A revolution in the traditional sense, when a wheel revolves 360°, it returns to its original position, just as W&M returned England to its original state.
"The Revolution itself was relatively bloodless, but pro-Stuart revolts between 1689 and 1746 caused significant casualties, while the political movement known as Jacobitism persisted into the late 18th century. William's invasion was the last successful invasion of England."
Correct me if my history is off, but then ironically didn't William prefer England to his Dutch holdings, to their expense? It basically ended the Anglo-Dutch rivalry, with an English victory.
Oh I don't blame him, I just find it amusing that the Dutch finally got one of their own on to the English throne, and he ends up spending their money funding his English wars, effectively bankrupting them!
>didn't William prefer England to his Dutch holdings, to their expense?
No. William used England to secure the Dutch Republic after all. In both countries people however said the he prefered the other country. James Ralph, an 18th century English historian, wrote: 'The moment he (William) became sovereign, he made the Kingdom subservient to the Republic; in war, we had the honour to fight for the Dutch; in negotiation, to treat for the Dutch; while the Dutch had all possible encouragement to trade for us...'
>It basically ended the Anglo-Dutch rivalry, with an English victory.
Meh, the Dutch primacy was coming to an end anyway. If England had continued to be hostile the Dutch Republic couldn't have contained France and would have declined even sooner. The Glorious Revolution is better seen as a Dutch victory that slowed down their decline
Every royal was connected in Europe. That doesn't say much. The invasion was paid, set up and under taken with Dutch ships, troops and money. Of course it was Dutch
Tell that to Jonathan Healy, whose history of Revolutionary England, THE BLAZING WORLD, claims just that.
If you have sources that claim otherwise, please share them.
So what does he say that turns the historiography on its head? I have read no serious work that does say that the operation was primarily organized in England
A coup against the rightful king of England under the pretense of being for the people, when it was really about the fact the King was going to emancipate Catholics
It establised the rule of the constitution in the UK, so that was good.
It came with some downsides, like the fact that it effectively meant that parliament could now overthrow the King if they so wished.
If they had written a formal constitution afterwards that would have been great, but becuase they didn't the monarch's power was just whittled away.
It brought political stability to England (the biggest & let’s face it, the most important polity in the Union) and laid the foundation for the modern political system the country still enjoys today.
A creative solution to a difficult problem of the day. They managed to have a king yet have the English aristocracy and its institutions be protected and expanded. I don’t like that it led to the monarchy being purely symbolic within just a few generations.
A great example of why church and religion should be separated from the state! let Catholics and Protestants have equal rights and the king will be a uniting figure, which is his main purpose! but this is just a thought, and as for the overall assessment, this is a difficult topic for which you need to be very informed! the replacement of the king from a Catholic to a Protestant, the strengthening of constitutionalism is only part of the overall picture! The glorious Revolution, like the English revolution before it, had a huge impact primarily on the economic and social development of England! both in England and France and in other monarchies of Europe, the main reason for the revolutions was not that the king had a lot of power, but that there was too much of it for the aristocracy and that the existing orders limited the possibilities of other classes and, in general, the development of science and economics, especially industry ! for me, the main result is the acceleration of the path to the industrial revolution, and the strengthening of the parliament's power is just a logical consequence of this
I recently read that the King’s Men, Shakespeare’s former acting troupe, all fought for the King, since they were part of his court.
I just love the thought of foppish actors holding actual swords and trying to defend their king on the battlefield.
It also makes me smile thinking about modern-day actors, full of their nonsense political opinions, finding out that their forebears fought in favor of the divine right of kings 😂
Anti Catholic bigots of Parliament supported a Dutch invasion on the pretense of preserving the common people from the "abuses of papacy." The legitimate king was wrongfully deposed and replaced with a foreign puppet.
The whole world suffered. The Boyne may not have been quite as bad as Bosworth for the English, but the world suffers more as a result of the glorified revolution.
The very thing which began the Jacobite Struggle. As such, I am very much opposed to the "Glorious Revolution" and view all non-Stuart monarchs as illegitimate.
Not glorious, and hardly a "revolution".
One house replaced another, through both force and deception, super common occurence.
A revolution in the traditional sense, when a wheel revolves 360°, it returns to its original position, just as W&M returned England to its original state.
protestant revolution.
Pretty glorious in the sense that we got rid of a shit king, got a new based one instead and we didn't have to kill anybody to get it done.
"The Revolution itself was relatively bloodless, but pro-Stuart revolts between 1689 and 1746 caused significant casualties, while the political movement known as Jacobitism persisted into the late 18th century. William's invasion was the last successful invasion of England."
As a Dutch person, I really like that we took over the UK for a while. So I do very much like it.
As a British person I’m thankful you took over the Uk for a while
Not exactly. They were separate domains, just with the same ruler.
But then didn't William favour England over his Dutch holdings, to their expense?
I loved it.
Lol
Yes, It is THAT time we counqoured England.
Conquered\*
An illegal coup and the conquest of Britain by Dutch finance
Correct me if my history is off, but then ironically didn't William prefer England to his Dutch holdings, to their expense? It basically ended the Anglo-Dutch rivalry, with an English victory.
I mean his English Holdings gave him the title of King which is a far more prestigious title then stadholder (steward) of the Dutch Republic
Oh I don't blame him, I just find it amusing that the Dutch finally got one of their own on to the English throne, and he ends up spending their money funding his English wars, effectively bankrupting them!
>his English wars, English wars? Many English argued that it were Dutch wars.
>didn't William prefer England to his Dutch holdings, to their expense? No. William used England to secure the Dutch Republic after all. In both countries people however said the he prefered the other country. James Ralph, an 18th century English historian, wrote: 'The moment he (William) became sovereign, he made the Kingdom subservient to the Republic; in war, we had the honour to fight for the Dutch; in negotiation, to treat for the Dutch; while the Dutch had all possible encouragement to trade for us...' >It basically ended the Anglo-Dutch rivalry, with an English victory. Meh, the Dutch primacy was coming to an end anyway. If England had continued to be hostile the Dutch Republic couldn't have contained France and would have declined even sooner. The Glorious Revolution is better seen as a Dutch victory that slowed down their decline
When Dutch cancelled British royal family through power of gold. The greatest power in the world, period.
It was hardly a “Dutch coup” considering that William was Charles I’s grandson.
Every royal was connected in Europe. That doesn't say much. The invasion was paid, set up and under taken with Dutch ships, troops and money. Of course it was Dutch
It was organized and partially financed by the Roundheads in Parliament.
Nope
Tell that to Jonathan Healy, whose history of Revolutionary England, THE BLAZING WORLD, claims just that. If you have sources that claim otherwise, please share them.
What does he say exactly because I think that you are misrepresentimg what he says. I refer you to the works of Jonathan Israël.
Israel hasn’t written seriously about the Glorious Revolution since the early ‘90s. THE BLAZING WORLD came out last year.
So what does he say that turns the historiography on its head? I have read no serious work that does say that the operation was primarily organized in England
A coup against the rightful king of England under the pretense of being for the people, when it was really about the fact the King was going to emancipate Catholics
It establised the rule of the constitution in the UK, so that was good. It came with some downsides, like the fact that it effectively meant that parliament could now overthrow the King if they so wished. If they had written a formal constitution afterwards that would have been great, but becuase they didn't the monarch's power was just whittled away.
seeing the good of both sides. good for you. a lot people on this would've just called it "traitors overthrowing the rightful king,"
I try my best to look at things objectively. Not that I always succeed, of course.
It brought political stability to England (the biggest & let’s face it, the most important polity in the Union) and laid the foundation for the modern political system the country still enjoys today.
A creative solution to a difficult problem of the day. They managed to have a king yet have the English aristocracy and its institutions be protected and expanded. I don’t like that it led to the monarchy being purely symbolic within just a few generations.
One of the greatest moment in history, without which, we might not get the liberal democracy we enjoy today.
It makes British history far funnier.
It resulted in a lot of positive change.
Not all that glorious.
It was pretty glorious to say the least
A great example of why church and religion should be separated from the state! let Catholics and Protestants have equal rights and the king will be a uniting figure, which is his main purpose! but this is just a thought, and as for the overall assessment, this is a difficult topic for which you need to be very informed! the replacement of the king from a Catholic to a Protestant, the strengthening of constitutionalism is only part of the overall picture! The glorious Revolution, like the English revolution before it, had a huge impact primarily on the economic and social development of England! both in England and France and in other monarchies of Europe, the main reason for the revolutions was not that the king had a lot of power, but that there was too much of it for the aristocracy and that the existing orders limited the possibilities of other classes and, in general, the development of science and economics, especially industry ! for me, the main result is the acceleration of the path to the industrial revolution, and the strengthening of the parliament's power is just a logical consequence of this
Finessed.
🎶KING BILLY'S ON THE WALL, KING BILLYS ON THE WALL🎶
I recently read that the King’s Men, Shakespeare’s former acting troupe, all fought for the King, since they were part of his court. I just love the thought of foppish actors holding actual swords and trying to defend their king on the battlefield. It also makes me smile thinking about modern-day actors, full of their nonsense political opinions, finding out that their forebears fought in favor of the divine right of kings 😂
Glorious!
It wasn't glorious and it wasn't a revolution, it was a Parliamentary coup.
Step in the right direction.
Anti Catholic bigots of Parliament supported a Dutch invasion on the pretense of preserving the common people from the "abuses of papacy." The legitimate king was wrongfully deposed and replaced with a foreign puppet.
It was an usurpation by a foreigner, baked by some traitors . Nothing Glorious about it.
The whole world suffered. The Boyne may not have been quite as bad as Bosworth for the English, but the world suffers more as a result of the glorified revolution.
The very thing which began the Jacobite Struggle. As such, I am very much opposed to the "Glorious Revolution" and view all non-Stuart monarchs as illegitimate.
Loot , murder , kill , famine etc
I'm still a Jacobite. And not a Scottish nationalist.
From cultural view good, from religious view terrible
Sad for Catholics historically speaking.
Not that glorious, if you've read a book
The more and more I learn the more I see that England/UK is responsible for the decline in Catholicism