HOW JAMES II LOST THE THRONE | Was the warming pan baby real? | History of the Glorious Revolution
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лис 2022
- The story of HOW JAMES II LOST THE THRONE is a bizarre tale, filled with preposterous conspiracy theories, backstabbing Princesses and a little boy who should have been the monarch after his father’s death, but who has gone down in history as the baby who caused a revolution.
Usually the birth of a Prince of Wales would have been a cause for celebration, but when James II’s wife, Mary of Modena, produced the longed for boy, Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, in 1688, there were accusations she was either never pregnant, or that her own child had been a girl, or even born dead and was therefore replaced with a boy who was brought into the birthing chamber in a warming pan. Within five months, the warming pan scandal had grown to such epic proportions that it provided enough ammunition for James’s son-in-law/nephew, Prince William of Orange, to oust the King from his throne. William took over as William III, ruling alongside his wife/cousin, Mary II in the only instance of joint monarchy in English or Scottish history. This sequence of events has become known as the Glorious Revolution. James, his Queen and their infant son had to flee to mainland Europe where they lived out the rest of their lives in exile after James’s failed attempt to retake the crown at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland in 1690. But was the warming pan baby real, was the child James and Mary would go on to raise nothing more than an imposter Prince, or was this story a concoction dreamt up by James’s enemies when they were faced with the birth of a new Catholic dynasty? In this episode of History Calling we look at the history of the Glorious Revolution, at the fall of James II and at how the Stuarts lost the throne for the second time in as many generations. We’ll consider the childbearing history of Mary of Modena, the evidence given by those who witnessed the baby’s birth in 1688 (including the dowager Queen of England, Catherine of Braganza) and look at why so many people wanted rid of James II, including his own daughters, Princess Mary of Orange and Princess Anne of Denmark.
Patreon: / historycalling
Instagram: / historycalling
SUBSCRIBE with NOTIFICATIONS switched on for new videos every Friday.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE:
ROYAL WOMEN PLAYLIST • Royal Women
HISTORICAL MYSTERIES’ PLAYLIST • Historical Mysteries
WHAT HAPPENED TO QUEEN ANNE’S CHILDREN • WHAT HAPPENED TO QUEEN...
DID ANNE BOLEYN HAVE A PSEUDO PREGNANCY IN 1534? • Did ANNE BOLEYN have a...
TUDOR ROYAL FERTILITY PROBLEMS • TUDOR ROYAL FERTILITY ...
GEAR USED
DJI Drone: amzn.to/38h1vXr (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/39hROZm (US LINK)
Go-Pro Hero 10 camera: amzn.to/3EPIK9U (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rTWScL (US LINK)
GoPro 3-Way 2.0 (Tripod/Grip/Arm): amzn.to/37CdC1r (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3vaVxjU (US LINK)
Memory Card: amzn.to/36QvcOQ (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3KeLZZs (US LINK)
Microphone: amzn.to/3MFtoaK (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rYtjH8 (US LINK)
LEARN MORE:
Anne Somerset, Queen Anne: the politics of passion (2014) amzn.to/3PuxcN0
The Favourite (film, 2018) amzn.to/3JZff86 MOVIE ABOUT QUEEN ANNE’S LATER LIFE
Charles II: the Power and the Passion (2003 TV show about Charles II’s life which also features James) amzn.to/3A3vYmb
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means if you make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It in no way affects the price you pay.
THUMBNAIL: James II, National Army Museum, out of copyright (detail)
Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommons.org/licenses/
Have I convinced you that little Prince James wasn’t a changeling, or if you think I’ve been too hasty in dismissing the warming-pan theory? Let me know below and don't forget to check out my Patreon at www.patreon.com/historycalling
When is the face reveal? At least give your male viewers the chance to fall in love with your face as well as your accent. 😊
Awesome video. I don’t think changelings that are actually human exist.
No plans for that I'm afraid. I wouldn't even have the necessary camera equipment in any case, or an autocue, or somewhere to film. There're all sorts of things to consider for appearing on screen. Plus, when I make a mistake, it's so much easier to just re-record a piece of audio than to have to re-film something would be.
@@HistoryCalling lol you really went for detail in your answer. I am going to be cringe and say things like “I am sure you are beautiful inside and out” but that would be awkward….😂
Keep up the awesome work and I am glad to be part of your subscribers. Don’t forget me when you made it 🤣
@@AK-dw8jo That was awkward 😅
I haven’t watched the video yet, about to, but based on my knowledge of the whole scandal and theories, no. I think it was the country’s unwillingness to be ruled by catholics again that took James II’s throne. Besides, from what I know, he invited only his supporters to witness the birth (rookie mistake🙄🙄), wich allowed for rumours to spread within his enemies.
“We’re talking about a pan, not a bucket.” Your indignant delivery of this line is giving me life today! 😂
Haha, thank you. Glad to be of service :-)
@@HistoryCalling I love your accent! May I ask where you're from? I'm an American and am knowledgeable about some of the accents of U.K. and Ireland, but can't place yours.
@@l.plantagenetshe answers that in her 100k q&a video :) it’s the first question she answers, actually.
My favourite statement of the day: "Another maidservant observed that the warming pan was glowing. So, unless the baby was a Targareon, it isn't likely he was contained inside" I like a little levity with my historical content. Thank you for another informative broadcast.
You're welcome and I'm glad you enjoyed the little Targaryen comparison :-)
Anne's relationship with her stepmother Mary Beatrice seems like it had a lot of one-sided hatred on Anne's side towards Mary Beatrice. I assumed her stepmother being only seven years older than her probably had a lot to do it but how she treated Mary Beatrice during the pregnancy and the resulting birth was just cruel and mean. Her sister Mary having been married off young and living in the Netherlands could be excused to a certain degree as she was relying on her sister's word. Regardless, James II was betrayed by his daughters. I think Anne pushed the theory and both sisters used it for their own agendas. Since they didn't want to admit that they did usurp their father, the conspiracy was just a convient way of assaguging guilt and culpability.
Yes, I think so. I'm sure Anne had jealousy too as all her children were dead by that point. I have to wonder if they didn't both know in their heart of hearts that their brother was legitimate though. I mean it was just SO obvious.
@@HistoryCalling I would imagine that Anne would have been jealous. She had just lost all of her kids and here was her stepmother pregnant. As for her knowing or not knowing if her brother was legitimate, I think she knew but her and her sister's tenure on it was based on her lying. She had to keep up the lie. It is strange as she was on decent terms with her younger half-sister.
They were very close when Anne was younger
@@HistoryCalling
Of course they knew. They just thought it was better to avoid another civil war. It wasn't personal, it was business. The whole political nation understood James had to go for the good of the country. He left without bloodshed because none would stand by him.
I'm seven years older than my boyfriend, and I'm seven years younger than his mom. Yep, she was fourteen years old when he was born.
Your very British exasperation is giving me a serious case of the giggles. I remember when your channel was small. I told you then, you were gonna be big, and look at you now! ♥️ You'll never see this, but I'm so proud of you.
I do see it and I'm very grateful for such a lovely comment. Thank you very much (and I remember you being here ages ago as well, so might I also say thank you for such long-term support. You're a gem) :-)
I totally agree! I often find myself having a giggle, especially when it comes to Henry VIII.
What’s funny about this, in its own weird way, is that Mary and Anne were the result of a scandalous marriage that was probably only allowed because James was the spare and Charles was likely expecting an heir at some point (even excluding Monmouth, who tried), and Lady Hyde was already pregnant. To quote King Lear: “How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!"
Anne was outright lying, not simply convincing herself. I wonder if she regretted. When she realised she was dying and the dynasty with her she tried to get the Pretenders recognised as her heirs. Irony at its finest.
(The kid was legitimate.)
Wow, I didn't know Anne tried to name the Pretenders as her heirs!
Yes, their own parents' marriage was indeed very scandalous and their mother's (relatively) low birth was a bit of a stain on the girls' pedigree. She was certainly no Italian princess and getting married whilst pregnant was hugely embarrassing for the time period.
There were indeed thoughts about getting the Prince of Wales brought to England, raised Protestant and made the heir, but by the time of Anne's death that plan was really dead in the water thanks to the Act of Settlement in favour of the Hanoverians.
@@HistoryCalling He refused to convert, which pretty much made it impossible. However, asking him to step in seems most odd. If he was eligible to rule after Anne's death, he was eligible to rule before Wm. and Mary, and Anne as well. I suppose if he had converted, it might have been said, well we just didn't want him before, when he was Catholic (and we're really sorry about the warming pan story).
This is the best history teacher ever !
Thank you. I aim to please :-)
This whole story is clearly nonsense. What interests me is why the "Establishment" for lack of a better term were so terrified of a Catholic line of succession? Surely by the late 17th century doctrinal differences between the established Church of England and Catholic Church were minor?
That means the issues were temporal. I've heard the equation of Catholic monarchs and absolutism mentioned possibly in the person of Louis xiv. As if the liberties of ordinary English mentions insofar as they were understood at the time were under threat.
I suspect the real issue is fear of losing property appropriated from the Catholic Church via the monarchy and yet that never seems to be mentioned!
I'd love so see an analysis of the motivations of those behind the 'Glorious Revolution' and this seems to me (unless I've just missed it) a neglected area of British history?
It's weirdly comforting to learn that fake news scandals and crackpot conspiracies aren't a new thing, but Anne's involvement is particularly baffling. Also you got me with me "flame-proof Targaryen" bit. Thanks again for teaching me something new.
Yes, fake news definitely goes way back. I bet the ancient Greek and Romans had problems with it too. Yeah, how cool would it have been to have a Targaryen baby!? :-)
@@HistoryCalling Semele, the mother of Dionysus would have been better off with some Targaryen blood.
People have been believing in gods for thousands of years and their crackpot theories where have you been
The early age of print was not too dissimilar to the early days of the internet
The major problem with conspiracy theories involving a large group of people is that they would all have to consistently tell the same lie without slipping up or coming clean. And as anyone who has ever been in a group project knows, it’s nearly impossible to get everyone to agree/follow through. As for smuggling in a baby, someone surely would have at least heard the changeling; healthy newborns aren’t exactly known for being quiet. So yes, you have thoroughly convinced me that the little prince was indeed legitimate.
Great video on a topic I was unfamiliar with before! Looking forward to the next one!
I always felt so sorry for Anne, because she lost all her children! A horrible fate for any woman. But all those pregnancies, and no living heir! It must have been dreadful, but in light of this episode, one might be tempted to view it as karma. Were they really so obsessed with their place in the line of succession? Or was it religious devotion that prompted their actions? It seems ironic somehow that securing a male heir for the throne was the entire reason Henry VIII broke with the church to begin with, yet, a few generations later, a princess as heir was preferred over a legitimate Catholic prince.
I know. It is indeed the ultimate irony. Henry probably would have rolled in his grave after all he did to secure a boy.
James II would have been run out anyway, he should have listened to Parliament and the church.
I do understand how you could feel angry and disgusted with Anne’s behavior. However, as someone who cannot bear children myself, I actually sympathize so much with her my heart hurts when I think of her story. It makes perfect sense she was jealous of her stepmother. As insane as it might sound to many, my sister phoned me to tell me she was pregnant, and I sobbed after I got off the phone with her. Should Anne and I been dancing with joy for our relatives to have children? Yes. I was quite supportive of her publicly, though, because I do love her and my beautiful niece. But those new babes bring reminders of the laughs we never heard, the first steps we never saw, and cookies unbaked for our grandkids. Though infant mortality was high at this time and Anne was not remotely supportive of her brother, I think losing 17 babies, all publicly, is too far beyond tragic.
@@missvidabom I agree, and despite my comment, I do have sympathy for Anne. I only meant that there was a side to the question that I'd never considered until watching the video. I'm very sorry if my comment seemed insensitive and hurtful to you, or anyone. I pray that you will find a way to achieve peace with your circumstances. Blessings
My guess is that Henry VIII's only regret in his grave would be that his son didn't last long on the throne, died young, and had no issue. My understanding is that his only concern was the Tudor name. Nothing to do with religion, just having an heir that would preserve the name.
I've always sincerely doubted that the baby was smuggled in because none of it really fits. There were all sorts of witnesses and people who would vouch on either side. But when it all came down to it, I think pretty much everyone knew the baby was genuine and refused to believe it. I also never heard that Anne was in any way involved.
Same here. There was just no evidence for a changeling baby. It really was a case of people just choosing to believe what suited them. Oh yeah, Anne was super involved. I wonder if she ever felt any guilt about it, or wondered if her own childbearing problems were some sort of divine punishment?
@@HistoryCalling I suppose it depended on her religiousness level. If she was way up there like Catherine of Aragon, or super low like [insert example here]. I would guess she would, but I don't think she would ever confide about that to anyone but maybe George, Abigail, or Sarah, her three loves.
@@HistoryCalling
I doubt any of the key players believed it. They knew it was a pretext for action they all agreed was necessary to save the country from another ruinous civil was. They all knew that the reason for all the witnesses being present at the birth was to prevent any such trick and that the claim was absurd.
@@HistoryCalling I read a great autobiography on Anne that includes letters she wrote to Mary, and it seems as though Mary planted the idea of a changeling baby in Anne’s mind by pestering he with questions about the birth. Maybe she was so obsessed with her birthright she convinced herself it was true.
Excellent presentation. The pity was James the II going to Ireland. It really divided that country and gave the Protestants a reason to truly despise Catholics. Ulster still feels that hatred to this day. No matter that James was a Scot, the Protestants wanted the land and used James as a cudgel. The Stuarts were no friend of Ireland. James the I saw to that. Why did they have to fight for a king no one wanted?
Thank you. I'm not even gonna touch the Irish situation actually, as it's just such a huge conversation! :-)
A few bullet points:
1 - I wonder if this was the progenitor for the card game Happy Families?
2 - I've just had a great idea for a NEW historical soap opera .....
3 - I literally LOL'd at your 'flame proof Targaryen' comment 🤣
4 - Thanks for mentioning Bath - I am there this week. Thankfully it's just up the road from me. And ...
5 - Seriously. Am a bit ignorant regarding Stuarts and Jacobites, blah blah blah, so you've given me the impetus for a new project to swot up on. It is my New Year's Revolution. Thank you.
And thank you for your Sisyphean efforts, as ever. 😊
Glad the Targaryen reference got a laugh. Enjoy learning about the Stuarts and Jacobites. It's a wacky part of history :-)
How horrible for all these women having so many miscarriages, stillbirths, and dying children is heartbreaking.
James was basically backstabbed by his own Protestant daughters and their husbands!
Yup, that about sums it up (though there were other people assisting in the back stabbing too of course).
Or he self inflicted his situation.
Once again a great video. I was not aware of all this switched baby stuff and I have to say that your comment, “it was a Pan not a Bucket” was a highlight. I always learn from your videos and I appreciate that. Well done!
Thanks Amy. Glad the bucket comment got a smile :-)
I noticed a mistake. You said that Mary lived with her husband in Orange, but she lived in the Netherlands. William of Orange was the stadhouder (a first citizen) of the Netherlands. Of Orange means he was from the House of Orange. That is still the house of the recent king William of the Netherlands. That is why the Dutch football players and other sport people wear orange sportswear.
The Stuarts were very good at losing their crowns.
This was a really interesting story, which I’d never read/heard about before. Thank you!🇨🇦
THANK YOU so much for your kind donation and I'm glad you enjoyed hearing about James and the start of the Jacobite cause :-)
Just one little thing, after you have had at least one pregnancy past the point of quickening, generally you feel it a few weeks earlier. The reason being is that for the first, you don't know what to expect and with experience, you do. Other than that, this was a very tragic story.
Thank you for doing this video on James Do you ever think of doing a video on the life of James Francis Edward? He’s such a neglected figure and We, Jacobites would appreciate it :)
I'll certainly take it into consideration :-)
I had no idea that this scandal existed. Thank you again for such informative content.
No problem. It's one of my favourite barmy historical conspiracy theories :-)
Omg. "Unless the baby was a flame-proof Targaryen". Was not expecting that here. Lmao
I do like the odd GoT reference, it has to be said. Usually they only appear in Wars of the Roses videos though, as GoT is loosely based on that part of history.
Thank you. Your clear and uncomplicated delivery makes history enjoyable. 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Glad it was helpful :-)
Well that all seems pretty straight forward to me. Just wish you could get in a time machine and explain it to Mary and Anne. This really paints both of them in a new and not such a nice way, but being shunted out of the line of the throne must be difficult to accept. Weird times.
They're no better than Richard III. Matter of fact, I think they are A more successful Richard III.
Ah, that depends on whether you think R3 murdered the Princes in the Tower though, which I'm afraid I think he did (or rather I think he had them killed). Mary and Anne were bad sisters and daughters for sure, but at least James sn and James jn lived to tell the tale.
Yes, I find it interesting that people quite often don't realise how messy those two women's path to the throne was. Anne in particular absolutely threw her father under the bus when she ditched him.
@@savagedarksider
Richard III would have killed James so he could not launch an invasion with foreign support. William and Mary were more successful because the political elite was united behind them and against James.
@Gary Allen Seems to me like it was the Catholics who were in danger
A terrifically interesting story, exceptionally well told. This one sounds like a film waiting to be made- it would certainly speak to the moment.
I don't know how there hasn't been a big Hollywood movie about it. It's SUCH a crazy story! :-)
@@HistoryCalling Maybe if she had birthed a rabbit!
Outstanding!!! I love listening to your stories. I listen to them while driving to work.
Thanks great job! So much drama!
Thanks Nathan. Yeah, the Stuarts sure did have a lot going on. It was never boring!
I've got a warming pan (passed down through the family), and a baby could certainly fit in it...but not a human one!
Haha, I was worried for a split second until I got to the end of your comment :-)
Yet another enjoyable video. Thank you for your content. I'd love to hear more content like this. I enjoy the other videos you've done as well.
Thanks Heather. I'm a Stuart fan too, so I might well do some more on them in the future :-)
Dr Ms History, please stop being so amazing! It makes me sadder and sadder I didn’t have you as a lecturer at uni! 😢
I become more and more convinced that you could cover the history of paint and I’d be rapt with attention. (If nothing else, there’s an April Fools for you, haha).
It’s always amazing how low people will go to discredit someone. Don’t like a king? Tell everyone his kids a changeling!
It’s kind of ironic that Protestantism came to the royal family because one king was desperate to have a son to secure his position, and Catholicism left the royal family because another king lost his position BECAUSE he had a son.
It is indeed :-)
Love your videos…well delivered and interesting😊
Great report! I really didn't know much of this info, particularly Princess Anne's involvement. Very interesting. And it totally sets the scene for anyone about to start watching Outlander. 😉
I LOVE Outlander too :-)
@@HistoryCalling FYI, the volume of the video on UA-cam is much louder than it has been up to now. Did you find a way to adjust it?
@@HistoryCalling me too, would love to see a video about that time period and Bonnie Prince Charlie, maybe comparing (but understanding Outlander is fully fiction) what really happened.
Yes i agree you really share such amazing history everyone should know! Thanks.
Thanks Sally. Yes, this is one of my favourite wacky historical conspiracy theories.
Another magnum opus, HC!! I didn't know the origin of the Jacobites. "Keep learning", as you say.👏👏
THANKS STEPHEN. Yes, their origins are quite interesting. It's hard to believe the birth of a Prince of Wales actually damaged a King's position instead of solidifying it.
"Stubbornly refused to die in his cradle." What a crack up! The extent of the conspiracy theories used makes this the craziest of all.
Oh my god, that poor woman, I can't imagine having to go through one of the most painful and terrifying moments of your entire life (labour before modern medicine, did they have anything for pain relief?!?! and the death rate must have been horrific) just to have half the people there declare you'd faked the whole thing and your child wasn't yours.
Anne's actions seem premeditated and downright cruel, Mary might have believed the lies but I still suspect it was political decision- surely if either of them really thought they were about to have a fake brother they'd have been glued to Mary Beatrice's side like you said.
And lol to the idea of having a swathe pregnant women ready to pop at different times so you can swap out a newborn whenever the baby was born, that's a whole level of madness 😂 the baby came a month early? they'd have had to have hundreds of pregnant women to ensure a healthy boy was born to coincide with the royal birth
I know. There's just no logic to it at all. It's embarrassingly obvious that the baby was legit. It just shows how far people will go though when they're determined to see only what they want to, rather than what's really there.
Yes - I also feel for Anne… 17 babies dying! Can’t imagine the grief 😔
@@EH23831 that certainly could drive a person crazy, but she lost a child and then had 2 miscarriages while Mary Beatrice was pregnant, maybe wait until your body heals before getting pregnant again 😲
I don't believe the conspiracy, but I think they would have done it the other way around and timed the "fake delivery" of the Queen around the changelings birth.
I will say that I have delivered six children without intervention so it is not as barbaric or difficult as you may imagine. But the mental anguish of having lost so many children and then this questioning of the baby boy would be awful.
Great video as always history calling love your channel I was wondering if you could do a video on marry the second as she did lead a revolution against her father and there are very few videos on her
Have a great weekend and I look forward to your next video
Great suggestion! :-)
Another great video, I learn something every time. Thank you! (Definitely don't believe the changeling theory and find it a little disheartening that we still have people believing theories like this even today)...
I know. It is very frustrating that you could likely Google the warming pan theory and find modern believers. They're probably flat earthers too...
Thanks for laying this all out so clearly, I'm feeling quite indignant about the fate of James and his son and grandson
Anne, Queen of Plausible Deniability
Indeed :-)
Always a well-polished, quality video from History Calling. But I have to say that the "flame-proof Targaryen" line is not getting the comment love it richly deserves. 😂
Haha, thank you. Some people have mentioned liking it, so I'm happy enough :-)
I live near the battle of the Boyne! Awesome video as per usual!
It's a beautiful part of the country. I wish there was a bit more in the way of signage on the actual battlefield though. The Battle of Hastings' site has a brilliant audio tour with signs along the way as well.
It's amazing how people will believe what they want to believe because it suits them even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Yup, both then and now. Truly mind boggling.
I LOVE All of your videos. But, especially when the stories are super old. Also when you read the source. I love to hear the original voices of the people speaking and your accent makes it even better. ❤️
Thanks Mindy :-)
Good evening History Calling I ordered a DVD of The Stuarts in Exile it arrived last week before my birthday on Halloween. Omg this is too spooky I watched it last Sunday xx.
Haha, great minds think alike I guess. We're both thinking about the Stuarts at the moment. Happy belated birthday too :-)
@@HistoryCalling thank you xx.
Great video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon your videos are always enjoyable and relaxing have a great day greetings from Canada 😀
Thanks Michelle. Unless I change the video order, it'll be something even wackier next week :-)
Well done.
From what I understand , there was another battle after the Battle of the Boyne , called Battle of Aughrim
but because of a calendar change - its the Battle of the Boyne that is remembered .
But the moral of the story : Always check your bedpan in case there is a surprise in it .
.
excellent story presentation
Thank you! 🙂
Me, an English Catholic: James? Curse that bloody fool!
"Were talking about a pan here. Not a bucket" for some reason the bucket comment has me howling
It makes me roll my eyes so much when I read about people believing in this theory that I just had to point out that only a bucket would make it viable. :-)
@@HistoryCalling I've seen those pans before and my dad is a full on pan baby believer I SHAKE everytime it comes up. I'm definitely gonna tell him it's not a bucket tho next time
Thank you especially for branching out of the Tudor period!
Yeah, I need a break from them sometimes too and the Stuarts and Hanoverians are actually my official area of expertise (as in, what I wrote on for my PhD and beyond).
@@HistoryCalling Oh wow! I'd love more videos about the Hanoverians!!
Of course the child was legitimate, but that hardly matters. The political will in Britain at the time meant that he would never be king. One way or another, they would not have had a Catholic king for long. The other Royals were being pragmatic. Their way of life was preserved by denying this child and they knew it. The other option was an 'Inglorious Revolution' in which they all would've lost their heads.
Yes, James really didn't have much of a chance of a successful reign once he came out as Catholic. The birth of his son just sealed the deal.
I enjoyed this. Alison
Thanks Alison. I thought the Stuarts would be a nice palate cleanser from all the Plantagenet/Tudor drama :-)
I shall look forward to watching this over the weekend, young HC. Just got in. Been a busy and trying day 😖. All I know about James II was that he failed at Absolutism and died in exile, in France, I think!🤔 Thanks for the anticipated brain enhancement!!
Thanks Chris :-)
"Flame-proof Targaryen" LOL Superb as always!
Honor and Respect 🪶
Greetings from Saint Augustine Florida
I absolutely love your content and having heard of the Jacobite revolution for most of my life but never actually known what it was or what sparked it this was incredibly enlightening.
The section with the warming pan theory had me laughing my head off at the absurdity of it and for you to somehow keep a straight voice through it is so admirable.
Is there a chance that at some point you could cover the events leading up to the English civil war? That is the biggest gap in my knowledge and would love it
Thank you for all your content you are a true star
Thanks Niko. Yes, it really was absurd, wasn't it? I don't know how Princesses Mary and Anne kept a straight face whilst proposing it, never mind me :-) I wouldn't mind looking at the road to the Civil War, but let's see how this video does first. Unfortunately the early signs are that Stuart history isn't that popular :-(
@@HistoryCalling that's understandable. Truth be told I will probably watch whatever you put out ASAP as I find it so compelling.
Sounds as if you are rather proud of your ignorance.
@@HistoryCalling I’m very interested in seeing more videos about the Stuarts! 🏴 🏴 👑
Fascinating
Thank you so much for another thoroughly researched history episode. The evidence you present for the legitimacy of Mary of Modena's baby son is beyond doubt. On the other hand, the determination of the English powers-that-were to prevent a Catholic Stewart dynasty was understandable, even if their methods were not totally ethical. I personally have to thank William III for my existence, since my father's Scots ancestors were part of his bad idea for the Plantation of Ulster (moving Scots Protestants into Northern Ireland to keep the Catholics under control). Later, when that wasn't working out so well, their descendants emigrated from Ireland to the new United States, so that my Protestant father eventually met and married my Catholic mother, producing a free-thinking child.
To be honest, given how much the Glorious Revolution changed the history of the British Isles, I'll bet you most people on the islands today (no matter what their religious background and myself included) wouldn't be here if it hadn't happened. I'm sure some of them wouldn't want to hear that, but I bet if they looked into their family trees as you have, they'd discover that it impacted them somehow. Anyways, I'm glad you and I both got born! :-)
@@HistoryCalling Thank you, and I'm sorry I didn't give the right spelling of Stuart there. I should always check!
@@annmoore6678 I use "Stewart" up to James V, cos it was a Scottish dynasty, but then "Stuart" for Mary Queen of Scots as that's the French spelling she adopted, & for her descendants who became kings & queens of England, etc. It's not like you're writing a book tho, & everyone knows who you mean.
Living in New England I’ve seen antique warming pans an there isn’t anyway you could put a baby in one. Thank you for this video. I was wondering can you do one someday on King Charles 1?
Yes, I've seen them too and they're far too shallow to put a baby in. This really wasn't a well thought out conspiracy at all. CI is on my list :-)
@@HistoryCalling conspiracies don’t actually have to make sense, they just have to be emotionally appealing. ‘The heir to the throne is illegitimate! The country is being deceived!’ is enough to convince most people
That many failed pregnancies had to have a deep psychological affect on Anne.
Jemie didn't actually lose the throne. He knew where it was. Its just that when he looked back at it, somebody else was sitting on it.
So continued a long tradition of Stuarts living in exile in Europe, and bad jokes from Bobcat Goldthwaite....
Mary II and Anne.....the real Regan and Goneril of the British Royal family.
Excellent literary allusion :-)
Another Stuart changeling allegation was one alleging that Mary Stuart’s newborn (later James VI) died and was swapped with the child of a Scottish noble (Erskine, Earl of Mar).
It’s easy to say this 330 years after the fact but why couldn’t everyone just have said ‘ sorry we want a protestant king and if you can’t provide that you have to abdicate’ instead of the whole warming pan crap
They were basically trying to maintain a semblance of respect for the concept of hereditary monarchy and the 'natural' order of things, but failing rather spectacularly :-)
Thanks!
THANK YOU so much for your generous donation to the channel Bonnie and I hope you enjoyed hearing about this rather bizarre historical conspiracy :-)
The fact that the conspiracy goes so far and is so fantastical tells me that the people really must have hated the king and his family, was it simply faith that made them unpopular or was he also known as bad ruler or imposed high taxes or something? I’d love to learn more about what the family did in exile in France, and get more detailed accounts on the lives of the children if you ever feel like making a video about it!
The Protestants were radical progressives. That's all you need to know. They created lies and conspiracies to secure their power. William, Mary and Anne were all manipulative liars.
There was a lot of fear of the country going back to Catholicism (the previous Catholic ruler was Mary I in the preceding century and she'd developed a habit of burning people). James wasn't a particularly bad ruler and there were plenty of celebrations at the time of his accession, but he was building up the army, among other things, sparking fears of a Catholic army. Regarding the kids, Prince James became James III/The Old Pretender and his sister Princess Louise sadly died at the age of (I think), 20.
I believe it was because the new oligarchy had become rich during the protestant reformation when they acquired the catholic monasteries and their lands. They feared that under British law a Catholic monarch would allow the church to sue for the return of those lands or compensation to be paid. The narratives that are constructed by the oligarchy to protect their wealth and power are always fake.
All of the early Stuarts were a bit unpopular. They succeeded the popular Queen Elizabeth and she did not advise them on how to run her country. They came in as Scottish foreigners, from a very different court culture. On top of that religious fanaticism and terrorism was endemic across Europe and particularly in England. . The pope had ordered Catholics to murder Queen E and her replacement by Scottish protestants didn't end the desire in some to change the religion of England through murder and force. , The most famous plot of this time was the gunpowder plot, but it was not the only one, and protestants could be just as dangerous to the state and people . Many in England felt under siege and as if enemies were everywhere, paranoia inflamed by publishing, a new technology. On the continent wars such as the 30 years war were tearing apart Germany and Louis XIV was persecuting the Huganos and the Spanish inquisition was torturing and terrorizing people.
Religion was the only reason many people needed to reject a ruler, because tensions and fears were so high.
The other issue was the settlement of powers in England, the Stuarts didn't have the same system and found it frustrating, they also struggled to rule the religiously fragmented England, Scotland and Ireland. Charles I never really got the hang of it and provoked enemies while alienating friends, resulting in his death. The restored monarchy was hardly popular and forgiven, they had a series of scandals and were in a worse political quagmire than ever before. They regained some popularity by acting well during the fire of London, but were loosing wars and struggled with the boiling tensions , immense debts and total devastation of the time (civil war + plague+ Great fire of London).
James probably wasn't the worst King , his efforts to protect and advocate for the Catholics was probably well intentioned. But his brother had known it was an issue, repeatedly fighting off their mothers efforts to convert the family to Catholicism and insisting his nieces by protestant. He felt he would never be restored of reman on the throne as a Catholic and it seems that James didn't take the threat as seriously.
It was only in the late Stuart and Georgian era that the British began winning wars, territories and becoming a powerful nation, which helped keep them in power. Yet even they were constantly in conflict with parliament and an often unsympathetic public. The removal of absolute power from the monarchy was popular in Georgian England (who also had laws forbidding marriage to Catholics because the idea was so unpopular).
Hatred of the Faith, yes.
I was sitting there going "isn't this the baby that lead to the jacobite rebellion" then you said it was and they said you don't learn stuff from UA-cam
A flameproof targaryen? so you're telling us there's a chance :D
Haha, well you never know 😉
@@HistoryCalling joke aside, I had never heard this story before so thank you 😊
Chuck Smith, an American Pastor, would've said, "Figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure."
Haha, I've never heard that one before.
History ❤❤
Mary living in Orange? You mean living in the Dutch Republic?
poor James 2 - very embarrassing when a king is not even worth killing - he was no Richard III for sure
William and Mary might have killed him had it not been for some latent familial love. I think Mary was quite worried her Dad would end up dead. We'll never know for sure of course.
@@HistoryCalling - indeed the daughters did what they could for him and this was not wars of the roses levels of animosity - still embarrassing for James though
That’s filled in a few gaps in my knowledge of this complicated mess.
Desperation to believe in the face of massive evidence to the contrary is not a new phenomenon
Henry VIII had problems in securing A son-meanwhile, James II have A healthy son.
I know. It was a bizarre scenario to have the birth of a Prince of Wales actually make the King LESS secure on his throne and for his daughter to be the favourite to take the crown. It was a complete reversal of the mid-Tudor situation.
I'm quite late to this party, and you probably know this, but in case you don't -
We in Maryland USA have several ties to these Stuarts. The capital, Annapolis, is named for Queen Anne, as is Queen Anne's County and a small town there - Queenstown. We have a Prince George's County (where I live) named after Prince George of Denmark. Maryland itself is named after their grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria. I don't know of any William and Mary locales in Maryland but Virginia has a King William County and the College of William and Mary.
Many royal-named places and names were renamed after the American Revolution (like King's College becoming Columbia College, in New York), but many remain.
This story is kinda hilarious. Would definitely be good material for a prequel to The Favourite lol
Yes, it was bonkers. :-)
How strange. Henry 8 proclaimed the pope wasn't running the show and by golly Cromwell certainly reinforced that. This 1688 lot were quite emphatic. And yet, and yet, as a practicing Anglican, my church is so,so near the roman practices of worship I fail to see little difference. And I am happy with that? Honest I am. Each to their own.
Yup, it's all swings and roundabouts :-)
Good evening to history calling
Hi Bea :-)
Iareagee with you history calling from Bea
One correction needed: it looks like you added 65 years to James II's life, when you say (and the captions read) that he died in 1766. Given his birth in 1633, this would blow the late Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, and the Queen Mother's longevity out of the water! 🙂
No, no. I'm talking about Prince James, born in 1688. I'm not sure if I made that clear enough in the video (I don't have time to scan through it to find the exact point that I said this), but I meant James Junior aka James III :-)
LOL "we are talking a pan here, not a BUCKET".....I totally snorted water out of my nose at that !!! of course, the baby was James, and the Queens. I mean really. but they didn't want a Catholic (GASP) dynasty.
Thank you :-)
I've often wondered why it was felt by the Protestant powers-that-be that a false narrative of the illegitimacy of the baby prince was even necessary. The English public was so overwhelmingly anti-Catholic by this point, the entire notion of the establishment of a Catholic Jacobite dynasty on the throne was a non-starter from the word "Go". I suppose they felt such a story lent the entire enterprise of usurpation a patina of legality, but it was hardly vital or decisive. James would have been hounded from the throne regardless of the assumed parentage of the baby prince, with William and Mary taking over and settling the Catholic question once and for all with subsequent legislation by parliament.
I think everyone was very jittery about the prospect of another Civil War (the previous one was still very much in living memory remember) and another toppling of the monarchy. Creating a pretext for William and Mary to take the throne without calling it usurpation helped to preserve the idea that the hereditary monarchy had been preserved thereby reducing (though certainly not eliminating) the chances of another War.
Your evidence is right on. A baby in a warming pan? 😂 You can fool some of the best, but not the rest. The idea of a baby in a warming pan is like saying I got caught in a mouse trap. Not in a million years.
Exactly. It was the daftest idea. I do wonder who exactly came up with it originally.
Excellent video!! I’ve heard a lot about the Jacobites but never how it all started. And no, I don’t think the warming pan theory even makes sense. James Iii was legitimate.
Thanks Linda. Yes, it was a totally bonkers theory. They'd have been better off just claiming that Mary Beatrice had an affair.
It was a "straw" that broke the camel's back, not a hair. The metaphor has to do with the camel being already so loaded down with bales of straw that the addition of a single piece of straw was enough to cause the camel to collapse under the weight of its load.
I must admit I have often wondered about that period of history. I’m sure the child should have been king. But those are the breaks. Thanks
Yes, if we were sticking to primogeniture he definitely should have. However just as with Henry VII, I think we can argue that William and Mary took the throne by conquest thereby resetting the line of succession. I wouldn't have wanted to say that in front of the Jacobites though :-)
My goodness, the image at 13:30 is so low cut! I wonder if some time you might make a video on the topic of expectations for women to be and dress modest yet often, even when going to far to fully cover their hair, it was normal to have very open or low cut dresses.
The first time I was aware of this was on the 1970's series the First Churchill’s. I admit I wanted to believe it was a changeling. Now as an Episcopalian I didn’t want a Catholic on the throne in hindsight either. I do believe that the infant born was King James true heir. Mary and Anne had not been lucky in the childbirth arena. The birth of the heir to their stepmother definitely didn’t help their position. They wanted to believe the rumors and added some of their own.
40 year old man and a 15 year old girl that's messed up.
Hello CH ! How are today ? Guess what ? Today is my Yorkie 's 🎂 I told him we would watch the lion king. (he loves that movie, he even cried mufasa died.) And we'll A Calling History video !
Happy birthday Yorkie :-) I hope he got an extra biscuit or something as a treat for today :-)
@@HistoryCalling He wanna me to ask you A question: between Edward V, Edward of Middleham and Henry 6TH's Edward- which one would have been A more effective king.
Happy birthday to the noble York!❤👏
Whoops!!! "Yorkie"!!!!!! Sorry!
Oh, it's so hard to answer that. They all died as children and we know very little about Edward of Middleham. Edward VI was already shaping up to be a little tyrant though, so let's say no to him. I'll go with Edward V. He was a little bit older when he came to the throne, so might have been slightly better than Edward VI and not required such a long minority.
I wonder what's the greater deception: smuggling with pans, or snuggling with Bowles?
I know it was a joke but ASOIAF is a huge hyper fixation of mine so I just thought I'd share that Targaryens aren't actually fireproof. They're certainly more heat resistant than normal but they can be harmed and killed by fire. It was only through blood magic even Daenerys survived that funeral pyre. That's why she wrongly assumes "fire can't kill a dragon" Over the Targaryen dynasty there were many who died from fire. Many who died by fire trying and failing to bring back the dragons. Even the actual Dragons aren't "fire proof". Most of the dragons died by fire when the Doom of Valeria happened. anyways.... just thought I'd share that. Keep up the amazing work. I love your videos
Haha, no problem. I'm thinking of TV Daenerys, rather than book Daenerys as Emilia Clarke's version did indeed seem to be totally fire proof (excluding dragon fire, as I don't think we ever really saw that tested on her). You're quite right though that in the books, they aren't fire proof. This has been hyped up for the show (well, shows now).
Mary was NOT living in Orange (city in France) but in the Netherlands! Details details!
Prince Jimmy Stewart 😁
How have I never thought of that before?! I wonder if the actor ever got teased about it.
@@HistoryCalling Ha ha, probably not, although education in those times was better 😂
@HistoryCalling…
Which Document 📄 would you say is most famous?
A= William I Biotapestry
B= William I Domesday Book
C= John Magna Carta
D= Charles I Death Warrant
E= William of Orange Bill of Rights
'Mary lived with her husband in Orange,' you say. You meant the Dutch Republic (Republic of the Seven United Netherlands).
Orange was a French principality. The title Prince of Orange was inherited by René of Chalon, son of Count Henry II of Nassau and Claudia of Chalon, from René’s maternal uncle Philibert of Chalon. From then on, he was known as René of Chalon.
In 1544 René of Chalon died childless and left his title to his paternal cousin, eleven-year-old William of Nassau-Dillenburg, on the condition that William would be raised as a Catholic.
Emperor Charles V agreed and stipulated that William had to be further educated in Brussels.
So, William of Nassau-Dillenburg, later known as William the Silent became Prince of Orange and landed at the Brussels court. Had he not inherited this title, would there have been a Dutch Revolt?
Well I guess this disabuses me of the notion that crazy conspiracy theories motivated by political interests are a modern phenomenon I guess the truth is people have been being people for a very long time
Sadly so. :-( Bet you the ancients had conspiracy theories too.