Talk:Jacobite succession/Archive 1

Archive 1

a list of candidates

I've made a list of legitimate Stuart descendants alive between 1688 and 1714. Criticism is invited. —Tamfang 22:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Current Monarch

Based on Jacobite theories, is the current monarch in the line of succession? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Jacobites the same as Legitimists in France? I say this because it seems that they don't recognize it when a King is deposed or abdicates. Does that mean that if enough people die that the claim will go to the reigning monarch thus ending this line? Emperor001 (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumably by "current monarch" and "reigning monarch" you mean the lady whom devout Jacobites call "Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark". If that is the case, then the answer to your first question, is Yes, she is in the Jacobite line of succession after all of the living descendants of King Charles I (there are several thousand), and then all of the living descendants of the two elder brothers of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (several thousand more). Virtually every Catholic prince in Europe (as well as thousands of other people) would have to die for the Jacobite and Hanoverian claims to be united in the way you set forth. An alternative "solution" would be a marriage between the claimants or heirs of each line (as was repeatedly considered in Spain between the Carlists and the Isabellists) and as actually happened in Sweden between the Bernadottes and the Vasa heiress. But I don't think too many Jacobites would be happy about a marriage announcement to a Windsor; besides, the age, gender, and marriage status of the current individuals precludes it. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alicia

WP:Neutrality says that an article "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Today User:Bourbonist added photographs for the heirs of Maria Teresa of Savoy (younger sister of Maria Beatrice of Savoy, aka Queen Mary III and II). There are virtually no supporters of this line - nor have there ever been; it is a line of succession created by writers (virtually all of them supporters of the Hanoverian succession). The additions made by User:Bourbonist suggest that there are two contesting lines of succession (comparable perhaps to the two claims to the Two Sicilies throne); this is completely misleading. It gives much too much prominence to the Maria Teresa alternative. There is no literary warrant for the addition of "reign names" for Maria Teresa's heirs-of-line. I have reverted the changes to restore the appropriate balance. Noel S McFerran (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument for Alicia is out there, presenting how it gets to her from Maria Teresa under a section titles "alternative successions" does no harm at all. If its worth mentioning the "alternative" claim in the first place, then its worth showing how. I don't see what it has to do with neutrality, since it doesn't say to the reader "you have to follow this alternative line". If the reign names are a problem, then remove the reign names, but the alternative linage needs to be presented. Thanks. - Bourbonist (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Neutrality. Wikipedia does not say that all theories should be presented with equal prominence. On the contrary. The list of Jacobite sovereigns is recorded in dozens and dozens of books. Can you name one single book which lists the heirs of line of Maria Teresa as Jacobite sovereigns? It is totally inappropriate in an article about the Jacobite succession to present the heirs of line of Maria Teresa with comparable treatment to the real Jacobite successors. In the article List of English monarchs the Jacobite successors are not presented with equal importance to the de facto reigning line. In the same way, here, the heirs of Maria Teresa should be mentioned, but not treated comparably to the real Jacobite succession.

It is also standard when somebody makes a bold edit (as Bourbonist has), and then that edit is reverted, for there to be discussion before the bold editor re-inserts the edit. Please look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mcferran I think you're missing the point. Its not really comparable with the monarchs of England article, since this is an article specifically about pretenders/claimants rather than actual in practice monarchs. Both Franz, Duke of Bavaria and Alicia, Duchess of Calabria have a claim to it via Jacobite succession. Also the two things are not given the same treatment within the article. Its Franz is presented within the "orthodox" and general claimants section, while Alicia is in a section called "alternative successions" so no mistake or confusion can be made. And also I didn't write the alternative sections, only added a table to show how it gets to Alicia in the alternative line. This is helpful since Alicia's claim is likely to pass to her son in the not too distant future. - Bourbonist (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It certainly should be noted which successor is has the strongest claim and/or support. since this is about the Jacobite succession, what is most important is whom the majority of Jacobites support. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A flaw in the analogy with List of English monarchs is that there is a de facto reigning house but there is not (since 1807) an active Jacobite claimant. —Tamfang (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alicia, Victor, and Elizabeth

What is the purpose of having them listed here? Certainly there is only one person who is regarded by Jacobites as being the heir general to the claims of James II and VII. Having them here seems to be entirely for confusing the issue, and making it appear to the firsttime reader that Jacobitism is so silly that its adherents can't even agree as to who the legitimate King or Queen is!

Firstly the House of Savoy is easily refuted, as the article itself states, as British and Italian succession laws differ. For the period 1807-1845 the House of Savoy was the "rightful" Jacobite House, but Sardinian law does not Female Succession, so even Mary, while being of the House of Savoy, was never the Head of the House of Savoy.

Secondly, Alicia's claim is ludicrous. CErtainly the marriage of Mary could not have taken place in Britain in a C of E ceremony, but so what? They were married in a land where their marriage was legal and valid(with Papal dispensation), and British law clearly states that if a marriage is valid in the land where it takes place, then British law considers it legal. So why even mention this "Alternate line of succession"? Perhaps this line SHOULD be mentioned, but with its origins mentioned(ie. created by Hanoverian propagandists).

Thirdly, Elizabeth. The ranting and raving which states that all of Sophia's elder siblings' marriages were "obviously null and void" etc has no place in an encyclopaedia. Referring to Medieval laws that had long since been abolished, merely because they would supposedly support Elizabeth. I shuddered when reading that. I have not removed it yet, but would first suggest that someone may tidy it up, and make it read more like an encyclopaedia than like the outburst of a lunatic. Failing that, ie if it is impossible to make sense of it, it should be removed.

Lastly, the heading for this section states that Franz of Bavaria is the "most widely recognized" Jacobite heir. In fact, he is the ONLY Jacobite heir. Mildred Herring (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is room for improvements in langauge. But, if the arguments for and against the other candidates were omitted, sooner or later someone would say "I read in the East Loamshire Fishwrap that the REAL Jacobite heir is so-and-so; why isn't s/he even mentioned here?". — Hm, does anyone still believe in Michel Lafosse? He's not mentioned at all. —Tamfang (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the general point was that according to sources, there is only one Jacobite "heit", currently Franz of Bavaria. While the other "Candidates" are certainly interesting to take note of, the article is worded in such a way that makes it appear that all4 people are equally "the Jacobite heir". The Elizabeth section in particular is shockingly bad. Likewise people seem to have made counterarguments that aren't much better. In fact, perhaps the removal of all "other claimants" would not be such a bad idea? Perhaps after the bulk of the main article(describing the lineage to Franz), a separate paragraph could mention the others, and the arguments both for and against? But the way it looks now is something of a mess. Mildred Herring (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

After the bulk of the main article (decsribing the lineage to Franz), a separate paragraph does mention the others, and the arguments both for and against; isn't that what you were complaining about? It is something of a mess, but the writing could be improved. I guess I'm stuck with it. —Tamfang (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you like it any better now? —Tamfang (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Mildred wrote: they have all been used, to differing degrees, by anti-Jacobites, hoping to discredit the heirs of James II and VII. I heard once (and find plausible) that the Parma theory was raised by Jacobites when Germans, such as the husband of the then holder of the claim, suddenly became unfashionable. —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit that might be original research

See WP:NORN#Editor re-added what I think is OR & told me to fact tag it Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The Alternate Jacobite Successions

Sorry, this has come up before but....

is there any reason for having "Jacobite successions" apart from the only one with reliable Sources? Having someone claim that Elizabeth or whoever is the real claimant under this succession seems only to cloud the issue. 41.133.1.25 (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What's a reliable source for counterfactuals? —Tamfang (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

old rant

Supposed post-Stuart claimants, do not even recognise the claims made about themselves by their "supporters". It seems odd to present the article this way. Jacobite circles died out with Henry; disaffected among them joining the American Revolutionaries. Whose theories are driving this, but one Noel S McFerran? Whilst I am a romantic and fond of the Stuarts, I do not recognise this succession as presented by McFerran. Éponyme 17:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This article was created to remove much of the list and "Alternative Successions" from Jacobitism. If you think this is bad, try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gallery_of_Jacobite_pretenders&oldid=76602807#Jacobite_Succession --Henrygb 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Éponyme is just wrong when he says that "Jacobite circles died out with Henry". There is lots of evidence of continuing Jacobite interest in the 19th-21st centuries. Today the Yahoo Jacobite discussion group has over 300 subscribers; of course not all of these people are Jacobite (many have merely an historical interest in the topic). But there are certainly hundreds if not thousands of English, Scottish, and Irish people who recognise Francis, Duke of Bavaria as their lawful sovereign. That is a matter of fact which it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to record. The various wiki-articles make clear that since Henry's death "no Jacobite heir has actually claimed the throne"; that is equally a fact which it is reasonable for an encyclopedia to record. Noel S McFerran 11:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Back up your claims with reputable sources. Are you Michael Lafosse in reality? Éponyme 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is downright irritating when people who don't know anything about a topic edit a wiki-article. Other times it's just plain amusing as in this case. I am one of the most well-known opponents of Michael Lafosse and pride myself on being at least partially responsible for his downfall (although my own research was into his false historical claims while others were responsible for revealing his false claims about his own birthname). Feel free to check out my website "The Jacobite Heritage" http://www.jacobite.ca which is counted among the most important scholarly websites on Jacobitism both historical and contemporary . Noel S McFerran 17:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You know you wrote all the sources aka self-created sites that are used as references on individuals after Henry Stuart. Could you provide reliable sources like a book for example.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Self-promotion, is it then? There is no Jacobite activity after Henry, except in culture and the Whig-Tory conflicts actually on British soil. Tell us which supposed heirs acknowledge such claims, or quarter their coats of arms with the UK. Henry was the last to do so and as such, the Royal Website [1] recognizes the last legitimate heirs. Let's get this clear: my (and other) opposition does not necessarily stem from anti-Stuart/pro-Hanover agendas. I think it is debasing to present the legacy of the Stuarts as having been upheld by the House of Savoy and others. Where was their royal visit to Scotland, as Georgie Porgie did? Where was their interaction at all with any Jacobites in history, except fanboys like yourself who intrude in their lives and annoy them with these fallacious claims? Sure, some of those dead people knew the Jacobites and helped them out. Whether I like it or not, the Hanoverians rightfully succeeded to the House of Stuart. None of these people YOU support as rightful heirs, have had anything to do with the UK whatsoever all this time and yet, YOU expect everybody to agree with unsourced claims. Websites can be set up by teenagers. You've obviously done extensive research into the lives of the actual Jacobites and that is what matters here, not theoretical succession. Just think of Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun. Stop the nonsense. Éponyme 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia Wikipedia summarizes published scholarship. There are numerous published works which list the heirs of the Stuarts as outlined on this wiki-page:

• The Stuart Calendar (1888).
• Alice Shield, Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York and His Times (1908).
• Grant R. Francis, Scotland's Royal Line (1928).
• Charles Petrie, The Jacobite Movement (1950).
• Joe J. Heydecker, Kronprinz Rupprecht von Bayern (1953).
• Kurt Sendtner, Rupprecht von Wittelsbach (1954).
• Theo Aronson, Kings over the Water (1979).

In addition, many biographies of the individual heirs make passing reference to their Jacobite inheritance.

As for there being "no Jacobite activity after Henry", see Ian Fletcher, W. B. Yeats and His Contemporaries and Murray Pittock, The Invention of Scotland. The activities of Michael Lafosse are evidence of (in my opinion, a thoroughly misguided) contemporary activity.

The current Jacobite representative has visited England and Scotland many more times than any of his predecessors (including James III and Charles III).

As for the assertion that I "intrude in their lives and annoy them with these fallacious claims" (a charge which has little to do with the editing of Wikipedia), all I can say is that I have personally been received in audience by no fewer than six members of the (Jacobite) Royal Family. They have always been very gracious. They make no claims for themselves either to the English and Scottish thrones or to the Bavarian throne. They merely are who they are. Noel S McFerran 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica mentions the line of the Jacobite/legitimist succession after 1807 and discusses some Jacobite societies then existing, notably the "Order of the White Rose." john k 23:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

After Henry Benedict Stuart

No person since Henry Benedict Stuart has claimed to be the Jacobite heir, isn't it original research to connect any of these people after him to the Jacobite succession? I notice none of the sources are actually sources stating these people are Jacobite heirs; they are just sources stating the birth date and biographical information of the individuals. I am going to remove all information pertaining to the Jacobite succession on the individuals articles until they can be sourced. Because genealogically we can follow the senior line of many past deposed rulers but we can't say they are the heir of something they never claimed.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I refrained from removing them but tagged them for the future.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This website lists the Jacobite heirs and people in line to succeed the present heir, from his heir presumptive down to the 118th individual. I don't know whether it counts as a reliable source, but it's there. Surtsicna (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is written by Noel S McFerran.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That would make it a self-published source, right? Is it possible to find another one? Either way, I'd support describing them as heirs rather than as claimants. Surtsicna (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I want to remove the entire assumption and give it the same treatment we do with Juan Carlos' claims on the Byzantine throne because Isabella and Ferdinand bought the claim from the last Byzantine claimant, but I know I will not be supported. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If we cannot find reliable sources that confirm these claims, you can count on my support. I remember the absurdity of the Byzantine case, but we should do some searching first. Do these search results help? Surtsicna (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretenders are defined less by their own statements than by their following. I wouldn't use the term pretender for someone who never asserted a claim, but if Jacobites have consistently named a given set of persons as the heirs, that's good enough for me. I have a chart of them which I believe I copied from The Royal House of Stuart (a detailed table of descendants of James I) by A. C. Addington (London: Charles Skilton Ltd), 1969-1976. —Tamfang (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cardinal Henry

Why is Cardinal Henry on the list? Wouldn't accepting a church office forfeit any claim he had to secular titles? Emperor001 (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If the kingdoms in question had such a rule. Had they? —Tamfang (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry IX wasn't a moron. He knew that when he took the Cardinal's hat the cause was long lost. His brother had lost Collodun decades earlier, and he believed that while he WAS the de jure king, he wouldn't ever get the crown for real. Besides, at least one cardinal had been King of Portugal in the 16th century.Ericl (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jacobite succession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120715050932/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0.9171,937040,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0.9171,937040,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

England as papal fief

I read this awhile ago in the comments of a blog post commemorating when Charles III entered England at the head of his army:

"Most of us Jacobites recogize Francis II as the king over the water, but there is a respectable opinion that says that England being a papal fief (given by John Lackland to the Holy Father and received back from His Holiness), and the Holy Father therefore having the legal right to designate the king, James II, James III, Charles III, and Henry IX were rightful kings, as they were recognized by the Holy Father, but that the Hannoverians and their successors have been rightful monarchs since the death of Henry IX, as the Holy Father began recognizing them at that time."

I going to look for sources on this. Comments are welcome. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Francis II or III? & Henry I or II?

It is not absolutely assured of numbering kings by right by Jacobites: Francis I Mary's I Stewart, Queen of Scots first husband (it François II King of France), and Henry I - its second husband Henry Stuart, 1st Duke of Albany, Lord Darnley should be Scottish. Francois II since 1558, still being Dauphin of France, carried a title of the king of Scotland (Roi d'Ecosse) and the arms of Scotland (I will add - and England), and was King consort of Scotland (1558–1560), and Henry Darnley has received from the wife of 6/29/1565 (at marriage) a title "the king in our kingdom", and was a King Consort of Scotland. 28 July 1565 – 10 February 1567: His Grace The King of Scots. Also numbering of the subsequent kings accordingly will change. 2. It is necessary to mention also that there are applicants for direct relationship with Bonnie Prince Charlie: in Brockhaus it is mentioned that Charles III had the lawful son from the wife - James Stewart count of Albany (‚1773, Sienna; †?); but it is thus noticed that it was more probable Louise's son and captain Allan; Charles-Edward Stewart count of Albany (‚1799 †12/24/1880, on a deck of a steamship departing from Bordeaux) was James's son. Besides, present pretender - Alexander IV of Scotland or HRH Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart, 7th Count of Albany Comte de Blois, Duc d'Aquitaine and Baron Lafosse de Chatry (more known as Michel-physiognomy Lafosse (‚1958)) asserts that after divorce with Louise, Charles III has entered 1785 the second legal secret marriage with Marguerite O'Dea d'Audibert de Lussan, Comtesse de Massillan, and had from it son Edward James Stuart, Count Stuarton, Count of Albany, from whom he says Alexander IV is descended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.93.43.186 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The queens Mary

Mary Queen of Scots was Mary the First of Scotland, "Bloody Mary" was Mary I of England. the second half of William'n'Mary was Mary II of both. In other words, the first female Stuart pretender to the British thrones was Just "Mary III" not "Mary III and II" or anying like that.Ericl (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been argued that either Henry VIII's first marriage (which produced Mary) was invalid or his second (which produced Elizabeth) was bigamous, so his daughters cannot both be legitimate. Mary I of Scotland thus claimed to be Mary II of England. Hence the double numbering of Jacobite Maries. (Of course they don't count Mrs William.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Everybody recognized "Boody Mary" and nobody claimed that Mary of Scots was Queen of England among the Stuart pretenders. In other words the Stuart pretender was either styled "Mary III" or "Mary II", but not "Mary III and II." The question you have to answer is: what did the Jacobites at the time call her? Ericl (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, everybody recognized "Bloody" Mary Tudor as Mary I of England; which is why, when the other Mary I denied Elizabeth's legitimacy and claimed the crown of England for herself, it was as "Mary II" of England rather than "Mary I" of both. Presumably the Jacobites ignored that question until 1824. Of course a Jacobite strictly speaking need not recognize this "Mary II", but the last sentence of the article says most do; I imagine the legalism appeals to them. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

William II

The beautiful family tree which concludes this article requires adjustment: it shows William II of England as reigning from 1650 to 1702, but in fact William II, also known as William Rufus, reigned from 1087 to 1100. The William who took the throne in 1650 was William III. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I downloaded the SVG file, opened it in a text editor, and searched for "W" — but apparently each letter in the image is a drawing! I wonder how it was generated. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a new family tree map, with correct namings and dates. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The dates are birth and death. I've corrected the numeral. DrKay (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It still shows William II. Also, Frederick, Prince of Wales was born in 1707, not 1709. Also, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon died in 2002, not 2001. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're looking at a cached version. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Perhaps changing 1926 to Born 1926 under Elizabeth II, would appear better, too ;) GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing the alternate successions section

How would people feel about completely removing the alternate successions section? The whole thing looks like a big unsourced mess of original research to me, full of claims and counterclaims all based on counterfactuals. The first part, "Pedro", has exactly one source, which explicitly states "The claim made on their behalf has had virtually no adherents". The second part, "Victor Emanuel", has no sources at all and is based on a single claim by someone who seemingly had no particular connection to Jacobitism nor expertise in law, history or geneaology. Why are we including this? The third part, "Elizabeth II" is at least based upon a claim by someone with knowledge of geneaology and succession law, but it is still only an opinion of a single person, and it then quickly descends into confusing original research.

In my opinion, there is nothing here that is worth preserving, and I plan on removing the whole section in a week or two if there are no objections. Lowercaserho (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand I greatly regret the loss of this section. The "Pedro" line was the primary choice of a widely distributed pamphlet on succession until the 1970s. LE (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources for the claims -- eg, if the pamphlet you mention was common enough to be discussed in books on the subject -- then there's no reason it can't be added back from the page history. I just don't believe that it should be there if no good sources can be found. Lowercaserho (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacobite succession/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Will gladly review this :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

General notes

• Several citations need more information. For instance, the BBC History ones lack the author names as well as dates. You could also add archive links to make sure they don't turn into dead links in the future.

Lead

• The lead could state more instantly, in the first paragraph, what the actual issue is and what Jacobites are. The issue of religion should be noted here already.

Stuart claims in exile

• Ref 13 should not be mushed together into one. Also needs more information on the source (date, author etc)
• Note 1 is missing a source.
• Ref 18 has a "-" but no page number until which it spans. Also, if more than one page, it needs to be "pp".
• Same thing in ref 19.

Line of succession after the Stuarts

• Ref 32 gives me a dead link.

Will do some more spotchecks on the sources, but feel free to tackle the points raised. Good work so far! :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No reaction after almost two weeks. I unfortunately must close this review for now. Feel free to address the points raised above and nominate again. Cheers! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The Peace of Utrecht as Hanoverian recognition?

Someone made this claim on the article(without any reference or source that this idea has ever been raised even in passing by pro-Hanoverians). The obvious response is that merely signing a Treaty does not de facto grant recognition to all other signers. As an example all Kings and Queens of England and Great Britain from 1340-1801 styled themsleves as Kings and Queens of France. There are however various between England/Great Britain and France, where both the Plantagenet/Tudor/Stuart/Hanoverian and the Valois/Bourbon would refer to themselves as "King/Queen of France" in the Treaty. This is no way means that either side recognized the other as the "Real" King. Likewise, both the French and Spanish Kinds c.1713 styled themselves "King of Navarre", yet Navarre did not even exist at the time! It wasn't until the emergence of the French republic that anyone ever raised an objection to the King of England(in this acse Great Britian) signing a Treaty as "King of France".

Furthermore, nearly every signaer of Utrecht has violated the Terms of the Treaty, meaning that said Treaty is null and void. Infact the Habsburgs clearly had no intention to ever honour the Terms and Conditions of the Peace of Utrecht. The States that signed that Treaty no longer exist. And even UK experts agree that the Treaty of Utrecht ahs been nullified by the flagrant disregard for the conditions by everyone concerned.

Thus, merely signing a Treaty with a rival does not in any way mean that one recognizes said rivals' claims as being valid. In fact the daughter of Princess Henrietta explicitly protested the Act of Settlement 1701. And pretty much everyone would agree that Utrecht has benn nullified several thousand times over.

Likewise, marriages between cousins was legal at the time. If it wasn't then Elizabath II would likewise have no claim today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.209 (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has been re-written since then, including a statement about the Treaty of Utrecht, with citations. It’s relevance is not that recognition by France and Spain was “merely by signing” the treaty. It was an express provision. By Articles IV and V of the French treaty and Article V of the Spanish Treaty, France and Spain explicitly accepted the Act of Settlement line of succession. DeCausa (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)