Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merrett and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's lesson is looking at how historians' views differ regarding the Glorious Revolution, and by the end of today's lesson we'll be able to describe how the Whig and revisionist interpretations of the Glorious Revolution differ.

In order to do that, we need to use some key terms, and our key terms for today are Whig and revisionists.

In history, a term used to describe an historian who believes that societies make progress over time is called a Whig, and a revisionist historian tries to look at historical events or developments in a new way.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is looking at a summary of the Whig interpretation.

So let's get going.

Now, the Whigs were the political party that invited William III of Orange to Invade England in 1688, thus triggering the events of the Glorious Revolution, and they were the dominant political party for the best part of the next century.

And Whig thoughts and beliefs coloured the historical understanding of the Glorious Revolution for the next 300 years.

Whig historians look at societies in history and they see a slow evolutionary growth and development from barbarity and ignorance into prosperity and en enlightenment.

Whig historians look back and the 1688 Glorious Revolution as one of the most important moments in British history.

They argue that it fused the kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland together into the dominant force of Great Britain, which then laid the groundwork for the growth of the British Empire.

For them, the Glorious Revolution was led by the hero William III against the evil tyrant, James II.

William's bloodless and noble victory transferred power from the monarchy to Parliament through the Bill of Rights.

A document that Whig historians argued is the foundation for every good law that has been passed since.

They see the Bill of Rights as creating a situation in which Parliament became a standard part of British political life instead of an occasional meeting whenever the king wanted it.

Furthermore, Whig historians believe that England emerged from the Glorious Revolution as a constitutional monarchy and a religiously tolerant society with an Anglican supremacy, which allowed people the freedom to worship however they wished, but with the understanding that Anglicans were favoured.

Parliament appointed ministers and controlled the army, which prevented the monarch from pursuing bad policies and threatening Parliament with violence, as well as enjoying Parliamentary privilege, which allowed them as a Parliament to debate the issues of the day without the threats of imprisonments and execution.

That's a brief roundup of the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution.

Right.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now then.

So a true or false statement here, Whig historians consider the Glorious Revolution to be fairly important.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose false, then very well done.

It is indeed a false statement.

But let's justify now, why is it a false statement? Is it false because Whig historians argue that it was a complete non-event and unworthy of serious attention? Or do they argue that all historians consider it to be one of the key building blocks of the British Empire? So choose your justification now.

Okay, if you chose B, then very well done.

That is the correct answer.

Let's have another quick check for understanding.

Now this is a discussion based question.

I want you to think what are some of the positive aspects of the Glorious Revolution according to Whig historians? So try and come up with a list of different things that they would argue.

Pause the video now as you do that, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got okay with that task.

Let's think about then what you could have said.

So you might have argued that there's a passing of the Bill of Rights was one of the positive aspects, the Glorious Revolution that Whigs would argue for.

They could also have said the loss of power for the monarchy.

The increase in power for Parliaments.

That it helped to create Great Britain.

That it laid the foundations of the British Empire.

And that it was a bloodless transfer of power, according to Whig historians anyway.

If you've got any other ideas, then that's absolutely fantastic, but hopefully you've got at least some of the ones on the screen there in front of you as well.

Right.

Let's go for our first task for today now then.

So I'd like you to explain two examples which support the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution.

So try and find two pieces of evidence which supports the Whig interpretation.

Pause the video now as you do that and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back, hope you've got okay with that task, and let's think of what you could have said then.

So my answer on the screen here says, one example that supports the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution is that it increased the power of Parliament as it gave Parliament powers that previously had only belonged to the king, such as control of the army, which prevented the king from threatening Parliament.

Another example that supports the Whig interpretation is the Bill of Rights, which created a situation in which Parliament became a standard part of British political life instead of an occasional meeting when the king wanted it.

If you've got different evidence to me, that's absolutely fine, but hopefully you've explained it like I have.

So you've given the evidence and then you explained how it actually supports your points.

Let's move on now then to our second learning cycle of the day, which is looking at a summary of the revisionist interpretations.

Now, revisionist historians successfully challenged the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution after about 300 years of dominance.

But in so doing reached a variety of different conclusions about the significance of the events.

For some, the Glorious Revolution was a remarkable and revolutionary event, which had an immediate and profound impacts on the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland.

For others, the Glorious Revolution was nothing more than a mildly interesting events, which lacks significance and impacts.

So a real difference in the the two major revisionist interpretations of the Glorious Revolution.

In reality, they couldn't be much more different from each other.

Evidence that revisionist historians point towards when arguing that the Glorious Revolution was indeed revolutionary is that this event laid the template for all future revolutions in the sense that it was violence, which it most certainly was in Scotland and in Ireland.

That it was popular, which indeed it was with the Whig political party and also the London crowd who welcomed William in as well, when he entered the city.

And also that it was divisive.

It created a splits within the country, which it did between political parties with the Whigs and the Tories.

Also along religious lines as well with Anglicans against Catholics and non-conformists.

And then also the same in Scotland as well with Presbyterians and Episcopalians.

So that's actually a split within the Protestant religion up in Scotland there.

This therefore makes the Glorious Revolutions significant.

Further evidence that it was a revolutionary and significant events is that it made Parliamentary sessions and elections to Parliament a regular feature of British life, which had not been the case before.

Previously Parliament would be called whenever the king wanted something.

Generally whenever they wanted money and elections could be very, very few and far between.

Parliaments indeed could be very, very few and far between.

In some cases Parliament wouldn't be called for years at a time.

As a result of the Glorious Revolution, Parliament also created the Bank of England, which helped to later turn England into an absolute economic powerhouse.

Some revisionists who study the Glorious Revolution see very little in the way of change or significance, and this group makes the argument that very little changed for the majority of the population.

The Bill of Rights, for example, only affected the top 2% of the population who were rich and powerful enough to be elected to Parliaments.

And Catholics and non-conformists, that's Protestants who are not Anglican, they were still barred from working for the government or being elected to Parliament.

As well as this, royal power still remained very strong.

For all of the power that had been transferred to Parliament, the Monarch was still able to make peace and declare war on foreign countries.

He was also able to dissolve Parliament whenever they wanted and also were able to veto or to stop new laws from being passed.

This then meant though, although the Monarch now had to work much more closely with Parliament in order to rule successfully, in reality, Parliament was still very much the junior partner in this enterprise.

Well's for another check for understanding now.

So I'd like you to select two contrasting revisionist interpretations of the Glorious Revolution.

So did it lead to immediate and significant change? Do they think it created very little change and was unimportant? Do they think it turned Parliament into a dangerously powerful force or do they think it strengthened the position of the monarchy? So choose two of those options on the screen now.

Okay, if you chose A and B, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

And let's have another check for understanding now.

Which institution did some revisionist historians consider to be evidence that the Glorious Revolution was indeed a revolutionary event? Is it the creation of the Bank of England, the creation of the Office of National Statistics or the creation of the Royal Mail? So choose one of those options now.

Alright, if you chose A, The Bank of England, then congratulations, that is indeed the correct answer.

Right, to our next task for today now then.

So I'd like you to think which revisionist interpretation do you think has the strongest argument? Is it the fact that the Glorious Revolution was super important and indeed revolutionary, it created instant and profound change? Or do you think actually the stronger argument is that the Glorious Revolution wasn't overly important and actually didn't lead to a great deal of change at all? There's no right or wrong answer here.

Historians are genuinely splits as to what they believe.

So it doesn't really matter what your opinion is in the sense that you cannot be wrong.

The key thing here is that you support your answer with a piece of evidence.

I also though, want you to think about the weaknesses of the opposing argument.

So why haven't you chose the other argument? In your opinion, what is wrong with it? So come up with a counter argument for the argument which you didn't choose.

So pause the video whilst you have a go on this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Have you got okay with that task? Let's think about then what you could have said.

So you could have said that I think the strongest revisionist argument is that the Glorious Revolution was not significant and caused very little change.

I think this because the Bill of Rights only affected a very small portion of the population, just the richest 2%, which excludes the vast majority of people.

Other revisionists argue that the Glorious Revolution was significant 'cause it formed the template for all future revolutions.

But I think this is a weak argument because it can be argued that the Glorious Revolution was actually a foreign invasion rather than a revolution.

So if you think that the Glorious Revolution was not overly important, you might have similar arguments to myself.

If you did, that's fantastic.

But most importantly, hopefully what you've done is you've actually explained how your arguments support the point of view you're trying to make.

So how does your evidence actually back up the point that you're trying to make? If you have a different argument, then maybe your answer would look something like this.

I think the strongest of revisionist argument is that the Glorious Revolution was significant and led to immediate change.

I think this because after the Glorious Revolution, Parliament met far more frequently and elections were more common as well, making political life more engaging for the people of England.

Some revisionists argue that the Glorious Revolution was not significant and did not create change because the monarch still held a great deal of power.

But I think this is a weak argument because England deliberately tried a middle ground of a constitutional monarchy, which was supposed to be a sharing of power between the monarch and Parliaments.

Now hopefully you can see there that by not just talking about what I think was the correct interpretation for the revisionist argument, I've actually discussed the other argument, the opposing argument, and actually picked holes in it as well.

So I've demonstrated that I've not just picked an opinion out of thin air.

I've actually considered both sides of the argument and I've come to an understanding as to what I think and these are the reasons why.

Hopefully you've got a similar of style of answer to myself there, regardless of what your actual opinion is.

Okay, let's move on then to our third and final learning cycle of the day, which is an analysis of the interpretations.

So Whig and revisionist historians have been able to look at the same events, the Glorious Revolution, and they reached different conclusions for a number of reasons.

The Whigs dominated the British political scene for a century after the 1688 revolution, meaning that their way of thinking became normal, which shaped the thoughts of historians who came later.

England became the dominant country of Great Britain.

So much of the Whig interpretations looks at the Glorious Revolution from an English perspective, which ignores the experiences of Scotland and Ireland.

The Glorious Revolution took a very, very different path in Scotland and Ireland compared to in England.

England was a devout Anglican country up until the late 20th century.

So the Glorious Revolution was viewed by Whig historians through the lens of religion.

The Glorious Revolution prevented England from returning to Catholicism and instead cemented the position of Anglicanism, which was seen as a positive thing by the Whigs.

Today, less people are as strongly religious as has been the case in the past, and therefore this argument doesn't hold as much traction.

Many Whig historians were writing at a point in time when Britain was ruling its empire and was the most powerful nation on Earth, and therefore, for Whig historians wondering how the situation came about, the Glorious Revolution was a fairly logical point of origin.

Revisionist historians, on the other hand, are far more mixed than the typically English Whig historians.

The diversity of revisionist historians allows different perspectives to colour the analysis of the Glorious Revolution.

For example, an Irish Catholic historian is likely to have a very different interpretation of the Glorious Revolution compared to an English Whig historian, as they'll be far more likely to consider the Irish and Catholic perspectives of the events.

Revisionist historians have also widened the scope of their research to look at foreign influence during Glorious Revolution.

This has allowed them to consider how the buildup to the 9 Years War, which was between France and a coalition of countries led by William III of Orange, had a significant impact on the events of the Glorious Revolution, which is an aspect that Whig historians quite simply ignored.

There are some historians who consider the Glorious Revolution simply to be the start of the 9 Years War.

Revisionist historians were mostly active during the 20th century following the collapse of the British Empire.

This also helped to give them a very different interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, one in which Britain was no longer a dominant world power.

Right.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So I'd like you to label the statements on the screen regarding the Glorious Revolution as either Whig or revisionists.

So it affected very few people.

Is that a Whig or a revisionist interpretation? It helped turn England, Scotland, and Ireland into Great Britain.

It made Parliament and elections a feature of everyday life.

And it was a triumph for good over evil.

So pause the video whilst you do this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Have you got okay with that task? So let's think about the correct answers here then.

So the fact that it affected very few people will be a revisionist understanding of the Glorious Revolution.

It helped turn England, Scotland, and Ireland into Great Britain, would be what a Whig would point towards.

It made Parliament and elections a feature of everyday life would be something that revisionists would celebrates.

And it was a triumph for good over evil is something that Whigs would celebrate.

So hopefully you've got all of those correct answers there as well.

Right.

So another check for understanding and it's a discussion based question.

I want you to think, how is it possible for different historians to look at the same events such as the Glorious Revolution and reach different conclusions? So pause the video whilst you think about that question, and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got okay with that task.

So let's think what you could have said then.

So you might have said that some evidence might have previously been missing.

That evidence is looked at in different ways.

That different historians have different beliefs and values.

That there are new ways of approaching history which come into and out of fashion.

And old ways of thinking about history die out.

There's other things you could have said as well, but hopefully you got at least some of those that are on the screen there in front of you.

Right, let's move on then to our final task for today.

And I would like you to think which interpretation of the Glorious Revolution do you most agree with? Do you mostly agree with the Whig interpretation or is it one of the revisionist interpretations? And I'd like you to use the information from this lesson and your own knowledge to support your opinion with at least two pieces of evidence.

Now, because there isn't a right or a wrong answer to this question because the historians still argue amongst themselves, it's really, really important that you are able to support your point of view with evidence, and you are also able to explain how that evidence supports your point of view.

So pause the video whilst you do this task and I'll see again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you've got okay with that task, let's think about then what you could have said.

So you might have said, I mostly agree with the revisionist interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, which states that the event was significant and led to immediate change.

I think this because it opened up political life for more people, either by allowing new people to be elected to Parliament or by involving more people in elections.

It also enabled the Whig political party to dominate British politics for the next century, which in turn created a situation in which Whig historians were able to develop a common interpretation for the Glorious Revolution.

If you had different opinion to me, that's absolutely fine.

I won't be offended.

The key thing is that you've supported your opinion with evidence and you've explained how the evidence supports your point of view.

Right, let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So the main historical interpretation of the Glorious Revolution for nearly 300 years was the Whig interpretation.

In the 20th century, revisionist historians form their own opinions.

Whigs considered the Glorious Revolution to be a hugely important evolutionary moment in British history due to the Bill of rights and the increase of power for Parliament.

Some revisionists make the argument that very little actually change due to Glorious Revolution, whereas other revisionists consider the Glorious Revolution to have brought about immediate and profound change.

Whig and revisionist historians have reached different interpretations by looking at differing evidence through differing perspectives.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself.

Hopefully you learned something, and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-Bye.