The Glorious revolution was neither glorious nor revolutionary. Discuss.
The Glorious revolution was neither glorious nor revolutionary. Discuss.
The term “Glorious Revolution” is used to describe the peaceful way in which Parliament asserted its rights over the monarchy in 1688. To discuss whether it was glorious or revolutionary the definition of each of these words must be fully understood. Can these events be seen as honourable and great, even though revolutionary refers to a forcible overthrow of a government or social order?
Some historians could suggest that, in fact, these events were not glorious or revolutionary, when James II left England no one really knew whether he had denounced the throne and therefore whether he was still king or not. This does not really support the view that this period of history was honourable and subsequently glorious. This is reinforced by the fact once William had arrived in London he had to summon an advisor council on the 18th December and then a Convention Parliament in January 1689, to help decide who should reign and whether James was still King or not.
This is also supports the idea that it was not revolutionary because William did not immediately assume Kingship, and instead called an assembly and a Parliament to sort out lawfully who should be King or not. In the case of a revolution, the actions of those taking over are usually much more decisive and radical.
Another important factor that does not support the Glorious Revolution view is the fact little changed after it took place. A monarch still reigned and the Declaration of Rights that were read before William and Mary accepted the throne in February 1689, still kept the monarch’s prerogative rights and there was no repeal of the 1661 Militia Act that Parliament found particularly vexing. A revolution usually means a complete change that replaces the old order with a new order. Even the Toleration Act of the 24th May 1689 did not really issue religious freedom as the Test Acts from Charles II’s reign still remained in place,
The term “Glorious Revolution” is used to describe the peaceful way in which Parliament asserted its rights over the monarchy in 1688. To discuss whether it was glorious or revolutionary the definition of each of these words must be fully understood. Can these events be seen as honourable and great, even though revolutionary refers to a forcible overthrow of a government or social order?
Some historians could suggest that, in fact, these events were not glorious or revolutionary, when James II left England no one really knew whether he had denounced the throne and therefore whether he was still king or not. This does not really support the view that this period of history was honourable and subsequently glorious. This is reinforced by the fact once William had arrived in London he had to summon an advisor council on the 18th December and then a Convention Parliament in January 1689, to help decide who should reign and whether James was still King or not.
This is also supports the idea that it was not revolutionary because William did not immediately assume Kingship, and instead called an assembly and a Parliament to sort out lawfully who should be King or not. In the case of a revolution, the actions of those taking over are usually much more decisive and radical.
Another important factor that does not support the Glorious Revolution view is the fact little changed after it took place. A monarch still reigned and the Declaration of Rights that were read before William and Mary accepted the throne in February 1689, still kept the monarch’s prerogative rights and there was no repeal of the 1661 Militia Act that Parliament found particularly vexing. A revolution usually means a complete change that replaces the old order with a new order. Even the Toleration Act of the 24th May 1689 did not really issue religious freedom as the Test Acts from Charles II’s reign still remained in place,