Whig Propaganda and the "Glorious Revolution"

This video describes the propaganda campaign the Whigs launched at James II and his family--in particular his son, Prince James Francis Edward Stuart, who became known as "the Warming Pan Baby" and later "the Old Pretender". When James II's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son in June 1688, the Whigs' greatest fear--that of a Catholic succession in England-- became reality. The propaganda blizzard in support of the Protestant Dutch stadtholder William of Orange was relentless. Eventually James would take his wife and son into exile, and Jacobitism was born.
#Jacobites #GloriousRevolution #WhigHistory

[@erikbejstam777]

Great video Justine. I think this might be the most underrated channel on here.

[@MatthewHanratty]

A very enjoyable and informative video. Do you know of any good resources for learning more about Mary of Modena?

[@JustineBrownsBookshelf]

Thank you! There’s a classic book that’s been reprinted by Martin Haile, “Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters”.

[@MatthewHanratty]

@@JustineBrownsBookshelf Thank You.

[@skadiwarrior2053]

Speaking as an English Protestant who grew up celebrating the Glorious Revolution and the 12 July I find you videos very interesting. I suppose once Protestantism took hold there could be no going back. The fear of it being reversed was quite strong I think, the history of Monarchies suggests things could turn on a farthing.

[@JustineBrownsBookshelf]

True, yes. Progressive models of history create a sense of inevitability. But it seems most revolutions are effected by a small elite.

[@skadiwarrior2053]

@@JustineBrownsBookshelf Feels like nothing has changed taking in current events. I'd get behind a movement for democracy if I thought it would change anything.

[@christophmahler]

"(...) the history of Monarchies suggests things could turn on a farthing (...)"
*Tradition* limits the amount of personal abuse and tyranny a monarch can get away with - that is why Machiavelli's 'Prince' guards himself against the schemes of other powerful nobles with *popularity* among the people.
Protestantism had legitimate grievances with a Roman see that conducted itself like a worldly princepality - e.g. during the 'reign' of the Borgias - but to form their own church was a heretic act, backed by local princes for political reasons (e.g. in the case of Luther).
Protestantism and 'conciliarism' are the roots of a parliament, dominated by the interests of 'barons'.
_Peaceful coexistence and serious dialogue_ with dissenters was the proper Christian virtue then - under James the II. - as it is now.
Neither the crusades against e.g. the Albigensians or Islamic rule in Palestine have elevated the faith - but the new missionary orders have (e.g. 'Dominicans' organizing urban university studies).

[@jacobitewiseman3696]

Yeah I'm leaving protestantism because yes the current Pope Francis is a sodomy lover and a heretic. But I go by the actual Catholic teachings not a demented "pope" who is a Lord denothor. I learned that from return to tradition where he talks about the infiltration of the church by the freemasonic sorcerors.

[@christophmahler]

'Protestant' Henry the VIII. wasn't exactly shy - his inability to produce a 'litter' of potential heirs is likely not a matter of any 'queen's fertility'...
:)
Royal succession is an issue of _Germanic_ customs ('primogeniture', privilege of first born males) - while e.g. the ancient Romans applied meritocratic _adoptions_ to circumvent a 'roulette of unfit family *succession'* .
The arguably 'Westernized', but successful modernizer Peter the Great e.g. left the Russian tsardom simply to whom would be most capable which ultimately brought a minor German female to the throne in a _coup_ , supported by the minor service nobility (aka soldiers) against the oligarchy of wealthy bojars and courtiers ('Privy Council') - Catherine the Great who would then successfully extend Russian rule e.g. into the Ottoman controlled Black Sea.
Legitimacy in Russia is therefore a matter of _informal competence_ - like the Chinese *'Mandate of Heaven'* that enabled dynasties of 'rebelling peasants', nomads and 'communists'.
The difference of *political culture* between Whig, Jacobin and _Jacobite_ politics - arguably to this day - is the reliance of *manipulating public opinion towards **_particular interests_* - including straigth out disinformation - versus *the statesman as a role model of society* - 'a _father_ to _all_ subjects'.
The latter is still reflected when underclass commoners rally at the Buckingham palace in times of crisis - as if the 'House of Hannover' could seize parliament.
Illustrations of current *political culture* :
(neo-liberal 'labour' premier Tony Blair on Iraqi 'Weapon's of Mass Destruction')
ua-cam.com/video/YwVdjoW0WO0/v-deo.html
(Western funded and awarded 'White Helmets' returning to Israel - after evidently collaborating with ISIS in Aleppo in 2015, during footage of captured British journalist John Cantlie)
ua-cam.com/video/Pu0Rb5tkITY/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/eVQzkxqHVNY/v-deo.html
(arguably a *gentleman* , not by lineage - but *conduct* , David Davis on COVID-19)
ua-cam.com/video/GwWlTXOJTkE/v-deo.html

[@JustineBrownsBookshelf]

True, poor old Catherine of Aragon did produce many children, but all of them died except Mary. But England wasn't used to queens regnant, and that meant she--and Anne-- were disposable. to political deception, these are excellent examples. I really think the Whigs in tandem with early newspapers got us started on this path.The more people voting, the more the elites need to "shepherd" our thinking.

[@christophmahler]

@@JustineBrownsBookshelf
"The more people voting, the more the elites need to "shepherd" our thinking."
So true.
On the other hand the elites could also just give the people what they want... at least _to a degree_ or in _even in mere principle_ ( *Aristotles 'Politics', Book V* - on how to avoid civil war by *tolerance* and political *compromise* ).
The *printing press* somehow appears to have brought something about that people didn't fully recognize.
E.g. the American 'founding fathers' - including masonic, 'enlightened' idealists like Jefferson - understood the _classic concept_ of attic *'demagoguery'* - but still prepared the way for *'mass democracy'* via the 'gatekeeping' *political caucuses* (parties).
Continental Conservatives like Max Weber went that same route around WW I which lead to *social engineering* . In Germany this was evident via the *'academic navy advocats'* and *'academic chair socialists'* , like Weber's *'historical school of economics'* , arguably a much more consistent social factor for modernization and German lagging imperialism than the sole person of the Prussian monarch (himself deprived of a loving childhood by English Protestants).
(Christina Croft on Wilhelm's relation to his liberal English mother)
ua-cam.com/video/sieumjLYf-M/v-deo.html
Since then, everyone in 'middle-management' e.g. in academics, _really_ believes that there's virtue in telling other people to imitate *bourgeois culture* as a step of civilizational 'progress' - _effectively driving a wedge between elites and the people who still farm or work manually, ever deeper_ ...

[@christophmahler]

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction
"I think legacy of Ivan IV gave Russia the secret police (...)"
I disagree with You about Your assessment of former KGB officer Vladimir Putin, but I understand Your general point about _bureaucracy_ versus monarchy.
There's a fine Polish movie 'Faraon' (1966) which illustrates what You mean:
m.imdb.com/title/tt0060401/
It was my point, however that the Western drive towards bureaucracy and technocracy doesn't do well, the further _Eastwards_ it is applied.
If You are familiar with *Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'* and preceding short stories, You get an idea why the legacy of Peter the Great is not an ever more 'Westernized' Russia, but *a continuity of the politics of 'Ivan the Awesome'* (proper translation) - whether Kerensky is replaced by LENIN or he himself is replaced by STALIN or later Gorbachev is replaced by US sponsored Yeltsin - who is in turn replaced by Putin.
These are not figure heads of 'councils', but de facto _autocrats_ - in case of Putin, businessmen fled the country when they were unwilling to align themselves to national interest, like Khodorkovsky, Berezovsky, Durov.
I wouldn't be astonished at all, if Russia at some point acknowledges it's _autocratic tradition_ and _restores the tsardom_ in some modern form - with overwhelming public consent, regardless of the _formal legitimacy_ of the respective leadership.
Unlike the West, a Russian monarchy could maintain a high degree of participation at the local level at the same time as government over vast distances is always less effective - while informal cooperation between diverse interest groups is the _foundation myth_ of the _Rus_ since Rurik.

[@christophmahler]

@Weapons Of Mass Distraction
"Ivan creates a state within the state and then manipulates the commoners to apply pressure to his nobles (...)"
Or You can interprete his _oprichniki_ as a means to reign in rogue boyars that ignore their bond to the people of the Rus.
If You stand with the Western concept of a 'private property at all cost', You will take offense with that...
"(...) why is this impossible to do in the West?"
It isn't.
Whether You read Nicollo Machiavelli's advice for a prince to 'rely on commoners to counter conspiracies by the nobility' or if You study the history of German emperors, shifting their power base from the 'high nobility' to the _non-hereditary service gentry_ , it's _the same process_ .
One could argue - as You do - that this _professional service class_ eventually undermines political rule by it's sheer indespensibility - but then the same can be said of aristocratic councils - like the barons in England who have installed a Hannoverian puppet as a king in order to rule the country via Parliament as if it were their private property - the true nature of _republics_ like Florence.
*One has to imagine a monarch as an arbiter between the 'oligarchs' and the people* as both sides are necessary to run a country - unlike Your statement that priests wouldn't depend on the faithful - therby avoiding _civil war_ .
Sometimes, the people have to switch their allegiance in order to enforce that balance at home, e.g. enlist in foreign countries to restore the monarchy - as many Scots did in French service.

[@jacobitewiseman3696]

1:30 how she be that voluptuous. Wouldn't people be skinny due to a combination of fasting and not eating the huge courses reastruants have today?

[@JustineBrownsBookshelf]

This is a Rubens painting- where we get “rubenesque” from. His feminine ideal was quite plump.

[@jacobitewiseman3696]

@@JustineBrownsBookshelf yes but wouldn't she have to be gluttonous to be that way I mean yes I know women can gain weight easier than men, but still I would think they surely would have been skinny from scarcity of food.

[@JustineBrownsBookshelf]

@@jacobitewiseman3696 This is more of a window into Rubens’ imagination than anything else.

[@jacobitewiseman3696]

@@JustineBrownsBookshelf yes and while she is beautiful and I see the attraction because of breeding, I also see she may be gluttonous as well. Yes I'm not necessarily want a toned skinny woman, I'd also wouldn't want a plain obese one either because of mortal sin.