James II and the Glorious Revolution (The Stuarts: Part Four)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 авг 2024
- www.tomrichey.net/euro
Charles II was succeeded by his brother, James II, a Catholic whose ascension to the throne caused an immediate succession crisis. An effort by the Whigs in Parliament to exclude James from the succession failed, as did the Monmouth Rebellion. James punished those who had participated in the Monmouth Rebellion fiercely with the help of the "Hanging Judge" Jeffreys in what are known as the Bloody Assizes. Over 1,000 people were executed or deported, with over 200 hanged, drawn, and quartered.
As a Catholic monarch of a Protestant nation, James sought to promote Catholicism through a Declaration of Indulgence, which he ordered to be read in the churches. After encountering resistance from the "Seven Bishops," James had them prosecuted for seditious libel. James also dismissed members of his administration for refusing to convert to Catholicism and gave preference to Catholics (aka, "Papists") for government employment in violation of the Test Acts.
After James and his wife had a son, Parliament sought the help of William of Orange, who invaded England and took the throne along with his wife, Mary Stuart. William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights, which guaranteed liberties to the English people and free elections of Parliament. This is known as the "Glorious Revolution," as it was relatively bloodless - at least in England - and a king was overthrown without a full-fledged civil war. Since the Glorious Revolution, the monarchy has become increasingly ceremonial in function, subject to the lawmaking authority of Parliament.
This is the fourth part of my four part lecture on the Stuarts, the English Civil War, and the Glorious Revolution.
View Part 1: • James I and Stuart Abs...
View Part 2: • Charles I and the Engl...
View Part 3: • Charles II and the Eng...
As a Brit and an avid Historian, particularly about the Stuarts and James II (who I find fascinating!) this is a fantastic overview of both the person, the period and the effects on the US constitution. Well done Sir, I salute you!
Ian Ford u.s. constitution?
Any particular lectures you would recommend? James the 2nd was big in the slave trade from what I've read.
the shaky foot in the background is me
Every tom richey video I watch only further solidifies my love for him
Some additional point, because it has been strongly based on classic English imperial stories:
1. The Dutch (Count Zuylestein) had direct contacts with the Immortal Seven, who invited William and Mary to England.
2. William III did arrive with over 470 ships and 40,000 men, twice the size of the earlier Spanish Armada.
3. The rebellions in Scotland and Ireland have been suppressed largely by Dutch troops.
4. William III had experience with dealing/manipulating a permanent parliament, so he had no major problems with the Bill of Rights. Remember he already needed the approval of the Dutch parliament for his expensive invasion of England. Also because he took half the Dutch Army, leaving the country somewhat vulnerable for Louis XIV.
-
The Glorious Revolution (Dutch Invasion) has been essential for the survival of the Dutch Republic, because England would turn against France. That Dutch policy has been very successful to shift the balance of power in Europe, as you indicated.
-
The Dutch did not want a repeat of the attack of England, France and West Germany (Bishops of Cologne and Münster) against the Dutch Republic. That attack happened 10 years earlier and it almost finished the Dutch Republic. That war finished after the Greatest Admiral in history "Michiel de Ruyter" did beat the combined English-French fleet and William III conquered and destroyed the French logistic center at Bonn with a risky raid deep into Germany.
Bless you, good sir.
Sincerely,
A stressed grad student with a fast approaching deadline.
Don't mind me just binging all of your videos for tomorrow's LEQ
Thank you so much for makes everything understand.
What a fantastic presenter! He's great, isn't he? And what a fascinating period of history! I like to think if James VII (if you're Scottish) and II (if you're English) is wherever we go to after this world he'd be glad to see that the spirit of his Declaration of Indulgence has grown and thrived and expanded to encompass so many religions and is now a backbone both of British and of American culture.
I had a 17 on 20 in my last exam in UK Civilization on The Stuart Dynasty thanks to your videos ! I love the Stuarts now ! Thank you so much ! God bless 🙏
That was a very nice lecture. As a former student of history, I miss lectures like this. Thank you.
Not just for EURO or AP. But for UPSC..thank you sir. The way you fuse the history and the politics with contemporary politics and thoughts...is just amazing...and fun to watch.#🙏🏼
I really enjoyed this! It started with a paranormal group at Lydford Castle. To Judge Jeffreys and James II .. And I ended up here! Wonderful! Most enlightening 🏆😊❤️💕
Best teacher ever 😍😍😍😍😍❤
I like Tom Richey - discovered him a few years back - he is very good at explaining history - in people’s terms😀💜🇺🇸🇬🇧👍💙
Absolutely brilliant. You delivered the presentation with so much of enthusiasm on the topic. It was a pleasure to watch your video.
Brilliant talk, congratulations! I’ve been recently studying the bodies buried at the Tower of London, they range from the reign of Henry viii to George ii and the stories are amazing. They’re all noted on the little plaque at the back of Saint Peter ad Vincula… I’m sure you’d enjoy looking at these. Thank you and well done again.
Thank you for everything you do! You are the reason I am passing ap euro. Please keep posting quality content!
+Ava Veith So glad to hear it... and will do!
Ava Veith Are you Christians? All you say is good but are you Christians? Because today, if you reject Prophet Kacou Philippe, then it's Satan that you call Jesus-Christ and whom you worship without knowing it. Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jesus-Christ, Paul and each prophet had his book and was the Way, the Truth and the Life in his time. And, today, for you, Prophet Kacou Philippe is the Light of the world and the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can be saved unless by him. Today you are Christians, not because you walk according to the Bible, but because you walk according to Prophet Kacou Philippe.
Currently taking a Modern Britain class in college, starting with the English Civil War and Glorious Revolution... This was extremely helpful!
Excellent, thank you very much. Stay safe.
thank you so much you saved me in my anglistik studys a lot of time :D Great lekture! Greetings from Germany
Well done, thanks for sharing. You really pack in the information. Enjoyed.
+Garnet Carmichael Thank you very much!
This is excellent. You're awesome!
I really. enjoyed the details. Thank you .
Thank you very much. You are very good at teaching and explaininig. Cheer for more teachers like you!
Excellent, thanks.
You should do a video on the Jacobite rebellions.
Bwkjam none of the Jacobite revolutions were successful. It's as the Jacobite restoration just wasn't meant to be. A lot of it was to do with the Pretenders (except Bonnie Prince Charlie) being crashing bores with no talent for restoring themselves.
@@Goodiesfanful sorry to be that guy, but you gave that answer to him like a year too late.
Absolutely what I need 💞💞💞💞
This is a really good series. Engaging teacher, which isn't that common! Strange to hear British history with a southern accent, but nonetheless a really fantastic foundation of the period.
I'm glad you drew attention to the fact that the American bill of rights has many similarities to the English Bill of rights 100 years before. And that Brits made sure the elected government could decide who could and who could not have arms (and later stopped most people from owning pistols) but America has made it possible to get them in Wal-Mart and has even got people thinking the second amendment GRANTED a new right or reaffirmed an existing one based on ancient English tradition.
Does second amendment grant that right.
Thank you so much
Nice to see a Yank deliver a quality overview of our country’s history. Enjoyed the video and you explained everything superbly well. Well done 👍🏻🇬🇧. It would have been good if you could have gone into more detail regarding the battle of the Boyne and the problems that still causes to this day in Northern Ireland 👍🏻🇬🇧
Yay! Finally!
I thoroughly enjoyed this lecture. Subscribed sir !
This video saved my life for an a level mock exam. Thank you sir
I love all your videos..
The fact that Tom Richey keep emphasizing how cold there is Kentucky, meanwhile me in Winnipeg just after a snowstorm in mid-April... makes me laugh lol😂
This lecture was really helpful thanks! Have an English history exam in 3 hours so.. 😂
Same here😹
Thanks brannon
22:57 CANT BE SAYING THAT ABOUT ME QUEEN!! She was a young beautiful queen!! 😢😢😢
Overall a nice presentation of this period, one of the better overviews of this period I’ve found thus far. A mite bit better than the the bloody reign one with the exclamatory eyeballs. Irritated, however, at Catholics being referred to “Papists” all the time instead of as Catholics.
Fun fact: New York was named after James 2 of England, who was the Duke of ‘York’.
The foot on the right side is stressful aha! Thanks for your videos, I'm a french student and my english exams are next week so it's really useful! Thanks !
+Eva Da Silva Sorry about that! I thought about editing out the foot but I decided that I found it kind of funny (the foot belongs to a local teacher who attended the lecture).
So glad you’re finding this video to be immediately helpful!
Brilliant 😉 thank you
You make history discussion sound much more interesting.
I like this guy. Full of information with his own questionable presentation and biases.
Is he a true historian? An academic? Any PhD?
I guess I like him because I am lazy and he is the "Coles Notes" of history. He is a great resource if you want to avoid walking into an exam totally clueless. But it's still OK to crack open some books and study further.
Fun lecture.
thank you so much you helped me
currently watching now that it IS his majesty’s prime minister
4:29 You're welcome
ps LOVE THESE VIDEOS
here in Tacoland, waiting for a video about the House of Hannover in England.
+Patricio García I will consider this project for a future video series.
Word
Hi Tom I l like your videos I'm glad you have took he time learn British history in such detail I only wish more Americans took the time to lean it in the same detail which is strange they don't as it is sort of part of their history as well
Do you ever plan on covering the Jacobite Uprisings? Given your coverage of the Stuarts thus far, I think it would fit in well, not to mention the topic being on its own inherently interesting.
+Kaiser Nikolaus This is a great idea! Someday, I may develop this into a larger series on the English/British monarchy.
thank u so much for this u saved my life
i have an exam
Hi. This is fascinating, the origin of political parties. Is there more historical detail available on that?
Met plezier (which translates to with pleasure) instead of veel plezier. Keep on doing the dutch thing Tom, we love it!
+Sjors van Heuveln And I have plenty of love for Nederland!
That drum roll though 😂
James should have been grateful that he didn't lose his head like this father.
Parliament is the people. Government are the trustees.
would you ever consider doing something on George III's dynasty (I forgot the name) or maybe like early colonial politics and power players in the colonies.
Le comte de Rennes Hanoverian?
Dynasts are no longer excluded for being married to Catholics. Georg Friedrick, Prince of Prussia, rightful Kaiser of the German Empire was debarred from the British succession until Parliament changed to law.
Prince Michael of Kent is married to a Roman Catholic. He was also debarred until the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
Cameron was PM 2010 - 2016. So likly he was involved as he wanted a muslim as leader of the conservatives as well as the next Conservative Prime Minister. A weird guy. He'd wanted to be be under a Muslim.
i do be cramming the day of the exam doe
Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is more concerned about how they should be allowed to say what he did was wrong than that these bishops wanted to continue to arrest and prosecute people based on religious beliefs. You had a king who was trying to institute religious freedom, whose father was killed for similar reasons. He wasn't advocating a switch back to Catholicism. His children weren't Catholic. All he wanted was to stop persecution based on religious beliefs such as had ruined his childhood and destroyed his family growing up.
The law he wanted to stop was incredibly unjust. It led to so much death and war. I'm sorry, but I don't think ignoring unjust laws is wrong. That's how the nazis killed so many.
It was my direct ancestor Thomas Powys who cocked up that 7 bishops trial ... tehe
And its been all downhill in England since. James II was the last real ruler.
poor jimmy
His nickname was Dismal Jimmie because he didn't have a funny bone.
By comparison, the ruler of Saxony did manage to keep his throne despite converting to Catholicism in 1697. I think the religious issue was declining in German politics because people remembered the loss of life in the Thirty Years War 1618-48 which was partly about religion.
This is a smart move. Filming himself while lecturing so he could do his job as a professor / high school teacher and also teach the youtube audience.
From the American perspective ,Charles ll was an important part of history to the country . ( Restoration Colonies)
I know some British historians do not look favorably upon him but he was not quite the villain they make him out to be.
It is to be noted that the Dutch already had a parlement with limited powers of the Stadhouder at the time.(Netherlands was a republic and the Stadhouder was like an elected monarch/president) It is not clear at all if the English parlement proposed to limit the powers or the King or if it was William.
All that is known a meeting occurred and this was the conclusion. It is entirely possible the King himself proposed to model it after the Dutch government.
I would even consider it likely.
I have read that Arabella Churchill had 4 children with James Stuart II, but I do not believe it was that many children because I do not believe she would have been able to endure James and his degrading behavior to her that long.
An interesting parallel. The Elector of Saxony converted to Catholicism in 1697 to become king of Poland. The Saxons didn't like it but put up with it. So it was possible for a Catholic to rule a Protestant kingdom in some countries. Also the Electors of Hanover promised the Emperor Leopold to tolerate Catholics, in return for being raised to the status of Elector (a prince with a vote in imperial elections) around 1690. The religious issue was largely settled in Germany by the Peace of Westphalia 1648 after the Thirty Years War.
The "veel plezier" was fine if parliament said it to the king, i actually interpreted it as a kind of "well bye now, see you soon!" Which i thought was pretty funny.
At 2:50, is it James instead of Charles who dissolved Parliament right?
Charles the 2nd pretty brave considering what happened to his father
ruclips.net/video/CFa4UNmdEhg/видео.html
Oliver Cromwell was exhumed and hanged when Charles II reclaimed the British throne. A throne which was offered to him in his earlier tenure. It was simply out of pure chance that while Robert Cromwell shy of his father's ability to rule a wayward British government and military instead of Henry Cromwell who was languishing in Ireland was in charge. That the Stuart family was able to return to England. It was a Scottish general under Cromwell who had informed Charles II on his way to Spain for assistance, that time was almost ripe for his return to his throne and he should return to Dutch soil and wait. The British army was in no way prepared to deal with a Cromwellian general though he may be a Scot. Under the guidance of Cromwell, England was a Puritan state. To the alarm of the English people who found Puritanism to be too heavenly disposed and chose instead a more earthly divine manifestation which would grant them all the vices the English heart could desire. Parliament found nothing wrong with exhuming and hanging the skeleton remains of the man which gave Britain its feared name both on land and at sea who committed Regicide but when Parliament dethroned a king, it was glorious and for the will of the people. History is written by the victors, is it not.
It must be noted however omitted herein that bribery of public officials did not have the same negative association as it is today or contextualized as such and William bribed many English officials as was Charles II himself being bribed by Louis XIV, or in the American termed "contributions". Haven't we learn nothing from these world wars, family ties mean nothing. Charles II had an alliance with Louis XIV who was invading Dutch soil. How many wars did England and the Dutch fight. All those English blood lost for what, nothing. War is after all the sport of kings. The average man received nothing but the chance to retell his story of being in a war then live in silence with the trauma of it all, while the nobility reaped the rewards. When James alluded to this divine prerogative of kings, so feared by parliament who was endlessly insulting their monarch and his family until his prerogative in full regalia prorogued Parliament, when Parliament met at Oxford. Wasn't Manifest Destiny, a familiarity to the Doctrine of Discovery and this Divine privilege assumed to be so vile, which saw American colonialist expand violating the treaty established between the Monarchy and these indigenous communities, which contained these traitors of the crown to be considered as founding fathers to several states now enabled under god, destined to their endless barbarism against the indigenous population of the land Prisoners of War from Africa to be deemed as slaves then thanked god for the success.
Everything being noted in this discussion is merely to insult the intelligence of those gathered in audience nothing more. He knows the people knows nothing and sings to their romantic delirium not quite yet comprehending. Endless wars is the total sum their history.
The expression in Dutch is: Met plezier. Meaning: my pleasure.
James Charglez the 2nd?
It seems to me like James II did alot of things out of fear more then doing what was right and well, being friends with Louis XIV didnt help much since Louis was more interested in maintaining power and gaining control rather then once again doing what was right, perhaps if more people had listened to Phillip, Louis´ younger brother we wouldnt be in such a mess.
All Laurence Hyde, Earl of Rochester, warrants is a description as "this guy"? He was James II's brother-in-law...
As he ran from the battlefield his men in disbelief called out to him ‘James the faeces head.’
How puritanical was Parliament during the glorious revolution? Was there push back against keeping the monarchy?
Look at 21:11 America, and tell me what parallels exist between then and now!
Micah Clarke brought me here.
My forefather went to America in the 1690s as part of the Jacobite diaspora. Must have been in the employ of someone opposed to the revolution or otherwise loyal to King James II. But my family has always been Protestant as far as I know (since the English Reformation presumably). My understanding is there were a significant number of Protestant Jacobites though.
His 5th daughter Annabella was one of my GGGG Grannies, her marriage was annulled after 15 yrs of marriage by the church.
Here's a wee Ulster song called King Billy's on wall
I’d love to hear it!
Just type in youtube king Billys on the wall. To be honest u might not like it but give it a listen see what u think
Don't wear orange in Ireland? Really depends on which part you're in. Not so popular in Cork but you'll be applauded up in Antrim.
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👑
Had not Charles I's Queen, Henrietta, not made a secret agreement with the pope to bring her children up as catholics, things would have been very different. What happened, illustrates, historically, how powerful the formative years are on later life.
Charles II and James II were exiled in France after their dad got beheaded by thugs...and when you live in Louis XIV France and court you only get to be catholic...and absolutist. How can it be surprising that these boys opposed the religion of those who executed their king father? Cus yeap, Charles too was a papist, just a discreet one
@@sofiamiau3420 Louis XIV was in his minority in the 1650tys, when Charles escaped to France, (Part of Charles's exile was also spent in protestant Holland.) The absolute monarch, we know, began when Louis took personal power in the 166Otys. Even then it wasn't until 1685, with the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, that his wrath was turned fully on the huguenots (French protestants), who were tolerated in the 1650tys. You did not need to be Catholic and absolutist when Charles was there.
Had the executioners of Charles I been thugs (in the common usage of the term) they wouldn't have bothered with the niceties of a trial. If you bring in arbitrary terms like that you need to justify them and say why being a revolutionary, from anywhere, makes you a thug.
Well I don't think Louis decided to become Catholic, absolutist, and intolerant the day he issued the Edict, that was probably his style since forever, is a cultural thing. And given the fact that their mother and grandmother were Catholic, and their dad was beheaded by radicals that gave him the "nicest trial" in which the law was twisted (show me the law that says a king can be tried and by a biased jury)...yeah a very fair and nice trial just like Louis the XVI another victim of radical thugs....again, why would anybody be surprised they were Catholic?
@@sofiamiau3420 The grammar in your reply is so mixed up that it is hard to make any sense of it. Please ask someone to correct it so the communication is clear.
It starts confusingly enough with the first sentence.
Battle of the Boyne???
well here in Northern Ireland William of orange's victory over James at the battle of the boyne is celebrated every 12th of July by protestant unionists who are in favour of staying in the UK, its pretty much our fourth of July. This is the reason why the irish flag has green white and orange, to represent peace between orange tradition and the Gaelic tradition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England#Legacy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelfth
MattyBlue99 yeah the flag is a troll because that peace doesn't fuckin exist
well nice note there the Battle of the Boyne was not the battle the Irish chose to remember vut the battle of Aughrim was, which was a true maccacre. If memory serves there was some change in the calender in Ireland and the Boyne was was the battle closest to the new date, so they changed it to the Boyne
@Adversary American What. William was welcomed by the vast majority of Britons so there was no need for attacks. Typical American racial hierarchies.
@Adversary American Shit sorry. Now I look like the over sensitive idiot lol. It's hard to tell when someones joking over the internet though, and you always find people making those comments seriously.
Brilliant series of lectures on the Stuarts.
Glad to hear that the Catholics were booted out of the British monarchy for good. Popery has been a destructive force.
There has been nothing more gay and inauthentic than the introduction of the Anglican Religion on the world. Fake Church, fake apostolics, traitors to their country’s history.
Unfortunately being an Aussie I have to live with them.
This guy seems to be suffering from the same delusions he accuses James II of having. There was no inevitability or need for England to be Protestant. The way he describes James is as if his actions were wrong legally and morally. Referring to him as a "papista" is also quite derogatory.
Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is more concerned about how they should be able to say that what he did was wrong than about the fact that these bishops want to continue arresting and suing people based on religious beliefs. You had a king who was trying to institute religious freedom, whose father was killed for similar reasons. He was not defending a return to Catholicism. His children were not Catholic. All he wanted was to stop persecution based on religious beliefs, such as those that ruined his childhood and destroyed his family as he grew up.
The law he wanted to prevent was incredibly unfair. This led to so many deaths and wars. I'm sorry, but I don't think ignoring unfair laws is wrong. That's how the Nazis killed so many.
And by the end, An interesting parallel. The Elector of Saxony converted to Catholicism in 1697 to become king of Poland. The Saxons didn't like it, but they tolerated it. Therefore, it was possible for a Catholic to govern a Protestant kingdom in some countries. Also the Electors of Hanover promised Emperor Leopold to tolerate Catholics, in exchange for being elevated to the status of Elector (a prince with a vote in imperial elections) around 1690. The religious issue was widely resolved in Germany by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 after the Thirty Years' War.
@@moraesneto9508 , England turning protestant under Henry 8 was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. This is because, with hindsight, the turmoil and hatred it unleashed wasn't worth it. But once the change to protestantism has been made and is established, it is more prudent to keep it. The problem with Catholicism is its arrogant exclusiveness and that only it held the key of salvation (there is not even any proven, unbroken chain between apostle St. Peter and the Roman Catholic institution of popes).
The most virulent persecutors and oppressors of others outside its fold has been the R. C. Church. Guy Fawkes's attempt to wipe out the British monarchy understandably led to the curtailment of Roman Catholic power in England. The R.C Church (esp. the Jesuits) unsuccessfully plotted the assassination of Elizabeth 1st. We see the R.C. Church's appalling hatred of "dissenters" throughout history. Look at "bloody Mary", the French Catholic persecution of the Huguenots and other protestants, the Spanish Inquisition and countless massacres and oppressions of those not embracing the R.C. religion. The sedition of the R.C Church led to English law that forbade any Roman Catholic from inheriting the Crown of England.
James the II is my 14x great grandfather no joke recently found out through Ancestry.com
the gameing wolf g You could have a claim
It is fun to find these things, but he probably has hundreds of thousands of descendants, or millions. I plan to try to find any lines I have back to James or his brother Charles.
no doubt, you are the spitting image of him.
IF there are 3 descendents for each generation reaching sexual maturity, that leads to almost 5 million living descendents in the 14th generation. And because the 3 most recent generations will likely be living you will be one of about 10 million living descendants.
lol
You can wear orange in Ireland. No one south of the border will say anything. Mind you, if you wander into the wrong parts of Belfast....
Good to know!
Chris Pratts Southern cousin does English history
Drawn = drawn to the execution behind a horse
4:29
Was there another country at the time as enlightened as the British?
🤔 Hmmm The Dutch Republic
@@cvb6089acho acho ele estava sendo sarcástico
Actually the English bill of rights was in part coppied from the Dutch declaration of independence "plakkaat van verlatinghe" ( try to get that one out of your throat )
I would have revised the English bill of rights. I'll say that Catholic monarchs can, and will rule, and will drop the Anglican Church as the state religion, unless they agree to the merger to the Catholic Church. I will solidify the monarchy, and publicly announce that parliament is the advisory body of the country.