From what I have heard, James was a heavy pedant, a rank coward, essentially not a man to be popular among a spirited people.

Charles had a noble presence and many fine qualities.

But, although his ideas of kingly power would have suited us well enough in France, his arbitrary measures alienated a large proportion of his people, and brought ruin upon him.
"Your second Charles, in spite of his numerous indiscretions, was not unpopular, because the people were wearied of the stern repression of Puritan rule, and were therefore disposed to look leniently upon his frailties, while they appreciated his good temper and wit.

His fatal mistake was allying himself so closely with us--a grievous mistake, indeed, when we remember that for centuries the two nations had been bitterly opposed to each other.
As for his brother, he forfeited his throne by his leanings towards the Catholic Church, in whose communion he died.
Decidedly, the Stuart kings were not a success.
"As to James the Third, as you call him, I know nothing beyond the fact that he is a protege of the king of France, and has now fought against his own people--a blunder, as it seems to me, of the worst kind, and one which is certain to alienate many of his supporters on the other side of the water.

Were he to mount the throne, it would be partly due to the aid of French troops and French money--men and money, mind you, of a power at war with England! He would therefore, necessarily, like Charles the Second, be regarded as a protege of France.