister, Alicia. Alicia was married to Infante Alfonso, Duke of Calabria and they had three children together. Upon Alicia’s death in 2017, her claim was inherited by her grandson, Prince Pedro of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Calabria.
Pedro's eldest son, Jaime married Lady Charlotte Lindesay-Bethune, a Scottish aristocrat descended from King Charles II Stuart in illegitimate line. Jaime and Charlotte are currently living in the UK.
Also, Jaime is a version of James!
So, instead of Joseph of Liechtenstein, I support Jaime de Bourbon.
This is very interesting. I recently made a chart of the Lindsay family that I posted on the useful charts subreddit, it features Prince Jaime as well!
I doubt the brits would go for anyone with the Bourbon name
Since Jacobites generally believe in succession by divine right, this “illegal” marriage between uncle and niece is of no consequence to them, plus all uncle-niece marriages between royals received Papal dispensations, so Franz is still the rightful Jacobite heir
The convention is to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions as valid so long as they were lawful in the jurisdiction in which the couple was wed, even if the marriage would not have been valid in the jurisdiction where its recognition is in question. What follows from this principle is that the Duke of Modena's marriage to Maria Beatrice ("Queen Mary III of England") should be recognized as valid for these purposes.
@@phillipsesate1364 Yes, but I think it would be mindblowing to have a Capetian monarch in the UK.
Matt: Henrietta had a son named James, who had a son named James, who had a daughter named...
Me: ...James?
Matt: Anne.
Me: what a shame.
Jamesella
Just on that they lost the right to monarchy.
Jaime de Bourbon would be okay. Most Brits like the biscuit.
Very funny 🙄
Jane
Fascinating! Very clearly explained, bravo. If anyone is interested, you can see the Stuart tomb in St Peter’s, Rome…James II, his sons Bonny Prince Charlie (the Young Pretender) and Cardinal Henry are buried there. And the Young Pretender’s widow is buried in Santa Croce, Florence. Their palace in Florence is now the faculty of architecture, University of Florence.
Charles and Henry were the grandsons of James II
Yes, sorry, I meant “James III, his sons…”
Proper German correction: Der König VON Grossbritannien. Love this channel btw. Keep it up, Matt! 👍
I think both are correct from a certain point of view. If it's a physical object you're the king of, then it's "der König des ..." (der König des Spielplatzes, der Bohrinsel etc). But if it's a political entity, you're saying "der König von ..." (der König von Deutschland, Großbritannien etc.). So when you imagine Great Britain not as the Kingdom, but as, say, the collection of islands that make up the physical lands of Great Britain, then "der König des Großbritannien" would be right, as weird as it sounds to our ears.
@@dorderre Well, I don't think old George would have spoken of himself as "King of a certain collection of Islands in the North Sea" but as king of this special entity that is Great Britain. "König des Großen Britannien" at best. You are right, "König des Großbritannien" sounds weird, that is why I called my correction proper German.
Could be DER KÖNIG GROßBRITANNIENS
@@hartinspeedmund1181 It wouldn't be "König des Großbritanniens" with an "S" at the end?
@@alexwright4930 I Guess it wouldn't be technically incorrect. But it would definitely sound weird to german ears. Average Klaus on the street would never say it that way.
I decided to check who the most senior mpp descendant of William the Conqueror is, and despite that line losing the crown many times, it often got the crown back through marriage, eventually leading to... James II & VII and therefore the Jacobite line. So Franz is not only the most senior mpp descendant of James I & VI, he's the most senior mpp descendant of *William the Conqueror*.
what is "mpp"?
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 male-preference primogeniture
@@godemperorofmankind3.091 “Male-preference primogeniture” The inheritance system where the title passes to the holder’s eldest son - unless they have no sons, in which case it passes to their eldest daughter. If they have no daughters either then it will jump back a generation.
The monarchy of England (& subsequently the United Kingdom) used this system* from the Norman conquest up until 2013, when it was changed to absolute primogeniture (the same, except gender is not a factor - the crown passes to the monarch’s eldest child).
*With caveats like the no-catholics rule mentioned in the video.
@@ksolesky2 isnt that already what it is?
i mean it isnt game of thrones where thye intentionally skipped over a woman just cos shes a woman
By male-preference primogeniture he's the most senior descendant of Henry Tudor, Robert the Bruce, William the Conqueror, _and_ Saint Margaret of Scotland, the sister of Edgar Aethling, the last man elected to be King of England by the Witan.
[EDIT]: The last bit about the Jacobite relation to Edgar Aethling turned out to be more complicated than I originally thought, and that is because of the Scottish succession crisis. Franz is indeed the senior heir of Robert the Bruce according to primogeniture, but Robert's claim to the Scottish throne was _not_ based on primogeniture. There may be more senior descendants of the pre-Bruce Scottish royal family.
Fascinating!!! After 42 years of hearing that Princes Diana had more blue blood than Charles and never knowing through what line, it all finally makes. This is amazing!!!! Thank you for a job extremely well done!! Looking forward to checking out your other videos!!!!
She had more English blue blood than the Royal Family
same!!
Diana’s Stuart ancestry has never been hidden
not more blue blood.. the Stuarts had to go
@@rayneehurd8745 I think they'll be back. 😁
i was not prepared for the twist at the end. how fascinating
So what you’re saying is if a British soldier and a Bavarian soldier fought against each other in WW1 that it was just another Jacobite War? 😂
Well, not really, after Cardinal Henry's death, the Jacobite heirs didn't take up their claim to the British throne, some outright rejected it
Appreciate the clarity of your information so much! Great work! Incredibly interesting!
Hey Matt.. Love your work... It really makes history more interesting to learn, cause I learned a lot.. I have a request.. Can u make a video on the heirs to the Spanish throne (the prince/princess of Asturias) who never got the crown.. Thank you
Carlos Maria Isidro es el rey
You do such a thorough job and make it so understandable. You, Matt, are a great teacher and communicator. As a history buff, I must correct one tiny error You accidentally said illegitimate child of James II and ... here comes the error, "Charles I" when in fact it was an illegitimate child of James II and Charles II (brothers) which then makes Prince William a direct descendent and the 1st to sit on the throne of both Stuart kings .... if all goes as expected.
I’ve watched two of your videos and I am pleased with how easily you presented the complicated lines of succession in both videos. You have a way of synthesizing complex information into a concise and understandable summary. Very enjoyable and informative.
I was not ready for that twist!
Same.... That was pretty incredible.... Maybe that was why the Queen hated Diana so much. Because she is the decedents of illegitimate offspring in the royal family
Kudos for all the research you must have done to produce this extraordinary video. Mightily impressive!
The true king of gb is an Australian republican. The tudors had no legitimate claim to the throne and therfore neither did the stewards.
Which means William will at some point be the most senior heir of Charlemagne and the legitimate heir to the throne of England from the "classic" line AND from the Jacobite line.
Man has some crazy family history.
William is a descendant of an illigetimate son of James II and VII, the Jacobites do not recognise this line of descent
The Jacobite line _is_ the "classic" line. And William isn't in it.
William is unquestionably the heir of his father but he can claim only illegitimate ancestry from the Jacobites and thus cannot be their heir.
And the most senior heir to Charlemagne? Not even close
The line of the Spencers is not legitimate and thus is not recognized by the Jacobites but even if it were William's uncle Charles Spencer would obviously hold a stronger claim than William because he was a male and thus ahead of Diana who was his sister not to mention they have 3 older sisters.
@@thomasburke9060 Yep
Absolutely amazing video, such a joy to watch. Good work!
As for Scotland The family of Hay has many branches through Scotland, and can trace their history back to the Norman princes de La Haye who were part of William the Conqueror’s army that swept into England in 1066. Sir William Hay was created Earl of Errol in 1453, and this branch held the office of Hereditary Constable of Scotland from the time of King Robert the Bruce. The family still retains that title, giving them precedence in Scotland second only to the royal family.
That's interesting. I always thought the Normans were never able to gain a foothold in Scotland, although they were present all over England, Wales and Cornwall.
The Earldom of Erroll (not Errol) is one of the few that can be inherited by a female. The current Earl's mother was the only daughter of the 22nd Earl who was the victim in the notorious 'Happy Valley' murder in Kenya during WW2. She became, suo jure (in her own right) the 23rd Countess. His father was Sir Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk. He assumed the name and arms of Hay upon his mother's death. The Barony of Easter Moncrieffe passed to his younger brother when Sir Iain died.
Love the alternative successions, could u do more like the Carlist in Spain
@God Save the King! they haven't, the main line died out but there is Prince Sixto Enrique, Archduke Dominic of Austria, Louis Alphone Duke of Anjou
There may be some political... implications, if he does.
@@fedsavi same as if the Jacobite successor were to state a claim, it's all hypothetical
@@thomasdixon4373 yes but the jacobites never supported a fascist coup that I know of.
@God Save the King! Yes, the Carlist militias supported the nationalists in the Spanish civil war hoping that Franco would restore the monarchy under their claimant, unfortunately once the civil war ended they were stabbed in the back by Franco, but they still helped him win.
I would be interested in a video on who would be king of England had the Normon Conquest not happened.
Either if failed or if it had happened all the male lines disappear basically that century but the female line don’t, by Harold Godwinson’s line, Gunhild’s line could give the same as the Bourbon claim to the French kingdom (Earl of Richmond -> Duchy if Brittany (house of Dreux) -> house of Montfort -> house of Valois -> house of Bourbon. The other daughter, Gytha, could give the current heir to the tsardom of Russia, but mainly because the actual line of the Riurikovich from the Kievan Rus got lost in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, making the Russian tsar the best claimant to the throne this way. By Edgar Aethling’s (the heir of the house of Wessex, as Harold ) line through his sister we get the king of Scotland and the house of Dunkeld, but the following succession crisis, make me think this claim as unviable
@@thenormann3773 Funny how the last Czar was a grandson of Queen Victoria. They probably would have been better off if they had kept him, considering recent history.
@@robinlillian9471 Perhaps so, but the tsar was not a grandson of Queen Victoria. His wife, Empress Alexandra, was the granddaughter of Queen Victoria, however.
Probably, Felipe of Spain, the answer is always Felipe of Spain.
Of course, the Act of Settlement of 1701 confirmed that the Sovereign is whomsoever Parliament says it is. The Act of Settlement excluded 50 persons who were more closely allied to the succession as they were Catholic. This act set out how, following the future Queen Anne’s death (William III was still on the throne at the time) the throne was to be inherited by the children of Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hanover, and granddaughter of James I and VI. The Act had named Sophia and “the heirs of her body being protestants” as next in the line of succession. To this day, women may ascend the throne and rank equally in precedence with men since 2013 but Catholics cannot inherit the throne. Future developments will continue to be whatever Parliament decides. The Sovereign rules through Parliament and the succession to the throne can be and is regulated by Parliament. The Sovereign can be deprived of his/her title through misgovernment. The Act of Settlement confirmed that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.
This does not apply 😅in Scotland as the monarch is only sovereign through the people and not parliament
Yes and that's how it should stay.
Parliament rules and the English kingship has become a farce.
Seeing these family trees, you can't help but see the long-term thinking that some of these families have clearly done to ensure their positions of power. I'm picturing members with walls covered in family trees with strings tied from one end to the other and them all planning on how to get certain families married to others and keep the plans and family lines in positions where they will be secure.
I can picture them planning in a room where the family trees are on display and them planning who to marry who to ensure security.
Great to see another British monarchy video!
Fantastic, Matt! Extraordinary alternative scenario game! The last twist of this story is a turn of the screw, indeed. Warm hugs, professor.
You neglected to say that James II's illegitimate daughter Henrietta FitzJames was Arabella Churchill's daughter, the Duke of Marlbourough's (John Churchill's) sister. These Churchill's merged with the Spencer line also which makes Prince William even more of a Stuart and Norman. He's got it all! Thanks Matt!
Surely Charles Spencer would take precedent over his sister and knowing that man, would make sure he got the throne!
Wonderful presentation ,thoroughly enjoyed it!You have a very pleasant speaking voice,too!Thank you for sharing!
I knew the twist was coming because of the first video, but this was laid out much better and narrativerer.
"narrativerer" 😆 Great word.
Interesting & enjoyable with great charting
Re the twist at the end: if the Spencers inherited the claim, wouldn't that mean (via mpp) the current 9th Earl Spencer, Charles Spencer (Lady Diana's brother) is the extant claimant?
No. They are descended from a few females, so it would not pass to them.
Thank you so much for your brilliant explanation, you have made the Jacobite line very understandable.
For anyone wondering about the religion of that illegitimate Jacobite line, the son of Henrietta FitzJames, James Waldegrave, converted to Anglicanism some time around 1720.
Well, I did not expect Bavaria to pop up in this! And Lady Diana no less! Exciting :D
Thank you!!! So very cool!!! Love all your podcasts! I have Ancestry to almost all of the Royals in Europe. Princess Diana & I have 2 separate connections. We share the same 26th great grandmother, as does George Washington his 19th. Plus all my Scandinavian Royal blood and Vikings and Russian. I have always loved History. This just makes it so much more fun and real.
I'm moving soon and will purchase most of your charts and laminate them and add them to my timeline charts and my massive family tree. I'm preparing one long hall way with these on both walls. Great teaching tools for great grand kids and others and I get to Geek out too!!! Looking forward to new podcasts
3:08
I love that the Prince of Orange is in orange border
Very, very good indeed, However, I think it would be better to say, "Diana is descended from not one, but two illegitimate children of King Charles II of England: Henry Fitzroy and Charles Lennox, via two of her great-grandmothers, Adelaide Seymour and Rosalind Bingham." But really, an excellent analysis of what can be a very complicated subject.
When you said Spencer's name in Plot Twist, I knew right away that Princess Diana was involved lol 😆 and therefore her sons is involved too .
I highly doubt Scotland would have chosen a Catholic monarch. The lords in Scotland fought Mary, Queen of Scots and tried to dethrone her several times because she was Catholic. They may have gone for another Protestant heir of a totally new House
When Mary I returned to Scotland, while the country was officially Protestant, the majority of the population remained Catholic and was so for over a century. Despite Knox's sermons denouncing the Mass, it continued to be celebrated openly in many places. Mary's brother had banned the Catholic lords, who outnumbered the Protestant lords, from court and so only the Protestant lords had access to her. Had the Catholic lords been allowed at court the course of Scottish history may have been very different. When Charles Edward Stuart arrived in Edinburgh he was welcomed with open arms, so even then, in the birthplace of the Scottish reformation, the people were willing to accept a Catholic monarch. Today the Catholic Church has a larger membership than the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament has voted to abolish the ban on Catholics on the throne.
Interesting enough, Diana is descended from King Charles II as well, through another illegitimate child.
I seem to recall that during Napoleon's invasion of Italy, Cardinal Henry and George III came to an understanding, where Henry sent various royal regalia passed down to him to George and acknowledged him (at long last) to be king, and George in return established a badly needed pension for him. Which means that besides being descended from Charles II and James II, Prince William is the claimant to the throne. Well, HUH.
Almost like that’s what she was there for..
I'm English and I consider Franz/Francis II to be the true king. Having said that, after the death of King Richard III the monarchy went pear shaped.
So what you're saying is, if they end up going with the Jacobite line again one day, the king would be a foreign German prince who may speak very little English? What a long way to go around for the same result :p
Yeah in fact they are of the same royal house, Sophia, Electress of Hanover (mother of George I) is descended from the House of Wittelsbach which is the same house belonged to current Jacobite claimant.
@@EAlyahya Also connected in the other direction: since 1875 the Jacobite pretenders have been descendants of Sophia of Hanover.
Not really because Prince Josef of Lichtenstein was born in London, schooled in Worcestershire and interned in America. I suspect he speaks far better English than you do.
@@wingracer1614 He's not the current pretender. We should assume Mr. Accardi was talking about Franz.
@@thomasburke9060 True but the people in front of him are either elderly, lack heirs or have some other issue. Obviously this is all just fantasy but if there were some sort of major succession crisis today that made this line a serious contender for the throne, I suspect they would just go straight to Josef.
Fun fact: there's a spanish noble family called Fitzjames who are direct descendants of James II through his illegitimate sons.
They're also related to Winston Churchill as James's mistress belonged to the Churchill family.
Alex salmon once considered making that noble family, hereditary monarchs of an independent kingdom of Scotland.
I'd want them next in line to the British throne, not just Scotland.
Another fun fact connected to the duke of Berwick, James' illegitimate son is that he lead the French/Spanish forces at a crucial battle in the war of the Spanish Succession - thus he was an Englishman (though Catholic) leading a Catholic Franco-Spanish army - on the other hand the leader of the English army was a Frenchman - a Huguenot Protestant refugee I think it was the battle of Almeria which led to Catalonia losing its independence as the French army supporting the French candidate for the Spanish throne won and the Catalans were supporting the Austrian Habsburg candidate who was supported by the British.
Sorry it was the battle of Almansa and it is a tradition for Catalans to mourn that day and they put the portrait of the duke of Berwick upside down for that day!
Me too, Sean. Not that I am a fan of W.C. but I am a Jacobite.
@@kaloarepo288 what fun 🙂
So clear and well done, thanks for sharing!
What if you don't recognize right-by-conquest? You could pick some deified figure and only their progeny no matter what are the True Heirs (tm). It's all silliness but it's interesting silliness. No one actually has the right to rule another, and certainly not millions of people.
Ah but if you believe in some kind of God, especilly the Christian and Islamic Gods, then it is by Divine Right that Kings and Queens, or Sultans or Caliphs, rule. You will find that throughout history that Religion exists to support and enhance the rule of the Elite over the ordinary people.
@@SevCaswell Monarchs do tend to use religion to support themselves throughout history, yes. Faith however is much older than the State, which only first appeared some eight to ten thousand years ago. I recall evidence of religion being around before modern humans, and some other creatures may have something like it.
It's weird though that you separate those "two" gods. 'Allah' is just the Arabic word 'God'. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahá'is, and some Satanists all believe in the exact same deity.
If the right of conquest is not recognized, then we actually get the same result as in this video! Franz, commonly known as the Duke of Bavaria, is the senior descendant by male-preference primogeniture not only of Henry Tudor and William the Conqueror, but also of the last man the Saxon Witan elected to be King of England, Edgar Aethling.
@@SAOS451316 If you're required to follow different rules in order to believe in a god then you're not beliving in the same god as a different religion. Just because they all have the same root, does not mean that their beliefs or their god's intrinsic values are the same. Also King Henry VIII created the Church of Engliand soley so he could marry his mistress and remain King by Divine Right.
@@SevCaswell Does every Xtian denomination have a different god? Does every opinion difference between members of the same church have a different god? No, and the simple reason why is that they recognize that they have different opinions about what their god wants. Even the most violent fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants was done under the belief that each other was displeasing their god.
Nowadays most religious philosophers and scholars agree that people are allowed to have different opinions about how they worship. The Abrahamic faiths use much of the same scripture and the major difference is about who the final prophet is. Of course in practice Xtians are very different from their siblings because there's a vastly corrupt worldview and other aspects of deep culture, but they do have the same deity.
I love these alternate succession vids 😀
You forgot to mention that Scotland was bankrupt after its Darian Gap Disaster around 1700 and needed some cash - cue England, which bailed them out.
It would be funny if, when Joseph becomes hereditary prince of Liechtenstein, he started making noises about his Jacobite claim. He could do it in a humorous way. Although I understand the Scots are not happy about being dragged out of the EU by the English, and if another referendum were to take place, the Scots would have a ready-made monarch to step in...it's not like Britain doesn't have a history of German-speaking monarchs. An interesting tidbit is that he was born in London.
Joseph's destiny is to be moanrch of Liechtenstein, but if Scotland did decide to restore the Stuarts it would probably be one of his siblings who would be offered the throne.
Matt you actually can make video about Oldenburg because King Charles is a member of Glucksburg in agnatic line, you may introduce that the Oldenburg not only included royal house of Denmark, Norway and Greece, also included Holstein-Gottorp Romanov and Mountbatten-Windsor
@God Save the King! but it is usually shortened to Glucksburg
King Charles should be the first monarch of the House of Glucksburg as that was his father's name.
@@charmainelamont2020 yes it would be appropriate if King Charles III adopted "Glucksburg" as his House name, especially in honour of Prince Phillip, who even though was an exemplary Prince Consort, had a tough time with the then dowager Queen Mary, Elizabeth the Queen Mother and I suppose even Queen Elizabeth II, his dear wife when it came to his Royal patrilineal rights in the UK.
Just found out some of these wild folks are my ancestors and I'm just losing it over these. Thank you for the fun videos!
As a citizen of the small South West German town Lichtenstein I am shocked that Liechtenstein may have a claim to the UK crown.
Well Liechtenstein itself doesn’t have it yet, the wife of the heir and heir’s heir have it.
Are these Lichtenstein royal family Catholics?
@Diana Stevenson If you mean the Liechtenstein the country with the duke of Liechtenstein I don't know if they are Catholic.
The duke of Bad Urach who owns the castle Lichtenstein where I live has nothing to do with the duke of Liechtenstein.
But the duke of Bad Urach once declined the right to be the monarch of Monaco. I actually was shocked to hear that it didn't expect that either.
There are several foreign royal houses with a claim to the British throne-- mostly through Queen Victoria. Norway, as I remember, is the most senior (via Edward VII's youngest daughter Maud).
@@dianastevenson131 Yes, they are Catholics.
I don't know if you watched the Jordanian royal wedding but you can see during the ceremony William is in fact seated beside Sophie. They seemed to be having a pleasant chat together whilst they waited for everything to begin. I do think Charles is where he is supposed to be today but to be perfectly honest, it is William's reign I am most looking forward to. And when you consider the happiest nations in the world like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, etc. are constitutional monarchies, it does give pause that rather than an antiquated institution it provides calm stability and unity in a fractious modern age.
This was such a great video.The visuals have finally helped explain the Jacobites to me.
The Stewarts/Stuarts were a french family who were given land and title by a Scottish king for services rendered. So too the Bruces.
The last CELTIC monarchy was the House of Dunkeld.
Trace that one out.
The Spencer / Churchills were always trying to marry into the British Line of the Throne even pre James II.
This is refreshingly easy to understand. Thank you!
Francis II is the true, legitimate king of Scots.
Only of Scots?
@@pedanticradiator1491 Yes, you can keep the Windsors.
So the Jacobite future king will also reign over Liechtenstein, whose national anthem sounds the same as god save the king. Brilliant!
George I DID speak English. His mother Sophia knew English well and as a grand-daughter of James VI & I was well aware of her position (she had been spoken of
as a potential wife of Charles II in the 1640's). In 1684 she spent extended time in London looking after her affairs. So she would have made a point of George's being able to speak English--especially after the 1700 death of Anne's last child when it became inevitable that Sophia would be the Protestant Heir. It helped that she had EIGHT living children. She missed by only six weeks becoming Queen Sophia at age 84!
There was a Sophia Naturalization Act passed in 1708 under whose terms ANY descendant of Sophia could claim British Subjecthood. That Act was repealed
in 1948 after a German Nazi had successfully used that Act to become a British Subject to forestall legal proceedings. At the time of that Repeal there were over FIVE THOUSAND descendants eligible to become British Subjects under its terms!
I noticed you have done many mythological family trees but I couldn’t find one for Japanese mythology, it would be nice if you do consider it.
Thank you
I believe he actually already has, if you check his older videos! I remember watching his Japanese emperor video!
@@henolson416 I will try and see
But, of course, this is only a scenario, because had Bonnie Prince Charlie actually become King of England, all those people after him would have married differently (remember it's only very recently that princes and princesses have been allowed to marry for love, mostly they married politically and no one cared whether they were happy or not) so it's possible those names would have never emerged. Very, VERY interesting though. Thanks.
Exactly right.
Great summary, thanks for posting this.
John Spencer (Earl) had 5 children, the oldest is Lady Sarah McCorquodale (Spencer). Instead of it going to Diana who was second youngest it would go to Lady Sarah's line. She has 3 children (Emily Jane, George, Celia). Or if you follow the male first in line (primogeniture), it would go from John Spencer to Charles Spencer (Diana's brother and the current 9th Earl Spencer) because he was the only boy and youngest (his older brother John died at birth). Charles has 7 children from 3 wives with his son Louis (age 28) being heir (currently Viscount Althrop) and subsequent Prince of Wales. Ironically, his father Charles would be Charles III King of Britain.
Weird how that could have worked out.
The Spencers descend from an illigetimate son of James II and have no claim I don't think they are even the senior descendants of that son
I think the point is the fact that one of the Spencer's children gave birth to someone who has a Jacobite claim AND will actually be the monarch, although I admit he's confusing the definitive line as it should be yes.
The Spencers are from an illegitimate line and have no claim at all to the throne.
So if the line came through the Spencers, then the current king would be... King Charles; not Charles Mountbatten-Windsor but Charles Spencer, Diana's brother.
Yes, exactly.
God forbid!
The monarch of the United Kingdom is whomever Parliament says it is unless the day comes when Parliament and people decide the country will no longer have a monarch. All other discussions about alternative candidates are purely academic. This especially includes the purported Plantagenet descendant living in Australia. But I would think that Prince William of Wales being a direct descendant of Charles I probably comes closest to resolving all the competing claims of the Jacobites even if he is descended from an illegitimate Stuart line. It is probably the best resolution the Jacobites can ever hope to get. British history will move on through time no matter who sits on the throne.
That was very interesting, thanks for posting it. 🏴
You could make a video on who would be the Emperor of México today, that would be a very interesting video since the independence of Mexico and Central America was a pact where Mexico would have a monarchy in stead of being a Republic.
I think he already did one.
The current heir to it would be the first emperor of Mexico and not Maximillian I and also Maximillian i adopted the gransons of the previous emperor
Would love to see you do a video which explains the wars of the roses. How each made their claim to the throne.
I swear there alreasy is one because that's HOW I learned about the War of the Roses, but I can't seem to find it offhand.
It's discussed a fair amount in the background to the video on "Britain's Real Monarch".
...quite brilliantly done
fabulous voice too
big thanks for
for upload
truly first
class
Just a note, the Acts of Union were never in place for the Jacobites so they would've still to this day be monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland separately. This means we would in certain cases we would have double numbers, so the order would be (England's number first followed by Scotland's):
James III & VIII > Charles III > Henry IX & I > Charles IV > Victor > Mary II > Francis I > Mary III > Robert I & IV > Albert > Francis II (> Max > Sophie > Joseph)
Actually, while your numberings for the Queens Mary are fine for Scotland, many Jacobites consider Mary Stuart ("Mary Queen of Scots") to have been the rightful Queen of England, as Mary II, so your "Mary II" (Maria Beatrice of Savoy) they consider Mary III of England, and your "Mary III" (Maria Theresa of Austria-Este) they consider Mary IV of England.
@@thomasburke9060 I was actually going to add that but I decided against it at the very last second. And yes, you are absolutely correct. Mary II would be Mary III & II and Mary III would be Mary IV & III.
Why should England's number be first? After all, Scotland is the older country, older monarchy and it was the Scots King who took over the English throne.
@@Dunsapie Either works. It was just the one I picked. Looks like James VI and I and James VII and II usually have their Scottish number first while William III is rarely seen with his Scottish number (which is William II). I think James III and VIII usually has the English number first, however. So again, you do you in this case.
@@Dunsapie It's a matter of context and relevance. In a context more concerning Scotland, the Scottish numeral should be used primarily or solely, e.g., "James VI and I" or "James VI". Whereas in a context more concerning England, Wales, and/or Ireland, the other numeral should be used primarily.
This happened to be a case that primarily concerned the English succession, since I was pointing out that many Jacobites would call into question the _English_ numeral, since they understand Mary Stuart to have been the rightful Queen of _England_ given that Elizabeth Tudor was a bastard.
Talking about 'What if' I would love to know who would be the current Korean Monarch if Japan hadn't invaded. Is there a King/Queen alive today?
Yes there is the current heir to korea is yi won
I didn't know I wanted to watch! Thank you!
Fabulous explanation. None of it really matters, as what really decides who is monarch of the UK is Parliament. Parliament gave the blessing (in fact parliamentary grandees were party to the deal) to William & Mary, and to George. Parliament is sovereign. They went to war with Charles I to settle the argument, and got William to accept their role as the price for his accession. Without Parliament there's no tax, and without tax there's no army and navy, and without those, it's a bunfight between tribes for the throne. Obviously Scotland was brought into this regime in 1707.
Besides which, claims of legitimacy through primogeniture had been set aside several times before the 17th century in both England and Scotland. Might being the ultimate 'proof' of 'right' to the throne, albeit with varying degrees of 'legal' cover, right the way back to 1066 and before.
Well, if you're a Jacobite; there is no United Kingdom. There are the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. The Act of Union is not recognized by supporters of the Stewarts.
Do you mean the “Stuarts” Of course the Act of Union would not be recognised by the French
Considering all the current shenanigans - and absolutely NOT wishing misfortune upon anybody (no traitor me), I'd pass it to Princess Anne as she's the most sensible / normal of QE2's brood. This would also help to dilute the German part of the Royal Family further, Elizabeth having been half-Scottish herself, but then been mugged into marrying a German. No ill will intended towards anybody - and an awful lot of serendipity would have to occur for Anne to inherit nowadays anyway.
Great explanation video.
Charles II had a lot of illegitimate children before and after his legitimate marriage, William of Orange was gay, Anne had 17 pregnancies but no heirs and James became Catholic which is a big no-no in England. It seems fate really wanted the Stuart line off the throne.
So, that's why William and Mary didn't have any children!
@@ANGELSVEN no it was more because Mary had fertility problems. She had several pregnancies that resulted in miscarriages. There were rumours of William’s close attachment to a couple of male favourites, but both these men lived openly straight lives with wives and children (Camilla is descended from one of them). William denied any sexual interest in them. Mary’s sister Queen Anne also suffered from pregnancies where her children died in infancy, or were stillborn. And she too had a number of miscarriages. One of her sons lived to the age of ten, but was plagued with illnesses over most of his life.
@@alexrafe2590 11*
This is still a matter of interest for many even though it lost political momentum. But the lineage is most interesting nonetheless. [To answer the question at the end: I believe Charles III actually has the true right to the throne of the United Kingdom.]
Loving the understatement of _lost political momentum._ There hasn't been any serious attempt to restore the Jacobite succession since the Battle of Culloden in 1746.
Nobody has the true right to sit on a golden chair and demand respect based on nothing but the station of their birth.
Why him and not the senior heir of the Stuart dynasty?
@@thomasburke9060 My verdict: Even though my thought process does resemble the Jacobite ideology but as much as King James I (self-proclaimed first King of Great Britain) would have preferred his line to stay Stuart, he would've wanted his throne to be independent of foreign powers unlike what happened with his son Charles I and grandson James II. Had he seen the future he would have preferred the Protestant succession because it maintained the monarch as a unifying symbol and the lineage of his beloved daughter Elizabeth who he did favour but as well as keeping a faint reminiscence of his interests in order. And I side with the same sentiment. What was more ironic is that the Jacobite line would have gone extinct anyway because of the polarizing behaviour of its heirs. Bonnie Prince Charlie refused to properly settle down, Henry (IX) the Cardinal-Duke of York was the dean of the College of Cardinals and recognised the Hanoverians as the rightful rulers and the successors (cousins) after Henry had a disinterest and disdain for the United Kingdom. So by too many defaults, the throne stays in Queen Elizabeth II's line. It is rather amusing that this hasn't been ascertained universally. Even though we all vary on who should have gone to including the Jacobites despite the future heirs having little interest in the UK.
Not only did Crown Prince Rupprecht discourage his followers in the UK from staking his claim but his grandson Franz Duke of Bavaria has stated that his "familiar relationship" wasn't a matter of concern as well as his spokesman said it was a "hypothetical issue". As George, I didn't have too much interest in the throne during his reign, why give it to one who barely even contemplates it in the current era?
@@SirBenjiful The respect isn't demanded, it is earned through strong dutiful service as we have seen with the last several sovereigns.
The fact that so much time has passed and the sucession line is so twisted, yet we arrive back where we started, means too few families have maintained power for too long.
Would love to see a video going through the British line of succession as far down as possible
There are about 5753 in line According to the 2011 succession list. That list includes the non protestants though who would actually be omitted. There could be more or less now since people have been born and people have died since then.
The last one is Karin Vogel.
Omitting the non protestants she would be about 4972nd or 4973rd in line (according to wikidata).
William will make a good king. In my opinion
0:39 just a useful note for north Americans who are unfamiliar with British names incl. people and locations. There is usually very little emphasis on the final syllable whereas, understandably, Americans might read the word for the first time and then finish with a hard stop EG Bucking-HAM. If you want to appear more in-the-know and less touristy (and therefore better than everyone else) just assume the first syllable is the long one and the last one is an after thought (ED-in-bruh not ed-in-BUUUrgh; TIND-all not tin-DALL).
1) Please stop peddling the Scottish Lairds deal, it is built entirely on principles incongruent with Scots law, which lacks this supposed Laird custom. Referring to the owner of an estate as Laird and one's landlord as "My Lord" do not constitute the granting of a title. Scottish property law restricts the sale of land to plots capable of being reasonably located in person, having no place for micro-plots. Most importantly, Lairds and Lords are not interchangeable even though both words have a clear shared etymology. The environmental element of it all is admirable, and it is nice to see people take an interest in Scottish heritage and history, but please do not encourage the usurpation of titles.
2) An interesting note to the Jacobite Succession itself is that if the Jacobite theory is correct that Parliament cannot simply pick a favoured candidate and must follow previous law, one must follow the law of the Kingdom of England in 1688 that the King must be born on land loyal to the Crown of England. From this one must hold that George III was the rightful Jacobite heir alongside the Hanoverian heir, as those higher than he in dynastic succession to the House of Stuart were born abroad. Confusingly he would be the 1st King George for the United Kingdom or its predecessor states. Given that the numbering of the sovereign is a matter of royal preference rather than an absolute declaration of fact, as established in the dispute over Elizabeth II using the "II" label in Scotland, the labelling as "George III" would be strictly speaking legitimate even if Jacobitism were true. Given that the monarchs since George III have done nothing to reverse the shifts occurring in the period between James II and George III, most notably the Act of Union, it can therefore be indicated that there are no remaining outstanding effects to whether Jacobitism is true or false, and that Charles III is therefore the true King of the United Kingdom by both Jacobite and non-Jacobite reasoning. Fortunately for those of us who want to skip that whole mess, the crowns of England and Scotland have always had a non-hereditary element to their succession, most notably the appointment by the English Parliament of James VI of Scotland as James I of England over the otherwise heir Anne Stanley. The Glorious Revolution is simply the latest in a long line of crises in Scottish and English history in which the leading statesmen of the respective realms have recognised a king whose legitimacy is based on pragmatic, not strict hereditary, factors.
Where does this principle of needing to be born in English crown lands come from? And why did it not apply to William I, William II, Stephen, Henry II, Edward IV, James I, and Charles I?
For a chunk of this timeline they had a bit of an issue lol -
Jacobite 1: ''hey, we've got a perfect excuse here, the other line is going through Germans! Nows the time boys, who is the currect Jacobite claiment?''
Jacobite 2: ''Um sir, you're not gonna like this, but he's a German...'' (or Italian)
Jacobite 1: ''...''
Meh. The anti-German talking point comes from the 18th century, when the Jacobite pretenders were still the from the House of Stuart.
@@thomasburke9060 well, except for the Old Pretender himself, they were all born in France or other European Countries, so the idea that they were foreigners too stands from BPC onwards.
@@DraconimLt James Francis Edward Stuart was the Jacobite pretender from 1701 until 1766. So even if the Britishness of his sons were somehow nullified, it would still be the case that the Jacobite pretender was wholly British throughout the core period in which the Jacobites were using the anti-German talking point.
That said, how Charles and Henry are to be classified depends on what facet of identity we prioritize. True, neither were born in the Isles. But in every other respect they were British, such that I would say we should consider them ethnic Brits. And I think these other respects were precisely what the Hanoverians were targeted for. I see very little talk about where they were born. I see quite a bit of reference to their being Germanophones who were slow to pick up English. I have seen some discussion of their customs and mannerisms being offensively German. I've seen some discussion of their religion being German (Lutheran) rather than British. There's also the consideration of ancestry. In all of these respects, the Hanoverians were thoroughly German, whereas Charles and Henry Stuart were thoroughly British.
@@thomasburke9060 fair points. Yet the main facet of identity that the Hanoverians were supported for was their Protestantism, and the Jacobins lacked support was their Catholocism. So, by the argument that it is ok to prioritise facets of identity then you have removed the argument that being British alone was enough to secure the Jacobin cause as being the right one. As the majority were simply prioritising a different facet.
As for the ancestry argument, it's not as strong as you think, because 'British' wasn't yet a thing, the Acts of Union weren't until Queen Anne's rule, so the Jacobins were SCOTTISH by ancestry, and during that time period that was worse than being German, to many of the English.
@@DraconimLt It sounds like you think I was arguing for the later Stuarts' Britishness and the Hanoverians' Germanness because this consideration is important to making a case for the Jacobite claim. In fact, I don't think it's at all important for that reason. Henry's successor was an Italian, yet much the same case one could make for Henry's claim to the Throne would apply to Charles Emmanuel.
Foreignness is not a true barrier to inheriting the Throne. If it were, then the initial Stuart accession to the Throne of England should have been very questionable to begin with. But it was the cause of very little disturbance.
The anti-German talking points that the Jacobites adopted were nothing more than rhetoric. The anti-German stance wasn't meant to present a sincere argument, and I'm sure if you caught the Jacobite leaders candidly they would have admitted as much. It was just useful to play upon the prejudices of the English people.
So I'm not discussing this with you because I think it's truly relevant what the nationality/ethnicity of either the Hanoverians or Jacobite pretenders was. I'm only pushing back because I want it to be seen that the Jacobites were not actually as inconsistent as you initially made it seem like they were. The Jacobite pretenders during the late anti-German phase (the late 18th century) were not native-born, but otherwise were British, and they were British in ways the Hanoverians were not, these ways being the focus of the anti-German rhetoric leveled against them, rather than where anyone was born.
You're great, man. Great job!
The irony for the Jacobites is that Charles has more Scottish blood, given that his grandmother was Scottish, than any of the so called Jacobite heirs.
Not to mention that he is a descendant of Jacobites even just through the Queen Mothers family.
@@fod1855 wait what
@@andypham1636 Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Who was the mother of the Queen (she died aged 105 in 2002) and grandmother of the current King Charles, was Scottish, with Jacobite ancestors.
@@fod1855 ok but how is she a descendant of Jacobites
@@andypham1636 She had Jacobite ancestors, I don't remember who but you can look it up. She was also a great grand child of the Duke of wellington's father, lots of connections people don't know of