Author Topic: James II  (Read 34158 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

elena_maria_vidal

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #60 on: November 14, 2005, 08:02:18 AM »
Quote

More fun than an absolute monarchy! ;D


And you are the one who wanted to stay at Versailles with Mme Adelaide!!!  ;)

I think every form of government can become corrupt; none has the monopoly on virtue or vice; it ultimately depends on who is running the show. But I digress....

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #61 on: November 14, 2005, 08:36:29 AM »
an absolute monarchy is good when the monarch is good and is thinking of the good of the people. it is generally more efficient than any fiorm of oligarhy, because it's faster and depends on only one person. however, when that person is not appropriate for the role of a monarch, there is a bit of a problem.

the disadvantage of democracy is that it's slow. you need to vote for every measure, sit and listen to every argument. while this is good in theory there are times when there might not be time for that

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #62 on: November 14, 2005, 10:20:07 AM »
Quote

And you are the one who wanted to stay at Versailles with Mme Adelaide!!!  ;)

I think every form of government can become corrupt; none has the monopoly on virtue or vice; it ultimately depends on who is running the show. But I digress....


I said I would be prefer to stay at Versailles than go to the convent with Victoire, Sophie & Co! Naturally I would prefer to stay with you at the Petit Trianon (but without Louis XV and Mme Dubarry).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #63 on: November 14, 2005, 10:21:03 AM »
Quote
an absolute monarchy is good when the monarch is good and is thinking of the good of the people. it is generally more efficient than any fiorm of oligarhy, because it's faster and depends on only one person. however, when that person is not appropriate for the role of a monarch, there is a bit of a problem.

the disadvantage of democracy is that it's slow. you need to vote for every measure, sit and listen to every argument. while this is good in theory there are times when there might not be time for that


I'd still rather risk it with democracy, thanks.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bell_the_cat »

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2005, 10:23:41 AM »
Quote
This might deserve a topic of its own, but does anyone know who was next in the Protestant line of succession after Sophia and her descendants in 1701?  


The answer to this is surely - noone! The Act of Succession explicitly mentioned only Sophia and her descendants.  

If George and his family had been wiped out by a smallpox epidemic, parliament would have had to think again. As Sophia was the youngest child of the Queen of Bohemia (wasn't she?), they would have to go back to the descendants of Catherine Grey (for England), and the Hamiltons for Scotland.

elena_maria_vidal

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #65 on: November 14, 2005, 10:42:38 AM »
Quote

I said I would be prefer to stay at Versailles than go to the convent with Victoire, Sophie & Co! Naturally I would prefer to stay with you at the Petit Trianon (but without Louis XV and Mme Dubarry).


You really have me laughing now! :D I can be pretty difficult (in case you haven't noticed! ;D) Marie-Antoinette would be much better company!!

Modena

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #66 on: November 14, 2005, 11:36:23 AM »
Quote


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. :'(


I defend James II so ardently because I do feel that he has gotten very bad press, so to speak,  from those historians, etc, who justify the events of 1688 and beyond. Oh, he should have been less stubborn and just switched his religion, etc.
Well, he felt like he had the right to worship as he wanted to, and wanted to ensure that right for others. Yes, they sure were different times back then, and there would have been so many obstacles to conquer, but the man shouldn't be "darned" for trying.  ;)

A few months ago, I didn't know anything about James II, or rather, just read in a few very dated history books what a terrible king he was. I figured, you cannot always believe what you read and wanted more information. Surely, I thought, there had to be a lot more to the story. (thank goodness for the internet!) I think there is a lot more to learn about this event in history. :)

He wasn't a saint, but he wasn't a horrible man, either.
:)
Cheers! ;D
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Modena »

Modena

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #67 on: November 14, 2005, 11:45:52 AM »
Quote
James's womanizing had little to do with the reasons he lost his throne.  No one really cared if he had mistresses, although Sir Charles Sedley, the father of one of them, said he supported the Glorious Revolution because James had taken advantage of his daughter.  "


;D LOL His poor, saintly daughter. What a family of saints, the Sedleys. Didn't Sir Charles Sedley supposedly run naked through the streets of London, or have I got the wrong person?  ::) ;D Probably got all spiteful after Queen Mary Beatrice kicked his daughter to the curb. :)





"James was never at his best in a crisis.  He was a very disciplined, methodical man who believed that he was a great military leader due to his happy youth spent as a junior officer in the French army, when the great Turenne had complimented him on his bravery.  Unfortunately, whenever James himself was in charge, with no one standing over him to tell him what to do, he usually tended to bungle things through his indecision and cowardice, as he did in 1688.  "

The man was probably having a nervous breakdown.  :(
He didn't believe himself a great military leader, but those who served with him attested to his bravery, said they never saw such a fearless man. Turenne wasn't the only man who thought he was brave.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Modena »

Modena

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #68 on: November 14, 2005, 11:53:29 AM »
Quote

Well, it sounds like James took care of his various children. That is a good thing. Too bad Mary and Anne turned against him. I wonder if they felt guilty about it later ????


Later, I think that Lady Henrietta turned against her father (encouraged by her mother, Arabella Churchill) but though I've heard mention of this, I don't know the particular details.
In my book Mary of Modena, it has mention that she and King James refused to receive her at St. Germain, though it doesn't go into detail.
I know in earlier times James kept up a correspondence with this daughter, so I don't know what apparently changed things.

Modena

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #69 on: November 14, 2005, 12:15:58 PM »
Quote
an absolute monarchy is good when the monarch is good and is thinking of the good of the people. it is generally more efficient than any fiorm of oligarhy, because it's faster and depends on only one person. however, when that person is not appropriate for the role of a monarch, there is a bit of a problem.


Yes, but what makes a "good" monarch? It can be very subjective.  ;D

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2005, 01:28:52 PM »
a good monarch is a monarch that does the country good. indeed it is subjective and you can never pleaase everybody... but i think that in the old times it was obvious when one was a good monarch or not. by the number of rebellions, the lifestyle, etc

elena_maria_vidal

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2005, 01:35:30 PM »
Quote

Later, I think that Lady Henrietta turned against her father (encouraged by her mother, Arabella Churchill) but though I've heard mention of this, I don't know the particular details.
In my book Mary of Modena, it has mention that she and King James refused to receive her at St. Germain, though it doesn't go into detail.
I know in earlier times James kept up a correspondence with this daughter, so I don't know what apparently changed things.


What a family.... ::)

palatine

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2005, 04:34:58 PM »
bell, what I'm wondering is which descendant of Jane Grey's sisters was available to be granted the reversion of the English succession if Sophia and her descendants hadn't been available.  I'm also wondering who would have inherited the crown of Scotland, since a Tudor descendant couldn't claim that throne.

Modena, James II was certainly brave under fire as a junior officer under Turenne and later at sea, but that doesn't mean he was a good or even competent military commander.   The only military campaign that James was in charge of was his Irish campaign of 1689, where he made mistake after mistake, culminating in the Battle of the Boyne, where he disgraced himself.  Louis XIV received reports from the French officers and the French ambassador about James's behavior in Ireland and never trusted James with French troops again.  James was an able commander at sea, but in naval warfare James made decisions with a council of war made up of experienced officers.  He was also guided by instructions from his older brother.  Once James was on his own, he tended to dither and panic when faced with a crisis.

John Callow has written a 3 volume biography of James which you might want to track down.  Callow does not think that James was having a nervous breakdown during 1688, although he was deeply depressed.

Prejudice against Catholics was a time-honored tradition in England during James's reign, thanks to the Spanish Armada, the Gunpowder Plot, Henrietta Maria's antics, the Irish rebellion, the Popish Plot, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.  James was swimming against the tide with his ideas, but he might have been able to establish religious toleration in private life if he had just been patient enough to work with Parliament, if he had been willing to break with Louis XIV, and if he had respected the Test Act until he could get it repealed.

As for Sir Charles Sedley, he was indeed a rake, though I haven't read anything about him running naked down the street; that sounds like one of the Earl of Rochester's pranks.  Sedley was a playwright and a courtier; Catherine was his only child, and he had hopes of making a good match for her.  I believe I've read that her mother was an invalid, and Sedley was too much of a gentleman, believe it or not, to divorce her.  Catherine was a very witty woman by all accounts, but she was naive when she first came to court and met James.  She easily had her head turned by James and the largesse he could dispense, to her father's dismay.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by palatine »

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: James II
« Reply #73 on: November 14, 2005, 04:42:56 PM »
Quote
bell, what I'm wondering is which descendant of Jane Grey's sisters was available to be granted the reversion of the English succession if Sophia and her descendants hadn't been available.  I'm also wondering who would have inherited the crown of Scotland, since a Tudor descendant couldn't claim that throne.
 


This is a complex issue. Perhaps the descendants of Katherine Grey would be considered, but their claim to the throne was disputable, given that Elizabeth I had had Katherine Grey's marriage to Edward Seymour declared null and void. An alternative is the descendants of Margaret Clifford, specifically her eldest granddaughter Anne Stanley.

As for the Scottish throne, it is as Bell says, it would revert to a Hamilton, a descendant of James II's daughter Mary.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: James II
« Reply #74 on: November 15, 2005, 07:59:06 AM »
the Scottish line is this:

James II
     l
Princess Mary
     l
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Arran (1475-1529)
     l
James Hamilton, 2nd Earl of Arran (1515-1575) Regent of Scotland
     l
John Hamilton, 1st Marquess of Hamilton (1535-1604)
     l
James Hamilton, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton (1589-1625)    
     l
William Hamilton, 2nd Duke of Hamilton (1616-1651)
     l
Anne, Duchess of Hamilton (1634-1716)
     l
James Douglas, 4th Duke of Hamilton (1658-1712)


Anne Duchess of Hamilton in her own right resigned her titles to her son in 1698. The 4th Duke was killed in a duel in 1712. The current Duke of Hamilton is descended from the 4th Duke.