What changed between 1685 and 1688? Why did William of Orange succeed where the Duke of Monmouth failed?

Question

Why was the King's Army and Judge Jeffries able to crush the Monmouth rebellion so ruthlessly and yet just 3 years later could not keep James II on his throne?

Answer 1

The English wished to be Protestant, but after the trauma of the English Civil War between 1640 and 1660 they were reluctant to interfere with the royal succession. This in part explains the lack of support for Monmouth, who as a bastard did not in any case have a strong claim.

James II had appeared tolerant whilst Charles II was on the throne. For instance, his interest in toleration for Catholics led him to support also toleration for other religious groups such as the Quakers. However, when he became King James tried to behave as an absolute ruler like Louis XIV of France. He was aggressively Catholic, and ended up putting seven Church of England bishops in the Tower of London and on trial for quite moderate grievances. He totally lost the support of Parliament and the people.

The last straw was when James wife had a son in 1688. People had hoped that James iniquities would be resolved when one of his daughters, Mary or Anne, both of whom were firmly Protestant, succeded. People therefore claimed that James' son (also James, to become known as the Old Pretender), was a changeling, smuggled into the bedroom in a warming pan. They overwhelmingly rose against James so that he had to flee for his life.

Disregarding James II and his son, William of Orange's wife Mary was clearly next in line. William had no claim of his one, but insisted on becoming King as Mary's husband (as he was only Stadtholder of the Netherlands he liked the idea of becoming a ruler with similar status to other countries). But Mary's claim was much stronger than Monmouth's. In addtion, she had the military backing of the Netherlands, whereas Monmouth lacked effective overseas support. However, all this was largely irrelevant: the bloodless nature of the Glorious Revolution, reflects the underlying reality that James II through his arrogance and incompetence had totally lost the British people - as he showed by fleeing (and after being recaptured escaping again with William's connivance) that he knew.

Answer 2

Because Monmouth had a tiny army and he was not a good tactician. Further, at the time, the Torys (in the 17th century sense) were still supporting James II, despite his Catholicism. He then tried to ride roughshod over the Test Acts, which forbade Catholics from holding office, by appointing 200 Catholic army officers. He increased to size of his army and fear began to grow that he was seeking to become an absolute monarch like is cousin Louis XIV of France. When one of the army officers tested his appoint in the Courts, it was held that a monarch could do what he liked - which did not go down well. James then issued the Declaration of Indulgence, apparently to allow freedom of religion to all and ordered it to be read in all churches. Seven bishops refused and a trial was held. This showed that the mood of the country had changed, the Royal lawyers prosecuting being constantly heckled. There was a fear that James might act like Louis and begin to persecute Protestants. William, who was engaged in a wars against France and who had an enormous army was invited to 'invade' with the the support of most political factions. James went into a blue funk and cut and ran. Odd how we maintain the fiction that England has never been invaded!

By the way, Judge Jefferies did not 'crush' the rebellion which was over by the time he became involved. His 'Bloody Assizes' merely persecuted those who had taken part in it