Why was James II and VII (same person), the last Roman Catholic monarch of Britain, not forced to convert to Anglicanism?

In a nutshell, Elizabeth died without children.

The Scottish King, James VI was invited to take the English crown and merge the Scottish and English crowns together.

James was a Protestant so this posed no problem. He became James I of England. As he was already James VI of Scotland, both numbers were used.

His son is Charles I who is the king executed during the English Civil War. Charles I is followed by his oldest son Charles II who returns from exile in France. He is well liked but dies childless.

The younger son James II and VII then becomes King. Problem is, James had become a Catholic while in exile in France. Suddenly, after 150 years of protestant rule a Catholic is back on the throne.

He lasts about 3 years until the Protestant establishment in both England and Scotland make an alliance with Holland and bring over William of Orange who has Anglo-Scottish royal blood.

A number of important events happen around this time.

Darien disaster - Scotland attempts to create a colony in the new world. It fails and the investors lose pretty much everything. Scotland practically bankrupts itself and is forced into parliamentary union with England to cover its debts.

It's made law that Catholics cannot be monarch.

Battle of the Boyne - last real chance of Catholics to turn the war around ends in their defeat. The last Catholic armies are allowed to flee to France which takes much of the Irish aristocracy out of the country - flight of the wild geese.

William of Orange is the reason the color orange is used in Ireland to represent the protestants including on the Irish flag.

The name James in Latin is Jacobus. Those who supported the exiled King became known as Jacobites. They launch several rebellions over the next 50 years ending with the defeat of Prince Charles Stuart's army at Culloden in 1746.

After that the Jacobites were finished and there was no chance of a Catholic monarch reigning in Britain.

This question was extensively debated during the reign of his predecessor Charles II and defined the politics of the late 1670s and early 1680s. You can read extensively about this by searching on the phrase "Exclusion Crisis". Simply put, those who wanted to exclude James from the succession lost that particular battle at that time.

To answer this one, go back a little to January 1649. This is a speech by James II's father, Charles I, at his trial.

I would know by what power I am called hither... I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the high - ways ...

Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater ...

I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me. I do stand m ore for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges ... I do not come here as submitting to the Court. I will stand as much for the privilege of the House of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever: I see no House of Lords here, that may constitute a Parliament.

Let me see a legal authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.

Going back a little further still, before the civil war, the King's opponents tried to challenge the legality of the Ship Money tax in the courts, on the grounds that taxes not approved by parliament were illegal. In 1636, a judge in this case called Lord Berkeley made the following comment in his decision.

The law, knows no such king-yoking policy. The law is an old and trusty servant of the king's; it is his instrument or means which he useth to govern his people by. I never read or heard that Lex was Rex, but it is common and most true that Rex is Lex, for he is Lex loquens, a living, a speaking, an acting law.

In 1660, the restoration swept away all innovations made by the Commonwealth. In the eyes of most Britons, the treasonous ideas of the parliamentarians had been discredited by the lawlessness, tyranny and hardship of the past two decades.

So, you ask why, in the 1680s, the king was not 'forced' to convert to Anglicanism. He could not be forced to do anything, except unlawfully by force, which would break the state. After putting to end, as they saw it, an era of chaos caused by treason against the king, Britain's elite were understandably reluctant to make the same mistake again.

The law requiring that the monarch be Protestant was passed in 1701 (This was ultimately due to James' behaviour which led to his deposition) As such, the answer is, because there was no such requirement.