Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

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

So, let's get started.

Today's lesson is looking at the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, and by the end of today's lesson we'll be able to describe how Whig historians have interpreted the events of 1688.

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

In history, a term used to describe an historian who believes that societies make progress over time is called a Whig.

And a monarch is a sovereign head of state such as a king, queen, or emperor.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is gonna answer the question, who were the Whigs? So, let's get going.

Now, the Whigs were a political party that originated in the 17th century.

They were strongly opposed to absolute monarchism, and that's the belief that a monarch holds complete authority over their subjects and is not bound by the laws of their country.

This form of government was practised in France under Louis XIV during the Glorious Revolution, and many Whigs feared that the tutors and then the stewards were moving England in the same direction.

Instead, Whigs believed that a constitutional monarchy working alongside a strong parliament was the best form of governance.

Whigs were also opposed to Catholicism and strongly believed in the supremacy of the Church of England, and therefore they're wary of any laws that might reduce the power of Anglicanism.

Finally, Whigs held protectionist economic beliefs, which meant that they were unwilling to trade with other countries that could rival England as this would make these countries stronger, even if in avoiding trade with them, it made England weaker.

So a popular belief at this time was an idea called mercantilism.

And the whole idea behind this is that there is a finite, there is a limited amount of wealth in the world, and therefore, in order for your country to become richer, by necessity, other countries must become poorer.

And the Whigs held these beliefs and therefore they believed that any trade deals that helped other countries would ultimately not benefit England, even if in the short term England wouldn't benefit from not having these trade deals either.

The ideas behind mercantilism can have, for the most part been disproved.

Before the Glorious Revolution, it was the Whigs who worked to exclude James from the line of succession because of his Catholic beliefs.

It was also discovered that some Whigs were plot to assassinate King Charles II alongside his brother James.

This naturally made James extremely suspicious of the Whigs.

It was also Whig politicians who conspired with William and invited him to invade England.

After the Glorious Revolution in 1688, the Whigs grew in power.

And once their rival political party, the Tories were banned from holding office in 1715, the Whigs turned Britain into a one party state until 1760, after which the Tories were brought back from obscurity.

But the reality is, the Whigs still held enormous amounts of power up at this point as well.

Alright, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So I'd like you to pick two things the Whigs opposed.

Did they oppose absolute monarchy, Catholicism, parliamentary power, or Protestantism.

So choose two of those options now.

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

Those are the correct answers.

And another check for understanding now is a true or false statements.

So the Whigs had a positive relationship with King James II.

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

That is indeed a false statement.

But let's justify it now.

Why is that a false statement? Is it false because the Whigs tried to exclude James from the succession before he became king? Or is it false because the Whigs wanted an end to all forms of monarchy in England? Make your choice now.

Alright, if you chose A, then very well done.

That is the correct answer.

Right.

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

So I'd like you just to choose three words to describe the Whigs.

That's it.

Just try and summarise them in just three words.

But whatever the three words you choose, I want you to explain why you've chosen each word.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got okay with that task.

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

So the three words I chose were share, protestants and dominance.

And lemme explain those words now then.

So I chose share, because Whigs believe in sharing power between the monarch and parliaments.

I chose Protestants because they were strongly Anglican and opposed to Catholicism, and I chose dominance because they became the only political party in Britain for nearly 50 years.

If you've chosen three different words to me, then that's absolutely fine as long as you explain why you've chosen those words.

That's the key aspect here with this particular task.

Right.

Let's move on to our second learning cycle for today, which is looking at the Whigs interpretation of the Glorious Revolution.

Now, Whig historians wrote their interpretation of the events of the Glorious Revolution, and due to their strength, this interpretation remained virtually unchallenged for nearly 300 years.

So the Whig idea of what happened during the Glorious Revolution and what aspects were important and what happened because of the Glorious Revolution, that remained history, unchallenged history for nearly 300 years.

Later weeks, with the benefit of hindsight, looked back on the Glorious Revolution as one of the most defining moments in British history.

It was the events that turned the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland into Great Britain, which is the juggernaut that went on to dominate the rest of the world during the Industrial Revolution.

And on the screen in front of you there, I've got a map of the British Empire at its heights in 1921.

And Whigs look up on the British Empire and say that this was only possible because of the Glorious Revolution.

And Whig historians also believe that the British Empire is absolutely fantastic.

It was the pinnacle of hue achievement.

Now, the Whig interpretation of history holds that society has slowly evolved over time.

With each small change, having a positive impact causing society to improve and develop over the years.

And in regards to the Glorious Revolution, Whigs believed that there were many positive changes that this event brought about.

For instance, they believe that the revolution led to significant evolutionary change, which it means gradual progress because it ended the belief that monarchs owed their power to God, and instead replaced this with the idea that monarchs owed their power to parliaments.

So the stewards have previously believed in a concept called the divine rights of kings, whereby kings were chosen by God, and therefore no one should challenge what a king says or does because effectively, by doing so, you are challenging God.

Whereas Whig historians now say, well, actually, the fact that the Glorious Revolution said that, the monarch now owes their power to parliament is great because you can get rid of that whole idea that God created kings, and instead resort to the idea that people create kings, people allow kings to rule over them, and parliament decides whether a king is suitable for the job or not.

Parliament gains significant powers at the expense of the monarch.

Including many powers that previously have been under the complete control of the monarch.

And examples that Whigs focus on include control of the army, the appointment of ministers, the parliamentary privilege that granted MPs immunity from prosecution for things they said in parliaments and control of the monarchs finances was also another key aspect of the Glorious Revolution that Whigs look back on with pride.

It also led to a religiously tolerant society as Catholics and non Anglican Protestants are group known as non-conformist, were no longer punished for their beliefs.

Having said that though, they could still not gain employment in government unless they were Anglican.

Now, the first Whig historian to provide an interpretation of the Glorious Revolution came from David Hume in 1778.

And Hume painted James II as a total villain capable of committing every type of crime.

And William III of Orange by contrast, was viewed by Hume as a model hero, a man who had no desire for the throne of England, but simply wanted to save the English people from the oppression of an evil king.

And it was Hume who first labelled the Glorious Revolution as a major turning point in English history.

Hume's narrative was built upon by Thomas Babington Macaulay in the 19th century.

And Macaulay agreed with Hume's interpretation, but also went further.

He went on to say that the Glorious Revolution was important because it returned political power to the situation that existed in the 13th century when English monarchs had limited power before the Tudors made the monarch the supreme head of the church, and the Stuarts ruled according to divine white of kings.

So for Macaulay, the Glorious Revolution effectively reverted England to what it had been previously when the Monarch had more limited powers than was exhibited during the Tides and Stewart period.

According to Macaulay, the Bill of Rights was the highlights of all of the good that came from the Glorious Revolution as it enabled all the good laws that have been passed since.

So Macaulay says that without the the Bill of Rights, there would've been no positive laws passed by parliament.

For Macaulay, the Glorious Revolution could be boiled down to battle of good versus evil.

William and the Whigs represented the side of goods, whilst James and the Tories represented the side of evil.

Good triumphed over evil, which continued the evolutionary march of history into the enlightened society that Macaulay believed he lived in.

The Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution persisted well into the 20th century.

And to give a really good example to celebrate the Toris centenary in 1988, which is the 300 year anniversary, Parliament issued commemorative booklets, telling people the story of the Glorious Revolution.

In which it was the Whig interpretation of events praising the supremacy of Parliament, which shone through.

Well, let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So, what do Whig historians believe has happened to society over time? Has it and progressed, has it stagnated or regressed, or has there been a mixture of progression and regression? So choose your option now.

Okay, if you chose A, then very well done the correct answer.

Let's have another check for understanding now though.

So I'd like you to choose two features of the Glorious Revolution that Whig historians regard as positive.

So was it that there was an increase in the strength of the armed forces, that there was an increase in the authority of parliaments, there was a decrease in diplomatic relations with other countries, or that there was a decrease in the power of the monarchy? So choose two of those options now.

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

Those are the correct answers.

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

So, I'd like to complete the table on the screen in front of you there by explaining why the listed features of the Glorious Revolution were regarded as positive by Whig historians.

And just to give you an idea, I've got you started here.

So the feature of the Glorious Revolution gonna focus on first of all, is that monarchs owe their power to parliaments.

And the reason why Whigs saw as positive is that it makes Parliament more powerful and monarchs reliant upon them.

Now, the other three features, the fact that Parliament control the army, the fact that MPs have parliamentary privilege, and the fact that England is now a religiously tolerant society.

I want you to think about why Whig saw those as positive features of the Glorious Revolution.

So pause the video whilst you do that, and I'll see you 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 in regards to the fact that now parliament controls the army, Whig historians would see that are positive because the monarchs cannot use the army to intimidate or attack parliament, which is what happened during the English Civil War.

The fact that MPs now have parliamentary privilege means that MPs cannot be arrested for their debates.

And again, this almost happened again during the English Civil War as well.

And the fact that England is now a religiously tolerant society, well, we, historians would like that because people were less likely to rebel as they are happy with having personal freedoms. If you've got different arguments to me that makes sense and that's absolutely fine.

Hopefully you've got some of those arguments on the screen there in front of you as well.

Right.

Let's move on then to our third and final learning cycle of the day, which is looking at problems with the Whig interpretation.

Now, although the Whig interpretation dominated historical discussion of the Glorious Revolution for, as I said, nearly three centuries, it doesn't mean that it was a perfect understanding of the events.

According to Whig accounts, the Glorious Revolution was a noble and rather tame affair as power was transferred without the need for bloodshed.

And whilst you could make a strong argument for that in respect to England, it completely ignores the the impact of the event in Scotland and in Ireland as well.

In Scotland, Ja Site risings persisted for about 60 or so years after the Glorious Revolution.

Whilst in Ireland, the William White War saw religious tensions explode in a state of affairs, which still shapes Ireland to this day.

Furthermore, England emerged as the dominant country in the union of Great Britain, while Scotland and Ireland lost a great deal of their independence.

The Whig interpretation is also narrow in other aspects as well as ignoring Scotland and Ireland, it ignores the international situation which shaped the events surrounding the Glorious Revolution.

Williams's motive, what some historians nowadays regarded his primary motive, which was to protect his Dutch republic against the aggression of France, is not considered as a reason why he invaded England at all by Whig historians.

Instead, William is presented as an ideal hero, a man without faults and impossible to criticise.

Likewise, James is presented as a perfect villain with every thought and action portrayed as evil.

So the reality is that Whig historians failed to present the leaders of the Glorious Revolution as real people, which prevented real debate about the Glorious Revolution from taking place for an extraordinarily long time.

Right.

Let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So why is the Whig interpretation of the 1688 revolution as 'Glorious,' considered to be an issue? So have a think about that question, pause the video and I'll see you again in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's think what you could have said then.

So you could have said that the revolution in Scotland and Ireland did result in significant battles and bloodshed, and therefore definitely could not be called glorious in these countries.

There are other arguments you could make to suggest that the Whig labelling of this 1688 revolution as glorious, is false, but, hopefully you've at least thought about the one that's on the screen there.

That's another check for understanding now.

So to what extent does the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution consider the impact of Williams' war with France? Does it give it too much emphasis? Does it consider it equal to the factors, or does it not consider it as a factor? Make your choice now.

Alright, if you chose C, then very well done.

That's the correct answer.

Right.

Let's go for our next task now then.

So, to what extent do you agree with the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution? And I'd like you to give a balanced answer for this question.

So I'd like to include at least one piece of evidence to support the Whig interpretation, one piece of evidence to suggest that there are problems with the Whig interpretation, and then finally, give me what your overall opinion is.

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

Okay, welcome back.

Hope you got all fine with that task.

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

So you could have said that there is evidence to support the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution.

For instance, James was seen as a villain by many English people at the time, which is why William was able to take his crown without any fighting taking place in England.

However, there are problems with the Whig interpretation, the greatest being that ignores the experience of people in Scotland and Ireland who did not have a bloodless experience of the Glorious Revolution.

Overall, I mostly disagree with the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution, as I think it's too narrow, a turning point in the history of Britain cannot be properly understood if it ignores the experiences of huge portions of the population.

If you have a different opinion to me, that's absolutely fine as long as you've justified with the evidence and explained it.

That's the key aspect of this task here.

Right.

Let's summarise today's lesson now then.

So the Whigs were a political party formed in the 17th century, who fought for a constitutional monarchy and opposed Catholicism.

Whig historians believed in the idea of evolutionary change in history that societies develop and improve over time.

Whig historians have a positive view of the Glorious Revolution, seeing it as one of the great turning points in British history.

And the Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution stood unchallenged for nearly three centuries, despite some large problems in the interpretation.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've learned something.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself, and hopefully I'll see you again next time.

Bye-Bye.