England's glorious revolution is a term used to describe the disposition of the reigning king of Scotland and England, James, and replacement with by his daughter Mary and her husband, William. James was a roman catholic, but his religion did not deter him from becoming king with his subjects' support. The support was attributed to the fact that many feared his exclusion would lead to a conflict similar to the wars of the three kingdoms that had taken place between 1638 and 1651. The glorious revolution was revolutionary since it changed the ruling power of England by making a significant shift from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. Moreover, the bill of rights was promulgated to allow the daughter to take over the crown, also allowing prohibited Catholics or those who became Catholics through marriage to claim the throne. Lastly, the revolution was revolutionary as it permanently established the parliament as the ruling power of England.
First, James had only two children and was 52 years of age. He had married twice with his second marriage being childless 1 . His daughter Mary has presumed the heir, but when her brother James Francis was born in 1688, King James replaced Mary with James under the principle of male primogeniture 2 . The uncertainty created political instability as Mary was a protestant while her brother was a catholic creating the impression of a catholic dynasty being created.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, there was political instability as a result of the suspension of English and Scottish parliaments in 1965 as a personal decree 3 . The suspension coincided with the prosecution of seven bishops which was perceived as an assault on the Church of England. James' supporters viewed hereditary succession as vital compared to his religion 4 . Oaths were viewed as fundamental in the society, and he had sworn before the public to uphold the supremacy of the Church of England. James broke this oath by demeaning the parliament and requiring others to do the same.
Change in leadership
Due to the instability, James's rule began collapsing as he made numerous enemies and was greatly opposed. To save his kingdom, James met with Bishops on September 28th with an offer to have an agreement with and reduce tension 5 . The meeting was followed by a set of demands to return the religious position and call a free parliament. The demands were an attempt to help James retain his position as king, but his chances were minimal. James would have been required to disinherit his son and return the supremacy of parliament and enforcement of test acts. Also, his opponents had lost trust in him hence were unsure that he would honor his promises.
Additionally, James tried to bring together an army of 19000 men, but unfortunately, they were not eager to fight with the loyalty of his commanders was questionable 6 . Unfortunately, their first mission was a fail as three regiments were sent out to make contact with William but encountered supply problems as they ran out of food and ammunition. Around the end of November that year, dragoons led by Irish catholic Sarsfield clashed with scouts representing William who was among the first few military campaigns in the revolution. The clash was also among the events that marked the collapse of James' rule.
William secured Plymouth and began his capture in New York. James was advised to retreat since he did not have information on Williams's movements and plans. Moreover, he was unable to trust his soldiers as they had disappointed him. His health also deteriorated as he had fatigue due to lack of sleep and profuse nose bleeding 7 . These circumstances pushed him to retreat making his close confidants follow William On December 8 th Godolphin Halifax and Nottingham met with William to discuss his demands that included funding of his army, the providence of supplies, and dismissal of Catholics from public offices 8 . Many agreed with the demands as a way to settle the dispute, but James feared for his life and left the country. William had, however, made it clear that he would not allow James to be harmed. Some of James supporters saw his departure as cowardice, but it shifted power to favor William who immediately began controlling the government on a provisional basis before elections were held 9 . A conventional parliament was elected with a majority being the commons.
Changes from Absolute Monarch to Joint Monarch
A group of individuals wanted to preserve the line of succession but recognized that maintaining James in the leadership was not practical. They had a preference of either appointing Mary as his regent or sole monarch. The dilemma caused a debate that was estimated to have lasted for two or more weeks that annoyed William needed a quick resolution since the situation in Ireland was deteriorating rapidly, and the French had repaired an attack on the Dutch. Due to the dissatisfaction, William held a meeting with Halifax and Danby and made his intentions of returning home known if the monarch did not decide to have a joint monarch 10 . On the other hand, Mary made it clear that she would only rule jointly with her husband. The meeting caused the parliament to make James deserted his crown and people and offered the crown to Mary and William jointly.
Additionally, another radical act that took place during the revolution was breaking the succession and ensuring that a contract existed between the ruler and the people. Further changes were made to ensure that the Anglican Church was protected from being undermined in the future by other monarchs 11 . The amendments helped the people in understanding where James had gone wrong during his reign and measures put in place to prevent similar occurrences. A bill of rights was also created to offer solutions to future conflicts.
Constitution amendment
However, two specific areas in the bill of rights were viewed specifically to stop further or similar actions that James did during his reign. The first change was that it was illegal to keep a standing army without parliamentary consent which overturned the prior militia acts hence giving the parliament military control 12 . Secondly, it was established that the monarchy had an obligation to its people; hence James was wrong to walk away from his duties. Mary and William had their coronation with vows to govern the people according to the parliament statutes and laws.
The changes made and the coronation was followed by mixed reactions from Scotland and Ireland whose people still supported James and greatly opposed William. However, the British government maintained that James abandoned his duties hence had no right to rule the people 13 . The revolution also led to the end of the possibility of having an absolute monarch in England. Moreover, the monarchy powers were greatly restricted as they could no longer suspend or amend laws without the parliament's consent or approval. The amendments have led to increased parliamentary power to the present date and retained the monarchy as ceremonial.
Therefore, the most vital changes made during the revolution involved a change in leadership, constitutional amendments, and change in power inheritance from absolute to the joint monarch. These changes were significant to future generation leadership as they helped the future generations from making similar mistakes 14 . The monarch was prone to abusing its power as in the case of James and using armies with ammunition and food supplies from the people to command authority 15 . However, with the introduction of the parliament, leadership became people-centered and focused on the well-being of the people with laws to protect rather than destroy. Moreover, the bill of rights further gave the monarchy an obligation to its people to ensure that the leaders stand by their word by swearing 16 . This ensured that leaders would not abandon their posts like James did. The parliament had more power to make amendments and control the military hence preventing any occurrence of war and controlling supplies given to the army 17 . Since then, the parliament has more power than the monarchy and rule the country, leaving more ceremonial duties to the monarch. Roman Catholics were also barred from the ruling.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the monarchy powers have greatly declined as the parliament powers have greatly increased. The revolution stabilized and formed a stable base for politics in Great Britain and the United Kingdom that are being used to date. Also, the war may have led to religious conflict with the victory being used as a leeway to protestant supremacy in Ireland. William may have also brought religious toleration since he was not an Anglican before his promulgation. He was in a position to head the Church of England while still being a nonconformist. The revolution also lt to the act of toleration that allowed nonconformist protestants but did not allow the toleration of Roman Catholics. The emancipation of Roman Catholics followed later 140 years of non-tolerance.
Bibliography
Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
Pettigrew, William. "Julian Hoppit. Britain's Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 391. $28.99 (cloth)." Journal of British Studies 57, no. 2 (2018), 374-376.
1 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
2 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
3 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
4 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
5 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
6 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
7 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
8 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
9 Borisenko, Viktor N., and Leonid V. Sidorenko. "Problems of definition and periodization of the Glorious Revolution in England." Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History 62, no. 3 (2017), 577-586.
10 Pettigrew, William. "Julian Hoppit. Britain's Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 391. $28.99 (cloth)." Journal of British Studies 57, no. 2 (2018), 374-376.
11 Pettigrew, William. "Julian Hoppit. Britain's Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 391. $28.99 (cloth)." Journal of British Studies 57, no. 2 (2018), 374-376.
12 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
13 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
14 Pettigrew, William. "Julian Hoppit. Britain's Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 391. $28.99 (cloth)." Journal of British Studies 57, no. 2 (2018), 374-376.
15 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
16 Afzal, Aqdas. "Revisiting the Glorious Revolution: property rights, economic institutions, and the developing world." International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education 8, no. 4 (2017), 378.
17 Pettigrew, William. "Julian Hoppit. Britain's Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Pp. 391. $28.99 (cloth)." Journal of British Studies 57, no. 2 (2018), 374-376.
