Michel LaFosse, the self-styled “Prince Michael of Albany” (he claims lineal descent from Bonnie Prince Charlie through Charlie’s legitimate son (unknown to conventional history books) by his second marriage (likewise)), who has been living in the UK since the '70s and become a naturalized British citizen despite claiming the throne of Scotland, has fled the realm. Stripped of his citizenship for having submitted a forged birth certificate with his application, he has returned to his native Belgium.
Seems a pity. LaFosse is the most colorful of the so-called “Christ kids,” claimants of the “Grail Blood” descent from Jesus and Mary Magdalene – and he put in his claim before The Da Vinci Code was even published. See his book, The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland. What’s more, he had acquired something of a small following – as you could see from his website if it hadn’t been taken down. Wonder if they’ll stick by him now?
Not without some kind of revolution. The 1701 Act of Settlement restricts the succession to Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover (the mother of George I). And there’s well over a thousand of those now.
But this stuff is interesting to discuss. Much more interesting, IMO, than whether some president or other stole an election, which is I suppose the closest equivalent we could get in the US…
Well, not in Britain they don’t. But there are some interesting instances of pretenders regaining their throne, or the throne of their ancestors, or otherwise becoming government leaders. Most obvious example is Juan Carlos, King of Spain, grandson of the king overthrown in 1931 to set up the republic there. Norodom Sihanouk famously set up a republic, abdicated, ran for President, and won. And I believe the present President of Bulgaria is the man who was enthroned as a small child in the waning days of World War II, who was dethroned by the Communists after the war.
Well, technically, both Henry VI and Edward IV were pretenders for a time (Edward deposed Henry, who deposed Edward*, who deposed Henry again). Henry was also briefly deposed by Edward’s father Richard of York, but Richard was never officially named king (though he was named Edward’s heir).
Henry Tudor also was a pretender (and not even the legitimate one**) when he defeated Richard III and became Henry VII.
There was also Stephen of Blois, who was temporarily deposed by the Empress Matilda.
Charles II was the pretender during Cromwell’s time.
Moving across the channel, there was Louis XVIII of France (who was restored to the throne twice). Also the Bonepartist pretender, Napoleon III. In fact, after Napoleon III was deposed, you has three pretenders: the Bourbon claimant, the Orleanist claimant, and the Bonapartist claimant.
*Actually, his wife deposed Edward, but she put Henry back on the throne.
**The actual Lancastrian heir at the time was the King of Portugal.
John of Gaunt, time-honoured Duke of Lancaster, son of Edward III of England and founder of the House of Lancaster, married three times. However, his children by his third wife, surnamed the Beauforts, were born illegitimately while she was still his mistress, and when legitimated, they were specifically excluded from the line of succession to the throne. Henry VII Tudor’s mother, Margaret Beaufort, was the heiress of that line, and it was through her ancestry, in large part, that he claimed the throne by inheritance in 1485. (He also claimed it as husband of the Yorkist heiress, Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, by right of conquest through defeating and killing Richard III at Bosworth, through his grandmother who was a Princess of France and Henry V’s widow when she married his grandfather, through descent from Welsh princes, and whatever else he could pack into his claims.)
But by his first marriage, John of Gaunt had only one son, who became Henry IV when he deposed Richard II in 1399. Henry IV had three sons, Henry VI who succeeded him and two royal dukes who died without progeny. Henry VI supposedly had a son Edward (the son is real, the paternity debatable), who was executed in 1471 during the Wars of the Roses, shortly before the now-deposed Henry VI died or was assisted to die. On his death, the heir of line of the House of Lancaster fell to the descendants of John of Gaunt’s daughter by his first wife, Philippa of Lancaster,who had married King Joao (John) I of Portugal. Most interestingly, she was the mother of, among others, Prince Henry the Navigator.
“But by his first marriage, John of Gaunt had only one son, who became Henry IV when he deposed Richard II in 1399. Henry IV had three sons, Henry V who succeeded him and two royal dukes who died without progeny. Henry V had only one infant son at his death, who became the slow-witted Henry VI. Henry VI supposedly had a son Edward (the son is real, the paternity debatable), who was executed in 1471 during the Wars of the Roses, shortly before the now-deposed Henry VI died or was assisted to die. On his death, the heir of line of the House of Lancaster fell to the descendants of John of Gaunt’s daughter by his first wife, Philippa of Lancaster,who had married King Joao (John) I of Portugal. Most interestingly, she was the mother of, among others, Prince Henry the Navigator.”
He used the vistory of republican parties in large cities (please note that, globally, the republican parties had not won) in a Parliamentary election as an excuse to flee his duties.
Yes, the monarchic half of my blood sees him as a coward who caused unnecessary bloodshed, why do you ask?
There’s a minor character in Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress who says, in effect (close paraphrase), “I’m for a free democracy. That’s why I’m a monarchist.” He means, of course, that having final authority vested in a constitutional monarch who cannot himself exercise it but can judge whether or not the situation warrants using it, is one of the best defenses against dictatorship and authoritarian rule.