British history provides several opportunities for alternative claimants to the English and later British Crown to arise, and historical scholars have on occasion traced to present times the heirs of those alternative claims.
Throughout this article, the names of "would-have-been" monarchs are in italics.
Had Edmund inherited instead, the alternative succession would have been short-lived, for it re-united with the historical crown when Edward IV was declared king in 1461.
This line's claim to the Crown is based upon the argument that Edward IV was not the son of Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, and thus had no legitimate claim to the Crown.[5] Therefore, when Richard was killed at the Battle of Wakefield, his claim passed first to his eldest legitimate son, Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who was executed shortly after the battle, and then to George, Duke of Clarence. Another point is that Henry VI passed a law in 1470 that should both he and his son Edward of Westminster die without further legitimate male issue, the crown was to pass to Clarence, as Henry had placed an attainder upon Edward IV. When Henry VI and Edward both died in 1471, Clarence became the legal heir of the House of Lancaster.[6]
Sir George Brydges Skipwith, 3rd Baronet, first son of Margaret
Elizabeth Brownlow, first daughter of Margaret, succeeded their childless brother George
George Brownlow Doughty, first son of Elizabeth
Henry Doughty, only child of George
Henry Doughty, only son of Henry
Elizabeth Doughty, only daughter of Henry Doughty Sr
Since Lady Anne Stanley's line is thought to have become extinct with the death of Elizabeth Doughty, the line then passes to the descendants of Lady Anne's sister, Lady Frances Stanley:
Lady Frances Stanley, second daughter of Ferdinando
Although the 9th Earl of Jersey had sons from a third marriage, he had been divorced from his first wife, who was still alive when he married his third. Under a strict adherence to the succession laws and customs as they existed in 1603 (for it is argued that no laws passed by Parliament since 1603 are legitimate, as the heirs did not summon those Parliaments, nor did those laws receive the royal assent to become law), the 9th Earl of Jersey's divorce was not valid, and therefore both his remarriage during his ex-wife's lifetime was null and void, and the children of his third marriage illegitimate. Consequently, the current holder of the Stanley claim to the throne of England is the only child of the 9th Earl's first marriage, Lady Caroline Ogilvy (née Child Villiers).[8]
Descendants of Edward Seymour, Viscount Beauchamp
Although the marriage of Lady Katherine Grey and Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford, was annulled as illegal in 1562, and her children consequently rendered illegitimate, James I regarded the Seymour line as eligible heirs. This unofficial rehabilitation of the Seymours placed them ahead of the Stanleys in James's opinion. In 2012, Mary Freeman-Grenville, 12th Lady Kinloss was listed as the heir to the Mary Tudor claim rather than Frances Stanley's descendants.[9][10][11]
Charles Edward Stuart, elder son of James Francis. He had no legitimate issue by his wife. He had an illegitimate daughter who has descendants, but they have no succession rights. Also known as "Charles III" by Jacobites or as "Bonnie Prince Charlie" more widely.
Henry Benedict Stuart, younger son of James Francis. He was a Cardinal of the Catholic Church and had no issue. Called "Henry I and IX" by Jacobites.
When Franz dies, his claim on the English and Scottish crowns[13] will pass to his younger brother Prince Max. And after Max's death, this theoretical claim most likely will be inherited by Sophie, Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein, daughter of Prince Max.
^Aronson, Theo (1979). Kings Over the Water. London: Cassell. p. 229.
^The Jacobite claim is to the thrones held and claimed by James II and VII; as king of England, Scotland, France (claimed by English monarchs since the Hundred Years' War), and Ireland. The Acts of Union that created Great Britain and the United Kingdom are considered invalid by those who believe that the monarchs who gave the Acts the Royal Assent were not the legitimate occupants of the throne. Cf. The Legitimist Kalendar for the Year of Our Lord 1895 (London: Henry, 1895), p.22.