The Religious Magna Carta, 1688

Is there any way that King James II of England can rule until his death? Say the Glorious Revolution ends with a more Magna Carta-like situation than a Bill of Rights. The reason I ask is because Friedrich August I of Saxony converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, but left the church in Saxony untouched. AFAIK the church in Saxony was thereafter run by a council of clerics - and while FA I converted, as did his son et al, the position of the Catholics in Saxony didn't change too much.

So, what if in this "Religious Magna Carta" they say the king is not to interfere in religious affairs, i.e. leave the established church to be run by others etc, religious toleration is to be carried no further, but that which is already granted cannot be rescinded; or something along those lines.
 

Rstone4

Banned
Well, from my survey classes on the subject I was left with the impression that The Parliament was just done with James II. Maybe if Mary had died and there were no other Heirs and Parliament really wanted to keep a real royal in there.
 

Rstone4

Banned
I think maybe a religious magna carta may have better chance of happening in the turmoil around the death of Edward Tudor. Maybe Mary isn't quite as successful and has to make deals. But.... I doubt she would make a deal unless a blade was on her neck.

Perhaps she doesn't marry Philip (her cousin) and because of that blade to her neck marries a good protestant man. Maybe she doesn't die? Queen Mary the 1st and King emptysuit have a brood of multiple heirs and no Stuart dynasty arrives at all!!!!
 
Is there any way that King James II of England can rule until his death? Say the Glorious Revolution ends with a more Magna Carta-like situation than a Bill of Rights.

So, what if in this "Religious Magna Carta" they say the king is not to interfere in religious affairs...

This requires James II to give up power deliberately. Not happening. James didn't have to make an explicit declaration of non-interference with the CoE; all he had to do was not appoint hordes of Catholics to high positions in the army and government.

Even in OTL... Had the "Protestant Wind" not prevented the English fleet from intercepting William, the GR might have failed. And there was no good way to depose James, until he panicked and fled the country.
 
I still doubt it could happen, but if James II died a little early and Mary of Modena as well, might the infant James be raised as a Protestant and allowed to succeed as James III?
 
A "religious Magna Carta " is not possible. By the constitution of the Church of England, the King is the Head of the Church on earth. He appoints, the Bishops he is Supreme Head. And in 1688 , that did mean the King. For him to pass that patronage over to another, would be to make that other as powerful as himself. Not to mention that it would require a complete re-establishment of the church. He cannot legally "leave the church to be run by others". It is the Church of England. He is the King of England. He is , whether he will it or not, Supreme head, so long as the Law of God doth allow.

But as to the original question , Jac II ruling until his death. Nothing easier, just have Lord Dartmouth, and a few others remember the meaning of the words 'allegiance' and 'oath' .
 
A "religious Magna Carta " is not possible. By the constitution of the Church of England, the King is the Head of the Church on earth. He appoints, the Bishops he is Supreme Head. And in 1688 , that did mean the King. For him to pass that patronage over to another, would be to make that other as powerful as himself. Not to mention that it would require a complete re-establishment of the church. He cannot legally "leave the church to be run by others". It is the Church of England. He is the King of England. He is , whether he will it or not, Supreme head, so long as the Law of God doth allow.

But as to the original question , Jac II ruling until his death. Nothing easier, just have Lord Dartmouth, and a few others remember the meaning of the words 'allegiance' and 'oath' .

I gotta agree here. The Church of England in regards to the Sovereign was all or nothing. Maybe the King can promise to only act in Church affairs on the advise of ranking Protestant bishops, but besides that its more or less impossible.

And to the POD, just kill off William III of Orange. That way there's no invasion.
 
A "religious Magna Carta " is not possible. By the constitution of the Church of England, the King is the Head of the Church on earth. He appoints, the Bishops he is Supreme Head. And in 1688 , that did mean the King. For him to pass that patronage over to another, would be to make that other as powerful as himself. Not to mention that it would require a complete re-establishment of the church. He cannot legally "leave the church to be run by others". It is the Church of England. He is the King of England. He is , whether he will it or not, Supreme head, so long as the Law of God doth allow.

But as to the original question , Jac II ruling until his death. Nothing easier, just have Lord Dartmouth, and a few others remember the meaning of the words 'allegiance' and 'oath' .

IDK if maybe the value thereof is overestimated in hindsight, but would the Churchills staying on Jac II's side also help? Sarah ruled Anne like no one else, so if Sarah had decided to stay put in Whitehall instead of fleeing with Anne, and John decided to stay put with the royal army, instead of defecting, might that also help.

I mean, Anne wasn't happy about the birth of her brother at the time, but she might be remembered as more of a Cordelia than a Reagan/Goneril when/if James is likened to Lear. She became rather sympathetic to her brother/sister at a later point (ICR if this was before or after Jac II's death) and the wags blamed her slew of stillbirths/miscarriages/infant deaths on she and Mary's defiance of their father.
And Jac II was apparently deeply upset at Anne/George's defection. He reportedly commented when hearing thereof, "even est il possible [his nickname for George based on that man's repeated comment when hearing of a new defection]"
 
Yes, Churchill was definitely one whom I had in mind as comprising the "few others".Lord Cornbury and the Earl of Bath could also have tipped the scale. Dartmouth was in command of the fleet , had he done his duty he could have intercepted William at sea.
 
Maybe if James had been a bit slower in trying to remove the discrimination against Catholics, the GR wouldn't have happened. So at first just loosen the penal laws to allow private Catholic worship, and wait a while until people have got used to this. Then try and remove the laws which prevent Catholics from being given certain posts in the army and government, but don't try and pack these positions with Catholics, which would most likely have the same effect as IOTL and alienate the country Tories who although Protestant were nevertheless strongly attached to the Divine Right of Kings and hence ought to have been James' natural supporters.

Paying close attention to Parliament would also have been necessary, especially since many people in the period tended to associate Catholicism with French-style absolutism. Canvassing support among MPs and Peers before taking any major steps would show people, and most importantly the political community, that having a Catholic monarch wouldn't mean the end of all their traditional liberties. Not doubt Catholic emancipation would have still been opposed by some, and disapproved of by even more, but James wouldn't have lost his support as decisively as he did in 1688.
 
Top