He's probably my favourite Baltic German Buddhist Monarchist, though I'm not sure that's a particularly extensive list.
Quite an interesting figure historically, he did secure Mongolian independence from China, and the temporary restoration of the Mongolian monarchy.
What are your thoughts on him?
James II of England died on this day 325 years ago at the age of 67. The cause of death was a brain haemorrhage.
His final moments were rather poignant I feel. My source for this is primarily John Miller's biography of James II.
By 1701 James's health was failing.
He suffered a stroke in March, which partly paralysed his right arm and leg. Yet, within three months he was walking well and beginning to write.
In August he had a relapse, with stomach pains and spitting blood, which Miller believes is due to a stomach ulcer.
On the 22nd he fell ill while hearing Mass.
Two days later he suffered a internal haemorrhage. He was given extreme unction (the Catholic sacrament of anointing of the sick). He remained stable for a week, most of the time being lucid and conscious. Miller records that James knew he was dying, and approached death calmly, without fear and with relief. He commanded his son, James Francis Edward, the Prince of Wales, and his daughter, Princess Louisa (aged 13 and 9 respectively) to remain good Catholics and to remember their obligations to their mother and to Louis XIV.
He exhorted his Catholic courtiers to remain firm to the Church and urged the Protestants to seek instructions in the one true faith, however he instructed his wife to provide for all his servants, Catholic and Protestant. He pardoned William of Orange, the Emperor, and all his other enemies, with Miller recording him as stating that he "always regarded his enemies as instruments of divine justice".
On the 1st of September his condition worsened. He became lethargic and dozed for long periods of time. His physicians intensified their treatments, and as with early modern medicine, this caused significant pain, but James bore it stoically.
The next day, Louis came and announced that, as Mary of Modena had requested, he would recognise James's son as James III of England (and as James VIII of Scotland). James attempted to embrace Louis but was too weak to do so. The two finally parted in a flood of tears.
By the 4th James was much weaker, with continual shaking and convulsions.
On the afternoon of the 5th he died. Note that Miller records the dates in Old style, as was used in England at the time. In new style this is the 16th of September, and thus James died today, 325 years ago.
James had ordered that his body should be buried at a local Church with minimal pomp, but Louis would not allow this. He granted his cousin a proper royal burial, with James's body being embalmed and cut up. Part of his body being buried in the parish Church at St Germain, the remainder being sent to the English Jesuit college at St Omers. His brain was interred at the Scots college in Paris where a monument to him was erected. His heart, as James had requested, was deposited at the nunnery of Chaillot, where him and Mary of Modena had spent many hours in devotion and prayer. The remainder of his body was buried in the church of the English Benedictines in Paris.
Unfortunately, all traces of his body and the monuments erected in his memory disappeared in the French revolution, but there is a later monument in the church at St Germain-en-Laye.
I do feel that his death is very poignant, with him approaching death calmly and without fear. His forgiveness of William of Orange on his deathbed was motivated by his increasing religious piety in his final days.
It also highlights his bond with his cousin, the Sun King. The anecdote of them parting in tears, alongside Louis's refusal to give James a simple burial, but instead ensuring he got a royal one, is indication to me that Louis did genuinely hold a brotherly love for his cousin. There is a interpretation I have seen that Louis viewed James as a burden or merely as a pawn, and certainly the Sun King did ultimately support the Jacobites because he viewed it would be beneficial for France, but I do think that interpretation goes too far in saying that Louis did not care for James on a personal level at all.
Miller does not record it but his wife, Mary of Modena, was present at his bedside throughout his final days. She was so overcome with grief and exhaustion that James begged her to leave him as seeing her distress was too painful for him. Eventually, out of concern for her health , the physicians and courtiers forced her to withdraw to her apartments shortly before James took his final breath (she had been keeping a relentless days long vigil by James's bedside, and was overcome with grief, that the physicians believed if she kept going, she might experience a medical crisis of her own).
I say this as a Jacobite sympathiser and as someone who generally despises the House of Hanover.
George III is the one big exception for me. He was a constitutional monarch who took his duties seriously, actively exercising the prerogatives granted to him by British constitutional law in accordance with his conscience, which is something most constitutional monarchs today have forgotten they are meant to do. He was very active in politics and government.
He believed in the idea of the "Patriot King". To summarise this as best as I can, he envisioned a Crown that was independent of and above party politics within Parliament. He saw government as being in the national interest, with the King ruling for the good of all his subjects.
A clear example where he demonstrated this was by opposing the stranglehold that Whig aristocratic families had on the British state. It was an effective oligarchy that had developed under the early Hanoverians, and George III actively fought against this. He did this by exercising his control over ministerial appointments to appoint ministers at his own discretion, rather than whomever the Whig aristocrats were patronising. He also had the "King's friends" in Parliament, which wasn't a formal political party, but more like a lose group of MPs who were loyal to the Crown before their specific political faction, meaning that the monarchy had an independent base in Commons. He also used royal patronage to break the monopoly of the Whigs in government positions, for instance among the officer class. (Sidenote, I hate the Whigs with a passion)
He was successful in the short term, by the 1770s he had basically broke the stranglehold that the Whig oligarchy had over the British state. The Whigs hated him for this, and decried him as a tyrant. I personally am very sympathetic to him here, the Crown doesn't exist to be a puppet to politicians, and he understood that and asserted it's independence. It is what a King ought to do.
Unfortunately in the long term, the concept of the "Patriot King" did not become the ordinary constitutional model, if anything, George III's worst fear that the monarch would just be a puppet to whatever political faction was in charge probably came true.
On a personal level, especially compared to the other Hanoverians, he seems to have been a decent man. He was faithful to his wife and his Christian faith was genuine, something I can respect as a Catholic even if he was an Anglican. In addition, he was the first Hanover to declare Britain as his native country, unlike George I and George II who cared far more for Hanover than Britain.
He also opposed slavery, writing that the institution was "repugnant". He also granted assent to the abolition of the slave trade. He wasn't a full blown abolitionist, but this was still very significant for his time.
Not everything about him was perfect, he was opposed to Catholic emancipation for instance (and used the aforementioned prerogatives to prevent any such bills from passing).
It's also worth drawing a distinction between Catholic relief and Catholic emancipation here. George III had no issue with earlier Catholic relief Acts that restored civil liberties to Catholics, permitting them to worship freely, retain property rights etc. He opposed Catholic emancipation, which would've permitted Catholics in government roles such as MPs or commissioned officers, believing this would violate his coronation oaths. That distinction is significant because life for English Catholics did actually get better under his reign with the passing of two Catholic relief Acts.
Obviously as a Catholic I am not to happy about his opposition to Catholic emancipation, but no one is perfect and he was a product of his time.
Overall, he is, in my view, what a constitutional monarch ought to be. His idea of the "Patriot King" is one I wish had become ordinary constitutional practice. An independent Crown that actively seeks the good of the people, and acts to restrain corrupt party politics, while being restrained under constitutional law, is what a constitutional monarchy is actually meant to be.
My favourite would be Henrietta Maria, having read Leanda de Lisle's biography on her. I admire her faith and her love for her husband. Her wit and humour were clearly inherited by her son, Charles II, and she also popularised masques in the English court, which also seems to be something that Charles II inherited and continued. She was also a Bourbon (which is a positive in my view).
(I posted a similar question on r/HouseofStuart about Stuart consorts specifically, but thought I may as well ask the broader question for all British royals. Sorry to those who saw that one for the slight repetition)
So who is your favourite consort?
Personally Henrietta Maria is my favourite.
Now, I admit, my knowledge on consorts is limited, and Henrietta Maria is the one I know the most about, having read Leanda de Lisle's biography on her (would recommend). I am looking to pick up books on Catherine of Braganza and Mary of Modena later down the line too, so maybe this will change in the future.
As it stands though, I find Henrietta Maria to be my favourite of the Stuart consorts. Her commitment to her faith and her love for her husband would be two big reasons. She was also a much more interesting figure than often caricatured (like all the Stuarts).
She often participated in plays and was a good singer. Many visiting diplomats in Charles I's court commented on this, though it took some time for the English nobles to appreciate these fine arts.
Her wit and humour also were very much inherited by her son, Charles II.
Would like to hear your favourites and why!
My source for this is John Miller's book on James II, specifically chapter 12 page 187. To quote from the Miller directly:
>"In fact for some weeks the child seemed far from healthy, thanks mainly to the royal doctors' insistence that milk was bad for babies and that he should be fed on boiled bread or gruel, with such additions as canary wine and "Dr Goddard's drops". Both Louis and the Pope regarded this method of feeding as eccentric to the point of lunacy: a wet nurse would be far more natural. The royal doctors and the King and Queen were at last forced to agree, but only after the child had nearly died in August. Once allowed to suckle, from a tiler's wife rather than the gentlewoman favoured by the doctors, the little Prince went from strength to strength."
Early Modern doctors' advice could be quite deadly, as it turned out.
It is also quite interesting to see both Louis and Innocent XI had to intervene to put an end to this rather absurd advice from the royal doctors.
Unfortunately the book doesn't go deeper into the event, I would personally be very intrigued to see exactly what they said.
On a happier note though, James did clearly care for the his son dearly, even if he was misled temporarily by such advice. The book earlier in the same chapter describes him weeping in joy the entire night at the Prince of Wales's birth. Quoting Miller again,
>"Then on the 10th of June the Queen offered a way out of his dilemma by giving birth to a son. After all the fears of a miscarriage, the baby's arrival took everyone by surprise: the Queen had been playing cards until late the previous night. James was so overjoyed that he fell on his knees and cried for most the night."
To think this was both James's best and worst day of his life, as the birth of the Prince of Wales ultimately led to his deposition.
Credit to Bernadette Reilly, who is the artist of this icon.
King James II/VII of England, Scotland and Ireland was the last Catholic monarch to ever rule the British isles. He was the son of Charles I, and the younger brother of Charles II. Following Charles II's death, he ascended the throne in 1685, but was overthrown in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688. Side-note, Charles II also converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, and James helped him get a Priest to have his final rites.
Following his deposition, he went into exile in France, where, after his attempts to regain his throne failed, he turned to a life of prayer and devotion. He believed that God had deprived him of his throne due to his sins, specifically sins of the flesh, as he had been a serial adulterer in his youth.
His final years were lived as a penitent. He would regularly attend mass and engage with the sacraments. It appears he also lost much interest in gaining his throne, feeling that the state of his soul was a far more pressing matter than his temporal crown.
After his death and burial, there was devotion surrounding him, with the English Benedictines in France being the custodians of his tomb, and the primary promoters of his cult. The Archbishop of Paris opened an investigation into this, with at one point 19 miracles being associated with his intercession. The Archbishop formally opened the cause in 1734, and he was granted the title Servant of God.
The cause did not progress further, partially due to the French Revolution, where the institutions and property belonging to the English Benedictines in France was seized and disrupted. James' own tomb was desecrated, and his body lost, as many royal and aristocratic remains were during the Revolution. Much of the documentation and evidence surrounding miracles were also destroyed during this time, as part of the violence that the Revolutionaries inflicted upon the Church in France. This likely wasn't targeted at James specifically, rather his cause was a victim of the widespread violence of the time.
The communities that had had devotion to him were also disrupted during this time, which was probably the biggest reason to put his cause on hold.
As it stands the cause as not progressed, and he remains Servant of God James II (James VII If you are in Scotland.)
I thought it would be good to share this information on an often forgotten figure in history.
Background: The speech is recorded in the diary writings of Sir Willoughby Aston, on an entry for 27 August 1687. James had dissolved Parliament on 2nd of July 1687, and so the speech is in the context of him visiting the Western counties in the summer of 1687, to convince people to elect MPs that would support his policies of religious toleration for Catholics and dissenters. It was given in Chester, and it is unclear whether this was a unique speech for the people in Chester, or one he used repeatedly throughout his tour of the counties.
Since the speech is recorded by Aston, as opposed to coming from James' own writings, it is likely not 100% accurate to exactly what James said. However, it is the only surviving source we have of James' speech during this tour, and it gives an insight into concepts of religion, national identity, and even race, during James' time.
Immediate Context: Several Whig leaders were introduced to James, whom James greeted before he addressed them. The address was a staged dialogue, with his interlocutor being Sir Williams Williams, a Whig MP for Chester. The diarist recording is Sir Willoughby Aston, a Cheshire Baronet, who was associated with Whig groups. He showed little enthusiasm for James' policies, and likely opposed them. It is from him that the speech is being quoted:
>". . . we went to the Miter, where Lord Brandon, Lord Delamere Sir Thomas Mainwaring, Sir Thomas Delves, Sir Robert Ducconfield Brother Offley etc. we went to Court where Lord President Sunderland presented us to the King Lord Brandon telling our names. The King sayd he had not seen such an appearance of Gentry a great while, Lord Del[amere] told him we did not only appear there in Person but with our hearts and affections, or to that Effect. the King sayd he hoped so and our Countenances expressed no less, he told us he hoped we would join with him in endeavouring to set aside all animosities, and distinctions of parties and names, which would be done by removing the occasions, which were the Penall Laws and tests, and when he should think fit to call a Parliament, he hoped we would send him such men as would join with him in taking them away, that we might all agree and be easie. Williams made some reply that unity was better than Uniformity, and he hoped all would unite in being good subjects to his Majestie. the King sayd he had as soon as he could graunted [sic] a toleration, and hoped we would join with him in making a magna Charta for Conscience as well as properties and other liberties, he was sure no man should be debarr[e]d of either while he lived, suppose said he there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, twould be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarell [sic] with other men for being of different opinions as for being of different Complexions, desired we should shew our selfs Englishmen, and he was sure no Englishman could desire to see others persecuted for differences of opinion, and therefore again told us, the way to reconcile all differences was to take of[f] those Lawes which made men uneasie under them and deprived them of theyr Rights. to this Williams replyed as near as I can remember in these very words. Sir the indulgence is a probationary Law at present, and when your Majestie shall think fit to call a Parliament I doubt not but they will consider very well of it -- I went then with Sir Thomas Main[waring] and Sir John Corbet to Mr Kenricks Hous[e] where they lay and thence home . . ."
What is most interesting here, is the primary argument that James seems to use to argue for toleration, is to compare religious belief to skin colour. There are some other meanings that "black complexion" could've taken at the time, however, none fit the context very well, as is discussed in more detail in the original article I linked. So it is most like that James was referring here to a person's skin colour when he said,
>"... suppose said he there should be a law made that all black men should be imprisoned, twould be unreasonable and we had as little reason to quarell [sic] with other men for being of different opinions as for being of different Complexions ..."
As such, James effectively asserts that as both skin colour and religious identity are immutable characteristics, it is unreasonable to punish a person for them, either by "imprisonment" or "quarrels".
The idea that religious identity could not be easily changed was an idea that other contemporaries in James' time did hold to, and it seems to be something that James himself held to, as he described his conversion to Catholicism despite all the political disadvantages as due to "being fully convinced he could resist no longer".
It also is interesting that James makes appeals to the idea of a Magna Carta for Conscience, and posits that no true Englishman could desire to see others persecuted for differences of opinion. His argument here seems to be that religious toleration was a natural extension of the rights in English constitutional law such as Magna Carta. Contemporaries obviously disagreed with him over his interpretation of constitutional law and whether he was respecting it, but he did have a genuine constitutional argument behind his policies, as defending the constitution and being it's natural extension rather than being opposed to it.
I would definitely recommend reading the rest of the source I linked if this interests you, it is written by Scot Sowerby.
Sowerby also wrote a book on James' push for toleration, and the political movement that surrounded it, called "Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution", which if you want to read I found a pdf of it here. The quotation I linked above appears in p42 of the book, which is p53 of the pdf.
Please do share your thoughts on the subject if it interests you!
I’ve often seen Anne’s final words attributed to her in 1714 before her death as being "My poor brother, my dear brother, what will become of you?", referring to James Francis Edward Stuart, or as the Jacobites would’ve called him, “James VIII/III”.
As far as I can find, the two never corresponded with each other, and James would’ve been an infant during 1688 when he went into exile with his father, so there was no time for the siblings to develop a bond. His birth was surrounded by conspiracy, and Anne herself was part of pushing the warming pan theory.
However, Anne did desperately want to preserve the Stuart dynasty, and there were attempts by some Tories in her government to get James to accept Anglicanism, and thus be restored to succession.
I wonder then, if this exclamation is true, what exactly was behind it? Was it guilt at being part of James exclusion by pushing the warming pan conspiracy? Was it grief that her dynasty would not rule ever again? Was it some unconditional love for a sibling she’d never truly met?
If anyone has any insights or further speculation it would be much appreciated.
Since my favourite Stuart is James VII/II, my view of Mary and Anne is negative due to their role in the "Glorious" Revolution.
However, I can admit this is biased, and they were after all Stuarts.
So I was wondering what you all thought of them?
Would you support the Legitimist (Louis XX) or Orléanist (Jean IV) for the French throne?
Note that the styles are different, the Legitimists traditionally use the style “King of France” while the Orléanists, since Louis-Philippe I, use the style “King of the French”.
I would support the Legitimist claimant myself.
I assume most on this sub are aware of who James VII/II was, but to give a short history:
James was the younger brother of King Charles II, and a son of Charles I. He was made Duke of York at the age of 10, in 1644. He spent a long time in exile, as his father was executed and the monarchy abolished in England, alongside his brother. He served in the French and Spanish militaries, and when his brother was restored to the throne in 1660, James returned to England and continued his duties as Duke of York. He served as Lord High Admiral under Charles II, though resigned in 1673 due to the Test Acts, requiring all to take Anglican Communion. This resignation made public what was suspected for a long time, that James had converted to Catholicism, around 1669. There were attempts to exclude him from the line of succession by Parliament, however, Charles II intervened and dissolved Parliament, keeping James in the line. He ascended the throne peacefully in 1685, ruling for 3 years before being deposed in 1688, an event that came to be known as the "Glorious Revolution". Him and his descendants continued to attempt to regain his throne, their supporters known as the Jacobites, however they were ultimately unsuccessful.
What is far less known, and is the subject of this post, is that James VII/II had a cause for canonisation opened.
James died in 1701 in exile in France. He was buried at the Church of the English Benedictines (Église des Bénédictins anglais) at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. His funeral was conducted according to Catholic rites. His heart was placed in a lead box and given to the English Benedictine nuns at Chaillot near Paris. The rest of his body was also preserved.
There was a cult of devotion that appeared around him after his death. From what I can read, during exile, especially as his health worsened, James seems to have taken on a far more devout life than he had had before. His regularly attended mass and received the sacraments. As such, this furthered devotion to him after his death by Jacobite Catholics.
A formal cause for his canonisation was opened in 1734 by the Archbishop of Paris. I believe a total of 19 miracles were attributed to his intercession after his death. The Jacobite and English Catholic exile community supported his cause.
If he had been canonised, then he would not be the first Stuart to receive such religious devotion. His father, Charles I, was declared a Saint and martyr in the Church of England, with a feast day of the 30th of January, though I believe this was later removed by the CofE, he is still venerated especially among many Anglo-Catholic communities. Obviously, we are talking about two different Church's, with different canonisation processes, but it is still interesting to see that two Stuart King's were the subject of such religious devotion.
James was formally granted the title "Servant of God" by the Archbishop of Paris in 1734. That is the first step in the very long process for someone to become a canonised Saint in the Catholic Church.
However, the cause never went forward for a few different reasons. Firstly was the decline of Jacobitism itself. After the failure of the 1745 rebellion, the Jacobite movement declined heavily, and with it much of the political and social push behind the canonisation process. Secondly, groups like the English Catholics in exile, especially the English Benedictines in France, were brutalised during the French Revolution. In fact, James' own tomb was desecrated by revolutionaries, and like many other royal and noble tombs, his body was disturbed. While parts of him, such as his heart that was granted to the nuns in Chaillot, were preserved, much of his bodily remains were dispersed and lost during the revolution. If you needed another reason to despise the French Revolution, this is one among many.
Due to this, many of the institutions and communities that would've promoted James canonisation and kept his veneration going were disturbed and destroyed. As it currently stands, his case was never rejected by the Church, and remains open, but is effectively dormant, with no progress having been made.
If the case was ever to be opened again, there are serious factors that could push it forward, but also serious issues that would stall it. I am not going to get into the whole debate about the Glorious Revolution and the political effects of James' reign, but rather simply analyse his life from a Catholic religious perspective.
Firstly, I will cover what the actual canonisation process is for those who are not familiar with it:
This is the opening stage. A Bishop, usually from where the individual died, opens an official investigation. The person's life, any surviving material such as writings, as well as witness testimony are all examined. If accepted, the person is granted the title "Servant of God".
James already achieved this state in 1734.
At this stage, the Pope declares that the person has demonstrated heroic virtue. This means the Church judges them to have demonstrated both the theological virtues and the cardinal virtues.
I imagine this is the stage that would be the biggest hurdle for James if his case was ever re-examined. I have explained why I feel so further below.
This usually requires at least one miracle attributed to the individuals intercession, unless they are considered a martyr. The miracle must be medically inexplainable, and connected to prayers asking for that persons intercession.
James does have 19 miracles associated with his name from when his cause was being pushed, however, they would need to be examined again today to pass the bar the Church has set. This is difficult though, as many historical records of his cause were destroyed during the revolution, which is why we do not even know the exactly date his cause was considered or when he was granted the title "Servant of God".
The primary documents for James II’s canonisation cause including the official episcopal acts, eyewitness testimonies, and the Positio, (short for positio super virtutibus, is a comprehensive, formal document or dossier that argues for a person's sainthood), were kept at the English Benedictine Priory of St. Edmund in Paris. The entire archive was looted and destroyed by revolutionaries during the French Revolution, and so critical evidence and testimonies on miracles were destroyed.
This would set the case back quite a bit. Ideally, a new miracle would need to arise due to his intercession and it be verifiably recorded by the Church.
This requires an additional miracle after beatification. Once canonised, the Saint is then worthy of veneration across the universal Church.
In my analysis, James has several factors that would push the case forward:
However, there are serious points that would be against him too.
I hope the long essay was interesting enough to read, I thought I would share this piece of history from one of my favourite British monarchs.
The Battle of the Boyne happened in Ireland in 1690. Before this, in 1688, the last Catholic King of England, Ireland and Scotland, James VII/II, was deposed in a Parliamentary backed coup, known as the "Glorious Revolution". Prince William of Orange, who was married to James' Protestant daughter, Princess Mary Stuart, led a Dutch army to invade England. James did initially attempt to confront him, but his army and government quickly defected. He had had a son that year, and while the political elite of England was willing to tolerate a Catholic King under the belief his Protestant daughter (Mary) would inherit the throne, the birth of his son made it clear that a Catholic dynasty would soon rule England. So Parliament panicked and invited William and Mary to invade. With their defections, James was forced to flee England, where he went into exile in France, protected by the French King Louis XIV.
With some French support, James returned to Ireland, and raised an army there. The Irish Catholics, who had long suffered under anti-Catholic laws, rallied around James as a Catholic King, who had previous repealed several anti-Catholic penal laws. James' supporters were given the name "Jacobites", while those who supported William, such as the Northern Irish Protestants, were given the name "Williamites". Thus commenced the Williamite war in Ireland. James and William met each other on the battlefield at the Battle of the Boyne, where James' army was defeated. James left Ireland later that year, much to the anger and sadness of his supporters, who continued fighting till they were defeated in 1691. The subsequent Treaty of Limerick.
The Treaty of Limerick allowed the Irish Jacobite army to leave Ireland and enter French service, becoming known as the "Wild Geese". It initially promised religious toleration and protection of land for Catholics, as they had enjoyed under Charles II, however, the Irish Protestants were angered by this, and refused to ratify the act for a long time. When it finally was, most the protections for Catholics in Ireland were axed out.
I have tried to compress as much of the history as I can without leaving out needed context.
So my question is, how would history have gone different if the Jacobites had won at the Boyne ? How would this change the chances for a restoration of James VII/II, and how would this change the fate of Catholics in Ireland?
Prince Frederick Victor Duleep Singh (1868–1926) was the younger son of Maharaja Duleep Singh. When the British annexed Punjab, the Maharaja was just a boy, and was "adopted" into Queen Victoria's court. So Prince Frederick Victor grew up in Britain for his whole life. His elder brother is more well known, having married an English aristocrat.
He studied at Eton College and Cambridge University, earning a degree in History.
He served in the British Yeomanry (part time cavalry), rising to the rank of Major. He resigned in 1909, but re-joined at the outbreak of World War 1, serving on the Western Front. He received the 1914 Star and Victory medal.
He was also a staunch monarchist. He collected many Stuart and Jacobite relics. Most famously he had a portrait of Oliver Cromwell, which he hung upside down in his lavatory. Most of his collection was donated to the Inverness Museum and Art Gallery near and after his death.
He was an Anglican for his entire life, and quite staunchly so. He supported local Church's in his area.
I had just been reminded of him recently, and thought it'd be worth making a post on him. A very interesting man in my view.
Note that I call him a "Jacobite" in a historical and cultural sense. He certainly had strong Jacobite and Royalist leanings. Jacobitism in the Victorian era though was not an active political movement, however, there was a lot of romanticism surrounding it, as with many other "lost causes" movements in the Victorian era.
I've noticed some interesting parallels between these monarchs.
Firstly, between Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. Both were pious, conscientious rulers. Generally they both were mild and by all accounts decent individuals. Both held to a divine right model of monarchy, that crashed strongly with the rising political culture of their time. Both were executed. The biggest difference is that Charles I fought a war, while Louis XVI attempted compromise and was eventually executed, overtaken by a much faster revolution.
Then, Charles II of England and Louis XVIII of France. Both led restored monarchs after periods of republicanism and dictatorship, and both understood they had to compromise to keep their thrones. They were more pragmatic than their predecessors, accepting concessions and adapting to the new political climate of their time.
Finally, James II of England (James VII of Scotland) and Charles X of France. Both were deeply religious, and held to a strong conception of divine right monarchy. Both underestimated how much the political culture of their nation had changed, and despite personally being competent individuals, they managed to alienate much of the political class of their nations that might've otherwise supported them. Both had strong loyalist movements attached to them, Jacobites for James II and Legitimists for Charles X. Both were also replaced by their own family, James was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her husband, while Charles X was replaced by Louis-Phillipe I, his cousin.
My view of the Jacobitism is quite sympathetic personally, for a few reasons:
I strongly believe that James II/VII was a legitimate King of England and Scotland. I don't think you can seriously argue against that. His daughter and her husband effectively usurped his throne, especially after he had a son, meaning that she wasn't even the first in line.
It led to the union of the crowns of England and Scotland, because the Scottish protested the right of the English to just usurp their throne and then force this on Scotland. This is why many Scottish Highlanders, despite being Protestants, supported James VII as rightful King of Scotland. I strongly agree with this, as it aligns with the principle of subsidiarity and localism, the Scottish absolutely had the right to chose their rightful monarch and not have the English Parliament force it upon them.
James II was largely forced out because of his attitude towards religion. He used royal powers to get rid of a lot of the anti Catholic laws in the British Isles. This is the main reason he had a lot of support from the Irish, who had faced heavy oppression at the hands of English Protestants. Obviously, as a Catholic, I am biased here, however I think it's hard to argue against this when you consider that James II was doing what a just monarch should do, that is using his authority to remove what are objectively unjust laws.
It set the principle of Parliament having power over the King in England and later the United Kingdom. I personally believe this was a mistake, since I lean more towards absolutism, so I do not believe Parliament should have this authority, but I think those of you who strongly support constitutional monarchy might disagree here.
King Faisal II was killed in 1958 by a military coup, led by Abd al-Karim Qasim and other nationalist officers who were inspired by the rise in Arab nationalism and anti colonial sentiment. Many other members of the Royal family were also killed, after they surrendered to the military, believing they'd be safely escorted. Ironically Qasim was later overthrown in another coup in 1963.
They are close relatives of the Jordanian monarchy too. The current head of the Iraqi branch of the Hashemite house is Prince Ra'ad Bin Zeid.
If the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem were restored, which dynasty would you support making monarch? The ones I've put in the poll above are all those who carry the title "King of Jerusalem". I personally would support the Habsburgs.
As an Indian and a monarchist, this is something I have wondered about. I am not really sure who would realistically be restored. I believe monarchy is the ideal form of government, but in the Indian context it’s hard to say who would actually be a King should the country attempt to restore someone.
The most obvious one immediately would be to restore the House of Windsor and become a Commonwealth realm. They were the last Kings of India officially. However, this would face massive resistance, and be politically impossible. It would be seen as undoing independence and as foreign domination, even with strict constitutional limits and all the benefits monarchy brings. So while the historical claim is strong, practically it would be impossible.
Now, India has many royal houses and dynasties, a legacy of the princely states system of British India. They even had some official legal recognition until the 1970s, though no legal authority since independence. Many of these houses have recognised descendants and heads, many even hold political office, but the main issue is here you could not realistically crown one as King of all of India, since they are tied to specific regions, religious traditions, and dynasties that do not represent the entire country. Rather, if we were to restore these houses, I think they would have to be regional leaders, potentially with an elective system of monarchy, where one of the princes is elected by the other to be King or Emperor of India. It could be a HRE style system, but this would be very complicated to do.
Beyond this, the last native Indian dynasty to rule all of India was the Mughals. Even this is already hard, modern Indian politics debates whether the Mughals were truly native or if they were early colonisers, unfortunately political narratives don’t allow the kind of nuance necessary to understand the transformation of medieval dynasties, but oh well. Moving beyond that, the main issue is there is no single recognised claimant to the Mughal line. They have descendants for sure, but they are impoverished, scattered, and lack any real way to prove their genealogies, assuming they are even aware of them, which most likely aren’t. The British did effectively destroy this line. They are also Islamic, which is politically explosive in India today.
So now the final option is that someone pulls a Napoleon or Caesar and we get a monarchy that way.
If you guy have any more insights and thoughts they would be much appreciated.