Lesson video

Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merritt and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson, so let's get started.

Today's lesson is looking at the revisionist interpretations of the Glorious Revolution, and by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to describe the different ways in which revisionist historians have challenged the Whig view of the Glorious Revolution.

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

A revisionist historian tries to look at historical events or developments in a new way, and revolutionary means involving or causing a complete and dramatic change.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle will answer the question, what is a revisionist? So, let's get going.

So the Glorious Revolution of 1688 saw the Catholic King James II replaced with the Protestant joint monarchs William III of Orange and Mary II, and there are various historical interpretations of this event.

The Whig interpretation argues that it was a positive event that caused significant evolutionary change and was directly responsible for making Great Britain a dominant global power.

The Whig interpretation remained mostly unchallenged for nearly 300 years.

Today, however, this interpretation has been challenged to such an extent that it has mostly been abandoned.

The reasons for this are numerous.

New evidence has been brought forwards, existing evidence have been thought about differently, the beliefs and values of historians have changed over the years, and new ways of looking at the past have come into fashion and old ways have died out.

Revisionist historians have looked again at the events surrounding the Glorious Revolution and the problems with the Whig interpretation and established a number of new interpretations.

Some revisionist historians have looked at how there seem to be little impact on the majority of the population, or how the powers of the monarchy and Parliament combined remain mostly unchanged, and they've reached the conclusion that the Glorious Revolution was not especially remarkable or even revolutionary.

Others, however, have looked at how new institutions were created and the impact that these have had, and consider the Glorious Revolution to be a remarkable event that led to significant revolutionary change.

There is a quick check for understanding now, so as a statement, is it true or false? The Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution is still the most popular interpretation today.

Is that statement true or is it false? All right, if you answered false, then very well done.

It is indeed a false statement.

Let's justify it now.

Why is it a false statement? Is it false because the Whig interpretation was discovered to be based on inaccurate research? Or is it a false statement because the Whig interpretation has been challenged by numerous revisionist arguments? So choose your justification now.

All right, if you chose B, then well done.

That is the correct answer.

Let's have another quick check for understanding now.

So what are the two main revisionist interpretations of the Glorious Revolution? Was it that it was remarkable and revolutionary? Or was it unremarkable and unrevolutionary? Was it boring and overanalyzed, or was it exciting and fresh? So choose two of those options now.

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

Those are the correct answers.

Let's go for our first task for today.

I'd like to give one explanation as to why the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution has fallen out of favour.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

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

So you could have said that one reason why the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution has fallen out of favour is because new evidence has been discovered which has changed historian's understanding of the events.

There's a few different reasons why it's fallen out of favour, so if you've got a different reason than me, then that's absolutely fine, as long as you've identified one, that's the key thing there.

Let's move on now into our second learning cycle for today, which is answering the question, was it insignificant and unrevolutionary? Now, almost all revisionist interpretations were not constructed until the 20th century, but the first major attack on the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution came about by almost by accident in 1790.

Edmund Burke, who was an important historical and political thinker at the time, wrote a book analysing the French Revolution.

And in this book, he couldn't help but compare their revolution to the Glorious Revolution a century earlier.

And Burke came to the conclusion that compared to the French Revolution, the Glorious Revolution was pretty unremarkable.

From his perspective, the Bill of Rights was underwhelming, as it only genuinely affected a very small percentage of people who are rich and powerful enough to be able to gain election to Parliament, which roughly equates to around about 2% of the English population at that point in time.

And Burke agreed with the Whigs that James II was a bad leader, but he also felt that his removal from power was more of a matter of necessity than truly shocking.

Burke felt that if you are that bad a monarch, then at some point within your reign you are going to be removed from power, so it just had to happen.

It wasn't a truly shocking moment in English history according to Burke.

And if it wasn't for the fact that he was actually focusing his book on the French Revolution, he almost certainly never would've considered the Glorious Revolution as worthy of mention in a discourse in a book as well.

Well, I have a quick check for understanding now.

So which revolution did Edmund Burke compare the Glorious Revolution to? Was it the Pilgrimage of Grace? Was it the French Revolution? Or was it the Russian Revolution? So choose one of those options now.

Okay, if you chose B, then well done.

That's the correct answer.

Now of the 20th century revisionists that believe the Glorious Revolution was insignificant and unrevolutionary, the historian John Morrell stands out from the crowd, and he suggested that the Glorious Revolution should instead be termed the Sensible Revolution, as it caused very few rifts in English society, and also, from his perspective, very little change occurred, although Morrell does admit that the same cannot be said for Scotland and Ireland.

Evidence to support Morrell's view include the fact that the monarchy still retained significant power following the Bill of Rights.

For instance, they had the ability to declare war and peace with foreign countries.

They have the final say effectively on relationships with foreign countries.

They also have the ability to dissolve Parliament, which means it's just to end at the Parliamentary session so no new laws can go through and then no new discussions can take place.

They also the power of veto, which is the power to stop new laws from being passed.

And although they couldn't choose their own ministers, monarchs could still choose their own advisors.

Furthermore, many MPs still wanted to be part of the royal courts, so William III of Orange was able to use that to bend Parliament to his will.

Effectively, that's a kind of a carrot.

If you do the things I say and I'm happy with you, then maybe you could join the royal court, as opposed to just being a member of Parliament.

Both William and his wife Mary were Stuarts by blood, so in that sense, the Glorious Revolution was no different really to a lot of the power struggles that royal families have experienced throughout history.

Reason being is that a pair of Stuarts replaced a different Stuart, so there's an argument made that the Glorious Revolution was quite simply a case of infighting within the same family.

So another quick check for understanding now.

This is a discussion-based question.

I want you to think what arguments are there to be made that the Glorious Revolution did not lead to a lot of change, and therefore was unrevolutionary.

So pauses the video while you think about this and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you got on okay with that task.

Let's think what you could have said then.

So you might have said that the monarch still held a great deal of power, that it mostly only affected the top 2% of the population, but it was very tame compared to the French Revolution.

And that a pair of Stuarts just replace a different Stuart.

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

Okay, so another quick check for understanding now.

So what does John Morrell say the Glorious Revolution should be known as instead? Is it the Comical Revolution, the Insane Revolution, or the Sensible Revolution? Make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose C, then well done.

That is the correct answer.

Now, some revisionist historians directly attack specific elements of the Whig interpretation.

For instance, the Whig argument that the Glorious Revolution created a religiously tolerant society, it can be challenged when the experiences of Catholics and nonconformists, which means non-Anglican Protestants are looked at in detail.

And although they were able to worship however they liked, nonconformists and Catholics were still forbidden from sitting in Parliament, from holding public office, from attending university, from working in a legal profession, and from practising medicine, so there are a lot of doors closed to people in England unless they followed the Anglican religion.

As well as that, nonconformists and Catholic, non-Anglicans still had to pay a tithe, still to pay a tax to the Church of England, even though they were not members of that church, even though they didn't attend that church, they still had to pay an additional tax to that particular church.

Historian Stephen Baxter directly attacked the Whig interpretation of William III of Orange as a hero, freeing the English people from the tyranny of James II.

And Baxter argues instead that William was only interested in protecting the Dutch Republic and Protestantism, and the best way to do that quite simply was to deprive Catholic France of a potential ally in James II.

So this whole idea that the Whigs are constructed of William III of Orange saving England from an evil king, Baxter says that wasn't true at all.

It was just that actually, it was just convenience.

It made the most military sense to invade England before it could join with France and that's the best way to save the Dutch Republic, the best way to maintain Protestantism in Northern Europe.

The revisionist historian Christopher Hill argued that rather than the Glorious Revolution being a moment of change, he actually says that it was the 1640s when the real revolution took place in England, as these were the years of the English Civil War.

And Hill points out that during this time, the traditional relationship between landlords and their tenants broke down.

A rise in the middle classes occurred and this group took power from the traditional elites.

And to Hill, the Glorious Revolution was quite simply a display of power from the newly powerful middle class.

Have a quick check for understanding again.

So how does revisionist historian Stephen Baxter argue against the Whig interpretation of William of Orange? So pause the video now and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Have you got on okay with that task? Just think what you could have said.

You could have said that Baxter believes he was not a hero freeing the English people from the tyranny of James II.

And instead, William was only interested in protecting the Dutch Republic and Protestantism and the best way to do that was to deprive Catholic France of a potential ally.

So hopefully you got a similar answer to myself there as well.

And another check for understanding now, what event does the revisionist story in Christopher Hill argue was the real moment of change? So once again, pause the video there.

I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

So hopefully you've said that the English Civil War to Hill was the real revolution at this point in time and the Glorious Revolution was simply an example of the power that this revolution had brought about for the middle classes.

Okay, let's go for our next task for today then.

So I have a table on the screen there in front of you, and what I'd like you to do is to complete the table by explaining why these features that are listed of the Glorious Revolution are considered insignificant and unrevolutionary by some revisionist historians.

And to help you out, I've done the first one for you.

So the first feature we're gonna look at is that the monarch can still declare war and I've said that that can be considered unrevolutionary because monarchs have always decided foreign policy.

So I want you to think about how monarchs can veto new laws, how nonconformists cannot be MPs, and how William and Mary were both Stuarts, and think about why they are features of the Glorious Revolution, which can make the whole thing appear to be unrevolutionary.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

Let's think what you could have said then.

So in regards to the fact that monarch can still veto new laws, well, it can be seen as unrevolutionary because monarchs can prevent any more loss of power.

So they've lost some power, but this stipulation that they can veto new laws means that they don't necessarily have to lose any more power.

The fact that nonconformists cannot be MPs could be seen as unrevolutionary because Anglicans remain the most powerful religious group.

So they were the dominant religious group in England before the Glorious Revolution, and they remained the dominant religious group after the Glorious Revolution as well, so there's no real change in that respect.

And the fact that William and Mary were both Stuarts can be considered unrevolutionary because royal family power struggles were not uncommon.

Just within England, you can look at the period of the anarchy between Matilda and Stephen as another example.

You can look at the Wars of the Roses, which at the time was called, was referred to as the Cousins' War.

These are all examples of just within England of different family members within a royal family creating a situation which can be considered a civil war, which is just exactly, in some respects, what the Glorious Revolution was as well.

Okay, let's move on then to our third and final learning cycle of the day, which is answering the question, did it cause significant revolutionary change? Now, there are a number of revisionist historians that agree with the Whigs that the Glorious Revolution was significant, but they differ by arguing that this event caused immediate and dramatic change to England, as opposed to the Whig argument that it was relatively slow in evolutionary change.

For example, Steven Pincus argued that the Glorious Revolution was the first modern revolution and that all subsequent revolutions followed a similar pattern.

And he argues that the hallmarks of a modern revolution was that it was violent, and in terms of the Glorious Revolution, certainly in Scotland and Ireland that was very much the case.

Pincus also says that modern revolutions have to be popular, and in regards to the Glorious Revolution, it was very popular with the Whigs and also with the London crowds who cheered William as he entered London.

And also Pincus says that revolutions need to be divisive as well.

It needs to cause a split within society, and in regards to the Glorious Revolution, you could say that that is the case because you've got, in terms of the politics at the time, you've got the Whigs versus the Tories.

In regards to religion, you've got Anglicans versus Catholics and nonconformists.

And within Scotland, in regards to revolution, you've also got Presbyterians versus Episcopalians.

So in that respect, you could make an argument that Pincus' three hallmarks of a modern revolution, that it is violent, popular, and divisive, well, the Glorious Revolution, you can point to evidence to say that it ticks all of those boxes as well.

Historian William Speck agrees that it was indeed a revolution, as it created immediate and profound change.

And he points specifically at the example of English politics and he says that Parliament became a regular feature of life after the Glorious Revolution, as opposed to just being whenever the king at the time quite fancy calling them, usually when they need money when they quarter at Parliaments.

But after the Glorious Revolution, Parliaments had to be far more regular, so therefore you've got a massive change there straight away and also that Speck also thinks that it affected large parts of the population as well and the argument he puts forth for that is that elections were held every three years for members of Parliaments, which meant aggressive campaigning became a standard part of life, so even if you weren't likely to be elected to Parliament, you would almost certainly be aware of electioneering campaigns from people who do want to be elected to Parliaments.

Speck also says though that this revolution did not lead to a better standard of living, or even a better form of government.

So Speck says that there was dramatic change, but actually for the most part, it didn't really improve things for most people, so he says there can be elements of change and non-change within the same events.

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

So pick two aspects of the Glorious Revolution that Steven Pincus uses as evidence to claim that it was the first modern revolution.

Was it divisive? Was it long? Was it terrifying? Was it violence? Choose two of those options now.

All right, if you chose A and D, then very well done.

Those are the correct answers.

Revisionist historians, Douglass North and Barry Weingast, together they took a different approach, but they reached a similar conclusion.

They looked at the Glorious Revolution through an economic lens and they concluded that the increased importance of Parliament was hugely beneficial to the economy.

Previously, monarchs who were short on money usually just took out loans on difficult terms if they couldn't get Parliament to increase taxes.

The Parliament instead created the Bank of England in 1694, and then they worked closely with it to ensure that the country's economy remained secure.

And this then created confidence in investors who were now happy to lend money to the governments, which was an immensely positive change.

So because England's economy improved dramatically after the Glorious Revolution therefore makes it a significant event.

And also because the Bank of England was created so soon after the Glorious Revolution, it can be considered a revolutionary moment, a moment of quick and immediate change as opposed to a long, drawn out process, which would be considered more of an evolutionary change.

Okay, let's have another check for understanding now.

So what the North and Weingast argue the Glorious Revolution had a significant and positive revolutionary impact on? Was it art and literature? Was it the economy? Or was it scientific research and understanding? So choose one of those options now.

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

That's the correct answer.

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

So I'd like to match the historian on the screen to their opinion of the Glorious Revolution.

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

Okay, welcome back.

I hope you got on fine with that task.

So let's think about what you should have said then.

So in regards to North and Weingast, they believe that a more powerful Parliament improved the economy.

In regards to Christopher Hill, he says that it was not as important as the English Civil War.

William Speck says that it created immediate change in English politics.

Steven Pincus says that it was the first modern revolution.

And Stephen Baxter argues that William III only invaded England to protect the Dutch Republic and Protestantism.

So if you got all of those correct as well.

Let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution lasted for nearly 300 years, but revisionist historians have now mostly discredited it.

Some revisionists argue that it was relatively insignificant and unrevolutionary, whereas others take the complete opposite view and argue that it was profoundly revolutionary and significant.

By focusing on different aspects of Glorious Revolution, revisionist historians can offer evidence to support their own arguments.

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.