Nige Tassell asks Professor Ted Vallance about the future of both monarchy and state religion had James II and VII not been usurped in 1688
In late 1688, King James II of England and Ireland, James VII of Scotland, saw his near-four-year reign drift to an end, after which he disappeared into exile. Replacing him on the throne were his son-in-law William III of Orange, the leader of the Dutch Republic, and William’s wife, James’s daughter Mary II.
In England, the change in monarchs, known as the Glorious Revolution, was achieved with little bloodshed. James chose to disband his army, allowing William and his troops, having landed in Devon, to make their way to London relatively unimpeded.
It might have been a largely peaceful surrender of power, but it was a significant one, too. William and Mary’s joint reign broke the notion of the divine right of kings by introducing a ‘contract’ between the monarchy and the people, as represented by Parliament. James, in contrast, had favoured a tighter concentration of power within one individual: himself. Had James repelled William and Mary’s invasion, what kind of monarchy might have developed under him?
In context: the rule of James II and VII
James II and VII may have ruled for fewer than four years, but his reign marked a turbulent time, both politically and religiously. Aiming to both curb the powers of Parliament and strengthen the hand of his fellow Catholics, he encountered significant opposition from politicians and clergymen alike.
This tumult was resolved by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw James’s removal from the throne and his replacement by his daughter Mary and her husband, William III of Orange. England was once again under Protestant rule, and the notion of the divine right of kings was punctured forever.
“First of all, we need to understand James’s aims for Parliament,” explains Professor Ted Vallance of the University of Roehampton and author of The Glorious Revolution: 1688 – Britain’s Fight For Liberty (Little, Brown, 2006). “He aimed to fashion a House of Commons that would vote for the repeal of the Penal Laws, which excluded Catholics from public life. In this respect, he sought to make Parliament more ‘manageable’, and to use his prerogative powers to dissolve it when it became troublesome.”
- Read more | How glorious was the Glorious Revolution?
Professor Vallance certainly cautions against any notion that the king sought to remove the legislature wholesale. “Had James done away with Parliament entirely, it would have actually made it hard for him to govern,” he explains. “Parliament represented England’s governing classes – its most powerful figures and the individuals who ensured the smooth operation of local government. The rapid swings of political fortune over James’s reign were already creating a chaotic political situation at local level.”
Risk of revolution
If the situation had been allowed to persist, could this chaos have turned into some kind of popular revolution capable of registering a significant blow to the monarchy itself? “It’s doubtful that domestic resistance would have posed much of an immediate threat to his authority,” observes Professor Vallance. “The king had built up a sizeable army, which had already demonstrated that it could deal effectively with uprisings, as shown by the crushing defeat of Argyll’s and Monmouth’s rebellions in 1685.”
If, in the event James ruled for longer, Parliament had been clipped and curbed, what about the country’s religious make-up? “Some contemporaries believed that James’s intention was to restore Roman Catholicism as the religion of the state,” says Professor Vallance. “The long-term impact of having a Catholic dynasty in a Protestant country would surely have given a boost to the Catholic community in England, at the same time weakening the connection between the church and the monarchy. Even if England had not officially become a Catholic nation, there is a strong possibility that it would have ceased to be an Anglican one.”
On assuming power, William quickly established a ‘Grand Alliance’, including England and the Dutch Republic, to firm up support in the Nine Years’ War against Louis XIV’s France. Had James remained on the throne, what would have been the nature of English foreign policy, particularly in relation to the French against the Protestant Dutch?
Fighting France
“I think the response would have been very different,” says Professor Vallance, “but it would not necessarily have seen England side with the French. Louis’s ambitions seemed limitless, so Catholic as well as Protestant heads of state were wary of the threat that France posed to their own interests. England staying out of the conflict at the beginning is perhaps the most likely scenario.” And would the French have gained quick superiority over the Dutch without the latter receiving naval support from England? “What seems most likely is a shorter conflict, with a peace favouring the French.”
Finally, had James been succeeded by his son James, Prince of Wales, the subsequent route of succession would have taken a different path, and the British throne would not have been occupied by such era-defining monarchs as George III, Victoria and Elizabeth II. “Perhaps we don’t need to get too caught up in the dazzling personalities of these royals,” concludes Professor Vallance. “The Glorious Revolution also bequeathed us George I and George II. The likely alternative outcome would have been the same old hereditary lottery, with some good monarchs and some bad.”
More from our alternate history series
- What if… the Cuban Missile Crisis had escalated?
- What if… Napoleon had defeated Russia?
- What if… George III had not ‘lost’ the colonies?
- What if… the Spanish Armada had landed in England?
- What if… Alexander the Great hadn’t died so young?
- What if… Argentina had won the Falklands War?
- What if… Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon’s first son had lived?
- What if… Japan hadn’t attacked Pearl Harbor?
This article was first published in the October 2023 issue of BBC History Revealed