James II

[palatine]

While James's goal of religious toleration was good, his execution was flawed.  After his reign began, James broke the law -specifically the Test Act- and began appointing Catholics as officers in the army and navy.  James entrusted the army to the command of the Earl of Feversham, a naturalized Frenchman and fellow Catholic convert, who was a less than competent commander.  

The officers of the army and navy, particularly John Churchill, realized that James was going to continue to favor Catholics, decreasing the likelihood of their promotion.  Churchill was particularly bitter because he did more than anyone to defeat Monmouth in the rebellion of 1685, yet Feversham got all the credit.  The officers were also eager to go to war against Louis XIV.

Thanks to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, the English were paranoid about what James might do to Protestants in his kingdoms.   Although James claimed his goal was universal religious toleration, he was privately urging his friends and chief servants to become Catholic, including Samuel Pepys; this became well known, as well as his actions with the army and navy.

I don't think that James II would have lost his throne if he hadn't violated the Test Act, which caused key officers in the army to plot against him.  If he had allowed the army and navy to remain Anglican, and focused on religious toleration in private life, he might have had a chance.  

The second reason James lost his throne was his failure to join the coalition against Louis XIV.  He was repeatedly offered the chance to do so, and did not even have to commit troops, just provide subsidies.  Unfortunately, long before his son was born, everyone knew that James planned to sit the upcoming war against Louis XIV out, and the warming-pan slander was concocted.

[Modena]

Very interesting.  

What does everyone think of the Churchills? They seemed to want to step over just about anybody to serve themselves.
There's ambition, and then there's ambition.  

[Prince_Lieven]

Perhaps the Chuchills deserve their own thread?

[Modena]

Perhaps.  

But haven't they gotten enough?     JMO

[elena_maria_vidal]

"He may or may not have been sincere about toleration. Partly because of his personality, and partly because of the twists and turns of his policy, he lost within three years whatever trust his subjects had in him. They didn't even believe it when his son was born, preferring to believe the most absurd rumours about a suppositious child.

It wasn't a good time to pursue a policy of toleration anyway, especially one that seemed to favour catholics. The thousands of huguenot refugees who arrived from France after Louis XIV's Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, making it seem all too likely that James had a return to Rome in mind.

It would have been a difficult trick to pull off, and it would have been wonderful if it had succeeded, but noone really trusted James, so he was doomed to failure.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

I agree, Modena, especially about people standing up for their principles. James II would have had no problems at all if he had compromised his religious beliefs and reverted to Anglicanism  because it was more socially acceptable and fashionable in England at the time than being a "papist." He would not give up his faith and I admire him for that. He may not have been a saint but I think  his wife Mary Beatrice of Modena  certainly was one. Her confessor was St Claude de la Columbiere, who was imprisoned in England for his faith, and she helped him spread the now famous devotion to the Sacred Heart.

James may have been harsh in some of his dealings with people but look what his son-in-law William of Orange did to the Irish people after the so-called Glorious Revolution. It was NOT glorious for the Irish people.

The tragedy of James II is very sad to me because it meant an end to the legitimate royal line in Britain. It is terrible how they treated his little baby boy, but things like that happen in families today.

[bell_the_cat]

I agree, Modena, especially about people standing up for their principles. James II would have had no problems at all if he had compromised his religious beliefs and reverted to Anglicanism  because it was more socially acceptable and fashionable in England at the time than being a "papist."

So Anglicanism is a fashion and not a religious belief?

[elena_maria_vidal]

So Anglicanism is a fashion and not a religious belief?

Well, I think it certainly was a fashion for some people, which is the danger in ANY country that has a state-sponsored church in which one is heavily penalized if one does not attend services on a regular basis, which was the case in England at the time. Of course there were many sincere, deeply-believing Anglicans, such as Charles I "the Martyr", and so many of the cavaliers; indeed in all levels of society.  In ANY country and in ANY church, there are those who are sincerely engaged and those who just go along with the crowd for political or social convenience.

In James II's case, if he had given up being a Catholic and conformed to the official religion of his country, he would not have lost his throne.

(BTW, my grandmother was an Anglican and one of the holiest people I have ever known or will know. Today is the anniversary of her death. What a coincidence.)

[bell_the_cat]

Well, I think it certainly was a fashion for some people, which is the danger in ANY country that has a state-sponsored church in which one is heavily penalized if one does not attend services on a regular basis, which was the case in England at the time. Of course there were many sincere, deeply-believing Anglicans, such as Charles I "the Martyr", and so many of the cavaliers; indeed in all levels of society.  In ANY country and in ANY church, there are those who are sincerely engaged and those who just go along with the crowd for political or social convenience.

In James II's case, if he had given up being a Catholic and conformed to the official religion of his country, he would not have lost his throne.

(BTW, my grandmother was an Anglican and one of the holiest people I have ever known or will know. Today is the anniversary of her death. What a coincidence.)

It wasn't because he was a catholic that he lost the throne: as has been discussed on this thread, it was the inconsistencies of his policy in 1686-7, his failure to join the alliance against Louis XIV, and also, I think, his lack of personal charisma, which meant that when the crunch came there was no one prepared to help him keep his throne. No one trusted him.

The English were prepared to have a catholic king in 1685. By 1688 they were not, at least they wanted anyone other than James.

James spent most of the 1690s telling anyone at Versailles who was prepared to listen that all he had wanted was toleration, and that he would have achieved it if he hadn't been surrounded by self serving scoundrels. Even there most people took it with a pinch of salt: it was said of him that he only had to open his mouth and everyone understood why he was there!

I do have a lot of admiration for Mary Beatrice, especially as he wasn't faithful to her, until he was in his late fifties! She sounds like a nice sensible lady - Liselotte, Duchess of Orleans liked her too.

Your grandmother sounds as if she was a wonderful person by the way, she obviously left a big impression on you.

[elena_maria_vidal]

It wasn't because he was a catholic that he lost the throne: as has been discussed on this thread, it was the inconsistencies of his policy in 1686-7, his failure to join the alliance against Louis XIV, and also, I think, his lack of personal charisma, which meant that when the crunch came there was no one prepared to help him keep his throne. No one trusted him.

The English were prepared to have a catholic king in 1685. By 1688 they were not, at least they wanted anyone other than James.

James spent most of the 1690s telling anyone at Versailles who was prepared to listen that all he had wanted was toleration, and that he would have achieved it if he hadn't been surrounded by self serving scoundrels. Even there most people took it with a pinch of salt: it was said of him that he only had to open his mouth and everyone understood why he was there!

I do have a lot of admiration for Mary Beatrice, especially as he wasn't faithful to her, until he was in his late fifties! She sounds like a nice sensible lady - Liselotte, Duchess of Orleans liked her too.

Your grandmother sounds as if she was a wonderful person by the way, she obviously left a big impression on you.

I have read the thread and I do not agree with everyone. I do agree that James' policies were not always astute and his dealings with people sometimes harsh, as I said. But what about his baby boy, whose birth precipitated the Glorious Revolution... because there was a powerful element that did not want a Catholic heir to the throne. They were willing to endure James while his wife was childless and Mary/William were due to inherit the crown and secure the Protestant succession.

Bell, you and I may have to agree to disagree about this one.

Yes, my grandmother was a very great lady who risked her life hiding people from the Japanese in the Phillippines in WWII. But that is another story....

[bell_the_cat]

Bell, you and I may have to agree to disagree about this one.

Yes, my grandmother was a very great lady who risked her life hiding people from the Japanese in the Phillippines in WWII. But that is another story....

OK, we disagree!

I just want to add that I think the Young Pretender might have been able to claim his throne back! Queen Anne and many Tories supported this in 1712-14. However this never happened, due partly to bad luck, and partly to the fact that the Chevalier de St George inherited his father's lack of diplomatic skills.

I hope we get to hear more about your grandmother some time...

[Prince_Lieven]

They were willing to endure James while his wife was childless and Mary/William were due to inherit the crown and secure the Protestant succession.

I'm inclined to agree with this, especially since James was 52 when he became king, and his brother had died at 55, all his other siblings dying before 35. That said, I don't think his Catholocism was the only reason he was deposed - as has been mentioned, personal charisma and power politics certainly came into it.

[elena_maria_vidal]

I do think that James II COULD have held on to his throne if he had been more astute, just as I think that Charles Edward Stuart could have gained the throne and Mary I (of Scotland) could have held onto her throne. But like many of the Stuarts they all three had FATAL flaws which, combined with being Catholic, led to their downfalls. (IMO, if they had been MORE devout and shown MORE conviction in the practice of their faith, they might have prevailed. I think all the concessions they were prepared to make were too often perceived as weakness.)

[elena_maria_vidal]

OK, we disagree!

I I hope we get to hear more about your grandmother some time...

Yes, she was something else!!

[Prince_Lieven]

Well that's the thing really, isn't it? Whereas the Tudors were cold, calculating and astute when they wanted to be, the Stuarts more often were ruled by their hearts than their heads. Elizabeth I had virtually no principles. Mary Stuart was entirely ruled by her principles and emotions. Charles II was unique - a Stuart with no political principles or ethics, and some say he was the most successful Stuart monarch.

[bell_the_cat]

I do think that James II COULD have held on to his throne if he had been more astute, just as I think that Charles Edward Stuart could have gained the throne and Mary I (of Scotland) could have held onto her throne. But like many of the Stuarts they all three had FATAL flaws which, combined with being Catholic, led to their downfalls. (IMO, if they had been MORE devout and shown MORE conviction in the practice of their faith, they might have prevailed. I think all the concessions they were prepared to make were too often perceived as weakness.)

There's something in this. James' earlier career as a serial philanderer, perpetually trying to keep up with his brother (!), meant that it was difficult to take his new-found piety seriously, however genuine this may have been.