Ring Titanic

Compare and contrast the two views of the Glorious Revolution

The history has been always written by the winners. When two cultures clash, the loser is obliterated, and the winner writes the history. It is true that official histories frequently have the advantage that the author or authors have been given access to archives, interview subjects and other primary sources which would be closed or inaccessible to independent historians. However, because of the necessarily close relationship between author and subject, such works may be partisan in tone, and to lack historical objectivity. That way, the Glorious Revolution of 1688-1689 can be told from two different views, so taking into account who wrote the article, we will find similarities and differences about the same event.

The Glorious Revolution is defined by the Parliament as a  peaceful war, yet Edward Vallance, from the BBC, said that they ignore a series of events. According to the Whig account, the events of the revolution were bloodless. But Edward said: “Although bloodshed in England was limited, the revolution was only secured in Ireland and Scotland by force and with much loss of life”.

The Whig view of the Glorious Revolution is simply that it was a triumph for the purity of constitutional law over an outrageous attempt at its perversion, a reaffirmation of the liberties of the English people. However, others have analysed the Bill of Rights and they have revealed that in several aspects it is indeed a rather conservative document. It is a declaratory Act, reasserting ancient rights and restoring the monarchy with

limitations which differed in no major or significant way from the traditional ones.

This revolution has been seen as a peaceful way in which Parliament asserted its rights over the monarchy in 1688, while the BBC describes it as an event that converts England in a merely a satellite state, under the control of an all-powerful Catholic monarch.