Our last Catholic King: James II and VII

King James II of England, France and Ireland and VII of Scotland, was our last Catholic King.

He was pushed off his throne by a treacherous conspiracy of Whigs and other traitors including, it must be added, his money-worshipping chief army commander, Lieutenant General John Churchill, later 1st Duke of Marlborough, who plotted to kidnap James after William of Orange landed with his Dutch army. Churchill, ancestor to Sir Winston, then deserted his King at a crucial point in the defence of the nation. He became the richest man in Europe through his naked treachery and base betrayal of the King to whom he had sworn a solemn oath of loyalty.

King James was forced to flee to France and the protection of King Louis XIV. He kept court at St Germain-en-Laye looking for opportunities to regain his throne but his plans were ended at the Battles of the Boyne and Aughrim in Ireland.

The gauntlet of old, Catholic England, Scotland and Ireland was later taken up by his son, James Francis Edward and his grandson, Charles Edward ("Bonnie Prince Charlie").

Bonnie Prince Charlie, flanked by Cameron of Lochiel and MacDonald of Clanranald

Recent historians have begun to paint a true picture of our last Catholic King and to expose the dishonest picture painted of him by the treacherous but victorious Whig historians whose false portrayal of James has dominated the teaching of English history for so long.

The real reason that the treacherous Whigs sought to oust him was his attempt to roll back the penal laws which so grossly oppressed Catholics and Dissenting Protestants. In his Declaration of Indulgence, James granted religious liberty to his subjects showing that he was far ahead of his contemporaries and had a much wider vision than did the bigoted Whigs who wanted to impose Anglicanism on the three kingdoms and forbid non-Anglicans from taking any part in the professions, teaching, medicine, the law or any public life and to persecute those who were not Anglicans, above all Catholics.

The Whigs feared even the slightest relaxation of the oppression of Catholics because they were convinced that this might mean that they had to disgorge some of the immense wealth that they had stolen from the Church and the monasteries and which they continued to squeeze out of the poor (as William Cobbett, an Anglican, so devastatingly shows in his History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland).

The result was the beginnings of the modern world with a tiny number owning a huge, vast share of the wealth and the vast majority owning only a small part.

Here is an extract from James's last letter to his own son:

James Francis Edward, son of King James II and father to Bonnie Prince Charlie

Instructions left by King James II to his son, 1692

"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 governne all my Dominions with safty to the Monarchy, and the satisfaction of all the Subjects. No King can be happy without his Subjects be at ease, and the people 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 disturbe 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 carefull that none under you oppresse the people, or torment them with vexations, suits, or projects: Remember a King ought to be a Father of his people, and must have a fatherly tendernesse for them... be content with what is your own. Endeavour to settle Liberty of Conscience by a Law.

...Be never without a considerable body of Catholick troops without which you cannot be safe, then will people thanke you for Liberty of Conscience. Be not persuaded by any to depart from that.

Our Blessed Saviour whipt people out of the Temple, but I never heard he commanded any should be forced into it; tis a particular grace and favour that God Almighty shews to any, who he enlightens so as to embrasse the true Religion, tis by gentleness, instruction, and good example, people are to be gained and not frightened into it, and I make no doubt if once Liberty of Conscience be well fixed, many conversions will ensue..."

So you see, it was King James who was for freedom of conscience and liberty of religion, and the Whigs who were for bigotry, oppression and the forceful imposition of Anglicanism upon the nation by violence, unjust and odious oaths and the savage persecution of Catholics.

Yet there are still many - even some seemingly intelligent people - who think that Whigs stood for toleration and liberty of conscience.

It was, in fact, James and his followers, the Cavaliers, Jacobites and Conservatives, who really had the interests of the nation and the people at heart and who truly preserved freedom and justice for all - not the treacherous Roundheads, Whigs and so-called Liberals.

It takes a special brand of hypocrite to call himself a "Liberal" whilst grinding the face of the poor and hanging, drawing and quartering a man for his religion and his priesthood.

The White Rose of the Stuarts and of legitimate Catholic monarchy throughout Europe

...

Roundheads, queens and the immorality of revolutions

Apologies to "SubjectofRome" whose post I seem to have lost. Can you send it again? Midlander need not bother unless he comes up with some arguments rather than simply barracking. Sorry, Midlander.

Others have written and some still do not quite get the point that I was making.

Last try, then, folks. Here goes.

Some make a common mistake and assume that a different set of rules must apply to a head of state who is called king or queen than to one who is called by some other name.

The name of the head of state makes no difference: he cannot seize powers that are not lawfully his (or hers) and thus do not belong to him under the Constitution.

Dictators of unstable countries all too often seize such powers for themselves. This is merely a coup d'etat. It is illegal and immoral.

Some seem to think that merely swapping a monarch for some other kind of head of state with a different name solves the moral problem of signing immoral laws. How could it?

I don’t quite know why this relatively simple idea seems so hard for some to grasp.

The evil consists in requiring a head of state to seize powers he does not have and thus overthrow a constitution.

Again I do not know why this should be so difficult an idea to grasp.

I suspect that some have but one idea or concept of monarchy in their heads and that is monarchy with wide power. But the British monarch is not such a monarch.

Some call this a "charade". It is no more of a charade than a republican constitution that requires the president to do the same thing. How is it any less of a charade to call a president “head of state” when he or she has virtually no power, either?

The fact is that most jurisdictions have a head of state, even if only for ceremonial reasons. There is a need for such a figure. It is not a charade. There is a job to be done. Most constitutions give that head of state some final and residual power to prevent the Constitution being ultimately subverted.

It really amounts to not much less than a kind of blind prejudice and bigotry to think that this system must be abolished if it is exercised by a person called a monarch or "king" or "queen" but is fine if it is exercised by some other sort of head of state with a different title like, say, "president".

This bigotry is simply not logical. It is perhaps cultural or psychological. For instance, some Americans and many Irishmen seem to have a kind of cultural and psychological aversion to the mere word "king" or "queen", partly perhaps for understandable historical reasons. Many Irishmen, for instance, understandably associate monarchy with oppression by successive English governments but end by having an irrational aversion to the word and idea as such.

Perhaps some other people have been brought up on fairy tales about kings and queens and princes in castles who order subjects about with largely untrammelled power. Thus they think this is how all monarchs should be and can’t get their heads round the idea of a restricted constitutional monarchy.

Or perhaps some have a romantic notion about revolution which, in their mind’s eye, requires some supposed villainous monarch to rebel against.

I don’t know what else causes this kind of bigotry but it is profoundly anti-rational.

The Queen does not do evil when she signs a law because, in signing that law, she is not exercising any freedom to endorse or reject that law. She has no such freedom.

Her signing is not a free act on her part but merely an acknowledgement that Parliament has passed a law. It is rather like signing a receipt.

The only exceptions are the extreme situations to which I referred in my earlier posts (deadlock in Parliament which cannot be resolved by the courts, or a rogue government seeking to abolish the Constitution or, say, elections) and these now represent her only real power and discretion to act.

The fact that her signing is called “Royal Assent” is now a legal fiction, save in those extreme cases. Then, and only then, does the Queen retain any discretionary power.

Other than those extreme situations her signature is now no more than a “Royal Acknowledgement” or a “Royal Receipt” rather like signing a DHL receipt to say that you have received a DHL-delivered parcel.

No-one would suggest that the act of signing a DHL receipt for a parcel means that you were responsible for sending the parcel in the first place!

So, also, with the Queen. She is not morally or legally responsible for the legislation enacted by Parliament.

Now, it might be very nice and good if the Queen had more power than that and exercised it to block an abortion bill. But she doesn’t.

And no amount of calls for her to resign will give her, or her replacement, that power.

The royal power was radically attenuated by the Civil War, the so-called "Glorious" Revolution and the Bill of Rights of 1689 and further inroads continued to be made thereafter by a now powerful Parliament.

However much one may regret the Roundhead rebellion and the Whig Revolution, they won and the Royalists lost and it is now too late to reverse the constitutional situation. Indeed, even to try would now, if done by unconstitutional means, be a revolution of its own and thus sinful.

Now try as you might, you simply cannot blame Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for this situation!

Moreover, because Parliament passes an immoral law, this does not give either the Queen or a subject the right to overthrow Parliament.

I repeat, yet again, that this is what St Thomas Aquinas teaches in his De Regimine Principum ("On the Rule of Princes"), as does the Church itself.

St Thomas makes it quite clear that, whilst an unjust law is no law, morally speaking, and so it cannot bind morally and one should not obey it, that does not give us the right to overthrow the state or the prince (or the Parliament) which produced such an immoral law. It only gives us the right to refuse to obey such a “law”. We are not then disobeying the law because this “law” is, in fact, no law at all, morally speaking.

Likewise, the Queen, whilst she should certainly regard the abortion law as no law at all – morally speaking – she cannot break the legitimate laws (i.e. those which forbid her to exercise the Royal Assent as she pleases) in order to nullify the immoral “law”. That would be doing evil that good may come of it, which is strictly forbidden by the moral law.

The abortion law remains a human positive law but, in the sight of God and good men, it is really no law at all, morally speaking.

One must not, therefore, obey that law if it requires one to participate in an abortion, or connive at an abortion, but the existence of such an immoral law does not give the subject the right to overthrow the state or the Constitution.

For the same reason the Queen does not have that power, either.

The blame for these immoral laws lies with those who frame and pass them - not the Queen.

Some say, well, what about Hitler and the Nuremberg Laws. Well, what about them? They were laws passed by the Nazi-dominated Reichstag, not by President Hindenburg.

If there were laws passed to put Jews into concentration camps then those laws should be resisted and not obeyed but the Queen would still not magically get powers she does not have to block Parliamentary Bills. If, however, these laws were forced through illegally (as, of course, they would have to be since no-one would now pass such laws) and the courts refused to act, then the Queen would be facing the very extreme situation which I adumbrated and might then have a discretionary power.

I hope this, at last, makes the position clear.