Talk:James Francis Edward Stuart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

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)

Contents

[edit] Inconsistency?

"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)

[edit] England/Great Britain

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)

[edit] Errors and amendments

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)

[edit] Innocent XIII and the Conti

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)

[edit] Attainder

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)