In the novel? I'd say it's ambiguous - possible, but then this novel is one of the few which I think carries off the problem of conveying to the readers the narrator isn't always right in their assumptions (for example: I think it's crystal clear even before he says so that Charles II wasn't married to Jemmy's mother Lucy, and that Jemmy is grasping at straws and kididng himself because he wants it desperately to be true that his parents were married), and Harriet is the narrator of the epilogue and clearly biased, poor woman. Again, it's possible, because William is described as clever and the kind of long term thinker Jemmy is not, but otoh I also think we're meant to believe his affection for Jemmy is genuine. (Which wouldn't exclude a human sacrifice in the game of thrones, of course.)
In real life? Well, I haven't yet read a biography of William (or Mary), but in the Monmouth biography by Anna Keay she casts the blame somewhere else - on Ferguson and Argyll for pressuring Jemmy into joining an uprising against James NOW (with himself as the figurehead, argueing that he disappointed his followers already once when not continuing his rebellion against dead, and now they're ready to shed their blood for Protestant England and he can't claim filial love as an excuse), going as far as feeding him false information, including the sensational claim that James poisoned brother Charles.
(Now I'm not fond of James II, but yeah, no. Otoh, Jemmy and James loathed each other and from Jemmy's pov, it did look suspicious - there's that last secret meeting with Charles where Charles signals he'll call him back, and then, oops, Charles - who was healthy all his life - dies, and even converts to Catholicism on his deathbed, with seemingly no one but James and the priest as witnesses, sceptical Charles. Biographer Anna Keay points out the relationship with Charles was the most important and central one in Jemmy's entire life, he was reeling from the shock (especially coming so relatively soon after the reconciliation in their last meeting and the prospect of being able to return home), and blaming James was probably all too tempting. And once he believed James had gone that far, well.
But. Bear in mind this is all before James the never III is born to James II and Mary of Modena. At this point, the very Protestant William and Mary are the unquestioned heirs to James, next in line to the throne to the three Kingdoms, not even the most Catholic of Catholics in Ireland would dispute it. Meaning you have Protestant heirs with a perfectly legitimate claim, whose legitimate birth is unquestioned on both sides. Meaning William had no reason to go for a rebellion now. He only had one once James II had a Catholic son, which wasn't the case yet, since he and Mary were 100% secure to inherit once James bit the dust. So there was no chance William and Mary would agree to lead an anti-James uprising at this point, which is why some of the Whigs went for Jemmy in the first place. (That, and good old fashioned Xenophobia, because of William being Dutch and thus in the event of his reign bound to bring his own, Dutch people into juicy positions, as opposed to owing them everything.)
Now, did William have reason to fear Jemmy as competition so much that he needed to set him up? Not according to Anna Keay, who also points out that Jemmy's asylum in the Hague originally did depend on the understanding he wouldn't make a play for the throne. And he always did have the drawback of not being legitimate, and of not enough people believing that his parents were married after all, and again, of William and Mary being the perfectly legitimate Protestant alternative for even the most determined NO POPERY minded Englishman.
What confused a lot of contemporaries, according to Keay, was how warmly William (never the most demonstrative of men, not even when young) and Mary interacted with Jemmy, and they were looking for motives beyond "annoying James", and a Machiavellian strategy would provide one. In any case, for an AU where they remain allies and Jemmy doesn't die, the impression I had from the biography it just needed two factors to change - Jemmy does not listen to the pressure from Ferguson & Co., and also, William continues to not kick him out somewhat longer. (In rl, Jemmy wasn't in the Hague when Charles died, he was in Brussels, i.e. the Spanish Netherlands, where he got kicked out at once following the demand by James II, but he then returned to Holland and William did let him stay there for a while.
The stadtholder went through the motions of congratulating his father-in-law on his accession, but when Monmouth returned from Brussels and James II asked that he be explelled, William did almost nothing. He had witnessed first-hand Monmouth's determination not to be drawn into rebellion - earlier, during the last years of Charles' life - and was not minded to give his friend up. As the dissidents assembled in Rotterdam in early April the English ambassador confronted William again abouto Monmouth. William murmred that he would expel him but, in Skelton's words, 'gave me little encouragement or hope it would ever be done' The frustration in London grew wiht the days that passed. The Earl of Rochester wrote to William claiming that they were not seeking to drive Monmouth from country to country, but surely he could see that they would not have him 'hovering just over against England'. Yet still William prevaricated, knowing nothing of Monmouth's change of hearts, and even a direct and stern letter from James II a few weeks later did not result in any definitive action.
I.e. the way Anna Keay tells it, if Jemmy doesn't listen to any pressure from England and, say, makes a public oath of loyalty that he respects the succession rights OF WILLIAM AND MARY (this wouldn't exclude a later joint action against James II altogether, but otoh right now is not treacherous even for a James II follower, since William and Mary are his legal heirs), chances are William and Mary would keep him against James II's objection and gamble on James II not going to war over his nephew. (The moment James II has a Catholic sons, all conditions change, of course.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: William/Mary/James of Monmouth
Date: 2024-03-06 10:36 am (UTC)In real life? Well, I haven't yet read a biography of William (or Mary), but in the Monmouth biography by Anna Keay she casts the blame somewhere else - on Ferguson and Argyll for pressuring Jemmy into joining an uprising against James NOW (with himself as the figurehead, argueing that he disappointed his followers already once when not continuing his rebellion against dead, and now they're ready to shed their blood for Protestant England and he can't claim filial love as an excuse), going as far as feeding him false information, including the sensational claim that James poisoned brother Charles.
(Now I'm not fond of James II, but yeah, no. Otoh, Jemmy and James loathed each other and from Jemmy's pov, it did look suspicious - there's that last secret meeting with Charles where Charles signals he'll call him back, and then, oops, Charles - who was healthy all his life - dies, and even converts to Catholicism on his deathbed, with seemingly no one but James and the priest as witnesses, sceptical Charles. Biographer Anna Keay points out the relationship with Charles was the most important and central one in Jemmy's entire life, he was reeling from the shock (especially coming so relatively soon after the reconciliation in their last meeting and the prospect of being able to return home), and blaming James was probably all too tempting. And once he believed James had gone that far, well.
But. Bear in mind this is all before James the never III is born to James II and Mary of Modena. At this point, the very Protestant William and Mary are the unquestioned heirs to James, next in line to the throne to the three Kingdoms, not even the most Catholic of Catholics in Ireland would dispute it. Meaning you have Protestant heirs with a perfectly legitimate claim, whose legitimate birth is unquestioned on both sides. Meaning William had no reason to go for a rebellion now. He only had one once James II had a Catholic son, which wasn't the case yet, since he and Mary were 100% secure to inherit once James bit the dust. So there was no chance William and Mary would agree to lead an anti-James uprising at this point, which is why some of the Whigs went for Jemmy in the first place. (That, and good old fashioned Xenophobia, because of William being Dutch and thus in the event of his reign bound to bring his own, Dutch people into juicy positions, as opposed to owing them everything.)
Now, did William have reason to fear Jemmy as competition so much that he needed to set him up? Not according to Anna Keay, who also points out that Jemmy's asylum in the Hague originally did depend on the understanding he wouldn't make a play for the throne. And he always did have the drawback of not being legitimate, and of not enough people believing that his parents were married after all, and again, of William and Mary being the perfectly legitimate Protestant alternative for even the most determined NO POPERY minded Englishman.
What confused a lot of contemporaries, according to Keay, was how warmly William (never the most demonstrative of men, not even when young) and Mary interacted with Jemmy, and they were looking for motives beyond "annoying James", and a Machiavellian strategy would provide one. In any case, for an AU where they remain allies and Jemmy doesn't die, the impression I had from the biography it just needed two factors to change - Jemmy does not listen to the pressure from Ferguson & Co., and also, William continues to not kick him out somewhat longer. (In rl, Jemmy wasn't in the Hague when Charles died, he was in Brussels, i.e. the Spanish Netherlands, where he got kicked out at once following the demand by James II, but he then returned to Holland and William did let him stay there for a while.
The stadtholder went through the motions of congratulating his father-in-law on his accession, but when Monmouth returned from Brussels and James II asked that he be explelled, William did almost nothing. He had witnessed first-hand Monmouth's determination not to be drawn into rebellion - earlier, during the last years of Charles' life - and was not minded to give his friend up. As the dissidents assembled in Rotterdam in early April the English ambassador confronted William again abouto Monmouth. William murmred that he would expel him but, in Skelton's words, 'gave me little encouragement or hope it would ever be done' The frustration in London grew wiht the days that passed. The Earl of Rochester wrote to William claiming that they were not seeking to drive Monmouth from country to country, but surely he could see that they would not have him 'hovering just over against England'. Yet still William prevaricated, knowing nothing of Monmouth's change of hearts, and even a direct and stern letter from James II a few weeks later did not result in any definitive action.
I.e. the way Anna Keay tells it, if Jemmy doesn't listen to any pressure from England and, say, makes a public oath of loyalty that he respects the succession rights OF WILLIAM AND MARY (this wouldn't exclude a later joint action against James II altogether, but otoh right now is not treacherous even for a James II follower, since William and Mary are his legal heirs), chances are William and Mary would keep him against James II's objection and gamble on James II not going to war over his nephew. (The moment James II has a Catholic sons, all conditions change, of course.)