Talk:Glorious Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Bloodless Revolution?

"The Glorious Revolution was a largely non-violent revolution (also sometimes called the "Bloodless Revolution")"

"Despite an uprising in support of James in Scotland, the first Jacobite rebellion, and in Ireland where James used local Catholic feeling to try to regain the throne in 1689–1690, the revolution was remarkably bloodless." (that is similar to saying 'despite much fighting and killing the revolution was remarkably bloodless')

I have changed these two statements as they are innacurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 August 2004 (UTC)

What may have started out as an attempt to revert to remove vandalism seems to have got into a dispute over which version we revert to. However the main difference between the versions is how we deal with the issue of whether it was a "bloodless revolution". I prefer the version which points out that, on top of the fighting in Scotland and Ireland, it was not completely bloodless in England. Also this version mentions the 2 Williamite victories in Scotland. PatGallacher 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

These are indeed improvements. But the way you linked the various monarchs was a detoriation :o). You are aware that William was also William III in the Netherlands?--MWAK 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glorious Revolution" is a Whig term

Readers of this article need to be aware that the term "Glorious Revolution" is a Whig term used by the Whig school of history. This article is also written in this style, for example:

The Glorious Revolution was one of the most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by Parliament and by the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights it stamped out any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards monarchical absolutism in the British Isles by circumscribing the monarch's powers.

The Whigs advocated the power of parliament and wanted to curb the power of the king and aristocracy. Whig historians view the past as one long march towards the constitutional monarchy of the nineteenth century. (I don't know where to put this question on this article; but the Glorious revolution branched out to the americas and this article does not tell about the portion of the war in america?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 September 2004 (UTC)

[edit] economic revolution that followed on the Glorious Revolution

Can anyone point me to info regarding the economic revolution that followed on the Glorious Revolution? It seems that there was a sea change in economic institutions in this period, particuarly the way gov bonds or their equivalents were used to support the central power, but the British East India company and fellow travellers activities might also form a large part. The period from 1688 into the 1720's or 40's seems very important to the formation of the modern state and is perhaps worth an article on it's own, but what to call it? WblakesxWblakesx 20:39, 17 October 2004

[edit] Ireland?

Seems like this should cover William's role in the troubles in Ireland. I don't know the subject matter, but I do know that William is remembered by both sides of the struggle as pivotal. The Orangemen of Northern Ireland take their name from William's hereditary title province in Holland, etc. Chrisvls 00:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Orange is in France, not The Netherlands.
MWAK--84.27.81.59 11:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Thanks. Chrisvls 18:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're welcome :o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 11:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, this article, under the "Legacy" heading, should discuss how Ireland was royally (no pun intended) screwed following 1690. It's far from seen as a "Glorious Revolution" in Ireland - apart from amongst a certain community in the north of the island! zoney ♣ talk 00:10, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muddy thoughts and muddy texts

There are a series of articles here that begin with the so-called English Bill of Rights and continue through the Glorious Revolution and which end up with Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney that are at present as clear as mud. There is one tell-tale line in the Glorious Revolution article on Wikipedia which explains that it was a "conspiracy" although that word is not linked nor defined. Unfortunately these articles are typical of twaddle that relate information that can only confuse the reader and leave that person scratching their head about what they have been reading. A clear cut understanding needs to be shown that the Bill of Rights is not a bill of rights and that the Glorious Revolution was indeed a conspiracy because the real power was held by the Privy Council (not Parliament) ever since the end of the Cromwellian republic. I am not suggesting that I wade in and begin a firestorm of rewriting which others might term a form of revisionist history, but someone needs to take up this challenge. These related articles are typical of history texts that bore readers to death because they fail to educate, only confuse. This is 2004 and a clear cut statement needs to be made about the subject material to show that it was conspiracy by the few for the benefit of the few who held real power while pretending to be the exact opposite. MPLX/MH 17:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The statement that the revolution was the "last successful invasion of England" seems excessively speculative, misplaced, misinformed, and superfluous.

You've lost me there.--Shtove 17:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. How is it speculative to say that it was "the last sucessful invasion"? Are you planning another one? Coemgenus 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change the Title?

Is as is said in the introduction Historians prefer the name Revolution of 1688 why is the title Glorious Revolution... does this smack of POV? and a lack of neutrality? --Timsj 15:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fully Agree. This page should be moved to "Revolution of 1688". "Glorious" depends entirely on your outlook. Anyone disagree? : Supergolden 15:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, no no. Oppose move. The policy is to use the most common name. "Glorious Revolution" is the most common name, it doesn't matter what "some modern historians" call it.
Google searches:

Although you make a very important point, regarding the common name, if people find it offensive, such as me, the search for glorius revolution could just be redirected to Revolution of 1688, hence you would not lose any traffic. --Timsj 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  • There is already a redirect from "Revolution of 1688" to Glorious Revolution. The standard Wikipedia policy is that the article title should be the most commonly used name. --JW1805 01:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me. One of the standard policies in Wikipedia is to challenge anything that seems to be POV i.e. from a biased point of view. This is particularly important in writing articles aout politics, religion or history. To make reasonable attempts to avoid bias is the basic standard for anyone attempting to write decent modern history. The fact that the title is questioned by modern historians is openly admitted at the beginning of the entry, we would not lose any visitors if redirected from the 'glorious revolution'. So my conclusion must be that you wish to keep it as Glorious for sectarian reasons. --Timsj 18:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The fact that the article is titled "Glorious Revolution" does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily regards the revolution as being glorious. A name that has been used for hundreds of year should not be revised in order to appear objective. McPhail 16:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think you make a very important distinction about disassociating it from Wikipedia. However the point is that modern historians now do question the name, as is mentioned in the article. It is common practice for history to be updated to reflect new research or a shift in the body of academic opinion. Especially if that means changing the title to a more neutral one. If the title is not changed I will add the NPOV tag because I consider that the article does not comply with the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As I understand it, it means that all points of view must be fairly described and that a particular point of view cannot be treated as if it were a proven fact.--Timsj 14:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You are missunderstanding the NPOV policy. Consider the article American Civil War. Notice that the title of the article contains the words "Civil War". Now, there are many people who do not like this term, which implies that the Confederate States of America was not a legitimate nation. Some people prefer other terms like "War Between the States", or other terms (there is a whole article about this at Naming the American Civil War). But, that doesn't change the fact that "Civil War" is the most commonly used term to describe the conflict, even though you could argue that it is from the Northern POV. And so, that is the article title. Notice that, as in this article, the controversy is mentioned in the opening paragraph, that is what satisfies the NPOV requirements. As McPhail said, just because the title has the word "Glorious", doesn't mean that wikipedia is endorsing the view that the conflict was glorious, only that is the most common name. --JW1805 18:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Reading

The article on the Battle of Reading talks of a small battle which we should work into the article. -- Joolz 01:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Invasion

Meaning of Invasion/to invade:

1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it.

2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage.

3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way.

All, but especially 3 fitts perfectly.

Therefore invasion is the right terminology. Rex 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Lets sort this out like adults. Most people do not consider the Glorious Revolution to be an invasion. Rex Germanus' statement that "It was also the last invasion of England" is judged to be particularly false (not only was it not an invasion but if we consider it to be an invasion then it was not the last invasion of England, since Napoleon landed some troops in the south of England).
I think we should compromise. Let's retain the word "invasion" in the text but remove the most objectionable line "It was also the last invasion of England." This seems fair.
Also Rex Germanus, I must warn you that threats of violence against wikipedia contributors will NOT be tolerated. If you continue you WILL be permanently banned.
Unsigned comment by User talk:195.93.21.133'

Excuse me, because I laughed a bit when I read "Lets sort this out like adults".

Point is it was an invasion, I don't need to compromise everything I said/claimed here is true. It was an invasion, if the sentence "It was also the last invasion of England" is suddenly approved by 195.93.21.133, then why change "landing" for "invasion"? Rex 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


User talk:195.93.21.133, soon after I post this message I will revert the article to the accurate version. The event described in this article is an invasion and should therefore have every right to be called an invasion. Your threats will not help you neither will continueing this edit war.

On wikipedia when there is a problem, it is discussed on the appropriate talkpage.Not by 2 letters (rv) in an edit summary. If you still believe you are right (by which you would contradict yourself in the earlier -and only- comment by you on this talk page) you can engage me in discussion.

Also, your IP adress has been repeatedly used by vandals, and although in my personal opinion you are somewhat like them if not the same, I am willing to believe you if you say you are not one of them. On the otherhand I'd like to say that these "impersonations" and "accusations" would stop if you'd simple create a personal account. Rex 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


For (hopefully) the last time, the events described in this article constitute an invasion as described by the Cambridge International Dictionary. Therefore it is correct mention and categorize that this article includes an invasion.

In a nutshell: During the Glorious revolution and 8 years after the Third Anglo-Dutch War, a Dutch army landed in England. Thereby "entering an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way, in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage." This event was the last succesful invasion of England as an enemy army managed to reach England, in contrast to later invasion plans such as those of Napoleon and operation Sea Lion by Nazi Germany.



OK, here's my turn.

1-- Nations invade nations, not individuals. Holland did not invade England in the Glorious Revolution. Instead, William landed his army to claim the crown.

2.-- Someone above raised the point that Napoleon landed troops in Britain. So not "last" invasion if we use your meaning of the word. Look at the "invasions of england" page - the Napoleonic Wars are mentioned.

3.-- 1066 is universally agreed to be the last invasion of England. Wikipedia does not support original research or novel views. This is an encyclopedia.

--86.138.210.207


OK, lets look at the Cambridge definition

"1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:"

William did not take possession of England. He was welcomed, invited, and installed as King. He took the crown, not sovereignty.

--86.138.210.207

The wikipedia article on Invasions turned out to work out in my favour.
For example, this "napoleontic invasion of England" isn't mentioned at all ([1]) however, the events in the glorious revolution are mentioned, ([2]) as a Dutch invasion of England.Apart from that, we're talking about a succesful invasion, I doubt Napoleons invasion (if it exists in the first place) was succesful.
A person didn't invade England, a Dutch army did. They took control over England, not by mere presence but by fighting as well (see the Williamite wars).
Rex 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I havnt heard of a napoleonic invasion of Britian either, but another poster mentioned it and its on the list of invasions of england. But clearly even if such an invasion did occur it wasn't successful. --86.138.210.207

You are right, I agree with that compromise.

Rex 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation or Expert needed

The issue of whether the Glorious Revolution was an invasion and if so whether it was the last one needs to go to mediation or, better, an alert for an expert to contribute.

--86.138.210.207

I hope you know how a mediation works, but they do not decide wether something is true or isn't. I understand you didn't know about this, afterall this is the first and only article you edited on wikipedia.
Rex 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I dont know how mediation works. I just think we need some balance. I've made an edit which I think can satisfy you and the others. --86.138.210.207

You are right, I agree with that compromise.

Rex 14:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Germanus

According to you, is every entrance of foreign troops into a country an "invasion"? Was D-day, for example, an invasion of France?

It is the consensus opinion of editors here that the use of "invasion" is misleading when compared to other invasions of Britain (not England, by the way). In England, (yes, England) the "invasion" was barely resisted, in fact welcomed by most of the population. Compare that with, say, the Norman invasion: a military conflict between two peoples that ended in Saxon defeat. BillMasen 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not set the definition of an invasion, according to the Cambridge Dictonary; "invasion" means:
  • 1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:
  • 2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:
  • 3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way:
There is no way you can deny this is the case, just because English historians prefer to call it an revolution (which of course perfectly logical, if only for nationalistic purposes) but this isn't the case everywhere. Just because this is the English Wikipedia, doesn't mean it has to have an English bias. Many Dutch historians regard the Glorious revolution as the end of the Anglo-Dutch wars, in which (with much help of an array of problems in England) the Dutch stadholder was able, with and army and the help of "traitors/true patriots" in England to invade and take control of England.
ps. D-Day is a great example, the Allies of course said it was a liberation (perfectly true from their point of view) but the axis saw it as an invasion of the lands they controlled (also perfectly true).
Rex 14:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As a person of Dutch ancestry: nor is there any reason for a Dutch bias. As a native English speaker, I can assure you that your use of the word is misleading.

You mention the POV of the Germans and of the Allies in D-day. Have you considered the POV of the French people? Just like in England 1689, the elites connived in the landing and the public supported it or acquiesced to it.

1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it. The Dutch did not take possession of England. The Parliament deposed James and offered the Crown to William, with a large number of conditions -- including the right to choose William's sucessor.

2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage. Italicised "usually" is rather un-dictionary-like. But anyway, why should this event be the exception to that "usually"?

You mention Dutch historians. Cite them. BillMasen 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have to argue with you BillMasen, it is an invasion by definition. So I don't have to prove and will revert as soon as I am no longer in danger of breaking the 3RR. In the mean time I will look into my (Dutch) history books and cite the section I have been basing myself on. On another matter, what does the fact that you are of Dutch herritage has to do with anything?!
Rex 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. By your own definition, an incursion unwanted by the nation, the GR is not an invasion. BillMasen 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am wrong?
  • Didn't William enter England by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it (in the sense of taking over power?).
  • Did he not enter England in large numbers, while unwanted by the Jacobites?
  • Didn't he enter England in a forceful and noticeable way?
I do believe the definition speaks for itself, and when I've got my history books and find the particular passage, wikipedia has all it needs. Also, I trust the mentioning of Dutch herritage was a mistake? Or just something you wanted me to know?
Rex 10:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Common sense didn't work, so I tried appealing to your parochial Dutch nationalism.

1) the landing was successful not because William had a large number of soldiers, but because James soldiers refused to fight.

2) Being unwanted by the jacobites is not the same as being unwanted by the majority of Englishmen

3) This is too vague to be a good usage in this case. History either has meanings one or two.

Why don't you just produce the historians you are threatening us all with. I bet I can find more. 212.219.57.50 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"De Derde Engelse Oorlog werd definitief beslecht met een inval door een Nederlands leger (zij het met een hoog huurlingen gehalte) onder Willem III, op uitnodiging van veel Engelse edelen. De daaropvolgende machtsoverdracht word in Groot-Brittannië de "Glorious Revolution" (glorieuze revolutie) genoemd."

Translation:

"The 3rd English War was finally ended with an invasion by a Dutch army (be it with a large amount of mercenaries), led by William III who was invited by a large number of English nobles. The following change of power is called the Glorious Revolution in Great Britain"

Source:

"De Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden", J.C.H. Blom and E. Lamberts.

This is my source, my point now has dictionary as well as referenced support. The revert will follow shortly. Also, BillMasen/212.219.57.50 I would like it if you used the same name during the conversation, otherwise you could be charged with sock puppetry. Rex 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(... 3rd party confermation will arrive soon.
Rex 16:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand what the fuss is about.
There was a revolution, and it succeeded because of an invasion.
I can understand that the sentence "and may be seen as the last successful invasion of England" raises some eye brows, because, if you read it as an outsider, it looks as if there was no support for William III in England. Why don't you find some middle ground, something like "The revolution started with what may be seen as the last successful invasion of England". --LucVerhelst 18:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
(Just for the record : I'm a Belgian, from Antwerp. We threw the Dutch out in 1830.) :-D --LucVerhelst 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Ghum, a little correction there Belgian, the Dutch leave ... they don't get thrown out ;-)
Rex 18:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL.
Anyway, I've been reading the Dutch Wikipedia article on the subject. Maybe you could enter a bit more about the situation in Holland in this (English Wikipedia) article, because that seems to have been one of the reasons for William to take part in this revolution.
(The Dutch article might mention that both William and his wife were grandchildren of King Charles I of England, the father of James II.) --LucVerhelst 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I just might do that, but first let us solve this fuss, I didn't spend 2,5 hours looking for that book to find a reference for nothing ;-) Rex 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Luc Verhelst's suggestion of a modifying modification like "what may be seen as", unless the undertaking's immediate military impact was unquestionably perceived as of a sufficienty grand scale. My translation of the Dutch phrase did change 'invasion' (Dutch 'invasie'), to what I consider to be a more general term: 'incursion' (Dutch 'inval' as quoted from the book) which is often larger than a raid though not necessarily quite the overwhelming operation usually assumed when reading 'invasion'. The use of each term in Dutch is similar to such in English, though Rex may have a point: the Dutch 'invasie' would not as easily be used for a triviality as in English, for instance, in "an invasion of one's privacy" – thus the author might have chosen the other word if he had been writing in English. — SomeHuman 20 Aug 2006 18:37 (UTC)

Inval and invasie can be considered synonyms (According to Van Dale). Rex 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Van Dale is the standard dictionary of the Dutch language. It is not commonly considered perfect in pointing out the most precisely fine-tuned distinctions. If the police would invade your house, in Dutch language if they would een invasie van je huis uitvoeren, the suggested hundreds (OK, have it at a few dozen) of policemen would be more readily noticed than the five-or-so that could een inval van je huis uitvoeren, though the latter could be perceived by yourself alone at home at that moment, surely as an invasion, and quite possibly even as an invasie. Notice that here again, English allows 'invasion' more easily than Dutch allows 'invasie'. — SomeHuman 20 Aug 2006 20:40 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I used "can be considered" and not "are". It depends on context, but I think invasion is the correct translation of inval here. We're not talking about a few people or a raiding party but a full blown army. Rex 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It was an invasion. Get over it.--Shtove 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Some factual considerations might be of interest here:
  1. The military action was carried out by the regular Dutch army and fleet. William hired 14,000 mercenaries from German principalities, but these were not the ones used in the invasion; they replaced soldiers in The Netherlands.
  2. Claiming that William was generally welcomed by the English people is a simple perpetuation of contemporary propaganda. James was unpopular but there was little spontaneous support for the usurper among the larger population. Hans Bentinck simply paid for crowds cheering William on suitable occasions. Free beer ensured a large attendance.
  3. It's simply untrue that James's army refused to fight. James didn't so much doubt their loyalty as their fighting power. A pitched battle would almost certainly have resulted in a Dutch victory and the immediate end of his reign. So he procrastinated, hoping that William might make some fatal mistake.

--MWAK 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It might help to look at this from a contemporary perspective, that of William and his advisers:

  1. William has received a letter from seven prominent Englishmen, asking him to come over and intervene; further letters have been received from John Churchill and various others. The opinion of the other, 5 million or so, inhabitants of the British Isles has not been sought.
  2. Three years earlier, similar assurances of aid have been given by various people to the Duke of Monmouth and he has ended up on a scaffold.
  3. For all the trouble James is having with his people, it is still the case that in the last 35 years the Dutch and the English have been involved in 3 hard-fought wars against each other. A warm welcome for Dutch troops on English soil is hardly likely.
  4. William ignores advice from English advisers attending him in the Netherlands, to bring only a token force. On the contrary, he assembles a force that is several times bigger than the Spanish Armada of 1588.

My use of the present tense is deliberate. The whole thing must have looked extremely risky to contemporary observers.
Obviously, William himself felt that what he was engaged in was an invasion, not a revolution. Moreover, that seems also to have been the feeling of the people of London when they saw the English army being ordered out of the city and Dutch troops mounting guard around St.James and Whitehall.
With the benefit of hindsight we can now say that the enterprise worked out rather well, but that didn't help the people making the decisions at the time.
Another consideration, which supports MWAK's submission about James' army not so much refusing to fight but simply being unable to resist the incursion effectively, is this:

James decided to flee after the Battle of Reading in which his forces had been sent packing by a smaller Dutch force. He may well have concurred with MWAK about the relative fighting abilities of his own and William's armies.

Hope this helps. (BTW my first Wikipedia post) Recoloniser 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may put in my two cent's worth? The claim that the invasion was an Invasion is now supported in the article by a Dutch citation. This is not necessary, as there is a perfectly authoritative English language citation in the book edited by Jonathan Israel that is already in the references. It is his article "The Dutch role in the Glorious Revolution", in The Anglo-Dutch Moment, pp. 105-162. Israel makes no bones of calling an "invasion" what was clearly an invasion (p.105 and passim). So I suggest this citation is used to replace the Dutch one. I would do it myself, but I do not wish to be misunderstood and start a new edit war :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to replace it :o). And many thanks for the excellent work in finding those citations!--MWAK (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to be of service. Fortunately there is always Google books :-) I replaced the Dutch quote by two from the Anglo-Dutch Moment book. Could have added one from Hugh Trevor-Roper, too. Unfortunately, I forgot to log in, so the edit is anonymous.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is worth the trouble of putting this in the article, but I noticed that there is a disambiguation page Invasion of England (which had the wrong dates for the Glorious Revolution; I have corrected that). That page mentions the ultimately unsuccessful invasion of Louis VIII of France in 1216 (which has an uncanny resemblance to the one by William, "invitation" and all :-), but not the successful ones by Edward IV of England in March, 1471, and Henry Tudor in Summer, 1485. I don't know why: both were genuine invasions with foreign participation. Henry Bolingbroke also came from abroad, but I am not certain his qualifies as a genuine invasion.Ereunetes (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "King's Party"?

"Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a 'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence. By allying himself with the Catholics, Dissenters and nonconformists, James hoped to build a coalition that would give him Catholic emancipation."

Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?

Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?--User:BillMasen

The Robert Beddard reference supports the quoted paragraph. The Declaration of Indulgence was for Dissenters too, as well as for Catholics. James hoped to "pack" Parliament with Catholics and Dissenters who would then repeal the penal laws. This was criticised by the Tories, who viewed this as subversive of the Anglican establishment. When William tried to be repeal the Test Acts the Tories restrained him from doing so, however William was adamant on toleration and succeeded in passing it despite opposition from the Tories.--Johnbull 16:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral title?

From the article:

Many modern historians prefer the more neutral alternative Revolution of 1688, as "Glorious" or "Bloodless" may reflect the biases of the whig interpretation of history.

So why do we continue to have this article under a clearly POV term? It is irrelevant as to whether it is the most used term. The majority are not automatically in the right.

zoney ♣ talk 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can see where you might need to keep an article at a POV name; such as where there isn't a reasonable alternative. But here, "Revolution of 1688" is a fairly common name for the event. Gabrielthursday 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but this was dealt with further up the page. Send it for a vote?--Shtove 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As no one seems to object and the arguments are pretty good, I already moved the page. If someone still object to the move, we can always turn it back again. Rex 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the move. But I'm very surprised no one has taken issue with the proposal - there will be disagreement. And I think you can't move it back, unless an admin does some fancy footwork.--Shtove 20:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Even on the main page today it says Glorious Revolution...So why has it been changed to this politically correct title when Glorious Revolution is clearly the most recognised name SouthEastLad 08:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The choice of wording on the Main Page has less to do with which name is more correct, and more to do with that "1688 - Revolution of 1688: Protestant..." is an unnecessary repetition when both terms are fairly acceptable. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Title change has been reverted - should go through the proper procedure.--Shtove 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "Glorious Revolution" is the most commonly used term. That is the proper name for the article. --JW1805 (Talk) 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Glorious Revolution is clearly a biased title, and not one Wikipedia should be using. 83.147.171.172 09:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A Google book search (using google.co.uk) returns:

  • 72 on intitle:"Glorious Revolution" -- But it only returns 5 books in the listings
  • 251 on intitle:"Revolution of 1688" -- But it only returns 24 books in the listings

The sever was playing up when I tried it so these may be false readings.

A general Google search for what its worth returned:

  • 1,310,000 English pages for -"Glorious Revolution" 1688
  • 88,600 English pages for -"Glorious Revolution" "Revolution of 1688"

Also could this in part be a side of the pond issue with Americans using "Revolution of 1688" (a John the Baptist type event) while UK sources use "Glorious Revolution"?

  • about 49,200 English pages for "Glorious Revolution" site:uk.
  • 12,600 English pages for "Revolution of 1688" site:uk. -- But the first few of these were hits on the Glorious Revolution of 1688
  • about 358 English pages for "Revolution of 1688" -"Glorious Revolution" site:uk

So given that the UK seems to use "Glorious Revolution" and it is what it tends to be called in schools (eg see http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/1688.shtml)

  • 553 English pages for "Glorious Revolution" "A'level" site:uk
  • 54 English pages for -"Glorious Revolution" "Revolution of 1688" "A'level" site:uk

and in Parliament papers (eg http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g04.pdf):

  • 6 English pages from parliament.uk for "Revolution of 1688" -"Glorious Revolution"
  • 187 English pages from parliament.uk for "Glorious Revolution"

I think it should remain at the common British name for the event, (especially as there are no Wigs or their opponents left alive to argue that the name is wig propaganda!) in a similar way that the American War of Independence is not at that name because it is not the most common name in the US even though American Revolutionary War has what some still consider a built in POV. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's offensive to the Irish, as the results of the revolution were not good at all for the country. Anything but "glorious". zoney ♣ talk 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not who it offends, but correctness. It has always been called the Glorious Revolution, though really it was neither. "Revolution of 1688" is clumsy and un-descriptive. BillMasen 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is about Wikipedia:NPOV - Glorious Revolution is a piece of spin, and its use in the title imposes one point of view on the entire article as if that view represents the truth. The term has always been used by those who approve of the implications of the term. But the Neutral in NPOV requires that all reasonable views on a subject be held in a balance, and the GR title just destroys that notion. Revolution of 1688 may be clumsy, but it is descriptive and preserves the balance. So, let that be the title, with GR as a redirect.--Shtove 14:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not the task of an encyclopedia to give NPOV names to things. It can only give those names that are the most usual, even though all names have a POV aspect. The October Revolution was not a revolution, nor was it, according to the calender most nations use, in October. But it's still a fitting title as it is simply the usual name for the phenomemon. To diverge from common usage in consideration of presumed sensitivities, that would be NPOV. And you make the mistake of thinking that as it once was a piece of spin it will always remain so. But of course the original normative intentions are immediately deconstructed by irony. Everyone understands the Glorious Twelfth isn't all that glorious to the grouse or that the Glorious First of June really sucked for both French and British. Besides "Revolution of 1688" would be no less POV. As it really was a Dutch invasion, followed by a violent takeover, Dutch Conquest or Usurpation of 1689 would be much more descriptively accurate ;o). And "revolution" was meant in the original sense of "change in the established order". Should we then retranslate it into the Not by all appreciated but today still often applauded political transformation of 1688?--MWAK 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this is not an issue of "neutrality" but an issue of how this revolution is known. From a cursory look at the sources, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I raised the issue here, on the NPOV talk page, which got some responses. Seems policy is unclear on this one.--Shtove 16:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, some fairer google searchs:
"Glorious revolution" -"Revolution of 1688" 324,000
-"Glorious revolution" "Revolution of 1688" 89,200
"Glorious revolution" -"Revolution of 1688" 1688 111,000
"Glorious revolution" -"Revolution of 1688" 1688 pages from the UK 13,100
-"Glorious revolution" "Revolution of 1688" 1688 pages from the UK 13,200
"Glorious revolution" -"Revolution of 1688" 1688 "A level" pages from the UK 207
-"Glorious revolution" "Revolution of 1688" 1688 "A level" pages from the UK 491
So, to me, this looks like UK A-levels tend to refer to it by the neutral "Revolution of 1688". Of course, these aren't perfect, as they exclude results that primarily use one term but mention the use of others. But at least my searchs all exclude these (presumably more common) results, rather than just excluding them for half the searchs! Skittle 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The title "Glorious Revolution" is inappropriate. This is not a British encyclopaedia, therefore I do not see why a clearly biased name for the event should be used. zoney ♣ talk 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be "Glorious Revolution" even in a British Encyclopedia- NPOV is NPOV. If this were a paper encyclopedia, I'd see the rationale- you don't want people searching for an entry- but here we have redirects. Again, while Revolution of 1688 is less common, it's not as if we're making it up. It has wide currency. I think this should be brought to a vote. Gabrielthursday 01:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It is simply by far the most common name of the event. Whether that name originated from some bias — most names do — is irrelevant. By choosing that name for the article title, we do not endorse that bias, we simply conform to convention — as we should. It is not as if we claimed "Yes, that revolution really was glorious"; we only claim that it is the most common name.
As regards the vote, remember that under the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure, which would eventually be applied to such a contested move, consensus is required and that this consensus is unlikely to materialise, so it seems a waste of effort.--MWAK 05:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And neither is there consensus to keep the article here. zoney ♣ talk 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geographical Inaccuracy

Hello there. The sentence "However, he was captured on December 11 by fishermen in Faversham near Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey" is misleading because it implies that Faversham is on the Isle of Sheppey. Faversham is on mainland Kent, I grew up there and people from the area would not appreciate being called Sheppey-ites!--Leau 13:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point.--MWAK 12:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Style and New Style dates

Please see Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations --Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, given the ambiguity of dates in the first half of a year, it would be best to indicate these by calendar. Cumbersome though :o).--MWAK 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There have been date additions before the footnote explaining the date used. I am going to make a guess at which calendar is being used but can someone check them please. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coup d'Etat v. Revolution

"The events of 1688 and their aftermath can thus be seen as much more of a coup d'état, achieved by force of arms, than an authentic revolution."

  1. That statement follows a paragraph describing Jacobite activities after James was expelled and William took power. Already, there is a huge problem: it's a non-sequitur. That Jacobites rebelled after William took power does not change the nature of how William took power. If Dennis Kucinich wins the American Presidency and Republicans rise up in open revolt only to be put down by Pres. K, it will not mean that Kucinich took power by "a coup d'état, achieved by force of arms". He will have taken power and then put down a rebellion. And so with our Dutchman. If William took power in bloodless fashion, then put down subsequent rebellions, his takeover is not converted to a violent overthrow retroactively. The statement is nonsensical given what precedes it.
  2. The quoted text implies that coups and revolutions are mutually exclusive. Why? The American Revolution was a coup d'etat. So was the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution. According to m-w.com, a revolution is "the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed". That is what happened here. William didn't invade without inside support. He refused to go unless prominent English protestants invited him in writing. Perhaps the problem is that the writer here has a misconception that a revolution requires a popular uprising or something. That is not so. A revolt by a portion of the nobility and gentry to overthrow their ruler is a revolution. Therefore the quoted text is inaccurate.
  3. By whom have the events been seen as more of coup than a revolt by? (Other than the Jacobites as mentioned in the opening sentence of the relevant section of the article) No citation is given and the statement appears to be strictly POV.

-Rrius (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to answer:
  1. The point is that William had no secure control over Scotland and Ireland to begin with and that, obviously, he had a serious legitimacy problem in all three kingdoms. Jacobites (probably the vast majority in Ireland and Scotland) would (and did) say that William was the rebel and James had always been King. So William only "took power" by defeating the Jacobite forces, just as he had taken England by military means.
  2. Surely in the modern usage "revolution" implies some change in the social order and not simply a replacement of the ruler by revolt?
  3. The contradistinction should not be made between "coup" and "revolt", but between coup and "revolution". Most historians consider the "revolution" aspect in the modern sense as a later projection.
However, the main point to make here is that when Hampden coined the phrase "Glorious Revolution", he meant a literal re-volution, a "rolling back" of society to the situation of 1626. So it was welcomed as a reactionary event, defending ancient liberties and the True Faith against a possible change towards further absolutism and religious freedom.--MWAK (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Innocent XI

This page says that "even Pope Innocent XI, an inveterate enemy of Louis XIV of France, provided a loan" in support of the coup. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI states that "[t]here are, however, no grounds for the accusation that Innocent XI was informed of the designs which William III of England (1689–1702) had upon England, much less that he supported him in the overthrow of James II.[2]". Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robat (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a difficult question. It is certain he provided a loan to support William's general anti-French policies. But there seems to be no prove that he was specially informed of William's deepest intentions. In fact the stadtholder was a rather secretive person and even his closest friends often had great trouble finding out what he really had in mind. On the other hand, William's general intention to invade was pretty much obvious to any intelligent observer. The pope had no interest in removing James from power, but he had every interest in the posibility that the mere threat of invasion would draw Louis's attention away from Germany and Italy.--MWAK (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religious toleration

One of the respects in which the "Glorious Revolution" was not what it seemed is the way historical reality and historical myth play a role in the aspect of religious toleration. First of all, one of the reasons why James was so unpopular with his subjects was his (in modern eyes commendable) attempt to alleviate discrimination against Catholics and Dissenters by his "illegal" use of the dispensing power. William ostensibly invaded partly because of this "Papist threat" to the rights of the established Church. As a Calvinist William, however, was not exactly gung-ho to defend Anglicanism. More importantly, his Catholic allies, the Pope, Spain, and the German Emperor, were not about to support (and be seen to support) somebody who was again about to persecute English Catholics, against king James, who had just ended this persecution. William had therefore to walk a fine line between being too tolerant to Catholics (and thereby giving up his claim to being the Champion of Protestantism), and being not tolerant enough. This explains his pro-toleration stance in his Declaration of October 1688, and also his attempt to procure a Toleration Act in 1689. The latter met with a resounding political defeat at the hands of the High Church Tories, who even managed to avoid the word "toleration" in the so-called Toleration Act. Consequently, William has somehow acquired the reputation of a Protestant fire-breather in popular mythology, whereas the real fire-breathing was done by people who were happy to deal him his first political defeat.

In any case, there is no relationship between William's being a Calvinist, and the fact that the Toleration Act only gives legal toleration to Nonconformists, and not Catholics. --Ereunetes (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)