ALL MY TUDORS...history chat

Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

I find it ironic that it was Catholicism which finally did in the concept of the divine right of kings! Unlike Henry II of France thinking Paris was worth a Mass, James II of England clung to his Catholicism despite assassination attempts like the Rye House Plot, firm anti-Catholic measures prohibiting Catholics from holding public office, efforts to exclude him from the succession, & a general antipathy toward Catholics in the country. As long as he was the father of Protestant daughters he was grudgingly accepted, but as soon as his Catholic queen gave birth to a son who would grow up to become a Catholic king, the crown was offered to his daughter Mary & her husband, William of Orange. What's interesting about the Glorious Revolution is that an agreement was hammered out between Parliament & the prospective monarchs redefining their relationship. The royal power to suspend & dispense with law was abolished, & the crown was forbidden to levy taxation or maintain a standing army in peacetime without parliamentary consent. These conditions of office were the first real milestone on the road to shifting the balance of power from the monarch to Parliament (if you don't count the unfortunate accident Charles I had lol).

Of course all you are saying is true (we all know...you are NEVER wrong ). BUT, that said, I would like to point out that Elizabeth I, although she was certainly NOT Catholic, believed she had "divine" right to be on the throne (her comment when told of her sister Mary's death was, "This is God's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes!" implies as much). Even today, the current Elizabeth II, would claim she has "divine right" to sit on the throne and have the title of Queen. Especially as without the abdication of Edward VIII, she would be "sitting" elsewhere!

The "power" has shifted to Parliment, as you say, and the monarchy is more figurehead, ambassadorial and for "show"...BUT, I believe you would agree...

IT'S GOOD TO BE THE QUEEN!

There are a couple of drawbacks...at least with the current Queen.

There is always the danger that should she smile her face may crack

Should you see the palm of her hand, you might note her warts

Perhaps I am too much of an agnostic, but with the antipathy toward Catholics at the time, it's difficult to understand why James clung so tenaciously to his faith. Feelings ran high on the religious issue even during his brother's reign. There is a story that Nell Gwyn's carriage was attacked one night by an angry mob who thought she was Louise de Kerouaille, Charles II's Catholic mistress. To save her skin, the cheeky and irreverent actress called out, "Good people, I am the PROTESTANT whore!" and was cheered and sent on her merry way.

James II stuck to his religion for the same reasons why Mary I, Elizabeth I, Thomas More, Bishops Latimer and Ridley, and countless others stuck to theirs even in times of great adversity. Protestant or Catholic (or of course any other religion you would care to mention), if you truely believe in something, then you believe in it, and its worth dying/being deposed for.

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
ALL MY TUDORS...history chat	[email protected]