Jacobite Pretenders

Louise Adelaide d'Orleans, the daughter of Philippe II, Duke of Orleans, was at one time suggested as a wife for James Francis Edward Stuart.

One mystery of the 1745 Rebellion is the treasure of the Loch Arkaig.       
The French sent 4,000 pounds in gold Louis coins to Prince Charles Edward.     
However, finding no one to meet them, the French left the gold Louis coins on the shore of Loch nan Uamh and departed.

Some debate remains on whether they furnished by Spain tho they were French Louis's....not tenuff to get me to be concerned.

In the end he needed the money and the troops and naval support promised which did not occur; more than the money alone.

At the age of 14, Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, was taken to study the siege of Gaeta by Spanish troops during the War of the Spanish Succession.     
In 1743, his father named him Prince Regent.

I don't argue because my knowledge in this region is slim...but it then begs the question if she isn't a Princess why is her father a Prince.

iow. Jakub Ludwik Henryk Sobieski.

'Prince Of Poland-Prince of Olawa'.

And if all noblemen are equal then why were 'Kings' referred to and titled as 'Kings'.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 02-Jul-2015 at 07:17

Correction - the title of prince of Olawa he recived in the dowry of his German wife. He married Hedwig Elisabeth of Neuburg, the daughter of Philip William, Duke of Neuburg, Berg and Jülich, Elector Palatine of Neuburg. The principality of Olawa was just her dowry together with the title of prince. But it was abroad not in Poland.

I have seen their tomb in Rome. I must admitt that they got the most prestigious place in the world to be burried - The Papal Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican.

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis OK I can accept all that... but it still didn't answer the q uestion reference 'Kings'. For a Polish King while obviously a nobleman was equally obviously in a superior position to other nobles....hence defeating the argument that all nobles were equal. And hence one presumes his privileges were then equally superior.

No. Its not defeating the argument that all the nobles were equal in the face of law. The position of king was just an office which he held in the republic and therefore he did enjoy privilages of his office. There were also other important offices but the king as well as other officials were still subdued to the rules of the law. The king was acting as the king when he represented the crown but when he did represent just himself in the lawsuit with other noble for example for questioned property of the land he didnt have any privilages.

Originally posted by Mosquito Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis OK I can accept all that... but it still didn't answer the q uestion reference 'Kings'. For a Polish King while obviously a nobleman was equally obviously in a superior position to other nobles....hence defeating the argument that all nobles were equal. And hence one presumes his privileges were then equally superior. No. Its not defeating the argument that all the nobles were equal in the face of law. The position of king was just an office which he held in the republic and therefore he did enjoy privilages of his office. There were also other important offices but the king as well as other officials were still subdued to the rules of the law. The king was acting as the king when he represented the crown but when he did represent just himself in the lawsuit with other noble for example for questioned property of the land he didnt have any privilages.

That's merely constitutional monarchy with a twist that's found elsewhere; in part..what I'm hearing here is that titles were used.... privileges associated with them still found, inherent to the title ie. possession...and equality before the law ntl applicable to all no matter the title.

Prince Ferdinand of Rohan was a Catholic Cardinal who'd taken a vow of celibacy. Thus he couldn't marry Charlotte, the titular Duchess of Albany, so instead she became his maitresse. She bore him 3 children (a son and 2 daughters). Her father (Bonnie Prince Charlie) may never have known about these children, at least he apparently never mentioned them. The children being illegitimate, they had no claim to the throne. Nor was their identity publicly revealled, as it would have caused a scandal.

The son (Count Roehenstart) had a European military career and traveled widely. He was married twice, his wives predeceasing him. He had no children. He died at an advanced age in Scotland, where his identity was known, and though he lived anonymously,  he occasionally boasted of his origins. He never put forward any credible claim to the throne.

The younger sister married a French aristocrat. She died in childbirth, and her child also died.

The elder sister married a minor Polish nobleman, moved to Poland with him, and they apparently had one son. The son is believed to have fathered a line of descendants who may still be extant today, with descendants resident in Poland, Britain, and Canada. One of them published a book a number of years ago, entitled The Stuarts Last Secret. I've never seen the book, as it isn't available in my local area, not even on interlibrary loan.


Edited by Windemere - 05-Jul-2015 at 15:57

It's true that the Cardinal Duke of York (Henry IX to the Jacobites) lost most of his wealth (which came from his property, which was confiscated) after the French Revolution, though he retained his jewels. The Cardinal of York had never really put forth a claim to the British throne after the death of his brother (Bonnie Prince Charlie). After his brother's death, even the Papacy recognised the Hanoverian George III as king of Britain. It was clear that the Cardinal of York represented no threat to the well-established Hanoverian Dynasty. George III even awarded the Cardinal an annual pension of 4,000 pounds to alleviate his poverty. After the Cardinal's death, his close friend Cardinal Cesarini sent most of his jewels to the reigning British royal family.