@@kayarobinson9595 did you have miss ninds for history
@kayarobinson9595
3 жыл бұрын
No I had Mr charachon lol
@meganm8097
4 жыл бұрын
Homework......
@lukashar1238
3 жыл бұрын
Who’s here for history online learning
@korim6025
3 жыл бұрын
mee
@Gildas-sl8fq
2 жыл бұрын
who is here for school and where are you from guys?
@briansmith9439
10 жыл бұрын
Why omit the fact that Mary, the wife of William of Orange, was the daughter of James II and Parliament asked HER to rule as Queen, NOT Orange as King? Orange refused Parliament's request unless he was elevated from Princely status to that of King.
@ernietuppen2535
3 жыл бұрын
where even is devonshire
@theligmaballsprank2011
3 жыл бұрын
um. devonshire?
@ernietuppen2535
3 жыл бұрын
@@theligmaballsprank2011 Ye but where is that??
@theligmaballsprank2011
3 жыл бұрын
@@ernietuppen2535 it's in south west england
@Vi0let_.
Жыл бұрын
If you're here for homework, Hi! lol-
@ollieevansmtb495
3 жыл бұрын
History squad
@argo633
3 жыл бұрын
Yes history squad indeed
@argo633
3 жыл бұрын
Big up skeate
@dillonmahey2387
3 жыл бұрын
@@argo633 yep
@ollieevansmtb495
3 жыл бұрын
Yeeeeeeeeeeeee
@fearfulhamster
3 жыл бұрын
Hi people here for homework
@1iminalityyyyyy
11 ай бұрын
Same
@m3rpy
2 жыл бұрын
GUYS IT ME PREM SAY E IF U IN 8D
@that1donny560
2 жыл бұрын
Pls stop.
@anishparampalli2466
2 жыл бұрын
hi daddy
@m3rpy
2 жыл бұрын
Sussy Amogus balls
@anishparampalli2466
2 жыл бұрын
W3eee eeeeeeee
@breadisgood9705
3 жыл бұрын
history homework???
@ClanB4
11 жыл бұрын
Cool, Thanks!
@heyhey-ug9qk
3 жыл бұрын
anyone else here for homework lol
@winzplayz44225
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah...
@XronLive
3 жыл бұрын
Watching this in school rn lol
@michelledrayton1642
3 жыл бұрын
homework...
@heyhey-ug9qk
3 жыл бұрын
hey hey
@hvermout4248
2 жыл бұрын
Haha, this is very much a British primary school explanation that doesn't even tell half the story! It totally fails to explain the European context, and why the Dutch would uncharacteristically go to the huge expense of this large invasion. Basically the “Glorious Revolution” isn’t really about the English. At the time France was aggressively expanding in Europe (Louis XIV “Sun King”). The Dutch Republic was building an alliance (League of Augsburg) in defense. England was sitting on the fence, regularly opportunistically siding with the French against Holland. Army commander Willem III was for some time contemplating invading the divided England, replace the Catholic James and bring them into the League, but was looking for a way of doing that without causing offense to his intended ally. The invitation was a welcome excuse, but it wasn’t an invitation from Parliament. In fact, the matter had never been formally discussed in Parliament. The invite was basically sent by seven traitors on their own accord … The invasion fleet that landed in Torbay was large (450+ ships, 40.000 men. Larger than the Spanish Armada), also to make sure that James wouldn’t resist (and become a hero). It worked: James didn’t trust in the loyalty of the English army and decided to flee. A few more years of battle followed to subdue Scots and Irish: these were harder nuts to crack. Afterwards, to create a lasting alliance, a hearts and minds operation was required: A story was spun for public consumption how “Parliament had liberated itself from Catholic Tyranny” which was called the Glorious Revolution (with republican Willem III duly playing the role of debunked royal figurehead). And this is what is now taught in British schools, probably in the lesson before they learn that “James Cook discovered Australia …” But mission successful: In the following centuries the Brits have fought with their nose in the right direction!
@Justpersonpeople
9 ай бұрын
Thank you very much (and the other who made similar comments) for this. I would otherwise have been completely oblivious to the circumstances that led to the 'glorious revolution'! I have added much to my notes thanks to you and it makes a lot more sense now. Thank you for taking the time to clarify this.
@deborahgrant1131
11 жыл бұрын
I cannot agree with this view of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It totally ignores the role played by the Dutch government. It downplays the role of the Prince of Orange to an extent I find ridiculous. Finally, it seems to think that England existed in a vacuum and was unaffected by events in Europe.
@AudieHolland
10 жыл бұрын
Being a Dutchman, I must admit I know little about the Glorious Revolution but as far as I understand it, Dutch Stadholder Willem III was not really interested in being king of Britain, he merely wanted to make sure the United Kingdom would never be a threat again to the Dutch Republic. And if being crowned as king of England and Scotland was needed to achieve that goal, then so be it. Previously in 1672, the Dutch Disaster Year, our republic was invaded from all sides, by the French and German allies, while at sea the British Royal Navy was preparing a sea offensive in a combined British-French effort. Dutch admiral Michiel de Ruyter made sure they didn't go far but while he fought the British and French fleets, the invading forces took half our territory. Worse was prevented only by flooding precious farming lands, creating an effective waterbarrier. So, to make sure Britain remained both protestant and pro-Dutch, Stadholder Willem III invaded. When the British Parliament proposed to make him just the royal consort, while Mary would become queen, Willem even threatened to pack up his bags, his army and sail home. And if that had happened, there would probably not have been a crushing defeat for James II at the Battle of the Boynes.
@ashcross
4 жыл бұрын
A group of English nobles and aristocrats worked conspiratorially with a fairly minor Dutch prince to usurp the current king of England and Scotland because of his increasing interest in Catholicism, which threatened to bring Protestant England and its old enemy Catholic France into alignment. Indeed, the king was taking secret financial backhanders from the French king. The king's Catholicism worried a great many English people, who despised Catholics and Catholic France. Protestant William of Orange, who was the nephew of the English king and also married to his daughter, was, at the same time, concerned about increasing threats from France and needed to keep England firmly on the protestant side, lest it threaten to form a pseudo-Catholic alliance with France to overtake the Dutch Republic. Working with English nobles and aristocrats, he invaded England, by invitation, but backed by a large transnational army. Eventually, and with little violence (thus 'Glorious Revolution' rather than a bloody revolution) the English king fled abroad, likely with William's approval. William insisted that both he and his wife become king and queen as equals. This parliament allowed. Soon after, we can thank a concilatory William, and a parliament forced by circumstances to innovate, for the Bill of Rights, perhaps as important as Magna Carta in establishing individual freedom, or at least the start of such freedoms by making the monarch the subject of parliament and thus of the people: in England, the people now gave the power to the king via parliamentary representation, not, as in France, the monarch giving the people its (limited) freedoms. This was substantial political and cultural sea seachange. It is the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights that, in many ways, inspired the freedom fighters of the early United States (ironically in rebellion against British power) rather more than famous French Revolution (see the book 'Our First Revolution' about how the Glorious Revolution was vital to the founding of the United States). Whig historians would point to the relatively peaceful 'Englishness' of the Glorious Revolution, which rebalanced people, monarch and state with little violence by the standards of the time, in contrast to the bloody, violent and earth-shattering realities of the French Revolution a couple centuries later. There is some basis in truth to this, though Whig interpretations of history have been tempered or indeed entirely revised by more recent historians. However, few can doubt the significance of the Glorious Revolution to the history of what would become the UK, or indeed the US and elsewhere. Books by Lisa Jardine and Simon Schama, et al, explore the history of Anglo-Dutch relations. See, more specifically, Lisa Jardine's Going Dutch. There are tremendously important links between Britain and the Netherlands.
@ashcross
4 жыл бұрын
A group of English nobles and aristocrats worked conspiratorially with a fairly minor Dutch prince to usurp the current king of England and Scotland because of his increasing interest in Catholicism, which threatened to bring Protestant England and its old enemy Catholic France into alignment. Indeed, the king was taking secret financial backhanders from the French king. The king's Catholicism worried a great many English people, who despised Catholics and Catholic France. Protestant William of Orange, who was the nephew of the English king and also married to his daughter, was, at the same time, concerned about increasing threats from France and needed to keep England firmly on the protestant side, lest it threaten to form a pseudo-Catholic alliance with France to overtake the Dutch Republic. Working with English nobles and aristocrats, he invaded England, by invitation, but backed by a large transnational army. Eventually, and with little violence (thus 'Glorious Revolution' rather than a bloody revolution) the English king fled abroad, likely with William's approval. William insisted that both he and his wife become king and queen as equals. This parliament allowed. Soon after, we can thank a concilatory William, and a parliament forced by circumstances to innovate, for the Bill of Rights, perhaps as important as Magna Carta in establishing individual freedom, or at least the start of such freedoms by making the monarch the subject of parliament and thus of the people: in England, the people now gave the power to the king via parliamentary representation, not, as in France, the monarch giving the people its (limited) freedoms. This was substantial political and cultural sea seachange. It is the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights that, in many ways, inspired the freedom fighters of the early United States (ironically in rebellion against British power) rather more than famous French Revolution (see the book 'Our First Revolution' about how the Glorious Revolution was vital to the founding of the United States). Whig historians would point to the relatively peaceful 'Englishness' of the Glorious Revolution, which rebalanced people, monarch and state with little violence by the standards of the time, in contrast to the bloody, violent and earth-shattering realities of the French Revolution a couple centuries later. There is some basis in truth to this, though Whig interpretations of history have been tempered or indeed entirely revised by more recent historians. However, few can doubt the significance of the Glorious Revolution to the history of what would become the UK, or indeed the US and elsewhere.
@DenUitvreter
4 жыл бұрын
@@ashcross A fairly minor Dutch prince? He held the title of a fairly minor principality in France called Orange indeed. But he was also appointed in the office of Stadtholder of the Dutch Republic, which made him the leader of the supreme economic power of the world of that time, and no small military power either. He invaded England with a fleet bigger than the Armada and marched to London with 40.000 troops. He brought a printing press, several good speeches about freedom and stuff and money to spend in the local economies. He troops were on strict orders to behave and they did, all to win the hearts and minds of the English people and prevent another civil war which might end up in another absolute monarch of the catholic persuasion, which would threaten the Dutch Republic with it's freedom, shared powers, civil rights and religious tolerance again. Of course the English troops running helped preventing bloodshed, but it was peaceful by his design, propaganda campaign and strategy. It was an invasion and an occupation though. no single British soldier was allowed in London. He ended absolute monarchy, brought religious tolerance and civil rights, and modernized the Bank of England to Dutch model. All of that resulted in England becoming much more like the Dutch Republic with it's shared power and England even joining the scientific revolution, eventually leading to England taking over from the Dutch Republic as the supreme economic world power. What William did wasn't very different from what his great grandfather Willem van Oranje had done more than a 100 years before what resulted in the Dutch Republic. Uniting nobles and the common people behind the idea of freedom and regain civil rights (The 'Keure van Kortenberg' for example, was a bit younger than the Magna Charta but gave the common people a lot more rights) allowing for enormous increase of wealth. Of course traditionalist as they are the English kept one foot in the Dark Ages so wealth was still very much about owning land and the social mobility and women's rights of the Dutch Republic weren't matched. Another example of the English remaining in the Middle Ages mindset is you referring to William as a minor prince, like hierarchy in nobility was still of importance while the fleet, the invading army and the changes to England were certainly major.
@ashcross
4 жыл бұрын
@@DenUitvreter No, he was variously stadholder of Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Guelders and Overijssel and it took a great deal of politicking to make that happen, and he often felt defeated by republicans who preferred no Orangeist involvement at all. Zeeland sheepishly gave him the title of First Noble, following a ceremony in which William had to travel in secret such was the sensitivity. Holland and four other provinces abolished the role of stadholder in 1670. There was a great deal of controversy about William's involvement in the Republic, but clever politics and a great deal of compromise (in which William often felt defeated) eventually allowed him to become supreme army commander. The threat of the Anglo-French invasion of the Dutch Republic accelerated William's position greatly, despite his youth, and the states had little choice but to 'promote' William to save their skin. But the Dutch Republic remained a pot of different ideas about governance. William's power could never be taken for granted, and it was limited in all sorts of ways (he needed permission, for example, to visit England to ask for repayment of a loan). Indeed, he did raise a fleet that was larger than the Spanish Armada: it had to be because of English naval power. It took many months of work to get such a fleet in place. William had a great deal of anxiety about 'invading' England, and needed the assurances of rebel English aristocrats and nobles to assure him that he would be welcomed, and it helped that he was married to his English cousin and that the current English king was his uncle. He was not a 'foreigner' but someone with a familial claim to influence in England. To be sure, he was entirely reliant on English anxieties about the Catholic James, who was increasingly feared. Rumours of James' involvement with the King of France, a Catholic of course, were rife. There had to be a generalised consent from the English public in order for any 'invasion' to work. He had to be invited, encouraged and persuaded, and it suited him to work towards taking the English crown in order to save the Dutch Republic, as well as to prevent England from a Catholic fate, which would also have prevented his wife from becoming Queen. The printing press was important, yes: he had to tell the English people why he was saving them from James and he did that by sharing his thoughts and making his case in bills that were widely distributed in England and beyond. He needed the public on side. This was not a Norman invasion. He had to make the case that he was one of us and not a foreigner. Whilst it is true that the Glorious Revolution led to the Bill of Rights, which more clearly delineated parliamentary and sovereign power, England never had 'absolute monarchy': you are confusing the power of English kings with the power of French kings! We have had a parliamentary system, to varying degrees, for over a thousand years. However, there is no doubt that the Bill of Rights was an important, clarifying moment in British history, that formalised parliamentary power in new ways (largely to the benefit of the political classes rather than the poor). The idea, though, that this was architected and directed by William alone is wrong. Parliament had to find ways to align the old system with the new, using classic English compromise, which we call a 'fudge'. For example, there were concerns about how William could be king of England when James was chosen by god to be king of England: they decided, in the end, that because James ran away to France, he had effectively given up his crown. The aftermath of the revolution was as much about English political ingenuity (it helps that we don't have a written constitution) as a single Dutchman's desires. That is not to say that William wasn't strident in some ways. William was insistent that his English wife Mary become full Queen, and not just a consort, to which parliament eventually agreed, and indeed he was an excellent administrator who made a number of demands, but he was reliant on parliamentary compromise and he always remained aware of the extent of his own powers in England. He did not desire, and would not receive, any absolute powers. He was acutely aware of his limitations and the toleration of the English public. The idea that England would only have had its second empire moment and great riches because of the Dutch, I'm not sure. It is impossible to say. The English had already had imperial ambitions and all our leaders, explorers and funders were British, not Dutch. An Anglophilic Dutch-born king will have influence, of course, but England very much led its own course in a largely English way. This is not an issue of England being 'Dutchified' so much as it showed how closely aligned the thinking was of England (always a fiercely independent state, the first true nation state on earth) and the Dutch Republic anyway, regardless of the Glorious Revolution, and how relatively easily, gloriously, we worked together. This was not a situation in which a Dutch-born king had to remake England from scratch: it was the remarkable flexibility of the English system that allowed such a bizarre 'invasion'/rescue to happen at all and to happen 'gloriously', which is to say without much bloodshed. On the issue of women's rights, I'm not sure that is a fair comment. Many foreign commentators, as far back as Elizabethan times, commented on how unrestricted English women seemed to be. Relative to the standards of the time, English women were not without a number of freedoms, and did not ever seem shy in sharing their opinions. So, this was not an invasion in the classic sense: England continued to be led by Englishmen and women and not Dutch sentiment or Dutch councillors. Mary already was in line for the throne, and William was related to James and was brought up by English people and spent time in England. It is nice for a Dutchman to think it taught England how to be English, and there is no doubt that the Dutch and the English are similar in all sorts of ways, but it is quite inaccurate to suggest that England was a dark place that only entered the enlightenment because of the Dutch. I ask you to see how, before the revolution, the values of England and of the Dutch Republic were so very similar. They remain similar to this day, and the revolution only has a very small part in that, something prior to the revolution: a love of freedom of expression and new ideas. It surprises me, for example, that the Dutch don't have their own Brexit, but perhaps the English have retained the spirit of the Glorious Revolution, throwing off the shackles of continental European power in ways forgotten by the Dutch.
@DenUitvreter
4 жыл бұрын
@@ashcross Allthough there were many similarities, the situation should be understood through the many and quite fundamental differences. The idea that a king like James II was the choice of god for example was already rejected by the Dutch more than 100 years earlier, a huge gamechanger, and the Dutch Republic itself was proof this didn't lead to all kinds of divine punishment as expected by many. A king as god's choice is an absolutist idea. King, land and the class you're in all given by god is a medieval/feudal idea that didn't work for the Dutch because they have a different relationship with land. Well before the Dutch Republic there were a lot of land owning peasants/farmers because if you make it dry you own it, no god, king or noble involved. Swampy land would also make horsemen in armour very vulnerable to peasants with clubs who knew the terrain, so the Dutch weren't used to much enforcement of authority. Also after the glorious invasion landownership remained the base for politcal and economic power in England while in the Dutch Republic the regent class consisted of merchants who only owned land for a house and a garden. Social mobility was also a huge difference, partly because of the above, partly because of capitalism vs mercantilism, partly because of population size. The Dutch Republic started out with only about 1 to 1.5 million inhabitants so the Dutch couldn't afford to keep people down even if they'd wanted to. English visitors were often appalled by things like people of all classes mixed in public transport (the tug boat), very important people eating sandwiches on the grass, a Butcher collecting paintings, women travelling alone, women owning businesses, public displays of affection between husband an wives and even in wooing, girls getting a proper education. Stadtholder Willem was the product of this. You can't understand his motives and the way he operated from a king's, chosen by god, perspective. He was a politician rather than a ruler, he was used to manouvering and dealing rather than ordering, as a stadtholder he was a republican, a power for centralization and unity within the Dutch Republic as opposed to the "States-minded" who were in favour of power more decentralized to the states/provinces, effectively making Holland more powerful at the expense of the rest.The stadtholder was more relying on popular support than the states, who often were out of touch with the common people, especially the people east of Holland. So for him seeking popular support rightaway was a no brainer, the natural thing to do. Relligion hadn't been a top down matter since the beginning of the reformation, the catholics opposed the Spanish rule with it's Spanish Inquisition too. Catholics ended up beeing (mildly) oppressed but only as a matter of public order, they were free to believe whatever they wanted. So William might have been flattered by all this English royalty stuff, the Dutch Republic and therefore protestantism had some very close calls, one very recently that got him the office of Stadtholder. The Dutch Republic had been at war for survival for most of it's 107 years. So for him becoming king of England had to be a means to a greater end. The stability of popular and nobility support gave him what he wanted. Religious tolerance was part of that, but he must have known that this and other freedoms would help the economy to prosper like it very much did in the Dutch Republic. Despite all similarities, the Dutch Republic was much more modern, influenced England more than any European country but the Glorious invasion was a big push to England to modernize. No, England wasn't in the Dark Ages anymore but there were remains and the much greater freedom in the Dutch Republic served science, arts, trade and industry very well. The fact that the Dutch Republic with it's tiny population became a global superpower was down to freedom and capitalism instead of mercantilism in the first place and the enormous wealth that combination created. Now we come to size. Of course England would become much more powerful when it got a similar economy because of it's population size, and it did. Since the early 18th century the Netherlands has been manouvering between superpowers rather than trying to regain it's 17th century position. Even making the remains of the Dutch Republic into the (constitutional) Kingdom of the Netherlands has been a desire of foreign superpowers, I won't name names but you could say we got back what we brought. We've got little going for us in terms of power since airplanes can cross the waterline (defense based on flooding), for economic power there are a lot of remains from the 16th and 17th century like a spirit of freedom and tolerance, equality, egalitarianism, specialization, science and education but also international orientation. The success of the more recent past lies in going along with the greater European and world powers, not in standing up to them. I'm not opposed to a EU, or a EC or EEC for that matter, I'm opposed to this EU and where it's heading. But there's just not enough of Netherlands to be succesful without good international relations and the EU has made itself a big part of that. Undemocratically, but it did and there's little we can do about that now.
@michelledrayton1642
3 жыл бұрын
i am the globgolabgala shawwbblee dabble
@Mute73
3 жыл бұрын
Anyone from handsworth
@tenseman08
11 жыл бұрын
oooooohh you go girl
@wowthatscool8737
3 жыл бұрын
If you're here for homework, hi! most people in this comment section are too lol, including me. Just reply to this comment 'yes' if you are so we don't flood the comment section any more. : )
@vlad3navalny833
3 жыл бұрын
yeah how about we flood the comment section
@rubyslife7207
3 жыл бұрын
yep
@jakehbrown3436
6 жыл бұрын
liam Neeson?
@patricktracey7424
Жыл бұрын
the constitution was a dodgy deal between the monarch and parliament, the monarch ceded in theory some of his powers parliament compensated them with huge amounts of cash large tracts of land and the crown estates. the people as usual were not involved and had no say.
@ahmedj9592
Жыл бұрын
Lol who else here is for homeowrk?
@majikalmcmuffin6258
4 жыл бұрын
bruh
@ameliestafford2706
4 жыл бұрын
Can someone tell me 3 things we learned from This 🤣🤣
@cagereactions8753
4 жыл бұрын
Amelie Stafford 😂same
@ameliestafford2706
4 жыл бұрын
Cage Reactions 🤣🤣
@nkzzzino5720
3 жыл бұрын
5 mins and 42 secs is a longer than u think
@haleema01450
2 жыл бұрын
1. Cavendish and his friends organized the overthrowing of the King 2. James II ruled w/o Parliament 3. Cavendish was the Duke of Devonshire im a bit late lmao
Пікірлер: 104