James II's Response to the League of Augsburg

The Duke of Berwick was a son of King James II of England and, after his father was dethroned by William of Orange (later William III), became a famous general in French service.  Berwick wrote out his Memoirs, and included this interesting exchange between the league of Augsburg (supporting William of Orange) and his father James II (then King of England).

"Pope Innocent XI, the Emperor, and the King of Spain, were in the secret of the Prince of Orange's intended invasion; and connived at it in the view of obliging the King of England to renounce the alliance he had with France, and to unite with the league lately made at Augsburg against that nation.  But they never had an intention of dethroning the King of England; as a proof of which, Don Pedro Ronquillo, the Spanish ambassador at London, in private audience which he demanded for that purpose, made the King clearly see that the storm threatened him; but at the same time assured him, in the name of the House of Austria, that if he would enter into the league, he would have nothing more to fear for himself, and that all the effort would turn against France."  

"The King's answer, though not very consonant with what policy might perhaps have required of him in his present situation, was dictated by the uprightness of his heart and of his conscience.  He assured the ambassador that it was his intention to live upon good terms with everybody, and never to depart from the laws of equity and justice; and that by these very laws, he was bound not to break with a Prince, who was his relation and ally, and from whom he had always received marks of friendship.  Ronquillo pressing him strongly, and representing to him the misfortunes to which he was going to expose himself, if he persisted in his resolution, the King replied, that he would rather lose his crown, than be guilty of an unjust action."--Berwick's Memoirs vol. 1 pp. 22-26, as cited on pg. 41 of The Marshal Duke of Berwick by Charles Petrie 

Aughrim--Giving Glory to God

As a Providential historian (one who believes that God directs the affairs of men), it is discouraging to constantly hear how one man was "lucky" or "fortunate".  What is luck and what is fortune?  Man realizes that there is something beyond him, something that governs wind and cannonballs.  So G. A. Henty's analysis of Aughrim in Orange and Green came like a gulp of fresh air.

"Saint Ruth had directed the operations of the battle with as much skill as he had prepared for the assault. He had taken up his position on a point of the hill whence he had a complete view of the whole field of battle, and had moved his troops, with calmness and judgment, to meet each of the attacks made upon them; and when he saw the destruction of the English regiment in the centre, he exclaimed, in the full confidence of victory, "Now I will drive the English to the walls of Dublin!"

There was, indeed, but one hope, on the part of the English, of retrieving the day; namely, the success of the attempt to force the passage at Aughrim. But two horsemen abreast could pass under the castle walls. Saint Ruth was aware of the passage, but thought it impassable for cavalry. It might easily have been made so, by cutting a deep gap across it; but here, as at Athlone, his overconfidence proved his destruction. He had, however, taken the precaution to erect a battery commanding the passage, and had placed some battalions of infantry there.

General Talmash, who commanded the English cavalry, knew that the battle was lost, unless he could succeed at this point; and, at the head of his command, he led the way along the pass, which was not only narrow, but broken and encumbered with the ruins of the castle wall. Saint Ruth beheld the attempt of the cavalry with astonishment, and, with the remark: "They are brave fellows, it is a pity they should be sacrificed," sent orders for the Irish horse to move forward and prepare to charge them; and moved down the hill at the head of his officers to the battery.

There is no doubt as to what the result would have been, had the Irish horse charged. They were greatly superior in number, and the English cavalry who had got across the passage were still in confusion, and were suffering from the fire of the battery, and, indeed, even when in equal numbers, William's cavalry had never withstood the charge of the Irish. It seemed that nothing could avert the defeat of the body on which Ginckle's last hope rested.

But at this moment one of those events, by which Providence overrules the calculations of man, occurred. A cannonball struck Saint Ruth, as he stood in the middle of the battery and killed him instantly. The occurrence paralysed the Irish army. Sarsfield was away, there was no one to give orders, the news that some extraordinary calamity had happened spread rapidly, the men in the battery ceased firing, the cavalry, receiving no orders to charge, remained immovable."

Jean Graham, Viscountess of Dundee

"These things have I spoken unto you, that in me you might have peace.  In this world ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world"--John 15:33

Jean Cochrane was born c. 1662 to a Covenanting family.  In 1684, she was courted by a young colonel of the Royal (Scottish) Regiment of Horse named John Graham of Claverhouse.  On June 10 of the same year, she married him.

In 1688, the "Glorious Revolution" broke out and Graham, now Viscount Dundee drew sword in defense of King James II.  When he departed from his house, his wife encouraged him in his mission. 

"Follow your glorious fate, where King and Country call you; where honour, and loyalty, and the ardour of your own noble nature, prompt you.  Go where glory waits you!"  Thus spake she, all unconscious of a last farewell.  Yet the heavy sigh, and sad countenance belied her lips.  And as far as her eyes could penetrate through space, she strained them after the departing figure of her heroic husband.--selection from The Grameid by James Philip of Dalimericlose, quoted on pg. 541, Mark Napier, Memorials and Letters Relative to the Life and Times of John Graham of Claverhous, Viscount of Dundee.

His wife was not wanting in her support to him.  She secretly sent him money to fund his campaign. and even corresponded with William Livingstone (lieutenant-colonel of the Scots Dragoons) to join Dundee; the plan, however, was defeated.

In 1689, Dundee was killed at Killiecrankie.  Five years later, Jean Graham married William Livingstone.  She did not have long to live after her second marriage, being killed by the collapse of a house in 1695.

Her dauntless spirit against all odds, and her tireless endeavors to aid her husband should inspire those who hear of the deeds of Jean Graham.

Queen Mary of Modena

"But let it be the hidden man of the heart in that which is not corruptible even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit which is in the sight of God of great price"--1 Peter 3:4

"She was 'the model of what a queen should be, and she bore her misfortunes heroically.'"--Demetrius C. Boulger, The Battle of the Boyne

"And there hope is, that when the Spouse of Christ shall have summoned her grand array to meet the Bridegroom, among the humblest of her handmaidens may be numbered the names of Francoise de Maintenon and Marie of Modena and England."--George S. Smythe, Historic Fancies

Mary of Modena was born on October 5, 1658 to the Duke and Duchess of Modena, a small state in Italy. On November 23, 1673, Mary married James, Duke of York. For over ten years she lived quietly, until February 6, 1685. Charles II died, and the English throne passed to his brother James.

James was crowned as James II and Mary of Modena became Queen. They ruled for three years until on June 10, 1688, the Queen gave birth to a son, triggering William III's invasion. I have already studied the Revolution which drove James, Mary, and their son into exile.

Mary of Modena "bore her misfortunes heroically" as she fled England and sailed to France. Her heroism won praise from Louis XIV, as she endured disaster after disaster including defeats at the Boyne (1690) and Aughrim (1691), and the death of James II (1702). Mary of Modena had one more child: Louisa Maria Teresa Stuart, born on June 28, 1692.

She died in exile on May 7, 1718, but her legacy of perseverance lives on.

The Not-So-Glorious Revolution

Remember, remember, the fifth of November
The Williamite treason and plot!—author's adaptation of traditional rhyme

On November 5, 1688, Prince William of Orange set foot on English soil, beginning the struggle for power that would ultimately be known as the “Glorious Revolution.”
Most Protestants see it much as R. M. Ballantyne put it: “The great Revolution of 1688, which set William and Mary on the throne, also banished the tyrannical and despotic house of Stuart for ever; opened the prison gates to the Covenanters; restored to some extent the reign of justice and mercy; crushed, if it did not kill, the heads of Popery and absolute power, and sent a great wave of praise and thanksgiving over the whole land. Prelacy was no longer forced upon Scotland. The rights and liberties of the people were secured, and the day had at last come which crowned the struggles and sufferings of half a century.”

So…was William of Orange justified?

James (future James II) had married Anne Hyde, and had two daughters: Mary and Anne. Mary married William, Prince of Orange (in the Netherlands), and Anne married George, Prince of Denmark. In 1671, Anne Hyde died, and in 1673, James, a Catholic, married Mary of Modena, a Catholic. In 1685, James II succeeded to the throne upon Charles II’s death. On June 10, 1688, Mary of Modena had a son named James Francis Edward Stuart, or James III.

In the English law, a younger son would succeed to the throne before an older daughter. This rule was used with Henry VIII’s children: Edward VII, the youngest child, was first on the throne, then Mary, the oldest, then Elizabeth, the youngest daughter. This meant that James III would become king of England before his sisters, Mary and Anne.

Perhaps this would have been tolerable for William, had it not been for one more factor: France. William had devoted his life to building a “Grand Alliance” against France and her “Sun King”, Louis XIV. The Grand Alliance comprised the Catholic Hapsburg Empire (roughly Austria and Germany), Catholic Spain, the Duchy of Savoy, and the Protestant Netherlands. But one country was missing: England. William of Orange desperately wanted England in his Grand Alliance, but James—remembering that France had kept him safe from Cromwell—refused. Instead, he stayed neutral in the war that was brewing.

When James III was born, seven noblemen asked William to claim the crown in his wife’s name. They said that James III was not the real son of the King, but that the King intended to foist him on the English people to create a Catholic dynasty.

William was glad to oblige (though he had congratulated the King and Queen on the birth of their heir, and later said he believed James III was their lawful son), for this would draw England into his “Grand Alliance”. He prepared a fleet and army to land in England, which they did on November 5. His declaration when he landed said that he was here, not to claim the crown, but to persuade James to dismiss his Catholic councilors. However, he met with a cold welcome from the English, who did not like a foreign power on English soil.

James’s army was around him, but many treacherous officers such as John Churchill, Earl of Marlborough, deserted to William. Mary of Modena and James III fled to France, escorted by the Duc de Lauzen. James II was captured by William, and entered London, then was moved to Rochester. While in Rochester, James attended Mass…with the supposedly Protestant Dutch Blue Guards. He told the colonel that “…while in the English army not 1000 men in every 180,000 were Catholics, the invading army, professedly to vindicate the Protestant liberties, was two-thirds of it composed of Catholics.” After, he escaped to France, not trusting himself in England.

Now, Parliament declared the throne vacant, and offered—not to James’s daughter Mary—but to William and Mary! In fact, Mary ruled in name only; the real power was William. James II had brought liberty of conscience to England, but William III made life intolerable for the Irish Catholics by breaking the Treaty of Limerick. Incidentally, this would strengthen the French because young Irish soldiers went to France to fight in the Irish Brigade against the English.

While life would seem bad for James II, he consoled himself by saying that it was the will of God. An excellent way to see the unfortunate “Glorious Revolution”.

James II's Instructions to his Son on Warfare

James II (left) was King of England from 1685 to 1688, when William III of Orange invaded England and took the crown. James fled to France, and then to Ireland, where he waged war against William. The Jacobites (followers of King James) were defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Also in 1690, James II began to draft these instructions to his son James Francis Edward Stuart, who was then two years old. My selections for this article represents James's view on war. Read the full instructions here, along with a multitude of other original documents from James II, James Francis Edward Stuart, and more.

If it please God to restore me (which I trust in his goodness he will do) I may then hope to settle all things so as may make it easier for you to govern all my dominions with safety to the monarchy, and the satisfaction of all the subjects; no king can be happy without his subjects be at ease, and the people cannot be secure of enjoying their own without the King be at his ease also, and in a condition to protect them and secure his own right; therefore preserve your prerogative, but disturb not the subjects in their property, nor conscience, remember the great precept, Do as you would be done to, for that is the law and the prophets. Be very careful that none under you oppress the people, or torment them with vexations, suits, or projects: Remember a king ought to be the father of his people, and must have a fatherly tenderness for them. Live in peace and quiet with all your neighbours, and know that kings and princes may be as great robbers as thieves and pirates, and will receive their punishment for taking anything unjustly from them, at the great tribunal, and be not carried away by ambition or thoughts of glory in this world, to make you forget that divine precept, and never be persuaded to go about to enlarge your territories by unjust acquisitions, be content with what is your own.

. . .

And now I must give you warning not to let yourself at any time be carried away by heat of youth, ambition or flattering interest to embark yourself in an offensive war, none of which can be justified by Christianity or morality. Kings and princes can no more justify their taking from their neighbours, but by way of reprisal towns or provinces, than thieves of highway men their unlawful gains.

Remember that maxim of Christ: "That one must not do ill that good may follow," and the other, "Be content with what is your own," which does not hinder kings and states from preserving and defending what is justly theirs by taking arms and repelling force by force; they owe that to themselves and to their subjects, but it is a terrible thing to begin unjust war.

Consider the consequences of it, both as to this world and the next, no forgiveness without restitution. Besides what desolation does it not bring upon whole kingdoms and provinces, and though armies that are well paid and under good discipline may be hindered from committing great disorders even in an enemy's country, yet what devastations does it not cause in an active war, which cannot be avoided to the ruin of thousands of poor people.

The young James Francis Edward Stuart and his mother, Queen Mary of Modena