Talk:Monument to the Royal Stuarts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's an inconsistency between this entry and the "James Francis Edward Stuart" entry. Where did he spend his last days? Where is the body? ThreeTrees 18:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, this is strange. The statements at this article come from what I was told in Rome, but several online sources indicate that the version at James Francis Edward Stuart is correct. I will check my references when I get home and amend this article if that is indeed the case. Adam 21:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

David Daiches, Charles Edward Stuart: The Life and Times of Bonnie Prince Charlie (1973) says (p321): "His brother... conducted the funeral service of King Charles III... (as Charles was called once more in death) at Frascati, where his tomb is in the Cathedral, the Pope having refused to allow it to be held in Rome." According to this book he died in Rome, although he had lived at Frascati until shortly before his death. This book also says that Cardinal York died at Frascati (p324) but doesn't say where he is buried.

And now I have found out the whole story. Charles was buried in Frascati, but when York died in 1807 all three bodies were brought to Rome and are indeed now in St Peter's. Adam 13:17, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Great job. ThreeTrees 17:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this monument does not contain Patrick Stewart aka Captain Picard.


Adam Carr's correction of the name of Henry Benedict Stuart (regarding "self-styled") raises this whole topic. Referring to the last three Stuarts as "self-styled" kings is not exactly NPOV. James Francis Edward was recognised until his death as king of England and Scotland by the papal court as well as by thousands of Englishmen and Scots (and at times by France and Spain). His younger son Henry Benedict was not self-styled "Cardinal Duke of York"; that was the title used for him by the vast majority of people who talked about him during his lifetime. To refer to Charles Edward Stuart as "known as Bonnie Prince Charlie" is like referring to the current President of the United States as "W".

I suggest replacing the current second paragraph (and the second sentence of the first paragraph) with the following: It commemorates the last three members of the Royal House of Stuart: James Francis Edward Stuart, his elder son Charles Edward Stuart, and his younger son, Henry Benedict Stuart. The Jacobites recognised these three princes as kings of England and Scotland.

That would leave to other articles a discussion of the merits of those claims. Noel S McFerran 15:42, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to a wording that just gives their names (linked to longer articles), which avoids the whole question of what they should be known as. Neverthless, Henry was in fact a Cardinal, and he should be refered to as such. The reference was "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was not intended to be disparaging. It is by far the most common term of reference to him in popular usage and the only name many people will recognise. Adam 22:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kings of Great Britain[edit]

At present part of this article reads: "The claim to be kings of "Great Britain" is odd, considering the fact that "Great Britain" (the union of England and Scotland in one kingdom) came into being only after the exile of the Stuarts. They claimed to be kings of the individual kingdoms of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France."

My understanding is that all the Stuart kings since 1603 had styled themselves "King of Great Britain" when the crowns of England and Scotland were unified by James I / VI. It is true that the political union of England and Scotland came about with the Act of Union of 1707, but this made no difference to the royal title. Unless anyone feels that I am wrong about that, I will change the article in a couple of weeks time. Rumblingthunder 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have coins of all the Stuarts. James I's say ANG SCO FRA ET HIB REX. But all the others say MAG BR FRA ET HIB REX / REGINA. Adam 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. In other words, there is nothing odd about the monument referring to the later Stuarts as "Kings of Great Britain", because that is precisely how they styled themselves. Rumblingthunder 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a little more research, I have now removed that section - no objections, I hope. Rumblingthunder 11:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christina of Sweden[edit]

According to the biography of her in Wikipedia, she is buried in the crypt (grotto) beneath the altar of St. Peter's Basilica and not across from the Monument to the Royal Stuarts as stated in this article. This is a glaring error that surprises me because of the otherwise outstanding scholarship displayed here. She is one of four women buried with the male popes of the church beneath the altar, along with the Royal Stuarts. T.E. Goodwin 08:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*With all due respect to the writers and editors here, I am going to correct this error. T.E. Goodwin 08:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Not Great Britain?[edit]

The Jacobites recognised these three princes as kings of England, Scotland and Ireland.

I thought it was cumbersome to roll-call countries (poor old Wales always gets forgotten) in the lead, instead of just saying Great Britain from the start.

James Francis Edward Stuart was an infant in 1689 when his father fled England, would've been 18-19 when the 1707 Act of Union took place, & didn't actively pursue his claim to the throne until the '15. He was offered it by his half-sister Queen Anne, on the condition he'd renounce Catholicism & convert to Anglicanism, but he refused. Parliament wasn't going back 200 yrs & having a Catholic monarch again. James II had converted to Catholicism but as long as his queen kept having short-lived & stillborn infants, & his heirs from his 1st marriage remained staunch Protestants, he was tolerated; it was his son James' birth that inflamed the populace against him, as now there would be a line of Popish kings. Those were the rules since the Elizabethan Religious Settlement. No Catholics allowed. James II knew it, got spanked for it, & was quite bitter about his *ungrateful daughters* ousting him. He raised his son & youngest daughter as Catholics, & his son in turn raised his sons as Catholics, in defiance of the caveat. Since the male Stuart line refused to conform to the state religion, basically they invalidated their own claims to the throne.

But since they clung to their claims, I don't see why that sentence can't do away with the countries list & just say Great Britain. Any objections? ScarletRibbons (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]