British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession in New Step to Modernization - The New York Times The New York Times Europe |British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession in New Step to Modernization Search Continue reading the main story Photo With the changes, the first child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, if a girl, would automatically enter the line of succession as a future queen. Credit Brendon Thorne/Getty Images LONDON — The 16 countries that recognize the British monarch as head of state struck a historic blow for women’s rights on Friday, abolishing male precedence in the order of succession to the throne. But the possibility of a Catholic monarch will have to wait, nearly 500 years after Henry VIII broke with Rome. The decision to overturn the centuries-old tradition known as primogeniture was accompanied by the scrapping of a constitutional prohibition on the monarch’s marrying a Roman Catholic. But the rule that reserves the throne to Protestants will remain. The changes will have no immediate impact on the existing line of succession. The current heir to the throne, Prince Charles , will retain that position, and is in any case the oldest child of his parents, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.

The second in line to the throne is his firstborn child, Prince William . The new succession rule will come into play with William’s children. Indeed, it was the marriage last spring of Prince William and Kate Middleton, now the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, that accelerated the change. Their wedding spurred a widespread sense that the young couple, by bringing a more contemporary influence to the royal court, are likely to have a far-reaching, if not determinate, impact on the monarchy’s future. Continue reading the main story With the change in the succession rules, their first child, if a girl, would automatically enter the line of succession as a future queen, instead of being relegated behind a younger brother as would have occurred under the rules that will now be abandoned. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen,” Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said in Perth, the city in western Australia where Commonwealth heads of government are holding a summit meeting.

While the Cameron government took the lead in pushing the changes, it had to secure unanimous consent from the other countries that recognize the monarch as their head of state, a subset of the 54 countries that are members of the Commonwealth. These include the nations of the so-called old Commonwealth, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and other countries that have gained their independence from Britain in recent decades. Those include the Bahamas, Jamaica and other Caribbean nations; Belize, in Central America; and three Pacific nations, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. The change comes at another important juncture in the modern monarchy, the 60th anniversary in February of the succession of Queen Elizabeth II to the throne. The queen, now 85, has presided over a variety of changes in the monarchy over the past 30 years, agreeing to a gradual modernization that has swept away some of the stuffiness that critics have identified in an institution with origins going back at least 1,000 years.

After a series of unsuccessful attempts in Britain’s Parliament to change the succession rules in recent years, the Cameron government, in office 18 months, put its weight fully behind the changes, and court officials said Queen Elizabeth was strongly supportive. Nearing the end of a 10-day trip to Australia that has drawn large crowds, she was in Perth in her capacity as head of the Commonwealth when the announcement was made. Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Privacy Policy The bar on the monarch’s marrying a Catholic, like the rule on primogeniture, was enshrined in an array of statutes, most significantly in the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 , which followed the turmoil of the monarchy of King James II, the last Catholic monarch. The rules governing the monarchy were set after the violent upheavals that Britain endured in the 16th and 17th centuries after Henry VIII broke with Rome over control of the church in England, an event that led to centuries of marginalization, and often persecution, for Roman Catholics in Britain.

Over the centuries, legal discrimination against Catholics has been dismantled one brick at a time. Laws that forbade Catholics to serve in the army, own or inherit land, vote, hold public office or join one of the “learned professions” have been scrapped, leaving the provision forbidding the monarch to marry a Catholic exposed, as most Catholics have seen it, as a relic of the past. Advertisement Continue reading the main story The prohibition has seemed all the more incongruous for the fact that there is no similar bar on the monarch’s marrying somebody from others faiths, including a Hindu, a Jew or a Muslim. What remains unchanged in the succession rules is the requirement that the monarch be a Protestant, not a “Papist” as the Act of Settlement provided, and “in communion” with the Church of England. That, in turn, is linked to the constitutional position of the Church of England as the country’s established church, headed by the monarch. The Anglican primacy has come under a growing challenge by Britain’s rapidly increasing ethnic and religious diversity in recent decades, particularly among Muslim leaders. In his remarks in Perth, Mr. Cameron reaffirmed the rule that reserves the throne to a Protestant.

“Let me be clear,” he said, “the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England, because he or she is the head of the church.” He added, “But it is simply wrong to say they should be denied the right to marry a Catholic should they wish to do so.” Some experts said the change could lead to constitutional problems if a future monarch married a Catholic and the couple decided to bring up their children as Catholics, something the Vatican encourages. But Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, told the BBC that the Catholic hierarchy would not precipitate a crisis over the issue. “It’s not unreasonable for the head of the Church of England to be an Anglican,” he said. A version of this article appears in print on October 29, 2011, on Page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: British Monarchy Scraps Rule of Male Succession in New Step to Modernization. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe Roman Christendom: 16 September - the anniversary of the death of our last ruling Catholic monarch, King James II and VII Honour all men. Love the brethren. Fear God. Honour Caesar, the Emperor.

(1 Pet 2:17) Monday, 16 September 2013 16 September - the anniversary of the death of our last ruling Catholic monarch, King James II and VII King James II of England and Ireland and VII of Scotland was born on 14 October 1633, at St. James's Palace in London, the third son of King Charles I and Princess Henrietta Maria of France, Queen Henrietta-Maria of England. Prince James was made HRH Duke of York at his birth and was baptised into the Anglican Church by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. He was made Lord High Admiral of England in 1638 and a Knight of the Garter in 1642. During the Civil War against his father James lived in the Low Countries and France, where he returned to exile later in life. He was commissioned in the French Army and served under the Vicomte de Turenne and was created Duke of Normandy by King Louis XIV of France in 1660, the same year that he returned to England with his brother who was restored as King Charles II, whereupon he married Lady Anne Hyde, daughter of the Earl of Clarendon.

In 1670 both James and Anne converted to the Catholic faith but Anne died the following year. When the Test Act was passed in 1673, requiring the holders of all public offices to receive communion according to the rites of the Church of England, and to abjure the Catholic belief in transubstantiation, James renounced his offices which caused his Catholic conversion to become public knowledge. In the same year James married Princess Maria of Modena, daughter of Alfonso IV, Duke of Modena. Princess Mary of Modena, later Queen Mary of England, Scotland and Ireland From around this time, two parties formed in Parliament, based upon the old division of Roundheads and Cavaliers, but now called "Excluders" and "Abhorrers", the first seeking to exclude the Catholic James from succession to the throne, and the latter abhorring such an unconstitutional idea. Each party was alter given a derogatory name, the first "Whig", after the Scots Covenanter Whiggamore cattle raid, and the latter "Tory" after the Irish word for a bandit toraigh.

Nevertheless, James did succeed his brother and was crowned King in 1685 - privately by the Catholic rites and then publicly, on 23 April, St George's Day, at Westminster Abbey according to the rites of the Church of England. King James II and VII after his coronation However, the Whig Excluders did not rest and eventually staged a treacherous revolution against their rightful king in due course. The pretext for this treason was, ironically, King James's commitment to liberty of conscience, a doctrine the Whigs claimed to profess but, in reality, denied. King James issued a Declaration of Toleration for Scotland on 12 February 1687 and a Declaration of Indulgence for England on 4 April 1687, re-issued in 1688 with an order to be read in all churches. It was this latter command that was used by the rebels as a pretext. Seven Anglican bishops petitioned the King in his own courts against James's order to read the Declaration.

Concurrently, "the Seven", 5 peers and 2 commoners, treacherously invited the King's Protestant son-in-law and nephew, William, Prince of Orange, to come over the channel and invade England by force of arms. Their stated aim was to abolish freedom of religion and conscience and once again re-impose - by force - Anglicanism, upon the Three Kingdoms of England (and Wales), Scotland and Ireland, whether the people wanted it or no. On 5 November, William, Prince of Orange landed at Brixham, Devon, with 15,000 men. King James went out with the Army to meet the Dutch invasion on Salisbury Plain and would undoubtedly have stood a good chance of doing so successfully but for the treacherous desertion to the enemy of his Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General John Churchill, together with 400 officers and men under his malign influence.

After the meeting of the council of war on the morning of 24 November 1685, Churchill, accompanied by some 400 officers and men, deserted the royal camp and rode towards the Dutch invader in Axminster, leaving behind him a derisive letter of apology and self-justification: "...I hope the great advantage I enjoy under Your Majesty, which I own I would never expect in any other change of government, may reasonably convince Your Majesty and the world that I am actuated by a higher principle..." Initially, planning to rendezvous on Salisbury Plain with the King and there to kidnap him and take him to William, Churchill was thwarted because James had a very fortuitous serious nose-bleed that morning so that he was unable to make the rendezvous. Churchill then deserted to the Dutch usurper, William of Orange. In fact, Churchill was only ever motivated by one principle, that of his own enrichment and ambition. this he achieved to the highest degree by being ennobled by the Orangeman as Duke of Marlborough and amassing one of the greatest fortunes in Europe.

John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough, traitor and deserter who profited financially by going over to the invading William of Orange After this, James's prospects of success vanished and he was obliged to flee to France but with the intention of re-gaining his throne at the first opportunity from the traitors and invaders. Meantime, a Convention of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, assembled at Westminster, and published a bogus declaration that James had "abdicated" the government. Shortly after, a cowed Convention of the Scottish Estates declared similarly. King James remained at the Château of St Germain-en-Laye, just outside Paris until his death, not only recognised by King Louis XIV of France as rightful King but regularly visited by the bishops of the non-juring Church of England who had refused to take an oath of loyalty to the new regime of William of Orange who now claimed to rule with his wife, King James's daughter, Mary. These bishops only recognised King James as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, despite his being a Catholic, and always sought his approval or appointment of the non-juring bishops and senior clergy.

It was on 16 September 1701 that King James II and VII died, in the odour of sanctity, attended and fortified by all the rites of our Holy Mother the Church. His body was received by the English Benedictines then resident in Rue St Jacques, Paris, ironically, later the headquarters of the French Revolutionaries who were, for that reason, called Jacobins. These same Jacobins and their odious followers were later responsible for the desecration of the tomb of King James. The religious cult of King James II and VII was begun and preserved by these same English Benedictines and continues to this day. After his death, the Whig conspirators secured a new settlement of the royal line through the Act of Settlement 1701 which, together with the Bill of Rights of 1689, completely destroyed the old Constitution and substituted, illegally and unconstitutionally, a new one. The Act was passed to settle the succession to the English and Irish crowns and thrones on the Electress Sophia of Hanover (a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland) and her non-Roman Catholic heirs.

It arose at the death of King James and the failure of heirs to William and Mary and to Queen Anne, the other daughter of King James, who had been allowed to succeed because she remained Protestant, unlike her mother and father. Fully 57 members of the family had a better right to the throne than the Electress Sophia of Hanover, but they were excluded by this illegal and unconstitutional Act for the sole reason that they were Roman Catholic. In 1707, the independent Kingdom of Scotland came to an end by means of a huge Whig bribe paid to influential members of the Scottish Estates (as the Scottish parliament has historically been called) who voted for the Act of Union. It was opposed by Scottish Jacobites like George Lockhart of Carnwath, founder of the Scottish Tory Party which was, in those day, almost entirely Jacobite which meant they were supporters of the rightful heirs of King James II and VII (from the Latin Jacobus for James).

George Lockhart of Carnwath, Scottish Jacobite and founder of the Scottish Tory Party, opposed the Scottish Act of Union with England that centralised power at Westminster The Whigs were, like the European Union political leaders of today, centralisers and centralists who believed in taking away power from the small states and regions and giving it to a highly centralised government. Thus the old Constitution, with the King at its apex, came to an end and a new Parliamentary sovereignty was created that was, in effect, superior to the King and determined the succession according to its own, new, revolutionary ideas, rather than by the traditional and constitutional royal primogeniture. The new entity so created was called "Great Britain" and idea alien to the old Constitution of the ancient Three Kingdoms. Having reduced Scotland to a subordinate state, they later succeeded in doing the same to Ireland with the Act of Union of 1800 and so created the "United Kingdom" of Great Britain and Ireland, ruled from Westminster under one only Parliament.

Electress Sophia died on 8 June 1714, before the death of Queen Anne on 1 August 1714, and so Sophia's son became King George I of Great Britain and Ireland, the first of the Hanoverian dynasty. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, becomes disqualified to inherit the throne. The act also gravely limits the power of the monarch. King James III and VIII, son of King James II and VII, and the true King of England, Scotland and Ireland, but excluded from the throne purely because he was a Roman Catholic The Act of Settlement thus also became part of the law of all the imperial territories of the British Empire and, later, of the nations of the British Commonwealth so that it cannot effectively be altered without the consent of those Commonwealth realms, as they are now called.

The century and a half after the so-called Bill of Rights of 1689 was one of the most oppressive in British history and saw the introduction of the savagely inhuman, brutal and grotesquely unjust Penal laws that removed the human rights of Roman Catholics and religious dissenters and persecuted the ordinary people of England, Scotland and Ireland in a manner that will always remain a permanent disgrace to the British nation and Commonwealth. Under this Code Catholic men could be hanged, drawn and quartered and Catholic women burned at the stake, ostensibly as traitors but, in reality, as victims of the denial of religious liberty and martyrs to their faith. This evil code was not finally disposed of until as late as 1828 with the Catholic Emancipation Act. The true legacy of King James II of England and Ireland and VII of Scotland was, and is, his commitment, at once, to both religious liberty and to the Catholic faith. His sons became the cynosure of the Jacobite movement which attempted to restore them to the throne in 1715 and 1745 in the two Jacobite uprisings to restore the Crown and ancient Constitutions of these Islands.

Catholics to be allowed into the royal club (sort of) – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs Catholics to be allowed into the royal club (sort of) By Matthew Fitzgerald, CNN London (CNN)— Britain is about to change a 300-year-old rule. British kings and queens - who serve as the official leaders of the Church of England - will soon be allowed to marry Roman Catholics. The historic change will end a centuries-long ban on such interdenominational nuptials. British Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans last year to change the law, along with another historic amendment - the end of primogeniture, which says that males come ahead of their sisters in the order of succession, no matter who’s older. It is a move that could affect the younger royals, including the newest member of the royal family, the baby that Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, are expecting next year. While the new amendment allows for kings or queens to marry Catholics, the monarchs themselves can't be Catholic, because by definition the king or queen is the head of the Church of England. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter This new legislation would mark a monumental shift in religious relations with the Catholic Church in England.

Exclusion and persecution of Roman Catholics began with King Henry VIII’s rejection of papal supremacy in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy. This act established the English monarch as the supreme head of the Church of England and severed relations with the Vatican. Under Henry’s son, Edward VI, the Church of England moved further toward Protestantism with the publication of the Common Book of Prayer and the abolition of the Catholic Mass. Edward was then succeeded by his Catholic half-sister Mary I (aka “Bloody Mary”), who shifted England back to a nation aligned with the Vatican. After Mary’s death, her half-sister Elizabeth I took control of the throne and returned England to Protestantism. The last Roman Catholic monarch of England was James II, who ruled from 1685 to 1688, when he was overthrown during the Glorious Revolution. The narrative of conspiracy and violence between Protestants and Catholics continued through the next hundred years, leaving practicing Roman Catholics marginalized at best and brutalized at worst. England began to roll back restrictions on Catholics during the 19th century. Most notably, the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 permitted members of the Catholic Church to sit in the parliament at Westminster.

Yet until now, no British monarch could marry a Catholic. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The new legislation announced by Cameron would amend the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act of 1688, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1706 Act of Union with Scotland. The various pieces of law explicitly disqualify anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, from inheriting the throne. So what comes next? Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said in a statement on Tuesday that all 16 realms of the Commonwealth have consented to the landmark bill and that the government will “seek to introduce the Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity allowed by the parliamentary timetable.” Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster and president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, lauded the move. "This will eliminate a point of unjust discrimination against Catholics and will be welcomed not only by Catholics but far more widely,” Nichols said in a statement.

But he acknowledged the role of the Church of England, saying, “At the same time I fully recognize the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.” Historian and writer Antonia Fraser said the government was doing the right thing. “The Catholic question has not really occurred in terms of the heir (before). It’s not to say that it wouldn’t occur, and I think that if they are altering things it’s a good idea because it is a slur on Catholics … and I think they are right to alter it.” James II | king of Great Britain | Britannica.com king of Great Britain Alternative Titles: Duke of Albany, James, Duke of York, James James II Charles II James II, also called (1644–85) duke of York and (1660–85) duke of Albany (born Oct. 14, 1633, London , Eng.—died Sept. 5/6 [Sept.

16/17, New Style], 1701, Saint-Germain, France ), king of England , Scotland , and Ireland from 1685 to 1688, and the last Stuart monarch in the direct male line. He was deposed in the Glorious Revolution (1688–89) and replaced by William III and Mary II . That revolution, engendered by James’s Roman Catholicism , permanently established Parliament as the ruling power of England. James II, detail of a painting by Sir Godfrey Kneller, c. 1685; in the National Portrait … Courtesy of The National Portrait Gallery, London James II was the second surviving son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria . He was formally created duke of York in January 1644. During the English Civil Wars he lived at Oxford—from October 1642 until the city surrendered in June 1646. He was then removed by order of Parliament to St. James’s Palace, from which he escaped to the Netherlands in April 1648. He rejoined his mother in France in early 1649.

Joining the French army in April 1652, he served in four campaigns under the great French general the vicomte de Turenne , who commended his courage and ability. When his brother Charles II concluded an alliance with Spain against France in 1656 he reluctantly changed sides, and he commanded the right wing of the Spanish army at the Battle of the Dunes in June 1658. United Kingdom: James II (1685–88) After the restoration of his brother Charles II to the English throne in 1660, James was created duke of Albany . He became lord high admiral and did much to maintain the efficiency and improve the organization of the navy. He also showed considerable interest in colonial ventures; it was on his initiative that New Amsterdam was seized from the Dutch in 1664 and renamed New York in his honour. He commanded the fleet in the opening campaigns of the Second and Third Dutch wars . This was to be his last taste of active military command until 1688. In politics he was a strong supporter of the earl of Clarendon , whose daughter Anne he married in September 1660.

Both before and after marriage he had the reputation of being as great a libertine as his brother. But in 1668 or 1669 he was admitted to the Roman Catholic Church , though on his brother’s insistence he continued to take the Anglican sacraments until 1672, and he attended Anglican services until 1676. Charles II also insisted that James’s daughters, Mary and Anne, be raised in the Protestant faith. Britannica Stories Leap Second James’s conversion had little effect on his political views, which were already formed by his reverence for his dead father and his close association with the High Church party. James, in fact, was always more favourable to the Anglican church than was his Protestant brother. He welcomed the prospect of England’s reentering the European war on the side of the Dutch; and he consented to the marriage of his elder daughter, Mary, to the Protestant William of Orange in 1677.

For most of his life James was the spokesman of the conservative Anglican courtiers, who believed that his views on monarchy and Parliament coincided with theirs, who found his formal and humourless nature more congenial than Charles’s slippery geniality, and who respected his frank acknowledgment of his religious beliefs. In view of the queen’s childlessness, however, the conversion of the heir presumptive to the throne roused great alarm in the general public. James resigned all of his offices in 1673 rather than take an anti-Catholic oath imposed by the so-called Test Act and thus made his position known publicly. Later that year, his first wife having died, he gave further offense by marrying a Roman Catholic princess, Mary of Modena . By 1678 James’s Roman Catholicism had created a climate of hysteria in which the fabricated tale of a Popish Plot to assassinate Charles and put his brother on the throne was generally believed. From 1679 to 1681 three successive Parliaments strove to exclude James from the succession by statute. During this crisis James spent long periods in exile at Brussels and Edinburgh . But owing largely to his own tenacious defense of his rights, the exclusionists were defeated.

In 1682 he returned to England and resumed the leadership of the Anglican Tories , whose power in local government was reestablished and increased by the “remodeling” of the borough corporations and the government of the counties in their favour. By 1684 James’s influence on state policy was paramount, and when he finally came to the throne on February 6, 1685, with very little overt opposition or even criticism , it seemed likely that the strong support of the Anglicans would make him one of the most powerful of the 17th-century British kings. Britannica Lists & Quizzes Editor Picks: Exploring 10 Types of Basketball Movies The new royalist Parliament that assembled in May 1685 voted James a large income, and there seemed to be no reason why he should not in time secure adequate toleration for his coreligionists. But unsuccessful rebellions led by the duke of Monmouth in England and the duke of Argyll in Scotland, in the summer of 1685, marked a turning point in his attitude. James’s distrust of his subjects, conceived in the turbulent 1670s, was at once sharpened.

The rebellions were put down with great ferocity, the army was considerably increased, and the new regiments were granted to Roman Catholic officers who had had military experience abroad and whose loyalty was undoubted. This last act of policy provoked a quarrel between king and Parliament, which was prorogued in November 1685, never to meet again. In 1686 the division between the king and his former allies, the Anglican Tories, deepened. After a number of them had been replaced, the judges of King’s Bench in the collusive action Godden v. Hales found in favour of the king’s power to excuse individuals from the Test Oath; Roman Catholics were admitted to the Privy Council and subsequently to the high offices of state. A commission for ecclesiastical causes was established to administer James’s powers as supreme governor of the Anglican church, and its first act was to suspend Henry Compton , bishop of London, one of the most outspoken critics of royal policy. Structures of Government: Fact or Fiction? In 1687 James intensified his Roman Catholic policy and dismissed his Anglican brothers-in-law the earl of Clarendon and the earl of Rochester.

Magdalen College, Oxford, was given over for the use of Roman Catholics, and a papal nuncio was officially accredited to St. James’s Palace. In April James issued the so-called Declaration of Indulgence , suspending the laws against Roman Catholics and Protestant dissenters alike; in July he dissolved Parliament, and in September he launched an intensive campaign to win over the Protestant dissenters and with their aid secure a new Parliament more amenable to his wishes. Connect with Britannica Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram Pinterest What those wishes were is still not clear: some of his utterances suggest a genuine belief in religious toleration as a matter of principle; others point to the establishment of Roman Catholicism as the dominant if not the exclusive religion of the state. This confusion may well reflect the state of James’s own mind, which undoubtedly deteriorated in the years 1687–88, and some of his assertions, accusations, and threats at this time verge on the insane.

The unexpected news that the queen was pregnant (November 1687), establishing the prospect of a Roman Catholic succession, had great effect on most Protestants; while a wholesale “remodeling” of borough corporations, lord lieutenancies, deputy lieutenancies, and magistracies that winter inflamed the majority of the nobility and gentry, whose political and social power suffered by it. Ever since the spring of 1687 many English leaders had been in touch with William of Orange , the husband of the heiress presumptive Mary and the champion of Protestant Europe against Louis XIV of France. The spark was touched off by James himself, when he reissued his Declaration of Indulgence on April 27, 1688, and on May 4 ordered it to be read in the churches. The archbishop of Canterbury and six of his bishops petitioned James to withdraw the order. Their petition was subsequently published, and James made the mistake of prosecuting its authors for seditious libel. Meanwhile, on June 10, in slightly mysterious circumstances, the queen gave birth to a son.

On June 30 the seven bishops were acquitted—a tremendous defeat for the government—and that same day seven leading Englishmen sent a letter inviting William of Orange to lead an army to England and call a free Parliament to arbitrate on the legitimacy of the prince of Wales. By September William’s intentions were obvious, but James declined Louis XIV’s offer of assistance for fear of the reaction in England; in any case he was confident in the ability of his forces to repel invasion. William sailed under cover of the general war that had by then broken out in Europe, evaded the English fleet, and landed at Brixham on Tor Bay on November 5 (November 15, New Style), 1688. In the subsequent “campaign,” James’s Protestant officers deserted to the enemy in such large numbers that he dared not commit the army to a pitched battle. This, together with the defection of his daughter Anne, finally shattered his nerve. He attempted to flee to France but was intercepted in Kent; 12 days later, on December 23, he was allowed to escape.

On February 12, 1689, the Convention Parliament declared that James had abdicated and the next day offered the crown to William and Mary. The Scots Parliament followed suit in May. Trending Topics Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 In March 1689 James landed in Ireland, and a Parliament summoned to Dublin acknowledged him as king. But his Irish-French army was defeated by William at the Boyne (July 1 [July 11, New Style], 1690), and he returned to France. William’s generals reconquered Ireland the following year. In Ireland James had shown none of his former military ability, and he now aged rapidly, falling increasingly under the influence of his pietistic wife. He became daily more absorbed in his devotions, and his more aggressive supporters soon came to regard him as something of a liability. The Treaty of Rijswijk between England and France (1697) removed his last hopes of restoration. Queen Anne Stuart of England Queen Anne of England Anne Stuart was an unlikely person to become queen of England.

She was born on February 6, 1665 to the Duke and Duchess of York and was their second daughter out of three children. Shortly before her birth, her uncle, King Charles II, had married and seemed destined to have a large family after fathering several illegitimate children. But he had no more children. As Anne grew older she would be plagued by numerous health problems, but she survived to adulthood. She only received a limited education, yet Anne would reign during a critically important period in her nation's history. During her reign she would oversee two major events in English history, one domestic and one foreign. The first being the Act of Union that united England and Scotland. The second was a major international war, the War of Spanish Succession. Best remembered as the last of the Stuart dynasty Anne had no heirs. The events of her reign would pave the way for Britain to become an international world power. Although born into royalty, her education was similar to that of other aristocratic girls: languages and music. Her knowledge of history was limited and she received no instruction in civil law or military matters that most male monarchs were expected to have.

She was also a sickly child, and may have suffered from the blood disease porphyria, as well as having poor vision and a serious case of smallpox at the age of twelve. Poor health would plague Anne her entire life, probably contributing to her many miscarriages. Anne grew up in an atmosphere of controversy. Her father James, the Duke of York, and both her mother and later her stepmother were Roman Catholic. They would have preferred to raise Anne and Mary (their only children to survive early childhood) as Roman Catholics. Nevertheless, prominent Protestants, such as Henry Compton, later bishop of London, interceded and ensured the girls would not only be required to attend Protestant services but that they also receive Protestant religious instruction. Anne's life dramatically changed when the Lord Treasurer and Earl of Danby, in an attempt to strengthen his influence with King Charles II, arranged the marriage of Anne's sister, Mary, to William of Orange. Their father, the Duke of York, had wanted to wed Mary to the heir to the French throne, a Roman Catholic. Danby persuaded by the King to allow the marriage to William, a Dutch Protestant and an enemy of France, thus straining the close relationship between Anne and Mary.

Anne married Prince George of Denmark. This was an arrangement Anne's father negotiated in secret with sponsorship by King Louis XIV of France, who hoped for a Anglo-Danish alliance against William of Orange and the Dutch. No such alliance would ever materialize. Her husband did not affect Anne's position as he remained politically weak and inactive, suffering from a drinking problem. Prince George's influence in matters of state would remain small throughout their marriage. The relationship he had with Anne was a close one and she loved him deeply, however, their marriage was saddened by Anne's twelve miscarriages and the fact that none of their other five children reached adulthood. When King Charles II died in 1686, Anne's father became King James II. His Roman Catholicism and his desire to rule without Parliament's input caused Parliament to call on William of Orange and Mary to take the throne, in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This revolution created a constitutional, limited monarchy in England, where elected representatives, not a dynastic monarch, truly ruled. Interestingly, later Queen Anne became the last British monarch to veto an act of Parliament. Anne supported the revolution and opposed her father. Mary allowed her husband to rule, and neither got along with Anne during their reign.

But since they never had children, after Mary died, followed by William, in 1702, the throne then passed to Anne. The Settlement Act of 1701 paved the way for Anne's reign. It stated that if Anne died without children the throne would pass to the German Hanoverians. The only challenge was her half brother James, a Roman Catholic living in exile in France. Thus Anne ascended as the last Stuart monarch, and was the first married queen to rule England. Anne's reign would be characterized by the attempts of others to manipulate her. Most significantly among these individuals was Sarah Churchill. A friend of Anne's since childhood, Anne leaned heavily on her for companionship. After Anne's marriage she named Sarah to the prestigious position of Lady of the Bedchamber. After Anne became queen, she named Sarah to other prominent posts including Keeper of the Privy Purse, Mistress of the Robes and Groom of the Stole. Their relationship for many years was a close one with Anne showering Sarah with large allowances and gifts, such as the huge and extravagant Blenheim estate. The estate was given to the Churchill's as a reward for John Churchill's important military victory in the War of Spanish Succession.

Anne often seemed dependent on Sarah, at least for emotional support. Anne would constantly write to Sarah when Sarah was away from the court attending to her family. Anne's letters made it seem like she could not get along without Sarah. They would use playful pseudonyms when writing to each other: Anne being Mrs. Morley and Sarah Mrs. Freeman. Their relationship would eventually deteriorate due to Sarah's nagging and their many petty arguments. Sarah would fall out of favor and would be replaced as Anne's favorite by a distant cousin, Abigail Masham. The end of Anne's friendship with Sarah signaled a change in political influences as well. Although Anne had always been a strong Tory throughout her reign she had vigorously supported the War of Spanish Succession, a Whig war. Sarah Churchill was a Whig and her husband John, though a Tory, was the leading English general in the conflict. Because of the Churchill's influence, Anne had always been inclined to support the war which was the most important event in foreign affairs during Anne's reign. However, when Abigail Masham a Tory replaced Sarah as Anne's close friend it signaled a shift in politics.

Some historians believe Anne manipulated her ministers to enact the policies she wanted while others see her as a monarch manipulated by her ministers. Whatever the case, when the Tories came into power they negotiated an end to the war. The Settlement Act of 1701 had angered Scotland where the Stuart dynasty had originated. The Scots threatened to bring back James, Anne's Roman Catholic half-brother and pretender to the throne, to rule. To head off a revolt and unite support for the crown, Anne pushed for the Act of Union which would unite England and Scotland. The Act of Union was finally accepted in 1707. In the last couple years of her life Anne became very ill. She was often bedridden and attended to by doctors. These doctors used many techniques to try to cure Anne including bleeding her and applying hot irons. These crude medicinal techniques probably did more harm than good, and Anne died on July 31st 1714. Annotated Bibliography Ashley, Maurice. The Stuarts in Love. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1964. This book is intended to deal with the personal lives and loves of the members of the Stuart dynasty.

It begins in the first section by discussing love and marriages of each class of English society in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It then goes on to discuss each of the Stuart monarchs, dedicating two chapters to each one. The two chapters dedicated to Queen Anne are entitled "The extravagant passions of Queen Anne." These chapters briefly discuss Anne's early life and love life. The main focus concern Anne's friendships, particularly with Sarah Churchill, and how these relationships intertwined with politics. These chapters go farther than Anne's personal life and talk extensively about her reign and the major events of that period. These chapters are brief biographies that go beyond Anne's personal life. Finally, this author concludes that Anne was not someone bullied by those vying for her affection, but rather a monarch who had a firm policy and pursued it in the manner she saw fit. This book provides a good list of footnotes at the end of each chapter. Overall though, the information contained in it can be found in other sources. Bucholz, Robert O. " 'Nothing but Ceremony': Queen Anne." Journal of British Studies. 30 (1991): 288-323.

This is an interesting article in which the author sets out to write about an aspect of Queen Anne's reign he says has been neglected; her use of royal ritual to unite Britain. Bucholz states Anne uses royal ritual and ceremony in a couple of different ways. She uses ritual to make political statements and to demonstrate the monarchy was above the squabbling of partisan politics. He discusses Anne's use of parallels between herself and Queen Elizabeth and the use of the analogy of Anne being the mother to the people of England. He also discusses Anne's use of ceremony during special occasions to rally support for the monarchy. Bucholz concludes Anne's use of royal ritual was ultimately a failure because of her inability to unite the various political factions. These politicians were important subjects who were not dependent on the monarchy for their status in society. Though Anne reached back in history to reestablish Bucholz says she inadvertently brought about a future in which the main role of the monarchy was ceremonial, to represent the state. The monarchy was then limited and not able to rally people as effectively. This is an interesting article on a unique topic which is extensively footnoted and has a good bibliography. Clark, Sir George.

The Later Stuarts 1660-1714 . 2nd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. This book was written as part of a fourteen volume series of the history of England. This book covers English history from the time of the restoration until the death of Queen Anne. The book begins by discussing Anne's reign with the War of Spanish Succession followed by Whigs and Tories. Clark sees Anne as a weak and bullied monarch, sometimes not more than a figurehead. He sees are as appointing and dismissing ministers in accordance with her emotions rather than sound judgment. The only area that she ruled significantly in , he says, is in her religious appointments where her influence was great. He dedicates more time to events of social and political trends during her reign than to Anne herself. He does mention Queen Anne's Bounty, the money that she annually gave to the poor. Near the end of the book, he takes a topical approach and addresses economics, the criminal code, overseas colonies, arts and literature and other aspects of Anne's reign not found in other sources. This book has an annotated bibliography organized by topic, charts of the Stuart family, many maps and an appendix listing the important government ministers.

This book is an excellent source for events and topics of Queen Anne's reign not covered elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is little personal biographical information about Anne herself. Curtis, Gila. The Life and Times of Queen Anne. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicolson Limited, 1972. An easy read, this book is written for a non-scholarly general audience. It is packed with a large number of illustrations of people, places, and events prominent during Queen Anne's life. It has no footnotes and only a brief bibliography, although it does contain many excerpts from primary source material.The book is divided into eight sections, each covering a different time period of Anne's life. Although not as detailed as some of the more scholarly works, this is a complete biography covering all aspects and major events of Anne's life and reign.It is particularly good in showing Anne's relationship and eventual falling out with Sarah Churchill. Also, it competently explains the political struggle of Whigs and Tories during Queen Anne's reign. Gregg, Edward. Queen Anne. London: Routledge & Kegan, Paul, 1980. R.O.

Bucholz, Assistant Professor of History at Loyola University, in his article says that this book is the definitive biography of Queen Anne. This is a well written and thorough biography with frequent quotations from primary source material which is extensively footnoted and documented. The author cites many items previously unavailable from the archives in Britain and overseas as well as his use of works of other contemporary scholars as the unique characteristics of his work. His book tries to refute the claims of Sarah Churchill and others who have followed her interpretation of Queen Anne. These interpretations often painted Anne as weak, indecisive, dominated by others and as a monarch who let policy be affected by petty personal squabbles.Gregg sees Queen Anne as more important and attempts to give a balanced portrayal of her public and private life. Gregg believes that Queen Anne was a strong, careful and calculating monarch, was driven by ambition and resolve, and who asserted her authority without trampling on parliamentary authority. He also portrays Anne pursuing a course of political moderation. She is not someone dominated by changes in the strengths of different political parties. Rather, a monarch not controlled by either party who had ministers from both parties and changed them in order to pursue policies of which she approved.

This extensive work and its bold interpretation of Queen Anne make this book an extremely useful source. Green, David. Queen Anne. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970. In this work, the author presents a work more complex than most. He sees her not as a great monarch and not one who was weak and ineffective. He sees her as a courageous queen who did her best despite many personal and political obstacles that would have been difficult for any monarch. Even though obstacles proved too difficult for her, she always did her best to carry out her duties. He also makes the point that Anne was a transitional monarch. She was not a powerful Divine Right monarch but one who was moving toward a constitutional monarchy in which Parliament had the power, although that form of government hadn't fully emerged. This is a good source with frequent quoting from primary sources and contains an extensive bibliography. The author's appendix on the health of Queen Anne is a unique feature of this book. Harris, Frances. "Accounts of the Conduct of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, 1704-1742" British Library Journal (1982): 7-35.

This article focuses on the writings of Queen Anne's close friend and confidant Sarah Churchill. It provides some insight on Sarah's and Anne's turbulent relationship. Mainly, it addresses what Sarah wrote and when she wrote it. It provides some context by discussing Sarah's motivations when she wrote something as well as events surrounding that time. It also discusses who assisted Sarah with her writings and precisely what role they had in writing and compiling her papers. Finally, it discusses the organization of Sarah Churchill's papers. This is an excellent resource for those interested in serious research of the papers of Sarah Churchill. Although Sarah's papers undoubtedly contain a wealth of information on Queen Anne this article has only limited information on the topic. Kishlansky, Mark. A Monarchy Transformed. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 1996. This is the sixth volume in a nine volume Penguin History of Britain and covers the entire reign of the Stuart dynasty. As the title suggests, the author sees the Stuart dynasty as a time when the monarch and England itself were greatly changed. The monarchy evolved into a constitutional monarchy from a more absolute one. The nation itself also became more unified and grew to include a large overseas empire. Many of these changes occurred during Queen Anne's reign.

Mentioned sporadically elsewhere, the last chapter focuses on Anne and her reign. It focuses a lot on the politics of her reign. Also included in the chapter is information relating to the War of Spanish Succession. This chapter is of some, but not great usefulness in studying Queen Anne. The book does include a section entitled 'For Further Reading,' which is organized by monarch and is helpful on finding other sources of information about Queen Anne. Trevelyan, George Macauly. England Under the Stuarts. History of England, vol. V. London: Methuen Co., LTD., reprinted 1961. This is a book by the author who wrote the ground-breaking and most important work on Queen Anne: the three volume work England Under Queen Anne. Trevelyan writes about the Stuart dynasty as his contribution to an eight volume history of England. The final chapter of the book is dedicated to the reign of Queen Anne. This chapter gives extensive treatment to the events of Anne's reign. The Queen herself is not the major focus although she is often mentioned and her friendship with Sarah Churchill and Abigal Masham are discussed. The politics of the Whigs and Tories and the War of Spanish Succession are extensively discussed.

Trevelyan also pays more attention than most authors to the class structure as it related to political party makeup. His use of marginal headings are useful guides to topics of particular paragraphs. Also, he makes extensive use of maps; a Trevelyan trademark. Footnotes are located at the bottom of each page and are well done, as is the extensive bibliography. This is an excellent user-friendly source for the events of Anne's reign. WEBSITES "Monarchs of England ANNE (1702-14AD)". < > (November 9, 2004). This article provides only superficial background information on Queen Anne's life. It focuses mainly on her reign. It gives particular attention to those vying for influence over Anne especially Sarah Churchill and Abigal Hill. This is a useful source for background information on this aspect of Queen Anne's life. Royal Household. "Anne." The official website of the British monarchy. n.d. < > (November 9, 2004). This article comes from . This article provides only brief background information about Anne's life and gives almost no attention to her friendship with the Churchills. Its main focus is on the role government and politics played in Queen Anne's reign.

It is a good resource for basic information about politics during the reign of Queen Anne. "Sir William Wallace of Elerslie - Queen Anne and the 1707 Act of Union". < >. This article focuses on the Act of Union of 1707 and Queen Anne's role in advocating for it. It makes the ironic point that Queen Anne was the last Stuart monarch, which was originally a Scottish dynasty, and the last monarch to rule and independent Scotland. Yet Anne pushed for an act that effectively ended Scottish independence. The article tries to make the connection with Sir William Wallace who fought in the 1200's for Scottish independence. Ironically this article claims it was a "Scottish" monarch who ended Scotland's independence. This article is somewhat biased and minimizes Anne's accomplishments. Surprisingly, this article provides good background information on her early life. This was the most unique website article found about Queen Anne. Copied from this website?< > (5 January 2004). < >.

Ban on British monarch marrying a Catholic to be lifted – CatholicHerald.co.uk posted Monday, 31 Oct 2011 The Imperial State Crown, worn by the Queen during the state opening of Parliament (Photo: Mike Moore) The 300-year-old Act of Settlement is to be reformed following the unanimous agreement of 16 Commonwealth nations The law that bans a British monarch from marrying a Catholic is to be lifted after more than 300 years. The reforms were announced following the unanimous agreement of the 16 nations that have the Queen as their constitutional head of state. But they will not include the repeal of a Catholic becoming monarch because allegiance to the pope might conflict with the sovereign’s role as the supreme governor of the Church of England. The changes will also see the end of the ancient tradition of male primogeniture, the rule under which boys take precedence in the line to the throne over elder sisters. The reforms will be included in the next programme of parliamentary business to be unveiled in November, while New Zealand will lead a working group to coordinate their implementation in other Commonwealth countries.

The announcement, made on Friday at a summit of Commonwealth heads of government in Perth, was welcomed by Cardinal Keith O’Brien and Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. Archbishop Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said: “This will eliminate a point of unjust discrimination against Catholics and will be welcomed not only by Catholics but far more widely. “At the same time I fully recognise the importance of the position of the Established church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today,” he said. Cardinal O’Brien, president of the Scottish bishops’ conference, said he was pleased to note the process had started to repeal aspects of the laws. “I look forward to studying the detail of the proposed reforms and their implications in due course,” the cardinal said. In recent years there have been 11 attempts to reform the laws on royal succession, but none has made any meaningful progress, partly because of the difficulty in reforming laws across 16 jurisdictions.

But David Cameron was able to announce the changes after he won the support of the leaders of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and the Bahamas – who would also have to amend their laws. Announcing the reforms, Mr Cameron said: “Let me be clear, the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England because he or she is the head of that church. “But it is simply wrong they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so,” he said. “After all, they are already quite free to marry someone of any other faith.” He said the idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he was a man was “at odds with the modern countries that we have become”. The reforms may entail amendments to nine acts, including the 1689 Bill of Rights, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1772 Royal Marriages Act.

The laws brought to a close centuries of religious turmoil that began in the 1530s when King Henry VIII took the English Catholic Church into schism so he could nullify his marriage to Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, his mistress. They were brought into force following the deposing of openly Catholic King James II, Britain’s last Catholic monarch, in the bloodless coup of 1688, which came to be known as “the Glorious Revolution”. After James’s Protestant sister Anne, his successor, failed to produce an heir, the throne was given to Electress Sophia of Hanover, Germany, from whom the reigning House of Windsor is descended. The abolition of the rule of male primogeniture will apply only to the descendants of Prince Charles, but it will mean that if the first-born child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – William and Kate – is a girl, then she will ascend the throne ahead of any younger brothers. Subscribe at your app store: Related stories BBC - Religions - Christianity: Christianity in Britain Christianity in Britain Last updated 2011-04-27 This article charts the course of Christianity in Britain from its first tentative steps to the final settlement of a Protestant faith.

On this page Print this page Constantine and Augustine The rise of Christianity from a persecuted sect to a global religion is a remarkable story of guts, faith, chance, politics and Providence. This article charts the course of Christianity in Britain from its first tentative steps to the final settlement of a Protestant faith. In the 1st Century AD, Britain had its own set of religious icons: Pagan gods of the earth and Roman gods of the sky. Into this superstitious and violent world came a modern, fashionable cult from the east: Christianity. We tend to associate the arrival of Christianity in Britain with the mission of Augustine in 597 AD. But in fact Christianity arrived long before then, and in the 1st Century AD, there wasn't an organised attempt to convert the British. Emperor Constantine © It began when Roman artisans and traders arriving in Britain spread the story of Jesus along with stories of their Pagan deities. Christianity was just one cult amongst many, but unlike the cults of Rome, Christianity demanded exclusive allegiance from its followers. It was this intolerance of other gods, and its secrecy, which rattled the Roman authorities and led to repeated persecutions of Christians. Christians were forced to meet and worship in secret.

But a single religion with a single God appealed to the Roman Emperor Constantine. He saw that Christianity could be harnessed to unite his Empire and achieve military success. From 313 AD onwards, Christian worship was tolerated within the Roman Empire. During the 4th Century, British Christianity became more visible but it had not yet won over the hearts and minds of the population. Pagan beliefs still abounded and Christianity was a minority faith. It looked as if Paganism might again get the better of Christianity when, after the departure of the Romans, new invaders arrived: Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Yet somehow Christianity survived on the Western edges of Britain, even during the Dark Ages. Missionary activity continued in Wales and Ireland, and in Western Scotland Saint Columba helped to bring a distinctly Irish brand of Christianity to mainland Britain. It could be argued that it was Augustine's famous mission in 597 AD from the Pope in Rome to King Aethelbert of Kent that really set up the future course of Christianity in Britain, creating a strong alliance between Christianity and Kingship. Certainly the Venerable Bede wanted to see it this way. For Bede, a Christian England was part of God's master plan.

It was Providence that meant it was the destiny of the Anglo-Saxons to become Christians, united in a single Christian nation. But how would this come about? In the account of the Synod of Whitby in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Bede describes the showdown between the Irish Christianity epitomised by Saint Columba and the international Roman brand of Christianity which had been brought by Augustine. Bede ends his Ecclesiastical History bemoaning the laziness of the Anglo-Saxons who he saw as half-hearted Christians still holding onto Pagan practices. An organised and disciplined parish life which would regulate the beliefs and behaviour of the British people was still to mature. Alfred and the Normans Lindisfarne - site of the first Viking raid © Christianity rose from a minor cult to demonstrate the potential to be a major national religion, but had yet to win the hearts and minds of the population. The faith had already proved that it was able to survive invasion and attack. But just as Christianity's rise looked to be unstoppable, the Viking invasion of Lindisfarne in 871 AD marked the start of a series of attacks which threatened to destroy the Christian church.

Monasteries and churches were plundered, and priests fled for their lives. It looked as if Paganism would again crush Christianity. It was Alfred, the Christian King of Wessex, who turned things round. Alfred saw the Viking attacks as punishment from God. Once Alfred had secured a victory over the Viking warrior Guthrum at the Battle of Eddington, he set about creating a new system of Christian learning that would reach the illiterate country people. It was Alfred's hope that this would enable Christianity to begin to capture the imagination of the ordinary people. In the 10th Century, lords began to provide small chapels on their land where local people could use the services of a priest. This sowed the seeds of the parish system, still in existence today. It was the Norman Conquest that really cemented the power of the church in England. William the Conqueror implemented a colossal building project at both monastic and parish level. In Winchester, for example, the old Saxon Minster made way for a new Norman building. These new stone churches continued to play a central role in community life: they acted as schools, market places and entertainment venues.

The medieval period in Britain is really a story of how Christianity came to dominate the lives of the ordinary people, both at home and on the long and perilous journeys of pilgrimage. But it would be wrong to think of medieval Christians as devout church-goers who flocked to church every Sunday. Professor Ronald Hutton of Bristol University suggests that on average people would go to church just a few times a year, when there was a real spectacle to take part in. But even those who weren't regular churchgoers could not escape regulation by the Church. As Dr Sarah Foot of Sheffield University explains, you could argue that Christianity had an impact on "every single aspect of every member of the population's lives". Indeed "the Church regulated lives by controlling what people did during the day and what they did in bed". From the cradle to the grave, and every stage in between, the Church could be your ally or your foe, and ultimately your passport to heaven or hell. Top English Civil War In 1625, when Charles I came to the throne, church and kingdom were in good working order; loyalty to King meant loyalty to the Reformation. There was a Catholic minority but it was cowed and reduced to worshipping in secret.

The only danger to the Protestant order was from the other end of the spectrum: the Puritans, Protestant extremists who wanted the Reformation to go much further. People seemed happy to overlook the king's marriage to a Catholic, but within a short time Charles got into trouble with the Protestants. He appointed a bishop known to be sympathetic to a more Catholic interpretation of doctrine. The despised Bishop Laud began tampering not only with church décor but with the very heart of established Protestant ideology. Not content with this grave miscalculation, Charles then appeared to start looking for real trouble. The Reformation in Scotland had been different. Scots Protestantism was more extreme and far reaching than Protestantism south of the border. When, in 1637, Charles insisted that the New Anglican Prayer Book should be extended to Scotland he sent a signal to the Scots that their Reformation was to be brought into line with the English. Charles had deeply underestimated the passion with which religious doctrine was held and had at a stroke made himself an enemy of his Scottish people. To prove his point the king opted for a show of force, but parliament was only prepared to help him raise an army under certain conditions. Charles' response was staggeringly tactless.

He turned to Catholic Ireland in search of men for his army. The very idea of Catholic Irish against Protestant Scots was dynamite. The image of the antichrist, Catholics in arms, had suddenly appeared - and they claimed to be acting on the king's orders. Suddenly to fear the Popish antichrist seemed not paranoid but reasonable. Protestantism was based in prophecy. They believed the battle between good and evil was always close at hand, and now Puritans saw the moment as fulfilling the most dramatic prophecy: the Day of Judgement was upon them. The religious battle lines had never been so clearly defined and parliament took up the Puritan cause. The vast majority of moderate Britons had no alternative but to take sides; back their Catholic-leaning King, or Puritan-leaning Parliament. Within months the English Civil War, England's War of Religion, had begun. Oliver Cromwell wanted to wipe out Catholicism © It took 7 years for the king to be defeated and executed, opening the way for the first and only 'religious' government. The general who had emerged triumphant, Oliver Cromwell, was determined to install nothing less than an Assembly of Saints on earth.

They were to be chosen according to the intensity with which they experienced God. Their task was to institute a programme of moral regeneration and education. Oliver's army of saints were fighting God's battle on earth. Any traces of Popish idolatry were removed once and for all. Now only the utmost simplicity would be tolerated. A New Order was indeed being established: God's order. It was not long before this New Order resembled exactly what it had fought to replace: the monarchy. The Assembly of Saints had decided that religious radicalism needed social conservatism; it was not society that needed to be reformed but the sinners within it. But by the time Cromwell died, the sinners had not reformed. When new elections were called people finally rejected the New Order Cromwell had established and Charles II was recalled. Cromwell had failed. With the accession of Charles II the Puritan way of life ended. Festivities resumed, theatres reopened, Maypoles went back up and Christmas reappeared on the calendar. The Church of England was re-established, Bishops and all. Then came the Plague, the Fire and the Dutch War and euphoria turned to depression.

Then depression turned to anxiety as it became clear that the heir to the throne James II was a fully-fledged Catholic. The old paranoia was returning. Had the papal peril never really gone away? It appeared not, for James believed that once Catholics were allowed to worship publicly and evangelise openly hundreds of thousands would surely return to the faith. When his queen gave birth to a son the horror of a dynasty of Catholics stretched out before the nation's fevered imagination. James had to go. Anglicans and Dissenters combined and the next plausible and Protestant heir to the throne, William of Orange, was in effect encouraged to invade England. James took flight and William assumed the throne. The 1689 Act of Toleration finally granted freedom of religious worship to all Dissenters - though not to Catholics. The state had surrendered the idea of imposing one faith on its people, recognising there was not one faith within the nation but many. In accepting this, the door from many faiths to no faith had been opened. The next century would rock the very foundations of religion.

Question: Who was the last ruling Roman Catholic monarch of Britain?
Answer: James the Second