Jump to content

Glorious Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Bloodless Revolution)

Glorious Revolution
Part of the Nine Years' War
The Prince of Orange landing at Torbay
as depicted in an illustration by Jan Hoynck van Papendrecht
LocationBritish Isles
OutcomeCatholic James II replaced as king by his Protestant daughter Mary II and her husband William III

The Glorious Revolution[a] is the sequence of events that led to the deposition of James II and VII in November 1688. He was replaced by his daughter Mary II and her Dutch husband, William III of Orange, who was also his nephew. The two ruled as joint monarchs of England, Scotland, and Ireland until Mary's death in 1694. The Revolution itself was relatively bloodless, but pro-Stuart revolts between 1689 and 1746 caused significant casualties, while the political movement known as Jacobitism persisted into the late 18th century. William's invasion was the last successful invasion of England.

Despite his own Catholicism, for various reasons James became king in February 1685 with widespread backing from the Protestant majorities in England and Scotland, as well as largely Catholic Ireland. Although his policies quickly eroded this support, it was not until June 1688 that dissatisfaction became a political crisis. The birth of James Francis Edward on 10 June displaced his Protestant elder sister Mary as the heir presumptive. The prospect of a Catholic dynasty destroyed James's political authority, and led a few of his domestic opponents to seek external support in removing him.

Although there was little sign of armed English domestic resistance, both William and the Dutch States General were concerned James would support Louis XIV of France in the Nine Years' War. Claiming to be responding to an Invitation asking him to "protect the Protestant religion", William landed in Devon with 20,000 men on 5 November 1688. As he advanced on London, James' army disintegrated, and he went into exile in France on 23 December. In April 1689, Parliament made William and Mary joint monarchs of England and Ireland. A separate but similar Scottish settlement was made in June.[1]

Domestically, the Revolution confirmed the primacy of Parliament over the Crown in both England and Scotland. In terms of external policy, until his death in 1702, William combined the roles of Dutch stadholder and British monarch. Both states thus became allies in resisting French expansion, an alliance which persisted for much of the 18th century, despite differing objectives. Under William's leadership, Dutch resources were focused on the land war with France, with the Royal Navy taking the lead at sea. This was a significant factor in the Dutch Republic being overtaken as the leading European maritime power by Britain during the War of the Spanish Succession.


Despite his Catholicism, James became king in 1685 with widespread backing in all three of his kingdoms. In June 1685, he quickly crushed Protestant risings in Scotland and England, but was forced into exile less than four years later.[2] Modern historians argue James failed to appreciate how much Royal power relied on support from the landed gentry, and the loss of that support fatally damaged his regime. The vast majority of the gentry in England and Scotland were Protestant, while even in largely Catholic Ireland a disproportionate number were members of the Protestant Church of Ireland. Although willing to accept James's personal religious beliefs, his backers did so only so long as he maintained the primacy of the Protestant Church of England and Church of Scotland. When his policies appeared to undermine the existing political and religious order, the result was to alienate his English and Scottish supporters and destabilise Ireland.[3]

James II & VII, King of England, Scotland and Ireland, by Godfrey Kneller, National Portrait Gallery, London

Stuart political ideology derived from James VI and I, who in 1603 had created a vision of a centralised state, run by a monarch whose authority came from God, and where the function of Parliament was simply to obey.[4] Disputes over the relationship between king and Parliament led to the War of the Three Kingdoms and continued after the 1660 Stuart Restoration. Charles II came to rely on the Royal Prerogative since measures passed in this way could be withdrawn when he decided, rather than Parliament. However, it could not be used for major legislation or taxation.[5]

Concern that Charles II intended to create an absolute monarchy led to the 1679 to 1681 Exclusion Crisis, dividing the English political class into those who wanted to 'exclude' James from the throne, mostly Whigs, and their opponents, mostly Tories. However, in 1685 many Whigs feared the consequences of bypassing the 'natural heir', while Tories were often strongly anti-Catholic, and their support assumed the continued primacy of the Church of England. Most importantly, it was seen as a short-term issue; James was 52, his marriage to Mary of Modena remained childless after 11 years, and the heirs were his Protestant daughters, Mary and Anne.[6]

There was much greater sympathy in Scotland for a 'Stuart heir', and the 1681 Succession Act confirmed the duty of all to support him, 'regardless of religion.'[7] Over 95 percent of Scots belonged to the national church or kirk; even other Protestant sects were banned, and by 1680, Catholics were a tiny minority confined to parts of the aristocracy and the remote Highlands.[8] Episcopalians had regained control of the kirk in 1660, leading to a series of Presbyterian uprisings, but memories of the bitter religious conflicts of the Civil War period meant the majority preferred stability.[9]

In England and Scotland, most of those who backed James in 1685 wanted to retain existing political and religious arrangements, but this was not the case in Ireland. While he was guaranteed support from the Catholic majority, James was also popular among Irish Protestants, since the Church of Ireland depended on Royal support for its survival, while Ulster was dominated by Presbyterians who supported his tolerance policies. However, religion was only one factor; of equal concern for Catholics were laws barring them from serving in the military or holding public office, and land reform. In 1600, 90% of Irish land was owned by Catholics but following a series of confiscation during the 17th century, this had dropped to 22% in 1685.[10] Catholic and Protestant merchants in Dublin and elsewhere objected to commercial restrictions placing them at a disadvantage to their English competitors.[11]

The political background in England[edit]

James's attempts to allow tolerance for English Catholics coincided with the October 1685 Edict of Fontainebleau revoking it for Huguenots.

While James's supporters viewed hereditary succession as more important than his personal Catholicism, they opposed his policies of 'Tolerance' under which Catholics would be allowed to hold public office and engage in public life. Opposition was led by devout Anglicans[12] who argued that the measures he proposed were incompatible with the oath he had sworn as king to uphold the supremacy of the Church of England. In an age when oaths were seen as fundamental to a stable society, by demanding that Parliament approve his measures James was seen not only to be breaking his own word but requiring others to do the same. Parliament refused to comply, despite being "the most Loyal Parliament a Stuart ever had".[13]

Although historians generally accept James wished to promote Catholicism, not establish an Absolute monarchy, his stubborn and inflexible reaction to opposition had the same result. When the English and Scottish Parliaments refused to repeal the 1678 and 1681 Test Acts, he suspended them in November 1685 and ruled by decree. Attempts to form a 'King's party' of Catholics, English Dissenters and dissident Scottish Presbyterians was politically short-sighted, since it rewarded those who joined the 1685 rebellions and undermined his supporters.[14]

Demanding tolerance for Catholics was also badly timed. In October 1685 Louis XIV of France issued the Edict of Fontainebleau revoking the 1598 Edict of Nantes which had given French Protestants the right to practise their religion; over the next four years, an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 went into exile, 40,000 of whom settled in London.[15] Combined with Louis's expansionist policies and the killing of 2,000 Vaudois Protestants in 1686, it led to fears Protestant Europe was threatened by a Catholic counter-reformation.[16] These concerns were reinforced by events in Ireland; the Lord Deputy, the Earl of Tyrconnell, wanted to create a Catholic establishment able to survive James's death, which meant replacing Protestant officials at a pace that was inherently destabilising.[17]

Timeline of events: 1686 to 1688[edit]

The Seven Bishops prosecuted for seditious libel in 1688

The majority of those who backed James in 1685 did so because they wanted stability and the rule of law, qualities frequently undermined by his actions. After suspending Parliament in November 1685, he sought to rule by decree; although the principle was not disputed, the widening of its scope caused considerable concern, particularly when judges who disagreed with its application were dismissed.[18] He then alienated many by perceived attacks on the established church; Henry Compton, Bishop of London, was suspended for refusing to ban John Sharp from preaching after he gave an anti-Catholic sermon.[19]

He often made things worse by political clumsiness; to general fury, the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1686 established to discipline the Church of England included suspected Catholics like the Earl of Huntingdon.[20] This was combined with an inability to accept opposition; in April 1687, he ordered Magdalen College, Oxford, to elect a Catholic sympathiser named Anthony Farmer as president, but as he was ineligible under the college statutes, the fellows elected John Hough instead. Both Farmer and Hough withdrew in favour of another candidate selected by James, who then demanded the fellows personally apologise on their knees for 'defying' him; when they refused, they were replaced by Catholics.[21]

Attempts to create an alternative 'Kings Party' were never likely to succeed, as English Catholics made up only 1.1% of the population and Nonconformists 4.4%.[22] Both groups were divided; since private worship was generally tolerated, Catholic moderates feared greater visibility would provoke a backlash. Among Nonconformists, while Quakers and Congregationalists supported repeal of the Test Acts, the majority wanted to amend the 1662 Act of Uniformity and be allowed back into the Church of England.[23] When James ensured the election of the Presbyterian John Shorter as Lord Mayor of London in 1687, he insisted on complying with the Test Act, reportedly because of a 'distrust of the King's favour...thus encouraging that which His Majesties whole Endeavours were intended to disannull.'[24]

James Francis Edward Stuart, circa 1703, whose birth in June 1688 created the possibility of a Catholic dynasty.

To ensure a compliant Parliament, James required potential MPs to be approved by their local Lord Lieutenant; eligibility for both offices required positive answers in writing to the 'Three Questions', one being a commitment to repeal of the Test Act.[25] In addition, local government and town corporations were purged to create an obedient electoral machine, further alienating the county gentry who had formed the majority of those who backed James in 1685.[26] On 24 August 1688, writs were issued for a general election.[27]

The expansion of the military caused great concern, particularly in England and Scotland, where memories of the Civil War left huge resistance to standing armies.[28] In Ireland, Talbot replaced Protestant officers with Catholics; James did the same in England, while basing the troops at Hounslow appeared a deliberate attempt to overawe Parliament.[29] In April 1688, he ordered his Declaration of Indulgence read in every church; when the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other bishops refused, they were charged with seditious libel and confined in the Tower of London. Two events turned dissent into a crisis; the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart on 10 June created the prospect of a Catholic dynasty, while the acquittal of the Seven Bishops on 30 June destroyed James's political authority.[30]

Dutch intervention[edit]

Prelude: 1685 to June 1688[edit]

Huguenot refugees, whose expulsion from France in 1685 helped create a sense that Protestant Europe was under threat.

In 1677, James's elder daughter and heir Mary married her Protestant cousin William III of Orange, stadtholder of the main provinces of the Dutch Republic. The two initially shared common objectives in wanting Mary to succeed her father, while French ambitions in the Spanish Netherlands threatened both English and Dutch trade.[31] Although William sent James troops to help suppress the 1685 Monmouth Rebellion, their relationship deteriorated thereafter.[32]

The Franco-Dutch War, continued French expansion, and expulsion of the Huguenots meant William assumed another war was inevitable, and although the States General of the Netherlands preferred peace, the majority accepted he was correct. This view was widely shared throughout Protestant Europe; in October 1685, Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg renounced his French alliance for one with the Dutch. In July 1686, other Protestant states formed the anti-French League of Augsburg, with Dutch support; securing or neutralising English resources, especially the Royal Navy, now became key to both sides.[33]

Following a skirmish between French and Dutch naval vessels in July 1686, William concluded English neutrality was not enough and he needed their active support in the event of war.[34] His relationship with James was affected by the fact both men relied on advisors with relatively limited views; in William's case, mainly English and Scots Presbyterian exiles, the latter with close links to the Protestant minority in Ireland, who saw Tyrconnell's policies as a threat to their existence. Having largely alienated his Tory support base, James depended on a small circle of Catholic converts like Sunderland, Melfort and Perth.[35]

William III of England, stadtholder of Guelders, Holland, Zealand, Utrecht and Overijssel

Suspicions increased when James sought William's backing for repealing the Test Acts; he predictably refused, further damaging their relationship.[36] Having previously assumed he was guaranteed English support in a war with France, William now worried he might face an Anglo-French alliance, despite assurances by James he had no intention of doing so. Historians argue these assurances were genuine, but James did not appreciate the distrust caused by his domestic policies.[37] In August 1687, William's cousin de Zuylestein travelled to England with condolences on the death of Mary of Modena's mother, allowing him to make contact with the political opposition. Throughout 1688, his English supporters provided William detailed information on public opinion and developments, very little of which was intercepted.[38]

In October 1687, after fourteen years of marriage and multiple miscarriages, it was announced the Queen was pregnant, Melfort immediately declaring it was a boy. When James then wrote to Mary urging her to convert to Catholicism, it convinced many he was seeking a Catholic heir, one way or the other and may have been a deciding factor in whether to invade.[39] Early in 1688, a pamphlet circulated in England written by Dutch Grand Pensionary Gaspar Fagel; this guaranteed William's support for freedom of worship for Dissenters and retaining the Test Acts, unlike James who offered tolerance in return for repeal.[40][41]

In April 1688, Louis XIV announced tariffs on Dutch herring imports, along with plans to support the Royal Navy in the English Channel. James immediately denied making any such request, but fearing it was the prelude to a formal alliance, the Dutch began preparing a military intervention.[42] On the pretext of needing additional resources to deal with French privateers, in July the States General authorised an additional 9,000 sailors and 21 new warships.[43]

Invitation to William[edit]

Henry Sydney, who drafted the Invitation to William

The success of William's invasion would partly depend on domestic support, and at the end of April William met with Edward Russell, unofficial envoy for the Whig opposition. In a conversation recorded by Gilbert Burnet, he requested a formal invitation asking him to "rescue the nation and the religion", with a projected date of end September.[44] William subsequently claimed he was 'forced' to take control of the conspiracy when Russell warned him the English would rise against James even without his help, and he feared this would lead to a republic, depriving his wife of her inheritance.[45]

Although this version is strongly disputed, Zuylestein returned to England in June, ostensibly to congratulate James on his new son, in reality to co-ordinate with William's supporters.[46] Spurred by the prospect of a Catholic successor, the "Invitation to William" was quickly drafted by Henry Sydney, later described by Whig historians as "the great wheel on which the Revolution rolled".[38] [b] The signatories provided no considerable political power and were not representative, but they were selected to make it seem like they represented a broad spectrum, and provided William with an essential propaganda tool.[47][48] Danby, a Tory, and Devonshire, a Whig; Henry Compton, Bishop of London, for the church; Shrewsbury and Lumley for the army, and finally Russell and Sydney for the navy.[49] They promised to support a Dutch landing, but stressed the importance of acting quickly.[50]

The Invitation was carried to The Hague on 30 June by Rear Admiral Herbert, disguised as a common sailor. Meanwhile, William's ally Bentinck launched a propaganda campaign in England, which presented him as a "true Stuart", but one without the faults of either James or Charles II. Much of the "spontaneous" support for William on his landing was organised by Bentinck and his agents.[51]

Dutch preparations: July to September 1688[edit]

The Dutch were concerned by their vulnerable eastern border. In 1672, an alliance with the Electorate of Cologne allowed France to nearly over-run the Republic.

William's key strategic purpose was creating a defensive coalition that would block further French expansion in Europe, an objective not shared by the majority of his English supporters. In 1672, an alliance with the Electorate of Cologne had enabled France to bypass Dutch forward defences and nearly over-run the Republic, so ensuring an anti-French ruler was vital to prevent a repetition. As an ecclesiastical principality of the Holy Roman Empire, Cologne's ruler was nominated by Pope Innocent XI, in conjunction with Emperor Leopold I.[52] Both Louis and James were in dispute with Innocent over the right to appoint Catholic bishops and clergy; when the old Elector died in June 1688, Innocent and Leopold ignored the French candidate in favour of Joseph Clemens of Bavaria.[53]

After 1678, France continued its expansion into the Rhineland, including the 1683 to 1684 War of the Reunions, additional territorial demands in the Palatinate, and construction of forts at Landau and Traben-Trarbach.[54] This presented an existential threat to Habsburg dominance, guaranteeing Leopold's support for the Dutch, and negating French attempts to build German alliances.[55] William's envoy Johann von Görtz assured Leopold English Catholics would not be persecuted and intervention was to elect a free Parliament, not depose James, a convenient fiction that allowed him to remain neutral.[56]

Although his English supporters considered a token force sufficient, William assembled 260 transport ships and 15,000 men, nearly half the 30,000 strong Dutch States Army. With France on the verge of war, their absence was of great concern to the States General and Bentinck hired 13,616 German mercenaries to man Dutch border fortresses, freeing elite units like the Scots Brigade for use in England.[57] The increase could be presented as a limited precaution against French aggression, as the Dutch would typically double or triple their army strength in wartime;[c] William instructed his experienced deputy Schomberg to prepare for a campaign in Germany.[59]

Decision to invade[edit]

A Dutch herring fleet. French tariffs on this lucrative trade helped William build domestic support for military intervention.

At the beginning of September, an invasion remained in the balance, with the States General fearing a French attack via Flanders while their army was in England. However, the surrender of Belgrade on 6 September seemed to presage an Ottoman collapse and release Austrian resources for use in Germany. Hoping to act before Leopold could respond and relieve pressure on the Ottomans, Louis attacked Philippsburg. With France now committed in Germany, this greatly reduced the threat to the Dutch.[60]

Instead, Louis attempted to intimidate the States General, and on 9 September, his envoy D'Avaux handed them two letters. The first warned an attack on James meant war with France, the second any interference with French operations in Germany would end with the destruction of the Dutch state.[61] Both misfired; convinced Louis was trying to drag him into war, James told the Dutch there was no secret Anglo-French alliance against them, although his denials only increased their suspicions. By confirming France's primary objective was the Rhineland, the second allowed William to move troops from the eastern border to the coast, even though most of the new mercenaries had yet to arrive.[62]

On 22 September, the French seized over 100 Dutch ships, many owned by Amsterdam merchants; in response, on 26 September the Amsterdam City Council agreed to back William.[63] This was a significant decision since the Council dominated the States of Holland, the most powerful political body in the Dutch Republic which contributed nearly 60% of its budget. French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29th, William argued for a pre-emptive strike, as Louis and James would "attempt to bring this state to its ultimate ruin and subjugation, as soon as they find the occasion". This was accepted by the States, with the objective left deliberately vague, other than making the English "King and Nation live in a good relation, and useful to their friends and allies, and especially to this State".[64]

Following their approval, the Amsterdam financial market raised a loan of four million guilders in only three days, with further financing coming from various sources, including two million guilders from the banker Francisco Lopes Suasso.[65][d] The biggest concern for Holland was the potential impact on the Dutch economy and politics of William becoming ruler of England; the claim he had no intention of "removing the King from the throne" was not believed. These fears were arguably justified; William's access to English resources permanently diminished Amsterdam's power within the Republic and its status as the world's leading commercial and financial centre.[67]

English defensive strategy[edit]

Admiral Dartmouth, commander of the English fleet.

Neither James nor Sunderland trusted Louis, correctly suspecting that his support would continue only so long as it coincided with French interests, while Mary of Modena claimed his warnings were simply an attempt to drag England into an unwanted alliance.[68] As a former naval commander, James appreciated the difficulties of a successful invasion, even in good weather, and as autumn approached, the likelihood seemed to diminish. With the Dutch on the verge of war with France, he did not believe the States General would allow William to make the attempt; if they did, his army and navy were strong enough to defeat it.[69]

Reasonable in theory, his reliance on the loyalty and efficiency of the military proved deeply flawed. Both the army and the navy remained overwhelmingly Protestant and anti-Catholic; in July, only personal intervention by James prevented a naval mutiny when a Catholic captain held Mass on his ship. The transfer of 2,500 Catholics from the Royal Irish Army to England in September led to clashes with Protestant troops, some of his most reliable units refused to obey orders, and many of their officers resigned.[70]

When James demanded the repatriation of all six regiments of the Scots Brigade in January 1688,[71] William refused but used the opportunity to purge those considered unreliable, a total of 104 officers and 44 soldiers.[72] Some may have been Williamite agents, such as Colonel Belasyse, a Protestant with over 15 years of service who returned to his family estates in Yorkshire and made contact with Danby. The promotion of Catholic former Brigade officers like Thomas Buchan and Alexander Cannon to command positions led to the formation of the Association of Protestant Officers, which included senior veterans like Charles Trelawny, Churchill, and Percy Kirke.[73]

On 14 August, Churchill offered his support to William, helping convince him it was safe to risk an invasion; although James was aware of the conspiracy, he took no action.[74] One reason may have been fears over the impact on the army; with a notional strength of 34,000, it looked impressive on paper but morale was brittle while many were untrained or lacked weapons. It also had to fill policing roles previously delegated to the militia, which had been deliberately allowed to decay; most of the 4,000 regular troops brought from Scotland in October had to be stationed in London to keep order. In October, attempts were made to restore the militia but many members were reportedly so angry at the changes made to local corporations, James was advised it was better not to raise them.[75]

Lord Danby, one of the Immortal Seven and William's agent in Northern England

Widespread discontent and growing hostility to the Stuart regime were particularly apparent in North-East and South-West England, the two landing places identified by William. A Tory whose brother Jonathan was one of the Seven Bishops, Trelawny's commitment confirmed support from a powerful and well-connected West Country bloc, allowing access to the ports of Plymouth and Torbay. In the north, a force organised by Belasyse and Danby prepared to seize York, its most important city, and Hull, its largest port.[76]

Herbert had been replaced by Dartmouth as commander of the fleet when he defected in June but many captains owed him their appointments and were of doubtful loyalty. Dartmouth suspected Berkeley and Grafton of plotting to overthrow him; to monitor them, he placed their ships next to his and minimised contact between the other vessels to prevent conspiracy.[77] A lack of funds meant that excluding fireships and light scouting vessels, only 16 warships were available in early October, all third rates or fourth rates that were short of both men and supplies.[78]

While the Downs was the best place to intercept a cross-Channel attack, it was also vulnerable to a surprise assault, even for ships fully manned and adequately provisioned. Instead, James placed his ships in a strong defensive position near Chatham Dockyard, believing the Dutch would seek to establish naval superiority before committing to a landing.[79] While this had been the original plan, winter storms meant conditions deteriorated rapidly for those on the transports; William therefore decided to sail in convoy and avoid battle.[80] The easterly winds that allowed the Dutch to cross prevented the Royal Navy leaving the Thames estuary and intervening.[79]

The English fleet was outnumbered 2:1, undermanned, short of supplies, and in the wrong place. Key landing locations in the south-west and Yorkshire had been secured by sympathisers, while both army and navy were led by officers whose loyalty was questionable. Even early in 1686, foreign observers doubted the military would fight for James against a Protestant heir, and William claimed only to be securing the inheritance of his wife Mary. While still a dangerous undertaking, the invasion was less risky than it seemed.[81]


Embarkation of the army and the Declaration of The Hague[edit]

William III by Jan Wyck, commemorating the landing at Brixham, Torbay, 5 November 1688.

The Dutch preparations, though carried out with great speed, could not remain secret. The English envoy Ignatius White, the Marquess d'Albeville, warned his country: "an absolute conquest is intended under the specious and ordinary pretences of religion, liberty, property and a free Parliament". Louis threatened an immediate declaration of war if William proceeded and sent James 300,000 livres.[82]

Embarkations, begun on 22 September (Gregorian calendar), had been completed on 8 October, and the expedition was that day openly approved by the States of Holland; the same day James issued a proclamation to the English nation that it should prepare for a Dutch invasion to ward off conquest. On 30 September/10 October (Julian/Gregorian calendars) William issued the Declaration of The Hague (actually written by Fagel), of which 60,000 copies of the English translation by Gilbert Burnet were distributed after the landing in England,[83] in which he assured that his only aim was to maintain the Protestant religion, install a free parliament and investigate the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales. He would respect the position of James.[e]

William went on to condemn James's advisers for overturning the religion, laws, and liberties of England, Scotland, and Ireland by the use of the suspending and dispensing power; the establishment of the "manifestly illegal" commission for ecclesiastical causes and its use to suspend the Bishop of London and to remove the Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford. William also condemned James's attempt to repeal the Test Acts and the penal laws through pressuring individuals and waging an assault on parliamentary boroughs, as well as his purging of the judiciary. James's attempt to pack Parliament was in danger of removing "the last and great remedy for all those evils".[85]

William boarding Den Briel.

"Therefore", William continued, "we have thought fit to go over to England, and to carry over with us a force sufficient, by the blessing of God, to defend us from the violence of those evil Counsellors ... this our Expedition is intended for no other design, but to have, a free and lawful Parliament assembled as soon as is possible".[85] On 4/14 October, William responded to the allegations by James in a second declaration, denying any intention to become king or to conquer England, a claim which remains controversial.[86]

The swiftness of the embarkations surprised all foreign observers. Louis had in fact delayed his threats against the Dutch until early September because he assumed it then would be too late in the season to set the expedition in motion anyway, if their reaction proved negative; typically, such an enterprise would take at least some months.[87] Being ready after the last week of September / first week of October would normally have meant that the Dutch could have profited from the last spell of good weather, as the autumn storms tend to begin in the third week of that month. However, this year they came early. For three weeks, the invasion fleet was prevented by adverse south-westerly gales from departing from the naval port of Hellevoetsluis and Catholics all over the Netherlands and the British kingdoms held prayer sessions that this "popish wind" might endure. However, on 14/24 October, it became the famous "Protestant Wind" by turning to the east.[88]

Crossing and landing[edit]

The formation of the Dutch invasion fleet

Although most of the warships were provided by the Admiralty of Amsterdam, the expedition was officially treated as a private affair, with the States General allowing William use of the Dutch army and fleet.[55] For propaganda purposes, English admiral Arthur Herbert was nominally in command, but in reality, operational control remained with Lieutenant-Admiral Cornelis Evertsen the Youngest and Vice-Admiral Philips van Almonde.[89] Accompanied by Willem Bastiaensz Schepers, the Rotterdam shipping magnate who provided financing, William boarded the frigate Den Briel on 16/26 October.[f][90][91] The fleet contained 49 warships, 76 transports for the soldiers, 120 transports for the 5,000 horses required by the cavalry and supply train, and 40,000 men on board, of whom 9,500 were sailors of the Dutch States Navy.[92][93][g] It was the largest fleet assembled in European waters up to that date.[95]

William III's (of Orange) Expeditionary Banner in 1688 during the "Glorious Revolution" with the pennant over it signifying the Commander-in-Chief as flown from the masthead of the Dutch Flagship for William III.[96][97][98][99]

Having departed on 19/29 October, the expedition was halfway across the North Sea when it was scattered by a gale, forcing the Brill back to Hellevoetsluis on 21/31 October. William refused to go ashore, and the fleet reassembled, having lost only one ship but nearly a thousand horses; press reports deliberately exaggerated the damage and claimed the expedition might be postponed until next spring.[100] Dartmouth and his senior commanders considered taking advantage of this by blockading Hellevoetsluis, then decided against it, partly because the stormy weather made it dangerous but also because they could not rely on their men.[101]

William replaced his losses and departed when the wind changed on 1/11 November, this time heading for Harwich where Bentinck had prepared a landing site. It has been suggested this was a feint to divert some of Dartmouth's ships north, which proved to be the case and when the wind shifted again, the Dutch armada sailed south into the Strait of Dover.[100] In doing so, they twice passed the English fleet, which was unable to intercept because of the adverse winds and tides.[102]

William landed at Torbay, whose sheltered position makes the weather unusually moderate (note non-native cabbage trees).

On 3/13 November, the invasion fleet entered the English Channel in an enormous formation 25 ships deep, the troops lined up on deck, firing musket volleys, colours flying and military bands playing. Intended to awe observers with its size and power, Rapin de Thoyras later described it as "the most magnificent and affecting spectacle...ever seen by human eyes". The same wind blowing the Dutch down the Channel kept Dartmouth confined in the Thames estuary; by the time he was able to make his way out, he was too far behind to stop William reaching Torbay on 5 November.[103]

As anticipated, the French fleet remained in the Mediterranean, in order to support an attack on the Papal States if needed,[87] while a south-westerly gale now forced Dartmouth to shelter in Portsmouth harbour and kept him there for two days, allowing William to complete his disembarkation undisturbed.[104] The regular Dutch troops amounted to 14,000–15,000 men,[h][87][92] consisting of around 11,000 infantry, including nearly 5,000 members of the elite Anglo-Scots Brigade and Dutch Blue Guards, 3,660 cavalry and an artillery train of twenty-one 24-pounder cannon.[105][106]

Some 5,000 volunteers, consisting of British exiles and Huguenots, also accompanied the fleet, making a total army of over 20,000 men.[107][i] William brought these volunteers along to accelerate English army reforms, because they could replace the soldiers who were loyal to James.[92] William brought weapons to equip another 20,000 men, although the subsequent and rapid collapse of James's army meant the local volunteers who joined by 20 November were eventually dismissed.[109]

The collapse of James's rule[edit]

Glorious Revolution is located in Southern England
Key locations in November 1688

James had considered himself safe from invasion, due to the French threat to the Spanish Netherlands, his navy and because it was late in the year for launching an expedition.[110] He now panicked and met with the bishops on 28 September, offering them concessions. They responded five days later with demands that he restore the religious position to that prevailing in February 1685, and hold free elections for a new Parliament. Although they hoped this would allow James to remain king, in reality there was little chance of this. At a minimum, he would have to disinherit his son, enforce the Test Acts, and accept the supremacy of Parliament, all of which were unacceptable. In addition, by now his Whig opponents did not trust him to keep his promises, while Tories like Danby were too committed to William to escape punishment.[111]

Although his veterans were superior to the largely untested recruits of the Royal Army, William and his English supporters preferred to avoid bloodshed. Torbay was sufficiently far from London to provide time for the regime to collapse on its own, while to avoid alienating the local population, his troops were well supplied and paid three months in advance. On 9 November, he entered Exeter and issued a proclamation claiming he sought only to secure the rights of his wife and a free Parliament. Despite this, there was little enthusiasm for either party, and the general mood was one of confusion and distrust.[112] In Northern England, much of the gentry confirmed their backing for the invasion after Danby had the Declaration read out in York on 12 November.[113]

On 19 November, James joined his main force of 19,000 at Salisbury,[76] but morale was low and the loyalty of some of his commanders was doubtful. Officers of several regiments defected to William between 10 and 20 November, although only a few of them took any troops with them.[114][115][116] Supply problems meanwhile left the Royal Army short of food and ammunition. On 20 November, dragoons led by Irish Catholic Patrick Sarsfield clashed with Williamite scouts at Wincanton; along with a minor skirmish at Reading on 9 December, also featuring Sarsfield, these were the only substantial military actions of the campaign. After securing his rear by taking Plymouth on 18 November, William began his advance on 21 November, while Danby and Belasyse captured York and Hull several days later.[76]

John Churchill, circa 1685, whose defection to William was a serious blow.

Although only a tiny minority of James's army defected, the effect on the morale of his army was great.[114][117] James's commander Feversham and other senior officers advised retreat. Lacking information on William's movements, suspicious of his own soldiers, worn out by lack of sleep and debilitating nose-bleeds, on 23 November James agreed.[118] Because of its strategic implications, the withdrawal was a practical admission of defeat.[119] The next day Churchill, Grafton and Princess Anne's husband George deserted to William, followed by Anne herself on 26 November. The next day, James held a meeting at Whitehall Palace with those peers still in London; with the exception of Melfort, Perth and other Catholics, they urged him to issue writs for a parliamentary election and negotiate with William.[120]

On 8 December, Halifax, Nottingham and Godolphin met with William at Hungerford to hear his demands, which included the dismissal of Catholics from public office and funding for his army. Many viewed these as a reasonable basis for a settlement, but James decided to flee the country, convinced by Melfort and others that his life was threatened. This suggestion is generally dismissed by historians, since William made it clear he would not allow James to be harmed. Most Tories wanted him to retain his throne, while the Whigs simply wanted to drive him out of the country by imposing conditions he would refuse.[111]

The Queen and Prince of Wales left for France on 9 December, James following separately on 10 December.[121] Accompanied only by Edward Hales and Ralph Sheldon, he made his way to Faversham in Kent seeking passage to France, first dropping the Great Seal in the River Thames in a last-ditch attempt to prevent Parliament being summoned.[122] In London, his flight and rumours of a "Papist" invasion led to riots and destruction of Catholic property, which quickly spread throughout the country. To fill the power vacuum, the Earl of Rochester set up a temporary government including members of the Privy Council and City of London authorities, but it took them two days to restore order.[123]

The entrance of William in London, 16 December 1688.

When news arrived, James had been captured in Faversham on 11 December by local fishermen, Lord Ailesbury, one of his personal attendants, was sent to escort him back to London. On entering the city on 16 December, he was welcomed by cheering crowds. By making it seem that James remained in control, Tory loyalists hoped for a settlement which would leave them in government. To create an appearance of normality, he heard Mass and presided over a meeting of the Privy Council.[124][j] James made it clear to the French ambassador Paul Barillon that he still intended to escape to France. His few remaining supporters viewed his flight as cowardice, and a failure to ensure law and order criminally negligent.[125]

Happy to help him into exile, William recommended he relocate to Ham, largely because it was easy to escape from. James suggested Rochester instead, allegedly because his personal guard was there, in reality conveniently positioned for a ship to France. On 18 December, he left London with a Dutch escort as William entered, cheered by the same crowds who greeted his predecessor two days before.[126] William occupied London and now effectively controlled the English government and the country's army, navy, and finances.[127][128] On 22 December, Berwick arrived in Rochester with blank passports allowing them to leave England, while his guards were told that if James wanted to leave, "they should not prevent him, but allow him to gently slip through".[129] Although Ailesbury and others begged him to stay, he left for France on 23 December.[122]

The revolutionary settlement[edit]

William III and Mary II reigned jointly until her death in 1694, when William became sole monarch.

James's departure significantly shifted the balance of power in favour of William, who took control of the provisional government on 28 December.[130] Elections were held in early January for a Convention Parliament, which assembled on 22 January. The Whigs had a slight majority in the Commons and the Lords was dominated by the Tories, but both were led by moderates. Archbishop Sancroft and other Stuart loyalists wanted to preserve the line of succession; they recognised keeping James on the throne was no longer possible, so they preferred Mary either be appointed his regent or sole monarch.[130]

The next two weeks were spent debating how to resolve this issue, much to the annoyance of William, who needed a swift resolution; the situation in Ireland was rapidly deteriorating, while the French had over-run large parts of the Rhineland and were preparing to attack the Dutch.[131] At a meeting with Danby and Halifax on 3 February, he announced his intention to return home if the Convention did not appoint him joint monarch; Mary let it be known she would only rule jointly with her husband. Faced with this ultimatum, on 6 February Parliament declared that in deserting his people James had abdicated and thus vacated the Crown, which was therefore offered jointly to William and Mary.[132]

Historian Tim Harris argues the most radical act of the 1688 Revolution was breaking the succession and establishing the idea of a "contract" between ruler and people, a fundamental rebuttal of the Stuart ideology of divine right.[133] While this was a victory for the Whigs, other pieces of legislation were proposed by the Tories, often with moderate Whig support, designed to protect the Anglican establishment from being undermined by future monarchs, including the Calvinist William. The Declaration of Right was a tactical compromise, setting out where James had failed and establishing the rights of English citizens, without agreeing their cause or offering solutions. In December 1689, this was incorporated into the Bill of Rights.[134]

The coronation of William and Mary, Charles Rochussen

However, there were two areas that arguably broke new constitutional ground, both responses to what were viewed as specific abuses by James. First, the Declaration of Right made keeping a standing army without parliamentary consent illegal, overturning the 1661 and 1662 Militia Acts and vesting control of the military in Parliament, not the Crown.[135] The second was the Coronation Oath Act 1688; the result of James's perceived failure to comply with that taken in 1685, it established obligations owed by the monarchy to the people.[136]

At their coronation on 11 April, William and Mary swore to "govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same". They were also to maintain the Protestant Reformed faith and "preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and its doctrine, worship, discipline and government as by law established".[136]

Scotland and Ireland[edit]

Parliament House, Edinburgh, where the Convention of Estates met in March 1689

While Scotland was not involved in the landing, by November 1688 only a tiny minority supported James. Many of those who accompanied William were Scots exiles, including the Earl of Melville, the Duke of Argyll, his personal chaplain William Carstares and Gilbert Burnet.[137] News of James's flight led to celebrations and anti-Catholic riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Most members of the Scottish Privy Council went to London. On 7 January 1689, they asked William to take over government. Elections were held in March for a Scottish Convention, which was also a contest between Presbyterians and Episcopalians for control of the Kirk. While only 50 of the 125 delegates were classed as Episcopalian, they were hopeful of victory since William supported the retention of bishops.[138]

On 16 March a Letter from James was read out to the convention, demanding obedience and threatening punishment for non-compliance. Public anger at its tone meant some Episcopalians stopped attending the convention, claiming to fear for their safety and others changed sides.[139] The 1689–1691 Jacobite Rising forced William to make concessions to the Presbyterians, ended Episcopacy in Scotland and excluded a significant portion of the political class. Many later returned to the Kirk but Non-Juring Episcopalianism was the key determinant of Jacobite support in 1715 and 1745.[140]

The English Parliament held that James 'abandoned' his throne. The Convention argued that he 'forfeited' it by his actions, as listed in the Articles of Grievances.[141] On 11 April, the Convention ended James's reign and adopted the Articles of Grievances and the Claim of Right Act, making Parliament the primary legislative power in Scotland.[142] On 11 May, William and Mary accepted the Crown of Scotland; after their acceptance, the Claim and the Articles were read aloud, leading to an immediate debate over whether or not an endorsement of these documents was implicit in that acceptance.[citation needed][143][page needed]

Anglo-Dutch alliance[edit]

Though he had carefully avoided making it public, William's main motive in organising the expedition had been the opportunity to bring England into an alliance against France.[144] On 9 December 1688 he had already asked the States General to send a delegation of three to negotiate the conditions. On 18 February (Julian calendar) he asked the convention to support the Republic in its war against France. It refused, only consenting to pay £600,000 for the continued presence of the Dutch army in England.[145] On 9 March (Gregorian calendar) the States General responded to Louis's earlier declaration of war by declaring war on France in return.

Before they could take part in the war, both the English and Scottish armies had to be rebuilt from scratch. Many officers who had supported James' removal were unwilling to continue under his successor, while William was reluctant to trust those who had not already served under him. In addition, according historian Jonathan Scott: 'The state and discipline of the rank and file was ‘deplorable’. There was a dire lack of experience and competence at every level.'[146] For the purpose of reforming the English army on the Dutch model William appointed Dutch officers to key positions,[147] which caused considerable resentment in England.

William III at the Battle of Landen, by Ernest Crofts

On 19 April (Julian calendar) the Dutch delegation signed a naval treaty with England. It stipulated that the combined Anglo-Dutch fleet would always be commanded by an Englishman, even when of lower rank.[148] The Dutch agreed to this to make their dominance over the English army less painful for the British.[147] The treaty also specified that the two parties would contribute in the ratio of five English vessels against three Dutch vessels, meaning in practice that the Dutch navy in the future would be smaller than the English.[148] The Navigation Acts were not repealed.[148] On 18 May, the new Parliament allowed William to declare war on France. On 9 September 1689, (Gregorian calendar), William as King of England joined the League of Augsburg against France.[149]

The decline of the Dutch Republic[edit]

Having England as an ally meant that the military situation of the Republic was strongly improved, which allowed William to be uncompromising in his position towards France. The Dutch successfully secured their positions in the Spanish Netherlands, and halted French territorial expansion,[150] but these military campaigns were very expensive. In 1712, at the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, the Republic was financially exhausted and was forced to let its fleet deteriorate, making what was by then the Kingdom of Great Britain the dominant maritime power of the world.[151]

The Dutch economy, already burdened by the high national debt and concomitant high taxation, suffered from the other European states' protectionist policies, which its weakened fleet was no longer able to resist. To make matters worse, the main Dutch trading and banking houses moved much of their activity from Amsterdam to London after 1688. Between 1688 and 1720, world trade dominance shifted from the Republic to Great Britain.[151]

Assessment and historiography[edit]

While the 1688 revolution was labeled "Glorious" by Protestant preachers two decades later,[152] its historiography is complex, and its assessment disputed. Thomas Macaulay's account of the Revolution in The History of England from the Accession of James the Second exemplifies the "Whig history" narrative of the Revolution as a largely consensual and bloodless triumph of English common sense, confirming and strengthening its institutions of tempered popular liberty and limited monarchy.[153] Edmund Burke set the tone for that interpretation when he proclaimed: "The Revolution was made to preserve our ancient indisputable laws and liberties, and that ancient constitution of government which is our only security for law and liberty."[154]

An alternative narrative emphasizes William's successful foreign invasion from the Netherlands, and the size of the corresponding military operation. Several researchers have emphasized that aspect, particularly after the third centenary of the event in 1988.[155] The historian J. R. Jones suggested that the invasion "should be seen ... as the first and arguably the only decisive phase of the Nine Years' War."[156] John Childs added that "there was no natural political turmoil in England in 1688", or "at least not of sufficient consequence to produce the overthrow of a king."[48] Jonathan Israel also stresses the importance of the Dutch aspect by arguing that, due the Dutch occupation of London, parliament was hardly free when they decided to accept William as their king.[157]

It has been argued that the invasion aspect had been downplayed as a result of British pride and effective Dutch propaganda, trying to depict the course of events as a largely internal English affair.[158] As the invitation was initiated by figures who had little influence, the legacy of the Glorious Revolution has been described as a successful propaganda act by William to cover up and justify his invasion.[159][page needed] The claim that William was fighting for the Protestant cause in England was used to great effect to disguise the military, cultural and political impact that the Dutch regime had on England.

A third version, proposed by Steven Pincus, underplays the invasion aspect but unlike the Whig narrative views the Revolution as a divisive and violent event that involved all classes of the English population, not just the main aristocratic protagonists.[160][page needed] Pincus argues that his interpretation echoes the widely held view of the Revolution in its aftermath, starting with its revolutionary labelling. Pincus argues that it was momentous especially when looking at the alternative that James was trying to enact – a powerful centralised autocratic state, using French-style "state-building". England's role in Europe and the country's political economy in the 17th century rebuts the view of many late-20th-century historians that nothing revolutionary occurred during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89. Pincus says it was not a placid turn of events.[161]

In diplomacy and economics William III transformed the English state's ideology and policies. This occurred not because William III was an outsider who inflicted foreign notions on England but because foreign affairs and political economy were at the core of the English revolutionaries' agenda. The revolution of 1688–89 cannot be fathomed in isolation. It would have been inconceivable without the changes resulting from the events of the 1640s and 1650s. The ideas accompanying the Glorious Revolution were rooted in the mid-century upheavals. The 17th century was a century of revolution in England, deserving of the same scholarly attention that 'modern' revolutions attract.[161][page needed]

James II tried building a powerful militarised state on the mercantilist assumption that the world's wealth was necessarily finite, and empires were created by taking land from other states. The East India Company was thus an ideal tool to create a vast new English imperial dominion by warring with the Dutch and the Mughal Empire in India. After 1689 came an alternative understanding of economics, which saw Britain as a commercial rather than an agrarian society. It led to the foundation of the Bank of England, the creation of Europe's first widely circulating credit currency and the commencement of the "Age of Projectors".[162] This subsequently gave weight to the view, advocated most famously by Adam Smith in 1776, that wealth was created by human endeavour and was thus potentially infinite.[163]

Karl Marx viewed the revolution as essentially conservative in nature, writing that it was shaped by an alliance between English commercial and industrial bourgeoisie and increasingly commercialized large land owners.[164] [165]


As a coup, albeit largely bloodless, its legitimacy rests in the will expressed separately by the Scottish and English Parliaments according to their respective legal processes.[166] On this point, the Earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1689, "The Parliament of England is that supreme and absolute power, which gives life and motion to the English government".[167] The Revolution established the primacy of parliamentary sovereignty, a principle still relevant in consultation with the 15 Commonwealth realms regarding succession issues.[clarification needed] The Bill of Rights 1689 formally established a system of constitutional monarchy and ended moves towards absolute monarchy by restricting the power of the monarch, who could no longer suspend laws, levy taxes, make royal appointments or maintain a standing army during peacetime without Parliament's consent. The British Army remains the military arm of Parliament, not the monarch, although the Crown is the source of all military executive authority.[168][page needed]

Unlike the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, most ordinary people in England and Scotland were relatively untouched by the "Glorious Revolution", the majority of the bloodshed taking place in Ireland. As a consequence, some historians suggest that in England at least it more closely resembles a coup d'état, rather than a social upheaval such as the French Revolution.[169][k] This view is consistent with the original meaning of "revolution" as a circular process under which an old system of values is restored to its original position, with England's supposed "ancient constitution" being reasserted, rather than formed anew.[171] Contemporary English political thought, as expressed in John Locke's then popular social contract theory,[172] linked to George Buchanan's view of the contractual agreement between the monarch and their subjects,[173] an argument used by the Scottish Parliament as justification for the Claim of Right.

Under the Coronation Oath Act 1688, William had sworn to maintain the primacy of the Church of England, which both his native Dutch Reformed Church and the Church of Scotland viewed as ideologically suspect in both doctrine and use of bishops. This required a certain degree of religious flexibility on his part, especially as he needed to placate his Catholic allies, Spain and Emperor Leopold.[174] Despite promising legal toleration for Catholics in his Declaration of October 1688, William failed due to domestic opposition.[175] The Act of Toleration 1689 granted relief to Nonconformists but Catholic emancipation would be delayed until 1829.[176]

News of the Glorious Revolution reached the English colonies in North America in 1689, leading to a revolt in Boston and the dissolution of the Dominion of New England.[177]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Irish: An Réabhlóid Ghlórmhar; Scottish Gaelic: Rèabhlaid Ghlòrmhor; Welsh: Chwyldro Gogoneddus; also known to the Dutch as the Glorieuze Overtocht or Glorious Crossing
  2. ^ "We have great reason to believe, we shall be every day in a worse condition than we are, and less able to defend ourselves, and therefore we do earnestly wish we might be so happy as to find a remedy before it be too late for us to contribute to our own deliverance ... the people are so generally dissatisfied with the present conduct of the government, in relation to their religion, liberties and properties (all which have been greatly invaded), and they are in such expectation of their prospects being daily worse, that your Highness may be assured, there are nineteen parts of twenty of the people throughout the kingdom, who are desirous of a change; and who, we believe, would willingly contribute to it, if they had such a protection to countenance their rising, as would secure them from being destroyed.
  3. ^ At the end of the year the Dutch army counted more than 70,000 men[58]
  4. ^ When asked what security he desired, Suasso allegedly answered: "If you are victorious, you will surely repay me; if not, the loss is mine."[66]
  5. ^ William declared:

    It is both certain and evident to all men, that the public peace and happiness of any state or kingdom cannot be preserved, where the Laws, Liberties, and Customs, established by the lawful authority in it, are openly transgressed and annulled; more especially where the alteration of Religion is endeavoured, and that a religion, which is contrary to law, is endeavoured to be introduced; upon which those who are most immediately concerned in it are indispensably bound to endeavour to preserve and maintain the established Laws, Liberties and customs, and, above all, the Religion and Worship of God, that is established among them; and to take such an effectual care, that the inhabitants of the said state or kingdom may neither be deprived of their Religion, nor of their Civil Rights.

  6. ^ His standard was hoisted, displaying the arms of Nassau quartered with those of England. The words Pro Religione et Libertate ("For Liberty and [the Protestant] Religion"), the slogan of William's ancestor William the Silent while leading the Dutch Revolt against Catholic Spain, were shown next to the House of Orange's motto, Je maintiendrai ("I will maintain")
  7. ^ There were seventy-five vessels of the confederated Dutch navy. Forty-nine were warships of more than twenty cannon. Eight of these could count as third rates of 60–68 cannon. Additionally, there were nine frigates, twenty-eight galliots, and nine fireships. Transports included seventy-six fluyts for the soldiers, one hundred and twenty small transports with five thousand horses, and about seventy supply vessels. Also, sixty fishing vessels served as landing craft.[94][93]
  8. ^ As was then common, many were foreigners, including Scots, English, German, Swiss, Swedes and Laplanders
  9. ^ Most modern historians subscribe to the idea that William brought over 20,000 to 21,000 men in his army. Dutch historian Machiel Bosman, however, disputes this. He argues that historians have overestimated the amount of volunteers that went along. According to Bosman only 1,200 volunteers, around 600 British and 600 French, joined William's army. He estimates William's army strength at circa 17,000 men.[108]
  10. ^ Those in attendance were William Hamilton, Duke of Hamilton, William Craven, 1st Earl of Craven, George Berkeley, 1st Earl of Berkeley, Charles Middleton, 2nd Earl of Middleton (Southern Secretary), Richard Graham, 1st Viscount Preston (Lord President of the Council and Northern Secretary), Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin (Chamberlain to the Queen and Treasury Commissioner), John Trevor, Master of the Rolls, and Silius Titus.
  11. ^ The importance of the event has divided historians ever since Friedrich Engels judged it "a relatively puny event".[170]


  1. ^ Bright, James Franck (1879). A History of England: Constitutional monarchy: William and Mary to William IV. 1689-1837. Rivingtons.
  2. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 124–125.
  3. ^ Harris 1999, pp. 28–30.
  4. ^ Stephen 2010, pp. 55–58.
  5. ^ Miller 1978, p. 44.
  6. ^ Wormsley 2015, p. 189.
  7. ^ Jackson 2003, pp. 38–54.
  8. ^ Baker 2009, pp. 290–291.
  9. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 153–155.
  10. ^ "Ireland's Protestant Ascendancy explained | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 5 June 2024.
  11. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 106–108.
  12. ^ Harris 1993, p. 124.
  13. ^ Wakeling 1896, p. 91.
  14. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 179–181.
  15. ^ Spielvogel 1980, p. 410.
  16. ^ Bosher 1994, pp. 6–8.
  17. ^ Harris 2006, p. 103.
  18. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 156–157.
  19. ^ Carpenter 1956, pp. 96–98.
  20. ^ Walker 1956, p. 81.
  21. ^ Harris 1993, p. 130.
  22. ^ Field 2012, p. 695.
  23. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 171–172.
  24. ^ Harris 2006, p. 235.
  25. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 127–129.
  26. ^ Jones 1988, p. 146.
  27. ^ Jones 1988, p. 150.
  28. ^ Childs 1987, p. 184.
  29. ^ Childs 1980, pp. 96–97.
  30. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 235–236.
  31. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 81–82.
  32. ^ Troost 2005, p. 175.
  33. ^ Stapleton 2003, pp. 63–64.
  34. ^ Troost 2001, p. 187.
  35. ^ Glozier 2000, pp. 233–234.
  36. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 213–214.
  37. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 256.
  38. ^ a b Jones 1988, p. 222.
  39. ^ Hoak 1996, p. 24.
  40. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 256–257.
  41. ^ Fagel 1688.
  42. ^ Troost 2005, p. 191.
  43. ^ Prud'homme van Reine 2009, p. 287.
  44. ^ Baxter 1966, p. 225.
  45. ^ Baxter 1966, p. 231.
  46. ^ Jones 1988, pp. 238–239.
  47. ^ Israel 2003, p. 12.
  48. ^ a b Childs 1988, p. 418.
  49. ^ Harris 2006, p. 271.
  50. ^ Harris 2006, p. 272.
  51. ^ Claydon & Levillain 2016, p. 150.
  52. ^ Miller 1978, p. 153.
  53. ^ Young 2004, pp. 251–252.
  54. ^ Duffy 1995, p. 20.
  55. ^ a b Troost 2005, p. 198.
  56. ^ Young 2004, p. 255.
  57. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 38.
  58. ^ Wijn 1950, p. 6.
  59. ^ Baxter 1966, pp. 232–233.
  60. ^ McKay & Scott 1984, p. 41.
  61. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 41.
  62. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 178–179.
  63. ^ Jardine 2008, pp. 39–40.
  64. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 37.
  65. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 52.
  66. ^ Swetschinsky & Schönduve 1988, p. 53.
  67. ^ Troost 2016, pp. 206–207.
  68. ^ Miller 1978, p. 194.
  69. ^ Miller 1978, p. 195.
  70. ^ Miller 1978, p. 196.
  71. ^ Troost 2001, p. 196.
  72. ^ Childs 1984, p. 61.
  73. ^ Holmes 2009, p. 136.
  74. ^ Troost 2005, pp. 195–196.
  75. ^ Miller 1973, pp. 671–672.
  76. ^ a b c Harris 2006, p. 285.
  77. ^ Davies 2004.
  78. ^ Burchett 1703, pp. 14–17.
  79. ^ a b Rodger 2004, p. 138.
  80. ^ Prud'homme van Reine 2009, p. 291.
  81. ^ Miller 1973, p. 679.
  82. ^ Western 1972, p. 259.
  83. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 29; Williams 1960, pp. 10–16.
  84. ^ Speck 1989, p. 74.
  85. ^ a b Speck 1989, pp. 74–75.
  86. ^ Troost 2001, p. 199.
  87. ^ a b c Rodger 2004, p. 137.
  88. ^ Jones 1973, pp. 201–221.
  89. ^ Prud'homme van Reine 2009, p. 288.
  90. ^ Jardine 2008, pp. 10–11.
  91. ^ Bander 2014, p. 276.
  92. ^ a b c Van Nimwegen 2020, pp. 183–185.
  93. ^ a b Prud'homme van Reine 2009, p. 289.
  94. ^ Western 1972, p. 260.
  95. ^ Nolan 2008, p. 177.
  96. ^ Robb, Nesca A. (1962). William of Orange, A Personal History. London: Heneman. p. 267.:

    The banner read: "Pro Religione et Liberate -- Je Maintiendrai", which translated means "For Religion and Liberty -- I will maintain". Je Maintiendrai is the motto of the House of Orange-Nassau

    {{blockquote|from archiv.org: https://archive.org/details/williamoforangep0002robb/page/266/mode/2up?q=Je+Maintiendrai, p. 267 here, "From the mast-head of Den Briel the Prince’s banner streamed out defiantly bearing the legend ‘Pro Religione et Libertate — Je Maintiendrai’."
  97. ^ "Flag of William III". Retrieved 23 May 2024. It is a white flag. Shifted to the hoist are the arms of William III. The shield is topped by a golden coronet with fleur de lys and crosses patty. The shield is supporter by a golden (= yellow), rampant, guardant lion; crowned golden at the dexter side and a silver (= white), forcene, reguardant unicorn, wearing a golden (= yellow) coronet around his neck and a necklace (or chain) of the same colour hanging down from the coronet. Above the whole ensemble is an inscription in black, serif initials "FOR THE PROTESTANT RELIGION ANT THE LIBERTY OF ENGLAND" and beneath the shield between the supporters feet another inscription of the same kind "JE MAINTIENDRAY". The flag is topped by a swallow tailed blue over white over red streamer. The streamers white head is divided by a red St. George's Cross. I think the phrase should read "I maintain" (as in uphold, will support and/or adhere to) the liberties of England etc. "Je maintiendrai" (modern spelling) is on the coat of arms of the Netherlands, and derives from an ancestor of William of Orange (...) The meaning is "I will maintain" or "I will persevere". The flag is found with variations in several sources: Neubecker 1932, p.36 )(see full reference at end of paragraph)(https://www.fotw.info/images/g/gb_will3.jpg), image 124; Diderot & D'Alembert 1780; suite of plate 17, image no.32 (see full reference at end of paragraph (https://www.fotw.info/images/g/gb_wil3.jpg); Diderot & D'Alembert 1780, edition 1780, plate 17 suite, image no.34 (see full reference at end of paragraph)(https://www.fotw.info/images/g/gb_wil3w.jpg). The last contains the arms as described above and is topped by a royal crown with four crosses patty and four fleur de lis and an imperial globe at the top, all in gold. The shield is surrounded by a blue collar, being the Order of the Garter held by a golden belt buckle and with the order's motto around the belt in golden initials. The whole ensemble is shifted to the hoist. In the coloured 1751 edition the belt is red.
  98. ^ Neubecker, Ottfried (1932). Flaggen der Welt: historische Fahnen (Die Welt in Bildern: Album 8) (in German) (1932, none specified, presumably 1st ed.). Hamburg, Germany: Gemeinschaftsausgaben der Zigaretten - Industrie: Hamburg. p. 36, suite of plate 17, image no. 34.
  99. ^ Diderot, Denis (1760). Encyclopédie (in French) (1780 ed.). Paris: André le Breton, Michel-Antoine David, Laurent Durand and Antoine-Claude Briasson. p. suite of plate 17, image no.32 & 34.
  100. ^ a b Prud'homme van Reine 2009, pp. 290–291.
  101. ^ Harris 2006, p. 203.
  102. ^ Rodger 2004, p. 139.
  103. ^ Miller 1978, p. 199.
  104. ^ Rodger 2004, pp. 137–139.
  105. ^ Childs 1980, p. 175.
  106. ^ Sowerby 2013, pp. 347–348.
  107. ^ Israel 1995, p. 849.
  108. ^ Bosman 2016, p. 208—217.
  109. ^ Harris 2006, p. 283.
  110. ^ Childs 1980, p. 177—178.
  111. ^ a b Miller 1978, p. 204.
  112. ^ Jardine 2008, pp. 15–16.
  113. ^ Jardine 2008, pp. 31–32.
  114. ^ a b Childs 1980, p. 187.
  115. ^ Pinkman 1954, p. 138 & 160.
  116. ^ Dillon 2007, p. 164.
  117. ^ Speck 1989, p. 86.
  118. ^ Miller 1978, pp. 201–202.
  119. ^ Childs 1980, p. 189.
  120. ^ Harris 2006, p. 284.
  121. ^ Miller 1978, p. 205.
  122. ^ a b Jardine 2008, p. 17.
  123. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 296–300.
  124. ^ The London Gazette 1688, p. 2.
  125. ^ Miller 1978, p. 208.
  126. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 19.
  127. ^ Israel 1995, p. 852.
  128. ^ Trevor 2020, p. 85.
  129. ^ Huygens 1881, p. 62.
  130. ^ a b Harris 2006, p. 319.
  131. ^ Harris 2006, p. 325.
  132. ^ Miller 1978, p. 209.
  133. ^ Harris 2006, p. 329.
  134. ^ Pincus 2009, pp. 292–293.
  135. ^ Harris 2006, p. 341.
  136. ^ a b Maer & Gay 2008, p. 4.
  137. ^ Harris 2006, p. 165.
  138. ^ Harris 2006, pp. 379–381.
  139. ^ Szechi 1994, pp. 30–31.
  140. ^ Szechi & Sankey 2001, p. 97.
  141. ^ University of St. Andrews.
  142. ^ Coward 1980, p. 460.
  143. ^ Troost 2005.
  144. ^ Israel 1989, p. 37-38.
  145. ^ Troost 2001, p. 236-237.
  146. ^ Scott 2000, p. 479.
  147. ^ a b Van Nimwegen 2020, p. 190.
  148. ^ a b c Troost 2001, p. 236.
  149. ^ Troost 2001, p. 238.
  150. ^ Van Nimwegen 2020, p. 354.
  151. ^ a b Vries & Woude 1997, pp. 673–687.
  152. ^ Hertzler 1987.
  153. ^ Pincus 2009, p. 5.
  154. ^ Goodlad 2007; De Krey 2008, pp. 738–773.
  155. ^ Vallance 2007
  156. ^ Taylor 1994, p. 466.
  157. ^ Israel 2003, p. 130.
  158. ^ Jardine 2008, p. 27.
  159. ^ Schwoerer 1977.
  160. ^ Pincus 2009.
  161. ^ a b Pincus 2009, pp. ?.
  162. ^ Wennerlind 2011, p. 109.
  163. ^ Pincus 2009, pp. 369–370.
  164. ^ Hammond, Ken (2023). China's Revolution and the Quest for a Socialist Future. New York, NY: 1804 Books. p. 4. ISBN 9781736850084.
  165. ^ "England's 17th Century Revolution by Karl Marx".
  166. ^ Lynch 1992, p. 302.
  167. ^ Bradley 2007, p. 28.
  168. ^ Windeyer 1938.
  169. ^ Webb 1995, p. 166.
  170. ^ Engels 1997, p. 269.
  171. ^ Mitchell 2009, pp. xvi, xviii, xix.
  172. ^ Mason & Smith 2004.
  173. ^ De Jure Regni apud Scotos 2015.
  174. ^ Israel 2003, pp. 137–138.
  175. ^ Israel 2003, p. 20.
  176. ^ Holmes 2007, p. 3.
  177. ^ Barnes 1960, pp. 234–257.


  • Baker, Derek (2009). Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521101783.
  • Bander, James (2014). Dutch Warships in the Age of Sail 1600–1714. Seaforth Publishing. ISBN 978-1848321571.
  • Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. ISBN 978-0-8044-1065-6. OCLC 395292.
  • Baxter, Stephen B (1966). William III. Longmans. OCLC 415582287.
  • Beddard, Robert (1988). A Kingdom without a King: The Journal of the Provisional Government in the Revolution of 1688. Phaidon. ISBN 978-0-7148-2500-7.
  • Black, Jeremy (2016). A History of the British Isles. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137573612.
  • Bosher, JF (February 1994). "The Franco-Catholic Danger, 1660–1715". History. 79 (255): 5–30. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1994.tb01587.x. JSTOR 24421929.
  • Bosman, Machiel (2016). De roofkoning: prins Willem III en de invasie van Engeland (The robber king: Prince William III and the invasion of England). Athenaeum-Polak & Van Gennep.
  • Bradley, Anthony (2007). "The Sovereignty of Parliament: Form or Substance?". In Jowell, Jeffrey; Oliver, Dawn (eds.). The Changing Constitution (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920511-0.
  • Burchett, Josiah (1703). Memoirs of transactions at sea, during the war with France, beginning in 1688 and ending in 1697. The Admiralty.
  • Carpenter, Edward (1956). The Protestant Bishop. Being the Life of Henry Compton, 1632–1713. Bishop of London. London: Longmans, Green and Co. OCLC 1919768.
  • Childs, John (1980). The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0688-3.
    • —— (1984). "The Scottish brigade in the service of the Dutch Republic, 1689 to 1782". Documentatieblad Werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw.
    • —— (1987). The British Army of William III, 1689–1702 (1990 ed.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0719025525.
    • Childs, John (1988). "'1688'". History. 73 (239): 398–424. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.1988.tb02159.x.
  • Claydon, Tony; Levillain, Charles-Édouard (2016). Louis XIV Outside In: Images of the Sun King Beyond France, 1661–1715. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317103240.
  • Coffey, John (2013). "Chapter 4". In Pope, Robert (ed.). Church & State 1570–1750; the Emergence of Dissent in T&T Clark Companion to Nonconformity (2016 ed.). Bloomsbury T&T Clark. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-0567669933.
  • Coward, Barry (1980). The Stuart Age: England 1603–1714 (1994 ed.). Longman. ISBN 978-0582067226.
  • Dalrymple, John (1790). Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland; from the Dissolution of the last Parliament of Charles II till the Capture of the French and Spanish Fleets at Vigo. Strahan & Cadell.
  • Davies, J. D. (1989). "James II, William of Orange and the admirals". In Cruickshanks, Eveline (ed.). By force or default? The revolution of 1688–1689. John Donald. ISBN 978-0-85976-279-3. OL 8304349M.
  • Dillon, Patrick (2007). The last revolution: 1688 and the creation of the modern world. Pimlico.
  • Philalethes, Philalethes; Maitland, Thomas (2015) [1766]. De Jure Regni apud Scotos, or, A Dialogue Concerning the due Priviledge of Government in the Kingdom of Scotland Betwixt George Buchanan and Thomas Maitland. Creative Media Partners, LLC. ISBN 978-1298937391. OL 39811829M.
  • De Krey, Gary S. (2008). "Between Revolutions: Re-appraising the Restoration in Britain". History Compass. 6 (3): 738–773. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2008.00520.x.
  • Duffy, Christopher (1995). Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World 1494–1660. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415146494.
  • Engels, Friedrich (1997). "Introduction to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". In Feuerbach, L.; Marx, K.; Engles, F. (eds.). German Socialist Philosophy. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-0748-1.
  • Fagel, Gaspar (1688). A Letter, Writ by Mijn Heer Fagel, PENSIONER of HOLLAND, TO Mr. JAMES STEWART, Advocate; Giving an Account of the PRINCE and PRINCESS of ORANGE's Thoughts concerning the Repeal of the Test, and the Penal Laws. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  • Field, Clive (2012). "Counting Religion in England and Wales: The Long Eighteenth Century, c. 1680–c. 1840" (PDF). The Journal of Ecclesiastical History. 63 (4): 693–720. doi:10.1017/S0022046911002533. S2CID 161907349. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 March 2020.
  • Glozier, Mathew (2000). "The Earl of Melfort, the Court Catholic Party and the Foundation of the Order of the Thistle, 1687". The Scottish Historical Review. 79 (208): 233–238. doi:10.3366/shr.2000.79.2.233. JSTOR 25530975.
  • Goodlad, Graham (2007). "Before the Glorious Revolution: The Making of Absolute Monarchy?". History Review. 58.
  • Hammersley, Rachel (2005). French Revolutionaries and English Republicans: The Cordeliers Club, 1790–1794. Royal Historical Society. ISBN 978-0861932733.
  • Harris, Tim (1993). Politics under the later Stuarts. Longman. ISBN 0-582-04082-5.
    • —— (1999). "The People, the Law, and the Constitution in Scotland and England: A Comparative Approach to the Glorious Revolution". Journal of British Studies. 38 (1): 28–30. doi:10.1086/386180. S2CID 144374498.
    • —— (2006). Revolution: The Great Crisis of the British Monarchy, 1685–1720. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9759-0.
    • ——; Taylor, Stephen, eds. (2015). The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy. Boydell & Brewer. ISBN 978-1783270446.
  • Hertzler, James R. (1987). "Who Dubbed It 'The Glorious Revolution?'". Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies. 19 (4): 579–585. doi:10.2307/4049475. JSTOR 4049475.
  • Hoak, Dale (1996). Hoak, Dale; Feingold, Mordechai (eds.). The Anglo-Dutch revolution of 1688–89 in 'The World of William and Mary: Anglo-Dutch Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688–89'. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-2406-7.
  • Holmes, Richard (2007). Wellington:The Iron Duke. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0-00-713750-3.
  • Horwitz, Henry (1977). Parliament, Policy and Politics in the Reign of William III. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-0661-6.
  • Huygens, Constantijn (1881). Journaal van Constantijn Huygens, den zoon, gedurende de veldtochten der jaren 1688, Volume I. Kemink & Zoon.
  • Israel, Jonathan; Parker, Geoffrey (1991). Israel, J.I. (ed.). Of Providence and Protestant Winds: the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the Dutch armada of 1688 in The Anglo-Dutch Moment; Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its world impact. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-39075-0.
  • Israel, Jonathan I (2003). The Anglo-Dutch Moment: Essays on the Glorious Revolution and its World Impact. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521544061.
  • Israel, Jonathan (1989). The Dutch Republic and the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688/89 in England. Greenwich: Trustees National Maritime Museum. pp. 31–44. ISBN 978-0948065033.
  • Israel, Jonathan (1995). The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN 0-19-873072-1.
  • Jackson, Claire (2003). Restoration Scotland, 1660–1690: Royalist Politics, Religion and Ideas. Boydell Press. ISBN 978-0851159300.
  • Jardine, Lisa (2008). Going Dutch: How England Plundered Holland's Glory. Harper. ISBN 978-0-00-719734-7.
  • Jones, Clyve (1973). "The Protestant Wind of 1688: Myth and Reality". European Studies Review. 3 (3): 201–221. doi:10.1177/026569147300300301. S2CID 145465379.
  • Jones, J. R. (1988). The Revolution of 1688 in England. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-99569-2.
  • "No. 2410". The London Gazette. 17 December 1688. p. 2.
  • Lynch, Michael (1992). Scotland: a New History. Pimlico Publishing. ISBN 0712698930.
  • Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1889). The History of England from the Accession of James the Second. Popular Edition in Two Volumes. Vol. I. London: Longmans.
  • Maer, Lucinda; Gay, Oonagh (2008). The Coronation Oath. House of Commons Library. p. 4.
  • Marquess of Cambridge (1966). "The March of William of Orange from Torbay to London – 1688". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. XLIV.
  • Mason, Roger A.; Smith, Martin S. (2004). A Dialogue on the Law of Kingship | A Critical Edition and Translation of George Buchanan's De Jure Regni Apud Scotos Dialogus. Routledge. ISBN 978-1859284087. OL 3684214M.
  • McKay, Derek; Scott, H. M. (1984). The Rise of the Great Powers: 1648–1815. Longman. ISBN 0582485541.
  • Miller, John (1978). James II; A study in kingship. Menthuen. ISBN 978-0413652904.
  • Miller, John (1973). "The Militia and the Army in the Reign of James II". Historical Journal. 16 (4): 659–679. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00003897. JSTOR 2638277. S2CID 159475416.
  • Mitchell, Leslie (2009) [1790]. "Introduction". In Burke, Edmund (ed.). Reflections on the Revolution in France. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-953902-4.
  • Nolan, Cathal (2008). Wars of the Age of Louis XIV, 1650–1715: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0313330469.
  • Padfield, Peter (25 May 1999). "Historical Notes: Glorious revolution or Orange invasion?". The Independent. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
  • Pincus, Steve (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution (2011 ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17143-3.
  • Pinkman, Lucile (1954). William III and the Respectable Revolution. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674435575.
  • Prud'homme van Reine, Ronald (2009). Opkomst en Ondergang van Nederlands Gouden Vloot – Door de ogen van de zeeschilders Willem van de Velde de Oude en de Jonge. Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers. ISBN 978-90-295-6696-4.
  • Quinn, Stephen. "The Glorious Revolution". Economic History Association EH.net. Retrieved 1 October 2020.
  • Rodger, N.A.M (2004). The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649–1815. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-393-06050-8.
  • Schuchard, Keith (2002). Restoring the Temple of Vision: Cabalistic Freemasonry and Stuart. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-12489-9.
  • Schwoerer, Lois G. (1977). "Propaganda in the Revolution of 1688–1689". The American Historical Review. 82 (4): 843–874. doi:10.2307/1865115. JSTOR 1865115.
    • ——, ed. (2004). The Revolution of 1688–89: Changing Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52614-2.
  • Scott, Jonathan (2000). England's Troubles: Seventeenth-Century English Political Instability in European Context. Cambridge University Press.
  • Sowerby, Scott (2013). Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-07309-8.
  • Speck, William Arthur (1989). Reluctant Revolutionaries. Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285120-8.
  • Speck, William Arthur (2002). James II. Longman. ISBN 978-0-582-28712-9.
  • Spielvogel, Jackson J (1980). Western Civilization. Wadsworth Publishing. ISBN 1285436407.
  • Stanhope, Philip Henry, 5th Earl of (2011). Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington 1831–1851. Pickle Partners Publishing. footnote 90. ISBN 978-1-908692-35-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Stapleton, John M. (2003). Forging a Coalition Army; William III, the Grand Alliance and the Confederate Army in the Spanish Netherlands 1688–97 (PHD thesis). Ohio State University.
  • Stephen, Jeffrey (January 2010). "Scottish Nationalism and Stuart Unionism: The Edinburgh Council, 1745". Journal of British Studies. 49 (1, Scotland Special Issue): 47–72. doi:10.1086/644534. JSTOR 27752690. S2CID 144730991.
  • Swetschinsky, Daniël; Schönduve, Loeki (1988). De familie Lopes Suasso: financiers van Willem III. Zwolle. ISBN 978-90-6630-142-9.
  • Szechi, Daniel (1994). The Jacobites: Britain and Europe, 1688–1788. Manchester University Press. ISBN 0719037743.
    • ——; Sankey, Margaret (November 2001). "Elite Culture and the Decline of Scottish Jacobitism 1716–1745". Past & Present (173).
  • Taylor, Stephen (June 1994). "Review: Plus Ca Change...? New Perspectives on the Revolution of 1688". The Historical Journal. 37 (2): 457–470. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00016599. S2CID 162855246.
  • Trevor, Burnard (2020). "Imperial Britain, 1688–1763." Britain in the Wider World. Routledge.
  • Troost, Wouter (2001). Stadhouder-koning Willem III: Een politieke biografie. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren. ISBN 90-6550-639-X.
  • "Grievances of the Scottish Convention, April 13, 1689". University of St. Andrews, Records of the Parliaments of Scotland to 1707. Retrieved 28 June 2019.
  • Vallance, Edward (2007). "The Glorious Revolution". BBC History. Retrieved 15 August 2010.
  • Van der Kuijl, Arjen (1988). De glorieuze overtocht: De expeditie van Willem III naar Engeland in 1688. Amsterdam: De Bataafsche Leeuw. ISBN 978-90-6707-187-1.
  • Vries, Jan de; Woude, Ad van der (1997). The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57061-9.
  • Van Nimwegen, Olaf (2020). De Veertigjarige Oorlog 1672–1712: de strijd van de Nederlanders tegen de Zonnekoning (The 40 Years War 1672-1712: the Dutch struggle against the Sun King) (in Dutch). Prometheus. ISBN 978-90-446-3871-4.
  • Wijn, J.W. (1950). Het Staatsche Leger: Deel VII (The Dutch States Army: Part VII) (in Dutch). Martinus Nijhoff.
  • Wakeling, George Henry (1896). King and Parliament (A.D. 1603–1714). Scribner. ISBN 978-0-524-03867-3.
  • Walker, Peter (1956). James II and the Three Questions: Religious Toleration and the Landed Classes, 1687–1688. Verlag Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3039119271.
  • Webb, Stephen Saunders (1995). Lord Churchill's Coup: The Anglo-American Empire and the Glorious Revolution Reconsidered. Alfred Knopf. ISBN 978-0394549804.
  • Wennerlind, Carl (2011). Casualties of Credit: The English Financial Revolution, 1620–1720. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674047389.
  • Western, John R. (1972). Monarchy and Revolution. The English State in the 1680s. London: Blandford Press. ISBN 978-0-7137-3280-1.
  • Williams, E. N. (1960). The Eighteenth-Century Constitution; 1688–1815. Cambridge University Press. OCLC 1146699.
  • Windeyer, W. J. Victor (1938). "Essays". In Windeyer, William John Victor (ed.). Lectures on Legal History. Law Book Co. of Australasia.
  • Wormsley, David (2015). James II: The Last Catholic King. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0141977065.
  • Young, William (2004). International Politics and Warfare in the Age of Louis XIV and Peter the Great: A Guide to the Historical Literature. IUinverse. ISBN 978-0595813988.
  • Van Alphen, Marc; Hoffenaar, Jan; Lemmers, Alan; Van der Spek, Christiaan (2021). Military Power And The Dutch Republic: War, Trade and the Balance of Power in Europe, 1648–1813. Boom. ISBN 978-9087283650.
  • Degroot, Dagomar (2018). The Frigid Golden Age : Climate Change, the Little Ice Age, and the Dutch Republic, 1560–1720. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1108419314.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]