17-18 Century monarchs

[movieman5]

During the 17th and 18th century, was the conflict over who was the "true" monarch of England and Scotland (later Great Britain) essentially due to the people's refusal to accept a Roman Catholic ruler?

[jno]

a matter of opinion... with Charles I I'd say not really, the people had much than that against him, but he was suspected (wrongly) of Catholic leanings. With James II, it was a strong reason for the opposition to him. Don't know about the 18th century; if you mean the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, no, I think religion wasn't really the issue; the Hanoverians had become well entrenched and accepted and nobody, ate least in England, had any desire to return to the previous dynasty.

[jake-the-peg]

Yep. I think the nature of the question excludes Charles I as that was not really a conflict of who was the true ruler.

Charles II was known to be fairly Catholic in his views and apparently converted on his deathbed. (compare with Tony blair converting to catholicism after leaving No. 10)

Ironically for one who put it about so much he had no legitimate heir so James II his brother suceeded him - who was the real deal!

There were immediate rebellions which were put down and James then sealed his fate by cracking down - see the bloody assizes and Judge Jeffries.

When James' wife gave birth to a son and heir enough was enough and we had the "Glorious revolution" William of Orange came in, James fled and tried to reinvade - battle of the Boyne in Ireland and all that good stuff.

The later 18th Century rebellions of 1715 and 1745 were basically attempts to put James Son, "The Old pretender" and Grandson "Bonnie Prince Charlie" on the throne . The Jacobite rebellions.

So mostly yes but there were other factors like the Stuart predilliction for absolute monarchy which James II tried, England moved on from that and the Bill of Rights had been passed under William basically ensuring that the king governed withthe people's consent. This would probably be lost under a restored Stuart Monarchy.

So it wasn't just religion

[Lil O'lady]

'The people' had very little say in the running of the country at theses times and had to put up with what they were given. On the other hand, the English aristocracy were very uneasy at the use of the catholic faith to justify powerful absolutist monarchies in France, Austria and Spain - all of which were inter-related and had the potential to form a super-power dominating Europe.
Choosing the protestant Habsburgs to succeed in 1714, instead of a Stuart heir who was also catholic, was in effect selecting a bunch of small-time eurotrash lottery winners who didn't speak the lingo and would be grateful for the break, and so were therefore more controllable by the aristo's in the Englishparliament.

[jake-the-peg]

Not sure I buy that.

This was just 40 years after "ordinary people" in this country struck a king's head from his shoulders.

The memory of that must have encouraged them in ousting James.

[Lil O'lady]

Jake, it was one party's control of Parliament that made the decision to execute, not 'the people' - if you read the contemporary accounts of the time, 'a great groan' was heard from those assembled to watch the execution - they seem to have been deeply affected by the sight of their god-king being topped. The general reluctance to see the deed through to the logical conclusion of a republic possibly explains why the restoration in 1660 went so smoothly - again, organised by the aristo's and their armies - and why the reprisals were kept to a minimum - including hanging a dead man (Cromwell).
'The people' didn't really get a full say in the running of the country till 1929, full universal suffrage over 21.

[jake-the-peg]

It depends what you mean.

Certainly our modern concept of democracy didn't come about until then but the involvement of the people gradually grew stepwise.

Cromwell wasn't exactly an aristocrat was he? Nor John Pym.

These people were squires and local land holders certainly not your local ploughmen but certainly not aristocrats.

Republics have difficult births - look at France!

There was no easy model for a democratic republic at the time and the king's execution lead to a power vacuum.

There were no parties in parliament at the time as we'd know it and after Charles' treachery in the second civil war it's hard to see what else could be done with him.

There were huge mixed feelings at the time. There was a lot of superstition and no people had ever executed a "divinely appointed king" before!

Cromwell tried various experiments such as the parliament of the saints before giving up and taking over as Lord Protector.

I don't think the desire to restore the monarchy was bourne from a fondness of absolute Stuart rule as much as dislike of Cromwells Puritan policies.

A bit of a case of "a plague on both your houses"