Talk:James II of England

“Scottish Parliament”

Chapter 3.4: “On 11 April 1689, the Parliament of Scotland declared James to have forfeited the throne of Scotland as well.” If this sentence refers to the same event mentioned in the introduction of the article, the declaration was issued by the Convention, not exactly Parliament. Is that correct or was there a separate declaration by Parliament as well?—Oudeístalk 05:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

---

James II of England → James VII and II – He was not only the king of England. He was also the king of Scotland and Ireland. James VII and II is both more accurate than the current title and also completely unambiguous, so you can get rid of the territorial designation that only refers to one of his realms, since there was only one James VII and II. The Scottish number should go first for consistency with James VI and I. DieOuTransvaal (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and close per WP:SNOW. Per WP:NCROY, when there are multiple states we use the most commonly associated realm. Векочел (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: unlike his grandfather who is commonly known by both numerals due to his long reign over Scotland before the union of the crowns, the majority of reliable sources refer to this James by his English numeral only. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I can understand why you've nominated this page for renaming. All the monarch bios are extremely inconsistent in how they're named. The "Name # of country" style was disregarded, thus bringing about the inconsistencies. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naval service in battle

I find it strange that this article makes no mention of James' active service as an admiral in the navy. He was standing alongside three courtiers who had their heads taken off by a chain shot at the Battle of Lowestoft, spattering the Duke of York (as he then was) with blood and brains. At the Battle of Solebay, HMS Prince was surrounded by Dutch ships and other British warships could not get close to give assistance as the winds were virtually calm. In this desperate position, James went up and down the ship encouraging the men. The captain of Prince was killed a short distance away from James, as were other's in James' entourage. The main topmast was taken out by a Dutch cannon ball, making the ship uncontrollable. She was towed away from the enemy by her boats and James transferred to St Michael and returned to the battle, becoming heavily engaged, having to transfer his flag for a second time later in the battle.

The way the article reads, one could get the impression that James carried out his activities as an admiral from the safety of a desk in Whitehall. This is obviously a substantial misrepresentation of his role.

The sources I have used in making these comments are Davies, J. D. (2017). Kings of the Sea: Charles II, James II and the Royal Navy. Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84832-400-8., particularly pg 192 – but the whole book is relevant – and Journals and Narratives of the Third Dutch War, Navy Records Society, Vol 86 (1946), R.C. Anderson (ed.), the journals of John Narborough. I appreciate the latter is a primary source, but plenty of other histories are available.
ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 22:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Mangled version of Royal African Company actions

The article currently says When James commanded the Royal Navy during the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1665–1667) he immediately directed the fleet towards the capture of forts off the African coast that would facilitate English involvement in the slave trade (indeed English attacks on such forts occupied by the Dutch precipitated the war itself). This mixes good facts with bad and is based on a source that appears somewhat non-mainstream.

Breaking the various points down:
(1) Were British ambitions to replace the Dutch in African trade a cause of the second Anglo-Dutch war? Undoubtedly yes, with much of this intent coming from courtiers who were investors in the Royal African Company (to give it its later name). Sources to support this are Barry, Quintin (2018). From Solebay to the Texel: the third Anglo-Dutch war, 1672-1674. Warwick: Helion & Company. ISBN 978-1-911628-03-3. pp 26-27 and Davies, J. D. (2008). Pepys's Navy: Ships, Men and Warfare, 1649-1689. Havertown: Pen & Sword Books Limited. ISBN 978-1-84832-014-7., chapter 2
(2) Were naval vessels sent to capture Dutch bases in Africa? No, an expedition that did this was sent under the auspices of the Royal African Company, in 1663. James was both Lord High Admiral of England and head of the Royal African Company, but the expedition received its instructions under his latter role. The same references as in (1) support this position.

The quoted article text seems to state that it was specifically a naval expedition that captured the Dutch forts in Africa. Some of this confusion may stem from the source used. The article's cited source seems to try to conflate the Divine Right of Kings with an ambition to subjugate people into slavery. Other slavery historians point to the early days of the Royal African Company being more interested in trading for gold, though not ruling out involvement in the slave trade. ("The substitution of slaves for gold gradually occurred during the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." Tattersfield, Nigel. The Forgotten Trade: Comprising the Log of the Daniel and Henry of 1700 and Accounts of the Slave Trade From the Minor Ports of England 1698-1725) I am not sure the best source (Slavery, Sovereignty, and “Inheritable Blood”: Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery) has been accessed for the current version of the article.

Overall, this muddled portion of the article needs to be rewritten. I have doubts about the sub-section's "omnibus" title: Military and political offices and royal slavery. Since the Royal African Company is integral in the start of the Second Anglo-Dutch War, it seems to be redundant to have royal slavery in the title of the subsection. Anyway, what does royal slavery actually mean?
ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you make the appropriate changes? DrKay (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Busy day, today, but this is on my list of things to do. Will probably wrap in changes to make clear that James was in the heat of the action in two major naval battles, perhaps mentioning that his poor command skills were implicated in the French squadron sailing the wrong way at Solebay and the failed pursuit of the Dutch after that battle being down to more imprecise orders. (Despite his undoubted bravery in action.) His removal from front line service after both Lowestoft and Solebay should also be in the story (to protect the line of succession). I need to consider if a footnote is needed to explain the relevance of the Royal African Company – if it can be done in a sentence or two. Otherwise rely on the link. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at a better source for the Anglo Dutch Wars, one English Navy frigate was sent with the 1663/4 expedition,English ship Jersey (1654). So I read that as naval support for a company expedition. Sources have a frustrating element of vagueness on the precise arrangement, though it is clear that Jersey was sent. Taking a quick look at another recommended source we merely find "Charles loaned royal ships to the African Company for Holmes's raid" (pp. 35-36), which somewhat supports the idea that this was not primarily a naval expedition. I think these words bring to mind the habit prior English kings had of lending royal ships to commercial enterprises. (Though, on an different aspect of the same event, Jones does state that the English aggression was adversely affecting the Dutch slave trade.) Winfield simply lists "In 1663 under Capt. Robert Holmes." for Jersey. Am going to think about this further before tackling a rewrite.ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:06, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Frustratingly, Robert Holmes (Royal Navy officer) is woefully short of references, so is no help in resolving this issue. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

References