In Macaulay’s History of England, he casts James II in a negative light, though it seems convincing enough, and William of Orange in a good one.
How accurate is Macaulay’s view? I know it has been criticized as the “Whig View of History” but other than that phrase, what exactly was wrong with his history (concerning those two Monarchs)?
I’ve read Macaulay and enjoyed it a lot. He is critical of James, and deservedly so in my view. Some more modern historians have tried to re-interpret James as a genuine champion of religious liberty, but personally I think Macaulay is right: he used the phrase ‘religious liberty’ as a smokescreen for trying to forcefully convert England and Scotland back to Catholicism.
I haven’t read volume 3 yet - regarding the Williamite War in Ireland - and I imagine I’ll be more critical of that volume owing to a tendency on Victorians to whitewash Protestant activities in Ireland.