John Miller (5) (1946–)

James II was, in many ways, the prototypical Stuart king. And that is a truly terrible thing.

The Stuarts were, collectively, firm believers in the Divine Right of Kings -- which cost James VI and I a great deal of trouble, and eventually cost James II's father Charles I his head. They were oddly drawn to Catholicism, which had caused trouble all the way back to the time of Mary Queen of Scots. They were stubborn. And although some of them, like James I, were quite learned, they generally weren't all that bright.

James II had all those traits in spades. He was the Catholic king of a Protestant realm -- eventually, after he was deposed, so much a religious fanatic that he even engaged in acts such as self-flagellation. He was so convinced of both his own competence (of which he had very little) and of his own right to power that (according to Miller) he conducted the most personal administration since the time of Richard II three centuries earlier, with no delegation and no separation of powers -- and Richard II, be it recalled, had also gotten himself overthrown. He never listened to anyone who tried to argue with him, and he was so convinced of his own ideas that he surrounded himself with yes men -- most of whom were incompetent even when they weren't licking his boots. And he felt, absurdly, that the reason his father had been overthrown was not because Charles I was a bigot who wouldn't listen but because Charles I hadn't been tough enough in repressing his people.

I would have loved to ask James II what he thought the purpose of kingship was, if it wasn't to be a good lord to the people of his kingdom. But, of course, such a question could not be asked, at least if one wished to survive meeting with James.

This book is perhaps a little thin for a reign of such immense importance. We see something of James's relationship with his daughter and son-in-law Mary and William of Orange, but very little about his daughter Ann. We see the contest between James and William, but nothing much of the legal outcome of the Glorious Revolution or how it was a response to James's failings. About all we know of James's son James (III) the Old Pretender is that he existed -- there is nothing about how James II prepared his son to try to regain the throne (or didn't prepare him, really). We hear something about James's military career before the Restoration, but not enough to really understand whether he was any good or not. (He certainly wasn't any good in 1688, but he was older, more stubborn, and stupider by then -- as well as being too much of a moral coward to really risk everything.) And I felt as if I never understood the relationship between James and his brother Charles II -- which was absolutely crucial, since Charles, by the time he died in 1685, had had to have been resigned to James being his heir, yet he did nothing to prevent the disaster which followed (which he could have done in either of two ways: Either by allowing an exclusion act to be passed, which would have barred James from the throne and passed it to William and Mary or someone else, or by setting up a government structure solid enough that not even James could ruin it).

These are genuine lacks in this book, and yet there is something to be said for the lacks. We cannot know with certainty what went on in James's head, only what he did. And this book is good on the "what he did" part. The gaps are all in James's psychology. Which is perhaps just as well. Author Miller admits that he ended up not liking James. Perhaps the psychology is best left to someone else, so that it could be less rigidly objective (as Miller has to be to deal with a man he doesn't think much of) and much more speculative. And so that those of us who don't want to try to delve into the mind of such an irritating person don't have to do it. It's interesting to dig into a great person with tragic flaws. But James II was all flaws with no greatness in between.… (altro)

The Glorious Revolution is one of the most significant period in English history. Mr. Miller’s account is concise but detailed in scope. Working with a few years perhaps makes it easier but the reality is that he demonstrates the complexity of multiple layers at work in order to show how profound the event was. The one drawback is that he has to be focused on his subject at hand. Of course, his work is a part of a seminar series on history so if one wants to explore the past and afterwards, the series will cover those.… (altro)