Of Crowns and Commonwealths

Books read this week: The Glorious Revolution of 1688 (Maurice Ashley) 7/10

It is surprising, considering how successful England (and later the United Kingdom) has been over the centuries, how amazingly dim so many of our monarchs have been. Even if you eliminate the actually deranged (Henry VI), the syphilitic yet successful (Henry VIII) and the incompetently evil (Richard III) there's still a rich well of stupidity to be drawn from. And yet even amongst this select band, James II (James VII for any Scottish readers out there) stands out, equalled only by Richard II in his ability to look at a recent example of What Not To Do, and then go ahead and do it anyway. Although he lost his crown, unlike Richard II (and indeed the two exemplars, Edward II and Charles I), James was at least able to keep his head.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 chronicles the last successful foreign invasion of British soil (although not the last invasion - several hundred French soldiers landed in Wales in 1797, where they surrendered after being beaten with frying pans by the local women), which resulted in the replacement of James II by his son-in-law (and also nephew - the genealogy of the royal family isn't so much a tree as a twisted shrub attempting to consume itself) William III. It is a decently written book, and fairly clear, although with the odd peculiarity of phrase which might make one suspect that the book was a translation (it isn't). Although I do find myself forced to slightly disagree with Ashley's final verdict on James II; "it is not entirely true that James was a bully who proved a coward".

The most interesting argument put forward by the book was that there were three possible outcomes of the trainwreck that was James II's reign; the two that are usually discussed - success by James II in establishing an absolute monarchy on the French model or success by William III which ultimately led to the constitutional monarchy* we know and... well, know today. The third option was reestablishing a Republic (or Commonwealth) - basically a return to the system Cromwell had tried. That William III had a genuine fear of republican sentiment in England is a fascinating counterpoint to the conventional view that Cromwell made himself so unpopular that by 1660 the entire country was massively enthusiastic in it's welcome of Charles II (a man who was just as treacherous and untrustworthy as his brother - just much, much smarter). It is also fascinating that William III made absolutely sure that his father-in-law was able to flee the country unhindered; even going so far as to let him go when captured by Williamite forces. He obviously felt that it was better that James flee, even at the cost of more battles later, than force him to fight with his back to the wall (a lesson that could well be applied in the Middle East today).

The overall picture that emerges of James II is really quite pathetic; it is quite telling that even the people fighting a civil war on his behalf couldn't come up with a more affectionate sobriquet than "James the Shite". As he fled the country, he threw the Great Seal into the Thames - being under the impression that the government couldn't function without a big stamp to stamp things with. Not only was he really that stupid - he also missed the river, allowing the seal to be retrieved easily. FAIL.

It is true however that James was trying to establish an absolute monarchy at least partly so that he could guarantee religious freedom - which does leave me a little torn. Ultimately, I think religious freedom guaranteed by despotism is really no freedom at all - especially not if entrusted to someone as untrustworthy as James II. That said, anti-Catholic bigotry is the dirty little secret of English history - and sometimes the present as well.  It is, for example, very common for history books to contrast the reign of "Bloody" Mary, where Protestants were executed for Heresy, with that of Elizabeth I,  who "did not seek to make windows into men's souls". They usually forget to mention that whilst being a Catholic priest wouldn't get one executed for Heresy under Elizabeth, it would get you executed for Treason - the only difference being you'd be hung, drawn and quartered rather than burnt alive. Not sure that's much of an improvement myself.

And we shouldn't think that anti-Catholic bigotry is entirely gone; they burn the Pope in effigy in Lewes every year, there was a huge fuss over the Pope's visit to the UK over the summer (name another head of state who could visit the UK and have the papers complain about taxpayers' money being spent on security), and, most importantly, no Catholic is allowed to marry Prince Charles (tragic, isn't it?).

 The other major figure in the book is, of course, William III. Not a particularly nice man, or a pleasant one - although very smart. He was, in fact, a direct descendant of William the Silent, whose biography I read a little while ago. I would like to read more about him, but my view at the moment is that, much like Oliver Cromwell, he was one of those nasty people who, whilst we might not like them, were essential to the development of modern democracy (although neither Cromwell nor William III would have like to see anything like it).

As an aside, I think people often misunderstand why there is a gigantic statue of Oliver Cromwell outside the Houses of Parliament; it's not because he was a democrat (he wasn't), or because he introduced religious toleration to England (although he did: note - England and not Ireland) or even because he founded the modern Royal Navy (although it wasn't Royal at the time). There is a huge statue of Cromwell outside Parliament as a not-very-subtle reminder to the monarch, every time they pass by, of exactly what the consequences would be should they choose to overstep the bounds that the British constitution places on them.

* Albeit indirectly and primarily because the Hanoverians couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.