Opinion of the Glorious Revolution

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Horrible revolution. The Glorious Revolution was not glorious nor revolutionary. It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II. He threatened to give toleration to Catholics and dissenters, so he was summarily removed from office in a Dutch invasion that masqueraded as a peaceful transition of power.

The Revolution also entrenched the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland, and right-wing Ulster loyalist groups such as the Orange Order continue to divisively celebrate the Battle of the Boyne to this day. The Revolution also resulted in the Glencoe Massacre, in which Scottish Highlanders were massacred by Williamites. Similarly, after the failed Jacobite Rising of 1745, Scottish clan life and culture was eradicated by the Highland Clearances.

Despite all of this, the Glorious Revolution became a powerful myth promulgated by the Whigs in the 17th and 18th centuries. Instead of an intolerant reactionary invasion, it became a peaceful liberal revolution against absolutism. It is time that the Glorious Revolution be viewed for what it truly was: a spurt of anti-Catholicism and religious intolerance that resulted in one of the first truly successful invasions of England since 1066.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Bump. No one has any thoughts at all on the Glorious Revolution?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Its status as a revolution is entirely dependent on the subjective use of the word. It once implied, like a planetary revolution, a return back to the starting point—perhaps as gradual and inevitable as that of the heavens.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Its status as a revolution is entirely dependent on the subjective use of the word. It once implied, like a planetary revolution, a return back to the starting point—perhaps as gradual and inevitable as that of the heavens.

True enough. In that sense the only real revolutions are the American and Glorious Revolutions. Meanwhile every other one is not so because it didn't complete the cycle, and left a bloody mess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would never dream to try and re-litigate right and wrong coming out of the 17th century religious wars.

That being said, there were important precedents set by the adoption of the English bill of rights that permanently crippled absolutism and secured the gains made by Parliament during the English Civil War. While this was hardly a democracy by any means (voting was too restricted), you did have several important concepts like regular legislative elections, limits on the length of appropriations (thus necessitating the presence of a Parliament and preventing the long periods the Stuarts went without even calling one, in some cases as much as 20 years) and adoption of the English Bill of Rights. Both the concept of separation of powers and a bill of rights, provided the foundation principles within the Anglosphere, upon which 80 years later the American Revolution and later the American Constitution firmly rests. Also the move away from strict adherence to the line of succession (yes motivated by Religion) also served to weaken the basis upon which Post-Norman Invasion English Monarchical power had rested. So much to the point that during the Hanoverian era you had allegories to the Saxon period and its more elective monarchy.

Did it necessarily get caught up in the brutal wars of religion and the Continental wars with France, yes most certainly. But we take for granted a good number of things that came out of the Glorious Revolution.

[Orser67]

That being said, there were important precedents set by the adoption of the English bill of rights that permanently crippled absolutism and secured the gains made by Parliament during the English Civil War...Both the concept of separation of powers and a bill of rights, provided the foundation principles within the Anglosphere, upon which 80 years later the American Revolution and later the American Constitution firmly rests.

Yeah, I agree with this. OP did make some interesting (and, afaik, accurate) points about religious tolerance, though. I read Alan Taylor's American Colonies fairly recently and one of the interesting aspects of it was how much the American colonists hated James for a)trying to "impose" religious toleration, and b)trying to impose centralized administration. So needless to say, they welcomed the Glorious Revolution, even though it led to decades of warring with France.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would never dream to try and re-litigate right and wrong coming out of the 17th century religious wars.

That being said, there were important precedents set by the adoption of the English bill of rights that permanently crippled absolutism and secured the gains made by Parliament during the English Civil War. While this was hardly a democracy by any means (voting was too restricted), you did have several important concepts like regular legislative elections, limits on the length of appropriations (thus necessitating the presence of a Parliament and preventing the long periods the Stuarts went without even calling one, in some cases as much as 20 years) and adoption of the English Bill of Rights. Both the concept of separation of powers and a bill of rights, provided the foundation principles within the Anglosphere, upon which 80 years later the American Revolution and later the American Constitution firmly rests. Also the move away from strict adherence to the line of succession (yes motivated by Religion) also served to weaken the basis upon which Post-Norman Invasion English Monarchical power had rested. So much to the point that during the Hanoverian era you had allegories to the Saxon period and its more elective monarchy.

Did it necessarily get caught up in the brutal wars of religion and the Continental wars with France, yes most certainly. But we take for granted a good number of things that came out of the Glorious Revolution.

Holy f--- I actually agree with this. The Glorious Revolution was the context in which John Locke felt safe to return to England and publish much of his work, which helped lay the foundation for social contract theory and the Declaration of Independence.

Also the whole concept of cabinet government and "responsible government" begins to develop under the Hanoverians, since they were German and left much responsibility on the likes of Walpole, William Pitt the Elder etc. The concept of the Prime Minister as well begins to take shape from the out sized roles played by these erstwhile Chancellors of the Exchequer. Which again gets back to the concept for Parliament holding the power of the purse firmly in its grasp, thus forcing a collaboration with Parliament.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

lmao

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Yeezus. At least have the good grace to use a common citation style instead of this jank-ass improv sh#t. I prefer APA, though I believe MLA is standard in history.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Davies is quite correct there (he's also laying it on a bit thick for the sake of trolling, but that's His Way and is absolutely fine by me) it's your interpretation that's a little dodgy: James II's religious policies were absolutely not motivated by a liberal vision of tolerance (the man was an Absolutist for Christ's sake!), but by a desire to end discrimination against his own denomination (this was seen by Anglicans at the time as the first stage of a plan to reverse the state of affairs and enforce discrimination against them) and a pragmatic attempt to build support for that by reaching out to other religious minorities (lovely bit of irony there given that they had provided the backbone of support for the Commonwealth). The old Whiggish myths about the Glorious Revolution [sic] were quite absurd (though no longer relevant outside Northern Ireland), but reversing them produces not historical truth but absurdity.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Yeezus. At least have the good grace to use a common citation style instead of this jank-ass improv sh#t. I prefer APA, though I believe MLA is standard in history.

This wasn't even meant to be a citation; I didn't even think of using one. I was just attempting to find a direct quote that I knew I had read from that book and quickly integrate it into a post. I probably should have used a citation, but perhaps the reason that you thought I was attempting to use a citation was because I included the publication date; in fact, that was included merely to counter Realpolitik's claim that my interpretation of James II was "a new one."

[Wikipedia delenda est]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Davies is quite correct there (he's also laying it on a bit thick for the sake of trolling, but that's His Way and is absolutely fine by me) it's your interpretation that's a little dodgy: James II's religious policies were absolutely not motivated by a liberal vision of tolerance (the man was an Absolutist for Christ's sake!), but by a desire to end discrimination against his own denomination (this was seen by Anglicans at the time as the first stage of a plan to reverse the state of affairs and enforce discrimination against them) and a pragmatic attempt to build support for that by reaching out to other religious minorities (lovely bit of irony there given that they had provided the backbone of support for the Commonwealth). The old Whiggish myths about the Glorious Revolution [sic] were quite absurd (though no longer relevant outside Northern Ireland), but reversing them produces not historical truth but absurdity.

Surprising as it may seem given my opposition to the Glorious Revolution, I actually tend to lean toward supporting the Roundheads over the Cavaliers in the English Civil War. At least the Roundheads in theory supported republican government, while the Cavaliers were of course absolutists. The Putney Debates also featured democratic ideas that were far ahead of their time. Unfortunately, Cromwell ended up becoming a genocidal military despot whose government was republican in name only. But still, although both sides were religiously intolerant, at least the Roundheads allowed the Jews to return to England after they won the war. And although the Roundheads definitely espoused anti-Catholicism, the Stuarts also implemented penal laws in Ireland against Catholics. Also, since the Roundheads were Puritans, they gave toleration to non-conformists and other dissenters; but their theocratic beliefs also led to persecution of those who did not share their Puritan zealotry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Yeezus. At least have the good grace to use a common citation style instead of this jank-ass improv sh#t. I prefer APA, though I believe MLA is standard in history.

This wasn't even meant to be a citation; I didn't even think of using one. I was just attempting to find a direct quote that I knew I had read from that book and quickly integrate it into a post. I probably should have used a citation, but perhaps the reason that you thought I was attempting to use a citation was because I included the publication date; in fact, that was included merely to counter Realpolitik's claim that my interpretation of James II was "a new one."

Neither side of this equation are good people by our standards, or even for the time. And in terms of the religious question of who is right or wrong, one often ends up picking sides based on who one's own religion is and sanctifying all actions by Catholics or the Protestants while condemning the other side, though to your credit, you didn't do this since you criticized the Habsburgs.

That being said, in terms of advancing religious liberty and the ideas of tolerance, you first had to conquer two beasts that subjected such tolerance to the temporary whims of a tyrannical despot. Case in point, you cited the Edict of Nantes as a positive of the Bourbons, but contemporaneously to this period you have a backdrop of that being repealed and non-Catholics being expelled on mass from France under Louis XIV.

Throughout history, the greatest threats to minorities is arbitrary and unrestrained government.  Therefore the first step towards any form of tolerance, is to slay absolutism and move away from arbitrary rule. Case in point, the extreme Protestantism under Edward VI, followed by the extreme Catholicism of Bloody Mary, followed in turn by Elizabeth I.

Whatever "tolerance" James II could grant, is only as meaningful as the length of his life thereafter, and what intolerance his heirs brought with them while exercising the same absolute power.  

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

Louis XIV was very much alive though. And you completely missed my point. Any tolerance born of the whims of an absolute monarch is as fleeting as his moods at worst, and his longevity at best.

You cannot have any form of equality or tolerance unless you first get rid of absolutism.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

Louis XIV was very much alive though. And you completely missed my point. Any tolerance born of the whims of an absolute monarch is as fleeting as his moods at worst, and his longevity at best.

You cannot have any form of equality or tolerance unless you first get rid of absolutism.

Any continuation of the Catholic line after James would have probably known that 1) they would be in no position to crack down on Protestantism within the British nation and 2) if they tried to pretend otherwise then they would be promptly dispatched.

And it also misses the point to look merely at the level of authority wielded by the monarch. There was absolutism in a different form post-1689. It was anti-Catholic absolutism, the vanguard of which was a Parliament controlled by an class of gentry that was Protestant. As long as James was there, you had a counterweight. But once he was gone, the Catholics had no one left. And persecution and discrimination of Catholics in the British Isles only got worse.

For what reason would a Catholic in the year 1689 believing in liberty, toleration, and equality possibly have their best interests be served by the toppling of King James?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

Louis XIV was very much alive though. And you completely missed my point. Any tolerance born of the whims of an absolute monarch is as fleeting as his moods at worst, and his longevity at best.

You cannot have any form of equality or tolerance unless you first get rid of absolutism.

Any continuation of the Catholic line after James would have probably known that 1) they would be in no position to crack down on Protestantism within the British nation and 2) if they tried to pretend otherwise then they would be promptly dispatched.

And it also misses the point to look merely at the level of authority wielded by the monarch. There was absolutism in a different form post-1689. It was anti-Catholic absolutism, the vanguard of which was a Parliament controlled by an class of gentry that was Protestant. As long as James was there, you had a counterweight. But once he was gone, the Catholics had no one left. And persecution and discrimination of Catholics in the British Isles only got worse.

For what reason would a Catholic in the year 1689 believing in liberty, toleration, and equality possibly have their best interests be served by the toppling of King James?

Again, you missed my point. What If James son died in infancy and the throne passed naturally to the Protestant Anne when James II died? That is a rather tenuous and weak counter balance you have there.

Again, there is no basis for any kind of freedom of anything (much less religion), when it is wholly dependent on the whims and longevity of a an absolute hereditary ruler.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

Louis XIV was very much alive though. And you completely missed my point. Any tolerance born of the whims of an absolute monarch is as fleeting as his moods at worst, and his longevity at best.

You cannot have any form of equality or tolerance unless you first get rid of absolutism.

Any continuation of the Catholic line after James would have probably known that 1) they would be in no position to crack down on Protestantism within the British nation and 2) if they tried to pretend otherwise then they would be promptly dispatched.

And it also misses the point to look merely at the level of authority wielded by the monarch. There was absolutism in a different form post-1689. It was anti-Catholic absolutism, the vanguard of which was a Parliament controlled by an class of gentry that was Protestant. As long as James was there, you had a counterweight. But once he was gone, the Catholics had no one left. And persecution and discrimination of Catholics in the British Isles only got worse.

For what reason would a Catholic in the year 1689 believing in liberty, toleration, and equality possibly have their best interests be served by the toppling of King James?

Again, you missed my point. What If James son died in infancy and the throne passed naturally to the Protestant Anne when James II died? That is a rather tenuous and weak counter balance you have there.

Again, there is no basis for any kind of freedom of anything (much less religion), when it is wholly dependent on the whims and longevity of a an absolute hereditary ruler.

Before the Glorious Revolution, the Catholics had at least a shot at some protection. After the Glorious Revolution, the Catholics could not even dream of toleration.
Sheer over-focus on the nature of the pre-1689 regime (which isn't as absolute as you suggest - since the Cavaliers lost the Civil War) results in too little attention being paid to abuses of the post-1689 Parliament, which wielded the power of Parliament as an instrument to subjugate and/or exile many/most non-Anglicans, not just Catholics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What the Glorious Revolution set up was a regime where Catholics had no real voice whatsoever.
While before they had at least the crown, they were not really in the position to oppress non-Catholics (by the day's standard of oppression). The events that ensued after the "Glorious" Revolution proved that if the roles were switched, the Catholics would be easily screwed.

Bloody Mary was long dead by the time 1689 came along.

Louis XIV was very much alive though. And you completely missed my point. Any tolerance born of the whims of an absolute monarch is as fleeting as his moods at worst, and his longevity at best.

You cannot have any form of equality or tolerance unless you first get rid of absolutism.

Any continuation of the Catholic line after James would have probably known that 1) they would be in no position to crack down on Protestantism within the British nation and 2) if they tried to pretend otherwise then they would be promptly dispatched.

And it also misses the point to look merely at the level of authority wielded by the monarch. There was absolutism in a different form post-1689. It was anti-Catholic absolutism, the vanguard of which was a Parliament controlled by an class of gentry that was Protestant. As long as James was there, you had a counterweight. But once he was gone, the Catholics had no one left. And persecution and discrimination of Catholics in the British Isles only got worse.

For what reason would a Catholic in the year 1689 believing in liberty, toleration, and equality possibly have their best interests be served by the toppling of King James?

Again, you missed my point. What If James son died in infancy and the throne passed naturally to the Protestant Anne when James II died? That is a rather tenuous and weak counter balance you have there.

Again, there is no basis for any kind of freedom of anything (much less religion), when it is wholly dependent on the whims and longevity of a an absolute hereditary ruler.

Before the Glorious Revolution, the Catholics had at least a shot at some protection. After the Glorious Revolution, the Catholics could not even dream of toleration.
Sheer over-focus on the nature of the pre-1689 regime (which isn't as absolute as you suggest - since the Cavaliers lost the Civil War) results in too little attention being paid to abuses of the post-1689 Parliament, which wielded the power of Parliament as an instrument to subjugate and/or exile many/most non-Anglicans, not just Catholics.

The Parliamentary side won the civil War, but but restoration yielded a monarchy with very little in the way of tangible restraints, certainly nothing like what the Glorious Revolution yielded in terms of ensuring regular parliamentary elections and secure control over both spending and taxation.

Also if we want to talk about abuse, the whole of English and British history is one long train of endless abuses afflicted on whoever the ruling class did not like at a given time. Which as I said before is arbitrary rule and regardless of whether it was afflicted by King or by Parliament, you had to move step by step towards a system that could recognize and eventually correct for those abuses. Firmly establishing the notion of inalienable rights, the social contract, regular legislative elections and sessions and firm control over the purse by the legislative branch were necessary steps towards a system that can over time perfect itself and improve, recognize past mistakes and correct them. You cannot do that if James II's thrice inbred Great Great Great Grandson can chop your head off just for disagreeing with him.

Also the failure of the Glorious Revolution could very well have led to a French style Revolution during the 18th century.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Time

[Wikipedia delenda est]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Davies is quite correct there (he's also laying it on a bit thick for the sake of trolling, but that's His Way and is absolutely fine by me) it's your interpretation that's a little dodgy: James II's religious policies were absolutely not motivated by a liberal vision of tolerance (the man was an Absolutist for Christ's sake!), but by a desire to end discrimination against his own denomination (this was seen by Anglicans at the time as the first stage of a plan to reverse the state of affairs and enforce discrimination against them) and a pragmatic attempt to build support for that by reaching out to other religious minorities (lovely bit of irony there given that they had provided the backbone of support for the Commonwealth). The old Whiggish myths about the Glorious Revolution [sic] were quite absurd (though no longer relevant outside Northern Ireland), but reversing them produces not historical truth but absurdity.

Something else I find quite ironic is that during the Franco-Spanish War of the 1650s, Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Commonwealth allied with Louis XIV. Oliver Cromwell, of all people, allied with the Catholic absolutist who would later become the most reviled pariah of Protestants all across Europe. And also during that war, James II, then the Duke of York, fought in the Spanish army against the French forces of Louis XIV. Louis, of course, was James's future ally; and after the Glorious Revolution James left England for France to spend the rest of his life in exile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It was a reaction by the conservative establishment of England against the radical ideas of religious tolerance promulgated by King James II.

Well that's a new one. James II as woke. Absolutely. Incredible. #blessed.

"The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688-89, therefore, was not specially glorious nor revolutionary. It set out to save the political and religious Establishment from James's radical policies; and it was brought to fruition through the only successful invasion of England since 1066. Yet it subsequent generations it would spawn a powerful myth." -- From Europe: A History by Norman Davies, published in 1996.

Davies is quite correct there (he's also laying it on a bit thick for the sake of trolling, but that's His Way and is absolutely fine by me) it's your interpretation that's a little dodgy: James II's religious policies were absolutely not motivated by a liberal vision of tolerance (the man was an Absolutist for Christ's sake!), but by a desire to end discrimination against his own denomination (this was seen by Anglicans at the time as the first stage of a plan to reverse the state of affairs and enforce discrimination against them) and a pragmatic attempt to build support for that by reaching out to other religious minorities (lovely bit of irony there given that they had provided the backbone of support for the Commonwealth). The old Whiggish myths about the Glorious Revolution [sic] were quite absurd (though no longer relevant outside Northern Ireland), but reversing them produces not historical truth but absurdity.

Something else I find quite ironic is that during the Franco-Spanish War of the 1650s, Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Commonwealth allied with Louis XIV. Oliver Cromwell, of all people, allied with the Catholic absolutist who would later become the most reviled pariah of Protestants all across Europe. And also during that war, James II, then the Duke of York, fought in the Spanish army against the French forces of Louis XIV. Louis, of course, was James's future ally; and after the Glorious Revolution James left England for France to spend the rest of his life in exile.

The hilarious part is that while the Stuarts were in exile in France, they claimed titles to England, Scotland, Ireland and France as had all English Monarchs dating back to Edward III.

This state of affairs only changed when the Hanoverian George III dropped the pretense to the throne of France after over a decade of supporting the titular claim of Louis XVIII, since it obviously didn't make sense to be supporting someone else for a title you yourself also claimed. As far as I know the Jacobites never did likewise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe

"My massacre is worse than your massacre"

Both sides were terrible, news at 11.

[Lincoln Republican]

Perhaps Protestants feared with a Catholic on the throne, he would begin the execution of Protestants as heretics again, as the obsessed Catholic Queen Mary Tudor did.