13 September 2022

From King Charles II to the Glorious Revolution 1688

King Charles II was crowned at Westminster Abbey, 1661.
Wiki

There was a widely-held belief that British Cath­olics were actively plotting the overthrow of church and state, to establish Britain as a satellite state under the control of an all-powerful Catholic monarch.

In the late 1670s, anxieties were raised by the succession issue. King Charles II (1630–85) had no legitimate offspring, meaning the crown would pass to his brother James, Duke of York, who'd converted to Catholicism.

Whig politicians in Parliament, led by Earl Shaftesbury, promoted exclusion bills to prevent James from taking the throne. But the mass petitions and demonstrations deployed by the king’s opponents gradually alienated some initial supporters of exclusion. So it is interesting that in 1677 James attempted to appease Protestants by allowing his daughter, Mary, to marry the Protestant Prince of Orange, William III.

Charles had to bar his brother from succession yet he very nearly lost control of his government, having to allow his Whig supporters to occupy positions of power. Three general elections led to unmanageable parliaments, so Charles sent James into exile. This proved to be unacceptable to the Whigs and when Charles sickened in 1679, civil conflict threatened. So Charles recovered control of his government, earning a nationwide surge of loyalty. He had made another secret treaty with France, counting on a healthy public revenue from them. Reforms at the Treasury provided the crown with firm administrative control, Charles’ most valuable legacy at home.

King James II’s authority appeared to be secure when he succeeded his late brother in Feb 1685. The new king’s initial promises to defend the existing government in church and state reassured many citizens.

King James’ first parliament was dominated by loyal Tories. Parl­iament even voted James considerable emergency sums to suppress the rebellion raised by Charles II’s illegitimate son, Duke of Monmouth in June 1685. James’ soldiers easily crushed Monmouth’s rebels.

Left: Catholic King James II
Centre: James' Protestant daughter, Queen Mary II
Right: James' Protestant son in law, King William III

Initial support for King James ebbed away once it became clear that he wished to secure a] freedom of worship for Catholics and b] removal of the Test and Corporation Acts so that Catholics could occupy public office. In 1686 James suspended the negative provisions of the Test Acts that had previously imposed civil disabil­it­ies on Catholics and non-conformists. The next year the king issued a Declaration of Indulgence, which suspended penal laws against Catholics and granted acceptance of some Protestant dissenters.

In summer 1687, James formally dissolved Parliament. He wanted to begin a purge of corporations, aimed at producing a pliable parl­iam­ent which would agree to James’ wishes. Naturally these measures were increasing opposed by the Anglican-Tory establish­ment.

In May 1688, seven leading Protestant bishops refused to read the king’s Second Declaration of Indulgence in church. So James had them arrested for sedit­ious libel and taken to the Tower of London.

Seven important English peers made contact with the Dutch leader, Prince William of Orange. They wrote to Will­iam and begged him to intervene militarily, especially since James’ Catholic second wife finally became pregnant. The birth of a healthy male Catholic heir in June 1688 dashed hopes that the crown would soon pass to James’  Protestant daughter Mary (1662–94). The seven peers to pledge their support to the prince, IF he invaded against James.

Even before this letter was sent, William’s main reason for interfering in English affairs was to bring Britain into his war against Louis XIV’s France. Clearly William already began making military prep­ar­ations for an invasion of Britain.

In early Nov 1688, one of the greatest invasion fleets in British history was sailing towards the Devon coast. With 40,000 men aboard 463 ships, Prince William of Orange’s Dutch invasion was very ser­ious. This Protestant prince would topple King James II, secure the Ang­lican faith and save Britain from Catholicism.

But William’s pilot steered too far to the west, missing Torbay. The wind was too strong for them to turn back, but the next port was Plymouth, where James had already posted a garrison. Then the breeze changed; the Protestant Wind proved God was clearly on the Protestant side again. So William was able to turn back to Torbay, and by the time he stepped ashore, the quay was crowded with well-wishers and the Glorious Revolution was safely under way.

James’ army, encamped on Hounslow Heath, had more men than William’s. But news of the Prince’s arrival had sparked off waves of anti-Catholic rioting in towns across Britain. Important defections to William followed - the Duke of Marlborough; James’ son-in-law, Prince of Denmark; and James’ nephew. The worst was when James discovered that his daughter, Princess Anne (1665 –1714), had also joined the Orangists.

Having reached Salisbury in Nov, King James announced he was will­ing to agree to William’s main demand - to call a free parliament. However, the king was now convinced that his own life was in danger and prepared to flee the country. In mid Dec, in the wake of renewed anti-Catholic rioting in London, James tried to escape but was captured in Kent. By now William was now looked upon as the only individual capable of restoring order to the country. So in late Dec 1688, James fled the country with William’s collusion.

Before they were offered the crown, William and Mary were presented with the Declaration of Rights document. This affirmed some cons­tit­utional principles eg the prohibition of taxation without parl­iamentary consent and the need for regular parliaments. Pressure from the now-King William III (1689-1702) also ensured the passage in May 1689 of the Toleration Act. William and Mary agreed and formally accepted the joint-throne in 1689.

Parliament gained powers over taxation; the royal succession; appointments; and the right of the crown to wage war independently. Did Queen Mary and King William truly support these limit­ations? Or were they concessions that William paid, in return for parliament’s financial support for his war against France?

Though the Revolution in England was largely peaceful, the Revolution was secured in Ireland & Scotland by force. In both countries the settlements were politically and relig­iously divisive eg Irish Protestants ignored the big peace terms of the Treaty of Limerick (Oct 1691) and established a monopoly over land-ownership and political power.

So the Glorious Revolution was the underpinning of Whig history, propelling Britain towards constitutional monarchy and parliam­entary democracy. But did the Tories, Scots and Irish believe this version of the Revolution?

NB The Act of Union wasn’t until 1707 but I have used the name Britain even before that date.





19 comments:

Not a royalist said...

Perfect timing, Hel

Mike@Bit About Britain said...

One of the interesting thing about the 'Glorious Revolution' is that few don't recognise it for the foreign invasion that it was - though I personally think that, overall, it was a Good Thing. Also, the repercussions of it are of course still felt today. The term 'Britain' is used both in a geographical and political sense and had been used before.

Hels said...

Not a royalist,

Every television station has concentrated full time on the family, life, death and funeral of Queen Elizabeth but almost nothing on the LONG history of one royal handing the crown over to the next in Britain. Of course the new king was very very educated in royal history, but I wonder if King Charles III considered changing his name, to Edward, George, William, Arthur, Andrew, Augustus, Frederick or anything else.

Hels said...

Mike

spot on! Prince William of Orange was heir apparent to the Dutch throne. His main reason for interfering in English affairs was to bring Britain into his war against Louis XIV’s France, so he was very committed to military prep­ar­ations for an invasion. No wonder he was so happy to marry his cousin Mary, daughter of his Uncle James, Duke of York.

The most important part of the Glorious Revolution was the adoption of laws and policies that changed British government for ever. Yes it restored a Protestant monarchy but more importantly, it limited the monarchy's power via the 1689 Bill of Rights. The defence of Parliamentary power provided new and evolving concepts of government, without interference by the head of state.

Hels said...

Royal Rendezvous created a link to "A new King Charles steps lightly where the first Charles met his end".

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/a-new-king-charles-steps-lightly-where-the-first-charles-met-his-end-20220912-p5bhjl.html

Hilary Melton-Butcher said...

Hi Hels - there was talk about Charles changing his name ... it did occur. Also there has been quite a lot of history ... but the tv in this and other countries for its audience has felt compelled to 'broadcast' for their audiences.

The history is complicated to put it mildly ... and we've had the Scottish element too - to deal with ... if people want to know, I'm sure there will be articles and books on the subject - skirting history for sure, but the history will appear. I certainly cannot grasp all the various aspects of our history ... tiny snippets are appearing and settling in ...

Cheers Hilary

Jenny Woolf said...

Interesting piece. Having spent my teenage years in Northern Ireland, I learned more about William of Orange than I ever had before - for perhaps the wrong reasons!

Hels said...

Hilary

Despite thinking it would be a good idea to change his name, I had never heard that King Charles considered calling himself George VII. Thank you.

King James returned to Britain from exile in Mar 1689 in an attempt to recover his kingdoms but, despite a rising in Scotland, a Scottish Convention found that James had lost the crown to William and Mary. After his defeat in battle in July 1690, James returned to France where he spent the rest of his life in exile, miserably. I wonder if James' supporters in Scotland ever forgave William III.

Hels said...

Jenny,

I am not surprised. People still talk about the Battle of the Boyne today.

In March 1690, thousands of Allied troops arrived at Belfast to aid William, while French King Louis sent troops to aid James. William himself arrived at Carrickfergus and marched south. James marched north from Dublin and the two armies met at the River Boyne in July 1690. This battle between the Catholics and Protestants was the worst I had ever heard of in Ireland.

James immediately fled back to France, leaving William to deal with the remains of James' army who did inflict several defeats! Why the Jacobites refused a peace settlement, I will never know. In Sept 1691, the Jacobites finally surrendered and the Treaty of Limerick WAS signed. It permitted Catholics to practice their religion, but lose their land. Jacobite soldiers were even allowed to go to France to fight for Louis.

Sydney Morning Herald said...

It was, said King Charles III, standing in the vast and ancient Westminster Hall, impossible not to feel the “weight of history which surrounds us”. King Charles I had been brought to Westminster Hall in Jan 1649 to be tried for treason against England. He had, among other things, placed himself at war with the parliament, having once stormed into the House of Commons intent on arresting five MPs, who had already fled. He was found guilty in just six days and condemned to death. In Jan 1649, Charles I was beheaded.

Surrounded by Yeoman Guards armed with pikes and dressed in scarlet and gold uniforms from the 16th century and sword-carrying soldiers, King Charles III made it perfectly clear he wanted no conflict with Britain’s parliamentarians.

Tony Wright

Viola said...

Extremely interesting article, Hels. I think that keeping the name 'Charles' may help the new King to leave politics alone, considering all the history!

Hels said...

Viola

undoubtedly King Charles III will totally leave politics alone. And in any case, he is in no way responsible for anything shocking that his relatives did, _before_ the Glorious Revolution. Nor was he remotely responsible for the shocking politics and behaviours of King Edward VIII, _after_ the Glorious Revolution.

I am much more worried about a royal as head of state in Australia than I am worried about Britain. Do you remember where you were on 11th Nov 1975? That was when the lawfully elected government was dismissed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr, who then commissioned the Leader of the Conservative Opposition as Prime Minister. Even if Kerr woke Queen Elizabeth up to discuss the crisis, the destructive period in Australian politics will still put fear in even royalists' hearts.

DUTA said...

Religion, as usual, was constantly at the center of things everywhere.
It had its hand in battles (between catholics and protestants), in politics, in treaties, in money.
It's a never ending issue.

Hels said...

Ufa

thank you. I recommend you read "Restoration and Revolution in Britain: Political Culture in the Era of Charles II and the Glorious Revolution" by Gary de Krey for an excellent overview.

Hels said...

DUTA

almost every nation had a State Religion so even though most people could practise their own religion in their homes and churches, the royals HAD to uphold national standards. I am guessing that James would have not been unpopular just because his second wife was a Catholic and because he converted to Catholicism himself in c1668.

Alas rather than take the Test Act oath, James let his Catholicism create increasing hysteria about a Popish Plot to assassinate Charles and put James on the throne. By the time King Charles died in 1685, rebellions caused the new King James to fill the army and high offices with Roman Catholics and suspend a hostile Parliament. The birth of his son, a possible Catholic heir, brought about the Glorious Revolution in 1688, and he fled to France.

Was this a real religious difference or was it political ineptitude?

Luiz Gomes said...

Boa tarde minha querida amiga. Através do seu maravilhoso trabalho, tenho oportunidade de conhecer e aprender cada vez mais. Verdadeira aula de história.

Mandy said...

What an interesting post. I know a fair bit about Henry VIII and knew about the Protestant Martyrs under Bloody Mary (both thanks to living in Kent) and I also recently learned about the politics of the Gunpowder Plot. But all of this is completely new to me. Absolutely fascinating.

About Charles III, I wad very surprised he took the name. It must be urban legend but I'd always thought he didn't want the name because Charles I and Charles II were so unlucky

Hels said...

Luiz

thank you. If you didn't study British History at school or uni, I recommend that same reference book as I recommended above: "Restoration and Revolution in Britain: Political Culture in the Era of Charles II and the Glorious Revolution" by Gary de Krey. Or see a lecture at https://www.massolit.io/courses/charles-ii-james-ii-and-the-glorious-revolution-1660-88/the-glorious-revolution.

Hels said...

Mandy

the reason I particularly valued _17th century_ history was because of the major decision making that changed Britain forever re monarchy, Parliament, empire, religion, European alliances, Baroque architecture etc etc.

But it must have been very difficult to achieve a unified vision, at least for those holding minority values. The Presbyterian Church _only_ received King William's recognition in Scotland's Act of Union in 1707, finally uniting England and Scotland.