EVELYN CRUICKSHANKS -- Ph.D. – Professor at University of London
You are right about factional politics. The Dutch invasion of 1688,preparations for which started long before the birth of the Prince of Wales and the trial of the Seven Bishops, arose because Louis XIV's fleet had reached parity with the Dutch and unless they could get control of the English fleet, they would lose control of the seas, added to an international coalition of Powers many of them Catholic including the Pope, who had scores to settle against Louis XIV. The Dissenters as well as the Catholics welcomed James II's policy of toleration and the Anglicans who opposed it, wanted to persuade him to return to the Anglican monopoly of office in Church and State, not to depose him. William III, however, employed Tories as well as Whigs in mixed ministries. When James II died, Louis XIV recognised the Prince of Wales as James III, but the Tories opposed the renewal of the War against France whereas the Whigs pressed for it. There were vested interests as ther foundation of the Bank of England and the funding of the national debt enabled the government to spend money they did not have and to bribe Parliament and elections to get a majority. In the years before Queen Anne died the Whig army commanders threatened a coup d'etat if the Duke of Ormonde, who succeeded Marlborough as captain general, purged the army of Whigs....
Best wishes
Eveline Cruckshanks
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN CALLOW -- Ph.D. University of Lancaster -- Director of Marx Memorial Library
Dear Jonathan,
William III's accession changes everything! And ensures that British foreign policy becomes Dutch foreign policy, so far as Louis XIV was concerned. Marlborough was out of office, in disgrace over his Jacobite plottings until Anne comes to the throne. Have you come across Michael Foot's study of Swift 'Pen & the Sword'? about Marlborough's destruction? Its worth a look....
Best regards,
John
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN S. WEBB -- Ph.D. – Professor at Syracuse University
Dear Dr. Kolkey:
I quite agree that public and private, principled and personal, reasons drove
the monarchical decisions regarding the later Stuart Wars. It seems to me that
this is always and invariably the case in every sort of rationalized conclusion.
What did Franklin say? "How convenient it is to be a rational creature so that
one can make up a reason for whatever one wants to do." As for Churchill, I
admit his ambition, but he was too minor a player to do more than follow
William's long-standing decision to involve England in the Netherlands' war in
1689. In 1702, the decision lay in Louis XIV's hands. Only his perfidious acts
could have persuaded the English parliament to support the war, and Marlborough,
as he now was, refused to act without prior parliamentary approval. That
reticence was politically prudential, but it was also principled.
Yours truly,
Stephen Saunders Webb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL SCHOLARLY CONFIRMATIONS WILL BE POSTED AS SOON AS THEY ARE RECEIVED
