Talk:James Francis Edward Stuart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

There's an inconsistency between this entry and the "Monument to the Royal Stuarts" entry. Where did he spend his last days? Where is the body?

That other entry has been corrected. ThreeTrees 17:41, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency?[edit]

"He signed the Treaty of Utrecht in 1714 that, amongst other humiliating conditions, required him to expel James from France."

But the treaty was signed in 1713 - is there an error in dates? Alexd 12:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Had I been either King or an advisor to the King of France back in 1719, I too would like to see him expelled for being a useful idiot to the Hannoverians. If the treaty obliged the French to expell the old pretender, then it was in no effect for six years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.223.52 (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Elizabeth II will not have to reign until May of 2016 to exceed the reign of Queen Victoria. Having succeeded her father, George VI on February 6, 1952, Elizabeth will exceed Victoria's reign on September 9, 2015. Gary Kaplan, Warwick, Pa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.153.242 (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

England/Great Britain[edit]

Whoverer decided the wording of the monument to the Royal Stuarts seems to have called him and his wifre King and Queen of Great Britain. --Henrygb 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the monument was erected by Jacobites if not the family, then they would consider them the rightful sovereign and queen consort, and they were on territory of the Papal States which recognised the Jacobite claims not England where the Hanoverian Kings' writ applied.Cloptonson (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and amendments[edit]

There are some minor errors and misinterpretations in this piece as follows;

1. To say that there is no evidence for the 'warming pan theory' risks giving it credibility by association. The truth is that it ceased to be taken seriously-even by enemies of the Jacobites-not long after it was invented. Queen Anne, I believe, was the last figure of note to give it credibility.

2. Under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht France, and I suspect Spain, recognised George I as king of Great Britain. In the end only the Papacy recognised James.

3. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713 not 1714. It is wrong and historically biased to make reference to 'humiliating' terms. The peace was actually much better than that France had expected after her defeat at Malplaquet..

Rcpaterson 05:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent XIII and the Conti[edit]

Several times an anonymous editor has added several sentences about Pope Innocent XIII's cousin who he claims was chamberlain to James. None of the half-dozen book-length biographies of James mention this piece of trivia. Even if it could be verified, if it's not important enough for book-length biographies, it's not important enough for an encyclopedia article. Noel S McFerran 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attainder[edit]

Do we have an actual conflict of sources, or is it an assumption that our subject lost his titles upon his father's deposition? Many seventeenth century sources would of course have held that he was never Cornwall and Rothesay, not being son of James II; but what we want is the retrospective holding of the law. It is after all possible to argue that having acquired those titles, he could not lose them except by due process of law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a difference between what a de facto government thinks and what others think. Even in matters of law, what a de facto government thinks is not necessarily the final word and should not be presented as such in Wikipedia (cf. certain legal statements by the Bush Administration). The article should be reworded to make it clear that the de facto government considered James to have lost any titles he might have held - but that others disagreed (Jacobite Englishmen, the majority of Scots, the pope, numerous European princes). Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the third version: that he lost the same titles in 1701 by merger with the Crown. We should explain the Jacobite view; but the legislation of William and Mary is now law in the United Kingdom, and it would give undue weight to a minority view to suggest otherwise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until the day he died James was recognised as king by the pope. Numerous princes who did not maintain diplomatic relations with him officially, nonetheless addressed him as king. It's not just the opinion of Jacobites (I am very careful on Wikipedia not to push my own personal Jacobite agenda). It's a matter of recording that there was disparity of opinion (even in the country of his birth). It's POV to say that the government view is the only one. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a stripe of Jacobite myself; but this is not our private wiki. There is a difference (and there is consensus among the sources that there is):
  • Oliver's regime was de facto. The laws do not recognize it, and Charles II's reign began in law in 1649.
  • William and Mary reigned de jure, from various dates in the three kingdoms. The laws do recognize this; their parliaments enacted valid laws, and the parliaments are numbered from their joint accession.
  • The laws would be different if any of the Jacobite risings had succeeded. (They might well be different if the SNP recognizes King Francis, but that would be WP:CRYSTAL).
A list of princes recognizing James VIII and III belongs in the article (although they can be summarized as the "servants and allies of the King of France", and even there and allies is redundant :->) We should note when they ceased to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James, Prince of Wales?[edit]

According to the naming conventions, the title of this article should be "James, Prince of Wales" or "James Francis Edward, Prince of Wales" since he was a titled royal. Should we move the article? Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a move is extremely controversial, and should only be attempted using Wikipedia:Requested moves. The highest title this individual bore was "King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland" (although he tended to use "Great Britain, France, and Ireland"). He was recognised with the regnal title by numerous powers including France, Spain, and the papacy. His major twentieth-century biography is entitled "King James the Third of England". BUT the reality is that English-language scholarship does not generally call him either king of Great Britain or prince of Wales. Noel S McFerran (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. He was never the King of France, except perhaps in his dreams. Garth of the Forest (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not nonsense. James may never have been de facto King of France, any more than (say) George III; nevertheless the style of "King (or Queen) of Great Britain, France and Ireland" (earlier "of England, Scotland, France and Ireland") remained in official use until 1801. -- Picapica (talk)
He was only recognized as prince of Wales briefly in his infancy. Beyond that, the article's list of his style is weird. For some reason it calls him prince of Wales until 1702, but the footnote to support links to a page that describes him as prince of Wales only until his father's flight. What is the basis for this claim? Also, what did he actually call himself after 1701? I know he sometimes used "James III," but often times he used a lesser title, no? john k (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was not made Prince of Wales, so in fact that title shouldn't even be featured here. The next Prince of Wales after Charles I was George II. Sanddef (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may not have been made Prince of Wales, but he was indisputably Duke of Cornwall. --Coemgenus 22:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous contemporary historical documents which style this individual "Prince of Wales", e.g.:
It is mere historical revisionism to suggest that he did not hold this title from the day of his birth.
True, everyone at the time called him that. I don't disagree that he was Prince of Wales, I merely wished to suggest one title that was undisputed. I think calling this article "James, Prince of Wales," or some such thing, would be the most accurate. --Coemgenus 11:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumour surrounding his birth[edit]

What I have read about the rumour of his birth is different to the rumour put out in this article. My understanding is that the rumour was that the child of James_II_of_England was a girl, and so the child was replaced with a miller's child (this rumour even states the baby had flour on him) who grew up to be James Edward Stuart. This information can be found in the Wayland Documentary series book on James the Second. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wonder if anyone ever tried a dna test to find out--173.63.7.27 (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given there were hundreds of witnesses, it would have been very difficult to smuggle in an imposter past them without them being noticed. When Sidney Godolphin was asked about it during the brief investigation under William III, he claimed to have been far behind to see what was going on. Bridei921302 (talk) 11:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real British Monarch[edit]

There seems to be a Catholic bias going on in parts of the article ... horrors. A theme vaguely hinting at the legitimacy of the pretenders. Isn't the real Monarch some wheat farmer in Victoria AU, called Richard Plantagenet? He is, according to Baldrick.220.244.85.176 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that he was the real English monarch; if the House of Tudor had no replaced the Plantagents, the Crowns of England and Scotland would not have merged and England would not have a monarch descended from the House of Stuart today. The Stuart claim to the English throne descends from Henry VII. If Richard Plantagenet is the 'real' king, then the Tudors are illegitimate and the Stuarts are irrelevant - to the English succession.

There are of course rumours that the Stuarts from James VI & I were not 'real', there is supposed to have been a baby walled up in Edinburgh Castle (the 'real' still-born James VI) which would make the real Scottish monarchs the House of Douglas-Hamilton (representted by Angus, the 15th Duke of Hamilton).

But one can go a little far with conspiracies I think. Markaeologist (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal[edit]

>"James and Charles later clashed repeatedly, and relations between them broke down completely when James played a role in the election of his son Henry as a cardinal...."

Was he a cardinal (Catholicism) or cardinal Church of England College of Minor Canons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risssa (talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reasise that the above question about Henry becoming a cardinal is over four years old now, but as it was never directly answered, I thought I would add my €0,02 now. Henry was most definitely a cardinal of the Catholic Church, not the Church of England. That was the crux of the Stuart's situation: three Catholic princes who claimed a divine right to rule a largely Protestant country.
As for James playing a role in Henry's election as a cardinal, I would like to see a citation for this, as it seems unlikely. Henry becoming a cardinal was a major setback for the Stuart cause, for three reasons: it sent the wrong signal to their many Protestant supporters; it meant that, as a man of the church, Henry could not be expected to take up arms in any future Jacobite adventure; and as a member of the College of Cardinals, he would be celibate and could therefore not father future Stuart heirs. Fro these reasons, it seems unlikely that James would approve of the idea. Charles certainly didn't. -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prince James Francis Edward Stuart by Alexis Simon Belle.jpg scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Prince James Francis Edward Stuart by Alexis Simon Belle.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 10, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-06-10. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Francis Edward Stuart

James Francis Edward Stuart (10 June 1688 – 1 January 1766), nicknamed the Old Pretender by Whigs, was the son of King James II of England and his second wife, Mary of Modena. The prince's birth was controversial, coming five years after his mother's last pregnancy; rumours began to spread that he was an impostor baby, smuggled into the royal birth chamber in a warming pan and that the actual child of James and Mary was stillborn. In an attempt to scotch this myth, James published the testimonies of over seventy witnesses to the birth.

This oil-on-canvas studio portrait, exhibiting French influences, was probably painted in 1712 under the supervision of Alexis Simon Belle, known for his portraits of the French and Jacobite nobility. The painting depicts the young prince wearing the blue ribbon of the Order of the Garter, and now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London.

Painting credit: studio of Alexis Simon Belle

Recently featured:

Pregancy not conception[edit]

Under "Birth and childhood", I have edited "The prince's birth was controversial and, coming five years after his mother's last conception", changing "conception" to "pregnancy". James' mother was clearly not conceived five years before James was born. I will make a similar comment in the POTD page -- Mike Marchmont (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial embassy?[edit]

The article says that the Pretender's court in Rome served as an unofficial embassy for British visitors, who perhaps wished to be treated by physicians of their own nationality, etc. Would "unofficial consulate" perhaps describe the relationship better? J S Ayer (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baffling[edit]

"He was allowed to hold Protestant services at Court, and was given land where his Protestant adherents could receive a public burial"

Does this make sense ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.222.249 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DNA testing[edit]

The article claims that DNA testing of his descendants showed that he was a Stuart. However I thought he doesn't have descendants, which is why the Jacobite line passed to the descendants of his aunt, Henrietta of England. PatGallacher (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James' granddaughter Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany was illegitimate, but was the mistress of Ferdinand Maximilien Mériadec de Rohan and had illegitimate children of her own. James' great-grandson Charles Edward Stuart, Count Roehenstart served in the Imperial Russian Army. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looking at the article on Charlotte Stuart, this looks very hazy. I see no mention of DNA testing, which might require direct male or female line descent. PatGallacher (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Francis_Edward_Stuart&oldid=1220087589"