Two different views
of the Glorious Revolution...
The glorious
revolution
1685-1689
Intro
“Remember, remember the 5th of november. The gunpowder
treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be
forgot.”
The so called Glorious Revolution is not as glorious as one
may assume. Believe it or not, there are some points in which history varies
depending on who writes it. But then… who writes the story? As the truism goes:
History is written by the victors. Fortunately, in this case, two sides of the
same coin may help us avoid delusion and as a sort of a new truism: make our
own interpretation of the facts behind the scenes of this revolution/invasion.
Timeline and the fine view of
each perspective
The timeline 1685-1689 is commonly known as the “glorious
revolution”. In this matter, the BBC has a different point of view from the
British House of Commons. The latter conceives it as a peaceful way in which
parliament regained its rights over monarchy while the BBC adds some
sensationalism by saying “the supremacy over it”. Furthermore, the whole
process of listing the facts has a very different feeling in each of them.
While we have a very strict concatenation in the British House view, the BBC,
shows some altruism when trying to explain the deep meaning of action took in
those times. This is a very important matter to take into account as it changes
the view of history. The house produces this feeling of seeing things as if
they normally happened one after another, like a natural process.
About plot and Popery
Let us introduce then one of the most important facts in
which they differ. It is very clear that the House barely mentions the
implications of popery in this matter, but in fact, the BBC explains that it
was so important that popery and the Catholic Church were a synonym of active
plotting and an attempt to overthrow the whole state by rising a Catholic
tyranny. In fact we should know that this has an important connection with
another history fact: the 5th of november a date hardly seen in the explanation
of the House. The 5th of november marked the heavy weight of “plotting” and the
overthrow of the popey in the past. How is it possible that this is not
mentioned in the House’s view?
To War or not To War, that is
the question.
Following the previous idea, we have to make another
distinction. BBC claims that a skirmish took place and this resulted in the suffering
of a lot of Irish and Scottish people, whereas the House does not even mention
this. Perhaps, this must be seen under the perspective of the House stated in
previous paragraphs.
Historians testified
Why the House needed historians’ interpretation on his
writings? As if it were needed, we find personal annotations of them that in
some way, may or may not, agree with all said by the House. Let us take the
following examples first: Thomas Macaulay (historian) said: “it was the
vindication of our ancient rights”. According to Locke's perspective:
James was guilty of breaking the original contract between sovereign and
people. Pinkham: “involving just ruling classes and leaving the monarchy as it
was, hardly represent a “revolution”. For him, everything worked out just
because that was the habit in the 18th century not because of the revolution
itself. It really sounds confusing. Should be aware of the contradiction?
My crown your crown
Although
The House of Commons informs that William, in a way, came to reign invited by
the Parliament, the BBC’s view is quite opposing: William is known to be
already prepared to invade. The manifesto written by him was just some kind of
propaganda that shows the intervention was a merciful mission. Protestants
called William and he brought forces into England. The joining of the two
forces made a massive armada.
Finale finale
To
sum up, we never should leave something as important as History in the hand of
just one person, not his perspective. We should always broaden our own
perspective by reading, contrasting, comparing, re-reading, by thinking and
rethinking any history fact from different sources. That way history becomes a
cultural fact, not just a reproduction of what we hear.
