Talk:Gallery of Jacobite pretenders

==What wrong with Mary?== Why are Mary III and Mary IV of England called Mary II and Mary III of Scotland? After all, wasn't there a Mary I of Scotland (reign: 1542-67) and a Mary II of Scotland (reign: 1689-94)? GoodDay 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From Talk:Jacobite succession

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 11:58, 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 17:33, 25 October 2006 (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 18:01, 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 03:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Basing English Throne on James VI-I

Silly nonsense anyways. If you accept that Elizabeth I by fiat could appoint James VI and I as her heir, then you should also be obliged to accept the Hanoverians. The truth is that after the ursurpation of Henry IV, the English throne is wrong. The last undisputed King of England is Richard II the son of the Black Prince. Benkenobi18 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edgar Ætheling would disagree. Coemgenus 13:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)