Conscience and allegiance : an investigation into the controversy over Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy during the Reign of William III and William II, 1689 - 1702

Abstract

In the winter of 1688-9 King James II and VII fled Britain and was replaced on the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland by his son-in-law William of Orange and daughter Mary in events known as the Glorious Revolution. Across the Three Kingdoms bitter public debates erupted over whether subjects could take Oaths of Allegiance to the new monarchs despite having sworn allegiance to James, who was alive and demanding allegiance as the legitimate King. James Hamilton, Earl of Arran’s January 1689 speech to Scottish nobles meeting in London highlighted this moral conundrum. Arran hailed William’s rescuing the Kingdoms ‘from Popery’ but that did not allow Arran to ‘Violate’ his ‘Duty’ to James; Arran said that he disliked James’s ‘Popery’ but had ‘sworn and do owe Allegiance’ to James’s ‘Person.’ James was ‘the KING’ and it was his ‘Right’ to have subjects’ allegiance, making it ‘impossible for’ Arran to ‘sign away’ allegiance and offer it to William. In Early Modern Europe Allegiance Oaths were the strongest bonds of loyalty to monarchs. From local to national level these were prerequisites for obtaining political, civil and frequently religious offices. Publicly swearing allegiance bound subjects’ consciences to a ruler, allowing governments to claim popular support and legitimacy. This was a big political and moral decision. Numerous contemporary polemicists described allegiance as crucial to a government’s viability and legitimacy; without allegiance there would be chaos. The trust involved in swearing allegiance was ‘the Foundation of peace’ in a kingdom. Debates over paying William allegiance were crucial to the Revolution because without allegiance William’s regime and the Revolution settlements would not survive …