The Glorious Revolution: 1688: Britain's Fight for Liberty

I love to read popular histories by authors such as David McCullough, Candice Millard, Stacy Schiff and Roger Crowley. I was hoping that the “The Glorious Revolution” would be cut from the same mold. I was persuaded by the back cover of the paperback edition, which claims the book is, “A thrilling narrative account of Britain’s ‘bloodless’ revolution of 1688, which reads as dramatically as the best historical novel.” Such praise is patently absurd. Edward Vallance’s history is neither thrilling nor novelesque. It is a dry and plodding, yet learned account of the pivotal events of the 1680s.In 1685, Lord Monmouth, nephew of the recently crowned Catholic King James II, landed a small, ragtag invasion force on the shores of England. His goal was to return the British crown to himself, a Protestant. The expedition was ill-fated from the start and easily crushed by the royalist army. Monmouth and hundreds of his followers were executed. The British countryside, not to mention the city center of London, failed to rise up against their Catholic king. That support, however, would prove to be short lived.Vallance cites three events that greatly swayed British public opinion. First, the French revoked the Edict of Nantes (1598) and began to openly persecute the French Huguenot minority. It was something many feared the English king would attempt in England. Second, James II began appointing Catholics to positions of public office and encouraging the open practice of Catholicism. Finally, the king’s wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a healthy baby boy ensuring that James had a direct heir and raising the prospect of an indefinite Catholic British monarchy.Overall, Vallance is quite sympathetic to James II. In short, he claims “James did not seek the forcible reversion of England back to Catholicism and that his aims were limited to securing the political and religious emancipation of Catholics and [Protestant] dissenters.” However, his Tory and Anglican opponents saw a much more sinister plot developing. A relatively large standing army along with a royal campaign against the carrying of arms by private individuals alarmed many. The king’s “brusque and authoritarian personality” and what many perceived as pro-Catholic actions in Ireland, Scotland and the American colonies further set the royal opposition on edge, Vallance says.The Dutch army under William of Orange landed on English shores on 5 November 1688. The invasion force was massive, four times the size of the Spanish Armada a century before, according to Vallance. They were preceded by what we would today call a psychological warfare operation. England was flooded with Dutch propaganda fliers calling into question the legitimacy of James’s newborn heir and suggesting that the King’s pro-Catholic government in Ireland was a model for his future government in England. Vallance notes that William’s expedition may have been presented “as a crusade to liberate the isles from popery and arbitrary government” but that “a war sold as a mercy mission was really instigated for reasons of geopolitical and economic self-interest,” namely the Dutch fear of an alliance between James and the Sun King, Louis XIV.The royalist army was roughly twice the size of the invasion force, but support for James melted away with astonishing rapidity. “James’s formidable army had been disbanded with hardly a shot fired in anger,” Vallance writes. “His navy had failed even to engage the Dutch armada.” His daughter, Princess Anne, defected to the Protestants while mass anti-Catholic riots rocked English towns and villages. Unfounded rumors of gruesome Irish Catholic soldier attacks on Protestants stoked the flames of unrest even further. His kingdom lost, James absconded to France.As an American with scant background in early modern British history, I naturally learned a lot from “The Glorious Revolution.” I only wished the book was easier and more enjoyable to read. There are many books to choose from on the subject. I can’t help but believe that there are better places to start than here.

James II was a strange king. His military skills, always important in 17th century Europe, were practically non-existent. He came to the throne with considerable popular support but, within four short years, dissipated almost all of this. He was an inept manager and infuriated most of Britain's nobility. He seemed to be in the pocket of the King of France, never a comfortable place for any English king. And, in one of Europe's most Protestant nations, he was a devout Catholic.The revolution that led to James' abdication and flight to France, never to return to England again, had vast consequences for the country. First, Parliament, an institution almost totally ignored by James, became a powerful force in the governance of the country. James dissolved Parliament shortly after his assumption of the throne but it was Parliament that eventually played the critical role in his removal. The Declaration of Rights, the marvelous document that foreshadowed the first shots of the American Revolution almost one hundred years later, was Parliament's statement to the nation that the absolute rule of English kings had ended. Second, the power of the landed gentry, the ancient rulers of the country, faded as ambitious merchants and tradesmen shouldered their way into positions of increasing importance. Third, England finally became not just a witness to European affairs but began to play a far more involved role in determining the political shape of the Continent.James left England in the dark winter of 1688, defeated a month earlier by an invasion force led by William, the Stadtholder of Holland,. He and his wife, Mary, the daughter of James' brother and predecessor on the throne, Charles II, acted as co-regents until Mary's death in December 1694, at only 32 years of age. William died eight years later. During this time, the Anglican religion was reestablished as the state religion, although toleration of all religions was encouraged; the Bank of England was founded; political parties - Whigs and Tories - evolved into powerful factions; and England began its long march in assembling the most extensive empire in history.This is a wonderful story, marvelously told by Edward Vallance. The book moves almost effortlessly from one major event to the next. Complicated situations are carefully explained and are consistently related to the major themes of the book. European royalty, always a bit of a genealogical nightmare, is simplified and becomes easy to grasp. But it is in Vallance's explanation of the meaning of the revolution that is the essence of the book. It is the emergence of the power of the people that is the theme of the book. As an American, it is this story that absorbs the most interest, since it is from the Glorious Revolution that our revolution took its enormous energy.

One of the best books I read (5) over this topic. One of the too few balanced books (not too nationalistic) , with an open view of the developments outside England that influenced the future of the country.Recommended!

Interesting book. Certainly doesn't make the Glorious Revolution seem without bloodshed.

Book is in excellent condition. Thanks.

same old pap England wins all others loose. Even the Dutch who invaded with 3x the ships of the spanish armada. Even with 30,000 troops and King William and Queen Mary. I t was the brits that undermined James II not the Dutch, forget about the propanganda, that William spread before he came over. Forget about the Dutch. Admirals, that ruled the seas at that time, Forget about the 2nd Anglo-Dutch war when the Dutch navy, sailed up the medway and shelled london and captured a major engilsh warship.in all no participation from the dutch the engish always win the day some unbiased brit decided to write his dissertation on how great England was even if it was in peril, Keep A stiff upper lip, old man".

This book was a big disappointment. Not well written or well organized. There have to better introductions to the Glorious Revolution than this.

I do not doubt that Mr Vallance is a hard-working historian, research, lecturer and writer. It seems to me that he did an enormous amount of research for this book, which is about a rather neglected period of history. On the positive side, Vallance gives a very comprehensive insight into William's objectives and goals in life, his life-long obsession with restoring the good name of his family and with containing the Sun King's constant attempts at European domination. I also liked the way Vallance describes how effectively William's wife, Queen Mary, "held the fort" in the UK on the very frequent occasions that he was away from London, either fighting battles in Ireland and on the Continent, or dealing with issues in his home country (the Dutch Republic). I also liked the way that Vallance describes how William's Dutch upbringing and political experience in the Dutch Republic gave him a superb foundation for being King of England, Ireland and Scotland. Finally, I was interested to learn that, although William frequently presented himself as the "Defender of the Protestant Faith" and was a pious Calvinist, he had nothing against individual Catholics, was an "equal opportunity employer" who employed many Catholics (and Jews), and had a very good (political) relationship with the Popes of the time and such strongly Catholic countries as Spain and Italy.On the other hand, Vallance often provides far too much detail. For example, somewhere around p.250, he mentions one of the first occurrences in journalism of "sexual titillation dressed up as a moral exposé", then launches into ten pages of sexual titillation himself, from p. 255 onwards... including two pages of extremely explicit description of the successful entrapment of a homosexual and further pages of explicit descriptions of customers caught "in flagrante delicto" with prostitutes. Apparently, some people were concerned that there was a general decline in moral standards during William's reign - an increase of drunkenness, prostitution, and homosexuality. Or something like that. After 10 pages of that, I still wasn't entirely convinced that Vallance included all that lurid detail for that reason... and not just for titillation.

Not enough of this period in English history is taught. Loved it

Great account of the histrocal Golrious Revolutuion but it was very hard reading to be honest. I had to force myself to read each page.

Slightly more detail than the more general introductions to the period, so if you want to dive more deeply without enduring the full academic onslaught, perhaps this is for you. My one negative comment is that the narrative does seem to wander away into specialized topics in some chapters for no apparent reason.

This book is subtitled, "Britain's Fight for Liberty", but what do we mean by `Britain'? And a fight for liberty for and from whom? Vallance is sure that whatever changes were effected by the Glorious Revolution, those to liberty WERE significant, "an important move, however unintended, towards the freedoms enjoyed by modern liberal democracies had been made," and a culture of toleration resulted.But it would be unfair to tar the author with the deterministic brush of the Whig school of history. He cannot escape the conflicting claims of modern political history, a problem encapsulated in the two quotations that Vallance chooses to open his book, the first by Margaret Thatcher and the second by Karl Marx. Which of the two is the more astute observation on the consequences of the Glorious Revolution? Indeed, are the views expressed mutually exclusive? Vallance sees common ground between the two and goes on to describe the parliamentary debate that took place on the three-hundredth anniversary: "Conservatives ... applauded the Glorious Revolution because it was a revolution by Parliament, not the people. Left-wingers dismissed its historical significance for exactly the same reason ..."Vallance proceeds in his preface to narrate how the events of 1688 have been viewed down to our own time. But he questions some of the consensus agreed between the Whig, liberal, Marxist, and revisionist interpretations. In particular, he argues that, "the Revolution was very far from being bloodless", pointing out that Scotland and Ireland were both "marred by horrific violence". But the untold violence of the Revolution is just one of three main strands of his narrative that dispute the commonly-held view of this supposedly most quiet of upheavals. The second strand is that, contrary to common belief, significant and widespread societal changes DID occur as a result of the Revolution. Finally, Vallance argues that instead of the Revolution being the work solely of the political elites of the day, "ordinary people ... were anything but uninterested in the outcome of this British Revolution."Vallance commences his narrative ten years before William of Orange's invasion, namely with Titus Oates and the Popish plot of 1678, and then moves through the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685. As regards William's invasion, this has been too often been seen from a purely insular perspective; Vallance points out that whilst William's propaganda may indeed have been to prevent "popery and arbitrary government", he also had his own strategic Dutch agenda of continental scope, namely "to check the seemingly limitless ambitions of the Sun King. However, as with more recent conflicts, a war sold as a mercy mission was really instigated for reasons of geopolitical and economic self-interest."Although mention is made of the `auspicious' date of 5 November for William's landing in Torbay, the fact of the connection too between 1688 and that of another attempted invasion one hundred years earlier seems to have passed Vallance by. The author's description of the invasion itself and the progress towards London is neither too sketchy nor too detailed; it is an almost happy medium, but I was disappointed to note that John Churchill, second-in-command of James II's army, only appears in the narrative when he defects. Later chapters detail the Revolution's effects in Scotland and Ireland, the reign of William and Mary, and finally of William alone. The last chapter details what happened after William's death.The narrative itself flows fairly well, but there are problems, but these are more of style than fact. For example, the Duke of Gloucester is introduced on page 269, but only on page 288 is the vital information provided that he was the son of Princess Anne. I also expected to read more from and about Defoe. He appears, for sure, but not in any great capacity. There are some strange assertions, for example that William of Orange's entrance into Exeter was the first time that the citizens had seen a black man or even seen Finns. (Devon privateers were at the forefront of the English slave trade, and Exeter had good links with the Baltic trade too.)But these are minor quibbles. Vallance has a very readable style, and an often felicitous way with words; for instance, "If we cannot say that James was pushed out of his kingdom, it is nonetheless true that he was shown an open door and invited to walk through it."Does Vallance convince the reader of the truth of the three strands to which he brought our attention at the beginning? I think he does. The first was to argue that the violence was greater than is usually mentioned. Vallance points out that troops killed four or five anti-Catholic rioters in London days after the invasion. But this was but one of many minor skirmishes. Generally, though, he concedes the Revolution in England was "a largely bloodless affair", but "in James II's other kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland, the Revolution unleashed waves of warfare." Vallance succeeds here by following recent historical practice in turning away from the Anglo-centric view of history, towards instead the peripheries of the British Isles. He concludes that, "In neither Ireland nor Scotland could the outcome of the Revolution be said to be `glorious'."In support of the second strand - of genuine societal transformation - Vallance lists the many political, constitutional, religious, economic, social, and moral changes that could be said to have arisen from William of Orange's success. William supported the Whigs, who were pro-trade, anti-French and pro-parliament. And it was parliamentary government that led to the ensuing financial revolution. "The stability and prosperity secured by the Revolution settlement proved far stronger than any emotional attachment to an exiled dynasty."In support of the third strand - of a genuine popular involvement in the Revolution - Vallance brings to our attention in a chapter entitled `Selling the Revolution', the role of the printing presses and the coffee houses in an age of increasing general literacy. "Contemporaries called this a revolution ... It was ordinary people, not the gentry, who first flocked to William's cause ... It was the London crowd, so virulent in its anti-popery, which played a large part in James's decision to flee."There are thirty pages of endnotes, ten pages of bibliography, and an index. My eyebrows were raised to note that whilst the opening quote by Thatcher is sourced to Hansard, that by Marx - and later Burke and Paine too - are surprisingly credited to secondary works.Unfortunately, the index is deficient. For example, there is no entry for Sir Edward Hales; Henry Compton is listed under `London, Bishop of'; Sir Francis Compton is listed for page 62 but not for page 131; whilst Plymouth appears nowhere at all, despite several mentions. And why is the Earl of Portland listed under his family name of Bentinck, but the Keppels are listed under their peerage name of Albemarle? Strange!