The Earl of Spencer's narration James 11reign was particularly informative and presented so well for us Angliophiles here in the US. He should do more, Princess Diana would be very proud of her brother.
I am a history nut. I like learning about British history. The educational system here in the United States just barely touches on our history now. I worry about my niece's education when it comes to history. I was lucky that I got a good education. This is a good documentary.
I live in Cape Town, South Africa. History is a passion of mine. Thank you for this informative documentary about King James II, one of the lesser publicized monarchs of England. The paintings portrayed have the effect of taking you back to the appropriate period. Thank you Earl Spencer for part hosting this series. It's always reassuring seeing you. Real Royalty.... please keep it coming. I had to put this out there.
Nice to see Earl Spencer commentating. The Spencer family has tremendous history in England. The landed gentry who still survive have very important historical information to pass along.
I always think back to Georgiana Spencer Cavendish, daughter of the first Earl Spencer, when I think about their history. The first Earl Spencer was also a great-grandson of John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough.
Today in England and when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 1960. Everyone got along. I married a young American Methodist. I was brought up in the Anglican Church. I lived with his parents while he served in Vietnam. They made me go to their church as a teenager in England I did not go to church anymore. They reminded me of those puritans who came over on the Mayflower.
I was a liberal Christian, a Presbyterian in congregations that thought Christianity was more about doing good than "being saved". When I came to the USA, already skeptical of the Billy Graham "Crusades"and more than half way atheist, available Christian churches convinced me it was rubbish.
I'm American of English descent, so I have always been fascinated & interested in England's ever evolving history. I found this series on the Stuart Dynasty to be fasinating...especially as it explains how Parliament wrenched the power from King Charles I & still holds it today....and all because of a choice of religions~both branches of Christianity & essentially the same belief system, only structured differently ~ Simply Amazing!
Very nicely done documentary. Very polished and I daresay extremely engaging. Hats off to, Dr. Kate Williams. I enjoyed Dr. Wms' 'take' on this part of English history. Thanks for educating us all.
The deciding factor on his ouster was the birth of his son, James, by his second wife Mary of Modena, who was Catholic, unlike his first wife Anne Hyde, the mother of Mary and Anne, who was Protestant. Since the younger James became heir, sons are ahead of daughters regardless of age, Parliament invited his son-in-law, who was also his nephew, William Prince of Orange to take the throne with his older daughter, Mary. They became William and Mary, William even stayed on the throne after Mary's death, but since they had no heirs, it passed to Anne. Since Anne had no heirs Parliament created the Succession Act of 1701, which names Sophia (granddaughter of King James I) as Anne's heir, with her heirs as successors.
The Act was done in response to Anne's son, William's death at age 11 the year before, he was the only child of hers, despite 17 pregnancies to live past 1. It was passed during the reign of William III, who was widowed at the time without heirs, so the crown would pass to Anne, and then what? They did not want Anne's Catholic half-brother, marching into London with a French army so the Act was created and ultimately Sophia's oldest son, George succeeded Anne, as Sophia died about 3 month's prior to Anne. Since Sophia married the Electorate of Hanover, it meant that the King of England would also be the King of Hanover, until either a King had no heirs, brothers or nephews, or a woman, against Slavic law, became England's Queen. The latter happened in 1837 with Victoria taking the crown.
I think you are more interested in history when you have more history yourselves/become older. But the history-frame of your own & other country/ies in the past is very important! I am thankful for the reign of William & Mary. He saved us from further Roman-Catholic absolutism (like there was in Spain as well as in France) His live was so difficult and he was not prepared for his role, but became a true statesman and fought almost against all odds ... He trusted in God and so did his wife. Thank you for making and sharing this video. ❤ Love from Holland.
The deciding factor was Dutch parliament deciding to build a fleet and an invasion force to prevent England of teaming up with France to try to destroy the Dutch Republic and the future of protestantism with it ever again. The fact that the stadtholder they had appointed might get away with a false claim to the throne came in handy. It was William who contacted the immortal 7 and asked them to invite while preparations for the invasion were already in progress as part of a much wider propaganda campaign. It couldn't be seen as the foreign conquest it actually was.
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to learn about King William and Queen Mary of the House of Orange.Thank you Earl Charles Spencer. It would be a dream come true to see the Royal Portraits. Are they kept at Althorp ?
When we got a house of our own I went to he Episcopal Church later I converted to the Catholic Church. The Catholic people of Northeastern Pa. showed me so much kindness.
I think she forgot that Elizabeth I died in 1603. Even the Gunpowder Plot was done during the time of James I of England not during the time of James II.
This is supposedly about James II, but equal screen time is given to reenactments of a random Welsh noble family and their quest to replace an elderly servant. If they wanted to focus on that family's story, they should have made a separate documentary.
I'm so confused. The accents are very thick. People in this family like live and die, and now this cranky old man is for some reason saddled with the young mom and her kids. Apparently her husband can just move his family in with whoever he pleases, and being too polite to say no,, but not gracious enough to be kind,, he just hounds the shot out of her and her children. The tension must be getting to her because I think she yells at her grandma, "you animal!" around 15:35. I guess she put her out this man's house cuz I didn't really see grandma after that. Meanwhile these kings go back and forth saying 'its cool, protestants (or catholics for the first two) are FINE," then kicking them out of every position of prominence. I guess they didn't like that, so they killed the first two. Then James II does the same thing the other way around and he don't fair no better- apparently no one enjoys disenfranchisement, who knew?. So this this fellow and his wife come from England to...England?...to get rid of James II. He doesn't want to be king, but he wants access to this superior military that he defeats without firing a shot. James II goes to France, comes back, then goes back. Meanwhile the lady with the kids sides with her husband. The king (her dad?) had put her whole family out of civil service. And this is how she defeated the king? Seems she would have stuck with him had he stuck with her, but he fired her husband and family. They had fought for him and would fight for him, but he didn't want their protestant asses around. So what can you do? So the lady with the feminine husband who is both on the parliament and also off being, like a general or something in the army, fighting God knows who (not William and the current occupation), was finally able to leave that gardener to die in peace. The lesson learned: don't cheat on your wife, of course! Man! I thought Americans were crazy!
They're trying to put into context what James being catholic meant for other members of society and giving it a bit of a movie spin. It's just one take, I'm sure you can find sth more streamlined
Yes, excellent point. Each series connects with the former which is a very useful tool for all of who study English history. The older I get, the prouder I am of my English heritage and the monarchy. God Bless our beloved Queen Elizabeth who just passed. One of the best monarchs in my opinion to ever reign.
Interesting history of my family. History is a favorite subject. I sure did not know that James II's first wife, Anne Hyde, converted to Catholicism. I do not that he was the last Catholic King on the English Throne because of the Act of Settlement of 1701 when Parliament passed that act by going back to the closest Protestant relative of James 1 of England VI of Scotland; that turned out to be his daughter Elizabeth Stuart. The House of Hanover came in after Queen Anne died in 1714.
James II made his first wife, Anne Hyde, convert to Catholicism. However, his older brother, King Charles II, made James II, sign that his children had to be raised Protestant in order to be in line for the throne as Charles II did not have heirs, thus James II would take the crown. So while Charles II was King, James children were in the Protestant religion. By the time Charles II passed, the only children alive from James II and Anne Hyde's marriage were two, now married daughters, Mary and Anne, both married to Protestant Princes. So they were not converting to Catholicism. But once King, James II had a son, with an Catholic thus that son would be the heir. The Settlement Act was passed because of the death the prior year of Anne's only child, to live past 1, William. Since King William III (Mary's husband), was widowed, without heirs and Anne, his sister-in-law and heir, had no heirs, she had difficulties with pregnancies and children not living long, Parliament had to plan for what happens when both William III and Anne pass without heirs, since her half-brother would come marching into London, with a French Army. About 40 years later, James II, grandson, from James Stuart, Charles did come via Scotland, to try to gain the crown. He would go down in history as Bonnie Prince Charles.
And William III was the nephew/son in law of James II plus 1st cousin once removed of Louis XIV of France (William's Mom was the sister of James II and Charles II & 1st cousin of Louis XIV via her Mom Queen Henrietta Maria- William III & Mary II mutual grandmother)...
Well done! You have explained why the book "1066 and All That" refers to King WilliamAndMary. Neither was to be regarded as the mere consort of the other. Besides all that, my impression is that he was a better ruler than either his predecessor or the Hanovers that followed after Queen Anne.
The Battle of the Boyne and its celebration in "Ulster" every July 12 is misunderstood on both sides. It was a mistake by the Irish to imagine that s Stuart monarch in England would care any more about them than his grandfather, James VI King of the Scots, cared about Scotland when he became an English king.The real importance is not what the Orange Order thinks, the defeat of Papism, it was the defeat (for a second time) of the idea of the Divine Right of Kings. The American Declaration of Independence carries the same idea slightly further.
Maybe was absolute monarchism "stimulated" by the Pope/papism? In case they were Roman-Catholic monarchs ofcourse .... The Huguenots and all the Protestant martyrs knew the consequences and payed with their lifes.
The American DOI is materially a copy of the Dutch DOI of 1581, the one that would lead to the Dutch Republic with it's William III of Orange appointed as it's, more or less, 5th stadtholder. The divine right of kings was at least made conditional in that, as that a ruler had to serve and product the people and by trampling on inalienable rights the king had become a tyrant and therefore left the legimate throne of the Netherlands himself. In legal terms it was declaratory of the situation, as in we the rebels have observed you have left the throne sire, rather than pretending to constitute a new situation themselves.
Why cant Catholicism and Protestantism get along. No idea why they love to kill catholic kings and queens when they all believe in 1 god. the same god.
I agree! It's even unChristian to hate, and kill, especially another Christian. Or, to even kill another. When a Christian has the H.S. in their lives they don't hate and they do not chose to break one of the Ten Commandments. So sad! But we stray/wonder & are made from Dust.
@@khankrum1 but its always the protestants that want the heads of their catholic kings and queens.....the catholic monarch actually wanted to coexist with both faiths
Interesting, though one error. James II was not the last Stuart King of England. While he was not born a Stuart, his son-in-law, William, who was also his nephew as his mother was James's sister, Mary, was born an Orange as his father was their Prince. When James II was deposed Parliament invited his older daughter, Mary, and her husband, William, The Prince of Orange, to rule as co-monarchs, William (III) and Mary (II). Since Mary was the actual heir, child of the King which comes ahead of a King's nephew, the couple would rule as Stuarts. When Mary died, William continued ruling as a Stuart as King William III. I don't know what would have happened had her remarried and had a child, would he/she rule as a Stuart or Orange, but in any case they never had children and he never remarried so the reign passed to Mary's sister, Anne, who was the last Stuart ruler.
@@annnee6818 Yes, but they ruled as Stuarts. Plus Mary died about 8 years before William did and for those 8 years William ruled as a Stuart King, William III. Had they had a son he would have ruled both Orange and Britain. When his nephew William, Duke of Gloucester, died at the age of 11 in 1700, who was the only living child of William III's successor, Anne (sister-in-law) he then traveled to Orange to meet his cousin, Sophia, granddaughter of King James I, and dowager Consort of the German State of Hanover and mother to its King, Georg Ludwig. He then pushed through Parliament the 1701 Settlement Act to name Sophia Anne's successor should Anne fail to produce heirs, after Sophia would come her son and grandson, both named George in English. So William III was the last Stuart King (he ruled on that House even though he was born Orange) and Anne was the last Stuart Queen (Monarch).
King William III was throned by the needs of the English at that time as religion, division and inheritance were not in favour and yes his strife with France. He made England great, their economy and trade surged, the wealth of the nation was unprecedented yet he was in his later years ousted by xenophobes and a parliament that forced on him acts that were absurd which made Daniel DeFoe stand up for him. He alarmed Europe of the absolutism of France and the parliament in his last years would not oblige him but voted against many Royal aspects, a dying man, he agreed but left behind not only a legacy but an England that was an international power house. Despite the government not willing to spend more on military thus reducing the forces, after his death they did and submitted through force France into negotiation. This perhaps is the greatest speech ever given .. My Lords and Gentlemen; I promise myself you are met together full of that just sense of the common danger of Europe, and the resentment of the late proceedings of the French king, which has been so fully and universally expressed in the loyal and seasonable Addresses of my people. The owning and setting up the pretended Prince of Wales for king of England, is not only the highest indignity offered to me and the nation, but does so nearly concern every man, who has a regard for the Protestant Religion, or the present and future quiet and happiness of his country, that I need not press you to lay it seriously to heart, and to consider what further effectual means may be used, for securing the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, and extinguishing the hopes of all Pretenders, and their open and secret abettors. By the French king's placing his Grandson on the throne of Spain, he is in a condition to oppress the rest of Europe, unless speedy and effectual measures be taken. Under this pretence, he is become the real Master of the whole Spanish Monarchy; he has made it to be intirely depending on France, and disposes of it, as of his own dominions, and by that means he has surrounded his neighbours in such a manner, that, though the name of peace may be said to continue, yet they are put to the expence and inconveniencies of war. This must affect England in the nearest and most sensible manner, in respect to our trade, which will soon become precarious in all the variable branches of it; in respect to our peace and safety at home, which we cannot hope should long continue; and in respect to that part, which England ought to take in the preservation of the liberty of Europe. In order to obviate the general calamity, with which the rest of Christendom is threatened by this exorbitant power of France, I have concluded several Alliances, according to the encouragement given me by both houses of Parliament, which I will direct shall be laid before you, and which, I doubt not, you will enable me to make good. There are some other Treaties still depending, that shall be likewise communicated to you as soon as they are perfected. It is fit I should tell you, the eyes of all Europe are upon this Parliament; all matters are at a stand, till your resolutions are known; and therefore no time ought to be lost. You have yet an opportunity, by God's blessing, to secure to you and your posterity the quiet enjoyment of your Religion and Liberties, if you are not wanting to yourselves, but will exert the ancient vigour of the English nation; but I tell you plainly, my opinion is, if you do not lay hold on this occasion, you have no reason to hope for another. In order to do your part, it will be necessary to have a great strength at sea, and to provide for the security of our ships in harbour; and also that there be such a force at land, as is expected in proportion to the forces of our Allies. Gentlemen of the House of Commons; I do recommend these matters to you with that concern and earnestness, which their importance requires. At the same time I cannot but press you to take care of the public credit, which cannot be preserved but by keeping sacred that maxim, that they shall never be losers, who trust to a Parliamentary security. It is always with regret, when I do ask aids of my people; but you will observe, that I desire nothing, which relates to any personal expence of mine; I am only pressing you to do all you can for your own safety and honour, at so critical and dangerous a time; and am willing, that what is given, should be wholly appropriated to the purposes for which it is intended.... I should think it as great a blessing as could befall England, if I could observe you as much inclined to lay aside those unhappy fatal animosities, which divide and weaken you, as I am disposed to make all my subjects safe and easy as to any, even the highest offences, committed against me. Let me conjure you to disappoint the only hopes of our enemies by your unanimity. I have shewn, and will always shew, how desirous I am to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, lay aside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heard of amongst us for the future, but of those, who are for the Protestant Religion, and the present establishment, and of those, who mean a Popish Prince, and a French government. I will only add this; if you do in good earnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to be indeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by your right improving the present opportunity.
Because James II wanted to re-establish Catholicism as the English state religion over the established Church of England. as he was a practicing catholic, and his queen was as well.
Heard of the 30 Years War, 1618-1648. It devastated Europe. Also, England suffered the Catholic-Protestant issues during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. So they did not want to go through it again. King James II to daughters, Mary and Anne were Protestant and had Protestant husbands. His son James, was from a Catholic wife and could have married a Catholic and produced Catholic heirs. That is why when William III died Parliament created the Succession Act of 1701 which prohibited a Catholic monarch or one who married a Catholic. Through this Act they named Sophia (granddaughter of King James I) who was married to the Electorate of Hanover as Anne's successor. Since Sophia died 3 month's before Anne her son, King Georg Ludwig of Hanover became King George I of England, thus bringing in the Hanover dynasty.
@@albertrogers2506 First we are talking about a society 300+ years ago. At the time the most destructive war in European history was the 30 Years War, ended 40 years prior to the ouster of King James II, and that war was about religion, it totally devastated what is modern Germany today, at the time it was the Holy Roman Empire, and left it in shambles. The religious basis was the reason for the Settlement Act of 1701 which created the rules of succession for the Monarchy. It was done when Prince William the 11 year old son of Princess Anne died, at the time he was her only child to live past the age of 2. Princess Anne was the heir to her brother-in-law King William III, he was married to her sister, Mary, and since William and Mary had no heirs and Anne at the time had no heirs, a law had to be created so their Catholic half-brother, James Stuart, would not claim the throne just in case Anne died without heirs, which she did in 1714, passing succession to her second cousin King George I who was also the King of Hanover.
Look at them now, religions don't fair well in a competitive environment, they need a monopoly. The protestants in charge of the Dutch Republic practiced religious tolerance and the freedom of conscience the foundation under it, but it also led to 423 different denominanations of protestantism in the Netherlands alone. When you think in terms of power, the catholics had a point about not allowing any other religions.
How much was James influenced by his cousin Louis XIV? After all Louis had kept subsidising Charles II on the promise he would convert to Catholicism. Imagine how much more Louis would offer for a promise to convert the UK to Rome.
I have gone hooked on the full historical line of the English Monarchy. I have got it so far that after the Tudors, ending with Elisabeth I, came the Stuarts. But as I can see on sites like Wikipedia, it's not absolutely clear, which line and dynasty, if you like, follows next. All I have found out so far is that Mary II is the next on the throne, but I haven't yet found much, if even any video material on THIS of the Queen Mary's, in the English history
That the Glorious Revolution was the end-product of the troubles that began in 1640 is an interesting take. Another one that is closer in time to 1688 was that it signaled the end of the Dutch-Anglo Wars with the dispossession of the English throne held by the Scottish House of Stuart by the Dutch House of Orange. The great strides in gaining a more democratic form of government can be directly traced to that of the States-General of the United Provinces which was imported from the Netherlands with William and Mary.
Brian, some good stuff there. Thanks. Definitely this time sees the start of the Anglo-Dutch alliance period of our history, seminal to the development of democracy. Well said. But in my opinion 1688 was also a sort of end in itself. For the second time in a generation Parliament invited an overseas aristocrat to become King and this time it did it under the terms of a really tight contract i.e. the key constitutional progress had already been made before the Dutch came. Thus in this sense it did effectively end the war between Crown and Parliament. While anti Catholic sentiment would last a long time, and Pretenders’ dynastic & religious wars would flicker on for a few more years, they became increasingly less relevant as the industrial age began to change everything.
@iansmith3457 But the Dutch had effectively thrown out their king over a century before, based on the assertion that a king should serve his people (in providing safety and security) and not the other way around (het plakkaat van verlatinghe 1581). And declared a republic with the States-General (a parliament of sorts) as the supreme power. (And then went on to fight the Spanish crown about that for several de decades).
Queen Mary did a much finer job at ruling than people realize or gave her credit for. People seem to forget that King William spent 7 months away from England every year . So she was running the show,folks. And she was a far better monarch than many of England's Kings.
His relations with the Pope were actually not great. Pope Innocent XI saw him as an ally of Louis XIV, whose navy in 1688 was in the Mediterranean preparing for a possible invasion of the Papal States. That pope actually supported William and was a member of a banking family that may have helped finance William's invasion. In 1693 the new pope reversed this policy and supported James.
My name is Brent Kennedy! I like to think myself as a historian! Not just American history! But World history! Im a cowboy! I love this program! But Ive got to say what sold it to me. Is the buitiful love'ly red headed lady with such a buitiful and éloquent. British voice! That intrigue'd me!!! Her intelligente's of history which is outstanding is only surpassed by her buitiful smile and her wonderful sense of humour!!!! Can someone tell me what her name is?????
I sure Charles Spencer was her husband. I had to look at those two on ever tabloid splash of my childhood. Couldn't buy a loaf of bread without looking at Princess Di and the hounddog from when I was like 10 till her death when I was 20. Those two, and some side piece who put me in the mind of Cruella Deville. I'm brushing up on my monarchy education. All this fuckery with the catholics and protestants and this cranky old man has me thoroughly confused, but this one I know- Charles Spencer and Princess Di were married. Now were they brother and sister- that I do not know. They do have a way of keepin it in the family, these royals.
@Charles godwin Oh now, don't get those British knickas all in a twist! I didn't tell them to keep recycling the same 4 or 5 names for like 500 years, and I certainly didn't tell them that in-cest is win-cest, so no need to get snippy with me. To answer your question, no I do not happen to be a moron. I'm actually very intelligent. You see, my parents were not related. 🤣🤣🤣 No, seriously, I'm an American. I cannot keep up with a bunch of aging royals with the same names. I JUST did the math and concluded Queen Elizabeth apparently passed at some point. Now that Prince Harry- there's a man I can watch- not too many Harries in these documentaries.
Was that an example of when courage of conviction was useless ? If daughters Mary and Ann were against their own father James II, which meant that there would be terrible consequences, would prolicide have been justified ?
I know this is supposed to be about the Stuart Kings but I wished they also focused on the reigns of Mary ll and Queen Anne. Also why did they have to focus on the Wynn family in order to talk about the Stuarts? They already had an interesting enough story. Just talk about them and not the Wynns. I guess it’s for context but still.
Mary shared the throne with her husband William, so she wasn't a Queen Consort (like most queens married to Kings of England) and William wasn't a Prince Consort like Victoria's Prince Albert or Elizabeth II's Prince Philip. Mary had the closest claim to the throne as James's eldest legitimate child, while William was a nephew of his. I have a sneaking suspicion that historians erase Mary from the Glorious Revolution in favor of William. In truth, Mary was a good17th c. wife who fully believed a husband was in charge of the household and William wasn't going to be ruled by a wife. So when she stated that she wanted a husband would love his wife like Christ loved the Church, she meant she wanted Williams affection and fidelity in exchange for obeying and him. And that gave his invasion of England a legitimacy that he would not have had otherwise. Basically she sacrificed being the only reigning sovereign of England if William was willing to support her and govern her. I know this may make people sick, but that was the 17th century for you. And William would realize over time that Mary was indispensable to him when he went on campaign against Louis XIV and she ruled England in his absence. That's why when she was dying of smallpox in 1694, he was devastated. You never realize what you had until it's almost gone.
With all the history I learned through learning about Henry the 8th, his daughter Mary, his daughter Elizabeth and then James the 1st and James II whose own daughter fights a war against him for the throne!! I have yet to read anything about his daughter who must have been a Catholic because her mother and dad were Catholic.... so she must have been baptized a Catholic. I felt this mess whem i visited Derry in Ireland it's called Derry by the Catholics... and Londonderry by the Protestants... I think the final battle was fought there if I remember correctly between James the second's daughter Ann's husband William of Orange who was Protestant. I visited Ireland and my relatives live in the city of Derry so I'm Catholic and so are they... And you could see as your travel along signs that had the word London spray-painted out or the word Derry spray painted out. And Protestant against Catholic is still going on in Northern Ireland. it's such a shame it's such a shame that there can't be peace. People talk about race relations in America but they're still religion differences going on in Northern Ireland.
There is hope. Belfast elected a woman Lord Mayor, and she is an atheist too, although her term of office was two years. The Republic in the south also elected an enlightened Taoiseach by the name fo Garrett Fitzgerald, and no longer by law opposes the sale of contraceptives.
@@albertrogers2506 people who are against abortion are almost all willing for contraceptives to be used to prevent a pregnancy. I've never understood why the Catholic Church is against contraceptives. I remember discussing at my all-girls school about people being selfish and wanting a color TV this was in 1966 instead of having another baby... And when you think about it a lot of people that's what it's about having things instead of children. I remember hope John coming and speaking in Washington DC and about 1980 I remember watching his speech on TV and he said it's wrong to deny your children the love of a brother or sister and that's sort of stuck with me. But when I visited my relatives in Ireland and we were riding in a taxi my cousins were afraid the taxi driver would drop us off in the middle of nowhere if he was a Protestant and he knew we were Catholics.
Another person who's fallen victim of the Second Greatest Lie Ever Told. No, Protestant versus Catholic is *not* still going on in Northern Ireland. Since the last Home Rule bill in 1912, what conflict there has been has been mainly territorial and not religious. I say this as a descendant of Irish of both religio-political traditions.
I think this video should be called "King James II's downfall" or "Another doc about the Glorious Revolution" as Queen Mary per se is hardly mentioned ....
It always amazes me how the British keep on downplaying what was essentially a successful Dutch invasion. Instead referring to it as a 'glorious revolution'
Not true. The Dutch in general got nothing out of it. In fact the common people of England got nothing material out of Henry V's famous victory at Agincourt, and in fact profited better than the French when the Maid of Orleans ended the English influence in France. The capital of the joint kingdom would have been in Paris.
Today we would call the "glorious revolution" the work of spin doctors. He was invited to Britain so more of a friendly takeover than an hostile invasion
It's called rhotacism. It's quite common in the English, especially in the middle and upper classes, but for some reason it's less common in American English accents.
this story has increprencies, they didn't mention the 3rd son of King Charles I, Henry, Duke of Gloucester whom has the support of the people to be king not Charles II. Henry was the only Stuart Prince left who had legitimate descendants through his marriage with Magdalina Howison he is also my 12th great grandfather why erase my family?
The title is about Mary, the documentary is supposed to be about James, but the show is actually about some random aristocrat family who I guess commissioned the doc
What does this man mean by pig headedly Catholic. Does he think that it can be a wise option to look away from the truth when it is apparent under any circumstances.
That's an easy question. Pig headedly religious of any sect is a person with the overweening insistence that everybody else should believe what he believes. BTW there is no evidence whatever for the existence of the Old Testament's murderous "God", and even a warning in Exodus 20 that it is a bad idea to worship a false god.
Totally misguiding title. This video exists in another channel with proper title, this is not about William of Orange and how he takes the throne and his dynasty, it's all about Jamess II serious mistakes, short reign and exile ... I was looking for info on what happens next ...
I have such a dislike for this whole family - though Charles II had some good points, and both he and his brother James (future II) comported themselves heroically in the great fire of '66 ... Each have paintings that are so revealing of each of their characters, you have but to look at them ... including some done of the Bonnie pretender ... James II has a painting in which the curl of his mouth betrays a general contempt aped by many actors playing royalty of the hoity toity variety.
King James II faced his downfall because he tried to make Britian a Catholicized Absolute monarchy but after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 finally Britain became a constitutional monarchy and presently the Parliament have huge authority but the British Monarchy is a very powerful Social and Cultural institution with theoretical executive powers.
England became a constitutional monarchy with the magna carta in 1215. Britain is a geographical term for the island and so has never had a constitution. The individual nations of Britain have individual constitutions which is why they have different laws in England, Scotland and Wales. Im not British but am astounded that so many British people do not know this.
Yes , this is the key point . James II (VII ) was the last absolute Monarch - after ascending the throne he dismissed elected Parliament . When William of Orange and Mary II ascended the throne in April 1689 , during their coronation oath they swore to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . However , at the time , only wealthy land owners had the vote . The 1689 English Bill of Rights was passed later that year and is a significant document of the Enlightenment . It later influenced the American Constitution .
@@Finderskeepers. The Magna Carta is way over blown - it only gave the Barons and "freeman" rights which was about 10% of the population . King John and the Pope dismissed it soon after it received Royal Seal . The actual beginning of Parliament occurred when Simon de Montford told Henry III you need to have financial advisors to Parle ( The Plantagenet Nobility spoke French ) . Charles I dismissed Parliament for 11 years , and James II ( VII ) dismissed Parliament for 4 years . The first Constitutional Monarchs were William of Orange and Mary II * - who in their 1689 Coronation Oath Swore to recognize the sovereignty of Parliament . This is the beginning of democracy in the modern world . However , at the time only land owners had the vote . The 1689 English Bill of Rights would later have a major influence on the US Constitution . * As in William and Mary University in the US where Jefferson studied John Locke , Adam Smith and Newton . .
@@Finderskeepers. " The individual nations of Britain have individual constitutions " No . England , Scotland and Wales are not sovereign countries . Britain is a sovereign country ( technically called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ) . This was formed in 1707 with the Acts of the Union . Scotland may have laws which are unique to Scotland . Britain does not have a carved in stone Constitution like the US has . But rather it has a quilt of laws that are considered so significant they are the Constitution - notably the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the 1707 Acts of the Union . Parliament can still pass a law to change Britain's Constitution - but as a safeguard it requires Royal Ascent . .
The Stuarts went spectacularly wrong because of the Divine right of kings idea. It doesn't lead to joint decision making. Plus the whole I'm Catholic, you're not thing.
I think the scots didnt want to succumb to english rule and were willing to accept a catholic monarchy to preserve their culture. Capt obvious reporting for duty.
I can barely understand her lol. I want to watch it but I’ve never heard an British accent where I couldn’t make out what they are saying. What part of England is she from?
God this is an unwatchable series, the audio is too loud and overproduced using far too much compression making it muddy and disproportionately loud and out of audio chain range, it sucks to have to fight for a balance level that you can't get.
It seems that if what a conspiracy, it was against James, the heir. For many political, economics,reasons, the upper middle class had made things so that a steady, profitable government was being put. Those owners wanted security for their trades. Catholisism was not a garant for them, even if Bloody Mary was far less bloody than her younger sister Élisabeth ( but History is made by the winners). What happened in 1688 was ,for me, a bit the same as what happened in France from 1789 to 91/92: a bourgeoise " révolution ", economic, with the religion as pretext
Look at what Catholic kings did in France, Spain and the Low Countries (before they declared independence and formed the Dutch Republic) and then you'll see resistance to that wasn't childish at all.
It was more that he had a Catholic son. As long as his two daughters were first in line Parliament was okay as both of them had Protestant husbands. However, once he had a Catholic son who became heir apparent, Parliament ousted him.
@@janefelix3821 oh I understand that, my point is the whole catholic & protestant thing is ridiculous to begin with, I definitely wouldn’t like to have lived back then, I mean, if we think this generation are bad for snowflakes, think how bad the snowflakes where in those days , taking offence for no reason other than not liking someone’s beliefs lol.
@@AudioChaserz James II ( VI ) thought he had the absolute right to rule - after ascending the throne he dismissed an elected Parliament . After the Monmouth Rebellion he kept a standing domestic army . As a Catholic he tried to change service in the Anglican Church and when 7 Archbishops said no , James II ( VI ) put them on trial . He was the last Absolute Monarch in England / Britain . William of Orange and Mary II were Constitutional Monarchs who swore to recognized the sovereignty of Parliament . However , at the time , only land owners had the vote . .
When the powers that be make such an interesting vid don't they check on the sound? She's almost unintelligable for half the time, even the subtitles make havoc of what's being said. What a pity. The content seems good, but the vid unwatchable.
I'm curious. Do students in England learn all the counties (is that what they're called?) in England the way we in the US learn (supposedly) all the states?
Why was learning about the British monarchs the worst kind of punishment at school and now it's super interesting?! 😂
I always found it interesting. Then again odd ball out.
Probably because now we're not forced to learn things, everything is more fun when it's on your own terms.
It’s all about how the teacher teaches their students.
Billy Costa Indeed especially in college... my god they barely mentioned Rome or Greece.
Canuck Crusader I can understand that.
It’s nice to see Earl Spencer in documentaries speaking about history. And he’s very pleasant to listen to!!!!
He’s done a couple documentaries and has written many books on British history.
The Earl of Spencer's narration James 11reign was particularly informative and presented so well for us Angliophiles here in the US. He should do more, Princess Diana would be very proud of her brother.
I hated history at school, now here I am binging
good for you . very very cool
I am a history nut. I like learning about British history. The educational system here in the United States just barely touches on our history now. I worry about my niece's education when it comes to history. I was lucky that I got a good education. This is a good documentary.
I live in Cape Town, South Africa. History is a passion of mine. Thank you for this informative documentary about King James II, one of the lesser publicized monarchs of England. The paintings portrayed have the effect of taking you back to the appropriate period. Thank you Earl Spencer for part hosting this series. It's always reassuring seeing you. Real Royalty.... please keep it coming.
I had to put this out there.
I also love these documentaries! I know what you mean, there are many monarchs who always take the spot light over others. Hello from Pretoria! 🇿🇦
The rumor of Bonnie Prince Charlie being an imposter is proof that conspiracies are not new, at all.
For a video that is less than 13 minutes, there are a LOT of ads in these videos. Interesting material, but too many ads make it too annoying.
Adblock plus ... look into it.
iluvpinkandgold :@@}@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@aaaQz
x
This video is 43 minutes.....
Just skip all the way to the end (make sure you dont spoil it) and then go back to where you were.
Every minute and a half of video was interrupted by commercials.
It’s amazing to understand where we came from while thinking critically to create better choices. Thank you for this awesome video. 🇨🇦😃
Nice to see Earl Spencer commentating. The Spencer family has tremendous history in England. The landed gentry who still survive have very important historical information to pass along.
?,?, I don’t know where you get your information but the Spencer family is 12 generations old. That’s NOT new money.
you are wrong!!!
I always think back to Georgiana Spencer Cavendish, daughter of the first Earl Spencer, when I think about their history. The first Earl Spencer was also a great-grandson of John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough.
@@janedoe-yh4okabout what?
Today in England and when I was growing up in the 1950’s and 1960. Everyone got along. I married a young American Methodist. I was brought up in the Anglican Church. I lived with his parents while he served in Vietnam. They made me go to their church as a teenager in England I did not go to church anymore. They reminded me of those puritans who came over on the Mayflower.
I was a liberal Christian, a Presbyterian in congregations that thought Christianity was more about doing good than "being saved". When I came to the USA, already skeptical of the Billy Graham "Crusades"and more than half way atheist, available Christian churches convinced me it was rubbish.
It’s good to read stories of people who leave Christianity behind.
Fascinating topic but music overwhelms the voices and too many commercials. This is you tube. Not network TV. We have lots of options.
I'm American of English descent, so I have always been fascinated & interested in England's ever evolving history. I found this series on the Stuart Dynasty to be fasinating...especially as it explains how Parliament wrenched the power from King Charles I & still holds it today....and all because of a choice of religions~both branches of Christianity & essentially the same belief system, only structured differently ~ Simply Amazing!
Very nicely done documentary. Very polished and I daresay extremely engaging.
Hats off to, Dr. Kate Williams. I enjoyed Dr. Wms' 'take' on this part of English history.
Thanks for educating us all.
Quite interesting. Always good to know more things in the history.
The deciding factor on his ouster was the birth of his son, James, by his second wife Mary of Modena, who was Catholic, unlike his first wife Anne Hyde, the mother of Mary and Anne, who was Protestant. Since the younger James became heir, sons are ahead of daughters regardless of age, Parliament invited his son-in-law, who was also his nephew, William Prince of Orange to take the throne with his older daughter, Mary. They became William and Mary, William even stayed on the throne after Mary's death, but since they had no heirs, it passed to Anne. Since Anne had no heirs Parliament created the Succession Act of 1701, which names Sophia (granddaughter of King James I) as Anne's heir, with her heirs as successors.
The Act was done in response to Anne's son, William's death at age 11 the year before, he was the only child of hers, despite 17 pregnancies to live past 1. It was passed during the reign of William III, who was widowed at the time without heirs, so the crown would pass to Anne, and then what? They did not want Anne's Catholic half-brother, marching into London with a French army so the Act was created and ultimately Sophia's oldest son, George succeeded Anne, as Sophia died about 3 month's prior to Anne. Since Sophia married the Electorate of Hanover, it meant that the King of England would also be the King of Hanover, until either a King had no heirs, brothers or nephews, or a woman, against Slavic law, became England's Queen. The latter happened in 1837 with Victoria taking the crown.
@@janefelix3821 that’s Salic law, not Slavic law.
Its outrageous what a betrahal
I think you are more interested in history when you have more history yourselves/become older. But the history-frame of your own & other country/ies in the past is very important!
I am thankful for the reign of William & Mary. He saved us from further Roman-Catholic absolutism (like there was in Spain as well as in France)
His live was so difficult and he was not prepared for his role, but became a true statesman and fought almost against all odds ...
He trusted in God and so did his wife.
Thank you for making and sharing this video. ❤ Love from Holland.
The deciding factor was Dutch parliament deciding to build a fleet and an invasion force to prevent England of teaming up with France to try to destroy the Dutch Republic and the future of protestantism with it ever again. The fact that the stadtholder they had appointed might get away with a false claim to the throne came in handy.
It was William who contacted the immortal 7 and asked them to invite while preparations for the invasion were already in progress as part of a much wider propaganda campaign. It couldn't be seen as the foreign conquest it actually was.
I am so grateful to have the opportunity to learn about King William and Queen Mary of the House of Orange.Thank you Earl Charles Spencer. It would be a dream come true to see the Royal Portraits. Are they kept at Althorp ?
When we got a house of our own I went to he Episcopal Church later I converted to the Catholic Church. The Catholic people of Northeastern Pa. showed me so much kindness.
She said John Wynn inherited his estate in North Wales in 1580,during the reign of James I. Elizabeth was still Queen in 1580. Am I missing something?
Mike Bargsley He was actually king of Scotland from 1567
I think she forgot that Elizabeth I died in 1603. Even the Gunpowder Plot was done during the time of James I of England not during the time of James II.
This is supposedly about James II, but equal screen time is given to reenactments of a random Welsh noble family and their quest to replace an elderly servant. If they wanted to focus on that family's story, they should have made a separate documentary.
I'm so confused. The accents are very thick. People in this family like live and die, and now this cranky old man is for some reason saddled with the young mom and her kids. Apparently her husband can just move his family in with whoever he pleases, and being too polite to say no,, but not gracious enough to be kind,, he just hounds the shot out of her and her children. The tension must be getting to her because I think she yells at her grandma, "you animal!" around 15:35. I guess she put her out this man's house cuz I didn't really see grandma after that. Meanwhile these kings go back and forth saying 'its cool, protestants (or catholics for the first two) are FINE," then kicking them out of every position of prominence. I guess they didn't like that, so they killed the first two. Then James II does the same thing the other way around and he don't fair no better- apparently no one enjoys disenfranchisement, who knew?. So this this fellow and his wife come from England to...England?...to get rid of James II. He doesn't want to be king, but he wants access to this superior military that he defeats without firing a shot. James II goes to France, comes back, then goes back. Meanwhile the lady with the kids sides with her husband. The king (her dad?) had put her whole family out of civil service. And this is how she defeated the king? Seems she would have stuck with him had he stuck with her, but he fired her husband and family. They had fought for him and would fight for him, but he didn't want their protestant asses around. So what can you do? So the lady with the feminine husband who is both on the parliament and also off being, like a general or something in the army, fighting God knows who (not William and the current occupation), was finally able to leave that gardener to die in peace. The lesson learned: don't cheat on your wife, of course!
Man! I thought Americans were crazy!
Yeah , confusing
I laugh at the close captions translations!!!
They're trying to put into context what James being catholic meant for other members of society and giving it a bit of a movie spin. It's just one take, I'm sure you can find sth more streamlined
Yes, excellent point. Each series connects with the former which is a very useful tool for all of who study English history. The older I get, the prouder I am of my English heritage and the monarchy. God Bless our
beloved Queen Elizabeth who just passed.
One of the best monarchs in my opinion to ever reign.
There are now more ads on youtube than on conventional tv. 😡
Interesting history of my family. History is a favorite subject. I sure did not know that James II's first wife, Anne Hyde, converted to Catholicism. I do not that he was the last Catholic King on the English Throne because of the Act of Settlement of 1701 when Parliament passed that act by going back to the closest Protestant relative of James 1 of England VI of Scotland; that turned out to be his daughter Elizabeth Stuart. The House of Hanover came in after Queen Anne died in 1714.
James II made his first wife, Anne Hyde, convert to Catholicism. However, his older brother, King Charles II, made James II, sign that his children had to be raised Protestant in order to be in line for the throne as Charles II did not have heirs, thus James II would take the crown. So while Charles II was King, James children were in the Protestant religion. By the time Charles II passed, the only children alive from James II and Anne Hyde's marriage were two, now married daughters, Mary and Anne, both married to Protestant Princes. So they were not converting to Catholicism. But once King, James II had a son, with an Catholic thus that son would be the heir.
The Settlement Act was passed because of the death the prior year of Anne's only child, to live past 1, William. Since King William III (Mary's husband), was widowed, without heirs and Anne, his sister-in-law and heir, had no heirs, she had difficulties with pregnancies and children not living long, Parliament had to plan for what happens when both William III and Anne pass without heirs, since her half-brother would come marching into London, with a French Army. About 40 years later, James II, grandson, from James Stuart, Charles did come via Scotland, to try to gain the crown. He would go down in history as Bonnie Prince Charles.
Even today the British monarch cannot be catholic, its prohibited by law.
And William III was the nephew/son in law of James II plus 1st cousin once removed of Louis XIV of France (William's Mom was the sister of James II and Charles II & 1st cousin of Louis XIV via her Mom Queen Henrietta Maria- William III & Mary II mutual grandmother)...
Well done! You have explained why the book "1066 and All That" refers to King WilliamAndMary. Neither was to be regarded as the mere consort of the other.
Besides all that, my impression is that he was a better ruler than either his predecessor or the Hanovers that followed after Queen Anne.
The Battle of the Boyne and its celebration in "Ulster" every July 12 is misunderstood on both sides. It was a mistake by the Irish to imagine that s Stuart monarch in England would care any more about them than his grandfather, James VI King of the Scots, cared about Scotland when he became an English king.The real importance is not what the Orange Order thinks, the defeat of Papism, it was the defeat (for a second time) of the idea of the Divine Right of Kings.
The American Declaration of Independence carries the same idea slightly further.
Hilarious rendition of "guy who read the footnotes in school."
Maybe was absolute monarchism "stimulated" by the Pope/papism? In case they were Roman-Catholic monarchs ofcourse ....
The Huguenots and all the Protestant martyrs knew the consequences and payed with their lifes.
The American DOI is materially a copy of the Dutch DOI of 1581, the one that would lead to the Dutch Republic with it's William III of Orange appointed as it's, more or less, 5th stadtholder.
The divine right of kings was at least made conditional in that, as that a ruler had to serve and product the people and by trampling on inalienable rights the king had become a tyrant and therefore left the legimate throne of the Netherlands himself. In legal terms it was declaratory of the situation, as in we the rebels have observed you have left the throne sire, rather than pretending to constitute a new situation themselves.
I don't care much for the acting pieces, they are awkward and add nothing.
British history is truly fascinating! 🇬🇧
Why cant Catholicism and Protestantism get along. No idea why they love to kill catholic kings and queens when they all believe in 1 god. the same god.
I agree! It's even unChristian to hate, and kill, especially another Christian. Or, to even kill another. When a Christian has the H.S. in their lives they don't hate and they do not chose to break one of the Ten Commandments. So sad! But we stray/wonder & are made from Dust.
@@pschilling5424 protestants hating catholics is such BS ! they can coexist. I think theres a more evil agenda here tbh. Thank you for your input!
You said it in one, PROTESTANT! The nub of the schism is the objection to the divine right of the Pope
@@khankrum1 but its always the protestants that want the heads of their catholic kings and queens.....the catholic monarch actually wanted to coexist with both faiths
Because most religions can’t get along. Don’t act surprised.
I do not know why there is always good suspense in the history of the Jacobians😳
Jacobians are from the French revolution...
So sad. The Catholic Church is the one true Church. Hopefully one day there will be. Catholic King or Queen on the English throne.
Elizabeth 1st last person to sit on English throne, rest were all Scottish, Dutch, or German.
ALLAH AKBAR!
Why was this filmed so far away from the actors that we can't even see their faces?
Interesting, though one error. James II was not the last Stuart King of England. While he was not born a Stuart, his son-in-law, William, who was also his nephew as his mother was James's sister, Mary, was born an Orange as his father was their Prince. When James II was deposed Parliament invited his older daughter, Mary, and her husband, William, The Prince of Orange, to rule as co-monarchs, William (III) and Mary (II). Since Mary was the actual heir, child of the King which comes ahead of a King's nephew, the couple would rule as Stuarts. When Mary died, William continued ruling as a Stuart as King William III. I don't know what would have happened had her remarried and had a child, would he/she rule as a Stuart or Orange, but in any case they never had children and he never remarried so the reign passed to Mary's sister, Anne, who was the last Stuart ruler.
Yeah but Mary was not a Stuart King, she was a Queen and Orange not an actual Stuart.
@@annnee6818 Yes, but they ruled as Stuarts. Plus Mary died about 8 years before William did and for those 8 years William ruled as a Stuart King, William III. Had they had a son he would have ruled both Orange and Britain. When his nephew William, Duke of Gloucester, died at the age of 11 in 1700, who was the only living child of William III's successor, Anne (sister-in-law) he then traveled to Orange to meet his cousin, Sophia, granddaughter of King James I, and dowager Consort of the German State of Hanover and mother to its King, Georg Ludwig. He then pushed through Parliament the 1701 Settlement Act to name Sophia Anne's successor should Anne fail to produce heirs, after Sophia would come her son and grandson, both named George in English.
So William III was the last Stuart King (he ruled on that House even though he was born Orange) and Anne was the last Stuart Queen (Monarch).
Can I get a job where I just get to learn about history all day?😅
The information is great. But I wish the narrator would stop talking to me like I'm in elementary school.
I just love British history! Much more than my own swedish history
I would love to know more about the Nordic histories. I can't find any in English. Do you have any suggestions?
But Christina is the coolest queen ever! It’s such a mystery what gender/sexuality she was
Hmm...I'll try to find some. Yes, Kristina was a mystery for sure!
More than my American history
They are ALL intertwined
King William III was throned by the needs of the English at that time as religion, division and inheritance were not in favour and yes his strife with France. He made England great, their economy and trade surged, the wealth of the nation was unprecedented yet he was in his later years ousted by xenophobes and a parliament that forced on him acts that were absurd which made Daniel DeFoe stand up for him. He alarmed Europe of the absolutism of France and the parliament in his last years would not oblige him but voted against many Royal aspects, a dying man, he agreed but left behind not only a legacy but an England that was an international power house. Despite the government not willing to spend more on military thus reducing the forces, after his death they did and submitted through force France into negotiation.
This perhaps is the greatest speech ever given ..
My Lords and Gentlemen; I promise myself you are met together full of that just sense of the common danger of Europe, and the resentment of the late proceedings of the French king, which has been so fully and universally expressed in the loyal and seasonable Addresses of my people. The owning and setting up the pretended Prince of Wales for king of England, is not only the highest indignity offered to me and the nation, but does so nearly concern every man, who has a regard for the Protestant Religion, or the present and future quiet and happiness of his country, that I need not press you to lay it seriously to heart, and to consider what further effectual means may be used, for securing the Succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, and extinguishing the hopes of all Pretenders, and their open and secret abettors. By the French king's placing his Grandson on the throne of Spain, he is in a condition to oppress the rest of Europe, unless speedy and effectual measures be taken. Under this pretence, he is become the real Master of the whole Spanish Monarchy; he has made it to be intirely depending on France, and disposes of it, as of his own dominions, and by that means he has surrounded his neighbours in such a manner, that, though the name of peace may be said to continue, yet they are put to the expence and inconveniencies of war. This must affect England in the nearest and most sensible manner, in respect to our trade, which will soon become precarious in all the variable branches of it; in respect to our peace and safety at home, which we cannot hope should long continue; and in respect to that part, which England ought to take in the preservation of the liberty of Europe.
In order to obviate the general calamity, with which the rest of Christendom is threatened by this exorbitant power of France, I have concluded several Alliances, according to the encouragement given me by both houses of Parliament, which I will direct shall be laid before you, and which, I doubt not, you will enable me to make good. There are some other Treaties still depending, that shall be likewise communicated to you as soon as they are perfected. It is fit I should tell you, the eyes of all Europe are upon this Parliament; all matters are at a stand, till your resolutions are known; and therefore no time ought to be lost. You have yet an opportunity, by God's blessing, to secure to you and your posterity the quiet enjoyment of your Religion and Liberties, if you are not wanting to yourselves, but will exert the ancient vigour of the English nation; but I tell you plainly, my opinion is, if you do not lay hold on this occasion, you have no reason to hope for another. In order to do your part, it will be necessary to have a great strength at sea, and to provide for the security of our ships in harbour; and also that there be such a force at land, as is expected in proportion to the forces of our Allies.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons; I do recommend these matters to you with that concern and earnestness, which their importance requires. At the same time I cannot but press you to take care of the public credit, which cannot be preserved but by keeping sacred that maxim, that they shall never be losers, who trust to a Parliamentary security. It is always with regret, when I do ask aids of my people; but you will observe, that I desire nothing, which relates to any personal expence of mine; I am only pressing you to do all you can for your own safety and honour, at so critical and dangerous a time; and am willing, that what is given, should be wholly appropriated to the purposes for which it is intended....
I should think it as great a blessing as could befall England, if I could observe you as much inclined to lay aside those unhappy fatal animosities, which divide and weaken you, as I am disposed to make all my subjects safe and easy as to any, even the highest offences, committed against me. Let me conjure you to disappoint the only hopes of our enemies by your unanimity. I have shewn, and will always shew, how desirous I am to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, lay aside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heard of amongst us for the future, but of those, who are for the Protestant Religion, and the present establishment, and of those, who mean a Popish Prince, and a French government. I will only add this; if you do in good earnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to be indeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by your right improving the present opportunity.
I bet we can pass those test now.lol
Because James II wanted to re-establish Catholicism as the English state religion over the established Church of England. as he was a practicing catholic, and his queen was as well.
I still don't understand why being Catholic or Protestant was such a big deal
I totally agree and as long as the monarchs were allowing religious freedom I don't see what difference it made..
Heard of the 30 Years War, 1618-1648. It devastated Europe. Also, England suffered the Catholic-Protestant issues during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I, and Elizabeth I. So they did not want to go through it again. King James II to daughters, Mary and Anne were Protestant and had Protestant husbands. His son James, was from a Catholic wife and could have married a Catholic and produced Catholic heirs. That is why when William III died Parliament created the Succession Act of 1701 which prohibited a Catholic monarch or one who married a Catholic. Through this Act they named Sophia (granddaughter of King James I) who was married to the Electorate of Hanover as Anne's successor. Since Sophia died 3 month's before Anne her son, King Georg Ludwig of Hanover became King George I of England, thus bringing in the Hanover dynasty.
@@janefelix3821 In Belfast, my Jewish atheist Marxist friend Leonard would say that he was of course a political Protestant.
@@albertrogers2506 First we are talking about a society 300+ years ago. At the time the most destructive war in European history was the 30 Years War, ended 40 years prior to the ouster of King James II, and that war was about religion, it totally devastated what is modern Germany today, at the time it was the Holy Roman Empire, and left it in shambles. The religious basis was the reason for the Settlement Act of 1701 which created the rules of succession for the Monarchy. It was done when Prince William the 11 year old son of Princess Anne died, at the time he was her only child to live past the age of 2. Princess Anne was the heir to her brother-in-law King William III, he was married to her sister, Mary, and since William and Mary had no heirs and Anne at the time had no heirs, a law had to be created so their Catholic half-brother, James Stuart, would not claim the throne just in case Anne died without heirs, which she did in 1714, passing succession to her second cousin King George I who was also the King of Hanover.
Look at them now, religions don't fair well in a competitive environment, they need a monopoly. The protestants in charge of the Dutch Republic practiced religious tolerance and the freedom of conscience the foundation under it, but it also led to 423 different denominanations of protestantism in the Netherlands alone.
When you think in terms of power, the catholics had a point about not allowing any other religions.
He never said a foolish thing, nor ever did a wise one. I am reminded of this that was supposedly a description of a king around that time.
James 1 of England
What would the monarchy be like if Charles II had married Barbara Villiers & Monmouth had been legitimate…
She could’ve been another Anne Boleyn and even more despised
How much was James influenced by his cousin Louis XIV? After all Louis had kept subsidising Charles II on the promise he would convert to Catholicism. Imagine how much more Louis would offer for a promise to convert the UK to Rome.
I have gone hooked on the full historical line of the English Monarchy. I have got it so far that after the Tudors, ending with Elisabeth I, came the Stuarts. But as I can see on sites like Wikipedia, it's not absolutely clear, which line and dynasty, if you like, follows next. All I have found out so far is that Mary II is the next on the throne, but I haven't yet found much, if even any video material on THIS of the Queen Mary's, in the English history
That the Glorious Revolution was the end-product of the troubles that began in 1640 is an interesting take. Another one that is closer in time to 1688 was that it signaled the end of the Dutch-Anglo Wars with the dispossession of the English throne held by the Scottish House of Stuart by the Dutch House of Orange. The great strides in gaining a more democratic form of government can be directly traced to that of the States-General of the United Provinces which was imported from the Netherlands with William and Mary.
Brian, some good stuff there. Thanks. Definitely this time sees the start of the Anglo-Dutch alliance period of our history, seminal to the development of democracy. Well said.
But in my opinion 1688 was also a sort of end in itself. For the second time in a generation Parliament invited an overseas aristocrat to become King and this time it did it under the terms of a really tight contract i.e. the key constitutional progress had already been made before the Dutch came. Thus in this sense it did effectively end the war between Crown and Parliament.
While anti Catholic sentiment would last a long time, and Pretenders’ dynastic & religious wars would flicker on for a few more years, they became increasingly less relevant as the industrial age began to change everything.
@iansmith3457 But the Dutch had effectively thrown out their king over a century before, based on the assertion that a king should serve his people (in providing safety and security) and not the other way around (het plakkaat van verlatinghe 1581). And declared a republic with the States-General (a parliament of sorts) as the supreme power. (And then went on to fight the Spanish crown about that for several de decades).
Queen Mary did a much finer job at ruling than people realize or gave her credit for. People seem to forget that King William spent 7 months away from England every year . So she was running the show,folks. And she was a far better monarch than many of England's Kings.
The adds are jarringly inappropriate.
This has nothing to do with Mary or Anne. It's about James II.
Unfortunately the sound is bad and cannot be heard no matter how close it is to my ear.
it's your hearing.
The sound is fine.
Have a good day.
your hearing is terrible
Who noticed the uncle of a future king of England
He’s been I a few documentaries and has written many books on British history.
I think it’s also interesting to note with the whole bedpan scandal that the witnesses from the birthing room would have all been women.
His relations with the Pope were actually not great. Pope Innocent XI saw him as an ally of Louis XIV, whose navy in 1688 was in the Mediterranean preparing for a possible invasion of the Papal States. That pope actually supported William and was a member of a banking family that may have helped finance William's invasion. In 1693 the new pope reversed this policy and supported James.
The history of " Real Royalty "
This would convey So much more if music of the period was used exclusively. just saying...
music too loud and what is up with the winky winky?
The problem with monarchies is that you get ordinary people trying to keep what extraordinary people built.
Yay!!
Мистер Delta,почему во время службы Вы были во дворце?
DEFINITELY not interesting enough to justify the amount of ads this video has.
My name is Brent Kennedy! I like to think myself as a historian! Not just American history! But World history! Im a cowboy! I love this program! But Ive got to say what sold it to me. Is the buitiful love'ly red headed lady with such a buitiful and éloquent. British voice! That intrigue'd me!!! Her intelligente's of history which is outstanding is only surpassed by her buitiful smile and her wonderful sense of humour!!!! Can someone tell me what her name is?????
Is Charles Spencer Princess Diana’s brother?
yes-it-is-him
Melissa Abercrombie yes
I sure Charles Spencer was her husband. I had to look at those two on ever tabloid splash of my childhood. Couldn't buy a loaf of bread without looking at Princess Di and the hounddog from when I was like 10 till her death when I was 20. Those two, and some side piece who put me in the mind of Cruella Deville. I'm brushing up on my monarchy education. All this fuckery with the catholics and protestants and this cranky old man has me thoroughly confused, but this one I know- Charles Spencer and Princess Di were married. Now were they brother and sister- that I do not know. They do have a way of keepin it in the family, these royals.
Elizabeth Sanford :: Charles Spencer and Princess Diana were brother and sister. Her ex-husband was Prince Charles. Same first name, different men.
@Charles godwin Oh now, don't get those British knickas all in a twist! I didn't tell them to keep recycling the same 4 or 5 names for like 500 years, and I certainly didn't tell them that in-cest is win-cest, so no need to get snippy with me. To answer your question, no I do not happen to be a moron. I'm actually very intelligent. You see, my parents were not related. 🤣🤣🤣
No, seriously, I'm an American. I cannot keep up with a bunch of aging royals with the same names. I JUST did the math and concluded Queen Elizabeth apparently passed at some point. Now that Prince Harry- there's a man I can watch- not too many Harries in these documentaries.
Was that an example of when courage of conviction was useless ?
If daughters Mary and Ann were against their own father James II, which meant that there would be terrible consequences, would prolicide have been justified ?
I know this is supposed to be about the Stuart Kings but I wished they also focused on the reigns of Mary ll and Queen Anne. Also why did they have to focus on the Wynn family in order to talk about the Stuarts? They already had an interesting enough story. Just talk about them and not the Wynns. I guess it’s for context but still.
Mary shared the throne with her husband William, so she wasn't a Queen Consort (like most queens married to Kings of England) and William wasn't a Prince Consort like Victoria's Prince Albert or Elizabeth II's Prince Philip. Mary had the closest claim to the throne as James's eldest legitimate child, while William was a nephew of his. I have a sneaking suspicion that historians erase Mary from the Glorious Revolution in favor of William. In truth, Mary was a good17th c. wife who fully believed a husband was in charge of the household and William wasn't going to be ruled by a wife. So when she stated that she wanted a husband would love his wife like Christ loved the Church, she meant she wanted Williams affection and fidelity in exchange for obeying and him. And that gave his invasion of England a legitimacy that he would not have had otherwise. Basically she sacrificed being the only reigning sovereign of England if William was willing to support her and govern her. I know this may make people sick, but that was the 17th century for you. And William would realize over time that Mary was indispensable to him when he went on campaign against Louis XIV and she ruled England in his absence. That's why when she was dying of smallpox in 1694, he was devastated. You never realize what you had until it's almost gone.
Duke of Orange? He was Prince.
With all the history I learned through learning about Henry the 8th, his daughter Mary, his daughter Elizabeth and then James the 1st and James II whose own daughter fights a war against him for the throne!! I have yet to read anything about his daughter who must have been a Catholic because her mother and dad were Catholic.... so she must have been baptized a Catholic. I felt this mess whem i visited Derry in Ireland it's called Derry by the Catholics... and Londonderry by the Protestants... I think the final battle was fought there if I remember correctly between James the second's daughter Ann's husband William of Orange who was Protestant. I visited Ireland and my relatives live in the city of Derry so I'm Catholic and so are they... And you could see as your travel along signs that had the word London spray-painted out or the word Derry spray painted out. And Protestant against Catholic is still going on in Northern Ireland. it's such a shame it's such a shame that there can't be peace. People talk about race relations in America but they're still religion differences going on in Northern Ireland.
There is hope. Belfast elected a woman Lord Mayor, and she is an atheist too, although her term of office was two years. The Republic in the south also elected an enlightened Taoiseach by the name fo Garrett Fitzgerald, and no longer by law opposes the sale of contraceptives.
@@albertrogers2506 people who are against abortion are almost all willing for contraceptives to be used to prevent a pregnancy. I've never understood why the Catholic Church is against contraceptives. I remember discussing at my all-girls school about people being selfish and wanting a color TV this was in 1966 instead of having another baby... And when you think about it a lot of people that's what it's about having things instead of children. I remember hope John coming and speaking in Washington DC and about 1980 I remember watching his speech on TV and he said it's wrong to deny your children the love of a brother or sister and that's sort of stuck with me. But when I visited my relatives in Ireland and we were riding in a taxi my cousins were afraid the taxi driver would drop us off in the middle of nowhere if he was a Protestant and he knew we were Catholics.
Another person who's fallen victim of the Second Greatest Lie Ever Told. No, Protestant versus Catholic is *not* still going on in Northern Ireland. Since the last Home Rule bill in 1912, what conflict there has been has been mainly territorial and not religious.
I say this as a descendant of Irish of both religio-political traditions.
I think this video should be called "King James II's downfall" or "Another doc about the Glorious Revolution" as Queen Mary per se is hardly mentioned ....
🎂Mary II 04-30-2022 👑
Someone told me I look somewhat like the Stuart king James II. James did not fulfill a lot of his potential because of his sins.
It always amazes me how the British keep on downplaying what was essentially a successful Dutch invasion. Instead referring to it as a 'glorious revolution'
Not true. The Dutch in general got nothing out of it. In fact the common people of England got nothing material out of Henry V's famous victory at Agincourt, and in fact profited better than the French when the Maid of Orleans ended the English influence in France. The capital of the joint kingdom would have been in Paris.
Today we would call the "glorious revolution" the work of spin doctors. He was invited to Britain so more of a friendly takeover than an hostile invasion
W a y too many ads
She has an odd accent. All her R’s become W’s when they have vowels after them.
She sounds to me like she speaks with a lisp.
A little speech impediment. Just makes her more sexy in my eyes.
Sydney Barrett that’s a myth.
@@michael7324 Agree! :-)
It's called rhotacism. It's quite common in the English, especially in the middle and upper classes, but for some reason it's less common in American English accents.
William himself was the third in line due to his mother bloodline.
Charles and James, you've made your great grandmother Mary Queen of scots Proud
f
c
@@krisjensen7876 ?
this story has increprencies, they didn't mention the 3rd son of King Charles I, Henry, Duke of Gloucester whom has the support of the people to be king not Charles II. Henry was the only Stuart Prince left who had legitimate descendants through his marriage with Magdalina Howison he is also my 12th great grandfather why erase my family?
Religious toleration was not their strong point! 🤔🤔🤔
The title is about Mary, the documentary is supposed to be about James, but the show is actually about some random aristocrat family who I guess commissioned the doc
Maybe someone here knows this... I have no idea...but the lady who acts the hostess for this show...what is her name, please?
Dr Kate Williams. She's an historian I believe.
@@veertje28 Yes that is her and yes she is
14+ ads? Rediculous
For the really shitty captioning service UA-cam offers, it better offers no captions at all.
What does this man mean by pig headedly Catholic. Does he think that it can be a wise option to look away from the truth when it is apparent under any circumstances.
That's an easy question. Pig headedly religious of any sect is a person with the overweening insistence that everybody else should believe what he believes.
BTW there is no evidence whatever for the existence of the Old Testament's murderous "God", and even a warning in Exodus 20 that it is a bad idea to worship a false god.
Totally misguiding title. This video exists in another channel with proper title, this is not about William of Orange and how he takes the throne and his dynasty, it's all about Jamess II serious mistakes, short reign and exile ... I was looking for info on what happens next ...
I have such a dislike for this whole family - though Charles II had some good points, and both he and his brother James (future II) comported themselves heroically in the great fire of '66 ...
Each have paintings that are so revealing of each of their characters, you have but to look at them ... including some done of the Bonnie pretender ...
James II has a painting in which the curl of his mouth betrays a general contempt aped by many actors playing royalty of the hoity toity variety.
Perhaps you've read Shelley's "Ozymandias" ? If not, do.
"Disguised as a woman..."
So... he dressed as he did every day? 😂
All royals put on the dress of goat lucy it's in the blood
That was normal men's wear at the time so that joke doesn't really work that well sorry
King James II faced his downfall because he tried to make Britian a Catholicized Absolute monarchy but after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 finally Britain became a constitutional monarchy and presently the Parliament have huge authority but the British Monarchy is a very powerful Social and Cultural institution with theoretical executive powers.
Lies
England became a constitutional monarchy with the magna carta in 1215. Britain is a geographical term for the island and so has never had a constitution. The individual nations of Britain have individual constitutions which is why they have different laws in England, Scotland and Wales. Im not British but am astounded that so many British people do not know this.
Yes , this is the key point . James II (VII ) was the last absolute Monarch - after ascending the throne he dismissed elected Parliament . When William of Orange and Mary II ascended the throne in April 1689 , during their coronation oath they swore to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . However , at the time , only wealthy land owners had the vote . The 1689 English Bill of Rights was passed later that year and is a significant document of the Enlightenment . It later influenced the American Constitution .
@@Finderskeepers. The Magna Carta is way over blown - it only gave the Barons and "freeman" rights which was about 10% of the population . King John and the Pope dismissed it soon after it received Royal Seal .
The actual beginning of Parliament occurred when Simon de Montford told Henry III you need to have financial advisors to Parle ( The Plantagenet Nobility spoke French ) .
Charles I dismissed Parliament for 11 years , and James II ( VII ) dismissed Parliament for 4 years .
The first Constitutional Monarchs were William of Orange and Mary II * - who in their 1689 Coronation Oath Swore to recognize the sovereignty of Parliament . This is the beginning of democracy in the modern world . However , at the time only land owners had the vote . The 1689 English Bill of Rights would later have a major influence on the US Constitution .
* As in William and Mary University in the US where Jefferson studied John Locke , Adam Smith and Newton .
.
@@Finderskeepers. " The individual nations of Britain have individual constitutions " No . England , Scotland and Wales are not sovereign countries . Britain is a sovereign country ( technically called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ) . This was formed in 1707 with the Acts of the Union . Scotland may have laws which are unique to Scotland .
Britain does not have a carved in stone Constitution like the US has . But rather it has a quilt of laws that are considered so significant they are the Constitution - notably the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the 1707 Acts of the Union . Parliament can still pass a law to change Britain's Constitution - but as a safeguard it requires Royal Ascent .
.
The Stuarts went spectacularly wrong because of the Divine right of kings idea. It doesn't lead to joint decision making. Plus the whole I'm Catholic, you're not thing.
I think the scots didnt want to succumb to english rule and were willing to accept a catholic monarchy to preserve their culture. Capt obvious reporting for duty.
I can barely understand her lol. I want to watch it but I’ve never heard an British accent where I couldn’t make out what they are saying. What part of England is she from?
Lol you will get used to them if you keep watching the videos. I love their accents
@@Magumbo58 I love their accents. Her’s is a bit too much though lol
God this is an unwatchable series, the audio is too loud and overproduced using far too much compression making it muddy and disproportionately loud and out of audio chain range, it sucks to have to fight for a balance level that you can't get.
Too many talking heads and cutaway shots into portraits.
Iacobvs Rex Britannii, ora pro nobis. Amen.
Sooo.....did royals not have last names?
They had last names. The name of their House is the last name.
I could care less about the Wynn family. Focus on the monarch...unwatchable.
It seems that if what a conspiracy, it was against James, the heir. For many political, economics,reasons, the upper middle class had made things so that a steady, profitable government was being put. Those owners wanted security for their trades. Catholisism was not a garant for them, even if Bloody Mary was far less bloody than her younger sister Élisabeth ( but History is made by the winners). What happened in 1688 was ,for me, a bit the same as what happened in France from 1789 to 91/92: a bourgeoise " révolution ", economic, with the religion as pretext
Defeated by his son-in-law more like
Chat iz funny
Wasn't queen Anne the last Stuart?
Anne is the last Stuart monarch, so her statement that James II is the last Stuart king is not incorrect.
I wish they had added an episode on the last two Stuarts in the series. Got to know Anne better in the film the Favorite
History is tough on James II, only because the Protestants wrote the history
I find that rhotacism distracting
Crazy that James 2nd only lost his throne for being catholic, goes to show how childish people where back then lol
Look at what Catholic kings did in France, Spain and the Low Countries (before they declared independence and formed the Dutch Republic) and then you'll see resistance to that wasn't childish at all.
It was more that he had a Catholic son. As long as his two daughters were first in line Parliament was okay as both of them had Protestant husbands. However, once he had a Catholic son who became heir apparent, Parliament ousted him.
@@janefelix3821 oh I understand that, my point is the whole catholic & protestant thing is ridiculous to begin with, I definitely wouldn’t like to have lived back then, I mean, if we think this generation are bad for snowflakes, think how bad the snowflakes where in those days , taking offence for no reason other than not liking someone’s beliefs lol.
@@AudioChaserz James II ( VI ) thought he had the absolute right to rule - after ascending the throne he dismissed an elected Parliament . After the Monmouth Rebellion he kept a standing domestic army . As a Catholic he tried to change service in the Anglican Church and when 7 Archbishops said no , James II ( VI ) put them on trial . He was the last Absolute Monarch in England / Britain . William of Orange and Mary II were Constitutional Monarchs who swore to recognized the sovereignty of Parliament .
However , at the time , only land owners had the vote .
.
I guess the King is the head of the church of England until he's not....
When the powers that be make such an interesting vid don't they check on the sound? She's almost unintelligable for half the time, even the subtitles make havoc of what's being said. What a pity. The content seems good, but the vid unwatchable.
most likely becoz of the accent
I'm curious. Do students in England learn all the counties (is that what they're called?) in England the way we in the US learn (supposedly) all the states?
A table stand on- my roomM,
Your speach its- not Origgi,
but my-adress whats be,elegendt ,
showtime..no- how thE-REPbit sad yetd.