Jacobites or Hanoverians?

[afleitch]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_Rising

Penny for your thoughts

[Jake]

Jacobites, despite them being slime.

[The Dowager Mod]

My family emigrated after the '45, after they supported the stuarts.

[J. J.]

Hanoverians, I like Handel.

Seriously, I tend to support parliamentary government, with a Sovereign that has reserve powers.

[Colin]

Well considering I'm of English Catholic stock probably the Jacobites.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Commonwealth of England!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Commonwealth of England!

^^^

[patrick1]

Neither.

Seamus an chaca, a chaill Éireann,
lena leathbhrog ghallda is a leathbhrof Ghaelach

James the sh!t has lost Ireland, with his one shoe English and one shoe Irish.

The Irish and Scots for that matter wasted their time and lives with this lot.  I could see the Scots point more in that the Stuarts were of Scottish stock.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Hanoverians of course

[Virginian87]

Definitely the Hanoverians.  I would have supported the Stuarts only if James II had been Protestant.  A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom, and vice versa.  Henry IV of France knew this too, and despite initally being a Huguenot he converted to Catholicism to be crowned king.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Lets put it this way, a catholic would have buggered the whole system.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Definitely the Hanoverians.  I would have supported the Stuarts only if James II had been Protestant.  A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom, and vice versa.  Henry II of France knew this too, and despite initally being a Huguenot he converted to Catholicism to be crowned king.

By your logic, the Jacobites should have kept Ireland.

[minionofmidas]

Commonwealth of England!

^^^

^^^^

[minionofmidas]

Definitely the Hanoverians.  I would have supported the Stuarts only if James II had been Protestant.  A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom, and vice versa.  Henry II of France knew this too, and despite initally being a Huguenot he converted to Catholicism to be crowned king.

Henry IV (which is who you're thinking of) converted to and fro half a dozen times in his life (well. At least four times, but there may have been more that I don't remember.), always for political reasons (except the first one, when he was still a minor, and didn't make the decision himself), and was almost certainly an atheist at heart.
His conversion while king of France - the famous one - came 9 years after he succeeded to the throne, and was proclaimed king. Although it did give him temporary control of Reims (and thence made it possible to be crowned in the proper way), the real object was simply the conquest of Paris, which unlike Reims he held from then on to his death. He got murdered by a Catholic extremist btw (who got told by his confessor that God would make him invisible after the deed so that he could escape), despite dying nominally Catholic.

[Emsworth]

A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom...

Why not?

[Democratic Hawk]

A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom...

Why not?

While, I'm sympathetic to Virginian87's point as regards the UK, that line of argument could be used against the House of Orange in the Netherlands. They are stalwarts of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, yet Catholics outnumber Protestants as a whole, while dominating the southern provinces. I'm unsure as to whether Calvinists were ever a majority in the Netherlands or whether they were once but aren't any more as a consequence of secularism and people professing 'no religion'

Back to the UK, however, the British Monarch can't be a Catholic since he or she are Head of the Church of England

As to the choice between Jacobites and Hanoverians, that's difficult

I most certainly would have supported Charles I against Parliament. Give me a paternalistic and benevolent king over those who advocated bourgeois interests anyday yet I'm likely to have supported William and Mary over James II

Of course, I'd have prefered the Jacobites to the Hanoverians because they had the more legitimate claim by right of birth but their Catholicism just ruled them out

Trouble was Queen Henrietta Maria had too much influence on her sons, Charles II (who I believe converted to Catholicism on his deathbed) and James II, although the vile retribution visited on their father, Charles I, can't have helped. James I must be spining in his grave; then again, probably not, since the Hanoverians were direct descendents through his granddaughter, Sophia, Electress of Hanover

Dave

[minionofmidas]

A Catholic monarch has no business ruling over a largely Protestant kingdom...

Why not?

A Catholic monarch has no business being the nominal head of a Protestant church, anyhow.