James II

[Prince_Lieven]

I think Anne's behaviour around the time of the birth of her half brother was terrible too. She deliberatley made sure she would not be available to witness the birth, so she could conveniently believe, if it suited her, that it was a 'warming pan baby' - and not only that, but she fed Mary her lies too!

Sorry, I'm off the topic.  

[Modena]

I think Anne's behaviour around the time of the birth of her half brother was terrible too. She deliberatley made sure she would not be available to witness the birth, so she could conveniently believe, if it suited her, that it was a 'warming pan baby' - and not only that, but she fed Mary her lies too!

Sorry, I'm off the topic.  

Oh, no way, I'm finding your posts very enjoyable!   Not off topic by a long shot.
If ANY birth was witnessed, it was the birth of King James III (or the "Old Pretender"). Anne was conveniently absent, and if I'm remembering properly, it was because she was "pregnant" (ah-HEM)  

[Prince_Lieven]

I think the birth of the Old Pretender was witnessed to the tune of 60 people.  

[bell_the_cat]

IMO, he WAS sincere about religious tolerance, that was what essentially did him in, the bigotted establishment couldn't stand it and fed the fires of intolerance.  
They were at James for years, this was a man who had over 60 (?) witnesses to the birth of his son, yet STILL couldn't "prove" his son was indeed his.  The depths some of his supporters, his friends, even his children sank to was truly pathetic, IMO.
One has to really respect a man who had some principles and was willing to make a stand for them.


Check this out if you wish:  

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/20

It's good to have a James II fan on board, but I think you are in danger of overstating your case!

Only James can really tell us if he was genuine or not in pursuing a policy of toleration. However the fact remains that no one trusted him. You may choose to see this as a sign that James was right and everyone else was wrong!

This may have been also the way that James saw things and it was this that ultimately cost him his throne!
I don't buy the argument that Louis XIV was pursuing his own ends with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes ("not a real catholic"), and that this had nothing to do with James (his cousin) - at least I can't believe contemporaries could have risked giving James the benefit of the doubt.

I can't get your link to work, can you help?

[Modena]

It's good to have a James II fan on board, but I think you are in danger of overstating your case!

Only James can really tell us if he was genuine or not in pursuing a policy of toleration. However the fact remains that no one trusted him. You may choose to see this as a sign that James was right and everyone else was wrong!

This may have been also the way that James saw things and it was this that ultimately cost him his throne!
I don't buy the argument that Louis XIV was pursuing his own ends with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes ("not a real catholic"), and that this had nothing to do with James (his cousin) - at least I can't believe contemporaries could have risked giving James the benefit of the doubt.

I can't get your link to work, can you help?

How so?   Overstating my case?   I don't see things in black and white, and really, can the fact that "no one" trusted him mean that he wasn't genuine? It doesn't matter the quantity of those who allegedly trust you, it's the genuineness of those who trust you that really matters,IMO. Lots of shady characters in this story.

Follow my links, there's a genuine case for James II being ousted because of his very liberal views on religious tolerance.   I don't see it as a matter of James II being a saint, and everybody else wrong,  
If anything, this king deserves a say after most short-sighted and biased biographers have treated him like a brainless ogre for three centuries. Sometimes it takes time to be able to see a person in a more truthful light.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/04.17/15-kingjames.html

Here's another link:  
http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/king-james(n)-1.htm

[bell_the_cat]

I didn't say he wasn't genuine - I said no one trusted him.

[Modena]

I didn't say he wasn't genuine - I said no one trusted him.

Ah, but, wasn't it rather convenient for some NOT to trust him?  
As for genuineness, true, non of us can see inside another's mind and soul. But I find the growing evidence of James efforts to bring religious toleration to his nation fascinating.
All any one of us can do is study history and make up our own minds.  

Cheers!  

[ilyala]

i read the text on the link you provided. while it was a very interesting read and it did provide a new view on the whole thing, i personally think it's as biased as the whig historians, only in the other direction.

i agree that james was an idealist. but i also think he was too stubborn for his own good. i think in search for the ideal he forgot to have a plan and that led to contradictory actions which led to people not trusting him.

[Prince_Lieven]

An interesting note: James became much more pious during his exile, giving up his love affairs and being a good husband to Mary Beatrice. On his deathbed, he said he forgave his three great enemies - the Holy Roman Emperor, the Prince of Orange [William III] and Princess Anne of Denmark, his own daughter!   I suppose it just goes to show how betrayed he felt by Anne.

[Modena]

i read the text on the link you provided. while it was a very interesting read and it did provide a new view on the whole thing, i personally think it's as biased as the whig historians, only in the other direction.

i agree that james was an idealist. but i also think he was too stubborn for his own good. i think in search for the ideal he forgot to have a plan and that led to contradictory actions which led to people not trusting him.

No crime to be too stubborn, especially when you are trying in your own way to ensure freedom for all your subjects.    If anything, he was no politician and lacked subtlety.  I sympathize with anyone who was at least TRYING to ensure his subjects could worship any way they chose. (I always root for the underdog)


I don't think this source is as biased or brutal as too many whig historians. I mean, to them James is nothing short of a vile, dreadful ogre. This source gives one something to think about even if you don't agree with their whole take on things.

[Modena]

An interesting note: James became much more pious during his exile, giving up his love affairs and being a good husband to Mary Beatrice. On his deathbed, he said he forgave his three great enemies - the Holy Roman Emperor, the Prince of Orange [William III] and Princess Anne of Denmark, his own daughter!   I suppose it just goes to show how betrayed he felt by Anne.

He certainly gave up a certain person when his wife delivered an ultimatum (give her up or I move to a convent on the continent)
Never any more problems.  

[bell_the_cat]

Something I was wondering about: did all of James' illegitimate children follow into exile or did some of them stay?

I know the Duke of Berwick (the son of Arabella Churchill) fought for the French in the spanish wars. What about the others?

[ilyala]

No crime to be too stubborn, especially when you are trying in your own way to ensure freedom for all your subjects.    If anything, he was no politician and lacked subtlety.  I sympathize with anyone who was at least TRYING to ensure his subjects could worship any way they chose. (I always root for the underdog)


I don't think this source is as biased or brutal as too many whig historians. I mean, to them James is nothing short of a vile, dreadful ogre. This source gives one something to think about even if you don't agree with their whole take on things.

while i can admire one's idealism, i'm pretty sure that idealism and politics have nothing to do with each other. in politics you have to be flexible. while it's good that you wanna go all the way and all, that's not the way it works, not in the real world and especially not in politics. i place james 2nd alongside mary tudor as two people who both wanted the good of the english people, but none of them consulted the english people on what it wanted. and after all that they still went about it the wrong way

[Modena]

while i can admire one's idealism, i'm pretty sure that idealism and politics have nothing to do with each other. in politics you have to be flexible. while it's good that you wanna go all the way and all, that's not the way it works, not in the real world and especially not in politics. i place james 2nd alongside mary tudor as two people who both wanted the good of the english people, but none of them consulted the english people on what it wanted. and after all that they still went about it the wrong way

But he was dealing with people that apparently were very easily led into a frenzy of anti-catholic bigotry by the establishment. What is flexibility when a good number of your subjects are essentially not free?
In the real world, sometimes you HAVE to take a stand and fight long-standing prejudices for a higher ideal.  


Not all of england were against James, he had his many supporters, including many regular countrymen.

Cheers!  

[ilyala]

flexibility is elizabeth. elizabeth in theory maintained persecution of the catholics, therefor pleasing the majority of bigots. but in practice they only occasionally had to pay small fines and as long as they were discreet... while that might seem as a compromise, consider that most people of that time were not ready for religious toleration. while the site you linked us to tried to tell us that most of european countries were tolerant, the truth is that none of them was so completely. even nowadays there are cases of religious persecutions... imagine 300 years ago.

by trying to get the (so many!) bigots to accept his ideal of religious toleration, james pretty much put gas on fire. he annoyed them and that led to the revolution.