Exclusion Crisis

[Wikipedia delenda est]

From 1679-1681, the Exclusion Crisis rocked the British Isles. James, the Duke of York, brother of King Charles II, was heir to the throne. The problem was he was an openly practicing Roman Catholic, which caused a political debate over whether he should be excluded from the throne. On one side were the Exclusionists, direct predecessors of the Whigs, who supported exclusion on account of the Duke's Catholicism, which in their eyes made him a threat to the liberty of the country. On the other side were the Abhorrers, direct predecessors of the Tories, who opposed exclusion owing to their belief in divine right, by which Parliament had no authority to alter the royal succession. The Crisis was closely connected with the Popish Plot, a made-up conspiracy which resulted in the deaths of over 20 innocent Catholics. The Whigs used the Plot to rile up public opinion against the Duke and his Catholicism and won several Parliamentary elections, but were prevented from passing the Exclusion Bill by the King, who supported his brother, and thus the Crisis ended in favor of the Abhorrers.

From a modern perspective both sides are deeply flawed, but if you had to vote for or against exclusion which would you choose? Like the Glorious Revolution itself, I go back and forth on this one. Vote without hindsight, so no knowledge of how James's reign actually turned out.

[Diabolical Materialism]

Socially for Exclusion, Fiscally against Exclusion

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Bump. The Crisis was quite a significant event in British history, if only because it led to the formation of England’s two major political factions and presaged what was to come in 1688.

[KaiserDave]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

What reasons then?

[KaiserDave]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

What reasons then?

That there is no reason to exclude James from the succession beyond anti Catholic hysteria and conspiracy theories.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I am against Exclusion because I support a popish theocracy my fellow Catholic James against hysteric fears of fictitious conspiracies.

[bore]

My position during Charles II's reign would be quite simple:

In good King Charles' golden time, when loyalty no harm meant,
A zealous high churchman was I, and so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock, I never missed: Kings are by God appointed
And damned are those who dare resist or touch the Lord's annointed.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I am against exclusion based on religion.

With succession, the "right person for the job" was not a policy in the 1600's.

Being Catholic was such a minor trait in the scheme of the role. There may have been more pressing issues at the time which made the guy highly suitable for the role.

[KaiserDave]

Very upsetting that most of this forum are rabid anti Catholics! Very sad.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Very upsetting that most of this forum are rabid anti Catholics! Very sad.

Absolutism is bad. James II was extremely bad.

[Cassius]

Seamus a Cacha over the Dutchman any day.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

What reasons then?

That there is no reason to exclude James from the succession beyond anti Catholic hysteria and conspiracy theories.

What about his well-known affinity for French absolutism, which his actions and words have done little to refute?

My position during Charles II's reign would be quite simple:

In good King Charles' golden time, when loyalty no harm meant,
A zealous high churchman was I, and so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock, I never missed: Kings are by God appointed
And damned are those who dare resist or touch the Lord's annointed.

I love the Vicar of Bray. With the views expressed in the Charles section he definitely would've been an Abhorrer.

Very upsetting that most of this forum are rabid anti Catholics! Very sad.

Ok Roger L'Estrange.

Seamus a Cacha over the Dutchman any day.

The Dutchman was not in consideration during the Exclusion Crisis. The Whigs supported Charles's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth, as the replacement for Seamus.

[KaiserDave]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

What reasons then?

That there is no reason to exclude James from the succession beyond anti Catholic hysteria and conspiracy theories.

What about his well-known affinity for French absolutism, which his actions and words have done little to refute?

He wanted to secure religious liberty and civil equality for English Catholicism through some absolutist means. I do not consider him an English Sun King.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Against exclusion for non divine right reasons.

What reasons then?

That there is no reason to exclude James from the succession beyond anti Catholic hysteria and conspiracy theories.

What about his well-known affinity for French absolutism, which his actions and words have done little to refute?

He wanted to secure religious liberty and civil equality for English Catholicism through some absolutist means. I do not consider him an English Sun King.

I used to think like you did, but the 1688 book by Pincus really changed my mind. It's clear that James was not interested in toleration as such, but only as a means to an end. What you might not know is that he frequently enthused about re-Catholicizing the entire nation with his inner circle of Catholic advisers, and that he celebrated the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 and deeply admired Louis XIV. In fact, one of Pincus's main arguments is that James used Louis's France as the model by which to implement Catholic modernity and absolutism in England.

[Orser67]

I'm not sure exactly what to think of James II (in general I have a pretty negative view but I'm no expert on English history), and it's obvious that there was more going on in the exclusion crisis than just anti-Catholicism. With hindsight, the Glorious Revolution seems like it was probably an important step in the long transition of England/Britain becoming a largely democratic constitutional monarchy. But I guess if I had to vote, I'd vote against the religiously intolerant policy.