Talk:James II of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is undergoing a featured article review to ensure that it meets the standards of a featured article. Please add a comment to assist the process and/or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

James II of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

James II of England appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 22, 2006.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force

	James II of England is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh) needs inline citations --plange 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

This article was referenced by the press:

• Extreme Blogging., Matt Rand for Forbes. Part of the Best of the web. Glowing report, and has this to say about Wikipedia:

  We asked Frederick Allen, Managing Editor of American Heritage [published by Forbes], to compare entries from Britannica Online and the Wikipedia. He was skeptical about the Wikipedia, but after throwing several queries at the two encyclopedias (Haydn, Millard Fillmore, warblers), he admitted, "it looks as if Wikipedia's gotten a lot better, more thorough and more accurate." Even the Wikipedia's James II of Britain article beat Britannica in size, reach and outside references. But Allen cautioned that there's "still the underlying problem that you can be sure of the accuracy of what it presents, because of the fact that it's open to contributions from the public."

---

Contents 1 Abdication 2 Style 3 Lord Lieutenant of Ireland? 4 Accuracy dispute? 5 James and the Catholic Succession. 6 In Case no one has noticed...

[edit] Abdication

Abdication mentions that he tossed the Great Seal into the Thames. Any truth to this? I think it should be mentioned. Kent Wang 07:56, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's true. Historians aren't exactly sure why, but suspect that he was trying to prevent the calling of a Parliament in his absence. Kylesammin 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Style

I've always seen his full style as "James VII of Scotland and II of England" - should we have at this way round at the start of the article? Timrollpickering 13:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense & would come closer to the conventions of the British Government in using the Highest number (eg Elizabeth II of UK rather than Elizabeth I of UK, despite the fact the previous Elizabeth was only queen of England) but there is a lot of controversy over changing titles, just see the talk page for James VI & I, as wikipedia policy is to use the title of the 'most important' kingdom as the page name & the main title. AllanHainey 08:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?

When the King is in Ireland he would not be the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would he? He would simply be the King of Ireland in Ireland. Since he's in Ireland, there's no need for anybody else to be his Lieutenant, but it doesn't make sense to say that James was the Lord Lieutenant, does it? john k 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy dispute?

Why is this article on the list of accuracy disputes (last box)? NawlinWiki 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James and the Catholic Succession.

A number of small edits to correct errors of fact and interpretation.

1. It is quite wrong to say that James made no attempt himself to recover his throne. His campaign in Ireland in 1689-90 was to be the first stage towards this end. This is recognized further on in the article.

2. James conversion to Catholicism in the late 1660s was a badly kept secret; but secret it was. It only became openly known when he resigned as Lord High Admiral, unable to take the oath prescribed by the 1673 Test Act. Shaftesbury was not involved in the introduction of the Test Act. He was in government at the time, a member of Charles' Cabal ministry.

3. James did not 'wisely' decide to leave for Brussells in 1680; he was ordered to go by the King, anxious to reduce the political temperature in England. James, as stiff and stubborn as ever, only went with reluctance.

4. James was never 'leader' of the Tory Party.

5. Conservative Anglicans were bound to support the legitimate king as an article of faith, whether he be Catholic or not. Many continued to do so even after the Glorious Revolution, including some of the bishops who had opposed his policy of indulgence.

6. I suspect there are very few-if any-academic historians who would describe James as 'cruel' because of the treatment of the Monmouth rebels. This is a very ninteenth century 'whiggish' view.

7. I think the reference to there being no 'reliable evidence' for the alleged substitution of Prince James-the warming pan theory-is best left out altogether. It was a story born in the political hysteria of the times, and had ceased to be taken seriously-even by the opponents of the Jacobites-not many years after it was invented. I think Queen Anne was the last prominent figure to take it seriously; although this is likely to have been the wishful thinking of a bad conscience.

Rcpaterson 08:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Case no one has noticed...

Someone has vandaized the top part of this (22 may)

  Hopefully this is referring to the "Early Life" section that is actually James I, not James II.

Also, this needs to be fixed in the "Early Life" section: In September 1660, the Duke of York (who was also created Duke of Albany in Scotland) have sex with Lady Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon.