How significant was James II in terms of politics, religion and culture?

Tercios Espanoles

Ad Honorem
Mar 2014
6,671
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
The revolution of 1688 had some pretty profound consequences politically and religiously, but I don't think James had much lasting cultural impact.
 
Apr 2012
1,040
The Netherlands
The main contribution James II had to history was being so politically incompetent that William III could take the throne without much trouble and set about the glorious revolution. James practically burned all the bridges that could support him.

James II does seem to have been a decent, if uninspiring commander at least. New Amsterdam was renamed to New ''York'' as in the duke of York which he was at the time. That's probably the deepest impact on history he had that wasn't negative.
 

gladiatrice

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
3,463
Montreal, QC
I agree. He was really important in politics, and maybe the culture of the court, and then he just wasn't. James did help shape Charles II's court though. If you're interested in James while he was the Duke of York, I can for sure help you! Tercios and I are the resident Jacobites, so I like to think. ;)
 

gladiatrice

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
3,463
Montreal, QC
James II does seem to have been a decent, if uninspiring commander at least. New Amsterdam was renamed to New ''York'' as in the duke of York which he was at the time. That's probably the deepest impact on history he had that wasn't negative.
James was more fit for military work than he was for his kingship. It was risky business going to battle as the Duke of York and the heir presumptive; if he died in battle, there would be an even larger succession crisis. James almost did die at one point. He had been standing next to three of his friends while in battle, and those men were all taken down in one fell swoop by an enemy shot, leaving James safe but covered in his friends' blood and most likely in shock/traumatised.

He was actually a very brave, admirable commander, selfless and decisive. But upon further reflection, I must come to a semi-consensus with you. James seemed to have a hard time doing much of anything but bungling things up for himself, but he did have an impact on history, and a very monumental one at that. He was the last Catholic King, and he acted, albeit by proxy, as a segue into a constitutional monarchy. William and Mary may have signed the Bill of Rights, but James and his family created the atmosphere in which that was created.
 
Last edited:

Tercios Espanoles

Ad Honorem
Mar 2014
6,671
Beneath a cold sun, a grey sun, a Heretic sun...
The main contribution James II had to history was being so politically incompetent that William III could take the throne without much trouble and set about the glorious revolution. James practically burned all the bridges that could support him.
For daring to propose religious toleration. Oh, the monster.
 

gladiatrice

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
3,463
Montreal, QC
For daring to propose religious toleration. Oh, the monster.
That seemed to be the main problem with the Stuarts. They all pushed for tolerance for all religions, and they all failed. Through the view of their contemporaries, it makes sense that they would mistrust the monarch for trying to pedal religious tolerance, after all the trouble they had gone through the break from Rome. The Stuarts, James and his father especially, set out to create an atmosphere of religious tolerance, and paid for it greatly. I do agree with you though, James was trying his best, but his best wouldn't fit in with his time.