Assume King James II of England and VII of Scotland, was only a little more pragmatic. I.e. still Catholic, but realizing the consequences of pushing his religious agenda could be bad decides not to promote catholics or exclude Protestants. Would the glorious revolution still happen as OTL, or at all?
Could James II have retained his throne if he was pragmatic about religion?
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
Wasn't the big problem the fact that James II/VII had a son by his second, Catholic wife (Mary of Modena) while having only daughters with his first, Protestant wife (Anne Hyde)? Ol' Jimbo at the least was canny enough to not force his daughters to convert, but given how those in power in Britain associated Catholicism with Foreign Intervention (truthful to a degree, given that England's biggest geopolitical rival at any given time always happened to be loyal to Rome) their fears of a Catholic succession were therefore grounded.
The issue was that religion was ultimately a battleground for the grand struggle between royal and parliamentarian power in the 17th century - and where royalty won out in most states at the time parliament won it, starting with Cromwell and continuing with the Restoration putting the pants of the relationship in Parliament's hands. A more pragmatic James II/VII could have kept his throne, but there's still the possibility of some hardliners on the other side making a mess of things I think.
The issue was that religion was ultimately a battleground for the grand struggle between royal and parliamentarian power in the 17th century - and where royalty won out in most states at the time parliament won it, starting with Cromwell and continuing with the Restoration putting the pants of the relationship in Parliament's hands. A more pragmatic James II/VII could have kept his throne, but there's still the possibility of some hardliners on the other side making a mess of things I think.
You need to remove his fascination with his cousin, King Louis XIV of France as well. Arguably - for many it was even bigger problem. France was eternal enemy of England and people were still affraid of possible french invasion in XVII century. There was just no way for King of England to be client of France and bew popular. Especially since James tried to emulate his cousins style in completly incompatybile reality of British Isles.
But all in all, James II used to be popular as admiral and unlike his father and brother - quite skilled in both tactics and administration. So in theory, more pragmatic James II could be great monarch. So I think so.
But all in all, James II used to be popular as admiral and unlike his father and brother - quite skilled in both tactics and administration. So in theory, more pragmatic James II could be great monarch. So I think so.
Quantum Immortal
Banned
Even if he's pragmatic, nobody around him is pragmatic. So if he's Catholic there will be big troubles. He *might* be able to retain his throne but it's a big MIGHT.
VVD0D95
Banned
I'd argue James' fascination with Louis has been over egged, Corp points out that until 1688, James actually didn't trust Louis and viewed him with growing suspicion.
That depends, if James is pragmatic, that means he's listening to Rochester and Clarendon, not Sunderland or Petre alone. That in of itself will prevent several big issues from occurring.
I think a pragmatic James can even survive having a son and even survive having the son raised Catholic IF he is picking his son's tutors wisely to be moderates. There were a LOT of Protestant extremists in England, and quite a few Catholic extremists too, so James is always going to have a tough job. But it could be done.
And by the 1640s, forget 1688, the former already heavily outnumbered that latter. Note that by that time England was already Protestant majority.
Last edited:
Pragmatic to the extent that he was willing to allow his son to be raised as a Protestant and hand over control of the Army to Parliament? If so then yes.
But as long as he is
a. Catholic
b. Likely to be succeeded by a Catholic
he will face massive opposition. Because even if he has a total personality transplant the massive Protestant majority in the country is going to be concerned that his son won't be so reasonable and will try to hamstring the Crown. So while Charles II passed a weakened Parliament, strong revenues and large standing army the Whigs/Country Party and a considerable number of Tories are going to oppose the Crown and try and clip it's wings. It's the 1630's all over again and will probably end the same way though the outcome of the fighting might be different.
Now explain this to parliamentary opposition and other members of elites. While it's very likely that eventually stronger Stuart's Monarchy had to rival France, James with his attempt to emulate his cousin wasn't very good for king's image.
I think that the fact that France was a catholic state played important part in distrust that tormented english catholics.
A significant problem for James was the mess he inherited - Charles' actions in his final years had really alienated people who were relatively moderate. His numerous dissolution of Parliament to prevent the Exclusion Bill passing and then his rule without parliament didn't go down to well, despite all that he was initially popular.
His reign started quite well, but his reaction to the Monmouth rebellion hardened his attitude and the brutality of its suppression didn't help and of course he then started beefing up the army and allowing Catholic's appointments, disagreeing with his judges and replacing them, etc aroused massive suspicion - from there its a massive ramping up of things designed to alienate even those loyal Anglicans.
Throughout the century there had been a slow march of power from Crown to Parliament - Charles II was well aware of it and fiercely guarded his perrogatives and remaining powers but even he struggled throughout his reign and in many ways James was always fighting a losing battle - religion or more correctly James' religion was an extra catalyst for that process.
Had James predeceased his brother and Mary had succeeded her uncle then you might have had a slower transfer of power -though given Mary's views on the role of a wife that's not guaranteed as she was going to be very uncomfortable being Queen Regnant and William of Orange not being King (and in this tl he wouldn't be) - assuming Anne follows Mary then the next opportunity for Parliament to exert its will and further reduce royal power is going to be the resulting succession crisis.
His reign started quite well, but his reaction to the Monmouth rebellion hardened his attitude and the brutality of its suppression didn't help and of course he then started beefing up the army and allowing Catholic's appointments, disagreeing with his judges and replacing them, etc aroused massive suspicion - from there its a massive ramping up of things designed to alienate even those loyal Anglicans.
Throughout the century there had been a slow march of power from Crown to Parliament - Charles II was well aware of it and fiercely guarded his perrogatives and remaining powers but even he struggled throughout his reign and in many ways James was always fighting a losing battle - religion or more correctly James' religion was an extra catalyst for that process.
Had James predeceased his brother and Mary had succeeded her uncle then you might have had a slower transfer of power -though given Mary's views on the role of a wife that's not guaranteed as she was going to be very uncomfortable being Queen Regnant and William of Orange not being King (and in this tl he wouldn't be) - assuming Anne follows Mary then the next opportunity for Parliament to exert its will and further reduce royal power is going to be the resulting succession crisis.
VVD0D95
Banned
I'm not sure I agree that the century of in which Charles and James lived and reigned was a slow march from Crown to Parliament. Charles' actions and ability to rule for the last two years of his reign without Parliament suggest that they could still do so if they wished, as long as there was peace. Jim's actions were largely supported by many who felt Monmouth had gone too far if you believe Miller, indeed, most people if Miller is right favoured a stronger Crown than Parliament. So, if Jim had had a son who was born during the reign of his brother, then I see no reason why he couldn't have kept the throne. During his reign alone, had he pardoned or freed the Seven Bishops as he'd originally intended, then the thing that alienated the Anglicans isn't there either. Which is a huge bonus.
unprincipled peter
Donor
Absolutely, James could have kept the throne if he hadn't been so bull in a china closet with his Catholic equality agenda. He could have kept the throne even with the agenda if he had kept a firmer hand on gov't. OTL, he thought that just because the crown was on his head, the throne was safe. So, he blundered about in making enemies and not controlling them.
The idea of France and England as hereditary enemies did not really exist at this time. Except for during the Huguenot rebellions of the 1620s, the two had generally had good relations in that century, up to the Dutch War which was a turning point. Then the English parliament began to see Louis XIV as more of a potential danger than the Dutch. Then, the persecution of the Protestants seriously damaged Louis' reputation in England. But at that point the problem was perceived as with Louis personally, and after his death the two kingdoms even allied for a time.
By 1688, both boosting the power of the crown and promoting catholicism were uphill struggles in England and Scotland, particularly the latter as there had not been an openly Catholic monarch in England in almost 130 years by that point. It would be the equivalent of a twentieth century British government trying to undo Catholic emancipation.
So you need a personality transplant, and a James smart enough to realize he can attempt either the absolutist project or the Catholic project, but not both at once. To do the absolutist project is pretty straightforward, he just continues the policies of his brother, and like his brother keeps very quiet about his religious beliefs. To push Catholicism, ironically the best move would be to agree to the Catholic exclusion act, provide there is no renunciation of the throne to his heirs. Then as Duke of York he uses his social position to try to get more of the English and Scottish elites to convert, without raising alarms about his actually becoming king. This means Mary (and not William) succeeds Charles II. If the ITTL exclusion act does not exclude future children of the excluded heir, as long as they themselves are not Catholic, it would mean that if James still has a son by Mary of Modena, that son would succeed Mary as King, with James exercising considerable influence behind the throne.
However, to do either, what is needed for James to be a Catholic and British version of Henri IV of France, or more like his brother. Even if the POD is that he has a smart advisor who he listens to, by the time he actually becomes King, after the exclusion bill controversy, its pretty much too late, though he can keep the throne until his 1701 death if he pursues a super-minimalist agenda.
So you need a personality transplant, and a James smart enough to realize he can attempt either the absolutist project or the Catholic project, but not both at once. To do the absolutist project is pretty straightforward, he just continues the policies of his brother, and like his brother keeps very quiet about his religious beliefs. To push Catholicism, ironically the best move would be to agree to the Catholic exclusion act, provide there is no renunciation of the throne to his heirs. Then as Duke of York he uses his social position to try to get more of the English and Scottish elites to convert, without raising alarms about his actually becoming king. This means Mary (and not William) succeeds Charles II. If the ITTL exclusion act does not exclude future children of the excluded heir, as long as they themselves are not Catholic, it would mean that if James still has a son by Mary of Modena, that son would succeed Mary as King, with James exercising considerable influence behind the throne.
However, to do either, what is needed for James to be a Catholic and British version of Henri IV of France, or more like his brother. Even if the POD is that he has a smart advisor who he listens to, by the time he actually becomes King, after the exclusion bill controversy, its pretty much too late, though he can keep the throne until his 1701 death if he pursues a super-minimalist agenda.