Is There A Case For James II?
What was the “black thing” that palsied the character of the brave but highly unpopular monarch who was dethroned in 1688? Maurice Ashley queries a poisoned historical legacy.
James II is generally considered to have been one of the worst of English kings. Recently, two American historians have incidentally had something to say in his defence. But in earlier times, virtually the only apologists for this Stuart ruler have been Roman Catholic writers; and since James himself was a very zealous Roman Catholic, their work has been suspected of being partial.
Yet in the twentieth century we are no longer so easily persuaded by “the Whig interpretation of history” as our grandfathers were—though there are revivalists on the move; and certainly among historical characters, James II is a typical victim of the Whig interpretation. Let us consider what that interpretation was and whether it deserves modification.
To continue reading this article you need to purchase a subscription, available from only £5.
Start my trial subscription now
If you have already purchased access, or are a print & archive subscriber, please ensure you are logged in.
Please email digital@historytoday.com if you have any problems.
