New King of Scots

[Pangur Bán]

If it were to happen that Scotland became independent, lets assume that the the Scots would and should keep the monarchy? If they were to, it would likely be under Elizabeth I (II) or Charles III. But, lurking about Edinburgh these days is a man by who carries the name: "HRH Prince Michael James Alexander Stewart of Albany de jure 26th Lord High Steward of Scotland". According to his website, he has had the following titles recognized by "international law":

Legitimate titular claimant to the Throne of Scots

Legal Pretender to the Throne of Britain

Prince and Lord of Scotland

Duke of Kintyre

Prince of Ireland, France, Poland and Jerusalem

Duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Touraine



He would be, apparently, the righful heir to the Scottish throne, in contrast to the illegitimate German lines. His blood right to the Scottish throne, derives through his mother Renée Julienne Stewart, Lady Derneley, Princess Royal of Strathearn. His father was the Comte de Blois (a scion of the House of Bourban).

I old terms, he is still as noble as they get. He has claims of the defunct thrones of England, France, Poland and Jerusalem...as well as prestigious duchies such as Normandy.

So, would the Stewarts make better Scottish monarchs than the current Windsor House

The romantic in me thinks that, if the Scots were to have a powerless monarch, then he might as well be of a Scottish house. The Stewarts/Stuarts are a Scottish royal house, the successors of the MacMalcolms. If the Scots are going to have a monarchy, it might as well be a native one, rather than one living abroad like the Australians and Canadians have.

 

[Plexus]

Scrap the antiquated system of monarchy.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The Stuarts are the illegitimate and deposed royal house, and should remain so. He can get Jerusalem, though.
Any hint of Scottish independence talk, and the regiments should be sent marching north again. Another Culloden should teach them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

So, it's option two or three for Simon then

 

[andrewgprv]

Scotland is currently in the best position possable, standing united with her sisters England, Wales and North Ireland.

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by calgacus
If it were to happen that Scotland became independent, lets assume that the the Scots would and should keep the monarchy? ]



Let's make Scottish independence a clean break and move forward from there. No citizen of the new Scotland should have any more rights than any other and no-one should have any rights by sole virtue of their genes.

Thou if we had to have a Monarch a Scottish monarch is responsible to the will of the people as in accordance with the Arbroath declaration, therefore thats rules out the old bat we have at the mo.

 

[luiz]

If Scotland is to become indepentent, I would like to see it become a Republic. I dislike the idea that some people are born with more rights then others.

I also believe that, unlike Wales, Scotland can manage to become independent without economic losses. They've got some oil, and could probably receive millions of tourists, so I think it could be a quite prosperous country.

 

[EzInKy]

Scotland? Independent? Somehow that doesn't jive with the unification process that is taking place in Europe, particularly if it became a monarchy.

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by EzInKy
Scotland? Independent? Somehow that doesn't jive with the unification process that is taking place in Europe, particularly if it became a monarchy.

And why not Scotland traditionaly is closer to Europe than England,
and I'm sure like Ireland we could join the EU.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by bholed




And why not Scotland traditionaly is closer to Europe than England,
and I'm sure like Ireland we could join the EU.

What purpose would it serve if you are going to be citizens of the same union, more representation in the European Parliment?

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by EzInKy


What purpose would it serve if you are going to be citizens of the same union, more representation in the European Parliment?

Not sure, what you mean, I'm all for Independence the sooner the better.
And once we achieve that then we can have our own voice in Europe rather than being tied to England.

 

[jpowers]

It's times like these that I understand why the word 'twit' comes from the British Isles.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by jpowers
It's times like these that I understand why the word 'twit' comes from the British Isles.

I think you'll have to be more clear about what it is you feel negative about

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by bholed




Not sure, what you mean, I'm all for Independence the sooner the better.
And once we achieve that then we can have our own voice in Europe rather than being tied to England.

That's what I meant. So it's like North Carolina and South Carolina each having seperate seats in the Senate, I guess. As for the poll, one would think that a monarchy would be a bit silly, and at the very least would have to be a constitutional one to qualify for EU membership.

 

[Kev1916]

Originally posted by EzInKy


That's what I meant. So it's like North Carolina and South Carolina each having seperate seats in the Senate, I guess. As for the poll, one would think that a monarchy would be a bit silly, and at the very least would have to be a constitutional one to qualify for EU membership.

ts nothing like that were two separate countries each with are own history, culture, and law, that unfortunatley
we were sold down the river in the Act of Union nearly three hundred odd years ago :-(

Quote:

What Royal Scottish Burghs Said About This Demeaning Act in 1707
" Seeing, by the articles of Union, now under the consideration of the Honourable Estates of Parliament, it is agreed that Scotland and England shall be united into one kingdom; and that the united kingdoms be united by one and the same Parliament, by which our monarchy Is suppressed, our parliament extinguished, and in consequence our religion, church government, claim of right, laws, liberties, trade and all that is dear to us, daily in danger of being encroached upon, altered or wholly subverted by the English In a British Parliament, wherein the mean representation allowed for Scotland can never signify in securing to us the interest reserved by us, or granted to us by the English. "



Aye Monarch is a bit silly and with regard to the poll there is serious doubt on the legality of the claimant.

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

I don't think so. If the Stuarts in history are any indication, they'll do a fairly bad job at being monarchs anyhoo (even constitutional ones). Let's make Scotland a republic and give the heir-to-be a nice thank-you note instead.

 

[Oruc]

Independent??? never

 

[MrPresident]

Why would the Scots want to remove Queen Elizabeth II from their throne to be replaced by the extremely distant relative of a past monarch? Scotland is part of the United Kingdom of the aforemention Queen so they would have to pursue a course of complete indepence of the UK to do this. This would mean the loss of English tax payers funds, which would be devasting to the already poor Scottish economy. Not to mention the small matter of all the English living in Scotland at the moment. This idea is impratical, ill-thought out, divisive and completely ridiculous. Scotland is part of the UK and shall remain so for the forseeable future.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by MrPresident
This would mean the loss of English tax payers funds, which would be devasting to the already poor Scottish economy.

Even if it were the case that English tax-payers "subsidize" Scotland, I think it be better all round if the charitable English gave their kindness to the more needy..like Mozambique, Ethiopia, etc.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Not to mention the small matter of all the English living in Scotland at the moment.

What's that got to do with anything? There are more Indians in England than Scots....do you suggest that they become one nation?

Originally posted by MrPresident
This idea is impratical, ill-thought out, divisive and completely ridiculous.

What idea...the Stewarts, or independence. Before we lock horns again, I'd like to point ought that your outburst comes outside the topic of the thread.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by bholed



ts nothing like that were two separate countries each with are own history, culture, and law, that unfortunatley
we were sold down the river in the Act of Union nearly three hundred odd years ago :-(

Maybe I just don't have a handle on the purpose of the EU then. Aren't the laws of the member nations going to be similar enough that all Europeans will be treated equally no matter in what country they live? As for culture, certainly people will be allowed to celebrate their history without interference from the government. After all, the Union is going to be a democracy, right?