Talk:Glorious Revolution

The Dutch stake in the event?

What I understand the Glorious revolution was to a large extent a business event, an early large volume business merger? One of the main funding parties of the takeover was "Business in Amsterdam". "Business in Amsterdam" that were seeing a French invasion and a war with England about every 20 years, as something that was not good enough for business. The same for the gem market in the Netherlands, to a large extent they packed and moved to London after 1689.

"Business in Amsterdam" was also having problems with a Dutch/English national competition in North America. Military invasions of business enterprises are huge interruptions and costs. The Amsterdam business was in it for the money not the flags. The Dutch still had business in America even though most colonies were taken over by the British. Many of the largest old US enterprises have strong Dutch roots. Some established even after the British takeover of the Dutch colonies and especially after 1689? Many of the wealthiest US families have Dutch names. For the Dutch it was in a large extent a practical way of putting the things in order again in a pragmatic way?

Moving the base for business to London and a tight bond between England and Amsterdam would make a much better long term business fundament. So they were in it funding the enterprise of the Glorious revolution and after 1699 moved a large share of its financial business to London. And have been there in a safe condition, and still are. The first 200 years were of fantastic success in a business perspective? And now 2019 about to move back to Amsterdam in the shadow of Brexit?

But also the conditions for business in the 1689 agreements about governing England gave the "Business in Amsterdam" a much better constitutional foundation. They tried with a republic in Holland and it wasn’t stable enough, the British crown after 1689 was. Large parts of Europe see the Glorious revolution as the birth of the first true state of capitalism (non-feudal), it is school book stuff outide England.

For the Dutch it was the same (even better) business but with a new flag. The English needed the Dutch funding of their growing empire to exploit it and get the economic benefits out of it. The Dutch in London were far better off 200 years later due to the analyse was right and their funding stake paid off. (In Holland they had to meet new invasions and other horrors even after 1689, especially the French revolution.

I think the financial business in Amsterdam should have a larger space in this article. The article is not just for the British?

--Zzalpha (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, capitalism first moved from the Southern Netherlands to the Northern Netherlands — the Dutch Republic was in many ways already a very real capitalist state — and then to England. These aspects are treated in the article, though they were recently removed from the lead. Perhaps they can be put back again :o). If you find an authoritative analysis of this process in some source, it would be nice if this was subsumed and added.--MWAK (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Re capitalism first moved from the Southern Netherlands to the Northern Netherlands — the Dutch Republic was in many way already a very real capitalist state — and then to England.

I'm not sure I understand this; if I do, then I'm not sure I agree (which doesn't make it wrong). Weber and Marx provide different assessments of the societal origins of capitalism eg Protestant individualism etc but neither implies the link I think is suggested above. Can you provide a Source so I can save you the effort of explaining it?

Origins of Capitalism in Western Europe: Economic and Political Aspects by Richard Lachmann is a good summary if you're curious.Robinvp11 (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps our article History of capitalism might be helpful. There is a school of thought interpreting capitalism as a commercialisation process, shaping political institutions. So a simple scheme can be presented: there is a concentration of capitalists in Antwerp; they flee to Amsterdam in 1585 and become rulers of the Dutch Republic; they take over London after 1688. Reality was infinitely more complex; but the scheme has a certain heuristic value.--MWAK (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

No argument Wikipedia isn't just English history. The current section on the Anglo-Dutch element could certainly be re-written and/or expanded. That would be a worthwhile exercise, particularly from someone like yourself with a different perspective.

Sources I've used are Jonathan Israel's two works "The Anglo Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact" or "Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585–1740" are good places to start. I'm sure there are more in Dutch.

The problem is length and focus of both article and the Lead; for example, the Revolution's impact on the US is considerably greater and doesn't even appear in the article (or if it does, its well hidden). There are any number of areas in the article which could be tightened up (eg do we really need a listing of each point in the Bill of Rights?)

Wikipedia is about collaboration so if I can help please let me know.Robinvp11 (talk)

I fear the tightening up in the case of the Dutch preparations was a bit too drastic. Much relevant information was removed, apparently based on the premise that the Dutch aspect was not central to the entire phenomenon. Apart from making the article too anglocentric, this tends to obfuscate the contingency of the course of events, the fact that the invasion was a limited part of William's larger European policy and the way his manipulation of Dutch politics might shed a light on his real motives.--MWAK (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent Edit by Vlaemink

There are a number of issues here;

(a) The Lede summarises the article; if you want to insert this claim, then you first need to do so in the body of the article, not the Lede: there's a whole section on Historiography which you're welcome to update;

(b) The Lede should exclude statements open to debate (Wikipedia suggests ideally it should not require Sources) and present the generally accepted view;

(c) Each of the Sources provided say something different; Black calls it "an invasion of England" (debatable, since most suggest the 1745 Rising), the Independent calls it a "coup" and I can't quite figure out what History Extra is claiming. None of them agree with each other or say "It was the last successful invasion of the British Isles to date".

I've taken the opportunity to simplify the Lede and I've included the point in the first paragraph - but I think its reasonable to ask editors to read the whole article, then make edits in the body. Above all, the Sources should support the statement being made. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, WP:Lead nowhere states that debatable content should be excluded. Content should be accurate according to reliable sources and relevant. Those sources might contradict each other and these contradictions should then be represented in a balanced way, according to NPOV. And we may then debate whether this is the case :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that's word smithing - the Lede needs to be (a) accessible to the general reader and (b) present generally accepted views; the idea of whether it was the last successful invasion (as claimed) is incorrect; it frustrates me because I've now fought this particular battle on a variety of articles (is Culloden the last battle on British soil? Is Clifton Moor the last battle of English soil? etc).

Does that mean you disagree with the other points? The whole point is the Sources provided don't support the claim made. And is this a topic that is either (a) useful for the general reader or (b) you want to spend time debating? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the most important point to make here, is that, while you might edit this article more regularly or often than others, you do not own it. As noted by others, content of the lead should be reliable and sourced, which the claim that the crossing of Williams forces constitutes or might be regarded as the last successful invasion of England certainly is. To quote the author: "What was to become known as the Glorious Revolution was both the last successful invasion of England (and one that was largely bloodless) and a coup in which the monarch was replaced by his nephew and son-in-law (...)". The fact that you feel that Professor Jeremy Black, hardly an amateur historian, is wrong ... is immaterial. If you think this, you should provide independent publications containing evidence to the contrary. You have not done this beyond your own opinion. I once again ask you to leave this sourced bit of information alone, or provide sources that either dispute its claims or claim an opposite position. Vlaemink (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates

Re my edit here and its reversion by Robinvp11 here. The only relevant wikipedia style guidance is MOS:DATE, which stipulates (for countries using dmy formats) dates in the form "9 June 1689" or "9 June", and bars the use of "9th June" or "the 9th of June". However, it doesn't cover the point at issue here, which is how to refer to a day by day-number only, when month and year can be inferred from their mention at an earlier point in the same sentence or same paragraph. Constructions such as "a secret session held on 29th", "William began his advance on 21st" or "on 23rd James agreed" are just jarringly wrong and illiterate, in British English and in every other variety of English I'm aware of. I therefore inserted "the" in each case; an alternative expedient would be to add the month. GrindtXX (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I find it hard to get particularly exercised by this but it should be possible to disagree with an edit without feeling the need to use pejorative wording such as "jarringly wrong and illiterate". Why not just say "We have different views"?

• From my understanding, it is grammatically ok to use "29th" if the month is included in the same or preceding sentence eg "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29th..." or "After securing his rear by taking Plymouth on 18 November, William began his advance on 21st, while Danby and Belasyse captured York and Hull several days later".

• I "know" this only because its been made clear to me in three separate "A Class" reviews. Which means at the very least I'm not the only Wikipedian who uses this style so what's the fuss about? If not required by MOS:DATE and thus simply a question of personal preference, I'd rather not have this same discussion on every article I've written. Please. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We have different views. You think "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29th ..." is grammatically correct English; I think it is blatantly wrong and looks as if it was written by a non-native English speaker. Acceptable versions would be either "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on the 29th ..." or "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29 September ...". I came to this article as a reader, with no intention of editing, but was brought up short by these six repeated examples of what appear to me as highly uncolloquial English. I "know" this as an educated and widely read Brit: I have literally never come across this usage; and if it isn't covered by style guides that's probably simply because it's so rare and obviously erratic that the authorities have never felt the need to comment on it. If one was arranging an appointment, one might say, "let's make it the 19th"; no-one would ever say "let's make it 19th". If you genuinely found it "hard to get particularly exercised" by this point, you would have allowed my minor tweak to pass. I think the present wording just looks crass – and grammatical sloppiness tends to raise red flags about whether the factual content of the article can be trusted. However, I'm not going to argue further, because life's too short and because you clearly regard yourself as the lord and master of this article (a point rather confirmed by your comment about "every article I've written"). Third party views welcome, of course. GrindtXX (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Ango-Dutch alliance" info

@MWAK: I saw that you re-added the uncited information that I removed from the article with this edit. Can you provide a citation(s) to verify this material? Some of the information has been uncited for over four years. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources have now been provided. In general it is unwise to remove information when it is unclear whether the content was challenged. Although in this case it produced a better sourced article :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The unsourced information was preventing the article from appearing on OTD and was in the article for several years, which is why I removed it. I think there might be lots of enthusiasm on this page to improve the article, and hopefully editors will continue this momentum. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

@Robinvp11 I don't want to edit war. So could you please explain why you want write the lead as if it was just an English affair? This lead seems like it comes from pre 1988 historians. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The Lead is four paragraphs which means not everything gets included. And while some of the outcomes impacted other countries (notably the Dutch Republic), the article itself is about the events that made up the Glorious Revolution, which is a British (not English) affair. Take a look at other online encyclopedia that cover this topic and its entirely consistent.

The issue is whether the impact on Anglo-Dutch relations is so central to the entire episode, it should be in the Lead. The article contains lengthy discussions on topics such as the Dutch perspective, French policy, British tactics etc, which do not need to be in the Lead because they are not absolutely central to an understanding of the event.

You want five paragraphs; Wikipedia says four (and don't tell me it's too big a topic, my Thirty Years War Lead has four, as does the War of the Spanish Succession). What would you like to take out? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Scott quotes Jonathan Israel in his book and mostly agrees: If it is generally true that discussing English history apart from that of Europe, a tendency built into history teaching in English schools and universities, is deplorable and produces major distortion, this is nowhere more the case than with the Revolution of 1688–9 where outside intervention set the ball rolling and decisively shaped much of what ensued.

Or to quote David Davies, an important naval historian. It may be that James II's incompetance as king would have cost him his throne sooner or later; but the loss of his throne in 1688 was not due to the discontent of some clergymen with troubled conscienes, nor the plots of provincial noblemen, nor even to the schemes of certain ambitious army officers. James fell because William was able to land...

These to quotes illustrate my point. The invasion of William is most central to the understanding of the "Glorious Revolution" and thus the reasons for it. William and the Dutch were before anything else concerned with the European balance of power, not in the first place with internal English politics. The result of the Revolution on Anglo-Dutch relations can thus not be discarded as secondary.

It is cetainly more important than this part of the lead:

The Toleration Act 1688 granted freedom of worship to nonconformist Protestants, but restrictions on Catholics contained in the 1678 and 1681 English and Scottish Test Acts remained in force until 1828. Religious prohibitions on the monarch's choice of spouse were removed in 2015, but those applying to the monarch themselves remain.

If were to write a lead on this subject I would do much more justice to the geopolitical context of this event.

The other problem is that the lead acts as if William acted upon the invitation, while the invasion preperations had already begun before it. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

If it is generally true that discussing English history apart from that of Europe, a tendency built into history teaching in English schools and universities, is deplorable and produces major distortion etc etc...

First, as numerous debates on various articles have shown, it's not just the English who have a tendency to view historical events from a specific perspective. Second, including this quote makes it seem as if the Dutch role and motives are not covered in considerable detail in the article. Third, I'm slightly annoyed by this as I've made considerable efforts to rewrite this article to provide a more rounded view. We're arguing about what should be in the Lead - again, what is absolutely central to the general reader.

There is no doubt William's intervention was crucial. BUT there is also no doubt (as has been proved many times down the centuries) that it succeeded only because the English army and navy did not fight, and William had overwhelming support from almost the entire English political, religious and military establishment. That's the whole Invasion v Coup debate, which is still debated. Whatever; I cannot see how the Lead as currently written can be interpreted as downplaying the Dutch role.

I don't have a problem removing The Toleration Act 1688 granted freedom of worship to nonconformist Protestants, but restrictions on Catholics contained in the 1678 and 1681 English and Scottish Test Acts remained in force until 1828. Religious prohibitions on the monarch's choice of spouse were removed in 2015, but those applying to the monarch themselves remain. Others might.

If you want to insert your content in its place, ok but it needs to be a lot more concise. And the rest of the wording should stay the same. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 Oh wow sorry I just noticed your reaction. Don't know how I could miss it. Excuse me for changing the article just now.

Second, including this quote makes it seem as if the Dutch role and motives are not covered in considerable detail in the article.

It is covered in the article, and that isn't the problem. The problem is that it isn't covered in the lead

There is no doubt William's intervention was crucial. BUT there is also no doubt (as has been proved many times down the centuries) that it succeeded only because the English army and navy did not fight

If it is crucial it should be given more attention in the lead. As for why it succeded. It wasn't for the lack of attempt by the English military forces. A small minority deserted James before he was militarily defeated and the fleet simply failed to intercept the Dutch invasion fleet. This simply isn't correct. It is covered in detail in the article body, which I suggest you read again. I get this is a big deal for the Dutch, but not at the expense of re-writing history'

That's the whole Invasion v Coup debate

There is no invasion coup debate. Even Pincus uses the word invasion for what William did. Even Pincus? Given he is the chief progenitor of portraying the Glorious Revolution as an invasion, rather than internal coup, that seems a very odd statement

Whatever; I cannot see how the Lead as currently written can be interpreted as downplaying the Dutch role.

It doesn't talk about how it effected the Dutch Republic, the state(s) who brought about the Glorious Revolution by sending an invasion force in order to preserve their independence. But if you are fine with removing all mentions of the aftermath of the Revolution in the lead I can accept that.

As above, I will edit the insert because (again) not everything can be included in the LeadRobinvp11 (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 Could you please reply in the normal way and not edit my comments?

This simply isn't correct. It is covered in detail in the article body, which I suggest you read again.

The article isn't in conlfict with what I said. The retreat at Salisbury, which happened before major desertions, signalled military defeat for James II. Like Childs said: William's victory in England in 1688 was the classic example of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century martial ideal — success through maneouvre and 'the indirect approach' rather than by the risks and costs of battle

And I don't know how you could dismiss that the English fleet tried to intercept William's invasion fleet

Even Pincus? Given he is the chief progenitor of portraying the Glorious Revolution as an invasion.

Ehh, could you expand on that, because that isn't how I percieve him.

I get this is a big deal for the Dutch

Come on Robin. The things I say are propagated by Anglo-American historians. Attempt to refute them, instead of making such good for nothing comments. I don't know why you are so agitated.

I will check your changes later DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)