What if the outcome of the "Glorious" Revolution had been decided by a sword duel between King James VII & II and William of Orange?

[jacob ningen]

De Wit is overrated. He completely did not understand international politics in the 17th century which caused the year of disaster and his own death.

if only he'd remained in Mathematics

 

[Masteroftheuniverse]

Because James's army betrayed him. Treason was a capital offence at the time BTW. William wasn't fat and he never lived to be old, but he was an incestuous, cowardly man lacking in intellect.

Treason doesn't happen for no reason. If James was a better king, his army would have stayed loyal to him. And it's rather rich to accuse William of cowardice when it was James who ran away from him, both times they fought.

 

[Charles III Stuart]

If your premise is that James did nothing wrong and the only reason he was overthrown was other people's evil, I think it's going to be difficult to discuss how things might have gone differently.

Good luck with your writing.

Sure, he did some things wrong in his personal life, like having mistresses for a while, but as a king, nothing he did was wrong. Catholic emancipation is good. The monarch having a check on Parliament's power is good. The Patriot Parliament was magnificent.

Under English, and Irish, Law First Cousins do not count as Incest. And such marriages were frequent, especially amoungst Royalty.
(The Catholic Church was happy to grant dispensations)

Why don't you go ask 10 people on the street if they would consider it incestuous to be in a romantic/sexual/martial relationship with your first cousin. Even if it wasn't illegal, it's still weird and gross.

William was by the standards of the time an extremely well educated man, having attended the University of Leiden in his youth.

And yet, he never learned to speak English properly, and there are some things university doesn't teach you, like moral character, loyalty, fairness, equality, etc...

And he was a successful military commander. Even his enemies praised his leadership and valour. The contemporary Marquis de Quincy, still considered an authoritative source, for example, wrote that it was due to William's insight and personal courage that the Allies held out at the Battle of Seneffe, while he also praised how William led his troops to safety during the battles of Steenkerque and Landen.

And in my opinion, none of that makes up for what he did to my ancestors, just like African-Americans don't like Robert E. Lee even though he was a brave and gallant general. Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd was a highly intelligent and intellectual man who had multiple advanced degrees and was fluent in multiple languages, but still, black South Africans dislike him because he was responsible for a lot of the laws that discriminated against their ancestors, just like William of Orange was responsible for a lot of the laws that discriminated against mine.
Being a successful military commander doesn't mean you will win a duel against a man 12 cm (5 in) taller than you when you are asthmatic and slightly hunchbacked, which is what this thread was about. Valour is a double edged sword, since sometimes being brave and being careless are tied together. Any sort of duel that doesn't involve firearms, James easily defeats William.
What could William have done to defeat James in a sword duel? Height is an advantage in fencing, and being asthmatic is a disadvantage in any physical competition. It's a very easy win for James.

The main criticism of him as a General was in his tendency of often throwing himself into the fray, thus losing oversight of the "Big Picture".

However, the reason I don't like him is because I'm Irish and from a Catholic family, He's one of the worst enemies we have ever faced. He is not worth emulating.

Treason doesn't happen for no reason. If James was a better king, his army would have stayed loyal to him. And it's rather rich to accuse William of cowardice when it was James who ran away from him, both times they fought.

James didn't run away from William. That's a biased way of describing it. I prefer to say he turned him right and round about, upon the Irish shore, and gave his bridle reins a shake, with adieu for evermore, my dear, and adieu for evermore. That's how Robert Burns described it. Much better.

James didn't want to be executed the way his father was, so, when he knew he couldn't defeat William, he went into exile. But, you will notice that he came back to Ireland after leaving for the first time. William wasn't the son of a man who was executed, so William didn't have the same familial trauma.

 

[AsukaEMP]

What could William have done to defeat James in a sword duel?

Genuinely amazing you're still hammering on about the duel while half a dozen people have told you in various ways that such a duel would have never happened.

That's a biased way of describing it.

Unlike your assessment of the Stuarts?

 

[Teiresias]

Because that's a good way for James to beat William for good. William was asthmatic, cowardly, slightly hunchbacked, and much shorter than James. A one-on-one sword duel is a very easy way for James to defeat William. William wouldn't have stood a chance. It would have been over for William within 90 seconds.

Even if everything you've said is true, that's just a long list of reasons why William wouldn't do it.

There are PODs for James to keep his throne, but this is rather a silly one.

And yet, he never learned to speak English properly

It's amusingly English of you to assume that not speaking proper English equals being uneducated.

 

[Masteroftheuniverse]

James didn't run away from William. That's a biased way of describing it. I prefer to say he turned him right and round about, upon the Irish shore, and gave his bridle reins a shake, with adieu for evermore, my dear, and adieu for evermore. That's how Robert Burns described it. Much better.

James didn't want to be executed the way his father was, so, when he knew he couldn't defeat William, he went into exile. But, you will notice that he came back to Ireland after leaving for the first time. William wasn't the son of a man who was executed, so William didn't have the same familial trauma.

It's an accurate way of describing it. He fled out of fear, twice. Understandable? Sure. But not exactly brave. The brave thing to do would be to fight to the end. So it's rather ironic that you call William a coward.
James II was a bad king. Plain and simple. Good kings don't alienate everybody around them so that they have no one to turn to when a foreign invader arrives. Was William III particularly great? No, especially not if you were a Catholic. But he was an important step in the foundation of British democracy and for that I will be eternally grateful.

 

[Lord High Executioner]

He fled out of fear, twice.

No, he didn't.
He cleverly tactically withdrew trying to lure William into chasing after him, but William was to
stupid and cowardly to do so.
Obviously.

 

[CalBear]

Sure, he did some things wrong in his personal life, like having mistresses for a while, but as a king, nothing he did was wrong. Catholic emancipation is good. The monarch having a check on Parliament's power is good. The Patriot Parliament was magnificent.

Why don't you go ask 10 people on the street if they would consider it incestuous to be in a romantic/sexual/martial relationship with your first cousin. Even if it wasn't illegal, it's still weird and gross.

And yet, he never learned to speak English properly, and there are some things university doesn't teach you, like moral character, loyalty, fairness, equality, etc...

And in my opinion, none of that makes up for what he did to my ancestors, just like African-Americans don't like Robert E. Lee even though he was a brave and gallant general. Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd was a highly intelligent and intellectual man who had multiple advanced degrees and was fluent in multiple languages, but still, black South Africans dislike him because he was responsible for a lot of the laws that discriminated against their ancestors, just like William of Orange was responsible for a lot of the laws that discriminated against mine.
Being a successful military commander doesn't mean you will win a duel against a man 12 cm (5 in) taller than you when you are asthmatic and slightly hunchbacked, which is what this thread was about. Valour is a double edged sword, since sometimes being brave and being careless are tied together. Any sort of duel that doesn't involve firearms, James easily defeats William.
What could William have done to defeat James in a sword duel? Height is an advantage in fencing, and being asthmatic is a disadvantage in any physical competition. It's a very easy win for James.

However, the reason I don't like him is because I'm Irish and from a Catholic family, He's one of the worst enemies we have ever faced. He is not worth emulating.

James didn't run away from William. That's a biased way of describing it. I prefer to say he turned him right and round about, upon the Irish shore, and gave his bridle reins a shake, with adieu for evermore, my dear, and adieu for evermore. That's how Robert Burns described it. Much better.

James didn't want to be executed the way his father was, so, when he knew he couldn't defeat William, he went into exile. But, you will notice that he came back to Ireland after leaving for the first time. William wasn't the son of a man who was executed, so William didn't have the same familial trauma.

Enough. Just enough.

 

[Coluber]

No, he didn't.
He cleverly tactically withdrew trying to lure William into chasing after him, but William was to
stupid and cowardly to do so.
Obviously.

For some reason, you got me thinking of Brave Sir Robin.

I need to see that movie again.