Editing Glorious Revolution (section)

==Assessment and historiography==
[[File:Joseph Mallord William Turner (1775-1851) - The Prince of Orange, William III, Embarked from Holland, and Landed at Torbay, November 4th, 1688, after a Stormy Passage - N00369 - National Gallery.jpg|thumb|''[[The Prince of Orange, William III, Embarked from Holland, and Landed at Torbay, November 4th, 1688, after a Stormy Passage|The Prince of Orange Landing at Torbay]]'' by [[J. M. W. Turner]], 1832]]
While the 1688 revolution was labeled "Glorious" by Protestant preachers two decades later,{{Sfn|Hertzler|1987}} its historiography is complex, and its assessment disputed. [[Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay|Thomas Macaulay]]'s account of the Revolution in ''[[The History of England from the Accession of James the Second]]'' exemplifies the "[[Whig history]]" narrative of the Revolution as a largely consensual and bloodless triumph of English common sense, confirming and strengthening its institutions of tempered popular liberty and limited monarchy.{{Sfn|Pincus|2009|p=5}} [[Edmund Burke]] set the tone for that interpretation when he proclaimed: "The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty."<ref>{{Harvnb|Goodlad|2007}}; {{Harvnb|De Krey|2008|pp=738–773}}.</ref>

An alternative narrative emphasizes William's successful foreign invasion from the Netherlands, and the size of the corresponding military operation. Several researchers have emphasized that aspect, particularly after the third centenary of the event in 1988.<ref>{{Harvnb|Vallance|2007}}</ref> The historian [[J. R. Jones]] suggested that the invasion "should be seen ... as the first and arguably the only decisive phase of the Nine Years' War."{{Sfn|Taylor|1994|p=466}} [[John Childs (historian)|John Childs]] added that "there was no natural political turmoil in England in 1688", or "at least not of sufficient consequence to produce the overthrow of a king."{{Sfn|Childs|1988|p=418}} [[Jonathan Israel]] also stresses the importance of the Dutch aspect by arguing that, due the Dutch occupation of London, parliament was hardly free when they decided to accept William as their king.{{Sfn|Israel|2003|p=130}}

It has been argued that the invasion aspect had been downplayed as a result of British pride and effective Dutch propaganda, trying to depict the course of events as a largely internal English affair.{{Sfn|Jardine|2008|p=27}} As the invitation was initiated by figures who had little influence, the legacy of the Glorious Revolution has been described as a successful propaganda act by William to cover up and justify his invasion.{{Sfn|Schwoerer|1977|p=}}{{Page needed|date=November 2022}} The claim that William was fighting for the Protestant cause in England was used to great effect to disguise the military, cultural and political impact that the Dutch regime had on England.

{{Multiple image
| direction = vertical
| align     = left
| width     = w00
| footer    = Expeditionary Banner used by William of Orange as Commander-in-Chief{{Sfn|Robb|1962|p=267}}
| image1    = Church Pennant.svg
| image2    = William of Orange Expeditionary Banner 1688.svg
}}

A third version, proposed by [[Steven Pincus]], underplays the invasion aspect but unlike the Whig narrative views the Revolution as a divisive and violent event that involved all classes of the English population, not just the main aristocratic protagonists.{{Sfn|Pincus|2009|pp=}}{{Page needed|date=November 2022}} Pincus argues that his interpretation echoes the widely held view of the Revolution in its aftermath, starting with its revolutionary labelling. Pincus argues that it was momentous especially when looking at the alternative that James was trying to enact – a powerful centralised autocratic state, using French-style "state-building". England's role in Europe and the country's political economy in the 17th century rebuts the view of many late-20th-century historians that nothing revolutionary occurred during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. Pincus says it was not a placid turn of events.{{Sfn|Pincus|2009|pp=?}}

In diplomacy and economics William III transformed the English state's ideology and policies. This occurred not because William III was an outsider who inflicted foreign notions on England but because foreign affairs and political economy were at the core of the English revolutionaries' agenda. The revolution of 1688–89 cannot be fathomed in isolation. It would have been inconceivable without the changes resulting from the events of the 1640s and 1650s. The ideas accompanying the Glorious Revolution were rooted in the mid-century upheavals. The 17th century was a century of revolution in England, deserving of the same scholarly attention that 'modern' revolutions attract.{{Sfn|Pincus|2009|pp=?}}{{Page needed|date=November 2022}}

James II tried building a powerful militarised state on the [[mercantilism|mercantilist]] assumption that the world's wealth was necessarily finite, and empires were created by taking land from other states. The [[East India Company]] was thus an ideal tool to create a vast new English imperial dominion by warring with the Dutch and the [[Mughal Empire]] in India. After 1689 came an alternative understanding of economics, which saw Britain as a commercial rather than an agrarian society. It led to the foundation of the [[Bank of England]], the creation of Europe's first widely circulating credit currency and the commencement of the "[[projector (business)|Age of Projectors]]".{{Sfn|Wennerlind|2011|p=109}} This subsequently gave weight to the view, advocated most famously by [[Adam Smith]] in 1776, that wealth was created by human endeavour and was thus potentially infinite.{{Sfn|Pincus|2009|pp=369–370}}

[[Karl Marx]] viewed the revolution as essentially conservative in nature, writing that it was shaped by an alliance between English commercial and industrial [[bourgeoisie]] and increasingly commercialized large land owners.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hammond |first=Ken |title=China's Revolution and the Quest for a Socialist Future |date=2023 |publisher=1804 Books |isbn=9781736850084 |location=New York, NY |pages=4}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=England's 17th Century Revolution by Karl Marx |url=https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/02/english-revolution.htm}}</ref>

===Impact===
As a coup, albeit largely bloodless, its legitimacy rests in the will expressed separately by the Scottish and English Parliaments according to their respective legal processes.{{Sfn|Lynch|1992|p=302}} On this point, the [[Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury|Earl of Shaftesbury]] declared in 1689, "The Parliament of England is that supreme and absolute power, which gives life and motion to the English government".{{Sfn|Bradley|2007|p=28}} The Revolution established the primacy of [[parliamentary sovereignty]], a principle still relevant in consultation with the 15 [[Commonwealth realm]]s regarding [[Succession to the British throne|succession]] issues.{{Clarify|date=August 2022}} The [[Bill of Rights 1689]] formally established a system of [[constitutional monarchy]] and ended moves towards [[absolute monarchy]] by restricting the power of the monarch, who could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's consent. The [[British Army]] remains the military arm of Parliament, not the monarch, although the Crown is the source of all military executive authority.{{Sfn|Windeyer|1938|loc=}}{{Page needed|date=August 2010}}

Unlike the 1639 to 1653 [[Wars of the Three Kingdoms]], most ordinary people in England and Scotland were relatively untouched by the "Glorious Revolution", the majority of the bloodshed taking place in Ireland. As a consequence, some historians suggest that in England at least it more closely resembles a coup d'état, rather than a social upheaval such as the [[French Revolution]].{{Sfn|Webb|1995|p=166}}{{Efn|The importance of the event has divided historians ever since Friedrich Engels judged it "a relatively puny event".{{Sfn|Engels|1997|p=269}}}} This view is consistent with the original meaning of "revolution" as a circular process under which an old system of values is restored to its original position, with England's supposed "ancient constitution" being reasserted, rather than formed anew.{{Sfn|Mitchell|2009|pp=xvi, xviii, xix}} Contemporary English political thought, as expressed in [[John Locke]]'s then popular [[social contract]] theory,{{Sfn|Mason|Smith|2004}} linked to [[George Buchanan]]'s view of the contractual agreement between the monarch and their subjects,{{Sfn|''De Jure Regni apud Scotos''|2015}} an argument used by the Scottish Parliament as justification for the Claim of Right.

Under the [[Coronation Oath Act 1688]], William had sworn to maintain the primacy of the Church of England, which both his native [[Dutch Reformed Church]] and the Church of Scotland viewed as ideologically suspect in both doctrine and use of bishops. This required a certain degree of religious flexibility on his part, especially as he needed to placate his Catholic allies, Spain and Emperor Leopold.{{Sfn|Israel|2003|pp=137–138}} Despite promising legal toleration for Catholics in his ''Declaration'' of October 1688, William failed due to domestic opposition.{{Sfn|Israel|2003|p=20}} The [[Act of Toleration 1689]] granted relief to Nonconformists but [[Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829|Catholic emancipation]] would be delayed until 1829.{{Sfn|Holmes|2007|p=3}}

News of the Glorious Revolution reached the English colonies in North America in 1689, leading to [[1689 Boston revolt|a revolt in Boston]] and the dissolution of the [[Dominion of New England]].{{Sfn|Barnes|1960|pp=234–257}} Notably, the Glorious Revolution's principles influenced later human rights frameworks, including the [[United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] and the [[European Convention on Human Rights]]."<ref>{{cite web |title=Bill of Rights 1689 |publisher=UK Parliament |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/ |access-date=8 April 2025}}</ref>