Who would have been the Catholic ruler of England?

Sorry, but that seems like a silly question. Assuming some Catholic claimant actually ascended to the throne after 1701, that very event is likely to have altered his/her choice of marriage partner or that of the offspring thereby changing all subsequent family tree details.

The only answer must be "nobody knows". You might as well ask who would be the President of the United States if the Confederacy had won the Civil War.

Franz, duke of Bavaria

Well, of course, things have changed dramatically since 1701 vis-a-vis the government of the UK. Queen Liz is not the "ruler" of England in any meaningful sense whatever. She is the head of state. The head of the government is the Prime Minister. There is no actual "ruler" save the duly elected government itself. Hence, the very question is moot.

Moishe Rosenberg

I think it is the woman relative of Queen Elizabeth who wanted to be queen - Mary Queen of Scots, who if I remember, was queen for a short time, and was later deheaded.

BBB

I don't quite get November 5th, the Gunpowder Plot, Guy Fawkes and how the English view this commemoration. Is Fawkes reviled, held as some kind of hero, or a bit of both?

I was wrong. I was thinking of the queen of Scotland. In fact, it was James !! of England. BBB

HISTORY

James II of England

James II & VII (14 October 1633O.S. – 16 September 1701)[2] was King of England and King of Ireland as James II and King of Scotland as James VII,[1] from 6 February 1685. He was the last Catholic monarch to reign over the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Members of Britain's political and religious elite increasingly opposed him for being pro-French and pro-Catholic, and for his designs on becoming an absolute monarch. When he produced a Catholic heir, the tension exploded, and leading nobles called on William III of Orange (his son-in-law and nephew) to land an invasion army from the Netherlands, which he did. James fled England (and thus was held to have abdicated) in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.[3] He was replaced by William of Orange who became king as William III, ruling jointly with his wife (James's daughter) Mary II. Thus William and Mary, both Protestants, became joint rulers in 1689. James made one serious attempt to recover his crowns, when he landed in Ireland in 1689 but, after the defeat of the Jacobite forces by the Williamite forces at the Battle of the Boyne in the summer of 1690, James returned to France. He lived out the rest of his life as a pretender at a court sponsored by his cousin and ally, King Louis XIV.

James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings and his attempts to create religious liberty for English Roman Catholics and Protestant nonconformists against the wishes of the English Parliament. Parliament, opposed to the growth of absolutism that was occurring in other European countries, as well as to the loss of legal supremacy for the Church of England, saw their opposition as a way to preserve what they regarded as traditional English liberties. This tension made James's four-year reign a struggle for supremacy between the English Parliament and the Crown, resulting in his deposition, the passage of the English Bill of Rights, and the Hanoverian succession.

England is the least religious country in the world. Bonfire night is all about fireworks. Guy Fawkes isn't seen as a villain that much any more, and since Alan Moore's V for Vendetta came out he's aquired a new lease of life. There's still a big do held in Lewes every year.
http://www.room139.lewesonline.com/

Does this post's question exclude the Pope, as the ultimate arbiter of Catholic concerns, if the ruler was Catholic?

It would mean that the heir to the throne would not only have to be Catholic, he would also have to be a high ranking cardinal.

The question posed is in itself ludicrous, but at a stroke you've just made it more so.

Not quite right, the Hanovarian succession was a bit later. The last Stuart monarch was Queen Anne, daughter of James and sister of Mary. She died in 1714 which is when George I became king, but real power lay in the hands of Robert Walpole the de facto prime minister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Great_Britain

It's a gift that few have.

I did not know that. I wonder which is the most religious? (Excluding the Middle East).

What do people mean by religious.
The Americans claim we Swedes are the least religious people.
50% (last time I heard) of Americans are churchmembers.
85% of the Swedes are churchmembers. But we go to church less.
An American whatever sent people to Sweden to prove that we are not religious and it great survey was made. The Americans asked Swedes if they were religious. The majority said NO. For a Swede the word religious is very very negative and means a Biblethumbing intolerant person.

I read a survey a while back, which put us way out in the not religious group. You're right though about how religious has negative connotations, it's tyhe same over here. I don't know anyone who goes to church.

I know a few who go to church on regularly basis. I don´t, but often enjoy it when I go.
One thing I have noted is people as a rule take religion very serious when you talk about. Friends of mine left the church, but their knowledge about theology and taking the subject seriously is a pleasure.
Here a person who happens to know when Martin Luther lived can be sure of some mean and nasty remarks.

I teach grown ups Swedish - mostly business men/women from within EU. One never should talk about politics nor religion when teaching. It is a tabu for me.
Sometimes it comes up that they are catholics or Lutherans, because of the text or something else. As a rule the ones who are churchmembers have often been more polite than the non church members. I do not even know if they ever go to church - just that they are church members.

Well, this has been a refreshingly vacuous thread.

You certainly has not improved it.......which is nothing new.