James II - The King Who Lost Three Kingdoms Documentary

For early access to our videos, discounted merch and many other exclusive perks please support us as a Patron or Member...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/thepeopleprofiles
Buy me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/peopleprofiles
RUclips Membership: ruclips.net/channel/UCD6TPU-PvTMvqgzC_AM7_uAjoin
or follow us on Twitter! twitter.com/tpprofiles

Im glad that this documentary mentioned the Royal African company. Most other documentaries skip right over that .

I trust you that an individual video for Queen Mary II of England (not combined with William III) doing her justice like only People Profiles can will soon follow 🤞🏻 and Anne, Queen of Great Britain, my favourites! Thank you People Profiles!

Prince William will be is the first British king to be a direct descendant of James II , through illegitimate children of the latter. Diana was a descendent of James II and Arabella Churchill. She is her 8th great-grandmother.

Hope you consider ''KING LEOPOLD II''. One of the most brutal people that existed next to Hitler. The atrocities he committed in Africa through his manipulating personality is something very interesting to learn about. I've learned a lot on your channel, btw . Thank you very much for your time and hard work. Hope you reach 1 million in a heart beat. You deserve it.

Thanks!

James learns about his father Charles the 1st execution in France. Spends the next few years of his life serving in the French army then later in the Spanish Army, goes back to England with his brother Charles the 2nd later becomes king himself and says "I haven't learned a thing".

I don't know who the narrator is for this documentary. But he has a very unique voice. And he's narrated many documentaries. It helps me fall asleep. As I'm sure it does others also.

I trust you thea the video on Athelstan will come soon, not to mention Edward the Elder, among my favorite Sxon kings! Thank you People Profiles!You're the best!

19:53 mad to see my tiny little town (Beccles) on such an old map. Not sure why its on there as we arent on the coast like the others.

It’s very easy to say what could have been done, hundreds of years in the future, no one was there. It was a different time, different thoughts . One cannot rewrite history, though it seems everyone tries.

Your presentation of history is spot on man! Canadian baby boomer here remembering a high school history class on British history, I love your addition of the painting at 38:10. Get a load of these characters as it is a true representation of the ruling elite with a monarchy...I don't recall if the identifications by letter from A to Z was original, but I reckon it is the most important to the least important yet they are all worthy of mention! Fascinating!

In order for Jaime II to have kept his throne during the glorious revolution, he could have adopted a more balanced and sensitive approach to the concerns of the people and parliament. Here are some things he could have done:
1. ** Religious tolerance in a smoother way: ** Instead of trying to impose Catholicism abruptly, Jaime could have gradually worked to promote religious tolerance, respecting predominant Protestant beliefs. He could have shown more empathy and built confidence, which would have diminished resistance to his government.
2. ** Collaboration with Parliament: ** Instead of trying to rule alone, Jaime could have sought a more open dialogue with Parliament. He could have accepted some concessions, showing that he was willing to work together for the sake of the country, which would have strengthened his position.
3. ** Construction of Political Bridges: ** Jaime could have struggled more to create alliances with moderate political figures, both Catholic and Protestant. Upon hearing and meeting the concerns of these groups, he could have avoided the isolation and growing opposition that led to their fall.
4. ** Moderate use of force: ** Instead of resorting to military force to silence the opposition, Jaime could have opted for more peaceful and conciliatory solutions. A less oppressive government would have generated less fear and resistance, and could have preserved its authority without the need for repression.
5. ** Graduative reforms: ** Instead of trying to impose rapid and drastic changes, Jaime could have introduced reforms more gradually, involving the people and parliament in decisions. This most careful approach could have maintained popular support and avoided the feeling that he was ignoring the country's traditions.
6. This could have ensured the continuity of its lineage without causing so much division.
Taking these attitudes, Jaime could have kept his throne, creating a more stable and accepted government, preserving the powers of the crown without generating the hostility that led to his deposition.

I enjoy these videos, they are a good introduction to a historical subject, and provide a good overview with enough detail to feel it was a good listen. The video does makes his reign sound a little more benign than it actually was, the Bloody Assizes was a thing, as was the trial of the seven bishops, and his standing army. But a good video nonetheless.

Loving the British monarchy videos, really hoping you do some videos on the Habsburg monarchs of Spain such as Charles V/Phillip II 🙏

Epic story telling as always 👏🏻

Queen Mary I of England would feel extremely sorry for King James II of England since she was Roman Catholic and wanted England to become a Catholic nation again. King James II did not deserve to be overthrown. I wish King James II ruled until his death. May they rest together in peace. 😭😭😭

@30:00- LOL I see she's of the Habsburg bloodline owing to the classic "Habsburg Jaw".

You do great work! I would love to hear one on Tito from Yugoslavia

57:55 John III Sobieski could not leave a successor anyway, as Poland had an electoral monarchy.

A man true to his own convictions is a true King. Long live the King!!!

"The times have changed; old manners gone. A stranger fills the Stuart's throne. The bigots of the iron time called his harmless art a crime." Sir Walter Scott. The Lay of the Last Minstrel.

I believe had the Stewart line continued with Murdoch instead of his nephew, a Stewart would still be on the throne. And yes, with the "Stew" spelling.

48:08 But the key point is that in their Coronation Oath , William of Orange and Mary II were required to recognize the Sovereignty of Parliament . Later , ELECTED Parliamentarians wrote the English Bill of Rights , which received Royal Assent in Dec 1689 .
At the time , only wealthy land owners had the vote , so the this could be considered a power transfer from the King to wealthy Parliamentarians , but this was still the beginning of Democracy in the modern world .
William went along with this because his real objective was have the English help the Dutch , defeat the French King
over the Spanish Netherlands ( present day Belgium ) .
.

Thank you. An informative video about one of the most transformative periods in English history. The Stuarts made a lot of bad decisions to mind and James seems to have a lot of his father in him.

YAY!!! My favorite!

Can’t wait to see your next video!

James was diffrent from his brother Charles and unlike Charles did not understand he had to have pepol on his side

There is an excellent museum at the Boyne river, at the actual location of the battle, also, look up images of Sandy Row , belfast.....large mural of William on a wall, many people stop for a selfie at it.....

I believe that King James was true to his faith and willing to sacrifice for it.

Im related to this guy somewhere down the line so i figured i should learn something here ha thanks for the teachings

My favorite part of james' story is the Irish nickname for him Séamas an Chaca ( 'James the shit') after he flat out gave up following the Battle of the Boyne. One of the funniest epithats ever!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

James’ conversion to Catholicism actually makes me think better of him. He would know that it was absolutely in his best personal interest to remain Anglican. The fact that he didn’t, speaks well of his personal convictions

I have a suggestion. A profile of erich mielke head of the stasi.

Wonderful narrative...graphic storytelling thanks

If James II and VII had managed to keep his throne during the Glorious Revolution, the course of British and world history could have been significantly altered. Here’s a hypothetical exploration of how events might have unfolded:
### 1. **Strengthening of Absolute Monarchy**
James II was an ardent believer in the divine right of kings and sought to centralize power in the monarchy, much like his contemporary Louis XIV of France. If he had maintained his throne, it is likely that he would have continued to erode the powers of Parliament, steering Britain toward a more absolutist form of governance. This could have led to a government that resembled the French monarchy of the time, with a stronger executive authority and weakened parliamentary influence.
### 2. **Religious Policies and Catholicism**
One of the main reasons for James II’s overthrow was his attempt to reintroduce Catholicism into a predominantly Protestant country. If he had remained in power, James would have continued to promote religious tolerance for Catholics, perhaps even instituting more Catholic-friendly policies. This might have resulted in a series of religious conflicts within England and Scotland, as Protestant opposition would have been strong. There’s a possibility that James might have faced armed rebellions similar to the earlier English Civil Wars, but with a religious focus.
### 3. **International Alliances and Conflicts**
James II had strong ties to Catholic monarchs in Europe, especially Louis XIV of France. If James had held onto power, Britain might have allied more closely with France, shifting away from its traditional rivalry. This alliance could have influenced wars on the continent, with Britain perhaps supporting France in conflicts like the Nine Years’ War or the War of Spanish Succession.
Conversely, a Catholic Britain under James would have likely had more tense relations with Protestant states in Europe, particularly the Dutch Republic and the German Protestant states, leading to a realignment of European alliances. This could have had far-reaching effects on the balance of power in Europe during the late 17th and early 18th centuries.
### 4. **Impact on the American Colonies**
James II had plans to restructure the American colonies in line with the Spanish Empire’s centralized model. If he had stayed in power, he might have implemented these plans, merging some colonies and placing them under tighter royal control. This could have reduced the autonomy of the American colonies and may have delayed or prevented the early stirrings of self-governance that later fueled the American Revolution.
With a stronger central government and potentially harsher royal oversight, tensions in the colonies might have escalated earlier, with the colonies possibly seeking independence sooner than they did in our timeline, or even remaining under stronger British control for a longer period.
### 5. **Effects on Ireland**
James II had strong Catholic sympathies, and his rule might have resulted in policies that were more favorable to Irish Catholics. This could have created more religious division in Ireland, where the Protestant landowning class would resist any pro-Catholic reforms. The conflicts between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland might have intensified, potentially sparking revolts and uprisings.
On the other hand, if James had been able to integrate Ireland more fully into his Catholic vision, it’s possible that Ireland might have remained closer to Britain, perhaps mitigating some of the long-term sectarian conflicts that followed. However, given the deep-seated divisions, this seems less likely.
### 6. **Succession and Dynastic Stability**
One of the key reasons for James II’s downfall was the birth of his son, James Francis Edward Stuart, who would have been raised Catholic, ensuring a Catholic succession. If James II had retained power, his son would have likely succeeded him, leading to a line of Catholic monarchs in Britain. This could have sparked further conflict with Protestant factions, who might have continuously sought to replace the Catholic monarchy with a Protestant ruler, leading to civil wars or ongoing political instability.
Without William of Orange’s ascension to the throne, the Hanoverian line would never have come to power. This would have dramatically changed the trajectory of the British monarchy and the eventual union with Scotland, possibly preventing the formation of Great Britain as it is known today.
### 7. **Long-term Legacy**
In this alternate scenario, James II’s continued reign might have delayed the Enlightenment principles of constitutional monarchy in Britain. An absolutist and Catholic Britain would have faced immense internal pressure from both Protestant and Enlightenment thinkers, leading to revolts or possibly a revolution similar to the French Revolution.
However, it's also possible that Enlightenment ideas would have eventually forced reforms, leading to a gradual return to a more constitutional monarchy later in the 18th century. These pressures could have shifted the evolution of the British government toward reform, perhaps even precluding the end of monarchy in France, as the political and ideological landscape of Europe would have been vastly different.
### Conclusion
Had James II kept his throne, Britain would have likely faced significant internal strife, religious conflict, and a potential realignment of its alliances in Europe. The American colonies might have been more tightly controlled, with earlier tensions between the colonies and the Crown. In the long term, however, it is probable that the forces of Enlightenment and Protestant opposition would have either led to a slow reform of the monarchy or another revolution, as the pushback against absolute rule and Catholicism would have remained strong.

An interesting and very well done documentary, as always with this channel. However, it seems to me that an important point of James II’s reign and character is missing : his absolutism. He alienated the masses because he was a Catholic, but the main concern of the Whigs for example during the Exclusion Crisis was his belief in the divine right of Kings and his tyrannical nature. He quickly proved them right by illegally packing Parliament with supporters in 1685 after becoming King, and especially with the royal dispensing power, a fabrication of his to make himself an absolute monarch with complete control over Parliament, the army, and the Church. Had he merely introduced measures favourable to Catholics I don’t think things would have gone as far as they did in 1688. It was his tyranny that got him deposed, and ensured the slow decline of the power of the monarch with regards to Parliament, beginning with the Bill of Rights.

wonder how many people today are direct descendants of Charles II through all the bastards he had.

Very informative

I think he supported religious-tolerance. There is some debate about whether this was an end in itself, or about ultimately reinstating Catholicism.

Another gem from the People's Profile team. Macauley himself would give this 2 thumbs up. I learned from my primary mentor years back that if I was to take the year 1688 and go back and forward 100 years to the 1580's and 1780's, I'd find the foundation of understanding towards our ruling western world of today. While James II time on the throne was very short indeed, you most effectively defined the era in which he lived through. A time where the ending of absolute Monarchial rule was giving way in steps towards the republican and parliamentary democracies of today.
Of course the easily understood pages of history can say James II was usurped due to his Catholic leanings but that is just a convenient side note to the real reason for his overthrow. For the once all powerful weight of influence and authority of Monarch's was in decline all through Europe. James II was not the 1st to loose his throne and he wouldn't be the last; but at least he was able to keep his head.

I thought it was James II of Scotland as this James is usually known as James VII of Scotland, II of England.

Interesting 🤔, how about a biography of Anthony Hope and Rafael Sabatini.

Happy birthday J🎉

James felt he had to return England, Ireland and Scotland to their foundational Christian Faith.

The ironic thing is James II grandfather James I was the target of Catholic assassins in the gunpowder plot because of his anti-Catholic measures.

Trying to force religion on to people never works. If they already have a religion, they're not going to change. And if they are not religious, they won't become religious because someone else tells them to. James set himself up to fail. Great video, as ever!

His brother Charles 2nd said he’d lose the throne in four years and he was right in my opinion he was a dreadful king and man

No mention of the ejection of ministers

Watched, i did not! As I mostly listened! Interesting.

He should have built upon his brother's rule instead of making the same mistakes as his father.

James ll was deposed simply because he was a Roman Catholic. He was not trying to impose Roman Catholicism on the British people as the narrarater claims but only to establish rights for Catholics and also Protestant Dissenters.

While a sympathetic figure, any king who was so obtuse as not to see the obvious was not fit to rule. Charles I was another example.

Bookmark
41:39

JAMES SHOULD.....WITH SUPPORTING ADVISORS.......WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Also known as James V11 of Scotland

His voice go's through me ,he can't say parliament, any one else but that narrator.

Indian Maratha empire Shivaji Maharaj biography please make video

Robert Plant is King James II reincarnated

Excellent video. I feel James II/VII is an interesting figure, I don't believe he was trying to change Britains religion back to Catholic, I believe due to his beliefs he tryed to push for more toleration in Britain given the large number of Catholics in Ireland. Unfortunately for James, he took too much after his father Charles I, in that both were too heavy handed and stubborn to understand the lessons of his grandsire, James VI, who had realised you needed to negotiate with and reason with Parliament. As such he lost his crowns.
2 small things I think were incorrect: you glossed over the fact that James was initially prepared to meet Williams army on Salisbury plain not long after he landed, but his nerve gave way when 40% of his officers, including John Churchill, defected to William: I believe this incident played a crucial role in James deciding to leave initially without a fight.
Secondly, it is true that a Duke of Schomberg continued the war in Ireland, but not the one shown: Frederick (he was killed at the battle of the Boyne). It was his son Meinhardt, who went on to besiege Limerick.
Nontheless its a great biographic video, I thoroughly enjoy your work.

Schomberg died at the Battle of the Boyne. He did not rule in William’s stead.

What is a kirk?

You jumped or mentioned quickly the execution of Charles the 1st...confusing...

If only James ii had realised he couldn't rule England and Scotland anymore and just concentrated on being King of Ireland.....Ireland could have been a United independent country 300 years earlier...

Good moring

I must say as I'm reading Machiavelli, it seems that he tried to insure too much religion. And his attempt to take power always seemed to be at the fall of another. Who can say what's just or unjust, in regards to this I am not a righteous judge. Don't choose me!

I wish this guy would stop saying Parl-yoo-ment. It GRATES on me 😵‍💫

Brilho de Deus está no Teleton pessoal!vamos logo amigos é amigas p/SBT Teleton.Criancas é vida.

хороший король только с религией надо было не так жёстко

Imagine being a King and when you call your armies everyone just goes: "Screw this, I'm outta here.

Jacobitism not Jacobinism.

I have watched many videos and i've never had a gripe but the first 25 was too repetitive of previous recent videos of charles the first and charles the second.
The video only really got into James the second after 25 minutes.

Excellent documentary.
It just demonstrates how intolerant and evil religion is, due to the amount of conflict this one King’s short reign created. This is notwithstanding the diabolical practice of the slave trade that the Crown clearly participated in. This is a clear demonstration of injustice and servitude that monarchies enforce on the masses.
England was on the right path of republicanism, but decided to reembrace the chains of delinquency to an undemocratically elected head of state, that not only that transpired to be Dutch but ultimately of Germanic ancestry to the present day; can you see the irony…

Can anybody tell me when and why all the wig wearing started?

Oh Goody, if reparations for slavery goes into effect, the UK will have to pay too 😊

Why do English historians also say King of England!!! James 6th of Scotland, his son Charles 1st and Charles 2nd were crowned Kings of Scotland before they took over England

New Holland?

Hold on... How could Louis XIV recognize William Orange as the king of England? He was married to the ruling queen, thus, he would have been a prince consort, not the king.

Can only guess life would have been difficult living as a subject during the reign of James II...

Any king with head still attached is really quite a pity.

Parl u ment

best king ever !!! the stuarts were world beaters , heros , scotlands best , england did not appeciate them

He left the Irish people to pick up the pieces

it was a fatal error, but as many man in power will hold there opinion again there electors

Another relative ancestor of my mother’s side of the family

On the balance of probability I recon James was not fit to be a king, and so he should have been excluded in the first instance to avoid all the troubles he encountered later.

I love the painting of him, the really well done one that shows of his sneering arrogance.

Parley............ah............ment....😂

@54:24 CHICKEN uwu

❤❤🇩🇿

Severe antipathy? More like unhinged irrationality.

Base/Superstructure x the materialist conception of history

Sure that picture isent Henry Cavill?

Probably the only king in history of humankind..to recieve official(from Parlaiment) the despicable title "The Beshitten"..not just inept as ruler..but also coward fleeing the battlefield..

'deplorable,'deplorable', hmmm, the usual revisionism, I'm sure in 300 years we'll be 'deplorable' for owning cats and dogs.

Great exposed of James II yeah u didn't have to force catholicism on the people

Pompous king who deserved his ousting.

Completely ignores the many centuries of harm caused by the medieval Catholic church: the political intrigues, the burning of heretics, the suppression of the Bible and all dissent to the papacy.

He should have been named King Rodney. Because he was a plonker.

Worst King in English history is what he was, William of Orange how ever was one of the best.