|
|
Post by bdc101 on Dec 12, 2022 14:21:02 GMT -8
Hey mods could you move this thread to the NERD FORUM
|
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Dec 12, 2022 14:29:04 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by bdc101 on Dec 12, 2022 14:37:34 GMT -8
LOL... I was only being facetious!
|
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Dec 12, 2022 16:29:00 GMT -8
Like literally everything with the history of the monarchy, it is a tad bit more complicated than that. William the III, prince of Orange was a significantly more capable military leader, in an era where that was the most desired trait of the monarch. The nobles preferred William, because the nobles preferred war, the the land and the spoils of it. there was going to be 130 years of war with or without William. Europe was going to be up for grabs, if not the throne, then France was going to do it. Nobles wanted a strong leader to keep France in it's place. James suspended the acts of parliament to grant freedom of religion to non-angelicans (namely those filthy Catholics). something the dominant protestants' of the time were outraged over. Nobles turned to William, the rest is history. James, a bit to progressive for the times it seems. Villanious? Eh, I dunno. I think the monarch history is interesting, but lets be real, the majority of the lot of them all sucked. All of them were power hungry tyrants. At any rate, the people preferred Mary II. when she died in 1694, so too died William's popularity. It was Mary II that endowed the college in 1693, just prior to her untimely death from smallpox. William didn't have anything to do with it, really. I mean maybe? James was more pro-religious tolerance, which tends not to lead to war. William & Mary and their heirs basically squeezed the Netherlands dry of money, resources, and ships to benefit England throughout the World to the Netherlands' detriment. The Netherlands' economy was much larger than the United Kingdom's in 1689. In less than a hundred years, the two nations had basically traded spots. And after more than 85 years, when the Netherlands finally rebelled from their (basically) English overlords, during the Revolutionary War (American allies), they were beaten to a bloody pulp. (Spain made out like bandits. France gained some land at the expense of destroying their economy. And the Netherlands was devastated by the United Kingdom.) And a weak Netherlands fell into Revolution in 1787, the British and Prussian suppression of which helped the 1789 French Revolution begin to spill out of the borders of France, basically adding fuel to the fire that was the Revolution that embroiled most of the continent in almost continuous warfare for more than 25 years. As to William and Mary founding the University, Mary may have taken the lead on it, but can you imagine what would have happened, if William was not also part of the name of the University? I think my claim is that if the powers want it, they are probably going to get it. Much like today. The so called "Glorious Revolution of William (fun fact, nephew AND son-in law to James II as he married his cousin, James II daughter, Mary II) They wrote a now famous letter basically begging William to take his army and overthrow James, who was not popular at the time. James likely doesn't dispose of James if not for the explicit confirmation other leaders would not oppose it. James was not popular due to the religous tolerance thing, and the fact that with James on the throne the heir apparent was James Stuart, a baptized Catholic. The protestant lords did not approve. I submit, like most thing now-a-days, religion is the excuse, power is the reason. Powerful people wanted to be more powerful. War was coming whether or not William did it, or the next puppet they found. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Dec 12, 2022 17:46:13 GMT -8
I mean maybe? James was more pro-religious tolerance, which tends not to lead to war. William & Mary and their heirs basically squeezed the Netherlands dry of money, resources, and ships to benefit England throughout the World to the Netherlands' detriment. The Netherlands' economy was much larger than the United Kingdom's in 1689. In less than a hundred years, the two nations had basically traded spots. And after more than 85 years, when the Netherlands finally rebelled from their (basically) English overlords, during the Revolutionary War (American allies), they were beaten to a bloody pulp. (Spain made out like bandits. France gained some land at the expense of destroying their economy. And the Netherlands was devastated by the United Kingdom.) And a weak Netherlands fell into Revolution in 1787, the British and Prussian suppression of which helped the 1789 French Revolution begin to spill out of the borders of France, basically adding fuel to the fire that was the Revolution that embroiled most of the continent in almost continuous warfare for more than 25 years. As to William and Mary founding the University, Mary may have taken the lead on it, but can you imagine what would have happened, if William was not also part of the name of the University? I think my claim is that if the powers want it, they are probably going to get it. Much like today. The so called "Glorious Revolution of William (fun fact, nephew AND son-in law to James II as he married his cousin, James II daughter, Mary II) They wrote a now famous letter basically begging William to take his army and overthrow James, who was not popular at the time. James likely doesn't dispose of James if not for the explicit confirmation other leaders would not oppose it. James was not popular due to the religous tolerance thing, and the fact that with James on the throne the heir apparent was James Stuart, a baptized Catholic. The protestant lords did not approve. I submit, like most thing now-a-days, religion is the excuse, power is the reason. Powerful people wanted to be more powerful. War was coming whether or not William did it, or the next puppet they found.  |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Dec 12, 2022 20:37:15 GMT -8
I mean maybe? James was more pro-religious tolerance, which tends not to lead to war. William & Mary and their heirs basically squeezed the Netherlands dry of money, resources, and ships to benefit England throughout the World to the Netherlands' detriment. The Netherlands' economy was much larger than the United Kingdom's in 1689. In less than a hundred years, the two nations had basically traded spots. And after more than 85 years, when the Netherlands finally rebelled from their (basically) English overlords, during the Revolutionary War (American allies), they were beaten to a bloody pulp. (Spain made out like bandits. France gained some land at the expense of destroying their economy. And the Netherlands was devastated by the United Kingdom.) And a weak Netherlands fell into Revolution in 1787, the British and Prussian suppression of which helped the 1789 French Revolution begin to spill out of the borders of France, basically adding fuel to the fire that was the Revolution that embroiled most of the continent in almost continuous warfare for more than 25 years. As to William and Mary founding the University, Mary may have taken the lead on it, but can you imagine what would have happened, if William was not also part of the name of the University? I think my claim is that if the powers want it, they are probably going to get it. Much like today. The so called "Glorious Revolution of William (fun fact, nephew AND son-in law to James II as he married his cousin, James II daughter, Mary II) They wrote a now famous letter basically begging William to take his army and overthrow James, who was not popular at the time. James likely doesn't dispose of James if not for the explicit confirmation other leaders would not oppose it. James was not popular due to the religous tolerance thing, and the fact that with James on the throne the heir apparent was James Stuart, a baptized Catholic. The protestant lords did not approve. I submit, like most thing now-a-days, religion is the excuse, power is the reason. Powerful people wanted to be more powerful. War was coming whether or not William did it, or the next puppet they found. For every William & Mary, though, there is a Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, who was made dictator of Rome twice and voluntarily surrendered the dictatorship of Rome twice. War may have been coming in the short term. (The upper nobility of England seemed to be actively courting it at the time, despite James' work to make England a better and more humane place to live.) But William of Orange's position made it more destabilizing, more divisive, more destructive, more costly, and longer lasting. William & Mary plunging a good portion of the continent into 130 years of war was not inevitable, until they made it so. There was a better way, and it was being modeled by James. Not all monarchs were power-hungry tyrants. But William and Mary actively took the crown despite the consequences, knowingly plunging the continent to war. They were villains in almost any even recitation of the facts that we have discussed. But you can condone their actions, if you would like. Heaven knows that the Unionists generally do. |
|
