Roman Catholic and Protestant

The Roman Catholic Church believes in the infallibility of the Pope because it is believed that he has direct Apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter. It also believes in the infallibility of a body of dogma as revealed truth from God (revealed by priests etc., rather than an interpretation of the Bible). Whereas Protestants/Presbyterians reject the infallibility of the Pope and his hierarchy of priests, bishops, deacons etc., (instead they have a 'universal priesthood of believers' i.e. a brotherhood), for the infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God, i.e. it is literally true.

Roman Catholicism celebrates the Eucharist (the Lord's Last Supper) as Holy Mass, i. e. as sacrifice, rather than as a Sacrament or Holy Communion as is the case for the Protestants and Presbyterians. Sacrifice is described in the Catholic Encyclopaedia as ^{(2): "….the [Roman Catholic] Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a 'true and proper' sacrifice,' and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with Holy Communion….the sacrament [Holy Communion] is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer and expiation.."}

Roman Catholicism also believes in the canonization of saints whereby they may be invoked and/or prayed to, whilst Protestantism rejects this belief.

There are other differences of course, such as whether or not good works are justification for salvation, but after considerable research, I believe the above beliefs to be the main religious differences.

Episcopal and Anglican Church

There are some differences between the Episcopal (Scotland) and Anglican Churches (England), but they are generally similar to the Protestant faith, in that they reject Papacy, celebrate the Eucharist as a Sacrament or Holy Communion and believe in the infallibility of the Bible as the Word of God. One of the main differences between these religious denominations and Protestantism is that they include bishops, priests and deacons which claim Apostolic succession from St. Peter.

Quoting from an article entitled The Episcopalian Religion by D. Stephen Heersink, San Francisco (3): "Many Episcopalians are not really Christians, but theists who see Christ as a good teacher, and therefore don't mind the appellation….On the other hand, the fact that Anglicans are not 'doctrinaire' or 'confessional' is also one of its strengths. Believers are not fed this or that person's thought or beliefs, but must encounter the risen Christ each in his or her own existential way. That's not to say that Anglicans don't believe in common tenets, rather it's that they don't have a Luther, Calvin, Falwell, or some other oracle. Instead, the true oracle in the Episcopal Church is the Church itself. The Church is ontological, and its apostolic ministry divinely instituted. Of these two points there is no dispute. And this is exactly how it was in the apostolic age, well before the Bible fell into every sages' hands. In this apostolic sensibility, the Episcopal Church is most like the early Church, safeguarded by episcopal collegiality, the Scriptures that issued forth from their work."

(3) www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/athe/athe0151.htm 

Calvinism (also known as Presbyterianism, a branch of the Protestant faith)

The following information, and quotes, were taken from a web page entitled: A Defense of Calvinism as the Gospel by Prof. David J. Engelsma (4): 

Calvinism is not the name by which Calvinists prefer to have their religion called, nor do they generally call themselves "Calvinists". From the beginning Calvinists called themselves "Reformed" or "Presbyterian". These Calvinist Churches were called 'Reformed' in Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. In England, Scotland, and the north of Ireland, they were called 'Presbyterian'. John Knox [c1514-1572] a Scot and founding father of the Church of Scotland, brought Calvinism to England in 1547 and Scotland in 1558. His views differed somewhat from those of his fellow Protestant Reformers, ending up at odds with them several times, until he eventually formed his own branch of Protestantism when he founded the Presbyterian Church. As mentioned earlier, some Presbyterians were also known as Covenanters. A covenant is defined as a mutual agreement between two or more people to do or refrain from doing certain things. The Presbyterian belief was that they as individuals had a covenant with God.

The founder of Calvinism, John Calvin (1509-1564), was influenced by Martin Luther. However, Calvinists object to being accused of following a man, they say that they follow a principle, pure theology; unlike another branch of the Protestant Reformation, namely the Lutheran Church, which did name itself after the name of a man (contrary to the wishes of Luther himself). Martin Luther was influenced by St. Augustine (354-430 A. D.) a 4th century African theologian. Some scholars say that as St. Augustine was unable to control his own strong passions, he argued persuasively that this is a universal and permanent addiction of mankind. St. Augustine stated that he had tried to find faith in God by himself but could not, he felt that only by the sheer grace of God was he fully converted. At this time the Christian Church had become the state religion of the Roman Empire. Differing views were no longer allowed and Augustine's argument provided a philosophical basis for insisting that the church 'magisterium' was morally determinate, not individual conscience. Some scholars say that Augustine's view of original sin was based on a misreading of Genesis, and that St. Augustine was influenced by Origen who had strong views on this matter, and is believed to have been celibate.

Calvinism has similar beliefs to Protestantism but is more radical and believes that God chose certain people for salvation. The following provides further information:

· Belief in original sin and that we are all sinners, that we have no free will, nor can we do "good works" as justification for salvation, because we are totally depraved. Only the grace of God through Jesus Christ can provide salvation.

· Belief in predestination - no free will, everything is the Will of God.

Calvinism recognises, as in the New Testament, the practices of the Jewish synagogue, the government of each church by its elders, therefore a Presbyter is known as an elder. At the time of the Reformation, the churches were associated in local presbyteries and represented in provincial synods as well as a National Assembly which was the highest court of appeal. They believed they had a covenant with God and were particularly opposed to rule by the bishops. Like Protestantism, Calvinism states that the Bible is the only authority. This is because it is the inspired Word of God. Calvinism teaches that humanity is by nature sinful and evil, adding that there is no salvation for a man or woman, apart from God's grace in Christ, no good and no ability for good. By 'good' is meant that which pleases God. The will of every man, apart from the liberating grace of the Spirit of Christ, is enslaved to the Devil and to sin. It is willingly enslaved, but it is enslaved. It is unable to will, desire, or choose God, Christ, salvation, or the good. It is not free to choose good, i. e. we have no free will. Unlike Catholicism and Protestants which state that we do have the ability to do good works which 'please God' (however, Protestantism basically, if sometimes grudgingly, agrees with the Catholic viewpoint).

Quoting from A Defence of Calvinism as the Gospel by Prof. Engelsma, Calvinism also states that “God has from eternity elected, or chosen, in Christ, some of the fallen human race - a certain, definite number of persons - unto salvation. This choice was unconditional, gracious and free; it was not due to anything foreseen in those who were chosen. God did not choose all men; but He rejected some men, in the eternal decree.” They believe that this truth is stated in the Old Testament Bible: that God chose Israel unto salvation, rejecting the other nations: “The mediator of the old covenant tells Israel, 'the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people, for ye were the fewest of all people. But because the LORD loved you…' (Deut. 7.6-8)….

“In the end, there are two, and only two, possible faiths: The one maintains that all mankind lies in death; that God in free and sovereign grace eternally chose some; that God gave Christ to die for those whom He chose; that the Holy Spirit regenerates them and calls them efficaciously to faith; and that the Spirit preserves these elect, redeemed, and reborn sinners unto everlasting glory. This is Calvinism. The other faith [presumably Prof. Engelsma means all other faiths, including Roman Catholicism-TD] maintains that fallen man retains some spiritual ability for good, some life; that God's choice of men depends upon their exercise of the ability for good that is in them; that Christ's death depends upon that good in man; and that the attainment of final glory depends upon that good in man. This is the enemy of Calvinism. This is the enemy of the Gospel! For Calvinism proclaims salvation by grace; the other faith preaches salvation by man's will and works and worth….In our day, the Protestant Churches teach and preach that salvation depends upon man's own will; they proclaim that the sinner must achieve his own salvation by willing. This 'gospel' of much of Protestantism and the 'gospel' of Rome are one and the same. Essentially, there is no difference between them. This is the reason why many Protestant Churches, preachers, evangelists, and people find it possible to cooperate closely with the Roman Catholic Church….”

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that mankind is righteous before God, in part, by their own good works. Calvinists/Presbyterians appear to believe that there is little difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. Quoting Prof. Engelsma: “In our day, the Protestant Churches teach and preach that salvation depends upon man’s own will; they proclaim that the sinner must achieve his own salvation by willing. This ‘gospel’ of much of Protestantism and the ‘gospel’ of Rome are one and the same. Essentially, there is no difference between them.”

Eustace Mullins in The Curse of Canaan (1987), p. 81 provides the following pertinent information: "Calvinism, a strong influence in England during the sixteenth century, capitalized on the growing power of the mercantile fleet and the black nobility, whose main interest was money. Unlike previous institutions, which had placed great emphasis on austerity and vows of poverty, this new religious doctrine stressed that the charging of interest on loans and the amassing of wealth was the new way of doing the work of the Lord. It was a welcome revelation to the growing merchant class that God really wanted us to become wealthy….The prophet of this new divine revelation was one Jean Cauin of Noyons, France. He was educated at the College du Montagu, where Loyola, founder of the Jesuit [Roman Catholic] sect, had studied. Cauin later moved to Paris, where he continued his studies with the Humanists from 1531-32. During his stay in Paris he was known as Cauin. He then moved to Geneva where he formulated his philosophy known as Calvinism. At first known in Geneva as Cohen (the usual pronunciation of Cauin), he Anglicized his name to John Calvin. This religious movement was based on a literal Jewish interpretation of the Ten Commandments, Old Testament philosophy, and the prohibition of graven images. The early disciples of Calvinism were known as 'Christian Hebraists'…. In November, 1541, Calvin issued the Ecclesiastical Ordinances, a body of instructions which imposed absolute discipline on all citizens. Calvin's ordinances imposed the death penalty against any opponent; his leading critic, Jacques Gruet, was beheaded for blasphemy; another religious opponent, Michael Servetus, was burned at the stake."

(4) www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_31.html 

To give some background to the name Stewart or Stuart, in Memorials of the Stewarts of Forthergill (1879) edited by Charles Poyntz Stewart, we read: "We may remark that the surnames spelt Steward, Steuart, Stewart or Stuart, are incontestably derived from the Hereditary Lord Steward-ship held by Walter and his descendants for about two hundred years before their accession to the throne, and resembling the dignity of Mayor of the Palace or Migor Domus, under the French Kings of the Merovingian race; the term Steward being derived from sti, a house, and wart or ward, a guardian."

According to the Scots Chronicles, King Fergus, the first Scottish King, who came to Scotland from Ireland in 330 B.C., descended from Scota, an Egyptian Pharaonic Princess, who came to Ireland in 1400 B.C. In The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland (1998), the author Prince Michael of Albany, p. 13, remarks: "During England's period of Roman occupation, 45 BC - 450 A. D., the Scots (Scotii) were actually settlements of the Gaels of Ireland, but in AD 498, three Scots princes of Irish Dal Riata (north-east Ireland) left their native soil to settle in the Western Highlands of modern Argyll. They were the sons of King Erc, in direct descent from the Early Kings of Tara. Once established in their new land they created the kingdom of Scots Dalriada (Dal Riata) and from Fergus mac Erc, (the middle born son) the Kings of Scots descended."

In 1581 religion in Scotland was not Roman Catholic as Papal authority and the Mass had both been rejected, but it was not Presbyterian either. Bishops still remained, many Roman Catholic in their own personal opinions. Scotland was more in the line of being Episcopalian. Also, as the Stewart Kings were also Kings of Ireland, James had three major religions to consider: Scots (Episcopalian), England (Anglican) and Ireland (Roman Catholic). Therefore, religious tolerance was essential. Also, in England he was designated Supreme Head of the Church and Defender of the Faith, whereas conversely he held no seniority within the Scottish Kirk (Church). The Covenanters (those Presbyterians/ Calvinists with a concern for a strict faith) particularly disliked the power of the Bishops, calling them "bellie-Gods", and moved to resolve the situation. The General Assembly (Presbyterian highest Church authority) attempted to bring about a full Presbyterian pattern. However, at this time the state (King James VI of Scots and Council) had to approve and this they wouldn't do.

This was the situation at the time of the Union of Crowns when Queen Elizabeth I of England died in 1603. James then became King James VI (Scots) James I (England). According to the researches of Prince Michael of Albany in The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, James disliked the fact that power in England was vested in the wealthy upper-classes, rather than the people as a whole. Elizabeth had placed the English Crown into considerable debt and James was therefore forced to implement higher taxation, which Parliament agreed to. In 1612, he also established episcopacy (Episcopalian faith) and made changes to the rituals and doctrine of Presbyterianism, much to the consternation of the Covenanters. On Saturday 4th August 1621 the English mode of worship of the Five Articles of Perth (kneeling at Holy Communion, the Christian Year, private communion, private baptism and confirmation) were ratified by the Estates on assurance that no further innovations would be proposed by the king. He also brought in the new Book of Common Prayer which was written in English instead of Latin, and designed to give the people a commonly held pattern of worship. This upset the Roman Catholics, prompting the unsuccessful gunpowder plot to blow him up in Parliament, and his authorised version of the Bible upset the Protestants.

This was the situation when James' heir, Charles I, came to the double throne in 1625. Before moving on to Charles I, however, it would appear that James VI was poisoned. In The Pictorial History of Scotland, vol. II, p. 416, we read: "It was generally believed that his death was accelerated by poison, administered by the Countess of Buckingham, and her son, the profligate favourite to whom James had manifested such a blind and undeserved partiality….. Dr. Egelsham, who had been one of the king's physicians for a period of ten years, having soon after the death of the king retired to Flanders, wrote and published a pamphlet in which he expressly accuses Buckingham of having poisoned, not only the king, but the Marquis of Hamilton, and various others of the nobility."

The Scots Covenanters were suspicious about Charles I's religious views. He had been educated in England and was married to Henriette Marie of France, who was Catholic. In that light many of his acts were interpreted as some subtle means of favouring popery, and many Scots were alarmed when Charles' Coronation service included bishops in "popish rags." It is possible that this wasn't King Charles wish of course, and if it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that he wished to enforce Popery on his subjects.

According to Crowns and Coronations: A History of Regalia (1902) by William Jones, F. S. A, during this period at least, Sovereigns had some freedom to request alterations to their oaths. Charles I was crowned in Scotland and the form of his coronation oath was as follows. From Crowns and Coronations p. 278: "Archbishop. Sir, will you promise to serve Almighty God, and as every good king in his kingdom ought to do, maintain the gospel of Jesus Christ in this your kingdom, against all atheism, profaneness, heresy, schism, or superstition whatsoever? King. I promise faithfully so to do. Archbishop. Sir, will you promise to rule this people subject to you, and committed to your charge, according to the laws, constitutions, and customs of this your kingdom, causing (as much as in you lieth) justice and equity to be ministered without partiality? And to endeavour the peace of this church of Christ and all Christians? King. I grant and promise so to do. Archbishop. Sir, will you likewise promise to preserve the rights and privileges of the crown of Scotland? King. I promise so to do. Archbishop. Sir, we do also beseech you to grant unto us of the clergy, and to the churches committed to our charge, all canonical privileges, and that you will defend and protect us as every good king ought in his kingdom, to defend his bishops and the churches that be under their government. King. With a willing heart I grant the same, and promise to maintain you, and every one of you, with all the churches committed to your charge, in your old rights and privileges, according to law and justice." According to the researches of Prince Michael of Albany: "…the Coronation Oath of Robert the Bruce was firstly to God and then to the Community of the Realm of Scotland. This Oath had been sworn by all Kings of Scots from the 9th Century King Constantine I (5)." As we shall see later, some pertinent changes are made to King William III's and Queen Mary's coronation oaths.

Charles I didn't annul the Five Articles of Perth, but he did make some changes to enhance the status and wealth of the Church, desiring to have decency, orderliness and uniformity. He increased the powers of the bishops, annoying the Covenanters and the aristocracy. Later, by the Act of Revocation, which passed the Privy Seal on 12th October 1625, Charles cancelled the giving of grants to the noble landowners. His father, James, had always given them grants - possibly to keep them on his side. I believe that this almost certainly would have been considered a threat to the aristocracy and possibly a key factor in his subsequent execution. In 1637 serious concern arose about the use of the Book of Common Prayer which Charles required to be used in the Scottish Churches. The Scots Covenanters were against this and produced a National Covenant, in which its signatories bound themselves to maintain the form of church government which they believed to be in accord with God's will, instigated by force if necessary. This brought about the Bishop Wars of 1639-40. Charles went to Parliament requesting finance for a military campaign against the Covenanters, but his request would only be granted if certain conditions were met. Thus began a series of events, culminating in the civil war of 1642.

In 1643, supporters of the National Covenant made an agreement with Charles' English adversaries to assist them in defeating him, provided the English agreed to the Covenanters requirement that, if the King were defeated, Presbyterianism would be secured in Scotland, England and Ireland. An agreement was drawn up called a Solemn League and Covenant. Several military battles ensued until the Royal defeat at Naseby nearly ended the war in England and Charles surrendered to the Scots Covenanters in their camp at Newark, England on 5th May 1646 and was taken into Parliamentary custody, escaping to the Isle of Wight in June 1647. Scottish researchers state that the Scots, albeit under threats and with reluctance, surrendered their prisoner King Charles and left England. In British Cyclopaedia: Biography (1837), Vol. I, by Charles F. Partington, p. 536 we read: "Charles I at last took refuge with the Scotch army; but was sold by them to the parliament on the 5th of May, 1646, for their arrears of pay". According to the researches of Prince Michael of Albany, after the Civil War the Cromwellians swept through Ireland, killing more than 6,000 Catholics in Drogheda and Wexford alone.

While a prisoner, King Charles maintained contact with those Scots who were unhappy to see Scotland under the control of the leader of the Covenanter Party, Archibald Campbell, Marquis of Argyle, and religious extremists who were becoming increasingly influential in Parliament. One such group of Scots, under the Marquis of Hamilton, invaded England on the King's behalf, but were defeated by the English army at Preston in 1648. This particularly angered the English military leaders/Covenanters who considered that Charles had invited a foreign army into England and many Englishmen were now dead due to his actions. Furthermore, the general history books state that the English military leaders considered this to be an act of treason and put Charles on trial, having him executed in January 1649.

Within the information on religious differences mentioned earlier, I explained that I believe that Calvinism was infiltrated into Protestantism in order to cause confusion, fear and war. In The Curse of Canaan by Eustace Mullins, p.82, we read: "The importation of Calvinism [later called Presbyterianism, a branch of Protestantism -TD] into England was calculated to drive a wedge between the Church and State. The traditional Church of England [Anglican/Protestant] had as its titular head the King. Calvinism's divisive propaganda led to the triumph of Cromwell and the replacement of the Kings of the Stuart line by the House of Orange-Nassau [King William III]. The first victim of this purge was King Charles I, who was beheaded by the conspirators."

How aware Charles was of these nefarious activities it is difficult to know for sure, but before his execution he gave a speech, of which the following is a pertinent extract. Quoting The Pictorial History of Scotland p. 649: "He felt it to be his duty, he said, as an honest man, a good king, and a good Christian, to declare his innocence in the late fatal wars; he observed that he had not taken up arms till after the parliament had set him the example, though he believed that ill instruments between them and him had been the chief cause of all this bloodshed; and declared that he had no other object in his warlike preparations than to preserve that authority entire which had been transmitted to him by his ancestors." (My italics - TD).

The execution of Charles I was deeply resented by the people of Scotland and if they had possessed the power they would have declared war against the dominant party in England, but the country was in an exhausted state and therefore unable to enforce the claims of the Stewart family upon the throne. However, the Covenanters refused to allow Prince Charles (eldest son of Charles I) possession of the sovereignty until he agreed to the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. The people of Scotland were, therefore, obliged to content themselves with simply proclaiming him Charles II for the time being (he was crowned at Scone on 1st January 1651). The Marquis of Montrose and other exiled royalists, residing in France with Prince Charles, advised him to reject the crown on the proposed conditions, offering to bring about his enthronement by force of arms. His English advisers recommended him to travel to Ireland, where Ormond and the Romish party still held out against the English parliament. However, all hope of assistance from Ireland was extinguished after Cromwell successfully invaded Scotland. After some negotiations, Charles agreed to sign the National Covenant, returning to Scotland in 1659.

(5) From: The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland

Charles II & and the 'Protectorate' of Oliver Cromwell

One month before Charles II's return to Scotland, the Marquis of Montrose had been captured and sentenced to be executed on 12th May 1650. When he was summoned before parliament to hear his sentence, he requested leave to speak. The following pertinent extracts from The Pictorial History of Scotland vol. II, p. 656/7 are of interest. In answer to accusations about his soldiers plundering the country he replied: "As to the ravages which his soldiers committed in plundering the country, he [the Marquis of Montrose] reminded them that 'soldiers who wanted pay could not be restrained from spoilzie, nor kept under such strict discipline as other regular forces. But he declared that he did all that lay in his power to keep them back from it; and as for bloodshed, if it could have been thereby prevented, he would rather it had come out of his own veins'."

The Marquis of Montrose made a further significant statement: "His care, he said, had always been to act as a good Christian and a loyal subject. He engaged in the first covenant [of Presbyterianism/Calvinism], and was faithful to it until he perceived that certain persons, under colour of religion, intended to wrest the royal authority from the king." Before his execution he spoke of his loyalty to the deceased King Charles I and his successor, Charles II. The following is another extract from the same book, p. 658: "It is spoken of me that I blame the king! God forbid. For the late king - he lived a saint, and died a martyr. I pray God I may end so. If ever I would wish my soul in another man's stead, it were in his. For his majesty now living [Charles II], never people, I believe, might be more happy in a king. His commands to me were most just. In nothing that he promiseth will he fail. He deals justly with all men. I pray God he be so dealt with, that he be not betrayed under trust as his father was. I desire not to be mistaken, as if my carriage at this time, in relation to your ways, were stubborn. I do but follow the light of my own conscience, which is seconded by the working of the good spirit of God that is within me." The author of The Pictorial History of Scotland, the Rev. Taylor, describes the character of Montrose, p. 659: "Thus perished at the age of thirty-seven one of the most distinguished Scotchmen….. He was a poet and a scholar, as well as a soldier, and wrote and spoke clearly and eloquently. His genius was of the heroic cast, and, in the opinion of the celebrated Cardinal de Retz - no mean judge of character." (My italics -TD).

The 'protectorate' of Oliver Cromwell was severe. At Dunbar (nr. Edinburgh, Scotland) he showed no mercy, exiling prisoners to plantations in America and Ireland. Charles conducted a similar invasion of England only to be defeated at Worcester. He went into exile, and for the first time in history English forces had conquered Scotland, which was incorporated into the English State and Parliamentary system.

When Oliver Cromwell died on 3rd September 1658 he was followed by his son Richard Cromwell, who later abdicated the 'protectorship' in 1659. In British Cyclopaedia: Biography (1837), vol. I, p. 540: "Cromwell had appointed his eldest son, Richard, his successor; but the republican and religious fanaticism of the army and officers, with Fleetwood at their head, now subverted, as it had formerly served, the projects of Cromwell. The mild and virtuous Richard was compelled by the mutinous officers to dissolve the parliament; and a few days after, conscious of his incapacity, he voluntarily abdicated the protectorship, April 22, 1659." Interestingly, during his 'protectorship', Oliver Cromwell may have had a change of mind about King Charles II. Quoting British Cyclopaedia, Biography, Vol. I, p. 537: "Cromwell seems at this time to have contemplated the restoration of the king. But he was convinced, on a nearer view of the fanatical spirit that reigned in the army, that he could not venture such a measure without danger of his life; besides, he was only second in command, and could not reckon on the assistance of the most influential men. They were all zealous republicans, and firmly resolved to destroy monarchy with the monarch." (My italics - TD)

After the abdication of Richard Cromwell, the English Parliament sent representatives to Charles’ court in exile asking him to resume the throne. The monarchy was therefore restored in 1660 and a Rescissory Act was passed in 1661 by which all Presbyterian legislation since 1633 was undone, both Covenants were renounced and an Episcopal Church re-established. There was strong resistance to this by the Covenanters which was put down, and their worship strictly prohibited. The Covenanters then issued their Queensferry Paper on 4th June 1680 in which they stated: “We do declare, that we shall set up over ourselves, and over what God shall give us power of, government and governors according to the word of God, and especially that word, Exodus 18.21. ‘Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people, able men such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them; to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.’ That we shall no more commit the government of ourselves, and the making of laws for us, to any one single person, or lineal successor….this kind of government by a single person being most liable to inconveniences, and aptest to degenerate into tyranny, as sad and long experience hath taught us. Moreover we declare, that those men whom we shall set over us, shall be engaged to govern us principally by that civil and judicial law (we think none will be so ignorant as to think, by the judicial law we mean that which is ceremonial or typical) given by God to his people of Israel…”

A man named Richard Cameron became a leading exponent in this resistance, which meant that the Covenanters later became known as the "Cameronians". Leadership was then later taken up by James Renwick whose 'Apologetical Declaration' of October 1684 defined the king and all his servants as 'enemies to God and the Covenanted work of reformation' and to be punished as such. Following this, suspects were asked by soldiers to declare an oath disclaiming all support for this declaration. Those who refused were shot, drowned or hanged immediately. (This writer has so far been unable to ascertain whether this was carried out under the orders of Charles, his brother James, Duke of York, or other people). The chief official during this time was Charles’ brother and heir, James - later to become King James II. Researchers state that James was Catholic and in 1679 had been subjected to an anti-catholic crises in England. He had been sent to Scotland as Royal Commissioner to get him out of the way while the crises was sorted out. This led him to become identified by the Covenanters as having responsibility for the worst persecution of the Cameronians.

Despite Charles' religious tolerance, Parliament passed the 1673 and 1678 Test Acts, which prevented anyone but Anglicans from holding office. In 1681 the Scottish Test Act allowed only Protestants to hold office. Despite this, and the fact that Charles upset the Anglican clergy when he married the Portuguese Princess, Catherine de Braganya (a Roman Catholic); according to Prince Michael the people welcomed Charles back as their sovereign and was a most popular king.

In 1683 “The Rye House Plot was hatched. The intention was to assassinate both King Charles II and the Duke of York. It failed.”

When Charles II died in 1685, his son, James, became James VII (of Scots) II (of England). Many history books state that he continued to persecute the Presbyterian Covenanters, forced his Roman Catholic religion upon the people and persecuted the Protestants. Yet he would appear to have been a religiously tolerant king. In 1687 he introduced an Act of Indulgence, but Parliament declined to accept the Bill, so he presented it again the following year. He also issued a written Declaration for Liberty of Conscience on 4th April 1687 (see Appendix), in which still further concessions were made, also proposing the ideal of religious freedom for all. Despite this, he was later forced to abdicate.

James’ above mentioned Declaration was followed in July by a third proclamation, abolishing all laws imposing penalties and disabilities on account of nonconformity, and all restrictions except the prohibition of field meetings. The following year, on 27th April 1688, James issued a further declaration which included the full text of his first declaration. Quoting relevant extracts: "Our conduct has been such in all times as ought to have persuaded the world that we are firm and constant to our resolutions. Yet that easy people may not be abused by the malice of crafty, wicked men ….It is such a security we desire, without the burden and constraint of oaths and tests, which have been unhappily made by some governments, but could never support any; nor should men be advanced by such means to offices and employments, which ought to be the reward of services, fidelity, and merit….we have not appeared to be that prince our enemies would have made the world afraid of, our chief aim having been not to be the oppressor…". (My italics - TD)

The Pictorial History of Scotland vol. II, p. 739 provides information on the response to the above Declaration: “Some of the more moderate of the Presbyterian party….availed themselves of the indulgence…The Cameronians…refused to avail themselves of an indulgence which [according to them] was obtained by the sacrifice of the fundamental laws of the Kingdom." In issuing his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience James endeavoured to dispel all bigotry in favour of sympathetic indulgence. Some researchers suggest that he didn't realise that neither he nor the people were at liberty to make decisions in this regard. By that time, two political groups or parties had evolved at Westminster, known as the Whigs and the Tories. The Whigs were essentially those of the wealthy land-owning establishment, and when James issued his Declaration the Whigs were in the majority.

The English Parliament invited William of Orange (Protestant) to invade England with a large enough army to defeat the King. Some researchers say that William was keen to do so because English money, ships and influence would be available for his life's work of saving Holland from France. He invaded England on 5th November 1688.

It is important for the reader to note that the Protestant religion (Presbyterianism/Calvinism was a branch of Protestantism) now became the enforced religion of the day. A propaganda campaign ensued, causing James to become unpopular with the people (see Bill of Rights below). The people were also informed that he wished to enforce his Catholic religion on the country, causing further concern. Some researchers say that the aristocrats, including the Duke of Monmouth, were persuaded, or bribed, to overthrow the King. According to The Pictorial History of Scotland, p. 740, the reasons for his deposition were stated as being because of "His pertinacious exercise of the dispensing power and admission of crowds of papists to offices of authority and trust; his attempts to compel the clergy to read from their pulpits a second declaration of indulgence, dispensing with the test and penal laws; his imprisonment and trial of the seven bishops for their refusal to comply with his illegal and unconstitutional demands; and the birth of the Prince of Wales [Prince James]."

These were some of the methods that were used to force James to abdicate. If his Declaration of Conscience was sincere (and I believe it was) he did not wish to force his Catholic religion on the people. James fled to France in 1688 preceded by his son James (by his first wife, Anne Hyde of Clarendon) and his second wife, Mary of Modena. King Louis XIV of France set them up in a court of their own at the Jacobite Pretenders Court of St. Germain.

While James' Declaration of Conscience was intended to provide for religious freedom for all, the wording of the English Bill of Rights appears to show that Parliament and those who created this Bill, were intolerant of all other religions except Protestantism; and later, in 1701, the Act of Settlement demanded that all future kings/queens should declare an Oath of allegiance to this religion only! Also, despite James' declarations, the Presbyterian Covenanters later decided they would pass laws in Parliament to ultimately force the citizens to convert to the Protestant faith. However, was this only to do with differing religious views - or also connected with financial monopoly and control of the monarchy?

The English Bill of Rights is described as "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and settling the Succession of the Crown". The Act stated that future monarchs could reign "only with Parliamentary consent" (instead of the original Scots law of reigning by the consent of the Scots people) and that MP's should be freely elected. However MP's of that time were not freely elected. Only a small number of male property owners who also had access to substantial incomes were allowed to vote in the English Parliament, which was therefore far from being a democratic representation of the people.

Quoting relevant extracts from the English Bill of Rights: "Whereas the late King James the Second [of England, VII of Scots], by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of Parliament….And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation….That election of members of Parliament ought to be free." It would also appear that no foreign prince ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm. Quoting the English Bill of Rights at the point where the sovereign(s) speak their oaths: "….And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate, hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm, So help me God." (My italics - TD). Despite this oath, Prince William of the Royal Dutch House of Orange is later crowned King!

The Bill forbade practice of the Roman Catholic religion and stated that all future kings/queens must declare their allegiance to the Protestant religion. Again, quoting the English Bill of Rights: "…the said lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with, the see or church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions belonging thereunto….. The said crown and government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion, or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, where naturally dead." Earlier in this document the new parliament would appear to state its control over finance: "That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal." So much for religious freedom!

James’ forced abdication guaranteed power to an unelected Parliament. Therefore, it would appear that his deposition had far less to do with religion than the fact that the money-lenders/bankers were determined to usurp the Crown and also thereby set up the Bank of England. However, there was still a contract between the King and the people. The throne was not occupied, but it wasn't vacant either. Proposals were made by Parliament for William of Orange to act as Regent. Quoting The Pictorial History of Scotland, p. 741: "After the flight of the king, the Prince of Orange summoned a convention at Westminster. At their first meeting thanks were voted to the prince for the deliverance which he had achieved for the nation. They then proceeded, by a great majority, to vote that King James, having endeavoured to subvert the constitution, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant. The king being thus set aside, the convention proceeded to take into consideration the appointment of a successor. Proposals were made by some for electing a regent; others were for investing the Princess of Orange with regal power in her father's room. On learning these proposals, William summoned a small council of leading persons, and stated that he thought it necessary to inform them that if they chose a regent, he would not accept that office. Neither was he disposed to take the government of the kingdom under the princess his wife. If either of these schemes were adopted, he informed them that he could give them no assistance in the settlement of the nation, but would return home to his own country. Upon this it was agreed, after a long debate, that the Prince and Princess of Orange should reign jointly as King and Queen of England, while the administration of the government should be placed in the hands of the prince only. Accordingly, on the 13th of February, 1689, William and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen of England [at Westminster Abbey]."

Interestingly, immediately after William of Orange became King, he granted the charter of the Bank of England. The following quote from Pawns in the Game (c.1956) by William Guy Carr, Commander R.C.N. Ret’d., provides pertinent details on the founding of the Bank “of England”. On p. 23 Commander Carr informs us: “1689: William of Orange and Mary, were proclaimed King and Queen of England. …. Their [the money lenders] first objective was to obtain permission to institute a Bank of England and consolidate and secure the debts Britain owed them for loans made to her to fight the wars they instigated. …It is important to remember that no sooner was the Dutch General [William of Orange] sitting upon the throne of England than he persuaded the British Treasury to borrow £1,250,000 from the …. bankers who had put him there. The school book history informs our children that the negotiations were conducted by Sir John Houblen and Mr William Patterson on behalf of the British Government with money-lenders whose identity remained secret….. The international money-lenders agreed to accommodate the British Treasury to the extent of £1,250,000 providing they could dictate their own terms and conditions. This was agreed to. 
The terms were in part: 

1. That the names of those who made the loan remain secret; and that they be granted a Charter to establish a Bank of England. 

2. That the directors of the Bank of England be granted the legal right to establish the Gold Standard for currency by which - 

3. They could make loans to the value of £10 for every £1 value of gold they had on deposit in their vaults. 

4. That they be permitted to consolidate the national debt; and secure payment of amounts due as principal and interest by direct taxation of the people. Thus, for the sum of £1,250,000, King William of Orange sold the people of England into economic bondage.”

Also, quoting “On Target” Vol. 26, Nos. 8 & 9, 12/26^{th October, 1996: “1694-1994 Three Centuries of Bondage….” by Donald Neale, O.B.E: “The Bank of England, so-called, was founded in 1694 to lend £1,200,000 to William III. Its chief founder, William Patterson, is reported to have said: The bank hath benefit of interest on all monies it creates out of nothing. Thus began the U.K. National Debt, today represented by the total of government stocks and bonds (‘Gilts’) listed in the daily press. ‘Bonds’ of course means bondage not only to pay interest on them for their duration but also to redeem them by repaying the loans. From such seemingly small beginnings, U.K. National Debt (or more strictly total Public Sector Debt) reached £204,174,000,000 in 1991-92, costing taxpayers £16,691,000,000 in debt charges.”}

Eustace Mullins in The Curse of Canaan, p.84, provides further insight and an overview of the events that took place behind the scenes between the death of King Charles II and the enthroning of William and Mary. "Because Charles II was now on the throne of England, the Amsterdam bankers instituted a great financial depression in England of 1674. The unrest caused by this development paved the way for the House of Nassau [the Dutch House of Orange] to seize the throne of England. England made peace with its nemesis, Holland, in 1677. As part of the deal, William of Orange married Mary, daughter of the Duke of York, who became King James II [of England, VII of Scots] when Charles II died in 1685. James now became the only obstacle to William's taking over the throne of England. The Amsterdam bankers now launched a frenetic campaign of bribing King James II's leading aristocratic supporters….Meanwhile, James II seemed unaware of the treachery which surrounded him. Marlborough even signed a renewed oath of fidelity to James on November 10, 1688. On November 24, he joined the forces of William of Orange."

The Coronation Oaths of William and Mary are detailed in Crowns and Coronations p. 280, as follows: "Archbishop or Bishop - Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of this realm, and to the Churches committed to their Charge, all such Rights and Privileges as by Law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them? King and Queen - All this I promise to do. After this the King and Queen, laying his and her hand upon the Holy Gospels, shall say, King and Queen - The things which I have herebefore promised, I will perform and keep, So help me, God! Then the King and the Queen shall kiss the Book. And be it further enacted, That the said Oath shall be in like manner administered to every King or Queen who shall succeed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm at their respective Coronations, etc."

This is different to the oath which Charles I took at his coronation in which he agreed to "maintain the Gospel of Christ in this your kingdom" and "endeavour the peace of the church of Christ and all Christians", William and Mary swore that they would "maintain the Laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by Law." (I also believe that our present Queen Elizabeth II stated this Oath at her Coronation). King William would have preferred to place the Presbyterian and Episcopal Churches on equal footing in Scotland. However, the Scots Presbyterians were particularly suspicious of the Bishops and he was advised that if he wished to have peace in Scotland he must give the Presbyterian Church sole supremacy. William was the son of King Charles I's daughter, Mary, and William’s wife Mary, was the daughter of King James VII/II by his first wife, Anne Hyde of Clarendon. However, these hereditary links were not sufficient for the Scots. They still considered that James was their rightful King. Thus began the first of the Jacobite risings.

They were called Jacobites because the name James derives from the Latin Jacobus/Jacomus, being originally Jacob in Hebrew - hence they called themselves Jacob-ites. Though a few of the old Tories in England worked secretly for the Jacobite cause, the chief centres of resistance were in Scotland and Ireland, supported by the French. The term Jacobite is the name commonly given to English and Scottish supporters of the exiled Stewart dynasty. Their leader was John Graham of Claverhouse on whom James had conferred the title of Viscount Dundee.

A successful Jacobite battle took place on 27th July 1689 (just north of Killiecrankie, Perthshire, Scotland), but at a second battle in Dundee on 18th August 1689 they were defeated, and the Jacobites dispersed for the time being. The following year, on 1st July 1690, King William's Orangemen defeated the Jacobite Highlanders at the battle of the river Boyne (a few miles west of Drogheda in Ireland). This battle has been celebrated by the Orangemen in Ireland since 1690. In Pawns in the Game (1958) by William Guy Carr, R. D., Commander R. C. N. (R) Ret'd, p. 23 we learn that: "He [King James] was a Catholic, so the Secret Powers set up William of Orange as the Champion of the Protestant Faith. On February 15th, 1689, King James landed in Ireland. [On 1st July 1690] the Battle of the Boyne was fought by men of definite, and opposing, religious convictions. The Battle has been celebrated by Orangemen on the 12th of July ever since. There is probably not one Orangeman in ten thousand who knows that all the wars and rebellions fought from 1640 to [1690]….were fomented by the International money-lenders for the purpose of putting themselves in position to control British politics and economy.” A key reason for the Jacobite defeat was probably due to the fact that William’s army was larger, by at least 10,000 men.

After his success in Ireland, King William told the Jacobites that they should swear an oath of allegiance to him. However, as their kings had always sworn 'fealty to the nation' (vow of service to the nation) the majority of the Jacobite Highlanders were reluctant to comply and many Clan chiefs travelled to France to seek King James’ advice. He gave his consent to swear the oath because he believed that otherwise William of Orange would retaliate. However, King William decided that one Clan should be persecuted as an example to others. Quoting The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland, p. 155: "One aged chief who returned from France was MacIain, whose clan of MacDonalds were settled at Glencoe. For technical reasons, MacIain failed to meet the Allegiance deadline of 1 January 1692. He had endeavoured to register his oath at Fort William, and went there for that very purpose on 30 December, but no Crown officer arrived from Inverary, and so MacIain was sent home. As a result, he did not manage to fulfil his obligation until 6 January - a week later. Meanwhile, Sir John Dalrymple, (King William's Secretary of State for Scotland) was criticized at Westminster for being slow to implement the Highland policy. William required a show of strength, and it was ruled that Dalrymple should persecute an individual clan as an example to the others. He chose the MacDonalds of Glencoe." This became known as the horrific "Glencoe massacre".

After James VII/II died in 1701, King Louis XIV of France declared James' son, James, then 13 years, as King James III, but this was not acceptable to the English Parliament. William and Mary were childless and the twenty-year marriage of King William's sister-in-law Anne to Prince George of Denmark had produced seventeen infant mortalities, their last child dying at the age of nine in 1700. In 1701, an Act of Settlement was passed by the English Parliament by one vote. It declared that on the death without issue of William's heir Anne, a daughter of James VII/II, the throne would bypass forty-two Catholic claimants vesting the succession after the deaths of William and Anne upon the Princess Sophia, Electress Dowager of Hanover and her descendants. This was done without any consultation whatsoever with the Scots Parliament. James’ supporters, the Jacobites, protested that this Act was put into effect by a parliament which had not been called by the legitimate king and was therefore not a constitutionally legal document. The English Parliament had, however, impudently included references to Scotland in a series of resolutions embodied in the Act, one of which forbade the wearer of the crown to leave England, Scotland or Ireland without the English Parliament's consent. The Scots were well aware that their governors took their orders from London but these had at least come in the past in the name of a monarch they had accepted as their own.

The Darien Scheme - Act of 1695

(The Company of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies was set up)

The Darien scheme disaster caused financial devastation to Scotland, making it vulnerable to political union with England.

In 1707 The Union of Scotland and England (1979), by P. H. Scott, p.6, we are informed that: "In 1695 it [the Scottish parliament] passed an Act for a company trading to Africa and the Indies. This was the Company of Scotland, which, as the first of its ventures, decided to settle a colony at Darien. William [III] as King of Scotland gave his assent to the Act and signed the Charter of the Company. As King of England, he was obliged to do all he could to sabotage and oppose the efforts of the Company. His English Government prevented the raising of capital in London and on the Continent and issued proclamations throughout the Colonies to deny trade or support of any kind to the Scottish Company. The capital was raised in Scotland alone in an astonishing effort of national fervour, requiring most of the disposable wealth of the country. When the Darien scheme failed it was largely due to mismanagement and inadequate preparation but the constitutional anomaly had not helped. How could a country succeed when its own Head of State actively opposed its interests? England had also been made aware of the problem, because the efforts of the Scottish company were not only a challenge to their trading monopolies but a complication of their foreign policy."

When King William died in 1702, his sister in law, Anne, came to the double throne. As mentioned earlier, she had children but none survived, the last one dying at the age of 9. When Queen Anne and the Electress Sophia died in 1714, the Act of Settlement was immediately instigated. In The Mighty Affair p. 42, the author, Charles Hendry Dand, states: "The Electress Sophia and Queen Anne died in 1714, with Sophia dying before Queen Anne [on the 1st August 1714]. The Act of Settlement then provided for the German Electress Sophia's son, George, of the German House of Hanover, to became King of Scots/England - or in Jacobite terms -- 'usurped'."

Concerned about the ramifications of the Act of Settlement, the Scots had already passed an Act of Security in 1703. In The Pictorial History of Scotland, vol. II, p. 816: "Instead of complying with the wishes of the English ministry the Parliament of Scotland passed a measure called the Act of Security by which it was provided that, in case of Queen Anne's death without children, the Scottish Estates should choose a successor of the royal line and Protestant religion; but it was expressly stipulated that the same person should be incapable of holding the crowns of both kingdoms, unless the honour and independence of the Scottish nation should be secured, and the Scottish people admitted to share with the English the full benefits of navigation and trade. It was provided by the same statute that the nation should be placed in a state of defence." However, the English Parliament was not about to accept these terms and a statute was then passed (which became known as the Alien Act), which stated that (again quoting The Pictorial History of Scotland vol, II) "It was provided, that, on 25th December, 1705, until the succession to the crown of Scotland should be determined in the same line as that of England, no native of Scotland, except those already settled in the English dominion, or attached to the military or naval service, should acquire the privileges of a national born Englishman; that, in the meantime, under heavy penalties, no horses, arms, or ammunition should be conveyed from England or Ireland into Scotland; and that ultimately no coals, cattle, sheep, or native linen should be imported from Scotland." Basically, severe sanctions were threatened to force the Scots to accept the English Parliament's Act of Succession.

In 1707 the Union of Scotland and England p. 17, the author states: “It was, wrote Defoe of the Act [of Settlement], 'the most impolitic, I had almost said unjust, that ever passed that great assembly'. This was an ultimatum threatening an economic blockade and hinting at the possibility of military action. The Act mentioned the possibility of Union; but (contrary to the account of most historians) the ultimatum related not to this but to Scottish acceptance of the Hanoverian Succession. In fact, for the whole of the first phase of the crisis, this was the first objective of the English Government and the solution which they would have preferred.” (My italics -TD)

The people of Scotland preferred a federal union, rather than an incorporating one. At the last parliament of Scotland on 3rd October 1706 Lord Queensberry read the following letter from Queen Anne in which she was clearly attempting to encourage the Scots people to accept an incorporating union of Scotland and England. Quoting from The Pictorial History of Scotland, vol. II, p. 823: "It [a political union of the crowns] will secure…your religion, liberty, and property, remove the animosities amongst yourselves, and the jealousies and differences betwixt our two kingdoms. It must increase your strength, riches, and trade: and by this union, the whole island being joined in affection, and free from all apprehension of different interests, will be enabled to resist all its enemies, support the Protestant interest everywhere, and maintain the liberties of Europe." The people of Scotland still argued strongly against the Union and petitions were signed and sent to the Scottish Parliament, but they were disregarded. On 1st May 1707, despite all opposition, which even threatened civil war, the Treaty was passed.

However, despite Queen Anne's above speech (which may have been written by her MP's or advisers) it would appear that she sympathised with the outcast Stewarts. In The Pictorial History of Scotland, vol. II, p. 844, we read: "Immediately after Queen Anne's demise, the Dukes of Marlborough and Argyll, along with other influential courtiers, received a manifesto signed and sent by the Pretender [James], setting forth 'the sacred and fundamental constitution of hereditary right, which has still prevailed against all usurpations, how successful and how long time however continued.' The writer protested ….against being ‘answerable, before God and man, for the pernicious consequences which this usurpation of our crown may draw on our subjects and all Christendom’. The document contained an allusion to the deceased queen, ‘of whose good intentions,’ adds the prince, 'towards us we could not for some time past well doubt; and this was the reason we then sat still, expecting the good effects thereof, which were unfortunately prevented by her deplorable death’, but now that a stranger and an enemy occupied the throne, which by divine and unalienable right belonged to James, as heir of the Stewarts, it was hoped that all true subjects would forthwith rally around the one, and displace the other as a usurper. This appeal, however, produced no effect within the circle of statesmen….[The Earl of Mar, in a letter to King George I stated] 'Your majesty shall ever find me as faithful and dutiful a subject and servant as ever any of my family have been to the crown, or as I have been to my late mistress, the queen.' ….To render his support of the Hanoverian dynasty highly important, and worthy of being courted even by royalty, Mar had managed to obtain a large following of Highland chiefs. He had drawn from them a document, in which they deputed him, as their trusty adviser, to lay their allegiance and duty at their new sovereign's feet, and to make known their willingness to transfer their fidelity from the Stewart family to that of the Guelphs." (My italics - TD)

The names Guelph and Ghibelline appear to have originated in Germany in the rivalry between the House of Welf (Dukes of Bavaria) and the House of Hohenstaufen (Dukes of Swabia). These names were adopted as the two factors that kept Italy divided and devastated by civil war during the greater part of the middle ages. The Guelphs were in the main the republic, commercial, burgher party; the ghibellines represented the old nobility [aristocracy] of Italy. Due to the Guelph's strength among the rising merchant class, the Guelphs intermarried with the old nobility (the ghibellines) and became what is known today as the black nobility.

The following quote would appear to reinforce Queen Anne's apparent sympathies towards the Stewarts: "The Queen had now a government of Tories, who were believed, like her majesty, to wish well to the Jacobite cause….Natural feeling, and the instinctive charities of blood, had prompted her to cherish strong sympathy with the outcast Stewarts." The death of Queen Anne on 1st August 1714 was a grievous blow to the Jacobite party. Interestingly, according to the researches of Prince Michael of Albany, Queen Anne declared her half-brother, James, as her chosen heir in her will. Quoting The Forgotten Monarchy of Scotland p. 169: "….when Queen Anne died on 1 August 1714 the Tory ministers ruled that her wishes should be honoured. However, the proceedings were delayed while the Whigs regained their supremacy, and disregarding Anne's last will they enacted her earlier 1705 nomination."

The following quote from The New World Order (1992) by Eustace Mullins, p. 27 provides some further information on the Electress Sophia's son, the Elector of Hanover, who became George I: "When [Queen Anne] ….died, there were numerous claimants to the throne. The successful claimant, the Elector of Hanover, from Germany, bolstered his claim by the research of the scholar, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716). Leibniz spent twenty years in the documentation of the Brunswick's family claim, publishing his finding as Codex Juris Gentium Diplomaticus Hannoverae. Leibniz had been secretary of the Rusicrucian Society in Nuremburg in 1667. He loyally served the Brunswick family of Hanover as a genealogist and historian. He documented that Elizabeth, the Protestant daughter of King James I, had married Frederick the Fifth, Elector of Palatine. Their daughter, Sophie, married Ernest Augustus, the first Elector of Hanover. Although she died before Queen Anne, her son, now Elector of Hanover, was able to overcome the other claimants because of Leibniz' carefully documented reports. Leibniz not only brought the Hanovers to England, but also Freemasonry. His Rosicrucian connections,…. placed a Freemason on the throne of England [and Scotland]. Taking the name of George I, Hanover spoke no English, and indignantly refused to learn the language of his new domain."

The House of Hanover was renamed Saxe-Coburg-Gotha during the Victorian era and in 1917 renamed again the House of Windsor, so as to veil its German heritage during World War I because of anti-German feeling at that time. Interestingly, according to the researches of Prince Michael of Albany, and other researchers, the Queen Mother's Scottish link was a thin one. It is generally believed that she was born at Glamis Castle, but her birth certificate states that she was born in London and that her genealogy has persisted south of the border for six generations, with marriages into Durham and Hertfordshire families. It is only by tracing her lineage back to 1704 do we find a Scottish birth.