It might have been a largely peaceful surrender of power, but it was a significant one, too. William and Mary<\/a>\u2019s joint reign broke the notion of the divine right of kings by introducing a \u2018contract\u2019 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\u2019s invasion, what kind of monarchy might have developed under him?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This tumult was resolved by the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which saw James\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n <\/p><\/div> <\/section> \u201cFirst of all, we need to understand James\u2019s aims for Parliament,\u201d explains Professor Ted Vallance of the University of Roehampton and author of The Glorious Revolution: 1688 \u2013 Britain\u2019s Fight For Liberty<\/em> (Little, Brown, 2006). \u201cHe 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 \u2018manageable\u2019, and to use his prerogative powers to dissolve it when it became troublesome.\u201d<\/p>\n Professor Vallance certainly cautions against any notion that the king sought to remove the legislature wholesale. \u201cHad James done away with Parliament entirely, it would have actually made it hard for him to govern,\u201d he explains. \u201cParliament represented England\u2019s governing classes \u2013 its most powerful figures and the individuals who ensured the smooth operation of local government. The rapid swings of political fortune over James\u2019s reign were already creating a chaotic political situation at local level.\u201d<\/p>\n 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? \u201cIt\u2019s doubtful that domestic resistance would have posed much of an immediate threat to his authority,\u201d observes Professor Vallance. \u201cThe 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\u2019s and Monmouth\u2019s rebellions<\/a> in 1685.\u201d<\/p>\n If, in the event James ruled for longer, Parliament had been clipped and curbed, what about the country\u2019s religious make-up? \u201cSome contemporaries believed that James\u2019s intention was to restore Roman Catholicism as the religion of the state,\u201d says Professor Vallance. \u201cThe long-term impact of having a Catholic dynasty \u2028in 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.\u201d<\/p>\nIn context: the rule of James II and VII<\/h4>\n
\n
Risk of revolution<\/h3>\n
![\"James](\"https:\/\/images.immediate.co.uk\/production\/volatile\/sites\/7\/2023\/11\/GettyImages51243571-d4d6b2d.png?quality=90&resize=618%2C413\" "\\"James")
\n<\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/source><\/picture>\n<\/div>