How revolutionary was the ‘Glorious Revolution’?
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in King James II overthrown by various members of the Parliament as well as their Dutch military aide, William of Orange, who was subsequently crowned a joint monarch with his wife Mary. Clearly, this can be seen as a fundamental constitutional change, but it is very much debatable whether the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ was in fact ‘revolutionary’. This essay will attempt to answer this question by focusing on… But firstly, the term ‘revolutionary’ must be clarified. A revolution is a form of change. For this question, it can be interpreted more specifically as a major political, economic or social change that is not introduced from the governing …show more content…
The King vacated the throne on the 22nd of December by fleeing to France, thereby bringing up the issue of succession. As the crown had only ever passed on via succession or defeat in battle, some Tories had wanted James II to remain King. However the convention decided that the crown was to be jointly handed to William and Mary. The significance of this with respect to the nature of the revolution lies in the fact that the monarch had never before received the title by a convention parliament. Edward Vallance argues that this was truly revolutionary, as the succession of the monarchy turned from hereditary to elective as a consequence of the Glorious Revolution. This argument is further corroborated as the “most radical act of the revolution” by the historian Tim Harris, as it completely altered the balance of power between the monarch and the parliament. The King and Queen had not inherited the throne in the rightful way; they were only in their position because the parliament had put them there. Jennifer Carter claims that even the offer of the crown to William and Mary on the 13th of February 1689 was an “implied contract”, as was exemplified by the monarchs’ coronation oaths in which they swore to govern in accordance to the statutes agreed upon by the Parliament. This strengthens Vallance’s argument further; the fact that the monarchy of
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in King James II overthrown by various members of the Parliament as well as their Dutch military aide, William of Orange, who was subsequently crowned a joint monarch with his wife Mary. Clearly, this can be seen as a fundamental constitutional change, but it is very much debatable whether the so-called ‘Glorious Revolution’ was in fact ‘revolutionary’. This essay will attempt to answer this question by focusing on… But firstly, the term ‘revolutionary’ must be clarified. A revolution is a form of change. For this question, it can be interpreted more specifically as a major political, economic or social change that is not introduced from the governing …show more content…
The King vacated the throne on the 22nd of December by fleeing to France, thereby bringing up the issue of succession. As the crown had only ever passed on via succession or defeat in battle, some Tories had wanted James II to remain King. However the convention decided that the crown was to be jointly handed to William and Mary. The significance of this with respect to the nature of the revolution lies in the fact that the monarch had never before received the title by a convention parliament. Edward Vallance argues that this was truly revolutionary, as the succession of the monarchy turned from hereditary to elective as a consequence of the Glorious Revolution. This argument is further corroborated as the “most radical act of the revolution” by the historian Tim Harris, as it completely altered the balance of power between the monarch and the parliament. The King and Queen had not inherited the throne in the rightful way; they were only in their position because the parliament had put them there. Jennifer Carter claims that even the offer of the crown to William and Mary on the 13th of February 1689 was an “implied contract”, as was exemplified by the monarchs’ coronation oaths in which they swore to govern in accordance to the statutes agreed upon by the Parliament. This strengthens Vallance’s argument further; the fact that the monarchy of