Elizabeth's successor, James I, son of Mary Stuart, who was executed at Elizabeth's behest, had a merchant fleet of only twenty ships at the beginning of the 17th century. The crown lay like a beggar's hat in front of her pepper sacks. James was king of England and Scotland. He blurred bloody differences by proclaiming Britain. Two hundred years later, almost everything that at the time in the East Indies was largely Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and French would be British. Jacob's part in this process can be underestimated. He was not needed by the force whose dynamism had overflowed its banks in Protestant countries. This power flushed those of Pope Alexander VI. aka Rodrigo Borgia in the Treaty of Tordesillas 1494 cemented Catholic world order away.
Asked by the way. What would have been a moving event if Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, had not opened his own church?
I just read that out of twelve shopping trips before 1612, eight were unfortunate. Nevertheless, there was an average profit of two hundred percent. This led to illegal acquisitions in addition to commercial and nautical success. Robbery and theft on land and at sea existed equally alongside business transactions and were properly recorded. The incredibly high failure rate among sailors didn't matter.
Now a variety of things were produced in England for overseas markets. Preferences also varied in India, what an observation, paying attention to them brought progress. The captains don't travel with the same baggage everywhere. In return, they packed spices and gold, spices, gold and copper, spices, gold, copper and tea. Charles I followed James I, then came Charles II. Charles II was already King of England, Scotland and Ireland. The rulers of the English East India Company were sometimes more powerful than him. Their carte blanche corresponded to a license to print money. They were responsible for every jurisdiction and the military overseas. They had the right to make war and to make peace. They were unable to keep out the French, who were pushing powerfully into India.
Charles II was called a French-born Stuart. After him, James II openly Catholicized the throne. Catholicism was, in the English vernacular, the Spanish plague. The English insulted their opponents as dogs of the Inquisition. They also insulted their kings from the House of Stuart.
Some shareholders who were members of the Court of Proprietors (of East India Company) became fabulously rich. The directors installed and removed kings far beyond the East Indies. The Stuarts saw the company as an enemy. Alluding to the virgin (single/childless) Queen Elisabeth, to whom the founding of the trading company was due, Jacob's disciples called the company Hamamelis virginiana - Virginian witch hazel. James II tried to crack the nut by limiting the power of the shareholders. Attempts to assert autonomy in the overseas settlements against the intervening king failed. Occasionally royalist captains shot renegades. By the way, the man of the hour was Josiah Child. He juggled a fortune together and only had to slow down when a Dutchman became king of England in 1689 - William III. from Orange-Nassau. Years earlier, Child had himself painted among the East India Company-Chiefs. In her study "Art and Mercantilism," the art historian Geza Rominger reminds us that a fee was charged for individual representations in the diagrams of guilds and militias. The picture also created a distinctive mark in this respect. Descendence was a crucial motif. Distances between portrayed subjects depicted descending and ascending lines of meaning and kinship. Rominger explains that there was no public setting intended for the group photos. One reflected oneself in domestic circumstances. Britain, as it advanced at sea and overseas, celebrated hearth comfort at home. The British existed in a national bubble.