(New to this sub. Have been reading along for a long time, first time posting something. Read rules.)
The Glorious Revolution, as it is called in British history books, was by definition a invasion by the Stadtholder William of Orange. He crossed the channel with over 50 Dutch warships holding over 1700 canons. With him he took 20.000 men, Dutch and all kinds of mercenaries, and another 7.000 horses.
The Dutch Republic, and with that William, feared to the Catholic King to team up with the catholic French and would thereby threaten the Republics future.
I realise William enjoyed ''a lot'' of support from within Britain, including encouragement from Parliament members, but that still does not make this a revolution. He took London by force. When William entered London, he forced all English regiments to leave the city, as Dutch forces would take over their positions. Even sending the Coldstream and Life guards out of London.
For 15 months London remained under Dutch military ocupation. I am fully aware this is a special case, and it's not some heroic Dutch invasion of the British Isles. But by the very definition of a invasion, it very clearly is one. A foreign leader with a foreign force invading a sovereign nation and taking it's throne, is very much a succesfull invasion.
With this the Dutch are the last one who succesfully did what the Spanish and French attempted for centuries, Hitler and Napoleon would dream off in the future and all fail. Even Churchill claiming the Isles hadn't been taken since 1066 and would not happen during ww2 was basically wrong. But i guess noting that the Dutch were actually the last ones to invade Britain wouldn't really help British morale during ww2, either.;p
My question is: Why is it called the Glorious Revolution, and when when did people start naming it? Is it out of pure propoganda and pride? Would love to here English historians about this. Why aren't historians in England pointing at this being wrong? I only found one article about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560614/The-1688-invasion-Britain-thats-erased-history.html
William was not some random Dutch Duke; his Grandfather was Charles I, King of England. His father-in-law was James, the Duke of York and the sitting King when William invaded.
A foreign leader with a foreign force invading a sovereign nation and taking it's throne, is very much a succesfull invasion.
He had legitimate claim to the throne, both through blood and through marriage. He was also Protestant while England was ruled by an unpopular (in Protestant England) Catholic King.