GOD save Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland.

[daftandbarmy]

German Duke Franz Herzog von Bayern Is Rightful King Of England

GOD save Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland.

The Telegraph reports that should Gordon Brown repeal the 1701 Act of Settlement, something he is considering, the 74-year-old German will sit on the throne.

Brown sees the undoing of the Act as a way of “healing a historic injustice by ending the prohibition against Catholics taking the throne”.


http://www.anorak.co.uk/strange-but-true/182771.html

 

[vonGarvin]

German Duke Franz Herzog von Bayern Is Rightful King Of England

GOD save Franz Herzog von Bayern new King of England and Scotland.

The Telegraph reports that should Gordon Brown repeal the 1701 Act of Settlement, something he is considering, the 74-year-old German will sit on the throne.

Brown sees the undoing of the Act as a way of “healing a historic injustice by ending the prohibition against Catholics taking the throne”.


http://www.anorak.co.uk/strange-but-true/182771.html

If Franz Herzog von Bayern takes the throne, do we have to subject the UK to the conditions of surrender for WWII?  Or do the Germans get absolved  >

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

If Franz Herzog von Bayern takes the throne, do we have to subject the UK to the conditions of surrender for WWII?  Or do the Germans get absolved  >

Oh Boy...

 

[a_majoor]

Now we just have to wait for the Stuart pretenders to show up..........

op:

 

[sober_ruski]

... is hooking up a generator to Churchill's grave been patented as perpetual motion yet?

 

[ironduke57]

Interessting. Then we would not be only Pope, but also King of Britain! Fascinating!  :king: The Queen would be probably not amused. :rofl:

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[ex-Sup]

Here's a link to a better article, complete with the family genealogy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/nking107.xml
I'll be discussing this with my Gr.12 history class today. We looked at the English Civil War at the beginning of March, so it's interesting to examine what could be a huge development. I wonder how this will effect Anglicans, since the king/queen is the head of the church? I guess the title "Defender of the Faith" will no longer apply.

 

[Strike]

Now we just have to wait for the Stuart pretenders to show up..........

op:

Hey!  I resemble that remark!  ;D

 

[Pinto]

It isn't the first time someone has tried to "undo the wrong done to Catholics," and I suspect it won't be the last.

Check out this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701#United_Kingdom

The whole thing is highly recommended, but the bit linked to above details some of the reasons why Catholics are barred from succeeding to the throne and why it is not a simple matter of repealing the Act of Settlement to "fix" the so-called "problem."

Cheers!

 

[ex-Sup]

The whole thing is highly recommended, but the bit linked to above details some of the reasons why Catholics are barred from succeeding to the throne and why it is not a simple matter of repealing the Act of Settlement to "fix" the so-called "problem."

Hmmm, interesting. I'll be sure to include this in my class discussion in just under an hour.
I can certainly see what the concerns are from the stand point of the Church of England and how that relationship works. However, as a Catholic, I can empathize with the other side of the argument. Definitely a very complicated situation and not an easy fix. I'm curious to see what happens.

 

[a_majoor]

I guess the title "Defender of the Faith" will no longer apply.

Henry VIII received the title from the Pope for his work in suppressing Protestant heresy (rather ironic, considering what happened after), and the title has passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts, the House of Orange, the Hanover's and now to the current Royal Family. In the happy event you become the Sovereign of England, you too will become "Defender of the Faith". (I am less clear if this applies should you become Sovereign of Canada).

 

[ex-Sup]

In the happy event you become the Sovereign of England, you too will become "Defender of the Faith". (I am less clear if this applies should you become Sovereign of Canada).

However, as a Catholic

Well, unless they change the rules...  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

What a frickin can of worms.....live and let live.

 

[Pinto]

But establishing a correct and acceptable line of succession for something as important as the British Throne is not, and should not be, a simple exercise. Long and bloody wars have been fought over this very subject, which is what has lead us to the current situation. The line of succession for the British Throne (and the other commonwealth countries, including Canada), is relatively secure. If you want to know, this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_throne

Lists everybody who could possibly inherit the crown, based on the Act of Settlement of 1701; from Prince Charles (#1) to Countess Charlotte of Hohenau (b. 1917), great-granddaughter of Prince Albert of Prussia (#1391).

There are some monarchies who, because of their own succession rules and concerns, are having succession crises because they don't know who to pass the crown to; Japan is one of these.

Cheers!

 

[RangerRay]

<a href="http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-save-queen-from-this-jacobite-bunk.html">Quack journalism</a>

 

[Yrys]

<a href="http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2008/04/god-save-queen-from-this-jacobite-bunk.html">Quack journalism</a>

"You would think that a basic level of research on a fundamental constitutional point would reveal that any repeal of the Act of Settlement could not be done so unilaterally by the United Kingdom, but would require the unanimous consent from the whole of the Crown Commonwealth, according to the terms agreed to under the Statute of Westminster 1931"

 

[ex-Sup]

"You would think that a basic level of research on a fundamental constitutional point would reveal that any repeal of the Act of Settlement could not be done so unilaterally by the United Kingdom, but would require the unanimous consent from the whole of the Crown Commonwealth, according to the terms agreed to under the Statute of Westminster 1931"

Nonetheless, it does raise some interesting questions, especially from a historical point of view. I don't expect anything to change anytime soon, but it does raise a number of "what ifs." Made for some interesting discussion in my history class yesterday.

 

[geo]

In the end, the Queen remains on the throne AND there are no pretenders who are claiming "right" to the English throne.

Unless a pretender steps forward, this discussion has no relevance.

 

[ex-Sup]

this discussion has no relevance.

Whether anything happens or not, there can't be any harm in some discussion and dialogue. Isn't this the point of sites like this one?
There are several historical, as well as social issues tied into this story. I know that I always encourage my students to talk about issues and expose themselves to other ideas and opinions.
Anyway, my $0.02 worth. 

 

[ghyslyn]

Even if a legitimate successor to the throne of England arrives and attempts to overthrow the current monarchy, it wont work. We have seen historically that governments and rulers are heavily reluctant to lose ANY power or control whatsoever in any way that it can be percieved. Perfect example of this is the land, signed by contract to be given to the Métis people, which they legitimately have rights to, and never got.