Talk:Glorious Revolution/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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 (UTC)

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 June 2005 (UTC)

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)

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:

"Glorious Revolution": 299,000 hits.
"Revolution of 1688": 110,000 hits
"Revolution of 1688" -Glorious: 42,800 hits. --JW1805 18:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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 June 2005 (UTC)

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 fits 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)

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)

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:

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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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)

Lets remember that the reigning King at the time James II was hated by much of the country for imposing his unpopular will on the people and that Parliament as a whole welcomed William. James II spent a large part of his life in France (England's traditional enemy) and was a committed Catholic because of this, so much so that he began to replace Protestants with Catholics in major posts for no reason other than religion. In a strongly protestant country this generated much anger. William had as good a claim to the throne as anyone through his wife and most people were willing to accept him as a liberator for these reasons.Willski72 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is the traditional account of events. Such accounts are rarely historically accurate. In this particular case, there is consensus that James's policies were unpopular with the average Englishman. However, whether the majority of his subjects (of which not a few were Catholics or dissenters) desired a violent usurpation is very doubtful. Many probably would have been pleased to hear James had spontaneously dropped dead. But when William III invaded they certainly did not generally rejoice. They were scared and confused and above all felt dejected about the state of the realm. When the sordid affair seemed to have a quick "bloodless" ending in December, they were relieved and cheered William. Also, you shouldn't confuse the men who would form the Convention of 1689 with the real Parliament of 1685, which was filled with arch-conservative Tories who, even in a free vote, never would have ruled to replace James — if it hadn't been prorogued to begin with!--MWAK (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to have been a rather slow invasion.

"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)

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)

It is generally the winners who write the history. Few terms are strictly speaking neutral. I think the best solution is to have an introduction stating something like "The "Glorious Revolution" is a term often used to describe the...". The term is generally used in history books, but it might be necessary to use a language in the text that to a larger extent takes into consideration that the term is far from neutral. Personally I am generally eager to get balance in the article of wikipedia, not the least those of Norwegian bokmål, which often has a somewhat conservative bias. --Oddeivind (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2009 (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 fully agree with you! "Revolution of 1688" would be POV and WP:OR, as this was not a revolution but a Dutch conquest. Glorious Revolution is not only historically correct but captures this irony. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (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)

The event is almost always referred to as the "Glorious Revolution" and whether or not one feels that it was glorious is utterly irrelevant. Any change in the title would itself be motivated simply by subjective POV. siarach (talk)

The idea that NPOV is relevant is misplaced. WP:NAME is clear that the title of the article is not an endorsement of the term's use in the text or a reason to assume any alternatives are discouraged. As it seems "Glorious Revolution" is the term most often learnt around the English-speaking world, it is the most appropriate title for this article. Moreover, the move from one controversial name to another is pointless. From WP:NAME#Controversial names: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (Emphasis in original.) To those who think their NPOV concerns are good reason, the fact that a replacement title is also controversial negates that concern, as does the fact that NPOV does not apply to article names that are otherwise the most common name. -Rrius (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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."

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.
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.
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:

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.
Surely in the modern usage "revolution" implies some change in the social order and not simply a replacement of the ruler by revolt?
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)

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 proof 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)

Monaldi and Sorti in their book Imprimatur suggest the motivation was more around Innocent recognising that the invasion of england would allow him to recover the loan that his family had earlier made to William. The loan was on behalf of Innocent's family and not in his capacity as pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.137.60 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting!--MWAK (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Is the invasion part of the Revolution? Should this be two articles?

Perhaps the problem of classification raised in the discussion above is due to confusing two distinct events. William landed with thousands of troops - this was an invasion. After the invasion, and in the absence of significant fighting in the Kingdom of England, Parliament and William agreed a new and radical constitution (for the time) - this was a revolution. The article seems to be merging two historical events that are actually fairly distinct: the transfer of protestant heirs to the throne to England and the constitutional changes of the Glorious Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.1.107 (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Normally this is seen as an integrated whole and it is also common to use the term "Glorious Revolution" for the entire sequence of events. We really are not at liberty to change all that: it would be original research. Obviously this usage has its roots in the, quite successful, attempt by both William III and his English allies to downplay the invasion aspect :o). However, it would always be possible to dedicate a more specialised article to the Dutch military action per se. Have you already read Lisa Jardine's Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland's Glory? Might be very useful for beter references.--MWAK (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it but I should. For me the most fascinating aspect of this period is the constitutional changes which were the culmination of sixty years of discontent in England. It is amazing how the debate about the governance of England could continue with foreign troops at the doorstep. But it did continue and William and Mary were prepared to sit down and join the discussion despite a de facto victory. These events are even more surprising when William's approach to the Kingdom of Scotland or actions in Ireland are considered. Perhaps the term "Glorious Revolution" reflects the relief and joy that must have been experienced by many English people when they reached the end of 1689 and found that life had got better when it threatened to become apocalyptically bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.1.107 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there was considerable anxiety about the prospect of civil war. And a new English civil war was indeed what Louis had hoped for. The strength of the Dutch army meant that it was unnecessary for Englishmen to fight each other. And the Dutch were ideal to assuage animosities as they had no hidden agenda regarding England's internal affairs.--MWAK (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Last successful Invasion? British democracy?

The opening to this article needs to be completely rewritten. First of all, the last successful invasion was the Norman attack in 1066, which led to the Battle of Hastings. It is not an invasion if you are invited. The English populace asked him to come with an army to dispose of their monarch, James II. How can it be an invasion if you invite someone to come? If someone smashes your windows in, that is burglary. If you invite them in, its not burglary is it? Look at the Texas Revolution. Some blind idiots assume that as an Anglo-American invasion of the Mexican state of Tejas. Yet the Mexican government invited them, so how is it an invasion if you are invited? Also, how is this seen as the birthplace of British democracy. First of all, James II wasn't trying to gain absolute power the way Charles I did. He did not close Parliament for one, and he did not pass laws without the consent of his people. He was unpopular with his subjects because he was Catholic, not because he was trying to assume total power. The birthplace of British democracy was in 1645, in the form of the Battle of Naseby and the culmination of the English Civil War. It was after that war in which British democracy had been born. Never again after that would a monarch try to rule without the consent of his people. James II did nothing of the sort which Charles I did. It was only due to his religious orientations (and thus, ties with the Pope) which made him unpopular. This article needs to be seriously re-written. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC))

So fix it. Coemgenus 15:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps first we should consider whether there is something in need of being fixed :o). First of all, Wikipedia articles should not contain original research. That is, they are a tertiary source of information: they are not meant to tell you what happened; they tell you what other (secondary) sources tell about what primary sources say what happened. In this case important secondary sources claim that it was an invasion and that it played some crucial rôle in the birth of democracy — and therefore we are obliged to reflect this. If you disagree with those sources, write a book about it yourself ;o)!

Now, should you indeed do so, I personnally would advise you to reconsider your opinion. The "English populace" did not invite William: he invited himself. And it is extremely problematic whether the Civil War curbed absolutist tendencies. Was Charles I really so autocratic? Was Cromwell not an absolute ruler? Were Charles II and James II really more democratic or just more devious? Tricky questions...--MWAK (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Family relations

Think the following sentence "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his son-in-law." should read: "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his brother-in-law." 122.106.211.17 (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, James was never married to a sister of William (he had none, as far as we know) and William was married to Mary, a daughter of James and thus his son-in-law. William however, was also his nephew as the son of James's sister. This sister was also named Mary and was married to William III of Orange's father: William II of Orange. So James indeed had a William of Orange as his brother-in-law — there have been a great many of them in history ;o) — but one different from the man that would replace him as king. This has been a constant source of confusion and I must admit to having been confused myself quite a few times...--MWAK (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mutiny Acts

I think it would be helpful to add a line regarding the passage of the Mutiny Acts in the section on the Jacobite Uprising. The act is a fairly important development in military law which was prompted by the uprising. Any thoughts?Jumpinbean (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is not the main article about the uprising. Such aspects are better mentioned there.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

History of Freemasonry

I was looking at the history of Freemasonry in the UK and saw that the Glorious Revolution was sometimes mentioned as an early reference to the political activity of the lodges. Relevant information on the subject ought be added, especially since many point to this event as the beginning of the 18th century intellectual and social changes. ADM (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed a great number of sociocultural and artistic developments that are usually attributed to the events of 1688 and we need a special section on that, in which the masonic element can be mentioned. I'll see what I can do.--MWAK (talk) 07:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Another historical topic of interest is the history of capitalism. What modern economists call Anglo-Saxon capitalism was originally called "Dutch finance" and was apparently borrowed during the period of the Glorious Revolution (late 1600s), after which it gradually spread to New England and other juridictions. ADM (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"The invasion marked the final defeat of England in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century."?

I've never seen the GR referred to as one of the Anglo-Dutch wars; at least in England, it's usually considered seperate. Also, I'm not too sure about the word "defeat"; not only does "defeat" imply military conquest (many historians do not consider the GR to be an example of this), but it also implies that England was annexed to the Netherlands, when as a matter of fact the two countries were still kept seperate, with only their monarch the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.25.38 (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, "defeat" can mean a great many things; neither conquest nor annexation are necessarily implicated. But I'll rephrase the sentence to remove the ambiguity and clarify the relation with the "proper" Anglo-Dutch Wars.--MWAK (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's called that in the Netherlands, either; the conflict between Britain and the Dutch Republic in 1780-84 is called there the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War (though in Britain it's regarded as part of the American War of Independence). If GR was one it'd be the 4th after 1672-74, and 1780-84 would be the 5th.

Anyway, my understanding is William made a bid his the throne as a private citizen (ie as Prince of Orange), not as a Stadtholder, and his army was a mercenary one, paid for by himself. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he explicitly did not act in his quality as stadtholder. But though the army consisted of mercenary troops it was in fact the regular Dutch army and the funding came from the Dutch Republic. Also William continued to command the same troops in his capacity of Dutch Captain-General even though operational command was in the hands of Schomberg. The States-General weren't happy with the arrangement either :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

I've added an infobox; I thought the article could do with one. I couldn't find a neutral image, though, so I've gone with the Seal. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of using the Seal. But, this being the present one, wouldn't the image be too "modern"?.--MWAK (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I hadn't noticed that. I can't find an image of James' seal, though; how about this instead? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems an excellent choice to me! Though Turner was not completely correct in his depiction :o). On the other hand he was correct in stating that William sailed on a yacht, contrary to some claims he confused the events of 1677 en 1688. --MWAK (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, done (finally!) Moonraker12 (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the article

I have tried to improve the layout of this article by rearranging and adding information to their appropriate headings. The planning for the invasion should surely be in the conspiracy section, with the invasion itself given its own section. There is a lot of unsourced text in this article, I have tried to add sourced material, mainly from academic books. Also I think the article should use Old Style dates only, with the year taken as starting on 1 January, as many books do.--Britannicus (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of dates?

Good work, mostly. I'll try to help more. Actually, the dates you get from treating the year as beginning on 1 January are New Style, not Old Style. Whichever is used, we need consistency and explanation. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I know Old Style doesn't use 1 January, but I've noticed a few works use OS except taking the year as starting on 1 January instead of 25 March. That seems sensible to me.--Britannicus (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

The Gregorian Calender was in use in the Republic at the time and many modern sources use these dates. Though it is complex, for the sake of precision both systems should be directly or at least indirectly be indicated.
Using sources is in general a good thing and user Britannicus has added a lot of interesting material. However, many of the sources he referred to are rather outdated. As a result the account of naval events that has replaced the previous text contains a great number of errors.--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think by 'Republic' you must mean the United Provinces, MWAK, and if you do then in fact most of the Provinces, like England, hadn't yet adopted the Gregorian calendar. I suspect what Britannicus is proposing is that we use the dates according to the Julian calendar (I certainly agree with that, it would surely be an excess of zeal to revise them retrospectively) but pretend the year began on 1 January, perhaps mentioning the fact that it didn't. However, for the period 1 January to 24 March, I really think it's a better solution to use the good old convention of '1688/89', with a brief explanation. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the provinces that matter (at least in this context :o). i.e. Holland and Zealand, did use the Gregorian Calendar. I admit having just defended the cause of precision, but the double year date is perhaps too precise! (Though most relevant dates in this article are not from the first three months).--MWAK (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course, it's quite a small problem. I don't see that the double year is too precise - the reason it's been used for several hundred years is simply that it's the easiest way to avoid confusion as to which year is meant. If there are readers who aren't familiar with the convention, then it's surely part of their education to learn it! Moonraker2 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If they'll make it so ;o).--MWAK (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I'd agree, the dating is complex, but keeping to the dates then in use (and that are likely to turn up in sources) and explaining about Old style/New Style and Julian/Gregorian is a better idea than trying to adjust them.
Using the 1688/1689 format is explained here; we could use that and add a note with a link as explanation. Or we could add (Old Style/OS) and (New Style/NS) as appropriate, like in some other articles (such as here). Moonraker12 (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (no relation BTW; that I know of!)

Well, generally I agree — but then, as is already largely the case, for events on Hollandic soil the Gregorian Calendar should be used! Or perhaps we could give double dates for the entire year, stating e.g. that William landed on 5/15 November.--MWAK (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, 5/15 November seems a bit excessive, so long as we say somewhere what dating system is used, with a link to Old Style and New Style dates, as my duodecimal cousin suggests. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, are we good to go? Who wants to do it?

I’ve added a date, with a link to the introduction; there was a note on the page already, which I've used, but it might need re-writing. I don’t mind checking the rest of the article, but anyone has a burning desire to do it, I don't mind that either. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC) (the other one)

But to go for what, exactly? To give double year dates?--MWAK (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m jumping the gun...

I thought

In sections referring to events in Britain, use Julian, and tag the first one as OS with a link and a note; for the sections on events in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe use Gregorian, tagged in the same way.

Where there is the changeover, use both ie 5 November (OS)-15 November (NS)

Where the year is affected, put 1688/1689 (again with a link and a note).

Do you favour putting the first date in the 5 November (OS)-15 November (NS) format, and as 5/15 November thereafter? That would work too.

How many dates are we talking about? It’s a very long article, but I don’t know how many dates are given. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I think your proposal is excellent. I don't know how many dates are given either, but I believe in most cases the dates given already conform to the principles you outlined, with the exception of some for which the sources themselves did not make clear which calender they referred to. Once I've finished adding modern sources, I'll check every date. But of course, if you feel the urge... ;o).--MWAK (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is surely part of our History of England. I concede that if dated events in Holland and Zealand (or Rome, &c.) are mentioned, then it might be misleading to change them into Julian dates, so it's best to use the actual Gregorian dates and identify what they are, with a note to explain the difference from our English or North European dates. I don't see any need to introduce Gregorian calendar dates into all parts of the article, so long as we identify what kind of dates are used. The whole foundation of the Glorious Revolution was English resistance to the imminent threat of Roman Catholicism, and the main reason why there were still two sets of dates is precisely the same resistance to all manifestations of popery... We could even say so! Moonraker2 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why, I could think of one or two other explanations...;o). But does this mean you concur with your namesake N°2? Or are there differences between you?--MWAK (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I’ve made a start. I’ve put OS or NS with links for most dates; But I thought the "Invasion" section was better with the dual dating system, though, where there is the cross-over from continental to English usage. I trust that's OK with youm.
Also, I’ve hit a snag, which I’ll have to check, for the Battle of Reading. One of the links there [3] gives the date for the arrival at Hungerford as 6 December, while the article gives 27 November (“By 24 November, William's forces were at Salisbury; three days later they had reached Hungerford”); so I don’t know if the dates after this have already been adjusted. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

see also above #Old Style and New Style dates above. The footnote was quite clear about what to do with dates. You can not use Old Style New Style without explanation because they can mean different things. It is better to explicit use Julian/Gregorian dates (although for the dates of the invasion two dates as you have done them are are probably better). Also it is useful to use New Style for Julian the dates before March 25 for which the year is mentioned as the English primary sources will be a year different to our usage. -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I’ve just noticed that after considerable discussion about what to do with the dates here, and after I’d changed them in line with that discussion, you’ve arbitrarily decided to change them all back. Ah well...

But the specific question here was about the date for the battle of Reading, as there is a discrepancy of about a week in the dates before and after it; I left a note in the text about it, which has been deleted. Do you know the answer? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This had already been discussed see Talk:Glorious Revolution/Archive 1#Old Style and New Style dates) and addressed and I had already been thorough the article changing the dates in a systematic way. The dates were set to Continental and British dates, with a footnote explaining usage and with comments . This seems to have been totally ignored in this conversation above. As was the guidance in the MOS see Calendars. The date of Protestant William's landings of 5 November was (and is) highly symbolic in England, changing that date to a continental date muddies the water. I did not totally reverse the changes. I left those for the transition from Continental dates to British dates in place.

I have updated the Battle of Reading (1688) to include the information and included in it a reference that will prove useful for this article.

Information Services, "William of Orange's Itinerary", [http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ManuscriptsandSpecialCollections/index.aspx Manuscripts and Special Collections], University of Nottingham, retrieved 3 August 2010 {{citation}}: External link in |title= (help)
{{citation |last=Information Services |url=http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ManuscriptsandSpecialCollections/Learning/Conflict/Theme1/Itinerary.aspx| chapter=William of Orange's Itinerary|title=[http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ManuscriptsandSpecialCollections/index.aspx Manuscripts and Special Collections]|publisher=[[University of Nottingham]]|accessdate=3 August 2010}}

-- PBS (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh! So it seems we have mutually pissed each other off over this; my apologies, in that case!

Thanks for the posting the Itinerary; I’ve not seen that before, and it clears up the Reading thing. It also means the dates here were askew; I’ve fixed them accordingly. I've also put the Itinerary in the References section (here), but I don't know if I've done it correctly; can you check to see if it's OK? Moonraker12 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Intro

It says that William ascended the throne. I thought he was joint 'monarch' with Mary?Keith-264 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was more of a binarchy ;o). I'll change the intro.--MWAK (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MWAK, the peculiar nature of British monarchy does exercise me somewhat, like that bloke whose 'king Charles' head was... king Charles' head. Mary II did after all nick the throne off her dad. Who needs Eastenders with 'Westenders' like these?'O)Keith-264 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

citation template

I think that the citations in this article would benefit from the usage of the {{citation}} template because there are a lot of citations and the template has two distinct advantages:

It allows citations to appear in a consistent format within the references section.
using the templates {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} within the standard ref tag pair the short citation is just a click away from the long citation.

I have altered the the itinerary citation added yesterday to demonstrate how citation can be used to tie the short citation to the long citation.

The use of the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} template depends on whether the short citation needs additional information held within the short citation if it does not then use {{sfn}} as it automatically takes care of repeat citations without the named ref tag as in <ref name=Itinerary> that I replaced in the above example, but if additional information is needed within the short citation (like a quote) then harvnb is better. It will become obvious when altering the short citations which is the better to use in any particular case.

There are two ways to do this. Either short and matching long citation. This has the advantage of when the task is finished any entries in references section not converted should be moved out to further reading (or deleted). However it does mean that the whole article had to be edited. If instead all the reference section is converted first to use the citation template and then each separate section is converted to use the sfn or harvnb templates, then providing they are working on different sections several editors can continue to work on the same article without an edit clash.

Usually the information that the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} contain is {{sfn|author|year published|p=num}}.

If one of the other templates related to {{citation}}, such as {[tl|cite book}}, is used in the references section then an additional field has to be added to the related template to make if function with sfn or harvnb. It is "|ref=harv".

To see an article which was altered from the old method to the new please compare English Civil War (old) with the current version of the English Civil War.

Does anyone have any objections to me converting the references section to use the citation templates and the short citations to use sfn or harvnb? -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now altered all the citations to use {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}}. I have separated out nots and cations and I moved all the books that were in the References section but not cited into a "Further reading" section. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

many historians

The article has recently been change to read "This fact has led many historians to suggest that, in England at least, the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution"

"many historians" are weasel words. -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, what, when, where, WHY, and HOW!

It is sad that the why and the how of history are not considered to be encyclopedic, and are not even considered for inclusion in articles67.206.183.76 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC). Admins here should worry more about weasels than "weasel words".

The shift in mind - the revolution!

The article is an interesting reading.

However it is amazing that the legacy part is not hooking up to the main article. After 50 years of domestic fighting it all is settled in peace. The main shift is in view, the business of Amsterdam invaded London. London a much safer location (than Holland) in threat of the past (risk of being invaded) by them with the view of the struggle of battle for the cake, instead of making it (business) grow. It is a revolution because the Brish sociaty ever since has it as it fundament. It looks to have been a very good deal with William, for the nation.

The artichle is also missing the main point of all the protestant states became protestant due to the problem that Catholics so far has had problems with two master. Even Jesus claimed one can not have two masters. So it is not a matter of faith, only about politics.

To everyone outside Britain Ireland was an occupoied country and theat William had to reoccupy it is no surprise, later history has proven it very clear, ask the irish? Most likly still most non-Britains still call the Kingdom Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huggle, etc.

For a time, the lead read, "The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, is the overthrow of King James II of England..."

I changed "is" to "was." My first attempt was accidentally reverted by an editor using Huggle, and I redid it. I was wondering if there was a reason to use the present tense rather than the past. I think it sounds better now, but I can change it back if I was mistaken.

Thanks! DCItalk 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the first sentence of a lead section more or less a definition should be given of a certain term or phenomenon. Therefore it is preferable to use the present tense even if said phenomenon has ended in a historical point of view, because that definition as such is not a historical event. It is true that the Glorious Revolution was the overthrow of James II, but it still is and always will be — unless the meaning of the concept changes. So, as regards the first sentence, we should consider things in a more abstract way — and resist the natural but slightly misguided impulse to apply the past tense just because the event happened in the past. Likewise it is, as a first indication of the meaning of a term, better to say "the Cretaceous is a geological period" or "Tyrannosaurus is a dinosaur" even though the Cretaceous is now 65 million years ago (time flies ;o) and Tyrannosaurus is long extinct. This makes it also possible to distinguish past definitions from present concepts: "Tyrannosaurus was a carnosaur, but today it is considered a coelurosaur".--MWAK (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense now, but I do have two questions pertaining to this idea.

In an article like 1689 Boston revolt, should the lead say "was", like it does now, or "is?"
And, for example, in the American Revolution article, should the title continue to say "was", or should it too say "is?" The Boston revolt was important, but a far quicker and less impacting event than either of the two revolutions. So, does this mean that it should use the word "was?"

(hopefully I'm not too bothersome!)

DCItalk 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all: these are very relevant questions! For the cases you mentioned, I would say that "is" too should be preferred. However, it is not an official Wiki policy to always use the present tense. The use should be judged in each case depending on the context. In biographies it is official policy to use the past tense when a person is deceased. You correctly felt there is a difference between the "American Revolution" and the "1689 Boston Revolt". "American Revolution" has become such a common designation of the event that it functions as a name. In such a case the definitional aspect is predominant, so "is" should be much preferred. "1689 Boston revolt" however, is more of a description than a real name, so using the past tense is quite acceptable.--MWAK (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I now agree with you, and will check out the American Revolution article for phrases that potentially could be changed. DCItalk 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

63.79.163.162 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Past tense just makes sense. You're arguing a grammatical point that contravenes convention. The event is over, it's not happening now. It happened. If someone asks, "What does 'Glorious Revolution' mean?", then you can define it with 'is' ("'The Glorious Revolution' is the name given to the overthrow..."), but this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. We're not 'defining' things, we're 'explaining' them.

A point to consider: if "was" were not expected for historical events, why would there need to be a specific policy to use "is" in biographies of deceased individuals?

Having this as editorial policy opens a huge can of worms (and will require massive edits throughout Wikipedia). Just look at War of 1812, Fall of Saigon, or September 11th attacks, the first three examples that came to mind. All use "was."

I'm going to change the article to conform to what I see as consistent Wikipedia style. If other editors change it back, well, I don't feel so strongly about it as to start any sort of edit war, just strongly enough to make the edit and explain my reasoning.

Dubious

I've tagged this
"the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic, a prohibition that continued until October 28, 2011 when this latter requirement was rescinded in a meeting of the 16 countries who still retain the British Monarch as the Head of State"
from the introduction, as dubious.
For a start, I don’t know that that much detail belongs in the introduction of this article, which is primarily about events 300 years ago. A link to the Act of Settlement 1701 page should suffice.
Also, I’m not so sure its true: Neither the Act of Settlement page, nor the 2011 proposals page say that it’s a done deal at all, they say that there’s a working party on producing the legislation. They also say the change would only come into effect if the Cambridge’s have a daughter before a son.
So the statement here seems a bit OR-ish. If there are no objections I would propose taking it out. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about any rescind, but I know that there at least "was" a provision that said that the monarch could not be Catholic. Thats how William and Mary attained the thrown. --JOJ ^Hutton 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...just to clarify, it's the bit in italics I'm suggesting we delete; the statement about, and link to, the Act of Settlement should certainly stay. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the "this has not been rescinded" view. I'm tempted to boldly delete it, in fact. The evidence I'll submit is [4] which says the only thing remaining to be changed is an explanation in s.3 (which this is not), and that the recited bit " That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging" is the line in question. Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the rescinded text - it wasn't changed. See [5] - "A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic." Gladstone 15:58 GMT, 12 Sept 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ISBN ????

A number of the books listed at the end of the article bear this designation: ISBN ????. I don't know how to enter citations or bibliographies on WP, so have not had to enter an ISBN. Does this designation mean that some books lack a number? Thanks for the information. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Bloodless Revolution?

Glorious Revolution" is a Whig term

economic revolution that followed on the Glorious Revolution

Ireland?

Muddy thoughts and muddy texts

Change the Title?

Battle of Reading

Invasion

Mediation or Expert needed

Rex Germanus

"King's Party"?

Neutral title?

Geographical Inaccuracy

Old Style and New Style dates

Coup d'Etat v. Revolution

Pope Innocent XI

Religious toleration

Is the invasion part of the Revolution? Should this be two articles?

Last successful Invasion? British democracy?

Family relations

Mutiny Acts

History of Freemasonry

"The invasion marked the final defeat of England in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century."?

Infobox

Expanding the article

What kind of dates?

Intro

citation template

Further reading and External links

many historians

Who, what, when, where, WHY, and HOW!

The shift in mind - the revolution!

Huggle, etc.

Dubious

ISBN ????