Not sure why you’re counting West Berlin as a “Germany” when it never referred to itself as such. You might as well also count Saar, then, which had a similar status to West Berlin until it formally joined the BRD in 1957.
I’m sorry? The DDR, like the BRD, was formed from Allied-occupied territories of the former Nazi state of Germany, and both populations were overwhelmingly ethnic Germans. The DDR was just as much a “Germany” as the BRD was.
I believe the Stuart line died out, today there are no descendents. Queen Anna of Great Britain had seventeen children, all of whom died very young …
… so sad …
Elizabeth, daughter of James VI, married into the House of Hanover, thus George I took the crown. At least that’s what it says on Wikipedia [rolls eyes] feel free to correct me.
Mary Stuart was Queen Regnant of Scotland, Queen Consort of France, and also claimed to be Queen of England and of Ireland. (If her French husband had not died early, and she had had a child by him, that child might have united the thrones of four kingdoms … though it would have been hard to rule both the Catholic kingdom of France and the Protestant kingdoms of England and Scotland.)
Angus.
There were descendants that were ineligible for the throne by virtue of being Catholic. The most commonly recognized Jacobite succession descends from Charles I, through the maternal line at a few points:
Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia was Catholic.
As noted by the OP, taking this tack would make Duke Franz of Bavaria King of Scotland. Note that he would be followed by:
Max of Bavaria -> Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein -> Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein
Thereby uniting the thrones of Liechtenstein and Scotland.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia;17106039
Yes, BUT, as somenoe mentioned, James’s grandson, James II, was overthrown by his daughters. He had a son, who had issue (ever heard of Bonnie Prince Charlie?) So if they have descendents, they could also have a claim.[/QUOTE]
The legitimate Stuarts died out in 1807 with Henry Benedict Stuart, younger brother of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Henry Benedict was a priest, and never had children, legitimate or otherwise (he was probably gay, anyway).
Bonnie Prince Charlie had no children by his wife. As late as 1809 Napoleon checked in with Charlie’s widow to find out if they’d had children he could use for one political purpose or another, but she verified that they were childless. Charlie did have an illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, and there were rumors he’d been secretly married to her mother. Even if we accept that, Charlotte’s own children were born out of wedlock (their father was an archbishop) and her descendants are incredibly obscure.
Has Donald Trump been mentioned? :rolleyes:
How about the Stone of Scone? Will it be repatriated?
These are the real important questions.
There has been a Scottish Pound in recent memory, so the scare tactics of the Department of the Exchequer can be dismissed. Screw 'em. 
This article will scramble your brains:
What about James Ogilvy? His mother is Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin, and his grandfather was the Earl if Airlie.
I talked to some Scottish friends of mine yesterday, they’ve offered me the job [beams with pride]. My first command is to raid, burn and pillage the northern English countryside until them English give us the Pound and pay off our share of the National Debt … just like Robert the Bruce !!!
How about they recruit Donald Trump and take him off our hands. 
Hey, his mother ( Mary Anne MacLeod) was born in Scotland, so there’s that!
To learn more about Trump and the Scots, check out this engaging little documentary: You've Been Trumped (2011) - IMDb
I identify mainly with my Swiss-German heritage but have been told there is a smattering of Scots in my lineage. Maybe I could stake a claim. Although Game of Thrones has made me wonder why anyone would want to reign over a kingdom. It’s probably different from that nowadays though, unless you’re in North Korea.
Where is a highlander when you need him.
Declan
I may be able to rustle up a bottle.
If we’re going to allow illegitimate people in, then King Charles II had something like 10 illegitimate kids, many of whom had descendants of their own, one of whom is 2nd in line to the throne of the UK. But you’ve got lots of people to pick from if you go that route.
I already mentioned James Scott, duke of Monmouth, the eldest of Charles II’s illegitimate sons, and his heirs as hypothetical kings of Scotland (mostly for how appropriate it’d be to have a Scottish king of Scotland surnamed Scott).
It’s an interesting thought experiment to ponder what might’ve happened had Sophia of Brunswick died in childbirth, along with her child (the future George I) in 1660.
The event would not have caused much alarm at the time. In 1660, Charles II had just been restored to his throne. He was 30 years old, healthy, and unmarried. He had two younger brothers. No one could’ve foretold that the death of an obscure cousin in a German principality could create a massive succession crisis at that time. There was no way for anyone to know that Charles II’s queen would suffer miscarriages, and that every woman at court would bear him a child other than his queen. No one could’ve foretold that Charles II’s youngest brother, Henry, duke of Gloucester, would die aged 20, unmarried and childless, or that James II would get kicked off the throne and his Catholic son excluded from the throne. Or that William and Mary would be childless; that Queen Anne would suffer a staggering seventeen pregnancies only to see her only child die at the age of 11.
In 1701, when Parliament could meet to settle who would get the crown, there would’ve been slim pickings without Sophia of Brunswick and her children. Karl Ludwig, Elector Palatine (Sophia’s brother) had Protestant children… by a bigamous and illegal marriage, and the eldest daughter of that brood (her brothers all died young), Karoline, also married bigamously to the duke of Schomberg.
The other descendants of Elizabeth the Winter Queen are all Catholic and thus unsuitable. James and Louisa (legitimate children of James II) are Catholic and unsuitable. Short of William III remarrying and trying to have kids with a second wife, there’s no good candidates left.
To find the next English heir (legitimate, lawful, Protestant) you have to go all the way back to the senior descendant of Mary Tudor (Henry VIII’s sister): in 1701 that was 18-year-old Charles Bruce, 3rd Earl of Ailesbury and 4th Earl of Elgin. The problem is that he’s not descended from James VI & I, and so has no claim to Scotland. The kingdoms would be disunited. The Scottish heir is even more distant, found among the senior descendants of James II of Scotland (who ruled, by the way, in the mid 1400s): Anne, duchess of Hamilton (and then her son James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton). At that point, to preserve the union, Parliament either has to legitimate one of Charles II’s illegitimate children (as I mentioned before, the children of the beheaded James Scott are the best bet, as it was already widely rumored that Charles II had secretly married James Scott’s mother), or invite James [the Old Pretender] and his sister Louisa to return and hand the crown over to Papists.
Ah, my mistake. I thought he did. So it looks like either the Windsors or one of those obscure Germans after all. Sorry guys.
The Duke of Edinburgh is just knocking around down South as a house-husband.
It would be a short reign, given his age, but has the potential for many interesting soundbites.
Could I stake a claim based on descendance from Charlemagne?