What do you think?
Rate this book
The Glorious Revolution
Heeding the call of England’s ruling class, the Dutch Prince William of Orange landed with a massive invasion force and within six weeks expelled the Catholic King James II in 1688. In what was largely heralded as a bloodless revolution, William and his English wife Mary, James II’s Protestant daughter, were crowned joint monarchs, accepting the Declaration of Rights that affirmed Parliament’s ancient rights. It was a turning point in Britain’s march toward universal suffrage and liberties. But as acclaimed historian Edward Vallance reveals, the Glorious Revolution was characterized by warfare and bloody massacre (especially for Catholics and Irishmen), affected the rights of the common man in ways traditional histories have ignored, and engaged the British populace in the affairs of government as never before. A
thriller-paced book—rich in seventeenth-century first-person accounts of the bloodshed and political machinations of the period—that turns every debate about this great historical event on its head.
thriller-paced book—rich in seventeenth-century first-person accounts of the bloodshed and political machinations of the period—that turns every debate about this great historical event on its head.
Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
21 people are currently reading
206 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 5, 2023
I had this impression of The Glorious Revolution that was apparently all wrong. Before I read this book, I had this story in my head that Parliament, faced with James II's Catholicism and authoritarian tendencies had looked around and found an acceptable replacement in the form of William and Mary and invited them to invade the country and take the throne to replace him-- ensuring a Protestant monarchy and that the Monarchy was tied to the authority of Parliament.
Having read Edward Vallance's excellent and highly readable book, I am forced to revise that conclusion somewhat.
Books about history can be hit or miss, I've found. You can either can academic ones that veer way too far into Academia and lose the reader or, alternatively, are the size of large doorstops or you can go to the other end of the spectrum and you can get a flimsy, not very informative, but highly readable version of events. Vallance manages to thread the needle between these two possibilities quite nicely-- his volume is dense and informative and if you're looking for a basic one-volume download on The Glorious Revolution, then this would not be a bad starting point for getting your knowledge on. The writing is paced nicely as well, so it's a quick, taut read, and you will learn.
My apparently hazy impression of 1688 was that it more or less established the primacy of Parliament which in turn laid the foundation for the American Revolution a few decades down the line. I think that still holds true-- and there are lines referencing a Protestant right to bear arms that directly influenced the development of our own 2nd Amendment, but really, this was a narrow elite securing their power, and then, when colonists assumed that the powers Parliament won also applied to them, they were met with a firm, "No, not that way."
James II gets a bit of a bad rap, I think. Had he been a better politician and held his nerve a bit, I think he might have kept his throne-- really and truly, despite some authoritarian tendencies that, at the time, probably worried Parliament and a lot of Protestants a great deal, he was after religious toleration and the right of Catholics to worship as they pleased. He made some interesting alliances with Dissenters (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) but ultimately, I think he confused tolerance of his personal Catholicism with tolerance of Catholicism in general and when his second wife, Mary of Modena bore a son James Francis Edward, the prospect of a Catholic Stuart dynasty was too much for leading political figures, who invited William of Orange to assume the Throne.
Both Anne and Mary, his daughters from his first marriage abandoned him and that was that. He fled. He tried to go back home to Scotland to try his luck there, but Protestantism in Scotland was made of sterner stuff if that's possible than in England and they weren't about religious toleration either so both England and Scotland declared the throne vacant- Scotland going further than England in the harshness of their remonstrance and saying he 'forfeited' the throne. Striking out in Scotland, he tried his luck in Ireland and that went a little better, but after the Battle of the Boyne, he was done and went into exile in France.
So, enter William and Mary-- really the latter was more important from an English point of view, as she was English and William, despite ruling alone for a period after Mary's death was always viewed as a foreigner and as Vallance notes in his conclusion, citing the excellent '1066 and All That' William is generally viewed as a 'good thing, but a bad king' and much of their reign was spent assisting the Dutch in their war against the French and while Mary won the affection of the populace and more or less ruled by default during the many absences of her husband, William's modus operandi seemed to be favoring whichever political alliance got him more money for his wars.
He died, Anne followed, but she wasn't exactly in great shape either, and soon, the Stuarts were done and the Hanoverians arrived-- with 1745 marking the most serious threat to their authority where, once again, a Stuart lost their nerve- though in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie, it doesn't appear to be his fault as his forces had no way of knowing how lightly defended London was at the time.
So, just how Glorious was this Revolution? I think in the sense that Americans don't like to think in terms of class consciousness, it was more influential than we'd like to think-- but then again, many of the Revolutions- leading all the way up to the Liberation of South America (Bolivar, San Martin, O'Higgins, etc) were little more than one group of elites moving to protect their own power from threats--both real and perceived. The primacy of Parliament was Established here and the English Bill of Rights was promulgated in 1689 and I suppose, the next logical leap was 'if Parliament holds power over the Monarch, then do we need a Monarch at all?' so in that sense, you can see how it influenced what came down the line a few decades after in North America.
Monarchs in the UK still, to this day, cannot be Catholic. But as of 2015, they can marry one. Restrictions placed on Catholics in the Test Acts of England and Scotland persisted until 1828. Plus, there's the whole matter of what happened in Ireland and how long that persisted. Truly revolutionary? Perhaps not-- that, I think will bear further investigation and looking at things like the Levellers and other radical groups that emerged during the Civil War period- but important? Yes. I'd say so. It's a bit more complex than my original view of it, but I think in terms of importance, I'd put it up there with the Magna Carta.
I think what strikes me overall is just how much religion has been an animating force in British politics in one form or another and for how long. From Henry VIII's break with Rome, securing a Protestant monarchy was the preoccupation of various elites, and then protecting that was a controversy that flared up now and again into the 19th Century (debates about home rule and a lot of really dense shit about disestablishmentarianism I read about in Roy Jenkins' biography of Gladstone) and then the 20th Century with the rise of the Troubles in Northern Ireland-- (if you want to guess why this Revolution is treated somewhat ambiguously in the UK, then the fact that the Battle of the Boyne- the more or less founding event from the Orange Movement in Ulster- happened here should tell you all you need to know.) What does that mean in today's context? If people are much less religious than they were, it's no wonder you saw so much cynical reaction to the ceremonies at the Coronation. What will be the animating force of the British state when Protestantism isn't... really... a thing anymore? Will that ever happen? I don't know.
(Just as a personal aside: our trip down to Somerset took us past many areas described in the book's description of the Monmouth Rebellion-- including Lyme Regis where he landed and, as it turned out, he stayed in the cottage we rented in Shepton Mallet, so that was a really cool coincidence that made reading this book far more enjoyable.)
Overall: An excellent single-volume account of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, if you're reading books like this to learn something, then Edward Vallance will definitely teach you things on the topic. It's readable and dense, but a quick, well-paced read, and I learned a lot. Can't complain about that at the end of the day. My Grade: **** out of ****
Having read Edward Vallance's excellent and highly readable book, I am forced to revise that conclusion somewhat.
Books about history can be hit or miss, I've found. You can either can academic ones that veer way too far into Academia and lose the reader or, alternatively, are the size of large doorstops or you can go to the other end of the spectrum and you can get a flimsy, not very informative, but highly readable version of events. Vallance manages to thread the needle between these two possibilities quite nicely-- his volume is dense and informative and if you're looking for a basic one-volume download on The Glorious Revolution, then this would not be a bad starting point for getting your knowledge on. The writing is paced nicely as well, so it's a quick, taut read, and you will learn.
My apparently hazy impression of 1688 was that it more or less established the primacy of Parliament which in turn laid the foundation for the American Revolution a few decades down the line. I think that still holds true-- and there are lines referencing a Protestant right to bear arms that directly influenced the development of our own 2nd Amendment, but really, this was a narrow elite securing their power, and then, when colonists assumed that the powers Parliament won also applied to them, they were met with a firm, "No, not that way."
James II gets a bit of a bad rap, I think. Had he been a better politician and held his nerve a bit, I think he might have kept his throne-- really and truly, despite some authoritarian tendencies that, at the time, probably worried Parliament and a lot of Protestants a great deal, he was after religious toleration and the right of Catholics to worship as they pleased. He made some interesting alliances with Dissenters (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) but ultimately, I think he confused tolerance of his personal Catholicism with tolerance of Catholicism in general and when his second wife, Mary of Modena bore a son James Francis Edward, the prospect of a Catholic Stuart dynasty was too much for leading political figures, who invited William of Orange to assume the Throne.
Both Anne and Mary, his daughters from his first marriage abandoned him and that was that. He fled. He tried to go back home to Scotland to try his luck there, but Protestantism in Scotland was made of sterner stuff if that's possible than in England and they weren't about religious toleration either so both England and Scotland declared the throne vacant- Scotland going further than England in the harshness of their remonstrance and saying he 'forfeited' the throne. Striking out in Scotland, he tried his luck in Ireland and that went a little better, but after the Battle of the Boyne, he was done and went into exile in France.
So, enter William and Mary-- really the latter was more important from an English point of view, as she was English and William, despite ruling alone for a period after Mary's death was always viewed as a foreigner and as Vallance notes in his conclusion, citing the excellent '1066 and All That' William is generally viewed as a 'good thing, but a bad king' and much of their reign was spent assisting the Dutch in their war against the French and while Mary won the affection of the populace and more or less ruled by default during the many absences of her husband, William's modus operandi seemed to be favoring whichever political alliance got him more money for his wars.
He died, Anne followed, but she wasn't exactly in great shape either, and soon, the Stuarts were done and the Hanoverians arrived-- with 1745 marking the most serious threat to their authority where, once again, a Stuart lost their nerve- though in the case of Bonnie Prince Charlie, it doesn't appear to be his fault as his forces had no way of knowing how lightly defended London was at the time.
So, just how Glorious was this Revolution? I think in the sense that Americans don't like to think in terms of class consciousness, it was more influential than we'd like to think-- but then again, many of the Revolutions- leading all the way up to the Liberation of South America (Bolivar, San Martin, O'Higgins, etc) were little more than one group of elites moving to protect their own power from threats--both real and perceived. The primacy of Parliament was Established here and the English Bill of Rights was promulgated in 1689 and I suppose, the next logical leap was 'if Parliament holds power over the Monarch, then do we need a Monarch at all?' so in that sense, you can see how it influenced what came down the line a few decades after in North America.
Monarchs in the UK still, to this day, cannot be Catholic. But as of 2015, they can marry one. Restrictions placed on Catholics in the Test Acts of England and Scotland persisted until 1828. Plus, there's the whole matter of what happened in Ireland and how long that persisted. Truly revolutionary? Perhaps not-- that, I think will bear further investigation and looking at things like the Levellers and other radical groups that emerged during the Civil War period- but important? Yes. I'd say so. It's a bit more complex than my original view of it, but I think in terms of importance, I'd put it up there with the Magna Carta.
I think what strikes me overall is just how much religion has been an animating force in British politics in one form or another and for how long. From Henry VIII's break with Rome, securing a Protestant monarchy was the preoccupation of various elites, and then protecting that was a controversy that flared up now and again into the 19th Century (debates about home rule and a lot of really dense shit about disestablishmentarianism I read about in Roy Jenkins' biography of Gladstone) and then the 20th Century with the rise of the Troubles in Northern Ireland-- (if you want to guess why this Revolution is treated somewhat ambiguously in the UK, then the fact that the Battle of the Boyne- the more or less founding event from the Orange Movement in Ulster- happened here should tell you all you need to know.) What does that mean in today's context? If people are much less religious than they were, it's no wonder you saw so much cynical reaction to the ceremonies at the Coronation. What will be the animating force of the British state when Protestantism isn't... really... a thing anymore? Will that ever happen? I don't know.
(Just as a personal aside: our trip down to Somerset took us past many areas described in the book's description of the Monmouth Rebellion-- including Lyme Regis where he landed and, as it turned out, he stayed in the cottage we rented in Shepton Mallet, so that was a really cool coincidence that made reading this book far more enjoyable.)
Overall: An excellent single-volume account of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, if you're reading books like this to learn something, then Edward Vallance will definitely teach you things on the topic. It's readable and dense, but a quick, well-paced read, and I learned a lot. Can't complain about that at the end of the day. My Grade: **** out of ****
May 16, 2017
Vallance writes this book in a textbook-style...but it is so readable! He presents just enough of the historical details to keep it moving and very interesting. Vallance's read gave me a solid explanation of end of the Stuart dynasty, from James II to Anne, and explained some background about the Charles I, II, and James 1. But, the major focus was on Mary and William of Orange, 'the glorious revolution.' Vallance brought into the text the many royal, complex personalities and issues and a lot of controversies! He did superb writing to make it so readable!
January 2, 2025
Finishing this book was an excellent start to 2025!
The glorious revolution is sooooooo interesting. I wish this book took a bit more of a birds-eye view and explored some of the themes in the preface/concluding few pages more. But I still feel like I got a lot out of this book.
So many aspects of the public's revulsion toward James II, the Catholic monarch and younger brother of Charles II (who had returned to the country after civil war leader Cromwell died) are mind-blowing to me, as someone who probably would've been a Jacobite if I'd lived at this time. It is endlessly fascinating that the country's bias against Catholics was so strong that other Christian minorities such as Presbyterian/Puritans/non-Anglican couldn't drum up a large enough base of support for James. While the Duke of Monmouth's (illegitimate son of Charles II) attempted revolt failed, a foreign Dutch guy William of Orange was able to manufacture an insurrection from across the Channel and swoop in to become king, with Londoners doing their part to kick out James. James' daughters and future queens Mary and Anne completely abandoned him almost entirely due to religious differences. William's rule over England enabled him to tax British citizens to continue his major beef with Louis XIV in France, and was likely a large reason for his undertaking to become the king of England in the first place. This is so crazy! My personal take is having a Dutch monarch greased the wheels for England's future foreign Hanoverian monarchs. Not sure how the British people allowed this to happen or why they preferred foreign rulers to homebred Catholic Stuarts.
His wife and co-monarch Mary showed crazy amounts of deference to him for the sake of peace in their marriage. The co-monarchs' reforms to try to decrease prostitution and degeneracy were so funny to me; humanity really has been dealing with the same vices and "issues" since the dawn of time! I liked the way the book briefly discussed Queen Anne who ruled after both Mary and William had died childless, and how her heir-less death (after 13 miscarriages/stillbirths and 5 early child deaths, tragically super common amongst both the Tudors and Stuarts) led to the German Hanoverian rule through Charles I's sisters grandson, George I of Hanover. INSANE that the Stuarts were so unhealthy that the succession passed to someone so remote. I also appreciated the author closing the loop on the Jacobites by briefly describing the attempts of James II's son and grandson to take back the kingdom. I can't wait to learn more about the Jacobite wars in Scotland later. Historians who criticize the common polemic that the glorious revolution was bloodless are so right, it definitely wasn't bloodless in Scotland/Ireland.
Because I'm not British, it's difficult for me to fully grasp how the glorious revolution changed the parliementary/constitutional system of Britain. I felt that the author could've provided some more context. However, my understanding is that while the glorious revolution is touted by the Whiggish view of history (again, feel like the author could've explained what Whigs vs. Tories are better) as a massive constitutional shift, it actually entrenched pretty few changes. However, it is undeniable that it led to the enshrinement of parliamentary government by increasing control over spending, leading to the creation of the Bank of England and expansion of the colonial empire, and imposing limitations on the powers of appointment and ability to unilaterally wage war for future British kings.
The glorious revolution is sooooooo interesting. I wish this book took a bit more of a birds-eye view and explored some of the themes in the preface/concluding few pages more. But I still feel like I got a lot out of this book.
So many aspects of the public's revulsion toward James II, the Catholic monarch and younger brother of Charles II (who had returned to the country after civil war leader Cromwell died) are mind-blowing to me, as someone who probably would've been a Jacobite if I'd lived at this time. It is endlessly fascinating that the country's bias against Catholics was so strong that other Christian minorities such as Presbyterian/Puritans/non-Anglican couldn't drum up a large enough base of support for James. While the Duke of Monmouth's (illegitimate son of Charles II) attempted revolt failed, a foreign Dutch guy William of Orange was able to manufacture an insurrection from across the Channel and swoop in to become king, with Londoners doing their part to kick out James. James' daughters and future queens Mary and Anne completely abandoned him almost entirely due to religious differences. William's rule over England enabled him to tax British citizens to continue his major beef with Louis XIV in France, and was likely a large reason for his undertaking to become the king of England in the first place. This is so crazy! My personal take is having a Dutch monarch greased the wheels for England's future foreign Hanoverian monarchs. Not sure how the British people allowed this to happen or why they preferred foreign rulers to homebred Catholic Stuarts.
His wife and co-monarch Mary showed crazy amounts of deference to him for the sake of peace in their marriage. The co-monarchs' reforms to try to decrease prostitution and degeneracy were so funny to me; humanity really has been dealing with the same vices and "issues" since the dawn of time! I liked the way the book briefly discussed Queen Anne who ruled after both Mary and William had died childless, and how her heir-less death (after 13 miscarriages/stillbirths and 5 early child deaths, tragically super common amongst both the Tudors and Stuarts) led to the German Hanoverian rule through Charles I's sisters grandson, George I of Hanover. INSANE that the Stuarts were so unhealthy that the succession passed to someone so remote. I also appreciated the author closing the loop on the Jacobites by briefly describing the attempts of James II's son and grandson to take back the kingdom. I can't wait to learn more about the Jacobite wars in Scotland later. Historians who criticize the common polemic that the glorious revolution was bloodless are so right, it definitely wasn't bloodless in Scotland/Ireland.
Because I'm not British, it's difficult for me to fully grasp how the glorious revolution changed the parliementary/constitutional system of Britain. I felt that the author could've provided some more context. However, my understanding is that while the glorious revolution is touted by the Whiggish view of history (again, feel like the author could've explained what Whigs vs. Tories are better) as a massive constitutional shift, it actually entrenched pretty few changes. However, it is undeniable that it led to the enshrinement of parliamentary government by increasing control over spending, leading to the creation of the Bank of England and expansion of the colonial empire, and imposing limitations on the powers of appointment and ability to unilaterally wage war for future British kings.
January 10, 2018
It was brilliant. It was full of so many interesting little details of the time that you won't find elsewhere that easy from the development and suppression of coffee shops and what i would call the first propaganda machine to the subtleties of opinions and groupings in parliament throughout the 20 years around the event.
I loved the personal accounts such as an observer in Exeter watching William of Orange's colourful procession of mercenaries and soldiers from all over the world before he had even won. I loved how well the author researched and captured just how in balance the scales were (i.e. could have gone either way quite easily). I also loved the small details around like the logistics of the naval journey across the channel plus what and how they transported things.
A key highlight for me was the very visual and detailed capture of King James II not too long after the Salisbury desertion. There was some account along the lines of 'the observer couldn't help noticing how similar and dishevelled he looked to his father Charles I nearing the time of his execution.
Very detailed and very interesting account of the events overall. The author has also done well to be completely neutral as it's the type of thing where most people would be firmly for or against one or the other of the two Kings. It has and will help my historical fiction of the time greatly.
I loved the personal accounts such as an observer in Exeter watching William of Orange's colourful procession of mercenaries and soldiers from all over the world before he had even won. I loved how well the author researched and captured just how in balance the scales were (i.e. could have gone either way quite easily). I also loved the small details around like the logistics of the naval journey across the channel plus what and how they transported things.
A key highlight for me was the very visual and detailed capture of King James II not too long after the Salisbury desertion. There was some account along the lines of 'the observer couldn't help noticing how similar and dishevelled he looked to his father Charles I nearing the time of his execution.
Very detailed and very interesting account of the events overall. The author has also done well to be completely neutral as it's the type of thing where most people would be firmly for or against one or the other of the two Kings. It has and will help my historical fiction of the time greatly.
June 12, 2022
I read this book because of 1. my proximity to and interest in the amazing painted hall in Greenwich (the building of which had precisely one mention), 2. my recent reading of the book “Sugar Barons,” a study of the rise of colonial involvement in the Caribbean which is intertwined with the Glorious Revolution and 3. my husband tried to read it and gave up. Ah ha! I love a challenge. The interplay between the jacobites and the rise of the Williamites was informative, and the final chapter which summarised the key conclusions was very useful, but on the spectrum between engaging and tedious, it was towards the latter.
October 7, 2018
I’m thankful I finished this book even though I had a hard time with the ideological nitty gritty between late seventeenth century Tories and Whigs. But I’m new to this historical pursuit so it’s probably my fault as a casual reader of these histories.
January 23, 2023
I'd give it 3 1/2 stars if I could. Very readable through most of the text. Drags a little in places. An essential piece to the puzzle of What Made America - but only if you're up for a deep dive on the topic.
April 14, 2021
Interesting , educational, Great segway to better to further English history. Should have giving 2 stars but I'm in a peculiar mood . Covid head ??
July 24, 2024
Extremely well researched, highly enjoyable and one of the best books about The Glorious Revolution.
March 5, 2012
Very Informative. A bit denser than some of the other histories I've read, and the author's use of first person accounts seemed a bit over the top. Pages and pages would be devoted to these accounts to prove a point or to act as an example. I found myself saying, "Got it. Move on," quite a bit. Still, it shed some light about a topic I knew only about from my high school world history course and I certainly came away with a better understanding about the event than I had going in.
March 23, 2015
This proved to be a pretty educational introduction to the subject of the Glorious Evolution, though it did have some drawbacks; 1) the chronology was, at times, a little jumbled and confused, 2) it demands for a better understanding of Parliament of England than what I have and 3) there were some subjects that weren't fully explained why they were a part of the book (i.e. the coffee houses)
January 26, 2008
This a period in British history I know little about and I read this book to fill in some of the gaps. I read about two-thirds of the book, but lost interest somewhere in the reign of William III. A good enough book, but just not a period I engage with.
October 20, 2015
Well written book. Had to read it for a class I have but it was a really interesting read and it was written like a good and exciting fiction thriller, but this stuff actually happened haha. Good read.
September 22, 2011
Now I'm an expert on the revolution of 1688 and William and Mary!
September 11, 2012
Good English history that impacted American History
October 11, 2013
A bit slow at times for my taste, and written for a British audience with some insider knowledge of the events and their importance that a Yank like me did not possess, but overall still a good read.
March 28, 2017
This is a well-written study of the end of the Stuart dynasty, covering the period from James II to Anne, but focused on the advent and reign of Mary and William of Orange, 'the glorious revolution' of the title. Other than wending his way through the many personalities of the period, a complex task, author Vallance also addresses the historiographical controversies surrounding the 'revolution' from the time of its occurrence in 1688/9 until the present.
Given my own proclivities, I was amused to discover that the first London cafe was opened by a Jew in 1650, shortly after Cromwell readmitted Jews to the isle, and that by end of the century there were about 8000 of them in London, coffee being cheaper than beer and ale.
Given my own proclivities, I was amused to discover that the first London cafe was opened by a Jew in 1650, shortly after Cromwell readmitted Jews to the isle, and that by end of the century there were about 8000 of them in London, coffee being cheaper than beer and ale.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews