I’m currently writing a paper on the Bill of Rights, and I’m slightly confused about how the whole process of the Glorious Revolution could just be declared legal retrospectively. As far as I understand, James II had discontinued Parliament, then fled, after William was invited to invade. He was then asked by some MPs of Charles II’s Parliament to summon a Convention Parliament, which he did, but was illegal as only the King could summon Parliament and he wasn’t the King yet. This Convention then declared him King and in turn, he and Queen Mary declared the Convention to be a rightful Parliament.
My problem is: Isn’t this just a paradoxical, eternal loop? I see how a Monarch could declare the Convention to be legitimate – but only a legitimate Monarch, which William and Mary only became because of the illegal Parliament. How does this work? I’m also pretty sure you can’t use Parliamentary sovereignty as an argument as this concept also only developed via the Bill of Rights.
Could anyone explain this?
There were plenty of people -- Tories, Jacobites, non-jurors, etc -- who wouldn't disagree with your interpretation. The legal historian F. W. Maitland writes as much.
Opposed to this is a school of contemporary thought which sees legitimacy as coming not from divine right, or from the continuity of the law, but from popular sovereignty. The most famous example being Locke's Second Treatise of Government (although this wasn't actually very influential in the 1680s). In this view popular sovereignty is based on natural rights, which are more profound and universal than constitutional law. Replacing the monarch can therefore be legitimated by natural law, rather than constitutional.
Also, the Convention Parliament held that James II abdicated rather than fled, which led many people to see his replacement as necessary.
This AMA we had a few months ago would be of some help for you. I asked a few questions about the Glorious Revolution myself.