Was the "Glorious Revolution" justified?

Was the "Glorious Revolution" justified?

  • Yes

    Votes: 61 57.0%
  • No

    Votes: 46 43.0%

  • Total voters
    107
"A king without compassion does not deserve his kimgdom."

If these requirements were not met by James II, then I guess it was justified then.
 
It was never justified. James II was the rightful king and his son James III was the rightful Prince of Wales. James II should’ve been more resolute in exterminating the Whig threat which he was warned of by his advisors and Louis XIV numerous times.

The Whigs were pretty well crushed already. James II's achievement was to alienate most of the Tories as well. As some one put it, he alienated not only the men who fought against his father, but also those who had fought for his father.
 
The Whigs were pretty well crushed already. James II's achievement was to alienate most of the Tories as well. As some one put it, he alienated not only the men who fought against his father, but also those who had fought for his father.
If he's been more like his brother or grandfather what would've changed?
 
If he's been more like his brother or grandfather what would've changed?

He would in all likelihood have survived.

A trivial little incident at Faversham points up the difference. When the fleeing James was intercepted there by some fishermen, one of them asked the King for a blessing. James just brushed him aside. Had it been Charles, the fisherman would have got his blessing, thus neatly reminding all present of who and what he was, without a single threat or harsh word. He was good at handling people, where James was all thumbs.
 
He would in all likelihood have survived.

A trivial little incident at Faversham points up the difference. When the fleeing James was intercepted there by some fishermen, one of them asked the King for a blessing. James just brushed him aside. Had it been Charles, the fisherman would have got his blessing, thus neatly reminding all present of who and what he was, without a single threat or harsh word. He was good at handling people, where James was all thumbs.
I was not aware of that. That's quite interesting. To make him more like his brother or grandfather what would need to change?
 
I was not aware of that. That's quite interesting. To make him more like his brother or grandfather what would need to change?

He'd need an IQ several points higher, and in general to be less like his Mum and more like her father.

Henrietta Maria was the daughter of Henry of Navarre, but his qualities skipped a generation. Charles II inherited a full measure of Granddad's slipperiness and flexibility, while James (like Mum) did not. Beyond that I really can't say. Perhaps these things defy explanation.
 
He'd need an IQ several points higher, and in general to be less like his Mum and more like her father.

Henrietta Maria was the daughter of Henry of Navarre, but his qualities skipped a generation. Charles II inherited a full measure of Granddad's slipperiness and flexibility, while James (like Mum) did not. Beyond that I really can't say. Perhaps these things defy explanation.

Interesting, cheers, this has given me much to think about
 
Honestly, James II and Henri IV where so different that you most likely need to make the former a completely different person to make him like the latter.

We are talking about far more then just charm here. Henri IV might not have actually the famous ''Paris is well worth a mass'' quip but it summed up his attitude to religion pretty nicely, had he been in James shoes never would he have given himself a self-inflicted political wound by converting to catholicism, or even showing catholic sympathies. Had he pursued toleration he would've ensured that it englobed dissident protestants as well.

Moreover, Henri IV also devoted much his reign to fighting Spanish power, first ensuring the demise of Madrid influence in France and then preparing France for a showdown that would most likely have ended with the Hapsburgs down for the count had he not been assasinated before he could carry out his plans. He did as much, if not more, then Elizabeth I to end Philip II of Spain dream of european hegemony. The gap between that and the pro-french policy James pursued, just as Louis XIV held similar ambitions to those Philip II once pursued, can't be overstated.

The one trait they did share was, or at least appeared to share, was authoritarianism but even then, I'd consider Henri IV far more pragmatic in his internal policies. Unlike James he knew how to recognise lines who shouldn't be crossed. At the very least, you wouldn't have gotten any equivalent of the Bloody Assises had he been in James shoes, as his clemency to the former rebels of the Catholic League showed.

And I could probably go on for a while...

Honestly, an Henri IV-like James II would be an essentially fictional character and would share not more then a name with the OTL James II.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, James II and Henri IV where so different that you most likely need to make the former a completely different person to make him like the latter.

We are talking about far more then just charm here. Henri IV might not have actually the famous ''Paris is well worth a mass'' quip but it summed up his attitude to religion pretty nicely, had he been in James shoes never would he have given himself a self-inflicted political wound by converting to catholicism, or even showing catholic sympathies. Had he pursued toleration he would've ensured that it englobed dissident protestants as well.

Moreover, Henri IV also devoted much his reign to fighting Spanish power, first ensuring the demise of Madrid influence in France and then preparing France for a showdown that would most likely have ended with the Hapsburgs down for the count had he not been assasinated before he could carry out his plans. He did as much, if not more, then Elizabeth I to end Philip II of Spain dream of european hegemony. The gap between that and the pro-french policy James pursued, just as Louis XIV held similar ambitions to those Philip II once pursued, can't be overstated.

The one trait they did share was, or at least appeared to share, was authoritarianism but even then, I'd consider Henri IV far more pragmatic in his internal policies. Unlike James he knew how to recognise lines who shouldn't be crossed. At the very least, you wouldn't have gotten any equivalent of the Bloody Assises had he been in James shoes, as his clemency to the former rebels of the Catholic League showed.

And I could probably go on for a while...

Honestly, an Henri IV-like James II would be an essentially fictional character and would share not more then a name with the OTL James II.

But would it be interesting? And what would be needed for him to develop such a trait?
 
If you think a popular revolution against a king who is violating his subjects' rights is not justified I am not sure how you can say North Korea is wrong.

James II had an autocratic temperament and didn't have much time for compromise or persuasion, but I don't think he was actually violating his subjects' rights. The Revolution was fuelled by a mix of religious bigotry and fear of what James would do down the line, rather than by any actually tyrannical actions.

And I was just making the point that, historically, very few monarchies, including absolute monarchies, have been even remotely as oppressive as North Korea, so using North Korea as proof that monarchies are bad in general is misleading, just as using the Soviet Union as proof that republics are bad in general would be.
 
But would it be interesting? And what would be needed for him to develop such a trait?
As stated previously, doing that essentially mean he wouldn't be his OTL self. Ods are that nothing short of a completely different person, down to genetics, who just happen to be named James Stuart would do, hence making it hard to determine wheter such a monarch would be interesting or not.
 
As stated previously, doing that essentially mean he wouldn't be his OTL self. Ods are that nothing short of a completely different person, down to genetics, who just happen to be named James Stuart would do, hence making it hard to determine wheter such a monarch would be interesting or not.
Fair
 
Of course, timing is everything in these matters.

Had James died of a stroke a few days after the Battle of Sedgemoor, he would be remembered as having confounded expectations by his success, and there'd be reams of WI's about the golden age of religious toleration which would have followed "if only" he had lived.:).
 
James II had an autocratic temperament and didn't have much time for compromise or persuasion, but I don't think he was actually violating his subjects' rights. The Revolution was fuelled by a mix of religious bigotry and fear of what James would do down the line, rather than by any actually tyrannical actions.

And I was just making the point that, historically, very few monarchies, including absolute monarchies, have been even remotely as oppressive as North Korea, so using North Korea as proof that monarchies are bad in general is misleading, just as using the Soviet Union as proof that republics are bad in general would be.

Repeatedly saying he wasn't an autocrat doesn't make him one. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread he repeatedly acted like a tyrant by breaking the Law which bound both Monarch and Subject. The bloody assizes in the aftermath of the Monmouth Rebellion while not unusually severe by European standards did feature widespread breaking of English law, his policy against the Church of England, including excluding Ministers from their offices and appointing Catholics in their stead, his arrest of the Seven Bishops for submitting a petition, his waiving of the Penal Laws so as to appoint Catholics to offices which they were not legally qualified for and more importantly his behaviour in Scotland and Ireland where the Crown was even stronger than in England. No none of that is comparable with North Korea or the Soviet Union but the tie between a Monarch and his Subjects go both ways and James II by violating the law broke that tie, meaning his subjects no longer had a duty of loyalty to him.
 
Repeatedly saying he wasn't an autocrat doesn't make him one. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread he repeatedly acted like a tyrant by breaking the Law which bound both Monarch and Subject. The bloody assizes in the aftermath of the Monmouth Rebellion while not unusually severe by European standards did feature widespread breaking of English law, his policy against the Church of England, including excluding Ministers from their offices and appointing Catholics in their stead, his arrest of the Seven Bishops for submitting a petition, his waiving of the Penal Laws so as to appoint Catholics to offices which they were not legally qualified for and more importantly his behaviour in Scotland and Ireland where the Crown was even stronger than in England. No none of that is comparable with North Korea or the Soviet Union but the tie between a Monarch and his Subjects go both ways and James II by violating the law broke that tie, meaning his subjects no longer had a duty of loyalty to him.

James' autocracy consisted mainly in his zealous attempts to undo the penal laws. Do you think that people have a right to persecute religious minorities? Is refusal to persecute religious minorities a legitimate reason to overthrow a ruler?
 
James' autocracy consisted mainly in his zealous attempts to undo the penal laws. Do you think that people have a right to persecute religious minorities? Is refusal to persecute religious minorities a legitimate reason to overthrow a ruler?

That's a gross mischaracterisation of both James II and his opponents. He had many things on his mind other than his undoing the penal laws including his general "strengthening" of the Armed Forces. A strengthening that included both expansion and systematically replacing officers with foreigners and Irish. How would Americans react if Trump started commissioning Russians into the US Army?
As to the merits of persecuting religious minorities of course I'm not in favour of doing that in 2018. However we should be careful not to impose our morality onto the past, after all by modern standards if James had a point in ending the penal laws it was outweighed by the fact he wanted to be a Divine Right Monarch, something that has gone out of fashion everywhere apart from the Arabian Peninsula.
 
That's a gross mischaracterisation of both James II and his opponents. He had many things on his mind other than his undoing the penal laws including his general "strengthening" of the Armed Forces. A strengthening that included both expansion and systematically replacing officers with foreigners and Irish. How would Americans react if Trump started commissioning Russians into the US Army?

I don't think many people, now or in the 17th century, would consider increasing the size of the armed forces to be adequate grounds for rebellion. And whilst James did favour Catholics when it came to handing out commissions, I'm not convinced that this really amounted to a systematic replacement of pre-existing officers, plenty of whom were still around to defect to William of Orange. Plus, you're being anachronistic here. Whilst modern armies recruit almost exclusively from their own citizens, in the late 17th/early 18th century it was very common for officers to end up serving in foreign armies. William III, for example, made himself quite unpopular by (allegedly) preferring to appoint foreigners to high office rather than Englishmen, and never once got overthrown for doing so. The grievance against James wasn't that he was appointing foreign officers, but that he was appointing Catholic foreigners, and lots of people expected him to try and use the army to forcibly convert the country back to Catholicism.

As to the merits of persecuting religious minorities of course I'm not in favour of doing that in 2018. However we should be careful not to impose our morality onto the past, after all by modern standards if James had a point in ending the penal laws it was outweighed by the fact he wanted to be a Divine Right Monarch, something that has gone out of fashion everywhere apart from the Arabian Peninsula.

Actually I think that quite a few people are perfectly fine with executives ignoring unjust laws. How many people, for example, protested back in 2012 when Obama decided not to deport illegal immigrants who'd arrived in the US as children, vs. Donald Trump's more recent decision to scrap this policy and apply the law as written? If you had a modern-day country which placed ethnic minorities under the same sorts of legal disabilities that Catholics suffered in 17th-century England, and this country's president ordered the legal system not to enforce these laws, I think most people would at least be sympathetic to his aims, and not consider him a lawless tyrant trampling over his people's rights.

Not to mention, Jacobitism remained an important force in Britain until the middle of the next century, so apparently a non-negligible proportion of Britons didn't actually think that Parliament had the right to depose the king.
 
Top