James II (1633-1701)

[CyrilVladisla]

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

[CyrilVladisla]

The coronation of King James II: entering Westminster Abbey
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-jam...-47972697.html

[CyrilVladisla]

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.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

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.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

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.

[CyrilVladisla]

King James II faced bishops in the Privy Council in 1688.
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kin...-20855667.html

[CyrilVladisla]

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?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Gawin

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.

[Alison H]

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.

[An Ard Ri]

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!

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

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.

[CyrilVladisla]

The defrocked Anglican clergyman Titus Oates spread the story that the Jesuits planned to assassinate King Charles II and put James on the throne. Oates was found to be lying. The panic died down.

[CyrilVladisla]

King James II entering Dublin after the Battle of the Boyne
http://www.gettyimages.com/license/588397701

[CyrilVladisla]

King James II at La Trappe Abbey in Orne, France
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kin...-24589118.html

[CyrilVladisla]

King James II of England fled abroad. In February 1689, Parliament declared James' flight constituted an abdication. Did King James II sign any abdication papers?

[Alison H]

No. As far as he was concerned, he was still king.

In the case of James, it was necessary to find a way to declare William and Mary monarchs, so it was stated that James had abdicated by virtue of dropping the Great Seal into the Thames and leaving the country, so the throne was vacant. There was never a point at which he was forced to say he'd abdicated, as Mary Queen of Scots was (although whether or not she actually did sign anything is a moot point). He was actually captured, but William decided to let him escape, rather than risk the awkwardness of people potentially demanding that he be executed as his father had been, or the awkwardness of having him shut up in the Tower of London, so he never actually had to face William and the leaders of the Glorious Revolution and discuss the matter.

[An Ard Ri]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

King James II of England fled abroad. In February 1689, Parliament declared James' flight constituted an abdication. Did King James II sign any abdication papers?

He famously threw the Great Seal into the Thames and the Government used this as a pretext to depose him!