For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member... Patreon: www.patreon.com/thepeopleprofiles Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peopleprofiles UA-cam Membership: ua-cam.com/channels/D6TPU-PvTMvqgzC_AM7_uA.htmljoin or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles
I was under the impression, perhaps misinformed, that Lord Spenser was a decenadant of 2 Charles II’s illegitimate sons Charles Lennox and Henry Fitzroy via two of her great-grandmothers, Adeline Seymour and Rosalind Bingham.
I trust you that an individual video for Queen Mary II of England (not combined with William III) doing her justice like only People Profiles can will soon follow 🤞🏻 and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, my favourites! Thank you People Profiles!
Prince William will be is the first British king to be a direct descendant of James II , through illegitimate children of the latter. Diana was a descendent of James II and Arabella Churchill. She is her 8th great-grandmother.
Hope you consider ''KING LEOPOLD II''. One of the most brutal people that existed next to Hitler. The atrocities he committed in Africa through his manipulating personality is something very interesting to learn about. I've learned a lot on your channel, btw . Thank you very much for your time and hard work. Hope you reach 1 million in a heart beat. You deserve it.
I trust you thea the video on Athelstan will come soon, not to mention Edward the Elder, among my favorite Sxon kings! Thank you People Profiles!You're the best!
Your presentation of history is spot on man! Canadian baby boomer here remembering a high school history class on British history, I love your addition of the painting at 38:10. Get a load of these characters as it is a true representation of the ruling elite with a monarchy...I don't recall if the identifications by letter from A to Z was original, but I reckon it is the most important to the least important yet they are all worthy of mention! Fascinating!
James learns about his father Charles the 1st execution in France. Spends the next few years of his life serving in the French army then later in the Spanish Army, goes back to England with his brother Charles the 2nd later becomes king himself and says "I haven't learned a thing".
Yes because aparently not wanting religious minorities to be persecuted is too much of a crime for the English people that they invited a foreign monarch to invade their country and overthrow their rightfull king.
I don't know who the narrator is for this documentary. But he has a very unique voice. And he's narrated many documentaries. It helps me fall asleep. As I'm sure it does others also.
In order for Jaime II to have kept his throne during the glorious revolution, he could have adopted a more balanced and sensitive approach to the concerns of the people and parliament. Here are some things he could have done: 1. ** Religious tolerance in a smoother way: ** Instead of trying to impose Catholicism abruptly, Jaime could have gradually worked to promote religious tolerance, respecting predominant Protestant beliefs. He could have shown more empathy and built confidence, which would have diminished resistance to his government. 2. ** Collaboration with Parliament: ** Instead of trying to rule alone, Jaime could have sought a more open dialogue with Parliament. He could have accepted some concessions, showing that he was willing to work together for the sake of the country, which would have strengthened his position. 3. ** Construction of Political Bridges: ** Jaime could have struggled more to create alliances with moderate political figures, both Catholic and Protestant. Upon hearing and meeting the concerns of these groups, he could have avoided the isolation and growing opposition that led to their fall. 4. ** Moderate use of force: ** Instead of resorting to military force to silence the opposition, Jaime could have opted for more peaceful and conciliatory solutions. A less oppressive government would have generated less fear and resistance, and could have preserved its authority without the need for repression. 5. ** Graduative reforms: ** Instead of trying to impose rapid and drastic changes, Jaime could have introduced reforms more gradually, involving the people and parliament in decisions. This most careful approach could have maintained popular support and avoided the feeling that he was ignoring the country's traditions. 6. This could have ensured the continuity of its lineage without causing so much division. Taking these attitudes, Jaime could have kept his throne, creating a more stable and accepted government, preserving the powers of the crown without generating the hostility that led to his deposition.
It’s very easy to say what could have been done, hundreds of years in the future, no one was there. It was a different time, different thoughts . One cannot rewrite history, though it seems everyone tries.
Thank you. An informative video about one of the most transformative periods in English history. The Stuarts made a lot of bad decisions to mind and James seems to have a lot of his father in him.
My favorite part of james' story is the Irish nickname for him Séamas an Chaca ( 'James the shit') after he flat out gave up following the Battle of the Boyne. One of the funniest epithats ever!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I read once that after the Battle of the Boyne, James remarked to an Irish lady that her countrymen had run away. “Your majesty seems to have won the race,” she replied.
There is an excellent museum at the Boyne river, at the actual location of the battle, also, look up images of Sandy Row , belfast.....large mural of William on a wall, many people stop for a selfie at it.....
"The times have changed; old manners gone. A stranger fills the Stuart's throne. The bigots of the iron time called his harmless art a crime." Sir Walter Scott. The Lay of the Last Minstrel.
James’ conversion to Catholicism actually makes me think better of him. He would know that it was absolutely in his best personal interest to remain Anglican. The fact that he didn’t, speaks well of his personal convictions
James II ( VI ) thought he had the Absolute Right to Rule , dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule , ignored Laws and had a standing army . Tried to impose Catholicism on the Anglican Church , and when 7 Bishops said no , he had them charged and put on trial . Generally speaking a person of this nature is called a tyrant . .
48:08 But the key point is that in their Coronation Oath , William of Orange and Mary II were required to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . Later , ELECTED Parliamentarians wrote the English Bill of Rights , which received Royal Assent in Dec 1689 . At the time , only wealthy land owners had the vote , so the this could be considered a power transfer from the King to wealthy Parliamentarians , but this was still the beginning of Democracy in the modern world . William went along with this because his real objective was have the English help the Dutch , defeat the French King over the Spanish Netherlands ( present day Belgium ) . .
33:06 So this painting helps portray what occurred. William of Orange and Mary II were required to recognize " the Sovereignty of Parliament " which was stated in the wording of the revised oath written by Parliament for their coronation on 11 April 1689. They had to swear to govern according to " the statutes in Parliament agreed on " instead of by " the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England ". " " Contrary to common belief, Parliament did not present the Declaration to William and Mary as a condition which they had to accept to be made King and Queen. The rights affirmed in the Declaration did, however, take statutory effect in December 1689 when the Convention, with William and Mary's royal assent, passed the Declaration as an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights. Though it is not a revolutionary statement of universal liberties, being mostly concerned with the specific misdeeds of James II, the Bill of Rights stands as one of the landmark documents in the development of civil liberties in England - and a model for later, more general, statements of rights, such as the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. " .
@@charlesfenwick6554 William and Mary's Coronation Oath ... April 11th , 1685 - Westminster Abbey The Arch- Bishop or Bishop Shall Say : " Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same ? " King and Queene " I will " So this is the first moment in modern history , when a King or Monarch swears an Oath that they will recognize the Sovereignty of an Elected body , and the Laws created by that Elected body . However, at the time , only land owners had the vote . In the 1821 (?) census nearly 1/2 million British Citizens , from a population of 14.4 million , had the vote . .
@@charlesfenwick6554 Also , from William and Mary's Coronation Oath " The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God. " From Queen Elizabeth II 's 1953 Coronation Oath " The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God. " So James II ( VII ) was an Absolute Monarch ===> William and Mary were Constitutional Monarchs. .
I believe had the Stewart line continued with Murdoch instead of his nephew, a Stewart would still be on the throne. And yes, with the "Stew" spelling.
If James II and VII had managed to keep his throne during the Glorious Revolution, the course of British and world history could have been significantly altered. Here’s a hypothetical exploration of how events might have unfolded: ### 1. **Strengthening of Absolute Monarchy** James II was an ardent believer in the divine right of kings and sought to centralize power in the monarchy, much like his contemporary Louis XIV of France. If he had maintained his throne, it is likely that he would have continued to erode the powers of Parliament, steering Britain toward a more absolutist form of governance. This could have led to a government that resembled the French monarchy of the time, with a stronger executive authority and weakened parliamentary influence. ### 2. **Religious Policies and Catholicism** One of the main reasons for James II’s overthrow was his attempt to reintroduce Catholicism into a predominantly Protestant country. If he had remained in power, James would have continued to promote religious tolerance for Catholics, perhaps even instituting more Catholic-friendly policies. This might have resulted in a series of religious conflicts within England and Scotland, as Protestant opposition would have been strong. There’s a possibility that James might have faced armed rebellions similar to the earlier English Civil Wars, but with a religious focus. ### 3. **International Alliances and Conflicts** James II had strong ties to Catholic monarchs in Europe, especially Louis XIV of France. If James had held onto power, Britain might have allied more closely with France, shifting away from its traditional rivalry. This alliance could have influenced wars on the continent, with Britain perhaps supporting France in conflicts like the Nine Years’ War or the War of Spanish Succession. Conversely, a Catholic Britain under James would have likely had more tense relations with Protestant states in Europe, particularly the Dutch Republic and the German Protestant states, leading to a realignment of European alliances. This could have had far-reaching effects on the balance of power in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries. ### 4. **Impact on the American Colonies** James II had plans to restructure the American colonies in line with the Spanish Empire’s centralized model. If he had stayed in power, he might have implemented these plans, merging some colonies and placing them under tighter royal control. This could have reduced the autonomy of the American colonies and may have delayed or prevented the early stirrings of self-governance that later fueled the American Revolution. With a stronger central government and potentially harsher royal oversight, tensions in the colonies might have escalated earlier, with the colonies possibly seeking independence sooner than they did in our timeline, or even remaining under stronger British control for a longer period. ### 5. **Effects on Ireland** James II had strong Catholic sympathies, and his rule might have resulted in policies that were more favorable to Irish Catholics. This could have created more religious division in Ireland, where the Protestant landowning class would resist any pro-Catholic reforms. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland might have intensified, potentially sparking revolts and uprisings. On the other hand, if James had been able to integrate Ireland more fully into his Catholic vision, it’s possible that Ireland might have remained closer to Britain, perhaps mitigating some of the long-term sectarian conflicts that followed. However, given the deep-seated divisions, this seems less likely. ### 6. **Succession and Dynastic Stability** One of the key reasons for James II’s downfall was the birth of his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, who would have been raised Catholic, ensuring a Catholic succession. If James II had retained power, his son would have likely succeeded him, leading to a line of Catholic monarchs in Britain. This could have sparked further conflict with Protestant factions, who might have continuously sought to replace the Catholic monarchy with a Protestant ruler, leading to civil wars or ongoing political instability. Without William of Orange’s ascension to the throne, the Hanoverian line would never have come to power. This would have dramatically changed the trajectory of the British monarchy and the eventual union with Scotland, possibly preventing the formation of Great Britain as it is known today. ### 7. **Long-term Legacy** In this alternate scenario, James II’s continued reign might have delayed the Enlightenment principles of constitutional monarchy in Britain. An absolutist and Catholic Britain would have faced immense internal pressure from both Protestant and Enlightenment thinkers, leading to revolts or possibly a revolution similar to the French Revolution. However, it's also possible that Enlightenment ideas would have eventually forced reforms, leading to a gradual return to a more constitutional monarchy later in the 18th century. These pressures could have shifted the evolution of the British government toward reform, perhaps even precluding the end of monarchy in France, as the political and ideological landscape of Europe would have been vastly different. ### Conclusion Had James II kept his throne, Britain would have likely faced significant internal strife, religious conflict, and a potential realignment of its alliances in Europe. The American colonies might have been more tightly controlled, with earlier tensions between the colonies and the Crown. In the long term, however, it is probable that the forces of Enlightenment and Protestant opposition would have either led to a slow reform of the monarchy or another revolution, as the pushback against absolute rule and Catholicism would have remained strong.
i wish that time line came about!especially for no 6 and scotland ,the highlands may have not got brutally cleared ,and the clan system may have survied , no culloden ,
Another gem from the People's Profile team. Macauley himself would give this 2 thumbs up. I learned from my primary mentor years back that if I was to take the year 1688 and go back and forward 100 years to the 1580's and 1780's, I'd find the foundation of understanding towards our ruling western world of today. While James II time on the throne was very short indeed, you most effectively defined the era in which he lived through. A time where the ending of absolute Monarchial rule was giving way in steps towards the republican and parliamentary democracies of today. Of course the easily understood pages of history can say James II was usurped due to his Catholic leanings but that is just a convenient side note to the real reason for his overthrow. For the once all powerful weight of influence and authority of Monarch's was in decline all through Europe. James II was not the 1st to loose his throne and he wouldn't be the last; but at least he was able to keep his head.
Hey! Just to let you know, we will be closing down our UA-cam memberships at the end of the year. We do now have a new web site however, where you can watch our videos advert free, as well as audio only versions of our videos you can listen to like a podcast, along with much more. Please head over and join by the end of 2024, if you want to continue supporting us. www.peopleprofiles.com/join/
James ll was deposed simply because he was a Roman Catholic. He was not trying to impose Roman Catholicism on the British people as the narrarater claims but only to establish rights for Catholics and also Protestant Dissenters.
After , the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion , James II ( VII ) kept a standing army and starting appointing Catholics to many positions of high authority . He ignored the Test Act - which was a law passed by Parliament . James II ( VII ) thought he had the absolute right to rule and dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule . The Last 2 straws occurred when he put 7 Anglican Bishops on trial and then had a son - who would be a Catholic heir to throne - this meant Mary II would no longer be heir . Suggest reading the 1689 English Bill of Rights - which lists all the complaints against James II ( VII ) . But the key is that in the Coronation Oath of William of Orange and Mary II , they were required to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament and could not over rule laws . Then later in Nov 1689 , Parliament passed the Bill of Rights and it received Royal Assent . .
@@landsea7332 That is your opinion and the opinion of Protestant historians. My opinion is that an anti-Catholic parliament was determined never again to have a Catholic on the English throne at any cost. The cost of this was having to bring in an unpopular Dutchman, a usurper, to be their king with limited powers. Later the cost of this anti-Catholicism was having to bring in to be their king a German imposter who could barely speak English. This made a farce of the right of succession. Over these last three hundred years, Britain has evolved from being an oligarchy to the democracy of today. The mutation of the House of Lords being only the latest example. If the democratic parliament of today by the will of the people can depose a king, I do not see the point of kingship. King Charles and Prince William, whom I like, live in fear of public opinion knowing that their future is a always in doubt.
@@charlesfenwick6554 During the English Civil Wars the Levellers wanted religious tolerance , equality before the law , and male suffrage . Then during the English Enlightenment 2 philosophies emerged 1 ) The use of logic , reasoning and the scientific method to improve the human condition . The use of science and empirical measurement over religion . Separation of Church and State . 2 ) The promotion of equal rights of all citizens It was these Enlightenment philosophies that allowed Democracy , Human Rights , Legal Rights , Labour Rights , Science and Technology to evolve in Britain over the next 300 years . Its actually one of the greatest achievements in all of humanity . THESE ARE FACTS NOT OPINIONS . The presentation of this being an issue of Catholicism vs Protestantism is highly simplistic and totally ignores the rise in secular political philosophies . Suggest studying the Enlightenment , and stop personal accusations , before telling other people that they are offering opinions .
@@charlesfenwick6554 " The cost of this was having to bring in an unpopular Dutchman, ... " You missed point entirely . It doesn't matter if he was a miserable sod . The fact was a King or Monarch recognized the sovereignty of an ELECTED body . This is the beginning DEMOCRACY in the modern world . Right now you have the freedom of expression to make comments about religion and the government , publish your opinions in a public forum , and the technology to do so , because of the Enlightenment . .
Trying to force religion on to people never works. If they already have a religion, they're not going to change. And if they are not religious, they won't become religious because someone else tells them to. James set himself up to fail. Great video, as ever!
Excellent video. I feel James II/VII is an interesting figure, I don't believe he was trying to change Britains religion back to Catholic, I believe due to his beliefs he tryed to push for more toleration in Britain given the large number of Catholics in Ireland. Unfortunately for James, he took too much after his father Charles I, in that both were too heavy handed and stubborn to understand the lessons of his grandsire, James VI, who had realised you needed to negotiate with and reason with Parliament. As such he lost his crowns. 2 small things I think were incorrect: you glossed over the fact that James was initially prepared to meet Williams army on Salisbury plain not long after he landed, but his nerve gave way when 40% of his officers, including John Churchill, defected to William: I believe this incident played a crucial role in James deciding to leave initially without a fight. Secondly, it is true that a Duke of Schomberg continued the war in Ireland, but not the one shown: Frederick (he was killed at the battle of the Boyne). It was his son Meinhardt, who went on to besiege Limerick. Nontheless its a great biographic video, I thoroughly enjoy your work.
You are right. James ll was not trying to impose Catholicsm on the British people. He obviously knew that this would have been impossible. He was only attempting to establish toleration for Roman Catholics and he included Protestant dissenters. His heavy-handedness was his claim to divine right- a concept that was clearly outdated and unacceptable to the British Protestant overwhelming majority.
After the Monmouth Rebellion , James II ( VII ) created a standing army and started appointing Catholic Officers to its ranks . He thought he had the absolute right to rule and dismissed / Prorogued / Dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule . He ignored Laws . Then he had 7 Anglican Bishops put on trial because they refused to read the changes James II ( VII ) made in their diocese . A person who thinks they have the absolute right to rule , has a standing army , dismisses elected representatives , puts citizens on trial , interferes with another religion , is usually called a _______ . .
If only James ii had realised he couldn't rule England and Scotland anymore and just concentrated on being King of Ireland.....Ireland could have been a United independent country 300 years earlier...
I have watched many videos and i've never had a gripe but the first 25 was too repetitive of previous recent videos of charles the first and charles the second. The video only really got into James the second after 25 minutes.
I must say as I'm reading Machiavelli, it seems that he tried to insure too much religion. And his attempt to take power always seemed to be at the fall of another. Who can say what's just or unjust, in regards to this I am not a righteous judge. Don't choose me!
Why do English historians also say King of England!!! James 6th of Scotland, his son Charles 1st and Charles 2nd were crowned Kings of Scotland before they took over England
Excellent documentary. It just demonstrates how intolerant and evil religion is, due to the amount of conflict this one King’s short reign created. This is notwithstanding the diabolical practice of the slave trade that the Crown clearly participated in. This is a clear demonstration of injustice and servitude that monarchies enforce on the masses. England was on the right path of republicanism, but decided to reembrace the chains of delinquency to an undemocratically elected head of state, that not only that transpired to be Dutch but ultimately of Germanic ancestry to the present day; can you see the irony…
The root word being Parle - French to talk . As in Simon de Montford telling Henry III , you need to have advisors . The Norman and Plantagenet nobility , who ruled England and Wales for 300 years , held court in French . Which is why there are so many French words in the English Language . .
Hold on... How could Louis XIV recognize William Orange as the king of England? He was married to the ruling queen, thus, he would have been a prince consort, not the king.
On the balance of probability I recon James was not fit to be a king, and so he should have been excluded in the first instance to avoid all the troubles he encountered later.
Probably the only king in history of humankind..to recieve official(from Parlaiment) the despicable title "The Beshitten"..not just inept as ruler..but also coward fleeing the battlefield..
Somehow nobody now remembers that Catholics were persecuted in England until the time of George IV, and James II only wanted to make them equal before the law.
Completely ignores the many centuries of harm caused by the medieval Catholic church: the political intrigues, the burning of heretics, the suppression of the Bible and all dissent to the papacy.
@@yugster78 William of Orange did not give it. Parliament did. He just accepted it. As a Dutch foreigner he was a very unpopular ruler, disliked by the British people but whom they tolerated since at least he was not a Catholic.
Why don't you talk about the Japanese who used 10 million Asians and POW's in forced labour camps , in horrific conditions , during WW II ? Or all the other cultures that used slavery ? Or is it that the Ultra Wealthy Elites have indoctrinated and manipulated you into pointing out only negatives of Western Culture ? .
For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/thepeopleprofiles
Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peopleprofiles
UA-cam Membership: ua-cam.com/channels/D6TPU-PvTMvqgzC_AM7_uA.htmljoin
or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles
Love your work and videos guys! Please do Athelstan soon!🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤
00
I was under the impression, perhaps misinformed, that Lord Spenser was a decenadant of 2 Charles II’s illegitimate sons Charles Lennox and Henry Fitzroy via two of her great-grandmothers, Adeline Seymour and Rosalind Bingham.
Im glad that this documentary mentioned the Royal African company. Most other documentaries skip right over that .
loved that part
Thanks!
Thank you!
I trust you that an individual video for Queen Mary II of England (not combined with William III) doing her justice like only People Profiles can will soon follow 🤞🏻 and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, my favourites! Thank you People Profiles!
Prince William will be is the first British king to be a direct descendant of James II , through illegitimate children of the latter. Diana was a descendent of James II and Arabella Churchill. She is her 8th great-grandmother.
Arabella was my 8 th great grandmother too. I’m also related to her dreadful brother, George.
So the glorious revolution will be over with him? Finally.
@@robertalpythe Protestant Faith lives on with or without the Royal family. You are a bit deluded.
So his descendants live to this day!?Ha, alas for williams of orange And his treacherous conspirators
Wise up
Hope you consider ''KING LEOPOLD II''. One of the most brutal people that existed next to Hitler. The atrocities he committed in Africa through his manipulating personality is something very interesting to learn about. I've learned a lot on your channel, btw . Thank you very much for your time and hard work. Hope you reach 1 million in a heart beat. You deserve it.
I trust you thea the video on Athelstan will come soon, not to mention Edward the Elder, among my favorite Sxon kings! Thank you People Profiles!You're the best!
Your presentation of history is spot on man! Canadian baby boomer here remembering a high school history class on British history, I love your addition of the painting at 38:10. Get a load of these characters as it is a true representation of the ruling elite with a monarchy...I don't recall if the identifications by letter from A to Z was original, but I reckon it is the most important to the least important yet they are all worthy of mention! Fascinating!
James learns about his father Charles the 1st execution in France. Spends the next few years of his life serving in the French army then later in the Spanish Army, goes back to England with his brother Charles the 2nd later becomes king himself and says "I haven't learned a thing".
Yes because aparently not wanting religious minorities to be persecuted is too much of a crime for the English people that they invited a foreign monarch to invade their country and overthrow their rightfull king.
I don't know who the narrator is for this documentary. But he has a very unique voice. And he's narrated many documentaries. It helps me fall asleep. As I'm sure it does others also.
Gareth Johnson
Yep
Loving the British monarchy videos, really hoping you do some videos on the Habsburg monarchs of Spain such as Charles V/Phillip II 🙏
Papists and idol worshippers, says I.
@iagoporto5522 all Christians are idol worshippers of they worship the man known as Jesus
In order for Jaime II to have kept his throne during the glorious revolution, he could have adopted a more balanced and sensitive approach to the concerns of the people and parliament. Here are some things he could have done:
1. ** Religious tolerance in a smoother way: ** Instead of trying to impose Catholicism abruptly, Jaime could have gradually worked to promote religious tolerance, respecting predominant Protestant beliefs. He could have shown more empathy and built confidence, which would have diminished resistance to his government.
2. ** Collaboration with Parliament: ** Instead of trying to rule alone, Jaime could have sought a more open dialogue with Parliament. He could have accepted some concessions, showing that he was willing to work together for the sake of the country, which would have strengthened his position.
3. ** Construction of Political Bridges: ** Jaime could have struggled more to create alliances with moderate political figures, both Catholic and Protestant. Upon hearing and meeting the concerns of these groups, he could have avoided the isolation and growing opposition that led to their fall.
4. ** Moderate use of force: ** Instead of resorting to military force to silence the opposition, Jaime could have opted for more peaceful and conciliatory solutions. A less oppressive government would have generated less fear and resistance, and could have preserved its authority without the need for repression.
5. ** Graduative reforms: ** Instead of trying to impose rapid and drastic changes, Jaime could have introduced reforms more gradually, involving the people and parliament in decisions. This most careful approach could have maintained popular support and avoided the feeling that he was ignoring the country's traditions.
6. This could have ensured the continuity of its lineage without causing so much division.
Taking these attitudes, Jaime could have kept his throne, creating a more stable and accepted government, preserving the powers of the crown without generating the hostility that led to his deposition.
He deserved to lose his throne.
Epic story telling as always 👏🏻
It’s very easy to say what could have been done, hundreds of years in the future, no one was there. It was a different time, different thoughts . One cannot rewrite history, though it seems everyone tries.
Thank you. An informative video about one of the most transformative periods in English history. The Stuarts made a lot of bad decisions to mind and James seems to have a lot of his father in him.
The Scots mess everything up. The Monarchy or politics, they’re too emotional to keep things running steadily.
The bad decisions were made by the English people themselves.
English History!!! These Kings were Scottish they took over England in 1603
19:53 mad to see my tiny little town (Beccles) on such an old map. Not sure why its on there as we arent on the coast like the others.
My favorite part of james' story is the Irish nickname for him Séamas an Chaca ( 'James the shit') after he flat out gave up following the Battle of the Boyne. One of the funniest epithats ever!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Queen Billy" is very funny nickname too😂😂😂
I read once that after the Battle of the Boyne, James remarked to an Irish lady that her countrymen had run away. “Your majesty seems to have won the race,” she replied.
You do great work! I would love to hear one on Tito from Yugoslavia
A man true to his own convictions is a true King. Long live the King!!!
But we committed Regicide for that very reason, the execution of Charles I, called by some Charles the Martyr, the only Anglican Saint in their eyes.
Im related to this guy somewhere down the line so i figured i should learn something here ha thanks for the teachings
There is an excellent museum at the Boyne river, at the actual location of the battle, also, look up images of Sandy Row , belfast.....large mural of William on a wall, many people stop for a selfie at it.....
Wonderful narrative...graphic storytelling thanks
"The times have changed; old manners gone. A stranger fills the Stuart's throne. The bigots of the iron time called his harmless art a crime." Sir Walter Scott. The Lay of the Last Minstrel.
Can’t wait to see your next video!
YAY!!! My favorite!
Charles 2nd was mine
Henry VlII is mine.
@30:00- LOL I see she's of the Habsburg bloodline owing to the classic "Habsburg Jaw".
James’ conversion to Catholicism actually makes me think better of him. He would know that it was absolutely in his best personal interest to remain Anglican. The fact that he didn’t, speaks well of his personal convictions
Bloody papists
@@lewis123417 Bloody bigot
James II ( VI ) thought he had the Absolute Right to Rule , dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule , ignored Laws and had a standing army . Tried to impose Catholicism on the Anglican Church , and when 7 Bishops said no , he had them charged and put on trial .
Generally speaking a person of this nature is called a tyrant .
.
@@lewis123417facing orange, go home, Ireland for Irish 🇮🇪 🇮🇪 🇮🇪
@@lewis123417Bigotry becomes you.
I have a suggestion. A profile of erich mielke head of the stasi.
James was diffrent from his brother Charles and unlike Charles did not understand he had to have pepol on his side
Pepol? I think you mean to say the subjects of King James ii should have re-converted to Catholicism and this saved Ireland a lot of bother.😁
Very informative
I believe that King James was true to his faith and willing to sacrifice for it.
48:08 But the key point is that in their Coronation Oath , William of Orange and Mary II were required to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . Later , ELECTED Parliamentarians wrote the English Bill of Rights , which received Royal Assent in Dec 1689 .
At the time , only wealthy land owners had the vote , so the this could be considered a power transfer from the King to wealthy Parliamentarians , but this was still the beginning of Democracy in the modern world .
William went along with this because his real objective was have the English help the Dutch , defeat the French King
over the Spanish Netherlands ( present day Belgium ) .
.
33:06 So this painting helps portray what occurred.
William of Orange and Mary II were required to recognize " the Sovereignty of Parliament " which was stated in the wording of the revised oath written by Parliament for their coronation on 11 April 1689. They had to swear to govern according to
" the statutes in Parliament agreed on " instead of by " the laws and customs ... granted by the Kings of England ". "
" Contrary to common belief, Parliament did not present the Declaration to William and Mary as a condition which they had to accept to be made King and Queen. The rights affirmed in the Declaration did, however, take statutory effect in December 1689 when the Convention, with William and Mary's royal assent, passed the Declaration as an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights.
Though it is not a revolutionary statement of universal liberties, being mostly concerned with the specific misdeeds of James II, the Bill of Rights stands as one of the landmark documents in the development of civil liberties in England - and a model for later, more general, statements of rights, such as
the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. "
.
Not perhaps the beginning of true democracy but more to the point the Bill of Rights represents the end of the divine right of kingship.
@@charlesfenwick6554 William and Mary's Coronation Oath ... April 11th , 1685 - Westminster Abbey
The Arch- Bishop or Bishop Shall Say :
" Will You solemnely Promise and Sweare to Governe the People of this Kingdome of England and the Dominions thereto belonging to the Statutes in Parlyament Agreed on and the Laws and Customs of the same ? "
King and Queene " I will "
So this is the first moment in modern history , when a King or Monarch swears an Oath that they will recognize the Sovereignty of an Elected body , and the Laws created by that Elected body .
However, at the time , only land owners had the vote .
In the 1821 (?) census nearly 1/2 million British Citizens , from a population of 14.4 million , had the vote .
.
@@charlesfenwick6554
Also , from William and Mary's Coronation Oath
" The things which I have here before promised I will performe and Keepe Soe help me God. "
From Queen Elizabeth II 's 1953 Coronation Oath
" The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God. "
So James II ( VII ) was an Absolute Monarch ===> William and Mary were Constitutional Monarchs.
.
I agree.
James ll was the last king who would try to claim divine right.
Happy birthday J🎉
57:55 John III Sobieski could not leave a successor anyway, as Poland had an electoral monarchy.
wonder how many people today are direct descendants of Charles II through all the bastards he had.
I believe had the Stewart line continued with Murdoch instead of his nephew, a Stewart would still be on the throne. And yes, with the "Stew" spelling.
If James II and VII had managed to keep his throne during the Glorious Revolution, the course of British and world history could have been significantly altered. Here’s a hypothetical exploration of how events might have unfolded:
### 1. **Strengthening of Absolute Monarchy**
James II was an ardent believer in the divine right of kings and sought to centralize power in the monarchy, much like his contemporary Louis XIV of France. If he had maintained his throne, it is likely that he would have continued to erode the powers of Parliament, steering Britain toward a more absolutist form of governance. This could have led to a government that resembled the French monarchy of the time, with a stronger executive authority and weakened parliamentary influence.
### 2. **Religious Policies and Catholicism**
One of the main reasons for James II’s overthrow was his attempt to reintroduce Catholicism into a predominantly Protestant country. If he had remained in power, James would have continued to promote religious tolerance for Catholics, perhaps even instituting more Catholic-friendly policies. This might have resulted in a series of religious conflicts within England and Scotland, as Protestant opposition would have been strong. There’s a possibility that James might have faced armed rebellions similar to the earlier English Civil Wars, but with a religious focus.
### 3. **International Alliances and Conflicts**
James II had strong ties to Catholic monarchs in Europe, especially Louis XIV of France. If James had held onto power, Britain might have allied more closely with France, shifting away from its traditional rivalry. This alliance could have influenced wars on the continent, with Britain perhaps supporting France in conflicts like the Nine Years’ War or the War of Spanish Succession.
Conversely, a Catholic Britain under James would have likely had more tense relations with Protestant states in Europe, particularly the Dutch Republic and the German Protestant states, leading to a realignment of European alliances. This could have had far-reaching effects on the balance of power in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
### 4. **Impact on the American Colonies**
James II had plans to restructure the American colonies in line with the Spanish Empire’s centralized model. If he had stayed in power, he might have implemented these plans, merging some colonies and placing them under tighter royal control. This could have reduced the autonomy of the American colonies and may have delayed or prevented the early stirrings of self-governance that later fueled the American Revolution.
With a stronger central government and potentially harsher royal oversight, tensions in the colonies might have escalated earlier, with the colonies possibly seeking independence sooner than they did in our timeline, or even remaining under stronger British control for a longer period.
### 5. **Effects on Ireland**
James II had strong Catholic sympathies, and his rule might have resulted in policies that were more favorable to Irish Catholics. This could have created more religious division in Ireland, where the Protestant landowning class would resist any pro-Catholic reforms. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland might have intensified, potentially sparking revolts and uprisings.
On the other hand, if James had been able to integrate Ireland more fully into his Catholic vision, it’s possible that Ireland might have remained closer to Britain, perhaps mitigating some of the long-term sectarian conflicts that followed. However, given the deep-seated divisions, this seems less likely.
### 6. **Succession and Dynastic Stability**
One of the key reasons for James II’s downfall was the birth of his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, who would have been raised Catholic, ensuring a Catholic succession. If James II had retained power, his son would have likely succeeded him, leading to a line of Catholic monarchs in Britain. This could have sparked further conflict with Protestant factions, who might have continuously sought to replace the Catholic monarchy with a Protestant ruler, leading to civil wars or ongoing political instability.
Without William of Orange’s ascension to the throne, the Hanoverian line would never have come to power. This would have dramatically changed the trajectory of the British monarchy and the eventual union with Scotland, possibly preventing the formation of Great Britain as it is known today.
### 7. **Long-term Legacy**
In this alternate scenario, James II’s continued reign might have delayed the Enlightenment principles of constitutional monarchy in Britain. An absolutist and Catholic Britain would have faced immense internal pressure from both Protestant and Enlightenment thinkers, leading to revolts or possibly a revolution similar to the French Revolution.
However, it's also possible that Enlightenment ideas would have eventually forced reforms, leading to a gradual return to a more constitutional monarchy later in the 18th century. These pressures could have shifted the evolution of the British government toward reform, perhaps even precluding the end of monarchy in France, as the political and ideological landscape of Europe would have been vastly different.
### Conclusion
Had James II kept his throne, Britain would have likely faced significant internal strife, religious conflict, and a potential realignment of its alliances in Europe. The American colonies might have been more tightly controlled, with earlier tensions between the colonies and the Crown. In the long term, however, it is probable that the forces of Enlightenment and Protestant opposition would have either led to a slow reform of the monarchy or another revolution, as the pushback against absolute rule and Catholicism would have remained strong.
i wish that time line came about!especially for no 6 and scotland ,the highlands may have not got brutally cleared ,and the clan system may have survied , no culloden ,
Interesting 🤔, how about a biography of Anthony Hope and Rafael Sabatini.
Another gem from the People's Profile team. Macauley himself would give this 2 thumbs up. I learned from my primary mentor years back that if I was to take the year 1688 and go back and forward 100 years to the 1580's and 1780's, I'd find the foundation of understanding towards our ruling western world of today. While James II time on the throne was very short indeed, you most effectively defined the era in which he lived through. A time where the ending of absolute Monarchial rule was giving way in steps towards the republican and parliamentary democracies of today.
Of course the easily understood pages of history can say James II was usurped due to his Catholic leanings but that is just a convenient side note to the real reason for his overthrow. For the once all powerful weight of influence and authority of Monarch's was in decline all through Europe. James II was not the 1st to loose his throne and he wouldn't be the last; but at least he was able to keep his head.
I thought it was James II of Scotland as this James is usually known as James VII of Scotland, II of England.
Correct
Hey! Just to let you know, we will be closing down our UA-cam memberships at the end of the year. We do now have a new web site however, where you can watch our videos advert free, as well as audio only versions of our videos you can listen to like a podcast, along with much more. Please head over and join by the end of 2024, if you want to continue supporting us. www.peopleprofiles.com/join/
Watched, i did not! As I mostly listened! Interesting.
Bookmark
41:39
I think he supported religious-tolerance. There is some debate about whether this was an end in itself, or about ultimately reinstating Catholicism.
What is a kirk?
Kirk is the Scottish word for church😅
No mention of the ejection of ministers
James ll was deposed simply because he was a Roman Catholic. He was not trying to impose Roman Catholicism on the British people as the narrarater claims but only to establish rights for Catholics and also Protestant Dissenters.
After , the Duke of Monmouth's rebellion , James II ( VII ) kept a standing army and starting appointing Catholics to many positions of high authority . He ignored the Test Act - which was a law passed by Parliament .
James II ( VII ) thought he had the absolute right to rule and dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule .
The Last 2 straws occurred when he put 7 Anglican Bishops on trial and then had a son - who would be a Catholic heir to throne - this meant Mary II would no longer be heir .
Suggest reading the 1689 English Bill of Rights - which lists all the complaints against James II ( VII ) .
But the key is that in the Coronation Oath of William of Orange and Mary II , they were required to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament and could not over rule laws .
Then later in Nov 1689 , Parliament passed the Bill of Rights and it received Royal Assent .
.
.
James II ( VI ) Absolute Monarch who dissolved Parliament === > William and Mary II Constitutional Monarchs .
.
@@landsea7332 That is your opinion and the opinion of Protestant historians. My opinion is that an anti-Catholic parliament was determined never again to have a Catholic on the English throne at any cost. The cost of this was having to bring in an unpopular Dutchman, a usurper, to be their king with limited powers. Later the cost of this anti-Catholicism was having to bring in to be their king a German imposter who could barely speak English. This made a farce of the right of succession. Over these last three hundred years, Britain has evolved from being an oligarchy to the democracy of today. The mutation of the House of Lords being only the latest example. If the democratic parliament of today by the will of the people can depose a king, I do not see the point of kingship. King Charles and Prince William, whom I like, live in fear of public opinion knowing that their future is a always in doubt.
@@charlesfenwick6554 During the English Civil Wars the Levellers wanted religious tolerance , equality before the law , and male suffrage .
Then during the English Enlightenment 2 philosophies emerged
1 ) The use of logic , reasoning and the scientific method to improve the human condition . The use of science and empirical measurement over religion . Separation of Church and State .
2 ) The promotion of equal rights of all citizens
It was these Enlightenment philosophies that allowed Democracy , Human Rights , Legal Rights , Labour Rights , Science and Technology to evolve in Britain over the next 300 years .
Its actually one of the greatest achievements in all of humanity .
THESE ARE FACTS NOT OPINIONS .
The presentation of this being an issue of Catholicism vs Protestantism is highly simplistic and totally ignores the rise in secular political philosophies . Suggest studying the Enlightenment , and stop personal accusations , before telling other people that they are offering opinions .
@@charlesfenwick6554 " The cost of this was having to bring in an unpopular Dutchman, ... "
You missed point entirely . It doesn't matter if he was a miserable sod .
The fact was a King or Monarch recognized the sovereignty of an ELECTED body .
This is the beginning DEMOCRACY in the modern world .
Right now you have the freedom of expression to make comments about religion and the government , publish your opinions in a public forum , and the technology to do so , because of the Enlightenment .
.
James felt he had to return England, Ireland and Scotland to their foundational Christian Faith.
His brother Charles 2nd said he’d lose the throne in four years and he was right in my opinion he was a dreadful king and man
JAMES SHOULD.....WITH SUPPORTING ADVISORS.......WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Trying to force religion on to people never works. If they already have a religion, they're not going to change. And if they are not religious, they won't become religious because someone else tells them to. James set himself up to fail. Great video, as ever!
Also known as James V11 of Scotland
Good moring
The ironic thing is James II grandfather James I was the target of Catholic assassins in the gunpowder plot because of his anti-Catholic measures.
He took more after his great-grandmother Mary Queen of Scots (though he was not beheaded).
Schomberg died at the Battle of the Boyne. He did not rule in William’s stead.
He should have built upon his brother's rule instead of making the same mistakes as his father.
Robert Plant is King James II reincarnated
Indian Maratha empire Shivaji Maharaj biography please make video
Excellent video. I feel James II/VII is an interesting figure, I don't believe he was trying to change Britains religion back to Catholic, I believe due to his beliefs he tryed to push for more toleration in Britain given the large number of Catholics in Ireland. Unfortunately for James, he took too much after his father Charles I, in that both were too heavy handed and stubborn to understand the lessons of his grandsire, James VI, who had realised you needed to negotiate with and reason with Parliament. As such he lost his crowns.
2 small things I think were incorrect: you glossed over the fact that James was initially prepared to meet Williams army on Salisbury plain not long after he landed, but his nerve gave way when 40% of his officers, including John Churchill, defected to William: I believe this incident played a crucial role in James deciding to leave initially without a fight.
Secondly, it is true that a Duke of Schomberg continued the war in Ireland, but not the one shown: Frederick (he was killed at the battle of the Boyne). It was his son Meinhardt, who went on to besiege Limerick.
Nontheless its a great biographic video, I thoroughly enjoy your work.
You are right. James ll was not trying to impose Catholicsm on the British people. He obviously knew that this would have been impossible. He was only attempting to establish toleration for Roman Catholics and he included Protestant dissenters. His heavy-handedness was his claim to divine right- a concept that was clearly outdated and unacceptable to the British Protestant overwhelming majority.
After the Monmouth Rebellion , James II ( VII ) created a standing army and started appointing Catholic Officers to its ranks . He thought he had the absolute right to rule and dismissed / Prorogued / Dissolved Parliament in 1685 for the rest of his rule . He ignored Laws . Then he had 7 Anglican Bishops put on trial because they refused to read the changes James II ( VII ) made in their diocese .
A person who thinks they have the absolute right to rule , has a standing army , dismisses elected representatives , puts citizens on trial , interferes with another religion , is usually called a _______ .
.
хороший король только с религией надо было не так жёстко
His voice go's through me ,he can't say parliament, any one else but that narrator.
You jumped or mentioned quickly the execution of Charles the 1st...confusing...
Brilho de Deus está no Teleton pessoal!vamos logo amigos é amigas p/SBT Teleton.Criancas é vida.
Jacobitism not Jacobinism.
@54:24 CHICKEN uwu
Can anybody tell me when and why all the wig wearing started?
coz of lice. i don't know why they did it specially around that time exactly..but that was the reason
I 2nd the Lice .
If only James ii had realised he couldn't rule England and Scotland anymore and just concentrated on being King of Ireland.....Ireland could have been a United independent country 300 years earlier...
Imagine being a King and when you call your armies everyone just goes: "Screw this, I'm outta here.
❤❤🇩🇿
I have watched many videos and i've never had a gripe but the first 25 was too repetitive of previous recent videos of charles the first and charles the second.
The video only really got into James the second after 25 minutes.
I wish this guy would stop saying Parl-yoo-ment. It GRATES on me 😵💫
I must say as I'm reading Machiavelli, it seems that he tried to insure too much religion. And his attempt to take power always seemed to be at the fall of another. Who can say what's just or unjust, in regards to this I am not a righteous judge. Don't choose me!
Why do English historians also say King of England!!! James 6th of Scotland, his son Charles 1st and Charles 2nd were crowned Kings of Scotland before they took over England
Parl u ment
Parliament
Any king with head still attached is really quite a pity.
👎
Excellent documentary.
It just demonstrates how intolerant and evil religion is, due to the amount of conflict this one King’s short reign created. This is notwithstanding the diabolical practice of the slave trade that the Crown clearly participated in. This is a clear demonstration of injustice and servitude that monarchies enforce on the masses.
England was on the right path of republicanism, but decided to reembrace the chains of delinquency to an undemocratically elected head of state, that not only that transpired to be Dutch but ultimately of Germanic ancestry to the present day; can you see the irony…
"English Republicans" -- cromwellists made genocide in Ireland, king James wanted gave religion freedom for all people -- live with it.
best king ever !!! the stuarts were world beaters , heros , scotlands best , england did not appeciate them
typical
New Holland?
Oh Goody, if reparations for slavery goes into effect, the UK will have to pay too 😊
Can only guess life would have been difficult living as a subject during the reign of James II...
It was better than what it became afterwards.
@charlesfenwick6554 + During Williams rule was the worst period in history of Scotland.
@@charlesfenwick6554In what sense? England had a more balanced constitution afterwards.
Another relative ancestor of my mother’s side of the family
Why should we care ?
Parley............ah............ment....😂
The root word being Parle - French to talk .
As in Simon de Montford telling Henry III , you need to have advisors .
The Norman and Plantagenet nobility , who ruled England and Wales for 300 years , held court in French .
Which is why there are so many French words in the English Language .
.
Hold on... How could Louis XIV recognize William Orange as the king of England? He was married to the ruling queen, thus, he would have been a prince consort, not the king.
I love the painting of him, the really well done one that shows of his sneering arrogance.
Your subjective opinion.
Base/Superstructure x the materialist conception of history
On the balance of probability I recon James was not fit to be a king, and so he should have been excluded in the first instance to avoid all the troubles he encountered later.
He left the Irish people to pick up the pieces
it was a fatal error, but as many man in power will hold there opinion again there electors
Probably the only king in history of humankind..to recieve official(from Parlaiment) the despicable title "The Beshitten"..not just inept as ruler..but also coward fleeing the battlefield..
Severe antipathy? More like unhinged irrationality.
Sure that picture isent Henry Cavill?
Pompous king who deserved his ousting.
'deplorable,'deplorable', hmmm, the usual revisionism, I'm sure in 300 years we'll be 'deplorable' for owning cats and dogs.
Great exposed of James II yeah u didn't have to force catholicism on the people
Somehow nobody now remembers that Catholics were persecuted in England until the time of George IV, and James II only wanted to make them equal before the law.
Completely ignores the many centuries of harm caused by the medieval Catholic church: the political intrigues, the burning of heretics, the suppression of the Bible and all dissent to the papacy.
Protestants made genocide in Ireland
I think his attitude was imprudent, and he deserved to lose his throne(s).
Worst King in English history is what he was, William of Orange how ever was one of the best.
Your opinion reveals a certain anti-Catholic bigotry.
@@charlesfenwick6554 maybe a genetic memory as a French Huguenot descendent
@@yugster78 James ll, as a Roman Catholic, advocated toleration and reconciliation, obviously not persecution.
@@charlesfenwick6554 William of orange gave us our constitutional monarchy that we have today how ever.
@@yugster78 William of Orange did not give it. Parliament did. He just accepted it. As a Dutch foreigner he was a very unpopular ruler, disliked by the British people but whom they tolerated since at least he was not a Catholic.
He should have been named King Rodney. Because he was a plonker.
such a shame we didnt stay republican
Why don't you talk about James ii as a.slaver and his role in the slave trade
Why don't you talk about the Japanese who used 10 million Asians and POW's in forced labour camps ,
in horrific conditions , during WW II ?
Or all the other cultures that used slavery ?
Or is it that the Ultra Wealthy Elites have indoctrinated and manipulated you into pointing out only negatives of Western Culture ?
.
For those with basic study skills ... 21:48
@@landsea7332lol😂