Talk:James II of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Abdication

Abdication mentions that he tossed the Great Seal into the Thames. Any truth to this? I think it should be mentioned. Kent Wang 07:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's true. Historians aren't exactly sure why, but suspect that he was trying to prevent the calling of a Parliament in his absence. Coemgenus 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd dispute claiming that James "abdicated" in the way that the term is generally understood. The Parliaments of England and Scotland declared that he did but he'd actually fled in fear at an invited Dutch invasion lead by his intended successor. The "abdication" thing was more a legal fiction to remove an unpopular King (and unpopular line) from the throne and cement the coup d'etait that was the "Glorious Revolution". Currently, the opening to the article gives the impression that James was intentionally abandoning the throne and his office rather than basically being overthrown against his will. --Zagrebo (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tales of abdication are, indeed, non-encyclopedic Orange propaganda. Where is the instrument of abdication? The king is sovereign and may leave his realm at will. Other monarchs have gone abroad and not been deemed dethroned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Style

I've always seen his full style as "James VII of Scotland and II of England" - should we have at this way round at the start of the article? Timrollpickering 13:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense & would come closer to the conventions of the British Government in using the Highest number (eg Elizabeth II of UK rather than Elizabeth I of UK, despite the fact the previous Elizabeth was only queen of England) but there is a lot of controversy over changing titles, just see the talk page for James VI & I, as wikipedia policy is to use the title of the 'most important' kingdom as the page name & the main title. AllanHainey 08:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

One way to get up the noses of Irish and Scottish people: call England the 'most important kingdom' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that correct in terms of territory and population? Emerson 07 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

On the Union Flag the cross of St George (England) is given precedence over the crosses of St Andrew and St Patrick. Richard75 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

When the King is in Ireland he would not be the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would he? He would simply be the King of Ireland in Ireland. Since he's in Ireland, there's no need for anybody else to be his Lieutenant, but it doesn't make sense to say that James was the Lord Lieutenant, does it? john k 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute?

Why is this article on the list of accuracy disputes (last box)? NawlinWiki 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

James and the Catholic Succession.

A number of small edits to correct errors of fact and interpretation.

1. It is quite wrong to say that James made no attempt himself to recover his throne. His campaign in Ireland in 1689-90 was to be the first stage towards this end. This is recognized further on in the article.

2. James conversion to Catholicism in the late 1660s was a badly kept secret; but secret it was. It only became openly known when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the 1673 Test Act. Shaftesbury was not involved in the introduction of the Test Act. He was in government at the time, a member of Charles' Cabal ministry.

3. James did not 'wisely' decide to leave for Brussells in 1680; he was ordered to go by the King, anxious to reduce the political temperature in England. James, as stiff and stubborn as ever, only went with reluctance.

4. James was never 'leader' of the Tory Party.

5. Conservative Anglicans were bound to support the legitimate king as an article of faith, whether he be Catholic or not. Many continued to do so even after the Glorious Revolution, including some of the bishops who had opposed his policy of indulgence.

6. I suspect there are very few-if any-academic historians who would describe James as 'cruel' because of the treatment of the Monmouth rebels. This is a very ninteenth century 'whiggish' view.

7. I think the reference to there being no 'reliable evidence' for the alleged substitution of Prince James-the warming pan theory-is best left out altogether. It was a story born in the political hysteria of the times, and had ceased to be taken seriously-even by the opponents of the Jacobites-not many years after it was invented. I think Queen Anne was the last prominent figure to take it seriously; although this is likely to have been the wishful thinking of a bad conscience.

Rcpaterson 08:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Despotism

I'm quite disappointed that Wikipedia is following the traditional biased view that James II was despotic. The article reads "Many of his subjects distrusted his religious policies and despotism, leading a group of them to depose him in the Glorious Revolution". James II championed religious toleration and equality for Catholics and other dissenters. As such, he was one of the most laudable kings in English history. If a reference to despotism must be included, it should read "perceived despotism" or some other qualification. NicholasJB 20:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A point worth raising. We will probably never know the real James, since history is written by the victors. However, in religion he was a man of his times. He only believed in religious freedom for Roman Catholics. He advocated religious toleration as a means of freeing Catholics to take positions in the government and in the army. And he was a zealot. Indeed, the pope of the time counselled him to practise moderation.--Gazzster (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess he is a despot because he actually supported dissenters and catholics....the protestant establishment always get what they want, even in the history books! I'm a Scottish Protestant but it still doesn't stop me seeing this. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.5.118 (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gazzster, I don't think that is a fair evaluation. James believed that freeing his subjects from being legally forced to obide by an organisation which was not created by God but the Parliament of England (the Anglican Church), would naturally lead to them returning to the True Church by means of reason. Not force. James believed that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth and naturally, being that he didn't despise his own citizens, wished for their souls to be saved as part of it. We hear about how Cromwell was "religiously tolerent" because he let the Jewish community return to England, yet the self-interested plutocrats of parliament who usurped James still won't allow our official history books to portray James as anything other than a despotic bigot. Wikipedia can be more neutral. - Yorkshirian (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is precisely because James regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the only true Christian church and regarded Protestantism (the religion of the vast majority of his subjects) as a "false religion" that he was a despot. He used despotic means to promote Catholicism. He adopted a veneer of tolerance when his hope of persuading the Tories to repeal the penal laws against Catholics (not Dissenters!) failed that he embraced those who he hitherto regarded as his enemies (the Puritans) in order to promote Catholicism and undermine the Church of England.--Britannicus (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Despotism?

I dont think that Nicholos (despotic ruler) understands the word. A despotic ruler is one who rules with absolute power. It is without qualifiaction as with regard to how this absolute power is carried out ie. malevelontly or cruely. I dont think one can argue that James tried to sollicit and legitimise the monarchs power while limiting parliaments giving him more power than any other monarch since the despot Henry VIII. Suggesting that the declaration of Indulgance, where religious freedoms were granted was allturistic is simplistic. Passing this act would be a legitmate vehicle through which he could reconvert England back to Catholicism.

A despotic ruler must by necessity be cruel or forceful. This is because his or her rule will always be opposed by someone. And this opposition must be overcome. Mind you, any form of government, even a democracy, can be despotic.A party that dominates a Parliament can indeed be despotic.But I do think that the contempt (or at least disregard) for Parliament of Charles I, Charles II and James II was greater than Henry VIII's. For Henry VIII, tyrant though he was, did not think of ruling without Parliament. The Reformation, Dissolution of the Monasteries, judicial murder of John Fischer, Thomas More,etc, was all done with Parliamentary consent. Whereas the Stuarts believed that Parliament was essentially unecessary. And therein lies the break with the traditional mode of English government. --Gazzster (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It could probably be argued that, since Henry VIII was tyrannical, Parliament basically bent to his wishes anyway and so its "consent" had little more significance than the consent of the Roman senate during the imperial period. I'm not an expert on the Tudor period so if anyone knows better I'm happy to hear it, but I always got the impression that at the time Parliament was seen as a servant of the Crown, there for little more than debate and legislative purposes rather than something that could actively block the will of the Monarch. As for James, he certainly doesn't come across as badly as his father and his reputation has to some extent been coloured by the anti-Catholic and anti-Stuart feeling in England at the time. Having said that, from what I can gather he seems to have been quite active in executing "traitors"; wasn't one of his judges notorious as the "hanging judge" at the time and actually sent to the Tower after the overthrow of James II? --Zagrebo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Omissions and Significance of rule neglected

This article fails to get to why James II reign was so contentious and was such a turning point in England’s History : 1) Not since Henry VIII had a King tried to hold absolute monarchy 2) I dont think you draw significance to the Catholic soldier test-case, the Declaration of Indulgence and the role they played in James‘s attempt to Catholicise England . James employed catholic army officers possibly concerned about a second rebellion (against the test act). Condemned by Parliament James approached the judiciary and using the catholic soldier as a test case (he was wavered from test act) and removing any unsympathetic Lords he proceeded. James was successful and The Lord Chief Justice summed up "The Kings of England are Sovereign Princess, the laws of England are the Kings Laws, it is an inseparable prerogative of the Kings of England to dispense with particular laws upon particular necessary reasons and of those reasons the King himself is sole judge". Essentially Parliament could pass laws but it was up to the King if they where employed and to whom. He now had the legitimacy to undue anti-catholic laws on a case by case basis. Previously loyal Tories now struggled with the conflict of unconditional support of an 'absolute’ monarch and the sanctity of the CofE .

Since the CofE (powerful and rich with daily contact with the normal people of England) had promised support to the King this put James in a strong bargaining position. James announced the 'declaration of indulgence' (religious tolerance) and charged all clergy to read it out in every church. This now troubled the church, where they to follow the head of their church, the King, but go against what they believed was Gods will. A petition was drawn up by seven bishops that criticised the declaration and the kings royal authority. The Bishops were arrested and placed in the Tower of London as political prisoners. James completely misjudged the peoples popular view. They were treated as heroes, crowds cheered and jailors treated them as guests. James’s power became questioned. The question of the legality of the Kings dispensing power brought great debate (more so than the guilt of the bishops) at the trial and the bishops were found not guilty.

3) In the overthrow of the anointed James II for William- England had essentially elected a diluted form of monarchy. This was popular as people saw as a change from absolute god-like monarchs to inauguration likened to a prince-president. The bill of rights meant the crown couldn’t suspend laws made by parliament, raise taxes without the orders of parliament, or command an army and illegal for the Monarch to be a papist or be married to a papist King (not since James has an English Monarch ever been a catholic or married to one. Now the Monarch was to have religion of people not vice-versa. James II attempt to attain absolute monarchy (like Henry VIII and Louis XIV) had failed- and to this day no Monarch has not since attempted. James II disregard for the constitutional monarchy lead to his other throw The glorious revolution disposed with the supremacy act and brought in a new age in England . In choosing another king from the anointed, severely limiting the monarchy’s power and making parliament the most powerful lawmaking and administrative body they had taken steps to becoming arguably the first modern state with a constitutional monarchy. This is important as England emerged not as a nation trying to imitate the powerful absolute Monarchs of France but with a powerful Government and aggressively modern state which now instead of a bystander in European politics would become one of the most powerful states in Europe. This arguably had huge consequences for the rest of the world!!

4) Ann suggested the baby was a changling (Mary was too well after her previous complications and James was far too confident that they would have a boy). The story was embroilled and took hold across England. Ann even convinced her sister husband that it was true. William could gain control naturally but the birth of a catholic son complicated this. The importance is that William’s acceptance of the changling story would give him justification for the invasion of England as it was widely believed at the time.

5)It should be noted that their was a ground swell of popular support for William. Landing in England William marched through cheering crowds in Exeter. However he had to face 25000 troops of James‘s troops at Salisbury plain-everything depended on how James could corral his troops. However, James became ill and nose bleeds led him to leave his troops! When your leader is not prepared to fight what confidence does it give your troops. His leading general and own daughter Ann left for William along with many troops as James left for London.

6) More emphasis should be given to the modern day consequences of the Battle of the Boyne as this Protestant-Catholic encounter is still emotive to this day in Protestant/Catholic Ireland, with Orange Protestant marches commemorating this day still emote much passion and controversy. --Philm101 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

The succession box title British royalty should be changed to English, Scottish and Irish royalty. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The statement in the intro that James was king of England, Scotland & Ireland till December 88 is at best misleading, at worst simply false:

• In Feb 89, the English Parliament retroactively declared that he had abdicated the English throne in attempting to flee the country in December.
• In Apr 89, the Scottish Parliament declared that he had forfeited the Scottish throne. It did not specify any particular event as precipitating this, so it's hard to see how this could be backdated, & I believe he is generally regarded as still King of Scots till April, as eg in the monarchy's website.
• He remained King of Ireland until 1690/91, as mentioned in the article.

13:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke of York – since when?

The Ecyclopedia Britannica (2002) says: »He was created Duke of York in January 1634«, Wikipedia insists on 1644. Now what? --ECeDee (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anybody knowledgeable? ––ECeDee (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

He was called Duke of York since birth, but wasn't formally invested with the title until 1644. See [1], for example. Coemgenus 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

When did he marry Mary of Modena?

Neither this article nor the article about Mary of Modena gives the date of their marriage. So, when did they marry? Was it a Protestant or a Catholic ceremony? Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's complicated, but I tried to summarize it in my last change to the article. Coemgenus 23:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

He married her on their wedding day (sorry, couldn't help myself). GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

New images

I've recently uploaded a few new images of James II. Although this article already has many images, I hope some of them may be helpful. Dcoetzee 11:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• 
  By Cornelius Johnson, 1639
• 
  By Godfrey Kneller, 1684
• 
  Circa 1690

Macaulay as reliable source

I've reverted the recent changes that tell the story of James's reign according to Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay. Macaulay is to Whiggish historians what Belloc is to Catholic revisionists -- useful as a polemicist, but hopelessly biased as an historian. If anyone wants to expand the article, he should do so using the works of a reliable modern historian. Coemgenus 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All the historians cited in this article are "biased". "Biased" is when an historian has an opinion which differs from another historian. There is no such thing as a "neutral" historian and it is dangerous to think that such a thing exists. I have not inserted Macaulay's opinions into the article, only the factual information contained in Macaulay's work. If you can prove that what Macaulay has written in this instance is false then remove it. Otherwise, do not remove sourced factual information just because you disagree with the historian's politics.--Johnbull (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's biased, yes, but because it's outdated. Macauley's standards of research and citation are nowhere near what modern professional historians would consider appropriate. It's not that I have a particular problem with Macauley, but with any antiquated work being presented as encyclopedic truth. Historians today may not be neutral, but they at least claim to attempt to be unbiased.

My specific problems with your additions:

• You say "In his own words, James expressed indignation that men had the impudence to advocate repeal of the penal laws against Protestants." So what were his own words? Why not cite them?
• You, like Macaulay, fail to draw a distinction between Catholics, who had been peaceful subjects since the Restoration and before, and Covenanters, who were in varying stages of rebellion against James. This might explain the disparate treatment they received (although it fails to excuse James's mistreatment or ordinary, non-Covenanting Presbyterians).
• You focus on James's limited toleration in Scotland, while ignoring his general toleration in his largest kingdom, England. The Engish toleration section was already there, a few paragraphs down. I combined them.
• Finally, the standard for inclusion an article is not that I should have to prove it false, but that you should have to prove it true. I will not engage in a revert war, but I will try to add things from biographies and histories written in the last 150 years or so.

Coemgenus 01:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Macaulay is outdated. More primary sources have to come light since he wrote but I do not think that invalidates his work. Why did you remove the reference to the Act of the Scottish Parliament putting Covenanters to death and his belief that Protestantism was a false religion? Surely that is extremely relevant on a section about religious toleration? The fact that James summoned three Scottish Privy Councillors to London after they refused to obey him is just left at that, with no mention of what happened when they saw James, surely it would be better to include what happened? Your view of Catholics as peaceful subjects may on the whole be true but you are imposing today's POV on the past as many people at that time did not see Catholics as peaceful subjects but as willing to use rebellion and murder to further their religion. The instructions to his son on how to rule England, which showed that James wanted Catholics to hold positions in government and the army totally out of proportion to their numbers, was removed as well. Why?--Johnbull (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Act of Parliament more for brevity than anything -- I thought the summary that remains covered it well enough. We always have this problem in biographies of wanting to mention everything that ever happened in a mans life, but needed to constrain the article so it's not too long. I'm not sure what happened when the Privy Councillors saw James in London -- I didn't think it was in your original addition (was that the cause of him replacing them with Catholics?)-- but it should be, so I certainly don't object to adding it. I didn't remove the instructions to the Old Pretender, I just moved them to when they happened chronologically -- it's in the exile section, now, I think. Coemgenus 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article focuses far too little on his reign, which is the most important part of his life. The articles on Charles II and William III have far more space taken up by their reigns than James. Granted, they reigned longer than James but considering James was a king, and a king with a very controversial reign which led to his deposition, I think his reign should be the main part of the article. I put back the information on the Act against Covenanters and the meeting of James and the Privy Councillors as agreed.--Johnbull (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, on further reflection, that James' reign should take up more of the article. I left your additions, and added a few parallel citations to more recent works. Coemgenus 14:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely absurd to use Macaulay as a source for this article, just as it would be to use Gibbon as a source on Roman history. Wikipedia's job is to reflect the current consensus of scholarship, not to repeat Whiggish (or Catholic) polemic from 150 years ago. Using sources like that is okay for creating new articles on subjects we don't yet have articles for, but the conclusions of a Macaulay should not be put in place of a more modern consensus. john k (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Macaulay's conclusions are not put in the place of "a more modern consensus". Macaulay is used as a source in conjunction with modern historians. Macaulay's conclusion's are not put into the article but only the factual information contained in his work. Perhaps you can tell us if the information sourced in this article from Macaulay is wrong?--Britannicus (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to me to be of doubtful neutrality and deserves to have the 'Wikilogo' 'Disputed Neutrality' BrandMarker installed. We cannot accept roman catholic historical influences in a modern wikiarticle.Miletus (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Only Protestant historians need apply? Coemgenus 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You know exactly what I mean. Any sort of bias (either roman catholic, or protestant or whatever) should not be permitted to influence a wikiarticle. I'm surprised that you compel me to state this!Miletus (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What parts do you believe are biased? Coemgenus 16:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is well written and researched. The area which I find 'sensitive' is the description and references to the actions of the parliament(s) in removing James II. The impression is given (and this is mainly a question of syntax) that the country was, in general, catholic and the parliament did not permit the people to freely practise this religeon. This is clearly not the case. As you would know, the country had been protestant since the Reformation 140(?) years earlier and the move to create a centrally controlled catholic-style administration (in the style of Louis XIV) was the catalyst which lead to the subsequent reforms. If this area could be tweaked a little, I would have no other comment.Miletus (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This article went through a lengthy featured article candidacy (twice, actually) and I think all instances of bias are have been wrung out of it. I could find no implication in the text or the sources that England or Scotland were Catholic nations longing for release -- all of the sources that I read reflect the opposite view. Even Belloc, the foremost of the Catholic apologists, only claimed that 10% of England was Catholic in the 1680s (a figure disputed by other historians, who place the number closer to 2%). I tried to keep the parts I wrote as neutral as possible, and the other editors at the FAC did so as well, as you can see. And, for what it's worth, I'm not even Catholic. Coemgenus 15:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I a catholic (I am Church of Scotland) but, as always, objectivity must prevail. Having looked again at the text, I have to admit that my original objection was, perhaps, a quibble, following a generous dinner here in SE France. I am well aware of the horrors of working for years on a text, or a book, or a doctorate and having it fail before the academic review board on a technicality. Newsubj. The UK parliamentary oath which has to be sworn today, by all Members of Parliament before they can be installed, was written as a direct result of orange revolution. It might be worth including the text of the oath somewhere in the article. It is an intimidating document and it is understandable why it is not accepted by certain MP's. Please be aware that my use of the word 'understandable' does not, in any way, imply approval or sympathy for those who refuse the parliamentary oath (but take the salary). In conclusion: best wishes and thanks for a very well researched and presented article (I am a published military historian).Miletus (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Miletus (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Miletus (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary succession box and categories for New York

There should be some proprietary title mentioned in the titulary section, but I have added James to two New York categories. There may be more. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Anne Hyde?

James' first spouse, Anne, is first mentioned at the subsection "Marriage", which begins: "Anne became pregnant in 1660, but following the Restoration and Charles's return to power, no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner, no matter what he had pledged beforehand." This is quite bewildering, as we have been given no information about who Anne was and how she had come to be pregnant. I'm adding some information on her background, simply copying form the article on Anne Hyde, and I'm rephrasing: "In 1660 Anne Hyde, who was the daughter of the loyal Royalist chief adviser to Charles and Maid of Honour to James's sister Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, became pregnant with James's child. However, following the Restoration and Charles's return to power, no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner, no matter what he had pledged beforehand." I still believe though that this section needs clarification from someone with access to primary sources. Importantly, the article on Anne Hyde mentions that James was reluctant to marry her and was forced to it by his brother Charles. This is definitely contradictory to what is mentioned above ("no one at the royal court expected a prince to marry a commoner"). Moreover, it is not clear when exactly there alleged secret wedding took place (according to the article on Anne Hyde, it was in 1659, while this article gives the impression that it took place after Anne became pregnant.) Desiderius82 (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right: at some point since the article was featured, five sentences from that section (and their citations) were deleted. I have restored it. --Coemgenus 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's much clearer now, so good work. But it's still unclear when their alleged wedding took place. Desiderius82 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdication versus forfeiture

The Parliament of Scotland on 11 April 1689, declared James to have forfeited the throne (the Scottish Parliament upheld the Divine Right of Kings, so abdication was not a valid option).

I can't follow the logic. James had a Divine Right so he couldn't abdicate, that is, renounce the the throne by himself, but he could have forfeited, i.e. the throne could be taken away from him as a punishment for something? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Top.Squark (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was just the Scottish Parliament looking for a legal justification for recognising that James was no longer King. To have continued to recognise James as King would have lead to war with England and probably occupation once again, so they took the easy route and found a way to remove James from the throne legally. Legally, James "abdicated" in England and "forfeited" in Scotland. In reality, he was overthrown in a coup. --Zagrebo (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The trial and execution of James's father was remembered by many. Having a deposed and living monarch in England or Scotland would have been an embarassment and a threat. Most people still balked at regicide, so these legal fictions had to be resorted to. And in Scotland of course, the Kirk would have pounced on the chance to remove a 'papist' king.Gazzster (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis true, Jimmy 2/7 never abdicated. Thus the reason for himself & the Jacobites continuing to view him as King, until his death in 1701. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Guys, you are all missing the point of my remark. My problem is with the parenthetical remark regarding the Divine Right of Kings. Top.Squark (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The contradiction is not in the article, it's in the actions of the Parliaments in 1689. They fudged the logic back then, and the article reflects that. You should remove that little template you left. Coemgenus 10:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, does the source given contain the claim regarding the Divine Right of Kings? If so, can you quote the source on this? Secondly, if the Parliament "fudged the logic" as you say, it should be explained more explicitly. E.g., "The Scottish parliament oddly decided that forfeiture is more consistent with the Divine Right of Kings than abdication". However, I doubt they fudged the logic that much, I think something in the text is mixed-up or not explained well. Top.Squark (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We know that the Scots called it one thing and the English called it another. How about we just delete the parenthetical until someone does the research to properly sort it all out? Coemgenus 18:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. Top.Squark (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

James the Shit redirects to James II. Is this some sort of hoax or vandalism? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

After James fled Ireland in 1690, he earned the nickname "Seamus an chaca," or "James the shit," in English. It seems unlikely that anyone would use that redirect, but it's not actually a hoax. --Coemgenus 19:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. Had I bothered to read the article I would have seen that. Shame on me. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I never knew that! I have read quite a bit on the Stuarts, but never came across this interesting soubriquet. One learns something new at Wikipedia everyday!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the article translates Seamus an chaca as "James the be-shitten". Is that bona fide English? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, that's what the source said. It's been a few years since I reworked this article, though, so I could be mistaken. --Coemgenus 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes the Irish would imply someone who had lost control of his bowels due to fright - "be-shitten" (an old-fashioned English construct) - rather than someone likened to a turd.

Image

The image of James and his father is reversed (mirror image) from the original.Urselius (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That's unlikely because there's another version File:Charles I and young James II.jpg and because it would be natural for them to extend their right hands towards one another rather than their left ones. Also the sword is usually worn on the left side and the Garter sash worn over the left shoulder. DrKiernan (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No you're right, the book "Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660-1685" by Tim Harris (a rather turgid volume) I'm reading at the moment has it reversed.Urselius (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I uploaded that image from a James II biography (maybe Miller?) and I did not alter it. Also, a Google Images search for the painting shows the present orientation everytime [2]. I'm not sure where the original is, or I'd link to that. --Coemgenus 13:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alnwick Castle

I believe it's in the Duke of Northumberland's collection at Alnwick Castle. Moonraker (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

James VII and II?

Now that James I of England has been moved to James VI and I, perhaps we should consider having this page likewise moved? GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we should in order to maintain a better continiuity between the articles. Pro66 (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree-that seems like enough consensus and since it IS basically the same as what was done to the other article, I have just gone ahead and moved this one. Extra details below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocrowx (talk • contribs) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article name.

Since James I of England was changed to James VI and I, it only made sense to move this to the same format too. And in both cases, the titles do much more accurately and fairly reflect who they were, and I was glad that there was finaly enough consensus for the other article to be moved. So, this is just to maintain continuity and I am surprised it wasnt done allready. Nocrowx (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, it made sense for the elder James -- he spend lots of time in both Scotland and England and the fact that he was king of both was important to his biography. James II, on the other hand, did not spend one day in Scotland after he became king, and over his lifetime spent far more time in England and even France than Scotland. As far as which name is more common, in the books I read while rewriting this article, he is almost always called "James II" when any number is given. As far as Google hits goes, I get 310,000 for "James II of England" versus 90,400 for "James VII and II". I wish there had been a proper discussion before this move happened. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Coemgenus on this. "James II and VII" does not reflect the way the king described himself. The best discussion of this is by W. A. Speck, who describes the title "James II and VII" as a "misnomer," noting that "Although his Scottish subjects called him James VII, the king himself did not use that title. None of the coins struck in Edinburgh in his reign style him thus. Instead they bear the inscription 'James II'." (This is from W. A. Speck's review of Tim Harris's work, in the English Historical Review, no. 121 (Dec. 2006), p. 1464). Arundel22 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Heir to the throne

James was not heir to the throne before 1685; he was heir presumptive. Compare it to the present situation: Elizabeth II is the heir to the British throne, while her son is the heir apparent (it is expected that he will become heir, i.e. that he will inherit it). Besides, the succession box itself is pure trivia. There was no title or office such as "Heir to the throne". None at all. The succession box serves no purpose; in many cases, it is even redundant to the Duke of Cornwall/Prince of Wales succession box(es). I propose removing it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Collapse of the Commonweath

I made a small edit where it said the Commonwealth collapsed after Oliver Cromwell's death in early September 1658. This is a common belief but a bit of a misconception. The Commonwealth's protectorate regime was actually secure after Oliver Cromwell's death and remained so until the Spring of 1659 when the army moved against his son and heir Richard Cromwell forcing him to resign. It was after this that the Commonwealth started to fall-apart as the military leaders vied for power. Earlier in the article it (correctly) states that the political situation in England had changed a great deal by 1659 and casual readers may have wondered why, if Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, the Commonwealth managed to survive another two years. --Zagrebo (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

While this is strictly true, it could be argued that the reign of 'Tumbledown Dick' added nothing to the stability of the Commonwealth. Nor, it would appear, did he give it any clear focus, as his father had done. He was not able to command the dissident factions. So when General Monck moved the army, the only power that had upheld the Commonwealth, against the government, the Commonwealth was finished. Only OLiver had had the resolve and ability to use the army. Not to malign Richard too much, Oliver's only support was the army, so one could say that as soon as he had assumed power he had doomed thed republic.Gazzster (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. But in, say, February of 1659 if you'd said Britain was under a crumbling regime nobody would have understood what you were talking about since the regime was perfectly strong, Richard having been generally accepted at home and abroad and just confirmed in office by Parliament. The end of the protectorate happened quite quickly (over the space of a couple of months, I think) and it was only really after that that the Commonwealth was in trouble. The article talks about James being unconvinced his brother would become King of England in 1659 which was perfectly understandable but then later suggests that the Commonwealth was in trouble after Cromwell's death which was in 1658. Some clarification was needed or people who aren't experts on the period may have been confused. Additionally (although this is of no real relevance to the article) I'd argue Richard was giving the government focus as he was working in some small way towards unpicking the virtual military dictatorship his father had allowed to flourish, not least by allowing parliament to make military leaders answer to the rule of law, this was one of the main things which lead to his downfall --Zagrebo (talk) 10:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

James II became king upon the death of his brother Charles II

the title of this section is apparently such an offensive thought, it need to be removed from the article? Because of the turmoil in succession during this period of British history, it is entirely appropriate that the lede should mention that James II ascended to the throne in a "normal succession" upon the death of his brother Charles II. In this way, person trying to familiarize themselves with what happened as an offshoot of other research (for example, coming here from the song Loch Lomond and then through Jacobitism as I did) can learn what they need quickly, rather than having to dig deeply for information that is spread accross a number of articles. And as a side point, the infobox should contain "selected facts" from the article, but the presence of a fact in the infobox is not reason to leave an important fact out of the article. My teeny tiny and simple changes should not repeatedly be deleted; it is a simple matter to reword if you think it can be said better, but mentioning that he became king when his brother died is one of the most important details about him with respect to that period of British history. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

James, Parliament and the Divine Right of Kings

I have flagged a few dubious statements in paragraph three. I don't think that a bald assertion that "James is best known for his belief in the Divine Right of Kings" is sustainable. At most, all that can be said is that some people at the time, and subsequently, have believed that James believed in the Divine Right of Kings. I know of no statement by James endorsing the Divine Right of Kings, and there is no citation given in the current article that would demonstrate this. Here is how the wikipedia article on the "Divine Right of Kings" defines this doctrine: "It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church." The implication, then, is that James believed he could rule as he wish and that he did not need to respect his people's rights or the views of parliament. But James explicitly said at multiple points in his reign that he respected his people's rights to private property and that he would not deprive them of that. Also James, unlike his father and grandfather, did not attempt to levy taxes on his people without the consent of parliament. It is certainly true that he had a high view of the royal prerogative and believed that he could use that power to dispense with, or even suspend, laws in ecclesiastical matters, but this is not quite the same thing as the "Divine Right of Kings" doctrine. Arundel22 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have also flagged the statements later in the paragraph that suggest that James's reign saw a struggle between the king and parliament. Since there were no parliaments sitting between November 1685 and January 1689, it seems inaccurate to refer to a struggle between the king and parliament in the latter years of his reign. It is certainly true that the elites who were normally represented in parliament were upset about a number of the king's policies, but they couldn't express their grievances in parliament because there was no parliament in session. I would suggest the following as alternative language for this passage: "Leading Anglicans, concerned by the king's assertion of a power to suspend unilaterally the laws against nonconformity, saw their opposition as a way to preserve what they regarded as traditional English liberties. This tension made James's four-year reign a struggle over the limits of the royal prerogative, resulting in his deposition..." Arundel22 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's accurate that James was attempting to create religious liberty "against the wishes of the English Parliament." It's true that parliament consistently opposed liberty for Roman Catholics in this period, but they didn't oppose religious liberty for Protestant nonconformists in the same way. The second exclusion parliament of 1680-1681 came fairly close to passing a bill for the toleration of Protestant nonconformists--the whigs who dominated the Commons in this parliament were in favor of toleration, but King Charles II dissolved the parliament before the measure got out of committee. The parliament of 1689 passed a Toleration Act that covered all of the major Protestant groups, although Catholics were not included. I think the phrase "against the wishes of the English Parliament" should be cut, since it implies that parliament had been and was consistently opposed to religious liberty. Arundel22 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

James II's full Style

That says that James II's full style was "James the Second by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of Faith, etc"... But what comes after "Defender of Faith" that would replace "etc"? I'm sorry for asking this, I just need to know it complete because of something I'm doing. Sorry bad english too :) --189.102.216.246 (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

A bit late now, but , for the record, nothing replaces the "etc". The "etc" was a bit of craft by Elizabeth I. Her father and brother had their style "King of ... Defender of the Faith, and of the Church of England and of Ireland in Earth Supreme Head". The claim to be Supreme Head of the Church was offensive to Roman Catholics. But some Protestants would object if it were formally deleted. Hence, "etc". Every sovereign thereafter, until George I (I think) followed the example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.192.15 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Catholic son

In the section "Glorious Revolution" there is the statement "Public alarm increased when Queen Mary gave birth to a Roman Catholic son and heir, ...". What does this mean? That when the midwife held the baby up, she said "Congratulations, it's a Roman Catholic"? Nobody is born a Roman Catholic (or Protestant, or Muslim, ...). At birth, the child hadn't probably given the matter much consideration. The child was presumably considered a Catholic because someone had decided that that was what he would become. Masonmilan (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, his parents were both Catholic and everyone knew the baby would be baptised in that faith. He was baptised on October 15, 1688. Do you have a suggestion about a better way to say describe his birth and the reasons it was a problem for the Anglican establishment? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

This article was referenced by the press:

• Extreme Blogging., Matt Rand for Forbes. Part of the Best of the web. Glowing report, and has this to say about Wikipedia:

  We asked Frederick Allen, Managing Editor of American Heritage [published by Forbes], to compare entries from Britannica Online and the Wikipedia. He was skeptical about the Wikipedia, but after throwing several queries at the two encyclopedias (Haydn, Millard Fillmore, warblers), he admitted, "it looks as if Wikipedia's gotten a lot better, more thorough and more accurate." Even the Wikipedia's James II of Britain article beat Britannica in size, reach and outside references. But Allen cautioned that there's "still the underlying problem that you can be sure of the accuracy of what it presents, because of the fact that it's open to contributions from the public."

Adding date to aid archiving. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In Case no one has noticed...

Someone has vandaized the top part of this (22 may)

  Hopefully this is referring to the "Early Life" section that is actually James I, not James II.

Also, this needs to be fixed in the "Early Life" section: In September 1660, the Duke of York (who was also created Duke of Albany in Scotland) have sex with Lady Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon.

Resolved. Adding date to aid archiving. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

---

James II of England → James II and VII – Sorry to bring this back up again, but the article specifically links to the Scottish edition of the London Gazette proclaiming James as King James VII. While from an English perspective that might be a trifling footnote to history, this is an encyclopaedia, and ought to be accurate. He was James II and VII, and the title page should reflect that, as well as being in conformity with that of his father. The title page is to avoid ambiguity - James II and VII achieves that, and is historically accurate to boot. Also, the only coins minted in Scotland during his reign (referred to in the discussion of this in the archive) do indeed refer to him as James II, but what they said was: James II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland.

I propose moving this page (again) to James II and VII.

Cripipper (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose While his father was King of Scotland longer than his reign in England it was found right to call his article "VI and I", James II is almost always called James II. Most of the contemporary sources call him James II and none of his biographies label him "James VII" (e.g. those by Miller, Speck, Haswell, Ashley, Turner, Callow, Earle all call him James II). He was not even crowned King of Scotland. The fact that the Scots themselves called him James II on their coins rather than James VII also suggests that the article should remain titled James II.--Britannicus (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Britannicus is right. All the scholarly sources call him James II. It makes sense, too, he spent all his time as king in England, plus a little in Ireland after the Glorious Revolution. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is just plain unreasonable. Gazette might say one thing but common name is a whole different kettle of fish. I'd have to look back but I think it was rather conclusively demonstrated that James II was this individuals common name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the aboves, he is universally referred to as James II. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support It is misleading to say that he is universally referred to as James II. He is commonly and routinely referred to as James VII in serious academic works dealing with Scottish history. An example would be in TC Smout's A history of the Scottish People: "It is doubtful, however, whether they would ever have won wide enough sympathy and support from the influential upper classes anywhere in Scotland had not Charles II's brother and successor to the throne been a Roman Catholic. This was the one thing needed to unite the Scots again against the crown. James VII came to the throne in 1685 and almost immediately entangled himself by proposing religious toleration for all creeds including his own, and, for good measure, moving again towards arbitrary government." Other examples are in Gordon Donaldson's Scotland: James V to James VII. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I know it offends the Scots, but the simple fact is that he is commonly known as James II and rarely as James II & VII, unlike his grandfather who is often known as James I & VI or VI & I (although still most commonly as James I). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It depends where you look. In academic texts dealing with Scottish history, he is always referred to either as James VII or as James VII & II. And, covering a period that is crucial to Scottish history (Glorious Revolution and Jacobite uprisings), he is not in any way a rare or marginal subject. It's not a question of offense, rather it is one of accuracy. Who was king of Scotland after Charles II? It was James VII... James II was king of Scotland in the 15th century. We were not yet a political union and the convention of avoiding multiple regnal numbers hadn't yet evolved. His son, James Stuart, the Old Pretender, styled himself as James VIII and III. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes in academic texts on the history of Scotland he is called by his Scottish title but the academic texts on James himself (which we presumably agree are more important) it is clear that he is known as James II (as I mentioned above re the biographies of James). Also, in the modern histories of the Glorious Revolution (Vallance, Dillon, Harris, Sowerby, Pincus) he is called James II and they do not bother with the adage VII. The Glorious Revolution was mainly an Anglo-Dutch affair, with a later Irish dimension. Of course it was important within Scotland but Scotland was not a key player in it. James decided on a Jacobite rising in Ireland rather than Scotland. Unlike James I, James II was not that concerned with Scotland as king. It is like saying the article on George V of the United Kingdom should be renamed George I of Egypt.--Britannicus (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inclusion of the Claim of Right Act

I would like to include reference to the Scottish Act of Right as well as the English Bill of Rights. Specifically this: "This tension made James's four-year reign a struggle for supremacy between the English Parliament and the Crown, resulting in his deposition, the passage of the English Bill of Rights, the Scottish Claim of Right Act, and the subsequent Hanoverian succession." I believe the case for this is strong, both documents were important advancements of the power of People/Parliament over the royal prerogative and remain key historical documents in English and Scots law. Additionally, having only the English Bill is not sufficient, I'd argue, because it doesn't cover or explain his disposition as King of Scots.--Gealstrix (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Claim of Right Act is not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Relative emphasis material should not appear in the lead if it is not in the article body. More than that though, the previous omission of the Act from this article and the shortness of the article on the Act (with only three sources one of which is the Act itself) indicate to me that the Act is not heavily covered in the sources and consequently should not be covered heavily in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Burial

Just noting here, I don't mind if the footnote is removed from the infobox or information rejigged on that point, as long as the information is not misleading. DrKiernan (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Belloc

Identifying Belloc as a Catholic seems odd, considering that we don't identify Macaulay or Trevelyan as Protestants. Certainly, Belloc's Catholicism was an important part of his writing, but wasn't Lord Macaulay's identification with the Protestant establishment equally important to him?

The motivations in writing on James by Macaulay and Belloc are not comparable. For example, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for James II describes Belloc as James' "Catholic biographer" and in Belloc's own entry it is stated: "Most famously, Belloc became known as a polemical apologist for the Roman Catholic church...Roman Catholicism was central to Belloc's life and his writings". The Dictionary of National Biography claims that Belloc "devoted his pen increasingly through the twenties and thirties to the Catholic cause" and mentions his 1928 biography of James. In contrast, Macaulay "expected strong censure from the religious sects, ‘Papists, churchmen, puritans and Quakers’...He had expected criticism from churchmen, and especially Tractarians, for his description in the third chapter of the clergy in 1685. He had a courteous but bruising exchange with the high-church bishop of Exeter, Henry Phillpotts". In his History, Macaulay is critical of the Church of England's political doctrines. Macaulay is not described by scholars as a Protestant apologist in the same way that Belloc was a Catholic apologist (the ODNB hints strongly that Macaulay abandoned his youthful evangelism and disliked "religious enthusiasm").--Britannicus (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

These are good points. When I first wrote the historiography section, I left out religious identifiers but, having read more of Belloc since then, I agree that defense of the Catholic faith was foremost in his mind when he wrote about James. Maybe instead of the parenthetical, we could identify him in the flow of the prose. "...a writer and Catholic apologist..." makes the point just as well, don't you think? --Coemgenus (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. That sounds much better than the way I left it when I reverted the changes. Also, well done on editing this page to featured article status, impressive work.--Britannicus (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it. I haven't done much British history on here in a while, but I still keep an eye on things I've worked on. I'll make the change we agreed on to the article. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Charter Oak

There is no mention of James II demanding the Connecticut Charter in 1686 to consolidate the New England colonies and the colonists hiding it in the Charter Oak. When James II was the granted land as the Duke of York, the original boundary of New York included Connecticut west of the Connecticut river despite already been granted in the Connecticut Charter. This was resolved by swapping that area with Long Island which was originally was part of Connecticut. This trade occurred around 1675 according to The Story of Connecticut page 186 ©1932 by Lewis Sprague Mills. 22yearswothanks (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Updates

I know it's been a while since this was revised but I realise its a GA so I wanted to list a few points I feel would improve this article. There's been a lot of new scholarship on this period in the last few years so we can also expand the sources - the Harris and Miller books are great but I'm not sure Macaulay is neutral enough to feature quite so heavily (personal prejudice).

I know we all share a common objective in improving Wikipedia; I'm happy to put stuff up, have it reviewed and make this a collaboration. Do it in stages.

For example; Re the Lead Paragraph;

...Members of Britain's Protestant political elite increasingly suspected him of being pro-French and pro-Catholic and of having designs on becoming an absolute monarch....

This somewhat understates the case since he was a Catholic (converted in 1668) and both he and Charles pursued pro-French policies (eg Anglo-Dutch War of 1672, Treaty of Dover) and ruled without Parliament for substantial periods. Very little room for suspicion there :).

I think this matters because it was not James Catholicism that was the issue but his resort to arbitrary rule and his perceived assault on the Church of England (five of the Seven Bishops later were removed for refusing to swear allegiance to William).

Also, this doesn't mention Scotland; which again matters because the response was very different from England (arguably more radical).

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

James II and VII

First I do know this has been discussed at length before.

However, the fact remains that James was not just King of England and Ireland but also that of Scotland.

Many historians might refer to him as James II only but this is erroneous and perhaps influenced by the fact some are English and are therefore more inclined to call him by the name he was known by in that Kingdom. To an extent this is true of American historians especially as on the one hand they perhaps more identify with English historical tradition while on the other hand at the time of James' rule the North American colonies were under English control as Britain had yet to exist.

However, even this tendency amongst US scholars is not always manifested as for instance N C Landsman in 'From Colonials to Provincials' (1997) refers to him as James II and VII. Also please note that Scottish historians refer to him as James VII and II and while I am not advocating that ordering of numerals it does give an indication that merely referring to this monarch as James II is not sufficient.

Also, I think the arguments surrounding James' attention or lack thereof towards Scotland are largely irrelevant. After all George I and to an extent II were more concerned with their possessions in Germany yet they are still referred to by their British titles. The same can be said of Richard I of England who by all accounts seemed to have spent little time in the Kingdom compared to his French possessions. Using the logic put forth so far in discussions on this page they should not be referred to by there main English/British titles.

To add the VII is a simple and historically accurate addition to James' name and therefore I cannot see why it should not be done. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to all and not just reflect the historical traditions of one nation no matter how dominate within their island they might be. If this is not undertaken then the best course would be to create a separate entry for James as the King of Scots entitled 'James VII' which would mainly concern his conduct towards that particular Kingdom.

Jalba51 (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your argument has been made in the section above and rejected. You may be correct about what his name ought to be, but Wikipedia isn't about "ought," it's about "is." The vast majority of scholars call him James II, and so must we. For what it's worth, when I refer to him in my non-wiki life, I too call him James II & VII. But my opinion is personal, and does not change the fact that all the books I own on the man (which were used in writing this article) call him James II. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly scholars refer to him as James II only but not all. Again I have given an example of a historian that has and can provide many more if necessary. Also this is a case of 'is' rather than 'ought' to be. James was the VII of his name who was King of Scotland, a separate nation (this is still prior to the act of Union) and therefore he was James VII no ifs, buts or maybes. Again this is a small inclusion and historically accurate regardless of what English centric historians might or might not think. Historians are as susceptible to national bias or focus as anyone else, any course on historiography would provide proof of that. Moreover, using that logic the UK should be known as England because the majority of US based historians refer to it erroneously by that tern or the USSR should be known as 'Russia' because western historians frequently call it by that name. I also would like to point out that the very fact that his name has been brought up time and time again indicates that true consensus has not yet been reached.--Jalba51 (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He is known as James VII of Scots, in Scotland, which was a separate Kingdom at this point. He was revered to as such in Scotland at that time and is still known as such in Scottish history classes etc. It makes people uncomfortable because it's bias and incorrect to only refer to his English title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.32.169 (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is only right that the title be changed to James II and VII, in the same style as his grandfather. The case has been made well before. Additionally this is also a problem with the articles on Charles I and Charles II which only have England in the title.--Gealstrix (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Surely there is an incongruity in having James VI and I reside at that address while this monarch is "James II of England"? Slac speak up! 02:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Your argument has been made in the section above and rejected", rejected by whom? To call him the king of England is incorrect as the Union of the Crowns created the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland so there were no separate kingdoms of Scotland and Ireland. James I made this clear. Yes, many historians refer to him as king of England and they are incorrect. Subsequent incorrect titling such as Edwards and Elizabeth have been declared as incorrect by the Court (after an appeal by the Duke of Buccleugh) and so such names are unlikely to be used again. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia so there is no excuse for compounding past mistakes by continuing them. James II of Great Britain (etc.) is his correct title and that must be the title of the page. One can add VII of Scotland, II of England and Ireland for clarity. I suspect that the author might have \ touch of English nationalism in his makeup. Acorn897 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense after nonsense. Not only did the Union of the Crowns fail to establish a common parliament, but James II clearly called himself King of England, Scotland and Ireland and not King of Great Britain. "Incorrect titling" of British monarchs will obviously continue, as the heir apparent's sons were named William (to be William V) and Henry. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

According to W. A. Speck, "although his Scottish subjects called him James VII, the king himself did not use that title. None of the coins struck in Edinburgh in his reign style him thus. Instead they bear the inscription 'James II'. Like his Stuart predecessors...James claimed to be king, not of England and Scotland, but of Great Britain". (The English Historical Review Vol. 121, No. 494 (Dec., 2006), pp. 1464).--Britannicus (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Precocious

According to the article, James received his MA and "served as colonel" of a regiment in 1642 — at age 9. Can someone elaborate? Smallus Editus (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:William III of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Mughal India

Dr, so yes. How should we add that then? In a different paragraph. An essential event, certainly can't exclude that from the article. Btw edit warring applies for everyone, even for admins. Regards 79.75.34.205 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects, Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4, articles should contain material that is generally found in sources about the subject. If sources that are about James II do not generally mention a topic, then that topic is not important enough to be included in this article. The article is a biography of James II. It should contain material that is generally found in biographies of James II. Material that is not found in biographies of James II does not belong. DrKay (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

DrKay this was an important piece of information. Sent warships India and assisted the East India company at a major war. And I've mentioned it briefly. Wikipedia:Too much detail does not apply here at all. Not sure if his biographers mentioned but will check, but more other sources are available. I am sure you'll directly block me if I add it back, usual abuse of authority. Got no choiche. Hope that some other editors will agree with this little and very informative contribution.79.75.34.205 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, all content added to wikipedia must be explicitly supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. You claim[3] that pages 16-18 of Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 say James II declared war on Aurangzeb. James II is not mentioned on pages 16-18, or indeed apparently anywhere in the book. DrKay (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

They are reliable. Yes you're right that is not mentioned in that book, not sure how did it come, the others do mention however. Also I didn't say that James II declared war, but he was persuaded. Read these quotes from some journals:

1) "Sir Josiah Child was the Governor of the Company at this time. He was a very ambitious man and aimed to secure territorial severeignty in India. He persuaded King James II to declare war against Aurangzeb and consequently an an English...". 2) "King James II of England sent a naval force to help the English in India , but the Mughuls under their admiral Sidhi Yacoub Khan defeated the English" 3) "In 1685 , Sir Josiah , persuaded King James II to sanction the despatch of about a dozen ships of war with instructions to attack.."

More books here, ols read 1, 2, 3, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.44.116 (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What journals? On the books, none of these are biographies of James II. One is from 1874, and clearly way out-of-date. None of them explicitly support the claims made in the new material. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just pasted some of the quotes from certain journals, didn't provide the name of the journals. Again, why must they be from their biographies? So the other authors' passages and mentions about James should be ignored you're saying? They do support. In that case you tell me what we should add then. The article should mention something about the Anglo-Mughal.79.75.44.116 (talk) 14:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See my opening comment in this section for guidance. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Has the article been featured? Also, a little detail on the Anglo India war, which is even significant enough, not going to spoil the article. Let's be realistic. 79.75.44.116 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

New Style or Old one

"Coronation was on 23 April 1685". On what syle is this date? V.lukyanyuk (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vital dates

Why are we showing both OS and NS dates for his birth, but only NS for his death, which leaves it ambiguous? England had not yet converted to NS at that stage. We need to be consistent here. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

An additional complication is that he died in exile in France, where new style dates were in effect. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

"Duke of Normandy"

The sentence "James was created "Duke of Normandy" by King Louis XIV of France on 31 December 1660.[14]", supported by an Alison Weir reference, is utterly wrong. The conquest of the Duchy of Normandy by the Capetians was a milestone of the French State history. There is no way the french king would have given such a title to the english king's brother.

This "creation" is absent from every reference books, such as Levantal’ Ducs et pairs (Paris, 1996). 2A01:E0A:135:AED0:1C38:1DCC:F1B8:BE29 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Move request notification

A move request has been created at Talk:James I (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 August 2022 but no notification was posted here by the requester, presumably due to the redirect from James I not being followed. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Coronation ceremonies

The coronation ceremony for James and Mary looks interesting enough for a paragraph or two. I had some sources but lost them. I had something about a comparison of coronations of James II and Henry VIII. Maybe later. Thanks for helping User:DrKay. I really need to not try handling source links on mobile devices. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the “lavish” was the banquet, not the coronation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Article Title Name Change

Why has the title of the article been changed to "James II of England" from "King James VII and II"? The later is more inclusive and is consistent with the article on "King James VI and I". Also, he reigned well after the Union of the Crowns - the English crown was just part of his domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.203.139 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• I’m inclined to agree, especially as his predecessor’s article is James VI and I. RPH (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree - it should read James VII and II - not least as it was the Scottish Crown that took over the English one. 185.186.207.96 (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

His predecessor was Charles II of England & their father's page should be moved back to James I of England. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Because consensus (see archive) and WP:COMMONNAME applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:6D3C:739E:35BE:9151 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coat of Arms of Scotland (1660-1689).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

His role in the sinking of HMS Gloucester (1654)

The article on the demise of HMS Gloucester gives a far more in depth account of the role that James (or Duke at the time) played in the disaster. Whereas this article has two sentences about the sinking, there appears to be a lot more important than this event than this article would suggest. For instance in him getting off the ship and saving himself while so many drowned (he wanted the pilot he argued with hanged for negligence); it was a stigma or legacy he carried for the rest of his life. It might well be that sort of impression that also contributed in part to the Glorious Revolution. As it stands, the events of the sinking of HMS Gloucester are grossly understated in this article and should be expanded by those with the relevant knowledge. I don't know enough but there is clearly an inconsistency in tone between this article and the ship.146.199.128.167 (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)