The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 10-07-2018, 08:13 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,642
James II (1633-1701)

James II (1633-1701) was King of England and Ireland as James II and King of Scotland as James VII from February 6, 1685 until 1688.
King James II received a bribe from the French around 1685.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kin...106797855.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-14-2018, 06:43 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,642
The coronation of King James II: entering Westminster Abbey
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jam...-47972697.html
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-27-2019, 09:12 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,642
James II's marriage to a commoner, Anne Hyde, the daughter of King Charles II's Lord Chancellor, met with disapproval on dynastic grounds. However, it removed the possibility of James making a dynastic Catholic marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-28-2019, 12:45 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 11,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
James II's marriage to a commoner, Anne Hyde, the daughter of King Charles II's Lord Chancellor, met with disapproval on dynastic grounds. However, it removed the possibility of James making a dynastic Catholic marriage.
England never had the concept of dynastic marriages. The whole morgantic marriage issue on the continent wasn't in the UK. Previous kings had married commoners, like Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV.

James was his brother's heir at the time, and it was expected he marry someone higher. Not dynastic though, a member of the nobility would have been deemed appropriate. Even Anne's father had suggested they not go through with the marriage. They got together before Charles was restored to the throne.

As for a Roman catholic bride, it didnt remove the possibility. It simply delayed it. His second wife Mary was the daughter of the Duke of Modena. Though it was Anne's daughters who would eventually succeed him.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-29-2019, 04:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
England never had the concept of dynastic marriages. The whole morgantic marriage issue on the continent wasn't in the UK. Previous kings had married commoners, like Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV.

James was his brother's heir at the time, and it was expected he marry someone higher. Not dynastic though, a member of the nobility would have been deemed appropriate. Even Anne's father had suggested they not go through with the marriage. They got together before Charles was restored to the throne.

As for a Roman catholic bride, it didnt remove the possibility. It simply delayed it. His second wife Mary was the daughter of the Duke of Modena. Though it was Anne's daughters who would eventually succeed him.
You're confusing dynastic marriages with equal marriages. Dynastic marriages are simply marriages between members of two royal dynasties. Charles II made a dynastic marriage and so did his father and grandfather. Henry VIII's first and fourth marriages were dynastic. Yes, marriage to a commoner was acceptable at that time but dynastic marriages were preferred because of the political alliances they brought. The Earl of Warwick wanted Edward IV to marry Bonne of Savoy, a sister-in-law of Louis XI of ,France, but Edward married Elizabeth Woodville instead. Cardinal Wolsey wanted Henry VIII to marry Renee of France instead of Anne Boleyn. George III opposed marriage with commoners resulting in the Royal Marriages Act. He even refused to recognize his son the Duke of Sussex's marriage to the daughter of a Scottish earl. Fortunately for Elizabeth II's parents, her grandfather George V had no such qualms.

In summary, England did have a concept of dynastic marriages. What it didn't have was the concept that only dynastic marriages were equal.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-09-2020, 03:48 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,642
King James II faced bishops in the Privy Council in 1688.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kin...-20855667.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-26-2020, 03:03 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,642
The Exclusion Bill of 1680 was an act for securing the Protestant religion by disabling the Roman Catholic James, Duke of York from the succession. However, in 1685 James succeeded his brother Charles II as king. Was the Exclusion Bill of 1680 no longer a bill?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-26-2020, 03:36 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
You're confusing dynastic marriages with equal marriages. Dynastic marriages are simply marriages between members of two royal dynasties.

[...]

In summary, England did have a concept of dynastic marriages. What it didn't have was the concept that only dynastic marriages were equal.
Among royalty watchers the language "dynastic marriage" often means a marriage in which dynastic rights, e.g. royal rank and rights of succession, are shared with the spouse and children of the marriage. I believe that is what the original poster meant.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-26-2020, 04:02 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 436
There were three Exclusion Bills. A bill isn't law - it has to go through both Houses of Parliament and receive Royal Assent, and then it becomes an Act, and it's only law once it's an Act. Lots of Bills never become Acts, either because Parliament rejects them or because they don't make it on to the Parliamentary timetable for long enough to be discussed and voted on - women's suffrage and Irish Home Rule are two well-known examples from more recent times. None of the Exclusion Bills made it through Parliament - in this case, because Charles II, who didn't want his brother excluded from the line of succession, kept dissolving Parliament just as it was about to vote on them!


Confusingly for anyone reading up on the Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights is an Act, and really ought to be called the Act of Rights! I don't know why it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-26-2020, 05:41 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 26,016
Mary of Modena's great uncle was none other than Cardinal Mazarin who was Chief Minister to the French Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV!

__________________

6th of April,1199 -Death of Richard the Lionheart
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-26-2020, 05:42 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
England never had the concept of dynastic marriages. The whole morgantic marriage issue on the continent wasn't in the UK. Previous kings had married commoners, like Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV.

James was his brother's heir at the time, and it was expected he marry someone higher. Not dynastic though, a member of the nobility would have been deemed appropriate. Even Anne's father had suggested they not go through with the marriage. They got together before Charles was restored to the throne.

As for a Roman catholic bride, it didnt remove the possibility. It simply delayed it. His second wife Mary was the daughter of the Duke of Modena. Though it was Anne's daughters who would eventually succeed him.
Nevertheless, the Stuart’s ( James I, Charles I and Charles Ii) had dynastic marriages.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-26-2020, 05:49 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Nevertheless, the Stuart’s ( James I, Charles I and Charles Ii) had dynastic marriages.
As I read it, the post is saying that the British royals have never had non-dynastic marriages. Provided that a marriage was recognized in law, the spouse and children of the marriage would be entitled to the expected dynastic rights, e.g. succession rights and titles, irrespective of whether the monarch deemed the marriage appropriate or not.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-26-2020, 09:24 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Among royalty watchers the language "dynastic marriage" often means a marriage in which dynastic rights, e.g. royal rank and rights of succession, are shared with the spouse and children of the marriage. I believe that is what the original poster meant.
Thank you for the correction.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-26-2020, 09:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Mary of Modena's great uncle was none other than Cardinal Mazarin who was Chief Minister to the French Kings Louis XIII and Louis XIV!
She was also a direct descendant of His Most Catholic Majesty King Philip II of Spain.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diana and James Hewitt Mary Anne Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 1638 10-01-2019 03:02 AM
St James's Palace RoyalistRiley British Royal Residences 37 02-07-2019 01:00 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
James James Mclean Member Introductions 1 10-30-2007 05:19 PM




Popular Tags
administrator alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy belgian royal family birthday celebration castles chittagong cht clarence house coronavirus crown prince hussein's future wife crown princess victoria crusades current events danish history denmark duke of cambridge duke of sussex dutch dutch history dutch royal family foundation future future wife of prince hussein germany henry v hill historical drama house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of saxe-coburg and gotha jerusalem jumma languages list of rulers lithuanian castles mail monaco history monaco royal monarchy nobel 2019 northern ireland norway norwegian royal family official visit palaces palestine prince charles prince harry prince of wales qe2 queen mathilde royal tour russian imperial family saudi arabia settings shakespeare spanish history spencer family state visit sweden swedish royal family swedish royalty thai royal family tips tracts trump united kingdom usa


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×