KING JAMES II & REVOLUTION OF 1688.   Term Paper ID:23346 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines religious, political, historical & personal aspects of his rise, fall & role in Revolution.... More...

10 Pages / 2250 Words 8 sources, 30 Citations, TURABIAN Format $40.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines religious, political, historical & personal aspects of his rise, fall & role in Revolution. Paper Introduction: James II has the unhappy historical distinction of having been the last English monarch to be overthrown. This event, enshrined in English history as the Glorious Revolution of 1688, marked a fundamental turning point in English political history. Although the reigning monarch would continue to wield great political influence at least through Victoria's reign in the nineteenth century, the overthrow of James II permanently established Parliamentary supremacy. The cause of his fall was the widespread belief that he intended to impose Catholicism on England. The crisis of public religion that precipitated his fall, however, was closely bound up with the question of whether the crown or Parliament possessed ultimate authority. This fundamental constitutional issue had been left unresolved by the English Civil War, the execution of Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The difference was evidently a matter of personalcharacter. the King is the darling of theCity [of London]."[xvii] James's Catholicism was generally known, and grudgingly accepted solong as he did not impose it on the country. Inthe early years of his reign, it is true, he had benefited from thereaction against Cromwell and the oppressive atmosphere of Puritan rule,but in the course of twenty-five years on the throne, a new generation cameof age with few direct memories of the Puritan era and the Restoration. James II, to his cost, lacked his brother's saving grace oflaxness. Even an initially pliable and sympathetic Parliamentwas bound to protest these violations of a parliamentary law. By the age of eighteen he was serving in the field as asoldier.[xv] His role was more military and less political than hisbrother's, and this too may have influenced the formation of his character,leaving him sterner in his outlook and less inclined to political maneuverand compromise. However, unlike James hewas not driven from the throne by force of arms.J.R. Charles II was a political realist. After the rebellion was quelled, hedispatched Chief Justice George Jeffreys to the west country to carry outjudicial proceedings against the rebels and their supporters. Theexperience of their father's overthrow and execution at the hands of thePuritan-dominated Parliamentarians in the Civil War, if it did not directlystrengthen their Catholic inclinations, can only have left them with arevulsion toward Protestant zeal. Norton,1972.Schwoerer, Lois G. Even more fundamentally,perhaps, he was rather lazy;[x] at the time of Charles's death, John Evelynwrote in his diary of his "too easy nature."[xi] But the combination ofthe two ensured that he lacked the inclination to push his own claims tothe limit, and would take no great risks for the sake of abstractprinciple. It isworth noting that in the "Heads of Grievances," the draft document on whichthe Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights were based, and ineffect a retrospective statement of the causes for that overthrow, themajority of articles deal purely with political and legal issues, notspecifically with religion.[xxv] Dissention reached a crisis point at what under more normalconditions would have been an occasion for public rejoicing: the birth of ason to James's queen, Maria of Modena. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1977.Aubrey, Philip. James's more sober demeanor was more in theimage of how a king ought to behave. Butto Protestants, it appeared to be a part of a plan to place Catholics inall positions of authority. Martin's, 1978), 175.Haswell, 259-6 .Lois G. Although the reigning monarchwould continue to wield great political influence at least throughVictoria's reign in the nineteenth century, the overthrow of James IIpermanently established Parliamentary supremacy. Jones, The Revolution of 1688 in England (New York: W.W.Norton, 1972), ix.Jock Haswell, James II: Soldier and Sailor (London: HamishHamilton, 1972), 44.Maurice Ashley, James II (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,1977), 71.Ibid., 186.John Evelyn, The Diary of John Evelyn, v. All of these factorsthus brought political and religious anxieties together, and eventuallydrove James from the throne. Differences in the brothers' outlooks may have been caused oraccentuated by the experience of the Civil War. He lost it, andthenceforth Parliament was the ultimate repository of authority in aconstitutional monarchy. Their mother was QueenHenrietta Maria, granddaughter of the French king, Henri IV, who hadinitially enacted that Edict of Nantes which Louis XIV revoked, and who onconverting to Catholicism had remarked that "Paris is worth a Mass."(Nearly a century later, when James II was in exile, a bishop would observewith some irony that he had foresaken three kingdoms for the sake of theMass.)[xii] However changeable her grandfather's religion had been, HenriettaMaria was a devout Catholic. The Revolution of 1688 in England. "Papist" and"Popery" were the usual terms used to refer to Catholics and Catholicism.Protestant propagandists laid great stress on the Catholic Church's claimsto infallibility in matters of doctrine--though neither the Church ofEngland nor the Puritans had shown themselves to be champions of freedom ofconscience. A comparison may be made to his brother andpredecessor, Charles II (reigned 166 -1685).[ix] Charles was a nominalAnglican, long suspected of Catholic leanings, who indeed had himselfreceived into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. Although inreality the Papacy and the French monarchy were no allies, in the Englishpublic mind they were two arms of one great conspiracy, the victory ofwhich would lead to all the horrors associated in popular tradition withBloody Mary and the Spanish Inquisition. London: HamishHamilton, 1972.Jones, J.R. James came to manhood in exile, and amid the struggle to regain thethrone. Moreover, the poor were condemned, while therich were allowed to bribe their way free. James, however, disastrously misjudged his response. Jamesignored it and on his own prerogative authority promulgated the Declarationof Indulgences, abolishing religious qualifications for office.[xxiv] From a modern perspective, this was a declaration of tolerance. This broke out when Jameswas in his middle teens, and 1648, when he was fifteen, he had to escapefrom England, eluding his Parliamentarian guards by being disguised as agirl.[xiii] The great crisis of his early years thus came when he was justat an age to be able to form judgments as to the cause of his father'sdisaster, but when these judgments were likely to be relatively simple."In the years that lay ahead he was to realize how weak and evasive hisfather had been and so he determined to be strong himself."[xiv] Charles,a few years older, was perhaps able to reach the more subtle judgment thatCharles I had brought his troubles on himself, and so learn to avoidsimilar trouble himself. The Defeat of James Stuart's Armada, 1692. The Western Rising: An Account of theRebellion of James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. The strongly Protestant faction also believed it had othermeans to command the new king's ear. New York: W.W. On a religious level, Catholicism was associated by Englishprotestants with the monarchical absolutism of the papacy. Initially, there was littlesign that he intended to do so. Protestantministers were dismissed and Catholics named in their place, incontravention of the Test Act, which had provided that no Catholic couldhold a state office. The sum effect of this needless repression was to turn much of thecountry against him. In the courseof the fighting, he dismissed one of his commanders, Sir John Churchill, anact that would come back to haunt him. Nevertheless, early auguries were favorable for James's reign. Four years later an attemptedrestoration with the support of a French fleet was forestalled when theFrench were defeated at sea.[xxx] Did James II lose everything for the sake of conscience, or becauseof stubbornness and lack of political judgement? This question cannot beentirely resolved. They were outmaneuvered, however, by the king's confessor, whopersuaded him to send Sedley away from the court. 2. Indeed, when James succeeded to the throne in 1685 he was at firstreceived with great enthusiasm, even rejoicing. John Evelyn'sdiary entry was bluntly to the point: "A young Prince born, which willcause disputes."[xxvi] A plot developed to force James from the throne infavor of Mary and her husband, William of Orange.[xxvii] On November 5, 1688--Guy Fawke's day, the traditional Protestantholiday--William landed at Torbay.[xxviii] In the wake of the BloodyAssizes, there was no general rising, but James found that he could notrely on his own troops. In any case, both James and Charles hadCatholic leanings, and these increased as time went on. TheParliament summoned upon his accession proved to be strongly supportive;James's chief minister, Sunderland, "could point with pride to the electionof a veritable parliament of courtiers, more loyally monarchist than anysince the sixteenth century."[xx] It effectively eliminated its own chiefpotential lever against him, the power of the purse, by voting him asubstantial permanent revenue--the last English monarch to receive such agrant. Although Charles II hadremained popular to the end, his notorious private life had been a sourceof considerable embarrassment. James's daughters, Mary and Anne,had previously been the heirs to the throne, and both were Protestants.The infant son, the future Old Pretender, took precedence over both, and ithad to be assumed that he would be raised as a Catholic. London: Longman's, 1966.-----------------------Edward VIII, in the twentieth century, abdicated the throneunder heavy political pressure (and is better known by hissubsequent title, Duke of Windsor). NewYork: St. Indeed, one of his generals, the same JohnChurchill whom he had dismissed from command during Monmouth's rebellion,went over to the other side.[xxix] James had often shown great personalcourage, but the memory of his father's death perhaps weighed on him, andin the end he fled without a battle. Mistresses were not tohave the influence with James they had had with Charles. The crisis of public religion thatprecipitated his fall, however, was closely bound up with the question ofwhether the crown or Parliament possessed ultimate authority. New York: Dutton, 1966.Haswell, Jock. James II: Soldier and Sailor. On a more secular and political level, the English associatedCatholicism with the absolutism of Louis XIV of France. Had James followed a more moderate and compromisingcourse, it is conceivable that he might eventually have persuadedParliament to repeal the Test Act. 2 (New York: Dutton,1966), 252.Ibid., 186-87.Haswell, 248.Ashley, 291-92.Haswell, 23.Evelyn, 211.Ashley, 15.Ibid., 24.Ibid., 19.Haswell, 65.Ashley, 128.Ibid., 9.Haswell, 212n.Ibid.Ashley, 163.Ibid., 165.Charles Chenevix Trench, The Western Rising: An Account of theRebellion of James Scott, Duke of Monmouth (London: Longman's,1969), 2 -21.Peter Earle, Monmouth's Rebels: The Road to Sedgemoor, 1685 (NewYork: St. Itis also true that in Charles's later years on the throne many of the issuesand divisions were emerging that would lead to crisis under James. None the less, it is possible toidentify some factors in the early experiences of the two royal brothersthat may help to explain their very different styles of rule and thus theirdifferent fates. It is not uncommon for siblings to exhibit quite differentcharacters, and to a large degree these may be due to factors of geneticinheritance, or to subtle differences in upbringing that cannot bedetermined over four centuries later. Although royal children had rather littleclose contact with their parents, it may be inferred that something ofHenrietta Maria's Catholic piety was transmitted to her sons. Yet Charles II had never faced any serious challenge to his rule. The dragonnades; Huegenots sent to thegalleys; thousands of others driven into exile; all formed the Englishimage of what would be in store for them under absolutist Catholic rule.[v] Diarist John Evelyn would write starkly, in early 1686, of "Unheard-ofcruelties to the persecuted Protestants of France, such as hardly any agehas seen the like, even among the Pagans.[vi] James II was said to have voiced approval of Louis XIV's action,though there is evidence that in fact he did not.[vii] At home, he wasorganizing a standing army, itself contrary to long-standing Englishtradition;[viii] moreover, it was an army answerable only to himself, andcommanded by a large proportion of Catholic officers. At the time of his accession his mistress of seven years' standingwas Catherine Sedley, who wrote that she did not understand what attractedhim to her: "It cannot be my beauty for he must see I have none; and itcannot be my wit, for he has not enough to know that I have any."[xviii]She was also of Protestant inclinations--or at least, frequently exhibitedher wit at the expense of Catholics.[xix] In the best seventeenth centuryfashion, Protestant partisans at court undertook to use her to manage theking. The Duke of Queensbury would writethat "I assure your Grace there is the fairest hopes [in the succession]that ever any kingdom of England had ... James shared with his brother astrong sex drive, though perhaps less genuine fondness for the company ofwomen; his mistresses tended to be very young and less chosen for their witthan Charles's had been. Charles II's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, joined forces withthe Scottish Earl of Argyll and plotted a combined invasion and uprising,Argyll landing in Scotland and Monmouth in the west of England. James II has the unhappy historical distinction of having been thelast English monarch to be overthrown.[i] This event, enshrined in Englishhistory as the Glorious Revolution of 1688,[ii] marked a fundamentalturning point in English political history. He confirmed Protestants to the chiefministerial positions, and appeared content to keep his own Protestantism aprivate affair. V. The Diary of John Evelyn. Similar horrors were (in theProtestant view) on display in contemporary France, where Louis XIV hadrevoked of the Edict of Nantes, which had given Protestants freedom ofworship for nearly a century. The cause of his fall was the widespread belief that he intended toimpose Catholicism on England. It must be acknowledged at the outset that the two issues wereclosely bound up together in the minds of the English political class, andin broader public opinion. Several hundred people were condemned for treason andhanged, drawn, and quartered--the sentences being carried out in their fullbarbarity, a fact which perhaps contributed more to popular revulsion thanthe sheer death toll.[xxiii] About a thousand more were transported asconvicts to the West Indies. By 168 it was clear that no heir was to be expected, and, in thewake of the "Popish plot" of that year, in which Protestant extremistsclaimed (with neither evidence nor plausibility) that James was implicatedin a plot to poison the king, Charles forced James into another period ofexile which lasted till 1682.[xvi] Charles, in fact, had been as loyal toJames as he could be; early in his reign he had pushed through an Actrecognizing James as next in line, and in his final years he did what hecould to smooth his brother's way to the throne. Monmouthshared his father's accessible manner, and in particular had the "commontouch."[xxii] He had few other qualities, however, and the rebellionquickly collapsed. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689 (Baltimore:Johns Hopkins, 1981), 299-3 , contains the text of the Heads ofGrievance.Evelyn, 278.Jones, 25 .Ibid., 288.Ibid., 297.Philip Aubrey, The Defeat of James Stuart's Armada, 1692 (Bath,UK: Leicester University, 1979), 11.----------------------- 6 What is certain is that James was steadfastly loyal to his brother.Nevertheless, throughout Charles II's reign, James's position as next inline to the throne was a constant source of tension; tension that grewsteadily as Charles's queen, Catherine of Braganza, failed to provide himan heir. Thisfundamental constitutional issue had been left unresolved by the EnglishCivil War, the execution of his father, Charles I, in 1649,[iii] and thesubsequent restoration of his brother, Charles II, in 166 .[iv] The remainder of this essay will examine the series of events thatled to the Glorious Revolution, with particular attention to the backgroundand character of James himself, and the factors in his conduct whichundermined his authority. He was also byinclination an absolutist, who sought good relations with Louis XIV even ata cost to what were regarded as English national interest (and who in factreceived a secret subsidy from Louis. Martin's, 1978.Evelyn, John. The Declaration of Rights, 1689. Monmouth's Rebels: The Road to Sedgemoor, 1685. Moreover, once the rebellion was ended, James beganto embark on an increasingly overt pro-Catholic policy. Endnotes BibliographyAshley, Maurice. Their father was Charles I. James II. Bath, UK:Leicester University, 1979.Earle, Peter. It is open to question, however, whether James's Catholicism and hisinclination toward absolutism, even in combination, would have been enoughto bring about a revolution. None the less, Charles II never pushed matters to the breaking pointthrough a quarter-century of rule, whereas James II did so in little morethan three years. On the other hand, general anti-Catholic sentiment was strong enough that this might have been impossible.In any case, by attempting to abrogate it by prerogative, and by his harshresponse to Monmouth's rebellion, James reduced his base of support belowthe minimum needed for him to retain the throne. Moreover, even to those who had little anti-Catholic prejudice, it was a sweeping assertion of royal absolutism. Save in the event of a national emergency such as a major war,James would be able to govern without again asking Parliament formoney.[xxi] James had only been on the throne a few months, however, when anemergency did arise, from the consequences of which he would never recover. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins, 1981.Trench, Charles Chenevix. Jeffreysproceeded to do so with a harshness that earned the proceedings the nameBloody Assizes. The central question to be examined is whetherJames's Catholicism or his tendency toward royal absolutism was the crucialfactor in triggering the general disaffection that made possible hisoverthrow. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.