The country of Liechtenstein may be small, but the Liechtenstein dynasty is actually the richest noble house in Europe. Nobody knows exactly how much they are actually worth, but it's clear that they have a way bigger personal wealth than most of the other royal houses, including the british one.
William of Orange was invited to be King in Britain, and came here, landing at Brixham in Devon. It was known as the "Glorious Revolution" 1688. Thereafter the King and Queen were known as "William and Mary"
As a supporter of our monarchy I believe that our monarch is precisely who our Parliament says it is and that is Charles III, the long-term decision of what a foreign country would term ‘We, the People’. Inarguable.
When I saw the video my mind was blown by not only the fact that princess Diana is Jacobite heir from a bastard descend, but that Charles III married her with or without knowing her heritage. Essentially William's birth poetically mirrors the end of the war of the roses. Add to that the story of princess Diana and you've got a bestseller novel!
as a scot I would do what the Norwegians did when they got their independence and choose a prince of Denmark to be their king, and since our independence ended with a Queen Anne I would choose Princess Anne to be the queen of Scots
@@MrBulky992 it would be Peter but I would like him to take the name Andrew I as it is a more scottish name and also one of his middle names and his eldest daughter would be after him as Anne III
A bit of Latin Connor: Jacobus is the Latin equivalent of James. Hence Jacobite / and the origin of the proper noun "Jacob" The old pretender and the young pretender were both named James, hence Jacobite rebellion.
Jacob is a character in the Old Testament in the Bible, son of Isaac and father of Joseph and his brothers. The English forms of "James" (from the New Testament) and "Jacob" are two forms of the same Hebrew name. The equivalent forms in St Jerome's latin Vulgate were "Jacobus" and "Jacob", respectively. The Old Pretender's father, deposed in 1688, was James VII and II. The Old Pretender was also named "James". The Young Pretender was named "Charles" and was popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie. Supporters of the line, however, were (and continue to be) called "Jacobites" regardless of the name of the current claimant.
@@MrBulky992 This is well put, many thanks indeed. Still today I am told that London (scottish) Jacobites at posh dinner parties raise a toast to the "wee furry fellow in the velvet jacket" - this is a reference to the mole that dug the hole into which the King William's horse put his foot, which in turn threw the king to the ground, where he later died of his injuries. So perhaps Jacobite sympathies are still around!
The 5th Earl of Spencer was the 6th's half-brother: they shared a father but had different mothers. I'm guessing the chart didn't include children from other marriages.
James the Scottish King converted to Catholicism after he was Crowned, when Elizabeth I failed to have any offspring. Remember Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church and decreed that any catholic descendant would be illegitimate for the crown. Therefore one could say James was deemed illegitimate the minute he converted + therefore any offspring are irrelevant.
Yes really, Mary his Catholic daughter, from Catherine of Aragon, his Catholic first wife, was declared a bastard / Illegitimate, i.e. not in line of succession, upon the annulment of his marriage to her mother. In the line of succession was his Protestant son + daughter, Edward + Elizabeth. His son was crowned as a child, with his mother as Regent, but he also died at 16. Elizabeth was next in line, but the Catholics, desperate for Mary to reign + restore the Vatican to power in England, arrested Elizabeth who was then imprisoned at Hatfield until Mary’s death. Mary reigned over an extremely fractured country, in fear for her life at all times. It is thought that the presumed stomach cancer that killed her was probably down to constant stress of holding the thrown by force.
It was a settled matter. Not since the war of the roses, where Henry VII was victorious had the throne been battled over-it marked a turning Point in history. Bored now
@@jules9243 Edward VI's mother died shortly after he was born. His regents were at first his uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset then later John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. In Henry VIII's last will which was approved by Parliament he set out the succession as Edward and his children if any, followed by Mary then Elizabeth
Connor - you shouldn't be so savage of George III expecting you Americans to pay for your defence. The Brits (at tremendous cost) had saved you from the French. Yes, you look younger than 89. Tell us your secret!
Perhaps James, after he converted should’ve remained King of Scotland and relinquished his claim to the throne of England-greed. Church of England people happy although Scotland didn’t want a catholic king either ?
When succession is not entirely clear-cut, it always comes to a succession crisis if two or more vaguely eligible have powerful backers, money and sizeable armies or militia.
I disagree with the Jacobite Succession on principle. The most ancient way we English choose our King is that we choose the one we want from among the Royal Family, but not necessarily the one strictly next in line. Parliament has the right to choose the one we want. Back in 1701 - that Act is still the legal basis for Charles III's Kingship - we rightly feared domination by European Catholic superpowers, particularly France. But what about the Scots? By their ancient custom a King had the right to appoint a Tanist, or successor. Now I have far more time for George III than you do, McJibbin. About 1803, he did a wise and magnanimous thing. The French Revolution had left Henry, Cardinal York, elderly and penniless. Hearing this , George III gave this brother of his family's former enemy a small pension to prevent his destitution. Henry was so grateful that, when he died, he arranged for the family jewels to be sent to George III. This is often felt to be an acknowledgement of George III as his heir, or Tanist. And you've been looking at the result. On Queen Elizabeth II's coffin was the Imperial State Cown, made in 1838 from ancient jewels. At its back is a huge sapphire, the Stuart Sapphire. That was given by Henry, Cardinal York, to our Royal Family.
james only converted to catholicism later, around when he remarried. he probably was a catholic in secret before that but when he fathered mary and anne he was still a protestant officially and raised his two daughters in a protestant manner to avoid suspicion. once the two girls were adults they didn't follow their father in becoming catholics.
Scotland would then have a civil war as there is major divide still between catholics and Protestants. It would turn out to be another Northern Ireland.
This vid is a year old lol but I think some people (from the US and other places) have trouble understanding why Catholics were looked down on so much at this time. But there is another timeline that happens if Britain hadn't passed the throne to George I, I think the monarchy would have been abolished. 1) the country had converted to Protestantism, going back to Catholicism was seen as a step backwards and could lead to another civil war. 2) Catholics answered to the Pope, so in effect the Pope would have rule over the country. By now the idea was that the monarchy served the people and led the Church of England. 3) Catholics had trouble accepting that they weren't absolute monarchs, they had certain delusions of grandeur, especially if they had the Pope onside. Whereas, inviting George I to the throne caused the evolution of parliament led by a Prime Minister. By the time the revolutions were happening in other countries and they were slaughtering their monarchs, if all we had was a Catholic monarch then the UK would have probably followed the trend, however a diminished monarchy sharing power with government made it seem less of a threat to people's freedoms. It's hard to know the alternate future but I do genuinely think the Jacobites still wouldn't have a monarch if James II was kept on. The Diana Spencer and William connection to them is intriguing though.
In 1979, Sweden passed a law abolishing male primogeniture and the then Crown Prince Carl Philip was relegated and his older sister became Crown Princess. The then and still King, Carl XVI Gustaf, wanted the change to take effect in the next generation so his son would not be relegated, but parliament in Sweden insisted on it being immediate. Carl Philip was born in 1979, so he was age only 1 when the law changed the succession and he wouldn't have known or cared.
the war of the austrian succession was because the previous monarch named his daughter heir. her uncle or cousin or something like that claimed the throne on the grounds that he is a man. therefore, war. the war of the spanish succession was because the previous king had no heirs. the question was whether it should go to the austrian habsburgs or to the french bourbons who were related to the spanish habsburgs by marriage.
King of England? They added the white around the English cross because the cross of st. George sits on a white background. Its interesting to read about the 6 different versions of the union flag, because they couldn't agree on it. The horrific picture depicted at 09:08 is from the battle of Culloden, where defeated highlanders were made to pose for that painting. And, contrary to popular belief, most of the highland clans did not support Bonnie Prince Charlie, the majority were Presbyterian, not catholic. Finally, I think if we do become independent, we would almost certainly be a republic.
@@neildiamondo6445 Well, most of the highland clans he rallied were catholic, as it was a dynastic struggle, not Scotland v England as is often portrayed. Most of the large highland clans wouldn't get involved, including my own, in a war led by a 22 year old Italian born claimant who had never been to Scotland. His grandfather held the respect.
@@neildiamondo6445 I've written 4 papers on Culloden plus my dissertation, I contributed to the 250th anniv special for STV and along with my former musical partner recorded a CD of Jacobite songs for the visitor center at Culloden. But here on RUclips I am subjected to this nonsense.
Scottish person here 👋 in the event of independence I think Scotland is most likely to become a republic and cut ties with the royal family. There was some sympathy for the queen but there isn't a whole lot of love here for the royals. The idea of choosing a Scottish monarch seems ridiculous, it would never happen. I love your history videos. P.s. We Scots wouldn't refer to ourselves as "Jocks" it's a term used by the English and can be considered quite derogatory.
Fast forward to the random moment in the future: ‘(Enter name)…..ruler of Great Britain, (maybe still Northern Ireland) and landlocked Liechtenstein!’ 😂
Succession wars happened when there were too many alternatives, especially if the different candidates were supported by great european powers. The War of the Spanish Succession happened because the spanish Habsburg line had died out and the austrian Habsburgs fought against the Bourbons of France - Louis XIV. had married a spanish princess and the austrian Habsburg line had a whole clusterfuck of family connections to the spanish line. In the end, the Bourbons won, but the other powers managed to prevent a union between France and Spain and the spanish Bourbons split off from the french line. The War of the Austrian Succession happened because the male line of the austrians Habsburgs died out as well and while the daughter of Emperor Charles VI., Maria Theres(i)a, inherited Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, etc., she could not become Holy Roman Emperor as a woman. So basically all enemies of Austria said "Well, it's free real estate!" and tried to grab a bit of territory while the Prince Elector of Bavaria (who was from the House of Wittelsbach, but who's mother had been a daughter of an earlier Habsburg Emperor) claimed to be the rightful Emperor. He actually got elected as Emperor Charles VII., but quickly lost militarily to the Habsburgs. After his death, Maria Theresia's husband became Emperor, so that she could call herself "Empress" (she was "only" Empress consort, but of course she had the real power as ruler if all the territories, her husband was just a figurehead). The other powers didn't manage to hold on to their claims, with the exception of Frederick II. of Prussia, who had conquered Silesia. He and Maria Theresia fought in three wars over this territory, the last one being part of the Seven Year's War.
Hilarious those crazy Jocks tried to get rid of a German King and if they became independent and wanted a descendant of the Stuart line they would have to ask another German to be king.......The quirks of history can be ironic....lol... Also the real king of England from the earlier Plantagenet line is living in Australia.....I suppose a lot of things could have different out comes but for fate in all countries and walks of life.....
And in 1707, the Scottish nobles agreed to the union with England, in return for the English government paying off all the Scottish losses from investing in the Darien Scheme, when all the settlers in Panama died and the project failed, threatening to bankrupt Scotland as a whole through the loss of 40% of their GDP.
Honestly, don't waste your time working from American videos of British history - especially where Monarchy is concerned. After 'Bloody Mary', there was no way the British people would ever tolerate a Catholic on the throne.
The sovereign of the UK is the senior most figure (like the Pope, administratively) of the Church of England. How could the Pope of one religion belong to another religion? Also at the time the Pope was mucking around in business and political affairs alot more than now. You would not want your king or queen to be in any way beholden to Rome.
Jacobitism is a very romantic notion - but, if I had lived at the time (and a prot), I would have preferred the Duke of Monmouth to have succeeded . If only he had waited a year or two and been a success . He was the son of Charles II - a bastard ,but Parliament could have legitimised him. He was a good soldier etc. But, he would have been a Stuart and kept royal authority dear to him. Whereas, under the Georgians, democracy was a natural process of evolution (Queen Victoria hated the idea of universal suffrage = which didn't come finally until after WW1)). The Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie are nice charecters and, as a Catholic, I would have supported them - but things have ended well anyway.
Thing is back then they all married cousins and nobity so this map is pointless really. It all starts with mary queen of scots and what the Scottish wanted was a Scots person on thrown. Well now they have it as king Charles is 15th times great grandson of Mary queen of scots
Mary Queen of Scots was half French and her father Scots/Welsh/English/Danish, a real hotch potch of ethnicities, as were most royalty at the time but she was closer in generations to our current king, Charles III than our last ancestral Welsh king (Henry VII) and much closer than the last ancestral territorially "English" one (Edward III) or ethnically English one (Edmund II Ironside).
If a ruler dies without heirs they just go back and back till they find a branch that has survived , THATS how the Germans were brought into the scene that Jed all the way to present day Charles lll . Is George lll still hated to this day in the New World ? 😆 🏴👍
But in this case they went back, ignoring succession rights because of religion, which is done in the British monarchy to this day. So, the British monarchy is out of step with modern law that prohibits discrimination based on religion.
Bear in mind he's a historian. I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any idea who George the Third was. And before anyone argues otherwise let's not forget the Americans had a President who thought the Continental Army “took over the airports” from the British during the American Revolutionary War in the 1770s. 🤦
@@fromireland8663 no it isn’t , your the one out of step mate , yes Primogeniture was the go to policy if the establishment for over a thousand years .. that changed with Prince William , It’s first come first served now no matter the sex if 1st born . As for the Religion question , yes that’s out of order , I’m catholic myself but like me most folk on this isle simply don’t care that much about monarchy and I’ve no doubt that in my kids lifetimes going to a Republic will be discussed . After Elizabeth ll , there’s really no excuse for a monarchy these days . They take more than they give , and don’t give me the tourist dollars bollox , as the sums don’t add up . This is all Henry VIII fault , he was so desperate to hump Ann Boleyn he not only dumped his wife but introduced Protestantism and made reigning monarchs here head of the Church of England , hence you can’t also be a Catholic . He really was a cruel , vindictive , Randy and flaccid old douche bag . AND the fucker never actually BECAME a Protestant, born a Catholic and died one getting extreme unction on his death bed . You’ve all been had and fooled by that fat old fkr … toast in hell Henry 👀 Goodbye Royal family , maybe not today , but tomorrow and forever 🖕 👍🏴
@@MrBulky992 And as I’m in NO doubt you are fully aware , James the old Pretender did indeed sign away his right to succeed to his son Charles after the dismal conclusion of the failure of the 1715 rising . He was a broken and tired man by this time and pinned all his hopes for regaining the throne on “ The Young Chevalier “ Charles. So I’m right in every way and your not.. that must suck Donkey Balls 😆 👍🏴
@@jaymacgee_A_Bawbag_Blethering Your reply (which seems to have disappeared) to my post of 2 hours ago stated that James relinquished his claim to the throne after the failure of the 1715 rebellion in favour of his son Charles. This is completely wrong. In 1715, James, the Old Pretender, the man you described as a "broken and tired man" was only 27 years of age and had no direct heir. Had he relinquished his right to the throne in 1715, his heiress presumptive would have been...his enemy and half-sister, Mary II, the de facto queen of Great Britain at the time! That would have spelt the end of the Jacobite cause, there and then and at a stroke. Another Jacobite rising occurred in 1719, the year of James's marriage and their son Charles was not born until the following year and did not come of age until the 1740s. When Bonnie Prince Charlie's forces captured Edinburgh during the '45 rebellion, it was his *father* James who was proclaimed king of Scots at the Mercat Cross on 18 September 1745 as "James VIII" and similar proclamations occurred elsewhere. James was upset because Charles had not consulted him before launching his campaign and had compromised James's future prospects of gaining his throne. At no time did James relinquish his claim to the throne which was recognised by the Pope until his death in 1766. Charles did not style himself as "king" until his father was dead. All websites relating to Jacobite studies agree that James's "reign" extended to 1766 e.g. www.jacobite.ca/kings/ Perhaps you ought to check your facts before posting aggressive replies.
Lighten up, the term 'Jocks' is not necessarily derogatory - it was certainly used in WW2 by troops in English Regiments simply as a shorthand without any disrespect. Besides, are we no' a' Jock Tamson's bairns ?
Yes I’m Scot’s lol not a jock ( sweaty sock) It rhymes ! No I’d get rid of monarchy once snd for all and vote for a republic with a honorific President but still ruled by Holyrood and 1st minister 👍🏴
@@QPRTokyo I’m sure you think you made a point there but I’m fkd if I can figure out what it is ! What are you failing to say ? I’m happy to discuss etc but your 5 word answer doesn’t leave much to go on 🤨 👍🏴
The country of Liechtenstein may be small, but the Liechtenstein dynasty is actually the richest noble house in Europe. Nobody knows exactly how much they are actually worth, but it's clear that they have a way bigger personal wealth than most of the other royal houses, including the british one.
William of Orange was invited to be King in Britain, and came here, landing at Brixham in Devon. It was known as the "Glorious Revolution" 1688. Thereafter the King and Queen were known as "William and Mary"
As a supporter of our monarchy I believe that our monarch is precisely who our Parliament says it is and that is Charles III, the long-term decision of what a foreign country would term ‘We, the People’. Inarguable.
When I saw the video my mind was blown by not only the fact that princess Diana is Jacobite heir from a bastard descend, but that Charles III married her with or without knowing her heritage.
Essentially William's birth poetically mirrors the end of the war of the roses. Add to that the story of princess Diana and you've got a bestseller novel!
Princess Diana was not, do read the Act of Settlement 1701
as a scot I would do what the Norwegians did when they got their independence and choose a prince of Denmark to be their king, and since our independence ended with a Queen Anne I would choose Princess Anne to be the queen of Scots
You could certainly do worse.
That's an interesting idea with precedent: the House of Phillips (if Peter inherits; or would it be Zara?).
@@MrBulky992 it would be Peter but I would like him to take the name Andrew I as it is a more scottish name and also one of his middle names and his eldest daughter would be after him as Anne III
Prince Phillip was a prince of Denmark … as well as Greece.
The royal family is Scottish as well.
A bit of Latin Connor: Jacobus is the Latin equivalent of James. Hence Jacobite / and the origin of the proper noun "Jacob" The old pretender and the young pretender were both named James, hence Jacobite rebellion.
Jacob is a character in the Old Testament in the Bible, son of Isaac and father of Joseph and his brothers.
The English forms of "James" (from the New Testament) and "Jacob" are two forms of the same Hebrew name. The equivalent forms in St Jerome's latin Vulgate were "Jacobus" and "Jacob", respectively.
The Old Pretender's father, deposed in 1688, was James VII and II.
The Old Pretender was also named "James".
The Young Pretender was named "Charles" and was popularly known as Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Supporters of the line, however, were (and continue to be) called "Jacobites" regardless of the name of the current claimant.
@@MrBulky992 This is well put, many thanks indeed. Still today I am told that London (scottish) Jacobites at posh dinner parties raise a toast to the "wee furry fellow in the velvet jacket" - this is a reference to the mole that dug the hole into which the King William's horse put his foot, which in turn threw the king to the ground, where he later died of his injuries. So perhaps Jacobite sympathies are still around!
@@MrBulky992 Ah Mr. K.B. you certainly know your stuff! I was a Latin graduate and Jacobus was something we learned, way back in the day. Many thanks.
The 5th Earl of Spencer was the 6th's half-brother: they shared a father but had different mothers. I'm guessing the chart didn't include children from other marriages.
James the Scottish King converted to Catholicism after he was Crowned, when Elizabeth I failed to have any offspring. Remember Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church and decreed that any catholic descendant would be illegitimate for the crown. Therefore one could say James was deemed illegitimate the minute he converted + therefore any offspring are irrelevant.
Really!!! If Henry VIII banned Catholics from taking the throne, how did his daughter Mary become Queen?
Yes really, Mary his Catholic daughter, from Catherine of Aragon, his Catholic first wife, was declared a bastard / Illegitimate, i.e. not in line of succession, upon the annulment of his marriage to her mother. In the line of succession was his Protestant son + daughter, Edward + Elizabeth. His son was crowned as a child, with his mother as Regent, but he also died at 16. Elizabeth was next in line, but the Catholics, desperate for Mary to reign + restore the Vatican to power in England, arrested Elizabeth who was then imprisoned at Hatfield until Mary’s death. Mary reigned over an extremely fractured country, in fear for her life at all times. It is thought that the presumed stomach cancer that killed her was probably down to constant stress of holding the thrown by force.
@@jules9243 FYI: They all held the throne by force.
It was a settled matter. Not since the war of the roses, where Henry VII was victorious had the throne been battled over-it marked a turning Point in history. Bored now
@@jules9243 Edward VI's mother died shortly after he was born. His regents were at first his uncle Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset then later John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. In Henry VIII's last will which was approved by Parliament he set out the succession as Edward and his children if any, followed by Mary then Elizabeth
Connor - you shouldn't be so savage of George III expecting you Americans to pay for your defence. The Brits (at tremendous cost) had saved you from the French. Yes, you look younger than 89. Tell us your secret!
Perhaps James, after he converted should’ve remained King of Scotland and relinquished his claim to the throne of England-greed. Church of England people happy although Scotland didn’t want a catholic king either ?
When succession is not entirely clear-cut, it always comes to a succession crisis if two or more vaguely eligible have powerful backers, money and sizeable armies or militia.
I disagree with the Jacobite Succession on principle. The most ancient way we English choose our King is that we choose the one we want from among the Royal Family, but not necessarily the one strictly next in line. Parliament has the right to choose the one we want. Back in 1701 - that Act is still the legal basis for Charles III's Kingship - we rightly feared domination by European Catholic superpowers, particularly France.
But what about the Scots? By their ancient custom a King had the right to appoint a Tanist, or successor.
Now I have far more time for George III than you do, McJibbin. About 1803, he did a wise and magnanimous thing. The French Revolution had left Henry, Cardinal York, elderly and penniless. Hearing this , George III gave this brother of his family's former enemy a small pension to prevent his destitution.
Henry was so grateful that, when he died, he arranged for the family jewels to be sent to George III. This is often felt to be an acknowledgement of George III as his heir, or Tanist.
And you've been looking at the result. On Queen Elizabeth II's coffin was the Imperial State Cown, made in 1838 from ancient jewels. At its back is a huge sapphire, the Stuart Sapphire.
That was given by Henry, Cardinal York, to our Royal Family.
james only converted to catholicism later, around when he remarried. he probably was a catholic in secret before that but when he fathered mary and anne he was still a protestant officially and raised his two daughters in a protestant manner to avoid suspicion. once the two girls were adults they didn't follow their father in becoming catholics.
Scotland would then have a civil war as there is major divide still between catholics and Protestants. It would turn out to be another Northern Ireland.
This vid is a year old lol but I think some people (from the US and other places) have trouble understanding why Catholics were looked down on so much at this time. But there is another timeline that happens if Britain hadn't passed the throne to George I, I think the monarchy would have been abolished.
1) the country had converted to Protestantism, going back to Catholicism was seen as a step backwards and could lead to another civil war.
2) Catholics answered to the Pope, so in effect the Pope would have rule over the country. By now the idea was that the monarchy served the people and led the Church of England.
3) Catholics had trouble accepting that they weren't absolute monarchs, they had certain delusions of grandeur, especially if they had the Pope onside.
Whereas, inviting George I to the throne caused the evolution of parliament led by a Prime Minister. By the time the revolutions were happening in other countries and they were slaughtering their monarchs, if all we had was a Catholic monarch then the UK would have probably followed the trend, however a diminished monarchy sharing power with government made it seem less of a threat to people's freedoms. It's hard to know the alternate future but I do genuinely think the Jacobites still wouldn't have a monarch if James II was kept on.
The Diana Spencer and William connection to them is intriguing though.
In 1979, Sweden passed a law abolishing male primogeniture and the then Crown Prince Carl Philip was relegated and his older sister became Crown Princess. The then and still King, Carl XVI Gustaf, wanted the change to take effect in the next generation so his son would not be relegated, but parliament in Sweden insisted on it being immediate. Carl Philip was born in 1979, so he was age only 1 when the law changed the succession and he wouldn't have known or cared.
the war of the austrian succession was because the previous monarch named his daughter heir. her uncle or cousin or something like that claimed the throne on the grounds that he is a man. therefore, war.
the war of the spanish succession was because the previous king had no heirs. the question was whether it should go to the austrian habsburgs or to the french bourbons who were related to the spanish habsburgs by marriage.
King of England? They added the white around the English cross because the cross of st. George sits on a white background. Its interesting to read about the 6 different versions of the union flag, because they couldn't agree on it. The horrific picture depicted at 09:08 is from the battle of Culloden, where defeated highlanders were made to pose for that painting. And, contrary to popular belief, most of the highland clans did not support Bonnie Prince Charlie, the majority were Presbyterian, not catholic. Finally, I think if we do become independent, we would almost certainly be a republic.
@@neildiamondo6445 Well, most of the highland clans he rallied were catholic, as it was a dynastic struggle, not Scotland v England as is often portrayed. Most of the large highland clans wouldn't get involved, including my own, in a war led by a 22 year old Italian born claimant who had never been to Scotland. His grandfather held the respect.
@@neildiamondo6445 You rude arrogant twat. Go and read your history you ignorant fool.
@@neildiamondo6445 I've written 4 papers on Culloden plus my dissertation, I contributed to the 250th anniv special for STV and along with my former musical partner recorded a CD of Jacobite songs for the visitor center at Culloden. But here on RUclips I am subjected to this nonsense.
@@neildiamondo6445 Stop trolling people on RUclips.
Scottish person here 👋 in the event of independence I think Scotland is most likely to become a republic and cut ties with the royal family. There was some sympathy for the queen but there isn't a whole lot of love here for the royals. The idea of choosing a Scottish monarch seems ridiculous, it would never happen. I love your history videos.
P.s. We Scots wouldn't refer to ourselves as "Jocks" it's a term used by the English and can be considered quite derogatory.
Fast forward to the random moment in the future:
‘(Enter name)…..ruler of Great Britain, (maybe still Northern Ireland) and landlocked Liechtenstein!’ 😂
Succession wars happened when there were too many alternatives, especially if the different candidates were supported by great european powers. The War of the Spanish Succession happened because the spanish Habsburg line had died out and the austrian Habsburgs fought against the Bourbons of France - Louis XIV. had married a spanish princess and the austrian Habsburg line had a whole clusterfuck of family connections to the spanish line. In the end, the Bourbons won, but the other powers managed to prevent a union between France and Spain and the spanish Bourbons split off from the french line.
The War of the Austrian Succession happened because the male line of the austrians Habsburgs died out as well and while the daughter of Emperor Charles VI., Maria Theres(i)a, inherited Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, etc., she could not become Holy Roman Emperor as a woman. So basically all enemies of Austria said "Well, it's free real estate!" and tried to grab a bit of territory while the Prince Elector of Bavaria (who was from the House of Wittelsbach, but who's mother had been a daughter of an earlier Habsburg Emperor) claimed to be the rightful Emperor. He actually got elected as Emperor Charles VII., but quickly lost militarily to the Habsburgs. After his death, Maria Theresia's husband became Emperor, so that she could call herself "Empress" (she was "only" Empress consort, but of course she had the real power as ruler if all the territories, her husband was just a figurehead). The other powers didn't manage to hold on to their claims, with the exception of Frederick II. of Prussia, who had conquered Silesia. He and Maria Theresia fought in three wars over this territory, the last one being part of the Seven Year's War.
Hilarious those crazy Jocks tried to get rid of a German King and if they became independent and wanted a descendant
of the Stuart line they would have to ask another German to be king.......The quirks of history can be ironic....lol...
Also the real king of England from the earlier Plantagenet line is living in Australia.....I suppose a lot of things could have
different out comes but for fate in all countries and walks of life.....
And in 1707, the Scottish nobles agreed to the union with England, in return for the English government paying off all the Scottish losses from investing in the Darien Scheme, when all the settlers in Panama died and the project failed, threatening to bankrupt Scotland as a whole through the loss of 40% of their GDP.
The English government knew the scheme in Panama would fail , it was the only way Scotland would agree to the union.
Meghan’s become infamous for saying that she and Harry are only one plane crash away from the British throne …
Honestly, don't waste your time working from American videos of British history - especially where Monarchy is concerned.
After 'Bloody Mary', there was no way the British people would ever tolerate a Catholic on the throne.
The sovereign of the UK is the senior most figure (like the Pope, administratively) of the Church of England. How could the Pope of one religion belong to another religion? Also at the time the Pope was mucking around in business and political affairs alot more than now. You would not want your king or queen to be in any way beholden to Rome.
No reason why the monarch could not step back from head of the church role.
Good point about two popes. I never considered that aspect. The 'pope' of the Church of England being subject to the supremacy of the Pope in Rome.
A lot more than now? Some things never or won't change.
Jacobitism is a very romantic notion - but, if I had lived at the time (and a prot), I would have preferred the Duke of Monmouth to have succeeded . If only he had waited a year or two and been a success . He was the son of Charles II - a bastard ,but Parliament could have legitimised him. He was a good soldier etc. But, he would have been a Stuart and kept royal authority dear to him. Whereas, under the Georgians, democracy was a natural process of evolution (Queen Victoria hated the idea of universal suffrage = which didn't come finally until after WW1)). The Old Pretender and Bonnie Prince Charlie are nice charecters and, as a Catholic, I would have supported them - but things have ended well anyway.
If the Prince of Wales oldest child had been OLDER then she would jump before Prince George
Thankfully things have changed
Yes, a step forward. But the British monarchy still discriminates based on religion.
George is the eldest child of the Prince of Wales
Thing is back then they all married cousins and nobity so this map is pointless really. It all starts with mary queen of scots and what the Scottish wanted was a Scots person on thrown. Well now they have it as king Charles is 15th times great grandson of Mary queen of scots
Mary Queen of Scots was half French and her father Scots/Welsh/English/Danish, a real hotch potch of ethnicities, as were most royalty at the time but she was closer in generations to our current king, Charles III than our last ancestral Welsh king (Henry VII) and much closer than the last ancestral territorially "English" one (Edward III) or ethnically English one (Edmund II Ironside).
I love the fact that your ADHD is living its best life hahaha. #TeamADHD, unfortunately but we got this 💪🏼💪🏼
If a ruler dies without heirs they just go back and back till they find a branch that has survived , THATS how the Germans were brought into the scene that Jed all the way to present day Charles lll .
Is George lll still hated to this day in the New World ? 😆
🏴👍
But in this case they went back, ignoring succession rights because of religion, which is done in the British monarchy to this day. So, the British monarchy is out of step with modern law that prohibits discrimination based on religion.
@@fromireland8663
I think Bloody Mary made a case for the legitimate discrimination based on Religion.....
Bear in mind he's a historian. I doubt the vast majority of Americans would have any idea who George the Third was. And before anyone argues otherwise let's not forget the Americans had a President who thought the Continental Army “took over the airports” from the British during the American Revolutionary War in the 1770s. 🤦
@@fromireland8663 no it isn’t , your the one out of step mate , yes Primogeniture was the go to policy if the establishment for over a thousand years .. that changed with Prince William , It’s first come first served now no matter the sex if 1st born . As for the Religion question , yes that’s out of order , I’m catholic myself but like me most folk on this isle simply don’t care that much about monarchy and I’ve no doubt that in my kids lifetimes going to a Republic will be discussed . After Elizabeth ll , there’s really no excuse for a monarchy these days . They take more than they give , and don’t give me the tourist dollars bollox , as the sums don’t add up .
This is all Henry VIII fault , he was so desperate to hump Ann Boleyn he not only dumped his wife but introduced Protestantism and made reigning monarchs here head of the Church of England , hence you can’t also be a Catholic . He really was a cruel , vindictive , Randy and flaccid old douche bag . AND the fucker never actually BECAME a Protestant, born a Catholic and died one getting extreme unction on his death bed . You’ve all been had and fooled by that fat old fkr … toast in hell Henry 👀 Goodbye Royal family , maybe not today , but tomorrow and forever 🖕
👍🏴
@@MKR5210 as Henry VIII did before her, and Edward and Elizabeth I did after her.
This narrator has completely failed to recognize that the king of that time was the King of England and Ireland.
Yea, saying King of England sounds kind of cool. Then you remember it's Charlie 😂
Plus there’s no such thing it’s the King of the United Kingdom of Great British and Northern Ireland
@@katherinewithak2865 ...Great Britain...
@@MrBulky992 I’m dyslexic, can be a pain in the behind 😓
Is a Jacobite king about as powerful as 4 normal kings?
Yes, you look younger than 89. What's your secret?
Bonnie Prince Charlie should’ve been our next sovereign way back in 1745 ish 👍🏴
No
@@gozza7199 aye !!!🏴
That would have meant cutting his father, James the Old Pretender ("James VIII"), out of the succession as he lived until 1766.
@@MrBulky992 And as I’m in NO doubt you are fully aware , James the old Pretender did indeed sign away his right to succeed to his son Charles after the dismal conclusion of the failure of the 1715 rising . He was a broken and tired man by this time and pinned all his hopes for regaining the throne on “ The Young Chevalier “ Charles. So I’m right in every way and your not.. that must suck Donkey Balls 😆
👍🏴
@@jaymacgee_A_Bawbag_Blethering Your reply (which seems to have disappeared) to my post of 2 hours ago stated that James relinquished his claim to the throne after the failure of the 1715 rebellion in favour of his son Charles. This is completely wrong.
In 1715, James, the Old Pretender, the man you described as a "broken and tired man" was only 27 years of age and had no direct heir. Had he relinquished his right to the throne in 1715, his heiress presumptive would have been...his enemy and half-sister, Mary II, the de facto queen of Great Britain at the time! That would have spelt the end of the Jacobite cause, there and then and at a stroke.
Another Jacobite rising occurred in 1719, the year of James's marriage and their son Charles was not born until the following year and did not come of age until the 1740s.
When Bonnie Prince Charlie's forces captured Edinburgh during the '45 rebellion, it was his *father* James who was proclaimed king of Scots at the Mercat Cross on 18 September 1745 as "James VIII" and similar proclamations occurred elsewhere. James was upset because Charles had not consulted him before launching his campaign and had compromised James's future prospects of gaining his throne.
At no time did James relinquish his claim to the throne which was recognised by the Pope until his death in 1766. Charles did not style himself as "king" until his father was dead.
All websites relating to Jacobite studies agree that James's "reign" extended to 1766 e.g.
www.jacobite.ca/kings/
Perhaps you ought to check your facts before posting aggressive replies.
Try not to call Scottish people 'Jocks' as it is a derogatory term and you may offend some people. Al Murray uses it because he is trying to offend.
Lighten up, the term 'Jocks' is not necessarily derogatory - it was certainly used in WW2 by troops in English Regiments simply as a shorthand without any disrespect. Besides, are we no' a' Jock Tamson's bairns ?
Grossbritannien = Great Britain in German.
Yes I’m Scot’s lol not a jock ( sweaty sock)
It rhymes ! No I’d get rid of monarchy once snd for all and vote for a republic with a honorific President but still ruled by Holyrood and 1st minister
👍🏴
Or could we just have a repulic! I'm sure it makes more sense than this BS.
🏴
Who cares. They were thrown out. The Stuarts were always above themselves. Thank goodness for their removal.
Above themselves in what way?
rubbish
Both of James daughters betrayed him .. not cool ladies !!
👍🏴
They knew him you didn’t.
@@QPRTokyo I’m sure you think you made a point there but I’m fkd if I can figure out what it is ! What are you failing to say ? I’m happy to discuss etc but your 5 word answer doesn’t leave much to go on 🤨
👍🏴