From a reader:

Dear Jonah,
I usually never write, but a recent post on the corner has demanded my response. Good King James might have been an ‘absolutist’ (though, I would argue, far less than the Whig oligarchy to follow), but he was certainly no bigot. His Declaration of Indulgence afforded toleration to Catholics (1687) and dissenting Protestants, and was swiftly revoked by the fine ‘Dutch model’ usurper that followed him. James was, all told, the best that the race of Stuarts offered to England, and his ousting was opprobrious to the extreme. Your expert on British history might think Test Acts (discriminating against Catholics for more than a century afterwards) of the post-1688 regime to be the heights of enlightenment, but as a Catholic and loyal subject of the Crown, I would politely demur. He is, however, correct that Toryism does not necessarily equal Jacobitism, but it is
nevertheless true that very few Tories actually wished to see James deposed (and very few Whigs, for that matter). As for the ‘massive state apparatus’, that is quite laughable. Simply compare the size of the bureaucracy of James II and
that of the Parliamentary regime 100 years later and come to your own conclusions. And ‘anti-market political economy’? What the deuce?! The advent of highly irresponsible monetary policy and ‘mercantilism’ was largely owing to the writings and influence of Locke and other radical Whigs (Joyce Appleby). Besides, why should we celebrate the ‘market’ forces that helped to create and to sustain the slave trade? In any event, I think the Odious Revolution of 1688 to be among the greater misfortunes of British History….only Vicky reconciled me at last to the House of Hanover. Otherwise I would still be toasting the ‘King o’er the water’ (and I might well be doing so when our next monarch arrives). But whatever that prejudiced reader might say, your Cosmo should sport his White Cockade with pride!!
A. Jacobite