One person's traitor is the other side's hero. Considering his rebellion was against the same king overthrown 3 years later in a "Glorious Revolution" I think they could focus on his sacrifice to the cause.
Well, Monmouth's uncle was the lawful monarch given that Parliament had failed to remove him from the succession (which Charles II ensured would not happen) so there is no doubt Monmouth's rebellion was illegal and an act of treason. When James II fled the country three years later in the wake of his son-in-law's invasion Parliament got around the problem of removing him from the throne by declaring that he had 'vacated it' ie. a kind of abdication so they could 'legally' offer it to the invader. James II's son was declared illegitimate because of the silly warming-pan nonsense spun around his birth.
In any event, wherever one's sympathies may lie, the Monmouth title has unpleasant associations and so I would be surprised if they would want to re-create it.
361
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index