" It was the brother of Charles who succeeded him not his son which is what the original claim was. "

It's not a particularly important point, but I think you'll find if you check back that the relevant post - not by me - said nothing of the kind. It referred to James as son of Charles I.

The ins and outs of 17th century politics shouldn't trouble us too much today. But we shouldn't swallow the propaganda either. The Glorious Revolution was a pretty shabby affair, which reinforced and entrenched religious discrimination for generations. Perhaps the alternative might have had consequences as bad or worse, perhaps the reverse. Nobody can ever know that stuff.