Deidre Davel hi reading your post,,Mr spencer is not an Earl,,,,,,he is just a plain guy,,,the only connection he has is that his sister was princess of wales but she died ,in a ,,assenation,,which some people would have the world belive she died in a car crash,,,,,the british royal family could not and would allow Dina,to have a child with Do di al fidas,son,,because that would mean he would have a right to the english king ship,or queen ship,,,,,
Well, yes, but describing his adherence to Catholicism as pig-headedness is... wrong-headed. That was the king's religion and most people took religion very seriously back then. Not to adhere to his religion would have been odder. The real issue was Protestant zealotry and the Penal laws... caused centuries of issues in Ireland subsequently too.
I love this series!! I had no idea Earl Spencer was an author/historian!! The only issue I have is the idea the Stuart's were over with James II. Mary II and Anne were his daughters and Stuarts too!
Megan Rosebud. Very well written Megan: Queen Anne was the last of the Stuart monarchs. Earl Spencer doesn't seem much of a Stuart lover and you might like to have a look at this debate. ruclips.net/video/AF8_J-M5Ahs/видео.html
Earl Spencer is descended from Charles II along two lines and James II on another... which of course means Diana was as well. When William is crowned, the Stuarts are back... sort of!
In this age we forget just how important Religion was in history and how deeply felt the need to be in God's grace was in the vast majority of people. The failure of the Stuart kings to recognise how strong the Protestant faith was in England and how 'hated' Catholicism was. Especially after Blood Mary and the Armada there was no way that England would accept going back to the Catholic faith, with the perceived spilt allegiance between Country and Pope
One fifth of England was catholic then, even higher percentage in Scotland, granting religious freedom and stopping persecution of catholics wasn’t extreme the constant pursuit of it was and going to the extent of inviting a foreign invading army says it all. Protestant zealous are to blame.
@@SI-cd7xs Figures for the religious breakdowns are highly unlikely to be entirely accurate but i have not encountered any academical study that places the numbers of Catholics in England or Scotland at this time as high as you suggest. One study suggests that up to 5% of the population may have been Catholic at this time, with a slightly higher percentage of 7% or so among the wealthy and landed gentry and aristocracy. Scotland's Catholic adherents were of a similar size percentage wise but fewer in actual due to the relative population sizes.
@@SI-cd7xs I'm not sure of the extent in England but it crippled Ireland and left the native Irish Catholics in destitution and deposed of they lands under the penal laws and was given to Anglo and Scottish Protestants.
I stuck with this series of programmes to the end but was disappointed. I don't know why Mary II and Anne weren't covered - after all, Mary was the only reason William of Orange gained access to the throne and they were JOINT monarchs - and I feel there was too much focus on religion and not enough analysis of how politics often used religious differences to achieve its aims. The added element of the Wyn family was interesting but it would have been good to feature some experiences of the lower orders of society under the Stuarts as well. I laughed out loud when A N Wilson harped on about how wonderful it must have been to live in the new London built after the fire of 1666 - I doubt those who were left homeless and hungry stopped to marvel at the architecture. I also had a problem with Kate Williams' presentation. I have seen her on documentaries before and found her interesting and intelligent and although she was still both of those things here, she adopted an over-the-top style of presentation that at times seemed more like the acting in a Carry On film than a documentary. I might be wrong but I think she might have been trying to emulate Lucy Worsley's rather 'quirky' style but it didn't come across well at all. Just be yourself!
Everything you write here is important and needs to be written. Wilson's total lack of understanding of the personal disaster caused by the fire of 1666 is striking and more than slightly horrifying. William's "over-the-top " presentation is totally off-putting for anyone who is watching this for the content and not simply as entertainment. It is as appropriate as an artificial laugh track. Try watching her with the sound off to see the puppet-jerking artificial acting.
It doesn't fit the narrative of the day. Focusing on religious discord rather than the core issues is much simpler and presents the message they wish to give.
A lot of people are blaming religion for the conflict in the comment section. It was actually more political, but religion was strongly tied to politics back then. The reason why King James’ Catholicism was so strongly opposed by the Protestants is because Catholicism was associated with Spanish and French kings who held absolute power. The English feared that if a catholic king remained on the British throne then they would slowly be turned into an absolute monarch like that of Spain and France. So it wasn’t just the Catholic religion by itself that was so hated, but the politics associated with Catholicism. I initially thought it was all about religion, but the more I read about the 17th century the more I realised that it was more political. Some of James II’s opponents weren’t even Christian. For instance, the earl Anthony Ashley-Cooper was strongly opposed to a catholic monarch, but he was a deist, not a protestant and barely even a Christian. Why? Because he associated Catholicism with tyranny and absolute monarchs.
the spanish monarchy was a feudal monarchy, like the english monarchy. The diference between the spanish and the english monarchy, was the americas`s silver, the spanish king was more rich than the english king. The spanish king didn t need to ask money to the parlaments of their kingdoms very frecuently. The spanish monarchy started to be absolute with the new Borbon dynasty in 1715.
@@thelordgold Obviously you don't know anything about English history. I am related to the Stuart dynasty. They were the monarchy that formed Britain into what it is today.
@@kathrynjordan8782 wow that sounded ignorant cousin, did a lot of ancestry and I’m related to em too, it’s nothing special. Alot of people are related to em
@@kathrynjordan8782 Not to sound rude, but thousands if not millions are related to the Stuarts and greater dynasties, nothing to really brag about though.
Wow!!! It's amazing (and sad!) to see that old man outlive alll the Wynns that lived in that castle. Lady Mary and Lady Grace. I am sure he's seen so much in his time and when he said he was a solider, he was "To a martyred king", meaning he served under Charles the I. I would have liked to his his stories in the time he lived during the Stuarts. Thanks for making these videos!!! I learned so much the Stuart Dynasty I never knew.
I laughed when he said that James “came out” as Catholic. Don’t worry darling, I’m sure it’s just a phase he’s going through. We could introduce him to some nice Protestant people, invite them over. He’ll soon tire of those Catholic types.
So funny. Except for in my case it wasn’t religion, it was different cultures. And it fits too😂. Well, here we are 40 years later......edit. But it was a nice try on their part.
"...[B]ut unfortunately being so pig-headedly Roman Catholic...." Actually, if the speaker wasn't so pig-headedly anti-Catholic, he might have said and realized that sincere devotion to one's Faith, even unto death, is considered by most an admirable quality and shines in the memories of the martyrs. Even his brother Charles was a deathbed convert, although he concealed his intentions to convert until the last moment.
@@uptonsavoie You are missing the point. Everyone knew James II was a Catholic. They were willing to tolerate that. They were not willing to tolerate his using the considerable power of the throne to force England back to Catholicism after a century of Protestantism. And the problem was that Catholics considered part of their faith to force others to adopt their faith.
@@uptonsavoie the question was about stopping the domestic bloodshed over the Catholic/Protestant issue. If you take into consideration what was happening on the Continent it makes sense. The problem does not apply within the different Christian faiths in our current times. Perhaps they could have worded it better but it was critical at the time to have a unified Protestant Country for the sake of peace and prosperity. It's unfortunate but if we draw back we are still shedding blood over.things with religion being one of the foundations of these wars. If we really tear it apart we should all just try to be more tolerant and less violent and judgmental in all aspects of life
@@boredlawyer3382 if you can tell me a religion that does not have some adherents who wish to foist their beliefs onto others I'd be really interested in hearing about it.
I read once that Queen Mary II was plagued with guilty for having overthrown her own Father and King, and that she was afraid, sadly, for having broken the Holy Commandment of Honouring one's parents, as she was very religious
@@voiceofraisin3778 catholics were absolutely not a minority lmao. they were just the ones being oppressed/suppressed at the time. the division was based on class not religion, religion was just used for political optics. trust me if the poor people had been protestant at the time and the rich had been catholic then they would've called protestants the minority instead.
Well the Spencer's are descendants of Charles II. If/when prince William succeeds to the throne, he will be the first ever king to be a descendant of Charles II.
Good video presentation, very professional editing. When casting to my TV, though, I had difficulty in distinguishing the narrator's voice over the level of the background music. Might just be me.
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, i think that 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.
Fact: Matthew (Campbell) Rhea was part of argylls rising in 1685 to overthrow king James the second, after his capture instead of executing him, they sentence him to life imprisonment in the Isle of men (worst mistake that the king would ever make) and escaped to the shores of Londonderry in Ireland. To complete his disguise, he changed his name to Rhea and marry Jane (Baxter) Rhea for hundreds of years generations grow and the descendants of Matthew Campbell still talk about him today.
Vice versa for me - I almost turned it off... Is she a failed actress? What's with the over-emoting? The exaggerated hand and facial gestures? It looked like she was in the throes of an epileptic fit.
She said in the documentary James was the last Stuart King ! ..not monarch.!..Mary and her sister Anne did not have any heirs so Anne was the Last Stuart Monarch and Queen.
@@Tam10101999 So it seems we have to accept a fine distinction between a (true) Stuart king (e.g. James II but not William III) and a king who is a member of the Stuart dynasty (e.g. William III) ...
After leaving School the first man I worked with told me that a little knowledge is dangerous so you must know all the facts before you accept them! These sort of documentorys endorse that. Thanks for a great video!
A presenting style which would be better suited to children's television, complete with the usual am-dram reconstructions. Coincidentally, I've just been rewatching some of Michael Wood's documentaries, which are on another level - made in the days before dumbing down and clowning around.
I have heard the old canard said, usually by atheists, that religion has been the reason for more wars and human death, but an informed study of history reveals that it is just not so. Let us reference just one plague, the Black Death of the mid 1300s - that plague is said to have killed 50 million in Europe alone, which is equivalent to the death toll of the Second World War, whose death toll is greater than all previous wars put together; so religious wars have not killed more people than plagues.
Only the Islam, but the all the ism took much more and the protex kiled many Catholics the true religion of the west and the world The Catholic build all monarch and without her your country will never exist🫡
I hope they mention the 3rd youngest son Henry of Gloucester who is my 12th great grandfather and the only Stuart child to have legitimate children with his wife Magdalina Howison, history seemed to erased him for some unknown reason, he was the people's chosen prince ,not Charles II. Actually in fact some historians seemed to steal Henry's history and added it on to Charles II history for some reason, Henry was the one in exile because Charles I was insane and thought the people was going to install Henry on the throne instead of his two elder brothers and exiled Henry and told Henry to not accept the crown if he was asked by the people. Ticked me off for trying to erase my family
Great series, but I thoroughly disappointed there was no mention of James II's daughters' reigns - Mary II and husband William III as well as Queen Anne. The Act of Union of Britain did occur during Anne's reign in 1707,
@@johncahalane7327 wrong, the most important thing in your reign is making your country more prosperous and more happy. A legitimate succesor can also be a nephew or distant cousin if necessary.
It's because you see a lot of Prince Charlie (Catholic ) pretender in that series and The Scots foolishly supporting him to win The English Throne, The Battle of Culloden where they lost.
@@anthonywarren9885 bro the series is set and based around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, there can’t be a Jacobite rebellion without the Stuart’s reining and being deposed, so the point remains that without the Stuart’s, there would be no outlander. I don’t see what issue you took with the original comment to make you go full redditor faux historian.
Considering how tired of Oliver Cromwell's puritan restrictiveness the country was by the time of his death, you would have thought there would have been some ill sentiment growing toward protestantism and a larger openness to Catholicism. Which should have made it easier for Charles II (Who apparently held a secret love for the Catholic Church and seemed to have converted on his death bed) and James II (who was openly Catholic) to rule in a way that showed more positivity to Catholics. It's just fascinating to me how the people of England turned so quickly against the Catholic Church, when Henry VIII's separation from Rome was clearly due to his obsession with having a male heir, rather than any real theological or doctrinal disagreement with the Catholic Church.
You're over-simplifying it, it wasn't just about Henry's libido although that was certainly a catalyst, and the country didn't convert quickly it took centuries and is still divided today. It had a lot to do with moving away from the superpowers of France and Spain, and the unhappiness over Puritan restrictions were about allowing people to follow Protestantism in their own way, which is how different denominations came about.
@@drey8 That's true, but it seems to me that taking such a route led to a lot of chaos and conflict that could have been avoided if Catholicism had remained the primary faith of England. I guess I just dont' feel the trade off was worth it, IMO.
@@jeskerjames2938 That "trade-off" led to wars with France and Spain, union (unholy perhaps) with Scotland, and empire. Whether or not you think it was worth it, you can't disagree it was monumental. And why should England take a lead from Rome? After all, the United States weren't going to take a lead from England. A lot of chaos and conflict could've been avoided there as well.
The shadow of these historical events is still cast over the tragic State of Northern Ireland and the continuing divisions between Unionist and Nationalist, Protestant and Catholic and the difficult and fractious relations between the Atlantic Islands of Western Europe, between Ireland and Britain.
Not quite, even up to the end of World War 2. England had hoped to retain their old empire, going forward until a few decades ago. English classroom would boast to young English idealist how truly vast this empire of theirs truly was. The saying, the empire on which the sun never set. Even national hymns such as Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the wave could bring an Englishman to tears. Up to World War One, newspapers would blast Kaiser's Germany for threatening English supremacy of the seas. Germany was a threat for challenging English colonial holding. English dominance is the ability to play one against the other. Northern Ireland is a strategic importance, you can't destroy a people for hundreds of years and leave them to their own devices, they might think of revenge. So, you establish a buffer zone on their territory and hold forever.
Would be good if timeline done some documentaries about the stuarts that come before James vi ( yeah he wasn’t the first Stuart king) they seem to just get ignored for some reason
The papacy and the Catholic world continued regarding the Stewarts as the legitimate rulers of Great Britain -the 1727 opera ,Sigismond king of Poland" by Leonardo Vinci is dedicated to "his majesty James the Third king of Great Britain" even though by 1727 the Hanoverians were securely on the throne.The James III of the operatic dedication is actually the Old Pretender who lived in Italy most of his life -son of James II by Mary of Modena.Later his own son,Bonnie Prince Charlie,also made a bid for the British throne.
@@tetrahedron1000 Totally different people -the opera composer was Leonardo Vinci who was an 18th century Calabrian (toe of Italy) person and the other one was Leonardo DA Vinci -15th century Florentine!I believe though that Leonardo DA Vinci did write some music too but not operas as that art form wasn't invented until about 150 years later.If you want to view one of Leonardo Vinci's operatic masterpieces I suggest the French production of "Artaserse" -featuring 3 of the world's greatest male sopranos.
King William lll of Orange shared his birthday with Prince Charles, 14th November. Both destined to rule England for a very short time, in Charles case, if at all.
Whilst I enjoyed this episode as I knew little about James 11, he obviously hadn't learnt any lessons from his father's time by thinking he could steamroller Catholicism into the country when just over the Channel Protestants were being subjected to terrible cruelty. Personally I found the constant reference to the Wyn family a annoying injection I also was frustrated by the lack of information on Mary 11 as without her William would not have even arrived in the UK at the time he did
Charles II spent his exile travelling between European powers hoping one would assist him to invade England and give back to him what was his by divine right. While on his throne, he would spend his time looking to his cousin, Louis XIV of France, whose absolute authority allowed him to have on his death bed, his reign was that of endless wars. It was his grandiosity inflated by a Cardinal spiritual currency, who would in time and extravagance come to curse his family, Louis XVI, his wife and child were all killed by the people he cared so little for. Charles did do something cool, the Englishman's vest, that standard attire for the gentleman to wear and draw out their clocks like Sherlock Holmes. Charles was inspired to this inventive article of clothing by copying the Persians, the Persian vest affair. It was a scandal. He, Charles, was so embarrassed by its reception, because his cousin scuffed at it, the idea fell away. Louis XIV took that vest idea and designed the wardrobe for French male servants. Which is why you see today, Frenchmen of that sort of employment wear a vest. It was to mock the English. It wasn't until later the style became fashionable for both Englishmen and Frenchmen to wear.
All English history is viewed through a Protestant anti-Catholic prism. If Charles had not died a confessed Catholic we would have a very different view of him. He represents a huge problem to this historical shaping.His restoration represented a return to the Old Order and away from government by the people,so he cannot be portrayed as a tyrant but his achievements must be diminished as he was a Catholic. That is why he is remembered as `The Merry Monarch` who had a string of mistresses and presided over The Great Plague and The Great Fire of London- Instead of Britains first Enlightened Monarch who put science and reason ahead of myth and superstition. Founder of the Royal Society and the Greenwich Royal Observatory,he was also a huge support to Chritopher Wren in his rebuilding of London and St Paul`s only has its dome because of the Monarchs` support. But his reign did see a return to more `enlightened` entertainment.Restoration literature and especially the re-opened theatres could be bawdy and a royal decree that only natural actors could appear on stage meant no more boys playing girls.Christmas and Maypole dancing were allowed and when he went racing with the royal court ,Newmarket became a virtual Las Vegas. (Charles is also the only member of the royal family to ride a winner in a grade 1 race when he won the Town Plate.) But his greatest achievement was to steer a middle ground through one of the most difficult periods of Britains History.Civil War leaves deep and bitter division in its wake and that the country did not descend into anarchy is his great legacy.
Defender of the faith, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury etc were all designation bestowed by Rome. The Church of England changed nothing from what was already established. It was Luther who promoted this religious nationalism in response to the over-reaching arm of Rome. The Vulgate (Vulgar) bible, was a term introduced by the Catholic Church who saw this nationalism of the faith into these various languages instead of the preferred Latin as an abomination. This objective view through a prism entirely based on religion is merely those in power abusing those who follow. Charles was conscientious of his situation having being recently restored with the aid of the Scottish general who fought with Cromwell. If Richard Cromwell, instead of Henry Cromwell was in power in England, England would be more of what it proclaim itself to be as a Christian nation. Instead of playing lip service, only hearing the word Christian being spoken in church and nowhere else, just like those in Rome. Charles' evident uneasiness allowed him to be ridiculed in an era when to mock a monarch was a death penalty. If Charles had not been removed from his office and returned to it by the will of a Scot, he would not have been so easy going as you would imagine. Charles actually wanted to copy the rebuilding of London after the fire to be more like Paris. He was ridiculed for the thought. Charles admired his cousin, Louis XIV, whose absolute authority he would rub into Charles eyes because, as a totalitarian the only counsel he looked to was the church. Charles is famous for saying a monarch should not be held accountable for his promises. We see the promises he made in Scotland only to then change his mind. This civil war you noted, is this the one where Charles fled from and left his Scottish army to face an English backlash. If you look to a man who abandons his soldiers in the midst of enemy territory to save his own skin. Perhaps, his legacy is to teach other monarchs to be more like him and not the ones who fight to the end with his army. Charles' position to parliament was to be what the monarchy is now, celebrities with titles.
The way the English treated their monarchy through the ages, makes me wonder why they really needed one at all. It was not truly about religion. They were/are still uneasy with a monarchy with absolute powers. It is not black or white , catholicism v protestantism..it's far more complex than that.
Because when you have a bunch of nobles of roughly equivalent power, they're always battling for control. It can be far more advantageous to have that question settled and one royal line already decided to hold power. That's the general idea.
@@msbrowngault They still can lead, but the question of the top seat is already settled, and so are the civil wars. There's many influential and powerful positions still available. It's an advantageous enough system that powerful people, who would love to be that leader, chose that instead.
Englishmen have never taken kindly to autocrats and neither have their cousins across the Pond. Those chaps ended up creating a republic but the people at home were satisfied with a monarchy with its powers severely curtailed.
sings: " i'll remember, i'll try, it was nearly July, as i walk down the road, i remember the year. there was me, there was sam, jimmy sloane and mccann,, to enlist in the Volunteers!"
King James11 appointed Baron John Belasyse as a privy councillor and first lord of the treasury, he was a catholic. Belasyse had helped round up many of the 59 men who had signed the death warrant of King Charles 1. Three of those men, Generals Whalley, Goffe and Colonel Dixwell had fled to Hadley Massachusetts. Belasyse landed in Boston in 1664 to hunt them down. My book, In the Name of the Crown by Anthony Matthews, tells the story, my face book page of the same name and pods on RUclips, In the Name of the Crown an historical backstory, A man hunt tells much of the turbulent times.
yes, Mary Stuart, who should have been succeeded by Bonny Prince charlie, who was usurped by the Hanoverians. Interestingly BPC is buried in the Sistine chapel (st peters) Vatican city in an extremely expensive shrine fully paid for by Hanoverian family. I can only guess they felt some guilt.
Well, the title says the "last Stuart king" - and, William wasn't a Start and Mary was a queen. The title doesn't say the last Stuart - but, rather, the last Stuart "King".
King William lll was not a Stuart King, he was a usurper King from a foreign country and royal family. King James ll was truly the last Stuart born and blood King of the British.
If James II of England had followed Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power, he could have adopted several strategies to maintain his throne and avoid or even defeat the Glorious Revolution. Here are some actions he could have taken to increase his chances of success: 1. Law 1: Never overshadow the master - You could have followed the example of Charles II Jaime could have adopted a more diplomatic approach, as did his brother Charles II, who knew how to balance the power of the monarchy with Parliament. Instead of trying to abruptly reverse the balance between the Crown and Parliament, Jaime could have worked within the established rules so as not to cause immediate resistance. This would have allowed him to gradually consolidate his power without alienating the Protestant elites. 2. Law 3: Hide your intentions - You could have been more subtle in your reforms Jaime was too explicit in his intentions to revert England to Catholicism and increase the absolute power of the monarchy. If he had hidden his intentions and acted more gradually and subtly, he could have implemented some reforms without causing the fear of a complete Catholic restoration. This would have reduced the opposition, allowing it to consolidate more power before any organised resistance. 3. Law 6: Attract attention at any price - You could have controlled your image better James II was seen as a Catholic monarch in a largely Protestant country, which damaged his image. He could have controlled his public image, showing himself as a monarch willing to maintain religious balance or protect Anglicanism, even if his true intentions were different. This could have gained time and support from the aristocracy and Parliament, allowing him to consolidate his position. 4. Law 7: Make others work for you, but always keep the credit - You could have manipulated Protestant allies Jaime could have used Protestant allies strategically, appointing some to positions of power and making them work for him. In this way, he could have maintained an appearance of religious neutrality, while, behind the scenes, he implemented his Catholic policies with less opposition. 5. Law 15: Completely crush your enemy - Could have neutralised William of Orange earlier One of Jaime's biggest mistakes was to underestimate his son-in-law, William of Orange. Instead of allowing William to become a threat, Jaime should have acted quickly to neutralise him, either through an alliance or even eliminating the threat before it became real. This could have prevented the invasion that resulted in the Glorious Revolution. 6. Law 19: Know who you are dealing with - don't offend the wrong person - You could have maintained the support of key figures in Parliament Jaime alienated Parliament and Protestant leaders by openly imposing Catholic policies. Instead, he should have better navigated these sensitivities, maintaining good relations with key figures in Parliament and negotiating their reforms in a less conflicting way. By not offending the wrong people, Jaime could have maintained the support of influential members who would have been essential to contain the revolt. 7. Law 22: Use the tactic of surrender - turn weakness into power - Could have negotiated instead of fighting When William of Orange began his invasion, Jaime hesitated between fighting or fleeing. Instead, he could have used strategic surrender, accepting temporary concessions to preserve his throne. He could have negotiated with William or with Parliament, promising to limit his Catholic reforms in exchange for maintaining power. By turning this weakness into a strength, Jaime could have survived politically. 8. Law 23: Focus your strength - You could have focussed on strategic allies Jaime tried to force his reforms on many fronts at the same time, which left him vulnerable. He could have focussed his forces on strategic allies within Parliament and military forces, ensuring strong loyalties before expanding his reforms. If he had consolidated enough power in a specific area, such as the Army or a solid political bloc, he could have defeated his enemies more effectively. 9. Law 28: Be bold - You could have acted more decisively in the crisis Jaime's indecision during Guilherme's invasion was fatal. If he had acted more boldly from the beginning, demonstrating strength and determination, he could have dissuaded some of his supporters from turning against him. By demonstrating confidence and power, he could have made the revolt seem less attractive to those who hesitated to join Guilherme. 10. Law 29: Plan until the end - You could have anticipated the opposition and prepared yourself Jaime failed to plan properly to deal with the growing opposition in his reign. If he had a long-term plan to deal with the Protestant reaction and Parliament, he could have avoided being taken by surprise by the Glorious Revolution. More strategic planning could have included external alliances, such as French military support, or temporary concessions to buy time. 11. Law 47: Do not exceed the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn to stop - You could have moderated your reforms Jaime tried to impose his Catholic policies and increase royal power very aggressively and quickly. If he had been more moderate and knew how to stop before provoking so much resistance, he could have kept power for longer. By learning to stop before exceeding the limits of tolerance of Parliament and the Protestant elite, he would have avoided the crisis. 12. Law 48: Stay adaptable - You could have changed tactics by seeing resistance grow Jaime was inflexible in his attempts to impose Catholicism and absolutism, even when it became clear that this was generating significant resistance. If he had been more adaptable and changed his tactics, he could have disarmed the opposition, adopting a more conciliatory approach temporarily, to resume his plan at a more favourable time. Conclusion: James II made several mistakes by alienating his allies, underestimating his enemies and not hiding his intentions. If he had followed some of the 48 Laws of Power, he could have maintained his position by: • Hide your religious intentions, • Neutralise William of Orange before it became a threat, • Form strategic alliances with powerful Protestants, • Demonstrate a bolder and more decisive approach in critical moments, • And adopt a more flexible and adaptable posture. These actions could have avoided the Glorious Revolution and consolidated his power as king.
James II of England made several strategic mistakes, which, according to Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power, may have contributed to his fall during the Glorious Revolution. Here are the main mistakes he made, analysed in the light of the laws: 1. Did not overshadow the master (Law 1: Never overshadow the master) James II tried to reverse many of the power balance policies implemented by his brother, Charles II. By trying to impose Catholicism and consolidate absolutism, he challenged the established political balance and alienated Parliament, which felt threatened. If he had followed the example of Charles, who was more diplomatic, perhaps he could have maintained a less conflicting relationship with the Protestants and Parliament. 2. Failed to hide your intentions (Law 3: Hide your intentions) Jaime was very explicit in his intentions to re-establish Catholicism as a dominant religion and govern in a more absolutist way. By openly granting privileges to Catholics and trying to weaken Protestant institutions, he caused alarm and hostility among the Protestant elite. If he had been more subtle and progressive in his reforms, he could have avoided the revolt that ended up overthrowing him. 3. Alienated his allies instead of becoming indispensable (Law 5: Become indispensable) James II removed many of his potential allies, especially among Protestants, by trying to favour Catholics in positions of power. He did not cultivate a support network within Parliament or among the military, which made him vulnerable. He should have built strategic alliances that made him indispensable to those who could have protected his reign. 4. Underestimated your enemies (Law 15: Completely crush your enemy) James II severely underestimated the threat posed by his son-in-law, William of Orange. Instead of neutralising William before he could gather support, Jaime allowed him to become a central figure in the opposition. Jaime did not deal with his opponents decisively and, as a result, lost the throne. He should have eliminated the threats to his power before they became insurmountable. 5. Offenced the wrong people (Law 19: Know who you are dealing with - don't offend the wrong person) Jaime alienated the wrong people by trying to impose Catholicism in a largely Protestant England. He offended powerful figures in Parliament and the Anglican Church, which led to the formation of an alliance against him. If he had navigated these sensibilities more skilfully, he could have maintained the necessary support to govern. 6. He was indecisive and not daring (Law 28: Be bold) During the invasion of William of Orange, Jaime was hesitant and indecisive, which caused many of his allies to turn against him. His lack of decisive action at the critical moment allowed Guilherme to consolidate his support. Jaime should have acted more boldly, making quick and strong decisions to prevent the opposition from gaining strength. 7. You exceeded the limits without knowing how to stop (Law 47: Do not exceed the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn to stop) Jaime went too far in his attempts to impose Catholicism and increase his power. He did not recognise the limits of what could be imposed on Parliament and the English people. By continuously pushing for more control, he generated a massive opposition that resulted in his fall. If he had stopped before exceeding these limits, he could have maintained his power. 8. Did not use strategic surrender (Law 22: Use the tactic of surrender - turn weakness into power) When Guilherme's invasion was clearly consolidating, Jaime tried to resist militarily, but without success. Instead of using a strategic surrender to negotiate better terms or maintain some influence, he fled into exile. Jaime could have transformed his weakness into a negotiated position, avoiding the complete loss of his throne and his influence. 9. Failed to prepare the next move (Law 29: Plan until the end) James II did not have a well-defined plan to deal with the growing opposition and threat of invasion by William of Orange. He was taken by surprise and had no long-term strategies to secure his position. The lack of careful planning was one of the reasons why he lost the throne so quickly. These errors demonstrate that, according to the 48 Laws of Power, James II committed several fundamental strategic failures that contributed to his deposition. If he had followed some of the laws, especially those involving the construction of alliances, concealment of intentions and decisive decision-making, his reign could have taken another direction.
Equally; has it always amazed me to, how excruciatingly stupid and superbly uncritical, acritical simplisms of [pseudo]sociological fetishes can so easily bastardize historiography..
My teacher who taught Constitution used to smile like that when she was explaining all the ways in which politicians do not care about our constitution. it is not a happy smile, it is more to hide discomfort. But in a person giving interviews that will be watched, it looks bad. He should train not to show it.
If anyone has read the novels of SG Maclean - then surely this absolutely charming redhead presenter with her beautiful locks is a dead cert for the part of Lady Anne Winter- Royalist supporter and swanky spy also. If they televise the books. Wonderful looking lass.
"The thought of James becoming the first Catholic monarch", Oh dear, so according to this all the kings from Edward the Confessor and before to Edward VI were not Catholics?, the latter being the first Protestant Monarch according to historical accuracy.
I’m an American of Anglo-Irish Ancestry and Roman Catholic faith tradition. Partly because of this find myself particularly fascinated with the Stuart’s. I wouldn’t be surprised if my direct ancestors had some very strong Jacobite sympathies. I always wonder If Scotland elects to leave the U.K. and if they decided to form a constitutional monarchy would they invite the current Stuart heir to serve as their sovereign? It would be a fun twist of history.
The stories of those Stuarts, from Queen Mary onwards to Bonnie Prince Charlie, are always presented in a romantic light, mainly because of the personal tragedies that befell them. But the truth is that they were a bad lot and a disaster for the country. They were obstinate, opinionated and basically unsuited to their task. Scotland and the U.K. are well rid of them.
If you go to the RUclips channel "Useful Charts", you will see that Prince Alois of Lichtenstein is the Jacobite heir. I don't think Scotland would want to share a royal family with Lichtenstein. Better to just be a republic.
I am orthodox friend so I would say the last king was in the Goodwin king Harold and in the Wessex dynasty before that papist Norman invasion that massacred our people. Still I have much love for the royal Scottish house of King James in their struggle
A Catholic king cannot rule over a Protestant country nor can he impose continental French style absolutism in constitutional parliamentary England its the equivalent of mixing oil and water. That was James’s and the Stuart dynasty as a whole fundamental blunder they never truly understood England or adapted to the English style of Kingship.
Whig England is an innovation that led to the inhuman dead ends of atheism and social darwinism. Real England is Catholic England from Ethelbert to James II.
I understand that Earl Spencer was Princess Diana's brother. I am not a fan of his and of course he always sides with the aristocracy. Yes, he does say that James was pig headed which cost him his thrown. It's the true historians I appreciate much more.
It was James the 6th who became King of Scotland and the. Became King James the first when he reigned over both Scotland and England after Elizabeth the first died.
Was James so brave ? Perhaps in his younger days, but he was the author of his own downfall, and fled the country when the going became tough. Spencer is mistaken.
@@creepofreakoHenry the 8th was a Catholic when ascended to the throne Some say he reverted on his deathbed. Then just the small matter of EVERY MONARCH before him being Catholic too
Not much different, I’d hazard to guess. It would just have been something different. Humans have fought long before religion had anything to do with it. Basically, territory.
@@pr-tj5by Yeah. Tell that to the peasants taxed out of their minds and men-at-arms slaughtered in the mud of France. Don't get me wrong, I love learning about warfare of the period, as I do about the wars themselves. But the human aspect of it is too often completely forgotten. As I said, war is awful.
The people didn't want a dictator wielding the divine right of kings, the reformation had begun the separation of church and state. That would have been reversed under the Stuarts if they had been left to reign.
This separation of church and state is an illusion. English Protestantism unlike Scottish Presbyterianism hierarchical offices were all held by noblemen or the rich. In England, these higher offices usually went to the third born male. The first male would inherit the title and earn a seat in the House of Lords. The second male would find employment in the military, his rank bought and if there were others that male would find himself thrown into a clerical role. How can you establish a system which separates church and state then say only a member of one faith may hold power. A true separation of church and state is a leader who can be anything he or she wanted and still hold the highest office. The separation is the ability of the person in office to separate his religious faith from his office. Remember, since history is written by the victor as per Churchill's recommendation. Parliament overthrew the monarchy and installed another they can control. Parliament is therefore left to say, they were right and this king was wrong. All of these kings ruled by divine right and none of them ruled divinely. Warmongers,homosexuals, you name it.
@@mr.smoothchild5354 ; If Catholic James ll didn't brutally take Lord Monmouth's head off, we would have seen a direct lineage of Protestant Kings to this very day. Richard Walter John Montague Douglas Scott The 10th Duke of Buccleuch would be King today. The Queen does recognize him and for a time he was Scotlands largest land owner. There is no proof that King Charles II didn't marry Lucy Walters or maybe there is and it is kept very much a secret. I personally feel The throne belonged to Protestant Lord Monmouth upon King Charles II 's death. History would have looked a little different.
Well there are two glaring mistakes in the title for starters. First of all the King was officially King James II and VII, as noted by all reliable historical sources. He was James II in England and Ireland and James VII in Scotland, since at this point all three nations were separate with their own Parliaments. And second he was not the last Sovereign of the Stuart dynasty. Very sloppy presentation, please pay attention!
Hold on...John Wyn inherited the estate in 1580, during the reign of the earliest Stuart monarch, James I? That's just bad history. In 1580, Elizabeth I was Queen of England, and would be for another 23 years! James was indeed a monarch at this time, but of Scotland, rather than England. Also, he was far from the earliest Stuart monarch. There had been over half a dozen if them by the time he ascended to the throne.
It wasn't so much that he was a catholic, but that he still retained the idea that there was a "divine right of kings". I have come across vicars like that who thought that they had the divine right of God. Perhaps the hadn't read the bible. Unfortunately James hadn't understood either the impact of the English civil war, or that you only rule with the authority of the people. So when you try to change things (Compare what Trump thought he could do in 2020 to this situation) make sure of your power base. James did not have the support of both Houses of Parliament. He thought he could rule by absolute rule and replace anyone who dis agreed with him. His brother had already said " No-one is going to assassinate me to make your king, James" The general population of England had already formed an opinion of who he was. You oppose any one who opposes you, you replace anyone inoathority who doesn't agree with you. You put lots of people in prison just because you don't in your latest whim. Why doesn't this sound close to what almost what happened I the USA. Mind you, even now, a Trump appointee is till in place, possibly destroying the US postal service.
James II was deposed . William and Mary were king and queen. And England was free. Later there was a problem with the Old Pretender and Italian Prince Charlie (who was not bonnie by any means) leading revolts against the legal government, but the English and Scottish Protestants, who were in the majority, defeated these insurrections and chased the Stuarts back to their true home in Rome.
England was free? Didn't the Bank of England get started under William III? The only true freedom they had was what they retained from their Catholic past.
To describe this as an inside coup rather than a foreign take over is rather silly: what would the MP's have done if William didn't want to come? If they could overthrow James, why not do it themselves and then invite William? It's as if I were to request a friend to come over to remove a wasp nest from my attic, and after he's done it and left my house I proclaim I actually removed the nest myself by 'inviting' someone to do it. Also, William was the main instigator behind the enterprise, not the parliament. He had been amassing his troops before the supposed invitation was sent to him, and he had sent a letter to the MP´s before to send him this invitation so he could be seen as a liberator by the English.
This makes me cranky. In the first minute she says this dude inherited his estate in 1580, during the reign of James I. This is timeline for gods sake. Just sloppy editing. And PS i dont like her outfits, who is the queen here, you or james stuart? Sheesh.
Earl Spencer is so eloquent, it's so nice to hear his voice in these documentaries !
Anne Hyde DOB
March 12th 1637. Died on
Marcg 31st 1671 age 34.
Time 2:45AM Sun 5/31/20
Deidre Davel hi reading your post,,Mr spencer is not an Earl,,,,,,he is just a plain guy,,,the only connection he has is that his sister was princess of wales but she died ,in a ,,assenation,,which some people would have the world belive she died in a car crash,,,,,the british royal family could not and would allow Dina,to have a child with Do di al fidas,son,,because that would mean he would have a right to the english king ship,or queen ship,,,,,
@@davidnicholson6154 O_o
@@colbyldominique plus stop all of you contacting me,,ok,,i know what your all about,,and i dont care,ok,,get on with ur own lifes,,,
Well, yes, but describing his adherence to Catholicism as pig-headedness is... wrong-headed. That was the king's religion and most people took religion very seriously back then. Not to adhere to his religion would have been odder. The real issue was Protestant zealotry and the Penal laws... caused centuries of issues in Ireland subsequently too.
I love this series!! I had no idea Earl Spencer was an author/historian!!
The only issue I have is the idea the Stuart's were over with James II. Mary II and Anne were his daughters and Stuarts too!
Megan Rosebud agreed
@? lol, 😅, I like that
Megan Rosebud. Very well written Megan: Queen Anne was the last of the Stuart monarchs. Earl Spencer doesn't seem much of a Stuart lover and you might like to have a look at this debate. ruclips.net/video/AF8_J-M5Ahs/видео.html
@@elrjames7799 Which is crazy because he's descended from literally all of those Kings. Lol.
Earl Spencer is descended from Charles II along two lines and James II on another... which of course means Diana was as well.
When William is crowned, the Stuarts are back... sort of!
Fortunately, William of Orange was both the third William of England and of the Netherlands. It makes it easier to remember.
In this age we forget just how important Religion was in history and how deeply felt the need to be in God's grace was in the vast majority of people. The failure of the Stuart kings to recognise how strong the Protestant faith was in England and how 'hated' Catholicism was. Especially after Blood Mary and the Armada there was no way that England would accept going back to the Catholic faith, with the perceived spilt allegiance between Country and Pope
One fifth of England was catholic then, even higher percentage in Scotland, granting religious freedom and stopping persecution of catholics wasn’t extreme the constant pursuit of it was and going to the extent of inviting a foreign invading army says it all. Protestant zealous are to blame.
@@SI-cd7xs Figures for the religious breakdowns are highly unlikely to be entirely accurate but i have not encountered any academical study that places the numbers of Catholics in England or Scotland at this time as high as you suggest. One study suggests that up to 5% of the population may have been Catholic at this time, with a slightly higher percentage of 7% or so among the wealthy and landed gentry and aristocracy. Scotland's Catholic adherents were of a similar size percentage wise but fewer in actual due to the relative population sizes.
Well said Shane Prosser🙂🐿
@@SI-cd7xs one fifth!
Could you please share your source? I’m interested to read the research about this subject. 🙂🐿
@@SI-cd7xs I'm not sure of the extent in England but it crippled Ireland and left the native Irish Catholics in destitution and deposed of they lands under the penal laws and was given to Anglo and Scottish Protestants.
I stuck with this series of programmes to the end but was disappointed. I don't know why Mary II and Anne weren't covered - after all, Mary was the only reason William of Orange gained access to the throne and they were JOINT monarchs - and I feel there was too much focus on religion and not enough analysis of how politics often used religious differences to achieve its aims. The added element of the Wyn family was interesting but it would have been good to feature some experiences of the lower orders of society under the Stuarts as well. I laughed out loud when A N Wilson harped on about how wonderful it must have been to live in the new London built after the fire of 1666 - I doubt those who were left homeless and hungry stopped to marvel at the architecture.
I also had a problem with Kate Williams' presentation. I have seen her on documentaries before and found her interesting and intelligent and although she was still both of those things here, she adopted an over-the-top style of presentation that at times seemed more like the acting in a Carry On film than a documentary. I might be wrong but I think she might have been trying to emulate Lucy Worsley's rather 'quirky' style but it didn't come across well at all. Just be yourself!
Everything you write here is important and needs to be written. Wilson's total lack of understanding of the personal disaster caused by the fire of 1666 is striking and more than slightly horrifying. William's "over-the-top " presentation is totally off-putting for anyone who is watching this for the content and not simply as entertainment. It is as appropriate as an artificial laugh track. Try watching her with the sound off to see the puppet-jerking artificial acting.
It doesn't fit the narrative of the day. Focusing on religious discord rather than the core issues is much simpler and presents the message they wish to give.
A lot of people are blaming religion for the conflict in the comment section. It was actually more political, but religion was strongly tied to politics back then. The reason why King James’ Catholicism was so strongly opposed by the Protestants is because Catholicism was associated with Spanish and French kings who held absolute power. The English feared that if a catholic king remained on the British throne then they would slowly be turned into an absolute monarch like that of Spain and France. So it wasn’t just the Catholic religion by itself that was so hated, but the politics associated with Catholicism.
I initially thought it was all about religion, but the more I read about the 17th century the more I realised that it was more political. Some of James II’s opponents weren’t even Christian. For instance, the earl Anthony Ashley-Cooper was strongly opposed to a catholic monarch, but he was a deist, not a protestant and barely even a Christian. Why? Because he associated Catholicism with tyranny and absolute monarchs.
the spanish monarchy was a feudal monarchy, like the english monarchy. The diference between the spanish and the english monarchy, was the americas`s silver, the spanish king was more rich than the english king. The spanish king didn t need to ask money to the parlaments of their kingdoms very frecuently. The spanish monarchy started to be absolute with the new Borbon dynasty in 1715.
@@elriolimpio Yeah for a long time until the early modern era monarch weren't absolute.
Did you mean "religion was strongly tied to politics" ?
The church WAS the political power in those days .
Finally watching a documentary
About the Stuarts I have been
Watching a lot of documentaries
About the Tutors.
Time 2:36AM Sun 5/31/20
Love this era. Nice to learn more about the Stuart era.
What's a Stuart?
@@thelordgold Obviously you don't know anything about English history. I am related to the Stuart dynasty. They were the monarchy that formed Britain into what it is today.
@@kathrynjordan8782 wow that sounded ignorant cousin, did a lot of ancestry and I’m related to em too, it’s nothing special. Alot of people are related to em
@@kathrynjordan8782 Also did Ulster Plantation does Ulster Scots turned on the Stuart's.
@@kathrynjordan8782 Not to sound rude, but thousands if not millions are related to the Stuarts and greater dynasties, nothing to really brag about though.
Wow!!! It's amazing (and sad!) to see that old man outlive alll the Wynns that lived in that castle. Lady Mary and Lady Grace. I am sure he's seen so much in his time and when he said he was a solider, he was "To a martyred king", meaning he served under Charles the I. I would have liked to his his stories in the time he lived during the Stuarts. Thanks for making these videos!!! I learned so much the Stuart Dynasty I never knew.
I laughed when he said that James “came out” as Catholic.
Don’t worry darling, I’m sure it’s just a phase he’s going through. We could introduce him to some nice Protestant people, invite them over. He’ll soon tire of those Catholic types.
So funny. Except for in my case it wasn’t religion, it was different cultures. And it fits too😂. Well, here we are 40 years later......edit. But it was a nice try on their part.
"...[B]ut unfortunately being so pig-headedly Roman Catholic...." Actually, if the speaker wasn't so pig-headedly anti-Catholic, he might have said and realized that sincere devotion to one's Faith, even unto death, is considered by most an admirable quality and shines in the memories of the martyrs. Even his brother Charles was a deathbed convert, although he concealed his intentions to convert until the last moment.
@@uptonsavoie You are missing the point. Everyone knew James II was a Catholic. They were willing to tolerate that. They were not willing to tolerate his using the considerable power of the throne to force England back to Catholicism after a century of Protestantism.
And the problem was that Catholics considered part of their faith to force others to adopt their faith.
@@uptonsavoie the question was about stopping the domestic bloodshed over the Catholic/Protestant issue. If you take into consideration what was happening on the Continent it makes sense. The problem does not apply within the different Christian faiths in our current times. Perhaps they could have worded it better but it was critical at the time to have a unified Protestant Country for the sake of peace and prosperity. It's unfortunate but if we draw back we are still shedding blood over.things with religion being one of the foundations of these wars. If we really tear it apart we should all just try to be more tolerant and less violent and judgmental in all aspects of life
@@boredlawyer3382 if you can tell me a religion that does not have some adherents who wish to foist their beliefs onto others I'd be really interested in hearing about it.
I read once that Queen Mary II was plagued with guilty for having overthrown her own Father and King, and that she was afraid, sadly, for having broken the Holy Commandment of Honouring one's parents, as she was very religious
His Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 was a positive step towards religious tolerance. Unfortunately reversed under William.
The problem is that it was politically inept, instead of looking like religious tolerance it looked like a power grab by a religious minority.
@@voiceofraisin3778 catholics were absolutely not a minority lmao. they were just the ones being oppressed/suppressed at the time. the division was based on class not religion, religion was just used for political optics. trust me if the poor people had been protestant at the time and the rich had been catholic then they would've called protestants the minority instead.
How does one tolerate religion?
Love that Princess Diana's younger brother is one of the primary commentators of this series...
Well the Spencer's are descendants of Charles II. If/when prince William succeeds to the throne, he will be the first ever king to be a descendant of Charles II.
Good video presentation, very professional editing. When casting to my TV, though, I had difficulty in distinguishing the narrator's voice over the level of the background music. Might just be me.
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, i think that 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.
Fact: Matthew (Campbell) Rhea was part of argylls rising in 1685 to overthrow king James the second, after his capture instead of executing him, they sentence him to life imprisonment in the Isle of men (worst mistake that the king would ever make) and escaped to the shores of Londonderry in Ireland. To complete his disguise, he changed his name to Rhea and marry Jane (Baxter) Rhea for hundreds of years generations grow and the descendants of Matthew Campbell still talk about him today.
Catholics forgot Christs Command....LOVE ONE ANOTHER...IT TURNED TO KILL ONE ANOTHER
I love this narrator/ historian!!! 💜💖💜💖💜💖
Yes I love her tiny lisp and she is hot
Vice versa for me - I almost turned it off... Is she a failed actress? What's with the over-emoting? The exaggerated hand and facial gestures? It looked like she was in the throes of an epileptic fit.
She is a professor of History at Reading University in Berkshire, her name is Kate Williams, and yes she is hot.
Wow what happened in Ireland was given such a tiny little footnote in this but had such consequences right up to the present day.
I know its a long time since I was at school, but I was always under the impression Queen Anne was the last Stuart Monarch...
I thought that as well, I'm sure I saw it on a Lucy Wordsley program.
She said in the documentary James was the last Stuart King ! ..not monarch.!..Mary and her sister Anne did not have any heirs so Anne was the Last Stuart Monarch and Queen.
@@Tam10101999 So it seems we have to accept a fine distinction between a (true) Stuart king (e.g. James II but not William III) and a king who is a member of the Stuart dynasty (e.g. William III) ...
@@alanbunyan5007 Yes, William was from the House of Orange.
she was
After leaving School the first man I worked with told me that a little knowledge is dangerous so you must know all the facts before you accept them! These sort of documentorys endorse that. Thanks for a great video!
A presenting style which would be better suited to children's television, complete with the usual am-dram reconstructions. Coincidentally, I've just been rewatching some of Michael Wood's documentaries, which are on another level - made in the days before dumbing down and clowning around.
I think that lady steals rugs from the houses she does her monologues from and makes coats out of them
😂
lol
I like it.
Religious conflicts have probably taken more lives than all the plagues combined. I'm thankful everyday for the American Revolution.
I have heard the old canard said, usually by atheists, that religion has been the reason for more wars and human death, but an informed study of history reveals that it is just not so. Let us reference just one plague, the Black Death of the mid 1300s - that plague is said to have killed 50 million in Europe alone, which is equivalent to the death toll of the Second World War, whose death toll is greater than all previous wars put together; so religious wars have not killed more people than plagues.
Our Civil War wasn't a walk in the park.
Only the Islam, but the all the ism took much more and the protex kiled many Catholics the true religion of the west and the world
The Catholic build all monarch and without her your country will never exist🫡
Interesting series but the omission of Anne and Mary II is very disappointing.
Especially since they were, you know, James II’s own DAUGHTERS and all.
So at least 22 people missed it 3 years ago. They were indeed mentioned.
Excellent, thank you.
John Wynn's beard delights my heart. 🤣
I hope they mention the 3rd youngest son Henry of Gloucester who is my 12th great grandfather and the only Stuart child to have legitimate children with his wife Magdalina Howison, history seemed to erased him for some unknown reason, he was the people's chosen prince ,not Charles II. Actually in fact some historians seemed to steal Henry's history and added it on to Charles II history for some reason, Henry was the one in exile because Charles I was insane and thought the people was going to install Henry on the throne instead of his two elder brothers and exiled Henry and told Henry to not accept the crown if he was asked by the people. Ticked me off for trying to erase my family
Great series, but I thoroughly disappointed there was no mention of James II's daughters' reigns - Mary II and husband William III as well as Queen Anne. The Act of Union of Britain did occur during Anne's reign in 1707,
Both reigns were as disastrous as King James II all three failed their most important roles, providing an heir..
@@johncahalane7327 wrong, the most important thing in your reign is making your country more prosperous and more happy. A legitimate succesor can also be a nephew or distant cousin if necessary.
Dire documentary.
I'm a descendant of King James II & VII on my mom's side. He's my 10th great grandfather
Loved this .. but to many ads...
Use a ad blocker! Some are free and there's no ads.
Kirstie...TOO many ads. Regards.
Thanks to the Stuarts, we have the Outlander books.
That's not how it works kid. The Outlander books take place during the reign of Georgian kings. You need to learn history before commenting on it.
Anthony Warren but, the Hanoverians only reigned because the later Stuarts couldn’t provide suitable heirs, if they had heirs at all.
It's because you see a lot of Prince Charlie (Catholic ) pretender in that series and The Scots foolishly supporting him to win The English Throne, The Battle of Culloden where they lost.
@@anthonywarren9885 bro the series is set and based around the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, there can’t be a Jacobite rebellion without the Stuart’s reining and being deposed, so the point remains that without the Stuart’s, there would be no outlander.
I don’t see what issue you took with the original comment to make you go full redditor faux historian.
Considering how tired of Oliver Cromwell's puritan restrictiveness the country was by the time of his death, you would have thought there would have been some ill sentiment growing toward protestantism and a larger openness to Catholicism. Which should have made it easier for Charles II (Who apparently held a secret love for the Catholic Church and seemed to have converted on his death bed) and James II (who was openly Catholic) to rule in a way that showed more positivity to Catholics.
It's just fascinating to me how the people of England turned so quickly against the Catholic Church, when Henry VIII's separation from Rome was clearly due to his obsession with having a male heir, rather than any real theological or doctrinal disagreement with the Catholic Church.
You're over-simplifying it, it wasn't just about Henry's libido although that was certainly a catalyst, and the country didn't convert quickly it took centuries and is still divided today. It had a lot to do with moving away from the superpowers of France and Spain, and the unhappiness over Puritan restrictions were about allowing people to follow Protestantism in their own way, which is how different denominations came about.
@@drey8 That's true, but it seems to me that taking such a route led to a lot of chaos and conflict that could have been avoided if Catholicism had remained the primary faith of England. I guess I just dont' feel the trade off was worth it, IMO.
@@jeskerjames2938 That "trade-off" led to wars with France and Spain, union (unholy perhaps) with Scotland, and empire. Whether or not you think it was worth it, you can't disagree it was monumental. And why should England take a lead from Rome? After all, the United States weren't going to take a lead from England. A lot of chaos and conflict could've been avoided there as well.
The shadow of these historical events is still cast over the tragic State of Northern Ireland and the continuing divisions between Unionist and Nationalist, Protestant and Catholic and the difficult and fractious relations between the Atlantic Islands of Western Europe, between Ireland and Britain.
Not quite, even up to the end of World War 2. England had hoped to retain their old empire, going forward until a few decades ago. English classroom would boast to young English idealist how truly vast this empire of theirs truly was. The saying, the empire on which the sun never set. Even national hymns such as Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the wave could bring an Englishman to tears. Up to World War One, newspapers would blast Kaiser's Germany for threatening English supremacy of the seas. Germany was a threat for challenging English colonial holding. English dominance is the ability to play one against the other. Northern Ireland is a strategic importance, you can't destroy a people for hundreds of years and leave them to their own devices, they might think of revenge. So, you establish a buffer zone on their territory and hold forever.
Such a fun way of learning history....
Good documentary
I love it.
Would be good if timeline done some documentaries about the stuarts that come before James vi ( yeah he wasn’t the first Stuart king) they seem to just get ignored for some reason
Yeah but he was the first Stuart king of England
Either turn the video audio up or turn the commercial sound down please
Interesting that James was sixteen when his father was executed. Thats the same age Lenin was when his older brother was executed by the Tsar.
The papacy and the Catholic world continued regarding the Stewarts as the legitimate rulers of Great Britain -the 1727 opera ,Sigismond king of Poland" by Leonardo Vinci is dedicated to "his majesty James the Third king of Great Britain" even though by 1727 the Hanoverians were securely on the throne.The James III of the operatic dedication is actually the Old Pretender who lived in Italy most of his life -son of James II by Mary of Modena.Later his own son,Bonnie Prince Charlie,also made a bid for the British throne.
What are you talking about? In the first place Leonardo da Vinci didn't write operas and you're in the wrong century there.
@@tetrahedron1000 Not Leonardo DA Vinci from the 15 century. He means Leonardo Vinci the music composer who lived from 1690 to 1730.
@@tetrahedron1000 Totally different people -the opera composer was Leonardo Vinci who was an 18th century Calabrian (toe of Italy) person and the other one was Leonardo DA Vinci -15th century Florentine!I believe though that Leonardo DA Vinci did write some music too but not operas as that art form wasn't invented until about 150 years later.If you want to view one of Leonardo Vinci's operatic masterpieces I suggest the French production of "Artaserse" -featuring 3 of the world's greatest male sopranos.
It always baffles me how they lasted so long.
Watching this at 1:22AM
Fri 5/15/20
@@neddyconstant5816
And I'm watching @ 11:56 pm 5/14/20. Different part of the world.
King William lll of Orange shared his birthday with Prince Charles, 14th November. Both destined to rule England for a very short time, in Charles case, if at all.
I appreciate the view of the noble family and all that but it's a bit too micro for what they are trying to explain here.
Whilst I enjoyed this episode as I knew little about James 11, he obviously hadn't learnt any lessons from his father's time by thinking he could steamroller Catholicism into the country when just over the Channel Protestants were being subjected to terrible cruelty.
Personally I found the constant reference to the Wyn family a annoying injection
I also was frustrated by the lack of information on Mary 11 as without her William would not have even arrived in the UK at the time he did
Charles I was Protestant
If I could meet anyone in history it would be Charles ll
Charles II spent his exile travelling between European powers hoping one would assist him to invade England and give back to him what was his by divine right. While on his throne, he would spend his time looking to his cousin, Louis XIV of France, whose absolute authority allowed him to have on his death bed, his reign was that of endless wars. It was his grandiosity inflated by a Cardinal spiritual currency, who would in time and extravagance come to curse his family, Louis XVI, his wife and child were all killed by the people he cared so little for. Charles did do something cool, the Englishman's vest, that standard attire for the gentleman to wear and draw out their clocks like Sherlock Holmes. Charles was inspired to this inventive article of clothing by copying the Persians, the Persian vest affair. It was a scandal. He, Charles, was so embarrassed by its reception, because his cousin scuffed at it, the idea fell away. Louis XIV took that vest idea and designed the wardrobe for French male servants. Which is why you see today, Frenchmen of that sort of employment wear a vest. It was to mock the English. It wasn't until later the style became fashionable for both Englishmen and Frenchmen to wear.
All English history is viewed through a Protestant anti-Catholic prism. If Charles had not died a confessed Catholic we would have a very different view of him. He represents a huge problem to this historical shaping.His restoration represented a return to the Old Order and away from government by the people,so he cannot be portrayed as a tyrant but his achievements must be diminished as he was a Catholic. That is why he is remembered as `The Merry Monarch` who had a string of mistresses and presided over The Great Plague and The Great Fire of London- Instead of Britains first Enlightened Monarch who put science and reason ahead of myth and superstition. Founder of the Royal Society and the Greenwich Royal Observatory,he was also a huge support to Chritopher Wren in his rebuilding of London and St Paul`s only has its dome because of the Monarchs` support.
But his reign did see a return to more `enlightened` entertainment.Restoration literature and especially the re-opened theatres could be bawdy and a royal decree that only natural actors could appear on stage meant no more boys playing girls.Christmas and Maypole dancing were allowed and when he went racing with the royal court ,Newmarket became a virtual Las Vegas. (Charles is also the only member of the royal family to ride a winner in a grade 1 race when he won the Town Plate.)
But his greatest achievement was to steer a middle ground through one of the most difficult periods of Britains History.Civil War leaves deep and bitter division in its wake and that the country did not descend into anarchy is his great legacy.
Defender of the faith, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury etc were all designation bestowed by Rome. The Church of England changed nothing from what was already established. It was Luther who promoted this religious nationalism in response to the over-reaching arm of Rome. The Vulgate (Vulgar) bible, was a term introduced by the Catholic Church who saw this nationalism of the faith into these various languages instead of the preferred Latin as an abomination. This objective view through a prism entirely based on religion is merely those in power abusing those who follow. Charles was conscientious of his situation having being recently restored with the aid of the Scottish general who fought with Cromwell. If Richard Cromwell, instead of Henry Cromwell was in power in England, England would be more of what it proclaim itself to be as a Christian nation. Instead of playing lip service, only hearing the word Christian being spoken in church and nowhere else, just like those in Rome. Charles' evident uneasiness allowed him to be ridiculed in an era when to mock a monarch was a death penalty. If Charles had not been removed from his office and returned to it by the will of a Scot, he would not have been so easy going as you would imagine. Charles actually wanted to copy the rebuilding of London after the fire to be more like Paris. He was ridiculed for the thought. Charles admired his cousin, Louis XIV, whose absolute authority he would rub into Charles eyes because, as a totalitarian the only counsel he looked to was the church. Charles is famous for saying a monarch should not be held accountable for his promises. We see the promises he made in Scotland only to then change his mind. This civil war you noted, is this the one where Charles fled from and left his Scottish army to face an English backlash. If you look to a man who abandons his soldiers in the midst of enemy territory to save his own skin. Perhaps, his legacy is to teach other monarchs to be more like him and not the ones who fight to the end with his army. Charles' position to parliament was to be what the monarchy is now, celebrities with titles.
Give us Roderick!
The way the English treated their monarchy through the ages, makes me wonder why they really needed one at all. It was not truly about religion. They were/are still uneasy with a monarchy with absolute powers. It is not black or white , catholicism v protestantism..it's far more complex than that.
Because when you have a bunch of nobles of roughly equivalent power, they're always battling for control. It can be far more advantageous to have that question settled and one royal line already decided to hold power. That's the general idea.
@@anonynony4410 but what if someone else had better & greater ideas? A better leader.
@@msbrowngault They still can lead, but the question of the top seat is already settled, and so are the civil wars. There's many influential and powerful positions still available. It's an advantageous enough system that powerful people, who would love to be that leader, chose that instead.
Englishmen have never taken kindly to autocrats and neither have their cousins across the Pond.
Those chaps ended up creating a republic but the people at home were satisfied with a monarchy with its powers severely curtailed.
sings: " i'll remember, i'll try,
it was nearly July,
as i walk down the road,
i remember the year.
there was me, there was sam, jimmy sloane and mccann,,
to enlist in the Volunteers!"
WATP. NO SURRENDER
🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🔴⚪🔵
29:50 That poor horse's eyes!!!!
@Football X-Andr The poor thing looks terrified! 😢
Its so scared at that part!! 😰😞
The way prof Wiliams pronounce (or not) the letter "r". Is it a dialect, Sociolect or just a lisp? I'm not an anglophone so i'm just curius
It's an ideolect -- she has trouble pronouncing r.
King James11 appointed Baron John Belasyse as a privy councillor and first lord of the treasury, he was a catholic. Belasyse had helped round up many of the 59 men who had signed the death warrant of King Charles 1. Three of those men, Generals Whalley, Goffe and Colonel Dixwell had fled to Hadley Massachusetts. Belasyse landed in Boston in 1664 to hunt them down. My book, In the Name of the Crown by Anthony Matthews, tells the story, my face book page of the same name and pods on RUclips, In the Name of the Crown an historical backstory, A man hunt tells much of the turbulent times.
Very interesting!
the Stuarts did not end with James II. The family continued on with William+Mary and Anne. This title is really misleading and wrong.
yes, Mary Stuart, who should have been succeeded by Bonny Prince charlie, who was usurped by the Hanoverians. Interestingly BPC is buried in the Sistine chapel (st peters) Vatican city in an extremely expensive shrine fully paid for by Hanoverian family. I can only guess they felt some guilt.
Well, the title says the "last Stuart king" - and, William wasn't a Start and Mary was a queen. The title doesn't say the last Stuart - but, rather, the last Stuart "King".
King William lll was not a Stuart King, he was a usurper King from a foreign country and royal family. King James ll was truly the last Stuart born and blood King of the British.
If James II of England had followed Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power, he could have adopted several strategies to maintain his throne and avoid or even defeat the Glorious Revolution. Here are some actions he could have taken to increase his chances of success:
1. Law 1: Never overshadow the master - You could have followed the example of Charles II
Jaime could have adopted a more diplomatic approach, as did his brother Charles II, who knew how to balance the power of the monarchy with Parliament. Instead of trying to abruptly reverse the balance between the Crown and Parliament, Jaime could have worked within the established rules so as not to cause immediate resistance. This would have allowed him to gradually consolidate his power without alienating the Protestant elites.
2. Law 3: Hide your intentions - You could have been more subtle in your reforms
Jaime was too explicit in his intentions to revert England to Catholicism and increase the absolute power of the monarchy. If he had hidden his intentions and acted more gradually and subtly, he could have implemented some reforms without causing the fear of a complete Catholic restoration. This would have reduced the opposition, allowing it to consolidate more power before any organised resistance.
3. Law 6: Attract attention at any price - You could have controlled your image better
James II was seen as a Catholic monarch in a largely Protestant country, which damaged his image. He could have controlled his public image, showing himself as a monarch willing to maintain religious balance or protect Anglicanism, even if his true intentions were different. This could have gained time and support from the aristocracy and Parliament, allowing him to consolidate his position.
4. Law 7: Make others work for you, but always keep the credit - You could have manipulated Protestant allies
Jaime could have used Protestant allies strategically, appointing some to positions of power and making them work for him. In this way, he could have maintained an appearance of religious neutrality, while, behind the scenes, he implemented his Catholic policies with less opposition.
5. Law 15: Completely crush your enemy - Could have neutralised William of Orange earlier
One of Jaime's biggest mistakes was to underestimate his son-in-law, William of Orange. Instead of allowing William to become a threat, Jaime should have acted quickly to neutralise him, either through an alliance or even eliminating the threat before it became real. This could have prevented the invasion that resulted in the Glorious Revolution.
6. Law 19: Know who you are dealing with - don't offend the wrong person - You could have maintained the support of key figures in Parliament
Jaime alienated Parliament and Protestant leaders by openly imposing Catholic policies. Instead, he should have better navigated these sensitivities, maintaining good relations with key figures in Parliament and negotiating their reforms in a less conflicting way. By not offending the wrong people, Jaime could have maintained the support of influential members who would have been essential to contain the revolt.
7. Law 22: Use the tactic of surrender - turn weakness into power - Could have negotiated instead of fighting
When William of Orange began his invasion, Jaime hesitated between fighting or fleeing. Instead, he could have used strategic surrender, accepting temporary concessions to preserve his throne. He could have negotiated with William or with Parliament, promising to limit his Catholic reforms in exchange for maintaining power. By turning this weakness into a strength, Jaime could have survived politically.
8. Law 23: Focus your strength - You could have focussed on strategic allies
Jaime tried to force his reforms on many fronts at the same time, which left him vulnerable. He could have focussed his forces on strategic allies within Parliament and military forces, ensuring strong loyalties before expanding his reforms. If he had consolidated enough power in a specific area, such as the Army or a solid political bloc, he could have defeated his enemies more effectively.
9. Law 28: Be bold - You could have acted more decisively in the crisis
Jaime's indecision during Guilherme's invasion was fatal. If he had acted more boldly from the beginning, demonstrating strength and determination, he could have dissuaded some of his supporters from turning against him. By demonstrating confidence and power, he could have made the revolt seem less attractive to those who hesitated to join Guilherme.
10. Law 29: Plan until the end - You could have anticipated the opposition and prepared yourself
Jaime failed to plan properly to deal with the growing opposition in his reign. If he had a long-term plan to deal with the Protestant reaction and Parliament, he could have avoided being taken by surprise by the Glorious Revolution. More strategic planning could have included external alliances, such as French military support, or temporary concessions to buy time.
11. Law 47: Do not exceed the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn to stop - You could have moderated your reforms
Jaime tried to impose his Catholic policies and increase royal power very aggressively and quickly. If he had been more moderate and knew how to stop before provoking so much resistance, he could have kept power for longer. By learning to stop before exceeding the limits of tolerance of Parliament and the Protestant elite, he would have avoided the crisis.
12. Law 48: Stay adaptable - You could have changed tactics by seeing resistance grow
Jaime was inflexible in his attempts to impose Catholicism and absolutism, even when it became clear that this was generating significant resistance. If he had been more adaptable and changed his tactics, he could have disarmed the opposition, adopting a more conciliatory approach temporarily, to resume his plan at a more favourable time.
Conclusion:
James II made several mistakes by alienating his allies, underestimating his enemies and not hiding his intentions. If he had followed some of the 48 Laws of Power, he could have maintained his position by:
• Hide your religious intentions,
• Neutralise William of Orange before it became a threat,
• Form strategic alliances with powerful Protestants,
• Demonstrate a bolder and more decisive approach in critical moments,
• And adopt a more flexible and adaptable posture.
These actions could have avoided the Glorious Revolution and consolidated his power as king.
James II of England made several strategic mistakes, which, according to Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power, may have contributed to his fall during the Glorious Revolution. Here are the main mistakes he made, analysed in the light of the laws:
1. Did not overshadow the master (Law 1: Never overshadow the master)
James II tried to reverse many of the power balance policies implemented by his brother, Charles II. By trying to impose Catholicism and consolidate absolutism, he challenged the established political balance and alienated Parliament, which felt threatened. If he had followed the example of Charles, who was more diplomatic, perhaps he could have maintained a less conflicting relationship with the Protestants and Parliament.
2. Failed to hide your intentions (Law 3: Hide your intentions)
Jaime was very explicit in his intentions to re-establish Catholicism as a dominant religion and govern in a more absolutist way. By openly granting privileges to Catholics and trying to weaken Protestant institutions, he caused alarm and hostility among the Protestant elite. If he had been more subtle and progressive in his reforms, he could have avoided the revolt that ended up overthrowing him.
3. Alienated his allies instead of becoming indispensable (Law 5: Become indispensable)
James II removed many of his potential allies, especially among Protestants, by trying to favour Catholics in positions of power. He did not cultivate a support network within Parliament or among the military, which made him vulnerable. He should have built strategic alliances that made him indispensable to those who could have protected his reign.
4. Underestimated your enemies (Law 15: Completely crush your enemy)
James II severely underestimated the threat posed by his son-in-law, William of Orange. Instead of neutralising William before he could gather support, Jaime allowed him to become a central figure in the opposition. Jaime did not deal with his opponents decisively and, as a result, lost the throne. He should have eliminated the threats to his power before they became insurmountable.
5. Offenced the wrong people (Law 19: Know who you are dealing with - don't offend the wrong person)
Jaime alienated the wrong people by trying to impose Catholicism in a largely Protestant England. He offended powerful figures in Parliament and the Anglican Church, which led to the formation of an alliance against him. If he had navigated these sensibilities more skilfully, he could have maintained the necessary support to govern.
6. He was indecisive and not daring (Law 28: Be bold)
During the invasion of William of Orange, Jaime was hesitant and indecisive, which caused many of his allies to turn against him. His lack of decisive action at the critical moment allowed Guilherme to consolidate his support. Jaime should have acted more boldly, making quick and strong decisions to prevent the opposition from gaining strength.
7. You exceeded the limits without knowing how to stop (Law 47: Do not exceed the mark you aimed for; in victory, learn to stop)
Jaime went too far in his attempts to impose Catholicism and increase his power. He did not recognise the limits of what could be imposed on Parliament and the English people. By continuously pushing for more control, he generated a massive opposition that resulted in his fall. If he had stopped before exceeding these limits, he could have maintained his power.
8. Did not use strategic surrender (Law 22: Use the tactic of surrender - turn weakness into power)
When Guilherme's invasion was clearly consolidating, Jaime tried to resist militarily, but without success. Instead of using a strategic surrender to negotiate better terms or maintain some influence, he fled into exile. Jaime could have transformed his weakness into a negotiated position, avoiding the complete loss of his throne and his influence.
9. Failed to prepare the next move (Law 29: Plan until the end)
James II did not have a well-defined plan to deal with the growing opposition and threat of invasion by William of Orange. He was taken by surprise and had no long-term strategies to secure his position. The lack of careful planning was one of the reasons why he lost the throne so quickly.
These errors demonstrate that, according to the 48 Laws of Power, James II committed several fundamental strategic failures that contributed to his deposition. If he had followed some of the laws, especially those involving the construction of alliances, concealment of intentions and decisive decision-making, his reign could have taken another direction.
Was he really the first catholic monarch? I thought they were all catholic before King Edward VI.
this guy was the legit king and was illegally overthrown in an act of anti-catholic hatred
Its crazy how they aren’t saying anything. There is so much history going on and they are staying in the surface
Theriously good
JamesII was not the last Stuart monarch. His daughter Anne was the last one.
No but he was a the last king
Thank you
It has always amazed me how most of the worlds conflicts revolve around religion.
So much for the preaching of peace!
Equally; has it always amazed me to, how excruciatingly stupid and superbly uncritical, acritical simplisms of [pseudo]sociological fetishes can so easily bastardize historiography..
In reality, it had next to nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the authority of parliament over the king.
It’s an easy excuse to justify ones actions and rally others to your “team”.
Why should it.......Religion is based on myth, and like the "glories of war" indulged in by the madmen of the world.....
39:45 Look at how he smiles when he says that.
My teacher who taught Constitution used to smile like that when she was explaining all the ways in which politicians do not care about our constitution. it is not a happy smile, it is more to hide discomfort. But in a person giving interviews that will be watched, it looks bad. He should train not to show it.
Also 100 years after the Spanish Armada effort to defeat the English crown
If anyone has read the novels of SG Maclean - then surely this absolutely charming redhead presenter with her beautiful locks is a dead cert for the part of Lady Anne Winter- Royalist supporter and swanky spy also. If they televise the books. Wonderful looking lass.
A classic "I know better" pol
Everyone, including his allies, told him not to move aggressively towards Catholicism.
"I know better'.
"The thought of James becoming the first Catholic monarch", Oh dear, so according to this all the kings from Edward the Confessor and before to Edward VI were not Catholics?, the latter being the first Protestant Monarch according to historical accuracy.
"Please Miss, what am I protesting about?"
The King you call the first Stuart king was really the 6th Stuart king.
You have forgotten who came after Elizabeth 1st of England.
YOO DOES ANYONE WHAT WAS HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PEASANTS AND NOBLES ???
I’m an American of Anglo-Irish Ancestry and Roman Catholic faith tradition. Partly because of this find myself particularly fascinated with the Stuart’s. I wouldn’t be surprised if my direct ancestors had some very strong Jacobite sympathies. I always wonder If Scotland elects to leave the U.K. and if they decided to form a constitutional monarchy would they invite the current Stuart heir to serve as their sovereign? It would be a fun twist of history.
The stories of those Stuarts, from Queen Mary onwards to Bonnie Prince Charlie, are always presented in a romantic light, mainly because of the personal tragedies that befell them. But the truth is that they were a bad lot and a disaster for the country. They were obstinate, opinionated and basically unsuited to their task. Scotland and the U.K. are well rid of them.
If you go to the RUclips channel "Useful Charts", you will see that Prince Alois of Lichtenstein is the Jacobite heir. I don't think Scotland would want to share a royal family with Lichtenstein. Better to just be a republic.
@@frankteunissen6118 absolute tripe. The Stuarts were the ligitimate royal bloodline.
James II was a hero and the last legitimate ruler of England.
Hear hear!
@@Stsebastian8900 Edward 6th was the last true ruler of England.
I am orthodox friend so I would say the last king was in the Goodwin king Harold and in the Wessex dynasty before that papist Norman invasion that massacred our people. Still I have much love for the royal Scottish house of King James in their struggle
@@Stsebastian8900 youre just another heretic lol
@@Stsebastian8900 the normans were catholic just as the founders of england were
A Catholic king cannot rule over a Protestant country nor can he impose continental French style absolutism in constitutional parliamentary England its the equivalent of mixing oil and water. That was James’s and the Stuart dynasty as a whole fundamental blunder they never truly understood England or adapted to the English style of Kingship.
Yes, indeed. All english monarchs from Ethelbert to Henri VII should have been deposed ! 😀
The Stuart line are the only true monarchs of Britain! The current dynasty are foreign German usurpers.
Technically, it was Elizabeth Tudor's fundamental blunder.
Whig England is an innovation that led to the inhuman dead ends of atheism and social darwinism. Real England is Catholic England from Ethelbert to James II.
I understand that Earl Spencer was Princess Diana's brother. I am not a fan of his and of course he always sides with the aristocracy. Yes, he does say that James was pig headed which cost him his thrown. It's the true historians I appreciate much more.
The Catholic -- Protestant fight is just stupid. It's Christian versus Islam.
Wasn't elizabeth on the throne in 1580?
When that man inherited the castle
It was James the 6th who became King of Scotland and the. Became King James the first when he reigned over both Scotland and England after Elizabeth the first died.
@@lylarose2696 i know that..but thats not my point..
Hi
Hello
Was James so brave ? Perhaps in his younger days, but he was the author of his own downfall, and fled the country when the going became tough. Spencer is mistaken.
Or maybe loved his country enough to not want to be apart of a bother civil war
@@SI-cd7xs Have you any evidence to support what you suggest ?
James 2 the first Catholic monarch...what??
James Vl of Scotland and lst of England was a Protestant King. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley.
@@bonniemagpie1552 I actually meant to write James 2, edited now!
However, my point was that James 2 was hardly the first Catholic monarch.
The last Catholic monarch
Mary 1 was a catholic. So, not the first catholic monarch.
@@creepofreakoHenry the 8th was a Catholic when ascended to the throne Some say he reverted on his deathbed. Then just the small matter of EVERY MONARCH before him being Catholic too
the man who should have been our king he wore the royal red and green
Imagine how different life would be today if religion had never existed
be more peaceful
@@cathygillis7083 indeed 🙂🐿
And humane
Not much different, I’d hazard to guess. It would just have been something different. Humans have fought long before religion had anything to do with it. Basically, territory.
Humans would find something else to fight over.
I'll take the Stuart's over the Tudor's any day. I'll never understand why men think war is a good thing
Nor will any man with a sound mind. War is awful and we shall ever strive to avoid it.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 Because war is full of suspense and intrigue, that's why the Plantagenets were the greatest dynasty of all.
@@pr-tj5by Yeah. Tell that to the peasants taxed out of their minds and men-at-arms slaughtered in the mud of France. Don't get me wrong, I love learning about warfare of the period, as I do about the wars themselves. But the human aspect of it is too often completely forgotten. As I said, war is awful.
@@mateuszjokiel2813 Everyone suffered till the turn of the 20th century, you should watch Dan Jones The Plantaganets
More adverts than documentary. Every 3 minutes. It’s an absolute joke!
How about trying an adblock?
@@DarialKuznetsova Or paying for RUclips premium?
Drag the red dot to the end, hit cancel & then 🔄 replay
*sometimes an ad will pop up after clicking cancel, just skip it & proceed to 🔄
Earl Spencer is Diana's brother
Think what she would look like now!
they don't paint a very pretty picture of my ancestors.
The people didn't want a dictator wielding the divine right of kings, the reformation had begun the separation of church and state. That would have been reversed under the Stuarts if they had been left to reign.
This separation of church and state is an illusion. English Protestantism unlike Scottish Presbyterianism hierarchical offices were all held by noblemen or the rich. In England, these higher offices usually went to the third born male. The first male would inherit the title and earn a seat in the House of Lords. The second male would find employment in the military, his rank bought and if there were others that male would find himself thrown into a clerical role. How can you establish a system which separates church and state then say only a member of one faith may hold power. A true separation of church and state is a leader who can be anything he or she wanted and still hold the highest office. The separation is the ability of the person in office to separate his religious faith from his office. Remember, since history is written by the victor as per Churchill's recommendation. Parliament overthrew the monarchy and installed another they can control. Parliament is therefore left to say, they were right and this king was wrong. All of these kings ruled by divine right and none of them ruled divinely. Warmongers,homosexuals, you name it.
Making the king the head of the Church was the opposite of separating church and State.
@@mr.smoothchild5354 ; If Catholic James ll didn't brutally take Lord Monmouth's head off, we would have seen a direct lineage of Protestant Kings to this very day. Richard Walter John Montague Douglas Scott The 10th Duke of Buccleuch would be King today. The Queen does recognize him and for a time he was Scotlands largest land owner. There is no proof that King Charles II didn't marry Lucy Walters or maybe there is and it is kept very much a secret. I personally feel The throne belonged to Protestant Lord Monmouth upon King Charles II 's death. History would have looked a little different.
Well there are two glaring mistakes in the title for starters. First of all the King was officially King James II and VII, as noted by all reliable historical sources. He was James II in England and Ireland and James VII in Scotland, since at this point all three nations were separate with their own Parliaments. And second he was not the last Sovereign of the Stuart dynasty. Very sloppy presentation, please pay attention!
You pay attention. The title says last king. Which he was. The last Stuart was a Queen…………
Henrietta Maria could be seen as causing the downfall of the Stuart reign. If only Chares II had had a legitimate offspring.
Hold on...John Wyn inherited the estate in 1580, during the reign of the earliest Stuart monarch, James I? That's just bad history. In 1580, Elizabeth I was Queen of England, and would be for another 23 years! James was indeed a monarch at this time, but of Scotland, rather than England. Also, he was far from the earliest Stuart monarch. There had been over half a dozen if them by the time he ascended to the throne.
Real king
It wasn't so much that he was a catholic, but that he still retained the idea that there was a "divine right of kings". I have come across vicars like that who thought that they had the divine right of God. Perhaps the hadn't read the bible. Unfortunately James hadn't understood either the impact of the English civil war, or that you only rule with the authority of the people. So when you try to change things (Compare what Trump thought he could do in 2020 to this situation) make sure of your power base. James did not have the support of both Houses of Parliament. He thought he could rule by absolute rule and replace anyone who dis agreed with him. His brother had already said " No-one is going to assassinate me to make your king, James" The general population of England had already formed an opinion of who he was. You oppose any one who opposes you, you replace anyone inoathority who doesn't agree with you. You put lots of people in prison just because you don't in your latest whim. Why doesn't this sound close to what almost what happened I the USA. Mind you, even now, a Trump appointee is till in place, possibly destroying the US postal service.
There weren't 4 Stuart monarchs. There were 6 - they are leaving out Mary and Anne.
Exactly
Oh hello there
Parliament isn't dominant though.
We still alive
James II was deposed . William and Mary were king and queen. And England was free. Later there was a problem with the Old Pretender and Italian Prince Charlie (who was not bonnie by any means) leading revolts against the legal government, but the English and Scottish Protestants, who were in the majority, defeated these insurrections and chased the Stuarts back to their true home in Rome.
England was free? Didn't the Bank of England get started under William III? The only true freedom they had was what they retained from their Catholic past.
WELEASE WODERWICK!!
Féwme pawadox!
May the rightful monarchs return.
don't mind me, just doing absolutely nothing wrong, minding my own biz....
To describe this as an inside coup rather than a foreign take over is rather silly: what would the MP's have done if William didn't want to come? If they could overthrow James, why not do it themselves and then invite William? It's as if I were to request a friend to come over to remove a wasp nest from my attic, and after he's done it and left my house I proclaim I actually removed the nest myself by 'inviting' someone to do it. Also, William was the main instigator behind the enterprise, not the parliament. He had been amassing his troops before the supposed invitation was sent to him, and he had sent a letter to the MP´s before to send him this invitation so he could be seen as a liberator by the English.
L England
This makes me cranky. In the first minute she says this dude inherited his estate in 1580, during the reign of James I. This is timeline for gods sake. Just sloppy editing. And PS i dont like her outfits, who is the queen here, you or james stuart? Sheesh.