We're settling this.

[nonconformist]

He wasn't convicted of treason because the traitors ended up winning the "Glorious Revolution."

To be honest, that's a bad argument; the Glorious Revolution was the right side, simply because we returned to Crown to the Anglicans instead of the filthy, treacherous, worshippers of Rome

 

[LightSpectra]

Marlborough could be defended for his betrayal of James at the time, but had second thoughts under the regime that came after. Not that their being Royals somehow justifies it. His victories were won almost in spite of them, since they could not trust him, but he would not betray the interests of his country.

If James being king was against the interests of the country, then Marlborough shouldn't have sworn his loyalty to him in the first place, now should he?

To be honest, that's a bad argument; the Glorious Revolution was the right side, simply because we returned to Crown to the Anglicans instead of the filthy, treacherous, worshippers of Rome

So beware, my friend, if you must go
on dreary paths through haunted dale
for lurking in their gloomy dens
trolls want you for their dinner-pail...

 

[vogtmurr]

If James being king was against the interests of the country, then Marlborough shouldn't have sworn his loyalty to him in the first place, now should he?...

Said with rather smug hindsight I'd say. Not that I'm claiming his betrayal of James was entirely altruistic. It seems he regretted it since he personally was worse off than before, and even conspired to reinstate him. I was just pointing out that he may not have been loyal to the monarch(s) in question, but he was loyal to England, which makes it hard to paint him as a traitor.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't see how toleration of Catholics and an easing of relations with the most belligerent power in Europe is bad for England. Bad for Marlborough's career, perhaps.

 

[vogtmurr]

No indeed, but James' catholicism and exclusion of Anglicans was leading to widespread unrest. Some might say Marlborough prevented a bloody civil war when he defected to William III, for at that moment James lost his nerve and abandoned his crown.

 

[LightSpectra]

No indeed, but James' catholicism and exclusion of Anglicans was leading to widespread unrest. Some might say Marlborough prevented a bloody civil war when he defected to William III, for at that moment James lost his nerve and abandoned his crown.

So British and Irish citizens deserved to suffer a few hundred more years because "some might say" England was on the verge of civil war?

 

[vogtmurr]

So British and Irish citizens deserved to suffer a few hundred more years because "some might say" England was on the verge of civil war?

I doubt if he could be expected to foresee the sum total of the next few hundred years, but he knew the immediate consequences of his actions, which was a bloodless coup.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are we seriously going to start depicting the Stuarts as defenders of Irish interests?

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: Spam thread: closed.

If people want a serious discussion of the greatest prime ministers, I suggest doing so in a thread that doesn't begin with the wit and wisdom of Barney Gumble.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889