possessing a crown was opened to his son-in-law and
grandchildren. On the other hand he was greatly impressed by a
representation which the King of Spain forwarded to him, that his
right to the crown of Bohemia was indisputable--as in fact the Spanish
line had a contingent claim to the succession--and that he would
contend for it with all his strength: on which King James said that he
also as a great sovereign had an interest in seeing that no one was
deprived of his own. The theories of James I about the hereditary
rights of princes, the electoral rights of the Estates, and the
influence of religious profession in these matters, presented
themselves to his mind together with his wishes on the question of the
aggrandisement of his dynasty. He remarked that it could not be
allowed that subjects should presume to fall away from their sovereign
on a question of religion; he even feared that this doctrine might
react to his own prejudice on England. In these considerations the
balance evidently was in favour of a refusal. James would have
deserved well of the world if he had given utterance to that refusal,
and had decisively dissuaded his son-in-law from accepting the crown.
And from his oft-repeated assertions at a later period, to the effect
that the Elector had proceeded on his own responsibility, we might
think that he had expressed himself in definite terms in favour of a
different course.
In reality however this is not the case. He condemned the revolt of
the Bohemians against Matthias: in regard to Ferdinand it was his
opinion that they should prove from the old capitulations their right
to declare his election and coronation invalid, and to proceed to a
new election, in which case he would himself support them.[402] He
expressed himself in such a manner, that even members of the Privy
Council received the impression that he would approve of and even
support the acceptance of the crown when once it had taken place.
Christopher Dohna relates that in the negotiations at that time he one
day declared that his master, the Elector, was ready to refuse the
crown if the King required him to do so; and that James replied, 'I do
not say that.'[403]
Monarchs are set in authority in order that they may pronounce
definitive decisions according to the best of their own judgment. It
is sometimes their duty to take a decided line. James, who hitherto
had always stood between different parties, could not nerve himself at
this
|