www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall At last, royal succession to Catholics?

Considering the chronology involved, it seems wildly unlikely that any mistress of Charles II (God rest him with the Saints) could have been the mother of two young men who are alive right now! Shades of Iolanthe!

Leaving that aside, descent from Charles II via one of his illicit liasons does not convey any claim to the throne - just ask his son Monmouth, if you can track him down.

Since Charles II and his Queen had no children with each other, Charles died without legitimate progeny, and was therefore succeeded by his younger brother, James II, whose son became James III, whose son became Charles III, who also had no legitimate progeny (unless you count the Duchess of Albany), so the legitimate claim passed to his younger brother, Henry IX, who never married (being a Cardinal for his day job, so to speak), so on his death the claim went to the other descendants of Charles I, which is the source of King Albert's title to the Three Kingdoms.

For that matter, there is also a Plantagenet claimant somewhere or other - he may be in Australia.

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge, Count me as another priest,supporting the House of Stuart.I believe that my Ukrainian grandmother,whose maiden name was Mychailiuk,may have been descended from a Jacobite,according to my late father,the name of this ancestor was "Michaels" or something like that.Dad died in '81 and I have no known relatives who might be able to verify this information,but the area of Ukraine near the city of Uman where my father came from was Poland before that country was partitioned in the late 1700's.It's a fact that many of Bonnie Prince Charlie's supporters found refuge in Poland,the Prince's mother being a Sobieski,so my father's account is plausible.On the other hand,my mother's Scottish ancestors appear to have been of the Clan Campbell,which was opposed to Bonnie Prince Charlie.I like to think that had I been around in 1746,that I would have supported the Prince.Sincerely,Fr. Andrei

The Duchess of Kent was never in line, her husband is. He didn't lose his succesion rights since she wasn't a Catholic when he married her.
Here's the current line of succesion to the British throne:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne
I believe Ernst of Hannover was the last person to lose succesion rights due to marrying a Catholic when he married Caroline of Monaco.

IIRC, the UK can't unilaterally change the Act of Succesion, since this would effect the succesion in all the other realms. Perhaps the Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminister address this.

I doubt if the current monarch and heir would be very eager to see the succesion laws tampered with. Not because they harbor any anti-Catholic sentiment, but because doing so might trigger a broader discussion about the monarchy in the overseas dominions that could result in most of them abolishing thier ties to the monarchy and becoming republics. Bear in mind that the current Prime Minister and Gov. Genral of Australia both favor a republic.

Charles ,the current Prisoner of Wales, has stated that he favors altering the term "Defender of the Faith" to "Defender of the Faiths" or "..of Faith" and have symbolise the monarchs duty to defend the rights to freedom of worship in thier realms.

The newspaper The Guardian once publicly solicited parties for a class action suit in the EU courts on behalf of anyone who had been denied any titles, hereditary rights and privalges, sucession rights due to marital staus, social staus of marital partner,sexual orientation,religious affiliation or belief.

Wouldn't this make a great sit com: all the dominions like Canada, NZ and the UK abolish the monarchy, except for one tiny one like Saint Lucia or the Solomon Islands and the Windsors end moving to an island and reigning over it.

As much as I admire Elizabeth II, I must admit the idea of "a modern monarchy" is as much an oxymoron as "a modern gramaphone". A hereditary head of state makes as much sense as a hereditary dentist.

My sentiments, too. The royals are the world's most useless people. I have never understood why the people are willing to keep that family in splendor so they can preside over ceremonial functions. But then, my ancestors did fight a war to get away from their ancestors. A plague on all of their houses.

If you like oxymorons, here's a classic. The first time that John Paul II came to the USA, there was a lot of favorable publicity. As a result, the head of one of the talk shows lamented a problem he was having - he could not find any "respectable anti-Catholic"!

When did you last here of "a respectable racist" or something similar?

Fr. Serge

Dear Father Al,

You are certainly welcome to the ranks of Stuart Legitimists. If actually want to join the Royal Stuart Society, you should write to Metropolitan Kallistos - he's the Orthodox chaplain.

Domine, salvum fac . . .

Fr. Serge

He should have tried some these progressive feminist convents.

Those aren't respectable!

Fr. Serge