Talk:Glorious Revolution/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fathered a son - birth or conception?

The last edit replaced 'fathered a son' with 'had a son' by assuming that 'to father' implies conception rather than birth. I disagree - he was not a father until the child was born. I understand this is politically sensitive, so a third option would be better. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/father#Verb is unclear)

Also, he himself did not 'have' a son (physically), his mother, Mary of Modena, 'had' him.

Would appreciate clarification, Grebsky (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing politically sensitive about this. The original text was

Matters came to a head in June 1688, when the King fathered a son, James

I changed it do

...when the King fathered a son James

with edit summary not to put too fine a point on it, but the fathering presumably was carried out nine months earlier

"To father" is fairly broad in terms of what specific phase of the process is meant (anywhere, in general, from conception through -- possibly -- some form of participation in the birth through raising the child to adulthood). But when one says "he fathered a child" at a specific point in time... well, one's mind naturally turns to the process in which the male takes a more, um, active role than the event in which he, at most, assists. Maybe it's just me.

Meanwhile, "to have a son" certainly isn't restricted to giving birth physically, and certainly denotes, more clearly than does "fathered", the birth of a person's child.

Anyway, I don't feel strongly about this, but possibilities to consider are:

• when the King had a son
• when the King became father to a son
• when a male heir was born
• when the King's son, James, was born

etc. EEng (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Article title

When I studied English history in the 1960s, this event was called "The Great and Glorious Revolution". OK, that's a bit of a mouthful, but I see it is also what Dickens called it in his "Child's History of England", though without the capitals. I'm not sure I want to expand the opening paragraph any more, just put down a marker, as it were.Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's better not to put this in the lead.--MWAK (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Propaganda

The invasion and complete takeover of england by the Dutch including the replacement of the King with a Dutch King involving treason and treachery has been dressed up by the english as anything but what actually happened. There should be a section on how this has been twisted into the delusion the english perpetrate to this very day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2161:7280:806F:5235:9989:97AB (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

These aspects are already dealt with in the "Revolution or invasion?" chapter. Additional sources can be abstracted and cited there.--MWAK (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashed article never mentions that black African slaves, stolen gold, etc

The article purposefully excludes the fact that KIng James II, etc were involved in genocide against Africans and their enslavement. Further, the article does not mention the theft of African gold, ivory, etc. This is like having an article about the Nazis but not mentioning the genocide and racism of Hitler. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A141:679D:EC7E:E074 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason that these subjects are purposefully excluded is that they are of little relevance to the subject, the Glorious Revolution. The scope of the article is not the society of Stuart England. For these aspects to be mentioned there must be some particular link with the 1688 events, e.g. a source claiming that the Dutch invaded England to take over the West African trade. There is one clear "black" connection: William used two hundred slaves from Surinam to make his entourage more exotic. This is mentioned in the article.--MWAK (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Declaration of Right or Rights?

In the lede we have "The Declaration of Rights, leading to the Bill of Rights 1689". Then under the heading The Bill of Rights it becomes the Declaration of Right. Now which is it? - we can have one or the other but not both in the same article. In fact, it doesn't make any sense to have both in wikipedia at all so, if we went with Declaration of Right in this article and in the Bill of Rights 1689 article, which also has both, then the The Declaration of Rights article need to be renamed. However, there are seven other articles in Wikipedia that include Declaration of Rights in the title, so that would seem a little perverse as the original declaration doesn't really seem to have had an official title and different parliamentary documents on the web use both forms. Richerman (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, "Declaration of Right" is more authentic. The word in the seventeenth century still largely had its old meaning of "the whole of law" and the declaration was not a modern summation of civil rights but a confirmation of what was "right".--MWAK (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've changed it in the lead and taken the definite article out of the title as that seems a bit amateurish too. However, it does beg the question why it lead to a Bill of Rights rather than a Bill of Right. Richerman (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A "Bill of Right" would have been a tautology. Any bill is part of the law. The Declaration of Right was dressed up as a uncontentious ritual. Of course it wasn't: there was a very real power struggle between Parliament and King. Parliament took the yummy parts later in 1689 and tried to present them as the "ancient rights and liberties" that would be simply codified in a formal bill. Again this was fiction: real mediaeval English kings would have been aghast at what liberties Parliament took at that moment :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"His ascension to the English throne as William III"

The wording "his ascension to the English throne as William III of England, jointly with his wife Mary II of England" still seems superfluous to me. Surely he would not ascend the English throne as William III of France? In the opening paragraph, consisting of two sentences, the word "England" is used four times (and the word "English" twice). How about "his ascension to the English throne as King William III"? That should also make it explicit that he was the third stadtholder named William and the third English king named William. Surtsicna (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a possibility; but the deeper problem is that his article title is William III of England. If we do not give this title in full, people will start to link the first mention of his name only, as William III. The next step, as experience taught me, will be that the "III" is removed. But if we want to reduce the superfluity, we can always simply call it "the throne".--MWAK (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Clarification or Corrections to Background Section

In general (and I've noticed this elsewhere), it's often presented as if James' Catholicism was the issue, which is an extreme simplification and the use of the word 'tolerance' is often mis-leading because James advocated tolerance for Catholicism but wasn't keen on either religious or political freedom otherwise.

This matters is because in the 17th century religion and politics were closely linked; the Whigs objected to James because of his views on Parliamentary democracy (ie none) and his close association with the absolutist Louis XIV; his Catholicism was a tool. It remains relevant today; one of the drivers of Brexit is the idea that our Parliamentary system should be sovereign, not some faceless bureaucrat in Strasbourg (I'm quoting here). That was exactly the argument used by the Whigs ie Catholics were primarily loyal to a global organisation that did not have England's best interests in mind. I don't think the article as written really makes this point clear.

...James's greatest political problem was his Catholicism, which left him alienated from both parties in England; James problem was not his Catholicism. In his Coronation Oath, he swore as Head of the Church of England to maintain its position and privileges; indulgence broke that Oath. It was his assault on the Church of England by prosecuting the bishops that finally turned the Tories away. And five of those seven bishops later lost their positions for refusing to swear allegiance to William. James' position was so strong in 1685, its hard to think of a better example of how to mess things up; although Charles himself predicted it.

The low church Whigs....James's supporters were the high church Anglican Tories. This is oversimplifying massively; the differences between Whigs and Tories were not primarily religious but political.

.... In Scotland, his supporters in the Parliament of Scotland stepped up attempts to force the Covenanters to renounce their faith and accept episcopalian rule of the church by the monarch. This is just wrong; the Church of Scotland had episcopacy restored in 1660 which had nothing to with religious doctrine per se. They stepped up suppression of Presbyterian dissidents but that had been going on since 1650.

There's a few more - I'm not quarrelling with (most) of the statements made but the way they're put together doesn't really explain why James managed to destroy his position so completely in less than three years. Also, I think it should include the fact that Charles (thanks to the secret Treaty of Dover) ruled without Parliament for much of his reign and James tried to do the same.

I would like to clarify some of the points - because I think we're facing some of the same issues today.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Glorious Revolution

This ought to be called Broadband Internet Revolution in absence of modern times, INVOICE™

JS091793BRIGHTFIELD —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article should be titled "The 1688 Dutch Conquest of England". "Glorious Revolution" was just a propaganda term. See e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history-in-the-making-the-glorious-revolution-of-1688-91-was-really-a-dutch-invasion-this-distortion-1565642.html Danny Yee (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether your proposal is serious but for good order: the article title must be the most common name of a subject. Sadly this is not "The 1688 Dutch Conquest of England" :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What does "authenticity" mean?

What does the bit that I have bolded in this sentence mean: "On 26 November, James's younger daughter, Anne, who doubted the authenticity of her new brother,[78] and who was greatly influenced by Churchill's wife Sarah Churchill, did the same."? Did Anne think that the occupant of the royal cradle was a doll? a substitute baby? perhaps illegitimate?

This needs to be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.64.198 (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Earlier in the article it has been mentioned that many thought the child was "supposititious" which should provide sufficient context. Anne thought that her stepmother faked the entire pregnancy despite half the court being present when she gave birth. Serious case of SWS (Snow White Syndrome).--MWAK (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Brilliant explanation and diagnosis. Surtsicna (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to Lead

I have four concerns with the original Lead;

• Too long, partly due to...

• Inclusion of statements that are debatable/irrelevant (I have yet to encounter a historian who argues the Revolution directly contributed to Dutch decline); or

• Overly simplistic (the idea the collapse of James' regime in 1688 was due to 'lack of resolve' is a straight lift from the Catholic Non-Compounders like Melfort);

• Perpetuates several myths eg it was about religious tolerance (most modern historians, with the possible exception of JR Jones, argue it was James' method that was the issue); and

• Ignores the wider European context (you cannot appreciate how disturbing James attempts to impose tolerance were without the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which led to the biggest involuntary migration in Europe until 1945).

Happy to discuss.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the irony that forcing England into an alliance made the the Republic the junior partner is a common theme in the writings of Dutch historians, mirrored by Jonathan Israels The Dutch Republic. Even at the time itself, it was obvious to many that this would be the inevitable outcome. French ambassador D'Avaux observed that when the States of Holland left the meeting in which they decided to back an invasion, many members cried, attributing this to a realisation that success would result in them becoming a "subject province" and that England would "expand its own commerce at the expense of the States".--MWAK (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)