Study Extracts 1 and 2. In light of differing interpretations, how convincing do you find the
view that the Glorious Revolution did not have revolutionary effects?
The Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 did have revolutionary effects, however not as far as
establishing a constitutional monarchy. Source 1 disagrees with this line of argument,
stating that although “there was a great deal of popular political activity…the events of
1688-9 did not have revolutionary effects.” Source 2 claims that the effects of the Glorious
Revolution were revolutionary; stating that it produced a “modern British monarchy,
limited.” However, Source 2 also states that the monarchy formed from 1688-9 was
“constitutional,” therefore also disagreeing with the line of argument that the events of
1688-9, though they had revolutionary effects, did not produce a constitutional monarchy.
Source 1 states that the Glorious Revolution “did not have revolutionary effects.”
The source is supporting that typical Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution being a
modest handover of power, focused on the “restoration of political order” rather than
making “major constitutional or ecclesiastical changes.” However, the source differs slightly
from the typical Whig interpretation in that it claims a constitutional monarchy was not
established. Source 1 claims that even if there had been revolutionary changes following the
events of 1688-9, “it is unlikely that William would have cooperated in bringing them
about,” implying that the monarch’s “cooperation” was still important, which would suggest
that the monarchy still retained significant power. Overall, the source provides a fairly
convincing argument explaining why the Glorious Revolution did not have revolutionary
effects.
Source 2 states that the Glorious Revolution did have revolutionary effects. One of
the revolutionary effects of the Glorious Revolution was the “Act of Settlement of 1701”
which “ignored the laws of hereditary succession” in order to provide a “rational and
forward-looking” solution to the “question of sovereignty.” The source is implying that the
events of 1688-9 were unprecedented and extraordinary, supporting a revisionist
interpretation of the Glorious Revolution. Source 2 states that parliament was able to
“redraw the succession according to its own liking.” This suggests that the Glorious
Revolution enabled parliament to shape the monarchy, as opposed to the monarchy
shaping parliament as it had been able to do pre-1688. Altogether, the source provides very
convincing reasoning to contradict the view that the Glorious Revolution did not have
revolutionary effects.
Source 2 is more convincing than Source 1 when evaluating whether or not the
Glorious Revolution had revolutionary effects as it justifies its argument with specific
examples by alluding to the Civil List of 1698 and “the Act of Settlement of 1701.” The
sources disagree on the role of the monarch. Source 1 claims that the monarch could
overrule parliament and that those “who in 1689 hoped to make major constitutional or
ecclesiastical changes were swept aside.” This indicates that monarch was still preeminent
and that William of Orange, crowned in1689, retained the same prerogative powers as the
Caroline monarchs before the revolution of 1688. Contrastingly, Source 2 claims that the
monarch could not overpower parliament; that “the days when the monarch could dissolve
parliament to avoid confrontation or… rule entirely without it, were over.” This shows how
ruling with parliament was now a legal requirement of the monarch, as stated in the Bill of
Rights of 1689, though William was able to slightly undermine this because he retained the
power of patronage. The fact that the monarch could no longer rule without parliament is a
testimony to the Glorious Revolution having revolutionary effects as both Caroline
view that the Glorious Revolution did not have revolutionary effects?
The Glorious Revolution of 1688-9 did have revolutionary effects, however not as far as
establishing a constitutional monarchy. Source 1 disagrees with this line of argument,
stating that although “there was a great deal of popular political activity…the events of
1688-9 did not have revolutionary effects.” Source 2 claims that the effects of the Glorious
Revolution were revolutionary; stating that it produced a “modern British monarchy,
limited.” However, Source 2 also states that the monarchy formed from 1688-9 was
“constitutional,” therefore also disagreeing with the line of argument that the events of
1688-9, though they had revolutionary effects, did not produce a constitutional monarchy.
Source 1 states that the Glorious Revolution “did not have revolutionary effects.”
The source is supporting that typical Whig interpretation of the Glorious Revolution being a
modest handover of power, focused on the “restoration of political order” rather than
making “major constitutional or ecclesiastical changes.” However, the source differs slightly
from the typical Whig interpretation in that it claims a constitutional monarchy was not
established. Source 1 claims that even if there had been revolutionary changes following the
events of 1688-9, “it is unlikely that William would have cooperated in bringing them
about,” implying that the monarch’s “cooperation” was still important, which would suggest
that the monarchy still retained significant power. Overall, the source provides a fairly
convincing argument explaining why the Glorious Revolution did not have revolutionary
effects.
Source 2 states that the Glorious Revolution did have revolutionary effects. One of
the revolutionary effects of the Glorious Revolution was the “Act of Settlement of 1701”
which “ignored the laws of hereditary succession” in order to provide a “rational and
forward-looking” solution to the “question of sovereignty.” The source is implying that the
events of 1688-9 were unprecedented and extraordinary, supporting a revisionist
interpretation of the Glorious Revolution. Source 2 states that parliament was able to
“redraw the succession according to its own liking.” This suggests that the Glorious
Revolution enabled parliament to shape the monarchy, as opposed to the monarchy
shaping parliament as it had been able to do pre-1688. Altogether, the source provides very
convincing reasoning to contradict the view that the Glorious Revolution did not have
revolutionary effects.
Source 2 is more convincing than Source 1 when evaluating whether or not the
Glorious Revolution had revolutionary effects as it justifies its argument with specific
examples by alluding to the Civil List of 1698 and “the Act of Settlement of 1701.” The
sources disagree on the role of the monarch. Source 1 claims that the monarch could
overrule parliament and that those “who in 1689 hoped to make major constitutional or
ecclesiastical changes were swept aside.” This indicates that monarch was still preeminent
and that William of Orange, crowned in1689, retained the same prerogative powers as the
Caroline monarchs before the revolution of 1688. Contrastingly, Source 2 claims that the
monarch could not overpower parliament; that “the days when the monarch could dissolve
parliament to avoid confrontation or… rule entirely without it, were over.” This shows how
ruling with parliament was now a legal requirement of the monarch, as stated in the Bill of
Rights of 1689, though William was able to slightly undermine this because he retained the
power of patronage. The fact that the monarch could no longer rule without parliament is a
testimony to the Glorious Revolution having revolutionary effects as both Caroline
