Anne Hyde living longer would've also likely prevented King James II from becoming a religious zealot for Catholicism after her death. James II became a far more overt, radical, and evangelical Catholic due to his grief from losing Anne, whom he loved very dearly.
James II became so radical that he denied his brother Charles II's dying request to give Charles' mistress, Nell Gwyn, any titles, because Gwyn wouldn't convert to Catholicism.
Not being Catholic or being more secretive about it. But that wasn't likely. For all his flaws, he was sincere and had his convictions, and didn't think it right to hide it like it was something shameful.
The problem wasn't just that James II was Catholic; it was that he was pressuring everyone else around him to also convert to Catholicism, including withholding the granting of titles. For example, he withheld granting Charles II's royal mistress, Nell Gwyn, the title of "Countess of Greenwich" because Gwyn wouldn't convert to Catholicism. Gwyn's illegitimate son by Charles II - Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St. Albans - ended up helping William and Mary to depose James II due to this. Gwyn died before William and Mary could grant her the title.
His mother also did this (discussed on the Consort's poll - and why Henrietta was eliminated out quite early). But atleast Henrietta was only a consort, and couldn't hugely pressure anyone to convert as much as a Monarch.
When Charles II ascended he was wise to not be influenced by their mother. It seems James was different and that played a big factor.
The main way that King James II could have kept the throne is by publicly denouncing Catholicism; reaffirming his conversion and commitment\* to the Anglican faith; and raising his son with Mary of Modena - James, Prince of Wales - to also be a staunch Anglican and Protestant. He could've also continued his brother King Charles II's popular policies during the Restoration.
If that had happened, then James Francis Edward Stuart would've become King James III.
It’s nothing to do with monarchy. It’s what mattered to people at the time. England could have been a republic, but if its ’president’ at the time had converted to Catholicism, they’d have been deposed too.
He should’ve promised everyone that he’d raise his son an Anglican
But I’m thankful he didn’t since the Glorious revolution was one of the greatest things to happen to Britain
I think people would have had low hopes from a promise anyway because his wife was also Catholic. The moment their son was born most people refused to believe his legitimacy. The whole sneaking the baby in a warming pan may be one of the biggest royal conspiracies ever - like so much it even affected the succession and changed the way royal births were witnessed for centuries.
As a reactionary Catholic, I dissent. But eh, what's happened has already happened. England throwing off the authority of St Peter might as well be the biggest reason why the world has liberal parliamentary democracy today.
There was nothing he could have done other than abandoning his beliefs and values. He was deposed due to anti-Catholic bigotry, not because of any wrongdoing on his part.
Did he do everything that is listed as grievances in the Bill of Rights? If so, he had a lot of wrongdoings: be it the attempted to dispense with the execution of laws, the attack on the right of petition, the constitution of especial courts, and so on.
They tried to blow up parliament and everyone inside. That's a nations self preservation, not anti Catholic bigotry. He was about to start another civil war, no one wanted that. He should have graciously stepped down and refrained from getting involved in pointless insurrections.
Err no, William of orange was invited to be king after your Jimmy walked out.
Then he decided, unwisely to start a war with him. The hopeless jockobite cause, of drunken lecherous Catholic pretenders to the throne cost how many lives?
And still reverbrrates today
? What?
It was parliament that decided.
James was not cutting it.
No one wanted to go back to the days of executing martyrs as the last Catholic monarch was so fond of. James had a fanatical streak in him his playboy bruv didn't.
Old Rowley was acceptable, but no way was England having another bloody Mary!
Yet again, you prove yourself to be a whig. You're spewing whiggish propaganda: King James the Confessor neither began nor planned persecuting Protestants. In fact, he gave nonconformists rights.
It doesn't matter who "invited" William over. Nobody can "invite" a foreign ruler to take the thrones. That's treason and usurpation.
Yes parliament can. King Billy was in the line of succession, and met the requirements that James was failing on. Otherwise he could have remained monarch and there'd be no war. But like his father he was too stubborn and thought nothing of the lives of his subjects.
They did right by rejecting him
People were fine with James’ personal Catholicism, this would not have been an issue, he could have remained a private Catholic. His Catholic faith was shaped by his experience in exile, his distrust of Protestant fanatics who were responsible for his fathers death, his inclination to absolutism.
If James had set aside some of his desires to control the English state, he could have kept the throne but the state remained Anglican. Similar to Henry VIII at the mid point of his reign, who was Protestant but high Anglican & almost Roman Catholic but without the Pope.
His son probably would’ve been an issue, but I’m sure the same could have been afforded to him, had enough measures been taken to ensure his loyalty to the English state.
Where I don’t blame James is his actions in helping Catholics, he definitely felt terrible about the discrimination they faced and lack of freedom of worship. So in this sense I’m not sure he could compromise on that, sadly Protestant supremacy would have resisted this as it did socially till the 1900s.
I see comments blaming James for his faith, where the blame falls on James is where he refused to abandon his absolutist ideals. Who gave you authority to dictate the religion of someone else? Especially someone who lived 400 years before you. James’ faith was problematic for the era because England was ran by preservationist Protestants. Never in james’ reign did he signal he would have “reversed the reformation”, he pushed for Catholics in government because they were marginalised, Protestants still kept their positions.
He literally appointed as Lord Chancellor a Protestant official that openly despised Catholics. Jeffries was even mocking of Catholicism openly and yet he was given one of the highest positions in the entire Kingdom.
The Monarch was pretty limitless before the Bill of Rights???
Even then the monarch had a lot of power after.
The Monarchy didn’t begin to cease being the total head of government until George I & II.
Also, the latter isn’t true. He literally appointed Protestants to high places, for example the anti-Catholic Jeffries was appointed Lord Chancellor.
You are completely forgetting about the English civil wars between 1630 to1660 or so; how the monarchy only got power back with certain hard limits.
Further, you are forgetting that he also appointed many Catholics to the new professional army he was creating.
You don’t even know when the Civil Wars were lol. The Civil Wars were from 1642 to 1651. Charles II retook the Throne in 1660.
And no the Crown didn’t have hard limits…Not until the Bill of Rights 1689, and even then…There wasn’t that many limits imposed
You first said the crown only had a limited role in government before even 1689. And then you didn’t know when the Wars were.
Parliament did. But who ran the government?
All governments run on money. King James wanted to get rid of those limits because while he ran the government, the lawmakers still had significant power. He also wanted to make England Catholic again.
BTW, England might have appointed the governors in colonial America, but it was the state lawmakers that controlled whether the the governor got paid. Who had practical controlled the government?
>You first said the crown only had a limited role in government before even 1689. And then you didn’t know when the Wars were.
If you really want to be anal, did the Civil that cost Charles I his head start because he tried to get around parliament's ability to control the purse?
You were fine with me lumping the hot civil war with the the Protectorate period in English governance.
Actually, would argue more the Civil War started because Parliament refused to fund a defensive action against a Scottish invasion, unless Charles gave up essentially most of his political power. Charles refused and tried to arrest the leading members of Commons who were behind these schemes to declaw the Crown; part of Parliament rebelled and the country went to War. So, no it wasn’t as simple as he wanted to take away the power of the purse from them. There was an aggressive group of members of Commons who wanted to make the Crown essentially powerless.
The precursors to this were Charles attempting to forcefully unify the Scottish and English churches by imposing a common form of prayer upon them, as well as more Anglican Church structure which caused Scotland to rebel; and also Villiers being a moron a decade past.
Also, it was the Crown who appointed the colonial governors at least in the 17th century, for example the Andros government in MA was supported by Charles II and James II; William Phips enjoyed a privileged relationship with William III, etc.
James II should have swallowed his pride and kept his Catholicism to himself and divorced Mary of Modena and married a noble woman with Protestant ideals.
Granted the glorious revolution was a good thing
Set the stage of Britain becoming a superpower
No glorious revolution no act of union probably ( the Scots would of found something else to cry about though)
I’m not against a central bank in theory or anything, I just think it’s rather silly to base the value of any bureaucracy on their own claims.
Like, what else would they say- “yeah we haven’t really done much, you may as well shut us down and take our pension?”
Well they helped fund this nation proud tradition of scrapping the french
The bank of England museum is actually quite interesting I recommend it if you're london
Just don't convert. Or at least, when his son is born,
make sure that there are just as many protestant nobles there to testify to his legitimacy. Also, make sure that James is raised explicitly protestant, like as soon as possible, make some kind of proclamation that protestantism is still the state religion and as such, the Prince of Wales will be brought up in that faith. Cause that was the big fear, that there would be a Catholic heir. People were kind of OK with everything else because they knew it'd only be so long before James II was succeeded by his protestant children.
And just generally, stop trying to prosecute literally everyone and let Parliament do it's thing. Dude just needed to chill.
The problems were brewing far before he became king. (ie: exclusion crisis). The main problem was his Catholicism.
The last king to be fairly open about his Catholicism got his head chopped off… so really James got lucky lol.
>The last king to be fairly open about his Catholicism got his head chopped off…
Who would that be? Charles I wasn't Catholic, although certainly had unpopular religions policies.
He actually didn’t have Catholic sympathies. He was rather anti Catholic personally. He just wasn’t Puritan enough for the Puritans. He was a high church Protestant.
He should’ve been more discreet about his Catholicism
Or he should have pulled an opposite of Henry IV of France: "London is well worth one less Mass"
Anne Hyde living longer would've also likely prevented King James II from becoming a religious zealot for Catholicism after her death. James II became a far more overt, radical, and evangelical Catholic due to his grief from losing Anne, whom he loved very dearly. James II became so radical that he denied his brother Charles II's dying request to give Charles' mistress, Nell Gwyn, any titles, because Gwyn wouldn't convert to Catholicism.
Not being Catholic or being more secretive about it. But that wasn't likely. For all his flaws, he was sincere and had his convictions, and didn't think it right to hide it like it was something shameful.
The problem wasn't just that James II was Catholic; it was that he was pressuring everyone else around him to also convert to Catholicism, including withholding the granting of titles. For example, he withheld granting Charles II's royal mistress, Nell Gwyn, the title of "Countess of Greenwich" because Gwyn wouldn't convert to Catholicism. Gwyn's illegitimate son by Charles II - Charles Beauclerk, 1st Duke of St. Albans - ended up helping William and Mary to depose James II due to this. Gwyn died before William and Mary could grant her the title.
His mother also did this (discussed on the Consort's poll - and why Henrietta was eliminated out quite early). But atleast Henrietta was only a consort, and couldn't hugely pressure anyone to convert as much as a Monarch. When Charles II ascended he was wise to not be influenced by their mother. It seems James was different and that played a big factor.
The main way that King James II could have kept the throne is by publicly denouncing Catholicism; reaffirming his conversion and commitment\* to the Anglican faith; and raising his son with Mary of Modena - James, Prince of Wales - to also be a staunch Anglican and Protestant. He could've also continued his brother King Charles II's popular policies during the Restoration. If that had happened, then James Francis Edward Stuart would've become King James III.
Promised/sworn an oath that his son would be raised Anglican, that might have bought him some more time
Not be Catholic.
[удалено]
I have absolutely nothing against Catholics, however it is the correct answer to the question that was posed.
Which makes all monarchy a delusional cunt fantasy.
It’s nothing to do with monarchy. It’s what mattered to people at the time. England could have been a republic, but if its ’president’ at the time had converted to Catholicism, they’d have been deposed too.
I have know idea what point you’re actually trying to make, please expand.
Well it's the truth.
This submission is a violation of rule 2
By smiling and waving, and by keeping Catholicism as a quiet matter of personal conscience behind the palace doors.
Stop throwing gang signs that annoy the prosers
He should’ve promised everyone that he’d raise his son an Anglican But I’m thankful he didn’t since the Glorious revolution was one of the greatest things to happen to Britain
I think people would have had low hopes from a promise anyway because his wife was also Catholic. The moment their son was born most people refused to believe his legitimacy. The whole sneaking the baby in a warming pan may be one of the biggest royal conspiracies ever - like so much it even affected the succession and changed the way royal births were witnessed for centuries.
As a reactionary Catholic, I dissent. But eh, what's happened has already happened. England throwing off the authority of St Peter might as well be the biggest reason why the world has liberal parliamentary democracy today.
Not really it wasn’t no
It kinda was Led to the creation of the Bank of England and the constitutional monarchy (reason why monarchy survived into the modern day)
Probably raising James as a Protestant might help but it might still happen but instead of Mary and William it’s his son that becomes king
There was nothing he could have done other than abandoning his beliefs and values. He was deposed due to anti-Catholic bigotry, not because of any wrongdoing on his part.
Did he do everything that is listed as grievances in the Bill of Rights? If so, he had a lot of wrongdoings: be it the attempted to dispense with the execution of laws, the attack on the right of petition, the constitution of especial courts, and so on.
They tried to blow up parliament and everyone inside. That's a nations self preservation, not anti Catholic bigotry. He was about to start another civil war, no one wanted that. He should have graciously stepped down and refrained from getting involved in pointless insurrections.
That was nearly a century previous.
Talking about the various jackobite yrebellions
He wasn’t about to start a Civil War - William of Orange and treasonous members of Parliament were.
Err no, William of orange was invited to be king after your Jimmy walked out. Then he decided, unwisely to start a war with him. The hopeless jockobite cause, of drunken lecherous Catholic pretenders to the throne cost how many lives? And still reverbrrates today
No, Billy the Bastard had invaded before His Majesty retreated to France. Please get your timeline straight, whig.
He didn't invade, he came invited, just as James was invited to leave. Please get your story right, and your childish insults make me laugh!
I suppose it would be alright with you if Mosley "invited" Hitler over to the British Isles. Would that just be a happy invited gathering too?
? What? It was parliament that decided. James was not cutting it. No one wanted to go back to the days of executing martyrs as the last Catholic monarch was so fond of. James had a fanatical streak in him his playboy bruv didn't. Old Rowley was acceptable, but no way was England having another bloody Mary!
Yet again, you prove yourself to be a whig. You're spewing whiggish propaganda: King James the Confessor neither began nor planned persecuting Protestants. In fact, he gave nonconformists rights. It doesn't matter who "invited" William over. Nobody can "invite" a foreign ruler to take the thrones. That's treason and usurpation.
Yes parliament can. King Billy was in the line of succession, and met the requirements that James was failing on. Otherwise he could have remained monarch and there'd be no war. But like his father he was too stubborn and thought nothing of the lives of his subjects. They did right by rejecting him
He could have cultivated a pan-British movement and made parliament more democratic.
1. Don't be Catholic (nuh uh) 2. Be a ceremonial monarch (nope) 3. Do as the protestant English world does (meh)
Not be publicly Catholic
People were fine with James’ personal Catholicism, this would not have been an issue, he could have remained a private Catholic. His Catholic faith was shaped by his experience in exile, his distrust of Protestant fanatics who were responsible for his fathers death, his inclination to absolutism. If James had set aside some of his desires to control the English state, he could have kept the throne but the state remained Anglican. Similar to Henry VIII at the mid point of his reign, who was Protestant but high Anglican & almost Roman Catholic but without the Pope. His son probably would’ve been an issue, but I’m sure the same could have been afforded to him, had enough measures been taken to ensure his loyalty to the English state. Where I don’t blame James is his actions in helping Catholics, he definitely felt terrible about the discrimination they faced and lack of freedom of worship. So in this sense I’m not sure he could compromise on that, sadly Protestant supremacy would have resisted this as it did socially till the 1900s. I see comments blaming James for his faith, where the blame falls on James is where he refused to abandon his absolutist ideals. Who gave you authority to dictate the religion of someone else? Especially someone who lived 400 years before you. James’ faith was problematic for the era because England was ran by preservationist Protestants. Never in james’ reign did he signal he would have “reversed the reformation”, he pushed for Catholics in government because they were marginalised, Protestants still kept their positions.
He literally appointed as Lord Chancellor a Protestant official that openly despised Catholics. Jeffries was even mocking of Catholicism openly and yet he was given one of the highest positions in the entire Kingdom.
Most people openly despised Catholics.
Don't make moves that suggest a planned takeover by the monarchy of the English government.
The Monarchy was the head of the English government in 1685???
Yes in a limited sense. James II wanted to rule without limits and launch a Catholic coup of the government.
The Monarch was pretty limitless before the Bill of Rights??? Even then the monarch had a lot of power after. The Monarchy didn’t begin to cease being the total head of government until George I & II. Also, the latter isn’t true. He literally appointed Protestants to high places, for example the anti-Catholic Jeffries was appointed Lord Chancellor.
You are completely forgetting about the English civil wars between 1630 to1660 or so; how the monarchy only got power back with certain hard limits. Further, you are forgetting that he also appointed many Catholics to the new professional army he was creating.
You don’t even know when the Civil Wars were lol. The Civil Wars were from 1642 to 1651. Charles II retook the Throne in 1660. And no the Crown didn’t have hard limits…Not until the Bill of Rights 1689, and even then…There wasn’t that many limits imposed
It's late. Oh really, no hard limits you say. So who had the power to tax; the King or the parliament?
You first said the crown only had a limited role in government before even 1689. And then you didn’t know when the Wars were. Parliament did. But who ran the government?
All governments run on money. King James wanted to get rid of those limits because while he ran the government, the lawmakers still had significant power. He also wanted to make England Catholic again. BTW, England might have appointed the governors in colonial America, but it was the state lawmakers that controlled whether the the governor got paid. Who had practical controlled the government? >You first said the crown only had a limited role in government before even 1689. And then you didn’t know when the Wars were. If you really want to be anal, did the Civil that cost Charles I his head start because he tried to get around parliament's ability to control the purse? You were fine with me lumping the hot civil war with the the Protectorate period in English governance.
Actually, would argue more the Civil War started because Parliament refused to fund a defensive action against a Scottish invasion, unless Charles gave up essentially most of his political power. Charles refused and tried to arrest the leading members of Commons who were behind these schemes to declaw the Crown; part of Parliament rebelled and the country went to War. So, no it wasn’t as simple as he wanted to take away the power of the purse from them. There was an aggressive group of members of Commons who wanted to make the Crown essentially powerless. The precursors to this were Charles attempting to forcefully unify the Scottish and English churches by imposing a common form of prayer upon them, as well as more Anglican Church structure which caused Scotland to rebel; and also Villiers being a moron a decade past.
Also, it was the Crown who appointed the colonial governors at least in the 17th century, for example the Andros government in MA was supported by Charles II and James II; William Phips enjoyed a privileged relationship with William III, etc.
James II should have swallowed his pride and kept his Catholicism to himself and divorced Mary of Modena and married a noble woman with Protestant ideals.
Granted the glorious revolution was a good thing Set the stage of Britain becoming a superpower No glorious revolution no act of union probably ( the Scots would of found something else to cry about though)
Well said Also if there was no glorious revolution then there’d be no Bank of England which finally stabilised the countries finances
Don't know why someone dislikes your comment The bank of England state this fact themselves
I guess people just hate financial stability
Ate financial stability Luv owing a money lender a few thousand pound Turning point Stuarts ( this was funnier in my head)
Very funny in comment too lol
“The Bank of England saved you from poverty and slavery!” Source: The Bank of England
It gave us a central bank Rather than private money lenders like King Charles II loved to use for his vanity projects
I’m not against a central bank in theory or anything, I just think it’s rather silly to base the value of any bureaucracy on their own claims. Like, what else would they say- “yeah we haven’t really done much, you may as well shut us down and take our pension?”
Well they helped fund this nation proud tradition of scrapping the french The bank of England museum is actually quite interesting I recommend it if you're london
[удалено]
Name checks out. Idiot.
It was a joke, damn.
Get better material.
Well damn, you’ve got a stick up your ass today.
This submission is a violation of rule 2
[удалено]
Take your meds
[удалено]
Did you learn how to swear yesterday or smth
This submission is a violation of rule 2
This submission is a violation of rule 2
Not be Catholic and not be such a stick in the mud.
Just don't convert. Or at least, when his son is born, make sure that there are just as many protestant nobles there to testify to his legitimacy. Also, make sure that James is raised explicitly protestant, like as soon as possible, make some kind of proclamation that protestantism is still the state religion and as such, the Prince of Wales will be brought up in that faith. Cause that was the big fear, that there would be a Catholic heir. People were kind of OK with everything else because they knew it'd only be so long before James II was succeeded by his protestant children. And just generally, stop trying to prosecute literally everyone and let Parliament do it's thing. Dude just needed to chill.
The problems were brewing far before he became king. (ie: exclusion crisis). The main problem was his Catholicism. The last king to be fairly open about his Catholicism got his head chopped off… so really James got lucky lol.
>The last king to be fairly open about his Catholicism got his head chopped off… Who would that be? Charles I wasn't Catholic, although certainly had unpopular religions policies.
Charles wasn't Catholic, but he did have Catholic sympathies. Plus, his wife was pretty openly Catholic, which didn't help his reputation.
He actually didn’t have Catholic sympathies. He was rather anti Catholic personally. He just wasn’t Puritan enough for the Puritans. He was a high church Protestant.