Talk:Jacobite line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714

Proposed deletion
User:PatGallacher has prodded this article. I've deleted the prod. If the Cambridge Modern History can have a page listing the succession in 1714, then it is perfectly reasonable that Wikipedia (a much larger work of reference) would also include one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that in the course of discussion I realised that the case for keeping the article was a bit stronger than I first thought, but I still think Jacobite would be a better term than Legitimst. I also propose to add a bit to the article explaining why it is a bit more significant than some other lines of succ. on Wikipedia. PatGallacher (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If one looks at the published print sources for this page (and there are a number), virtually none of them list these people as "the Jacobite succession". Rather they are listed as "those excluded because of the Act of Settlement" (I'm not quoting any particular source).  It is true that the list is the Jacobite succession, but it seems to me that that is not the emphasis published scholarship has taken so far.  For the Wikipedia article to call this the Jacobite succession (which it is), would change this emphasis. I do agree that the word "Legitimist" is problematic. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but we have to call it something. Do we really call this "those excluded because of the Act of Settlement" or something like that?  The term "Jacobite" does have a certain currency in British history in this context, "legitimist" does not, I have never seen it used in this context before. PatGallacher (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
On 10 February 2014 User:Nirvaan.wiki redirected this article to List of Catholic Heirs to the English and Scottish Thrones in 1714, which s/he had created on the same day. I have reverted this edit today because I think it would have been better for this user's contributions to be merged into the existing article. There are several reasons for this, including: Opera hat (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * that this would maintain the edit history of the old article which (as Legitimist line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714) goes back to October 2008
 * that the old article's format of indentation was a clearer way of denoting the genealogical relationships of the excluded claimants (at least in my opinion);
 * that in 1714 "the English and Scottish thrones" no longer existed and the point of view that asserted to the contrary is better described by the old article title;
 * that the title of the new article is wrong on several counts:
 * "heirs" is not a proper noun, so should not be capitalised in the article title
 * "heir" strictly speaking should only refer to someone who actually inherited; this is a list of people who never inherited
 * "Catholic" can equally refer to the Church of England, which still describes itself as Catholic; only Roman Catholics were/are excluded from the succession.
 * Well as any parties who might be watching these two pages have been WP:SILENT for over a month, I'm charging ahead. Opera hat (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

57? 55?
I believe I've often heard that fifty-seven Roman Catholics were skipped to put George on the throne, but only fifty-five are listed here. Who's missing?

It occurred to me that 57 might be the number who were alive at the time of the Act of Settlement and disinherited by it; but I count only about 49 such. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I know the reasons for the discrepancy. Charles I Louis had conducted a second marriage in 1658, to Marie Louise, Frein von Degenfeld. From this marriage he had 13 children, all styled as a Raugraf or Raugrafin, but 12 had already passed away by 1714. A daughter, Raugrafin Karoline, had died in 1696, but she had married the Graf von Stromberg and Duke of Leinster, by whom she had two daughters still living in 1714. Another daughter, Raugrafin Louise, was also still alive, and did not pass away until 1733. It's true that the Raugraf(in) were morgannauts, which is to say their parents marriage was considered a morgannatic (or unequal) marriage, but the English and Scottish thrones never even had the concept of morgannatic marriages (although the later Royal Marriage Act essentially introduced a slightly different flavour of morgannaticism), so I believe the surviving descendants of Charles I Louis' second marriage should also be shown in the line of succession here, as I believe that English law (and presumably also Scottish law) would have recognised Charles I Louis' second marriage, and therefore also recognised the descendants of that marriage. Charles I Louis also conducted a third marriage, by which he had a son, Karl Ludwig, but there doesn't seem to be any record of when Karl Ludwig died, so potentially he too might have been alive in 1714 and in line to the throne. MrDannyDoodah (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no source which includes the raugrafen as "skipped". It would be original research to include them and their descendants. Noel S McFerran (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was also a question mark over whether the second marriage was bigamous. DrKay (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Maximilian William of Hanover (1666–1726)
Maximilian William of Hanover (1666–1726), the younger brother of George I and 65th in the line of succession in the article could not inherit the throne as he was Catholic since 1692... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.115.228 (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Last person in the line of succession
Was Frederick William I of Prussia the last person in the line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones in 1714? Danishjaveed (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, as far as I can tell. —Tamfang (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So. If that is so, then it means that Hubertus von der Osten (b. 1964), son of Princess Felicitas of Prussia (1934–2009) is the last person in the line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones as of 2020? Danishjaveed (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Osten is descended from Queen Victoria thru' Wilhelm II. There are hundreds of descendants of Queen Victoria, but James I has thousands. DrKay (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. So if not Osten, who would be last person in the Jacobite line of succession to the English and Scottish thrones as of 2020? Danishjaveed (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

--check out prince joseph wenzel of liechtenstein== listed as last jacobite heir born in uk '' Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein, Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein is the eldest child of Prince Alois of Liechtenstein, the Regent and Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein, and his wife, Princess Sophie of Bavaria, Duchess in Bavaria. In fact, Prince Joseph is both second in the line of succession to the Liechtensteiner throne—through his father—and third in the Jacobite line of succession to the thrones of England, Scotland, Ireland and France—through his mother. Wenzel is also the first Jacobite heir born in the British Isles since 1688. ref: https://pensandpatron.com/lists/most-eligible-royals-tb-4/4/ … /s willie von schnapes, 1st real heir … via louis xv (that's right he did Not die migrated to usa, so car living in around Charleston, so car under family name of perineau, aka peronneau … the real real ps f.n. also see your lines you are not showing this Bavaria line down to prince joe in your lines of succession down to today ??? q.n. f.n. many hidden lines e.g. to big willie the real willie as in … c, mp, kk, ll, ef ? ao ? I AM I AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.189.159 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

alignment
In the table, James I and Charles I are listed in the same generation. So should we delete James or indent everyone else by one bullet? —Tamfang (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

List is Incomplete
Charles I, Louis, Elector Palatine conducted a second marriage in 1658, which yielded 13 children, some of whom were still alive at the time of the Act of Settlement, but who are not included in this article. They were likely omitted due to the morganatic nature of Charles I Louis's second marriage. However, while the marriage was considered morganatic per the succession rules of the Palatinate electorate, the concept of morganatic marriage had never existed in English law. Charles I Louis's second marriage would have been considered completely valid under English common law, and the children thereof would have been considered legitimate with full succession rights as cognatic heirs of William the Conqueror. 75.118.202.53 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * His divorce of his first wife wasn't recognised by the Church of England, so the second marriage was bigamous and the children illegitimate. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)