Criteria for a revolution: mass frustration, shared motivations, significant change in short period of time, overthrow
the old order, accumulation of grievances, armed struggle between militias, divisions/factionalism, radicalisation,
Ways an extract would be superior to another one:
- Identifies the negative and positive aspects of an argument
- Identifies that the change for the time was revolutionary - ie compares to previous Stuart monarchs
- Identifies the longer term impacts of revolution - not just original settlement 1688-89
- Supported by other historians
Event To what extent was the GR revolutionary?
Revolutionary ideals Popular uprising of the Protestant majority, therefore it is revolutionary as many people supported it = mass
behind the overthrow frustration.
of James
1688 The GR was a foreign invasion by William of Orange not instigated by the English people - therefore was not a
popular uprising but a simple replacement of power.
Revolutionary
Not Revolutionary HoL did not share radical ideas with rest of political nation - Revolution was only possible because James
- John Morrill = abdicated/voluntarily resigned his throne - the Lords would have rejected any proposal to overthrow James (less
Sensible Rev. support and not a radical consensus). Thus, many still supported ideas of divine right and hereditary succession.
- Christopher Hill =
Marxist Beyond HoL many others were against the replacement of James (had he not abdicated) because they did not
was a return of the instability of the Interregnum after the execution of Charles I = opposition to revolution present
showing it was not a revolution but a peaceful transition of power.
There were no political divisions - “Sensible Revolution” and a consensus between Whigs and Tories to overthrow
a King who abused his powers - could argue that widespread consensus indicates it was not revolutionary. There
was a widespread census among both Whigs and Tories in the GR, showing that it was a revolution because
there was a radical transformation in political ideas, in favour of a new system of constitutional monarchy.
Marxist interpretation = that only the propertied classes benefited from the events of 1688 - a revolution should
benefit all classes in order to have a significant impact and create change - not a radical change in social order.
This is backed up by the fact that Locke did not advocate for universal suffrage.
The Tories went against passive obedience which was against their moral code, therefore, there was a change in
ideology. However, Tories passively disobeyed James only because James had disrupted God’s law, justifying the
overthrow of their King due to the Catholic dispensations and absolute rule enforced by James. On the other
hand, you could argue there was active disobedience against the King in the form of pamphleteering after the DoI
issued by James. Thus, although the Tories still did not actively get involved in the revolution many did. Examples
of pamphleteering:
- Gilbert Burnet’s “ill effects of Animosities among Protestants in England Detected”
James overrode parliament’s wishes when he passed the DoI in 1688 which caused the revolution - previous
monarchs had done the same but had not led to an overthrow of the monarch suggesting the GR was a change
from previous parliamentary discontent.
John Locke’s radical ideas were shared by the Tories - that enforcing one religion would lead to social disorder
and a failed society - therefore these ideological changes to a confessional state were revolutionary. The Two
Treatises of Government enabled Divine Right and hereditary succession to be questioned (a revolutionary ideal).
However Locke’s ideas indicate that it was not revolutionary to overthrow a tyrannical leader who broke the social
contact with the people due to enforcing Catholic laws = thus is a sensible revolution well within the rights of the
people to do.
By choosing and inviting William, the MP’s had chosen the monarchy and thus reduced the power of Divine Right.
William was not chosen my hereditary blood. On the other hand, William and Mary accepted the position together
because she was the daughter of James and thus had a claim to the throne through Divine Right. Tories could not
have agreed to the GR if Mary had not been invited too - therefore conservative beliefs restricted the extent to
which Divine Right was questioned.
When inviting William, parliament did not have a plan of action to increase their power - therefore could argue
overthrow was not driven by revolutionary ideals but a need to replace an absolute monarch/fear of Catholics.
Parliament were well within their rights to oppose the monarch if he was tyrannical = not revolutionary ideas
The Revolution Violent in areas like Ireland and Scotland - not a peaceful transition. More than 8000 people died in Siege of
Derry, Jacobite uprising in Scotland in 1689. However, it was a bloodless Revolution (when compared to others
Revolutionary like the French). There was not widespread violence and James voluntarily abdicated the throne which reduced
- Edward Vallance = the amount of violence seen.
violent
Not Revolutionary A Convention Parliament was elected and met on 22 Jan 1689 - this was significant because parliament
- Thomas Macauley convened without the King calling it. Therefor reduced prerogative.
= bloodless
, Event To what extent was the GR revolutionary?
Bill of Rights The BoR called for elections to be regular and free - this showed that MPs in parliament wanted to change the
1689 power that the King had in restricting their power/tampering with elections.
Revolutionary Significant because it confirmed the role of the army - stated that a force could not be raised in times of peace
Not Revolutionary without the consent of parliament. This was further followed up by action in the series of Mutiny Acts passed after
- Christopher Hill = 1689.
‘vague’
- Catherine Mutiny Acts ensured the King could not court martial without the consent of parliament and each act was only
Macualey = whig valid for a year - the King was forced to recall parliament annually to ask for permission to raise an army.
junto Therefore less likely for Personal Rule
- Laws could not be The BoR got royal accession and implemented a new constitution to address the abuses of power by Charles I,
suspended without Charles II and James II. Despite these changes, there was little legal change until the Triennial Act in 1694. This
parliamentary meant William could restrict powers of parliament and he did pursue his own agenda of foreign policy for the 9
consent Years War.
- Parliament had to
approve all forms Could also argue it was not a new constitution because the BoR was statute law which meant a future parliament
of taxation that was more Tory/Royalist could reverse the laws. Therefore, it could have been a short term change. A
- Parliament should constitution would also limit the power of a parliament, giving the people the most liberties.
meet frequently
Marxist view - only parliament’s power increased not the peoples (although parliament re representatives of the
people, only the propertied classes elected parliament and truly benefited - parliament represented the richest
Conclusion: 2%).
- No more DR
because monarch The BoR was vague which allowed elements of absolutism to return under William - this was because it did not
was accountable to establish a law to call regular parliaments, did not define what ‘free’ elections were and did not create a
parliament/people. procedure to remove arbitrary monarchs - therefore no long term restriction on King
- Not new - Magna
Carta first The BoR was watered down and less radical than the initial Declaration of Rights due to conflicts between Whigs
- Not end - had to be and Tories.
added upon to have
practical impacts No long term change for the overthrow of future absolute monarchs - still no legal social contract between the
- Whig = established people and the King (only an idea presented by Locke).
constitutional
monarchy William claimed that he did not except the throne with conditions under the Declaration of Rights - therefore the
prerogative of the King was still present and the current king believed in his own power that would not be limited
by parliament.
William’s prerogative was still left in tact - war, peace, foreign policy and ability to choose advisors (could still
declare war = led to 9 Years War)
Mutual agreement between King and parliament (=change) - Mutiny Act meant parliament had to be called every
year but allowed William to punish soldiers that mutinied.
Restored ancient constitution = not new changes
Constitutional monarchy was established - however can argue it was not and parliament was an advisory body,
there was no PM until 1721
