Talk:James II of England

Untitled

This article was referenced by the press:

• Extreme Blogging., Matt Rand for Forbes. Part of the Best of the web. Glowing report, and has this to say about Wikipedia:

  We asked Frederick Allen, Managing Editor of American Heritage [published by Forbes], to compare entries from Britannica Online and the Wikipedia. He was skeptical about the Wikipedia, but after throwing several queries at the two encyclopedias (Haydn, Millard Fillmore, warblers), he admitted, "it looks as if Wikipedia's gotten a lot better, more thorough and more accurate." Even the Wikipedia's James II of Britain article beat Britannica in size, reach and outside references. But Allen cautioned that there's "still the underlying problem that you can be sure of the accuracy of what it presents, because of the fact that it's open to contributions from the public."

Abdication

Abdication mentions that he tossed the Great Seal into the Thames. Any truth to this? I think it should be mentioned. Kent Wang 07:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's true. Historians aren't exactly sure why, but suspect that he was trying to prevent the calling of a Parliament in his absence. Coemgenus 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd dispute claiming that James "abdicated" in the way that the term is generally understood. The Parliaments of England and Scotland declared that he did but he'd actually fled in fear at an invited Dutch invasion lead by his intended successor. The "abdication" thing was more a legal fiction to remove an unpopular King (and unpopular line) from the throne and cement the coup d'etait that was the "Glorious Revolution". Currently, the opening to the article gives the impression that James was intentionally abandoning the throne and his office rather than basically being overthrown against his will. --Zagrebo (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tales of abdication are, indeed, non-encyclopedic Orange propaganda. Where is the instrument of abdication? The king is sovereign and may leave his realm at will. Other monarchs have gone abroad and not been deemed dethroned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Style

I've always seen his full style as "James VII of Scotland and II of England" - should we have at this way round at the start of the article? Timrollpickering 13:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense & would come closer to the conventions of the British Government in using the Highest number (eg Elizabeth II of UK rather than Elizabeth I of UK, despite the fact the previous Elizabeth was only queen of England) but there is a lot of controversy over changing titles, just see the talk page for James VI & I, as wikipedia policy is to use the title of the 'most important' kingdom as the page name & the main title. AllanHainey 08:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

One way to get up the noses of Irish and Scottish people: call England the 'most important kingdom' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that correct in terms of territory and population? Emerson 07 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

When the King is in Ireland he would not be the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would he? He would simply be the King of Ireland in Ireland. Since he's in Ireland, there's no need for anybody else to be his Lieutenant, but it doesn't make sense to say that James was the Lord Lieutenant, does it? john k 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute?

Why is this article on the list of accuracy disputes (last box)? NawlinWiki 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

James and the Catholic Succession.

A number of small edits to correct errors of fact and interpretation.

1. It is quite wrong to say that James made no attempt himself to recover his throne. His campaign in Ireland in 1689-90 was to be the first stage towards this end. This is recognized further on in the article.

2. James conversion to Catholicism in the late 1660s was a badly kept secret; but secret it was. It only became openly known when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the 1673 Test Act. Shaftesbury was not involved in the introduction of the Test Act. He was in government at the time, a member of Charles' Cabal ministry.

3. James did not 'wisely' decide to leave for Brussells in 1680; he was ordered to go by the King, anxious to reduce the political temperature in England. James, as stiff and stubborn as ever, only went with reluctance.

4. James was never 'leader' of the Tory Party.

5. Conservative Anglicans were bound to support the legitimate king as an article of faith, whether he be Catholic or not. Many continued to do so even after the Glorious Revolution, including some of the bishops who had opposed his policy of indulgence.

6. I suspect there are very few-if any-academic historians who would describe James as 'cruel' because of the treatment of the Monmouth rebels. This is a very ninteenth century 'whiggish' view.

7. I think the reference to there being no 'reliable evidence' for the alleged substitution of Prince James-the warming pan theory-is best left out altogether. It was a story born in the political hysteria of the times, and had ceased to be taken seriously-even by the opponents of the Jacobites-not many years after it was invented. I think Queen Anne was the last prominent figure to take it seriously; although this is likely to have been the wishful thinking of a bad conscience.

Rcpaterson 08:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In Case no one has noticed...

Someone has vandaized the top part of this (22 may)

  Hopefully this is referring to the "Early Life" section that is actually James I, not James II.

Also, this needs to be fixed in the "Early Life" section: In September 1660, the Duke of York (who was also created Duke of Albany in Scotland) have sex with Lady Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon.

Despotism

I'm quite disappointed that Wikipedia is following the traditional biased view that James II was despotic. The article reads "Many of his subjects distrusted his religious policies and despotism, leading a group of them to depose him in the Glorious Revolution". James II championed religious toleration and equality for Catholics and other dissenters. As such, he was one of the most laudable kings in English history. If a reference to despotism must be included, it should read "perceived despotism" or some other qualification. NicholasJB 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A point worth raising. We will probably never know the real James, since history is written by the victors. However, in religion he was a man of his times. He only believed in religious freedom for Roman Catholics. He advocated religious toleration as a means of freeing Catholics to take positions in the government and in the army. And he was a zealot. Indeed, the pope of the time counselled him to practise moderation.--Gazzster (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess he is a despot because he actually supported dissenters and catholics....the protestant establishment always get what they want, even in the history books! I'm a Scottish Protestant but it still doesn't stop me seeing this. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.5.118 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, I don't think that is a fair evaluation. James believed that freeing his subjects from being legally forced to obide by an organisation which was not created by God but the Parliament of England (the Anglican Church), would naturally lead to them returning to the True Church by means of reason. Not force. James believed that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth and naturally, being that he didn't despise his own citizens, wished for their souls to be saved as part of it. We hear about how Cromwell was "religiously tolerent" because he let the Jewish community return to England, yet the self-interested plutocrats of parliament who usurped James still won't allow our official history books to portray James as anything other than a despotic bigot. Wikipedia can be more neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely because James regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the only true Christian church and regarded Protestantism (the religion of the vast majority of his subjects) as a "false religion" that he was a despot. He used despotic means to promote Catholicism. He adopted a veneer of tolerance when his hope of persuading the Tories to repeal the penal laws against Catholics (not Dissenters!) failed that he embraced those who he hitherto regarded as his enemies (the Puritans) in order to promote Catholicism and undermine the Church of England.--Britannicus (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Despotism?

I dont think that Nicholos (despotic ruler) understands the word. A despotic ruler is one who rules with absolute power. It is without qualifiaction as with regard to how this absolute power is carried out ie. malevelontly or cruely. I dont think one can argue that James tried to sollicit and legitimise the monarchs power while limiting parliaments giving him more power than any other monarch since the despot Henry VIII. Suggesting that the declaration of Indulgance, where religious freedoms were granted was allturistic is simplistic. Passing this act would be a legitmate vehicle through which he could reconvert England back to Catholicism.

A despotic ruler must by necessity be cruel or forceful. This is because his or her rule will always be opposed by someone. And this opposition must be overcome. Mind you, any form of government, even a democracy, can be despotic.A party that dominates a Parliament can indeed be despotic.But I do think that the contempt (or at least disregard) for Parliament of Charles I, Charles II and James II was greater than Henry VIII's. For Henry VIII, tyrant though he was, did not think of ruling without Parliament. The Reformation, Dissolution of the Monasteries, judicial murder of John Fischer, Thomas More,etc, was all done with Parliamentary consent. Whereas the Stuarts believed that Parliament was essentially unecessary. And therein lies the break with the traditional mode of English government. --Gazzster (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It could probably be argued that, since Henry VIII was tyrannical, Parliament basically bent to his wishes anyway and so its "consent" had little more significance than the consent of the Roman senate during the imperial period. I'm not an expert on the Tudor period so if anyone knows better I'm happy to hear it, but I always got the impression that at the time Parliament was seen as a servant of the Crown, there for little more than debate and legislative purposes rather than something that could actively block the will of the Monarch. As for James, he certainly doesn't come across as badly as his father and his reputation has to some extent been coloured by the anti-Catholic and anti-Stuart feeling in England at the time. Having said that, from what I can gather he seems to have been quite active in executing "traitors"; wasn't one of his judges notorious as the "hanging judge" at the time and actually sent to the Tower after the overthrow of James II? --Zagrebo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Omissions and Significance of rule neglected

This article fails to get to why James II reign was so contentious and was such a turning point in England’s History : 1) Not since Henry VIII had a King tried to hold absolute monarchy 2) I dont think you draw significance to the Catholic soldier test-case, the Declaration of Indulgence and the role they played in James‘s attempt to Catholicise England . James employed catholic army officers possibly concerned about a second rebellion (against the test act). Condemned by Parliament James approached the judiciary and using the catholic soldier as a test case (he was wavered from test act) and removing any unsympathetic Lords he proceeded. James was successful and The Lord Chief Justice summed up "The Kings of England are Sovereign Princess, the laws of England are the Kings Laws, it is an inseparable prerogative of the Kings of England to dispense with particular laws upon particular necessary reasons and of those reasons the King himself is sole judge". Essentially Parliament could pass laws but it was up to the King if they where employed and to whom. He now had the legitimacy to undue anti-catholic laws on a case by case basis. Previously loyal Tories now struggled with the conflict of unconditional support of an 'absolute’ monarch and the sanctity of the CofE .

Since the CofE (powerful and rich with daily contact with the normal people of England) had promised support to the King this put James in a strong bargaining position. James announced the 'declaration of indulgence' (religious tolerance) and charged all clergy to read it out in every church. This now troubled the church, where they to follow the head of their church, the King, but go against what they believed was Gods will. A petition was drawn up by seven bishops that criticised the declaration and the kings royal authority. The Bishops were arrested and placed in the Tower of London as political prisoners. James completely misjudged the peoples popular view. They were treated as heroes, crowds cheered and jailors treated them as guests. James’s power became questioned. The question of the legality of the Kings dispensing power brought great debate (more so than the guilt of the bishops) at the trial and the bishops were found not guilty.

3) In the overthrow of the anointed James II for William- England had essentially elected a diluted form of monarchy. This was popular as people saw as a change from absolute god-like monarchs to inauguration likened to a prince-president. The bill of rights meant the crown couldn’t suspend laws made by parliament, raise taxes without the orders of parliament, or command an army and illegal for the Monarch to be a papist or be married to a papist King (not since James has an English Monarch ever been a catholic or married to one. Now the Monarch was to have religion of people not vice-versa. James II attempt to attain absolute monarchy (like Henry VIII and Louis XIV) had failed- and to this day no Monarch has not since attempted. James II disregard for the constitutional monarchy lead to his other throw The glorious revolution disposed with the supremacy act and brought in a new age in England . In choosing another king from the anointed, severely limiting the monarchy’s power and making parliament the most powerful lawmaking and administrative body they had taken steps to becoming arguably the first modern state with a constitutional monarchy. This is important as England emerged not as a nation trying to imitate the powerful absolute Monarchs of France but with a powerful Government and aggressively modern state which now instead of a bystander in European politics would become one of the most powerful states in Europe. This arguably had huge consequences for the rest of the world!!

4) Ann suggested the baby was a changling (Mary was too well after her previous complications and James was far too confident that they would have a boy). The story was embroilled and took hold across England. Ann even convinced her sister husband that it was true. William could gain control naturally but the birth of a catholic son complicated this. The importance is that William’s acceptance of the changling story would give him justification for the invasion of England as it was widely believed at the time.

5)It should be noted that their was a ground swell of popular support for William. Landing in England William marched through cheering crowds in Exeter. However he had to face 25000 troops of James‘s troops at Salisbury plain-everything depended on how James could corral his troops. However, James became ill and nose bleeds led him to leave his troops! When your leader is not prepared to fight what confidence does it give your troops. His leading general and own daughter Ann left for William along with many troops as James left for London.

6) More emphasis should be given to the modern day consequences of the Battle of the Boyne as this Protestant-Catholic encounter is still emotive to this day in Protestant/Catholic Ireland, with Orange Protestant marches commemorating this day still emote much passion and controversy. --Philm101 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The statement in the intro that James was king of England, Scotland & Ireland till December 88 is at best misleading, at worst simply false:

• In Feb 89, the English Parliament retroactively declared that he had abdicated the English throne in attempting to flee the country in December.
• In Apr 89, the Scottish Parliament declared that he had forfeited the Scottish throne. It did not specify any particular event as precipitating this, so it's hard to see how this could be backdated, & I believe he is generally regarded as still King of Scots till April, as eg in the monarchy's website.
• He remained King of Ireland until 1690/91, as mentioned in the article.

13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke of York – since when?

The Ecyclopedia Britannica (2002) says: »He was created Duke of York in January 1634«, Wikipedia insists on 1644. Now what? --ECeDee (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgeable? ––ECeDee (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He was called Duke of York since birth, but wasn't formally invested with the title until 1644. See [1], for example. Coemgenus 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When did he marry Mary of Modena?

Neither this article nor the article about Mary of Modena gives the date of their marriage. So, when did they marry? Was it a Protestant or a Catholic ceremony? Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I tried to summarize it in my last change to the article. Coemgenus 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He married her on their wedding day (sorry, couldn't help myself). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New images

I've recently uploaded a few new images of James II. Although this article already has many images, I hope some of them may be helpful. Dcoetzee 11:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• 
  By Cornelius Johnson, 1639
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller, 1684
• 
  Circa 1690

Macaulay as reliable source

I've reverted the recent changes that tell the story of James's reign according to Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay. Macaulay is to Whiggish historians what Belloc is to Catholic revisionists -- useful as a polemicist, but hopelessly biased as an historian. If anyone wants to expand the article, he should do so using the works of a reliable modern historian. Coemgenus 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All the historians cited in this article are "biased". "Biased" is when an historian has an opinion which differs from another historian. There is no such thing as a "neutral" historian and it is dangerous to think that such a thing exists. I have not inserted Macaulay's opinions into the article, only the factual information contained in Macaulay's work. If you can prove that what Macaulay has written in this instance is false then remove it. Otherwise, do not remove sourced factual information just because you disagree with the historian's politics.--Johnbull (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's biased, yes, but because it's outdated. Macauley's standards of research and citation are nowhere near what modern professional historians would consider appropriate. It's not that I have a particular problem with Macauley, but with any antiquated work being presented as encyclopedic truth. Historians today may not be neutral, but they at least claim to attempt to be unbiased.

My specific problems with your additions:

• You say "In his own words, James expressed indignation that men had the impudence to advocate repeal of the penal laws against Protestants." So what were his own words? Why not cite them?
• You, like Macaulay, fail to draw a distinction between Catholics, who had been peaceful subjects since the Restoration and before, and Covenanters, who were in varying stages of rebellion against James. This might explain the disparate treatment they received (although it fails to excuse James's mistreatment or ordinary, non-Covenanting Presbyterians).
• You focus on James's limited toleration in Scotland, while ignoring his general toleration in his largest kingdom, England. The Engish toleration section was already there, a few paragraphs down. I combined them.
• Finally, the standard for inclusion an article is not that I should have to prove it false, but that you should have to prove it true. I will not engage in a revert war, but I will try to add things from biographies and histories written in the last 150 years or so.

Coemgenus 01:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Macaulay is outdated. More primary sources have to come light since he wrote but I do not think that invalidates his work. Why did you remove the reference to the Act of the Scottish Parliament putting Covenanters to death and his belief that Protestantism was a false religion? Surely that is extremely relevant on a section about religious toleration? The fact that James summoned three Scottish Privy Councillors to London after they refused to obey him is just left at that, with no mention of what happened when they saw James, surely it would be better to include what happened? Your view of Catholics as peaceful subjects may on the whole be true but you are imposing today's POV on the past as many people at that time did not see Catholics as peaceful subjects but as willing to use rebellion and murder to further their religion. The instructions to his son on how to rule England, which showed that James wanted Catholics to hold positions in government and the army totally out of proportion to their numbers, was removed as well. Why?--Johnbull (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Act of Parliament more for brevity than anything -- I thought the summary that remains covered it well enough. We always have this problem in biographies of wanting to mention everything that ever happened in a mans life, but needed to constrain the article so it's not too long. I'm not sure what happened when the Privy Councillors saw James in London -- I didn't think it was in your original addition (was that the cause of him replacing them with Catholics?)-- but it should be, so I certainly don't object to adding it. I didn't remove the instructions to the Old Pretender, I just moved them to when they happened chronologically -- it's in the exile section, now, I think. Coemgenus 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article focuses far too little on his reign, which is the most important part of his life. The articles on Charles II and William III have far more space taken up by their reigns than James. Granted, they reigned longer than James but considering James was a king, and a king with a very controversial reign which led to his deposition, I think his reign should be the main part of the article. I put back the information on the Act against Covenanters and the meeting of James and the Privy Councillors as agreed.--Johnbull (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, on further reflection, that James' reign should take up more of the article. I left your additions, and added a few parallel citations to more recent works. Coemgenus 14:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely absurd to use Macaulay as a source for this article, just as it would be to use Gibbon as a source on Roman history. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the current consensus of scholarship, not to repeat Whiggish (or Catholic) polemic from 150 years ago. Using sources like that is okay for creating new articles on subjects we don't yet have articles for, but the conclusions of a Macaulay should not be put in place of a more modern consensus. john k (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Macaulay's conclusions are not put in the place of "a more modern consensus". Macaulay is used as a source in conjunction with modern historians. Macaulay's conclusion's are not put into the article but only the factual information contained in his work. Perhaps you can tell us if the information sourced in this article from Macaulay is wrong?--Britannicus (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to me to be of doubtful neutrality and deserves to have the 'Wikilogo' 'Disputed Neutrality' BrandMarker installed. We cannot accept roman catholic historical influences in a modern wikiarticle.Miletus (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Only Protestant historians need apply? Coemgenus 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. Any sort of bias (either roman catholic, or protestant or whatever) should not be permitted to influence a wikiarticle. I'm surprised that you compel me to state this!Miletus (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What parts do you believe are biased? Coemgenus 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is well written and researched. The area which I find 'sensitive' is the description and references to the actions of the parliament(s) in removing James II. The impression is given (and this is mainly a question of syntax) that the country was, in general, catholic and the parliament did not permit the people to freely practise this religeon. This is clearly not the case. As you would know, the country had been protestant since the Reformation 140(?) years earlier and the move to create a centrally controlled catholic-style administration (in the style of Louis XIV) was the catalyst which lead to the subsequent reforms. If this area could be tweaked a little, I would have no other comment.Miletus (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This article went through a lengthy featured article candidacy (twice, actually) and I think all instances of bias are have been wrung out of it. I could find no implication in the text or the sources that England or Scotland were Catholic nations longing for release -- all of the sources that I read reflect the opposite view. Even Belloc, the foremost of the Catholic apologists, only claimed that 10% of England was Catholic in the 1680s (a figure disputed by other historians, who place the number closer to 2%). I tried to keep the parts I wrote as neutral as possible, and the other editors at the FAC did so as well, as you can see. And, for what it's worth, I'm not even Catholic. Coemgenus 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I a catholic (I am Church of Scotland) but, as always, objectivity must prevail. Having looked again at the text, I have to admit that my original objection was, perhaps, a quibble, following a generous dinner here in SE France. I am well aware of the horrors of working for years on a text, or a book, or a doctorate and having it fail before the academic review board on a technicality. Newsubj. The UK parliamentary oath which has to be sworn today, by all Members of Parliament before they can be installed, was written as a direct result of orange revolution. It might be worth including the text of the oath somewhere in the article. It is an intimidating document and it is understandable why it is not accepted by certain MP's. Please be aware that my use of the word 'understandable' does not, in any way, imply approval or sympathy for those who refuse the parliamentary oath (but take the salary). In conclusion: best wishes and thanks for a very well researched and presented article (I am a published military historian).Miletus (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Miletus (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Miletus (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary succession box and categories for New York

There should be some proprietary title mentioned in the titulary section, but I have added James to two New York categories. There may be more. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Anne Hyde?

James' first spouse, Anne, is first mentioned at the subsection "Marriage", which begins: "Anne became pregnant in 1660, but following the Restoration and Charles's return to power, no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner, no matter what he had pledged beforehand." This is quite bewildering, as we have been given no information about who Anne was and how she had come to be pregnant. I'm adding some information on her background, simply copying form the article on Anne Hyde, and I'm rephrasing: "In 1660 Anne Hyde, who was the daughter of the loyal Royalist chief adviser to Charles and Maid of Honour to James's sister Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, became pregnant with James's child. However, following the Restoration and Charles's return to power, no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner, no matter what he had pledged beforehand." I still believe though that this section needs clarification from someone with access to primary sources. Importantly, the article on Anne Hyde mentions that James was reluctant to marry her and was forced to it by his brother Charles. This is definitely contradictory to what is mentioned above ("no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner"). Moreover, it is not clear when exactly there alleged secret wedding took place (according to the article on Anne Hyde, it was in 1659, while this article gives the impression that it took place after Anne became pregnant.) Desiderius82 (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right: at some point since the article was featured, five sentences from that section (and their citations) were deleted. I have restored it. --Coemgenus 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's much clearer now, so good work. But it's still unclear when their alleged wedding took place. Desiderius82 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

James II's full Style

That says that James II's full style was "James the Second by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of Faith, etc"... But what comes after "Defender of Faith" that would replace "etc"? I'm sorry for asking this, I just need to know it complete because of something I'm doing. Sorry bad english too :) --189.102.216.246 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdication versus forfeiture

The Parliament of Scotland on 11 April 1689, declared James to have forfeited the throne (the Scottish Parliament upheld the Divine Right of Kings, so abdication was not a valid option).

I can't follow the logic. James had a Divine Right so he couldn't abdicate, that is, renounce the the throne by himself, but he could have forfeited, i.e. the throne could be taken away from him as a punishment for something? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Top.Squark (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was just the Scottish Parliament looking for a legal justification for recognising that James was no longer King. To have continued to recognise James as King would have lead to war with England and probably occupation once again, so they took the easy route and found a way to remove James from the throne legally. Legally, James "abdicated" in England and "forfeited" in Scotland. In reality, he was overthrown in a coup. --Zagrebo (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The trial and execution of James's father was remembered by many. Having a deposed and living monarch in England or Scotland would have been an embarassment and a threat. Most people still balked at regicide, so these legal fictions had to be resorted to. And in Scotland of course, the Kirk would have pounced on the chance to remove a 'papist' king.Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis true, Jimmy 2/7 never abdicated. Thus the reason for himself & the Jacobites continuing to view him as King, until his death in 1701. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you are all missing the point of my remark. My problem is with the parenthetical remark regarding the Divine Right of Kings. Top.Squark (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The contradiction is not in the article, it's in the actions of the Parliaments in 1689. They fudged the logic back then, and the article reflects that. You should remove that little template you left. Coemgenus 10:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, does the source given contain the claim regarding the Divine Right of Kings? If so, can you quote the source on this? Secondly, if the Parliament "fudged the logic" as you say, it should be explained more explicitly. E.g., "The Scottish parliament oddly decided that forfeiture is more consistent with the Divine Right of Kings than abdication". However, I doubt they fudged the logic that much, I think something in the text is mixed-up or not explained well. Top.Squark (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that the Scots called it one thing and the English called it another. How about we just delete the parenthetical until someone does the research to properly sort it all out? Coemgenus 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. Top.Squark (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

James the Shit redirects to James II. Is this some sort of hoax or vandalism? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

After James fled Ireland in 1690, he earned the nickname "Seamus an chaca," or "James the shit," in English. It seems unlikely that anyone would use that redirect, but it's not actually a hoax. --Coemgenus 19:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Had I bothered to read the article I would have seen that. Shame on me. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I never knew that! I have read quite a bit on the Stuarts, but never came across this interesting soubriquet. One learns something new at Wikipedia everyday!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the article translates Seamus an chaca as "James the be-shitten". Is that bona fide English? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, that's what the source said. It's been a few years since I reworked this article, though, so I could be mistaken. --Coemgenus 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Irish would imply someone who had lost control of his bowels due to fright - "be-shitten" (an old-fashioned English construct) - rather than someone likened to a turd.

Image

The image of James and his father is reversed (mirror image) from the original.Urselius (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unlikely because there's another version File:Charles I and young James II.jpg and because it would be natural for them to extend their right hands towards one another rather than their left ones. Also the sword is usually worn on the left side and the Garter sash worn over the left shoulder. DrKiernan (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No you're right, the book "Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660-1685" by Tim Harris (a rather turgid volume) I'm reading at the moment has it reversed.Urselius (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I uploaded that image from a James II biography (maybe Miller?) and I did not alter it. Also, a Google Images search for the painting shows the present orientation everytime [2]. I'm not sure where the original is, or I'd link to that. --Coemgenus 13:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alnwick Castle

I believe it's in the Duke of Northumberland's collection at Alnwick Castle. Moonraker (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

James VII and II?

Now that James I of England has been moved to James VI and I, perhaps we should consider having this page likewise moved? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should in order to maintain a better continiuity between the articles. Pro66 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree-that seems like enough consensus and since it IS basically the same as what was done to the other article, I have just gone ahead and moved this one. Extra details below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocrowx (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article name.

Since James I of England was changed to James VI and I, it only made sense to move this to the same format too. And in both cases, the titles do much more accurately and fairly reflect who they were, and I was glad that there was finaly enough consensus for the other article to be moved. So, this is just to maintain continuity and I am surprised it wasnt done allready. Nocrowx (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, it made sense for the elder James -- he spend lots of time in both Scotland and England and the fact that he was king of both was important to his biography. James II, on the other hand, did not spend one day in Scotland after he became king, and over his lifetime spent far more time in England and even France than Scotland. As far as which name is more common, in the books I read while rewriting this article, he is almost always called "James II" when any number is given. As far as Google hits goes, I get 310,000 for "James II of England" versus 90,400 for "James VII and II". I wish there had been a proper discussion before this move happened. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Heir to the throne

James was not heir to the throne before 1685; he was heir presumptive. Compare it to the present situation: Elizabeth II is the heir to the British throne, while her son is the heir apparent (it is expected that he will become heir, i.e. that he will inherit it). Besides, the succession box itself is pure trivia. There was no title or office such as "Heir to the throne". None at all. The succession box serves no purpose; in many cases, it is even redundant to the Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales succession box(es). I propose removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapse of the Commonweath

I made a small edit where it said the Commonwealth collapsed after Oliver Cromwell's death in early September 1658. This is a common belief but a bit of a misconception. The Commonwealth's protectorate regime was actually secure after Oliver Cromwell's death and remained so until the Spring of 1659 when the army moved against his son and heir Richard Cromwell forcing him to resign. It was after this that the Commonwealth started to fall-apart as the military leaders vied for power. Earlier in the article it (correctly) states that the political situation in England had changed a great deal by 1659 and casual readers may have wondered why, if Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, the Commonwealth managed to survive another two years.