What is your faction in Restoration Scotland?

The Restoration (1660-88) was a tense and challenging period in Scottish History. As Scots worked through the ramification of the mid-century Civil Wars (1638-60) and tried to figure out what kind of kingdom they wanted, a range of often wildly diverging political visions emerged and competed. Many of these centred on the questions of religious conformity and whether Scotland's national Church should be Episcopalian or Presbyterian

But where would you have stood if you had been around in Restoration Scotland? Would you have been a rabid supporter of the king, an irreconcilable dissident, or something in-between? Take our quiz to find out which political faction you belonged to in Restoration Scotland!

Created by: Dr Allan Kennedy of Centre for Scottish Culture, Dundee
(your link here more info)

Was the Act Recissory (1661), which annulled all legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament since 1633, a good idea?
- Yes - let's sweep away all memory of the treacherous Covenanters!
- Don't really care, so long as it makes the king happy
- Absolutely not - the glorious achievements of the Civil Wars should not have been touched!
- We had to unpick some of the Covenanting settlement, but maybe we went a bit too far
- It didn't really make much difference in my neck of the woods, so who cares?
Was Charles II's government right to oversee the restoration of Episcopacy in 1662?
- No - and it means I have to withdraw from public life
- That depends on how much disruption it caused in my locality
- Maybe, but it certainly caused a lot of regrettable friction
- No - it was an act of pure evil!
- Doesn't matter; if it makes the king happy, it makes me happy
- That's none of my concern, since it's up to the king alone
The creation of a permanent militia after 1668, charged primarily with maintaining order and helping collect taxes, was...?
- ungodly tyranny!
- a good way to make the king feel more secure
- a legitimate expression of royal authority
- yet another way of oppressing God-fearing Presbyterians
- worrying if it meant more troops bothering my tenants
Was it appropriate for Charles II to be declared head of the Church in 1669?
- If that's what the king wanted, then fine
- Absolutely - the king must be in complete control of his kingdom
- No! It was a blasphemous infringement on God's authority
- That depends on how much disruption in caused in my locality
Did you support the abortive negotiations for commercial union with England in 1669-70?
- I would have done, if they'd provided for the spread of Presbyterianism into England
- No, since union would have endangered Presbyterianism even more
- Such matters are for the king, not me
- I did, but my interest waned when the king's did
- That would have depended on how much union would have impacted my income
- Well, I was willing to consider it, but popular opposition concerned me
What is your view of Parliamentary opposition to royal policies in the 1670s and 1680s?
- Parliament needs to shut up and implement the king's wishes
- It was far too timid - overthrown the king, already!
- It needed to be overcome to keep the king happy
- Nothing to do with me - it didn't really impact on my estates
- Perfectly legitimate - it's the role of Parliament to offer counsel to the king
What is your opinion of the Duke of Lauderdale, who was Charles II's chief minister in Scotland for most of his reign?
- He was a devilish traitor to the Covenants!
- I wish I could have pinched his job!
- He was the king's choice, and that the end of it
- So long as he left me and my estates alone, I didn't really care
- His divisiveness and high-handedness ended up being big problems
Was the Scottish Parliament right to pass the Test Act (1681), primarily aimed at securing the succession of Charles II's brother James, duke of Albany?
- It wasn't necessary - the succession is ordained by God
- It didn't change the fact that a Papist can never be a legitimate king
- Yes, but I wish it had been done in a more conciliatory way
- Yes, because it's what the king wanted
- Perhaps, but I was mainly worried about potential local disruption
- No, because it entrenched the Episcopalian establishment even more
Did you support Argyll's Rising against James VII (1685), in which he claimed that James's succession was illegitimate?
- No, since Argyll was almost as Godless as James himself
- No way, that would have killed my career!
- Of course not - no subject has the right to rebel
- No, James had not done anything to provoke it
- I might have been tempted if it could have restored Presbyterianism
- I'd support whatever caused the least disruption
What is your view of James VII's Toleration Edicts (1687), which eventually permitted almost all forms of dissenting worship?
- It's what the king wanted to do, so I accepted it
- It made no difference - James remained an illegitimate Papist
- I happily took advantage, but I resented the fact that the king was clearly mostly interested in Catholics
- It caused terrible disorderliness in my locality
- I was worried about their effect on the security of the regime
- This is a question for the king alone

Rate and Share this quiz on the next page!
You're about to get your result. Then try our new sharing options. smile

Related Quizzes:

How Scottish are you? by Mrs C
How Scottish are you? by Bob
What Faction Are You? by Cat
A2 History Civil War Quiz by Tired Student
How Glasgow are you? by David Reid

What is GotoQuiz? A fun site without pop-ups, no account needed, no app required, just quizzes that you can create and share with your friends. Have a look around and see what we're about.

Quiz topic: What is my faction in Restoration Scotland?

Trending Quizzes

Special Feature

A GoToQuiz Exclusive: Big Five Personality Test, allows you to adjust sliders to fine-tune your responses to a series of questions. Then receive your personality analysis.

We're Testing

Send Feedback about GoToQuiz, report a bug or error, make a suggestion!

Home

Trending