Wednesday, 23 February 2011

John Childs on the invasion of 1688

Though the thought that the Glorious Revolution was de facto an invasion of one state by an army of another state becomes more generally accepted, the idea that it was glorious, and above all for safeguarding Protestantism in England is not entirely weeded out.

However, already in 1680 John Childs, the chronicler of the British army between 1660 and 1702, writes in the last chapter of his book The Army, James II, and the Glorious Revolution
William did not gamble with the whole of his political and military future in both the United Provinces and Europe to rescue the protestant religion in England out of philanthropic considerations.

1 comment:

mekelnborg said...

Even to the original planners it surely must have been a useful explanation in many ways as to their motivations and purposes.

Digging all the way to the roots, of their motivations, versus only partway, might involve playing with fire.

Maintaining a standing army to use in the continent, and the unrest in different parts of the British Isles, cost money, which came from somewhere.

Even now there are several explanations for the wars going on in the 21st century, certain party lines as to who accepts which explanation, and deeper levels of speculation, by some. But to the planners, some of the explanations must be useful.

Around an Huguenot campfire, a time traveller could tell them their own speculations must be weeded out--here's the real reason. But that goes on today, too, and still may not really be entirely right.