• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How united was Britain in 1688?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Ian Bishop How united was Britain in 1688? To question the unity of Britain at any point in history is to initiate a complex and often controversial debate. When such and inquiry is coupled with a date of controversy, the difficulties of making a clear analysis are exacerbated. The 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688 is such a date. Superficially, it would seem to be obvious that Britain could not possible have been united in purpose and belief, for the very occurrence of a revolution means that at least two factions were at odds over at least one important issue. Thus, in order to facilitate useful analysis of such a broad question we must first define the particular aspects of British unity that interest us. For the purposes of this essay it is the political unity of the nation which must be the focus of our analysis. The broad nature of the question permits an endless inquiry into all aspects of unity and disunity in Britain. Many other areas would be valid subjects of study, for example the state of religious unity in Britain, but within the limited scope of this essay, we can best focus our energies upon an examination of the body politic. The central role played by the political nation in shaping events in 1688 makes it the principle area of interest in this essay. This is not to say that all other issues of unity in Britain are secondary, let alone irrelevant. Indeed, without many other aspects of social disunity, the Revolution of 1688 may not have occurred. However, an complete examination of all such factors is beyond the reach of this essay, and so priority must be accorded to one aspect of British unity. For the period of 1688, the unity or otherwise of the body politic is of the single greatest importance. We can make this generalisation on the basis that a broader consideration of unity within the kingdom is not only beyond the capacities of this essay, but also because any clear analysis might easily suffer from excessive complication of the matter. ...read more.

Middle

James in this religious respect was in a far worse position: he was a Roman Catholic himself. There has been much debate over James's religious policy, and conclusions have varied. Some have proposed that James did indeed harbour absolutist intentions which he derived from his Roman Catholic philosophy, whilst others have defended his religious policy as actually being a policy of religious toleration and that his extra-parliamentary actions were intended to achieve a greater level of religious toleration in Britain. However, it is not actually of much importance, for the purposes of this essay, what James's actual motivation was. What is important is the fact that the Protestant British nobility saw James as a King attempting to impose popery over the 'lawful Protestant establishment in Church and State'2. It was this religious division that in many ways was to prompt the need for a new king, for James could never be reconciled in the minds of the gentry to Protestantism as he remained a Catholic. Thus, William of Orange became the Protestant 'Deliverer'. This outcome of the Revolution is a useful indication of the nature of divisions within England in 1688. The need for a Protestant saviour to take the throne represents the desire of the nobility to keep the constitutional status quo stable by dismissing any notion that kingship was being called into question. Indeed, both Whig and Tories stated that James II had not been forced to abdicate, but rather that he had forfeited his right to the throne and had been replace. William himself had said that his aim in coming to England was to assist James. This policy was adopted in order that the gentry might keep careful control of events. They well remembered the near catastrophic political collapses in the 1640-60 period, when there was the perception of constant danger from Leveller-inspired notions of popular sovereignty and equality. The religious license during the turmoil of the civil war period would also have been a cause of fear for the nobles in 1688, who would not wish to see the Church of England threatened. ...read more.

Conclusion

Indeed, I do not actually believe that it is possible to answer such a question at all, and so a more limited investigation is not only more practical, but also more useful. However, it is possible to conclude in terms of the parameters I set for our analysis at the beginning of this essay, and I believe that we can assert such conclusions with a reasonable degree of confidence. The body politic was not a homogenous entity by 1688. The King had antagonised his nobles, and it was this rather than any inherently gregarious political feeling among the gentry that unified them briefly in opposition to him. This unity was never a permanent feature, nor was it intended to be. It was only the birth of James's son that galvanised the nobles, or at least a significant section of them, into acting in a united manner. Equally, the settlement with William and Mary was only accomplished so swiftly and with so little conflict because the gentry was once again united by external factors, in this case the fear that the constitutional upheaval caused by the effective dethroning of James might allow radicalism to take root. At the end on 1688 Britain was no more united than it had been at the beginning of the year. The Revolution represented a compromise between a divided nobility that shared a fear of constitutional radicalism inherited from the civil war forty years previously. 1 For the sake of simplicity, I have used the term 'noble' to refer to those significantly involved in politics at this time. The term has been used primarily to mean Members of Parliament, but I have also used it to encompass any member of the gentry who was politically involved at the time. I take the term from the conventional description of the seven dissident 'noblemen' who invited William of Orange to come to England. 2 Robert Beddard, The Revolutions of 1688, (1991), p 1. ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. An unmitigated disaster. How valid is this assessment of Oliver Cromwells experiment with the ...

    The decline of Turkish power during the nineteenth century drained this image of much of its powers, and during the twentieth century hostile historians were forced to employ other negative reference points to condemn the Major Generals' rule. Another major strand of criticism has concentrated the unashamedly military nature of their rule.

  2. Charlemagne Essay.

    the decree concerning freemen and poorer men which we saw fit to make in the manner laid out.This also shows flexibility in the military system. The king would never know for certain the size of the army that would appear after a mobilisation alert, but AKF indicates that an effective force usually materialised.

  1. Assess the impact of the 1688 Revolution on British government and society.

    By the 1720s the way Britain is ruled had been turned around, but the changes cannot be solely accredited to the events of 1688. When William invaded England he had European motives at heart. He was keen to avoid a union of France and England that would be a threat to the Protestants of the Northern and Germanic lands.

  2. How far were the actions and beliefs of Charles responsible for the crisis of ...

    He was different from James in the way he dealt with anyone who disagreed with his views, with malice and retaliation. He was not comfortable with compromise and was always set on getting his own way so it is inevitable that a character such as this would cause much conflict.

  1. In your opinion, who is most to blame for the outcome in “On the ...

    She seems to be very interested in the funfair but holds herself back and does not let herself join in with the fun. I think she would like to participate in but does not want to be seen interpreted any differently to how she normally is: "I like it" She is interested and yearning to join in.

  2. How 'radical' was the 'Glorious Revolution'?

    was therefore no longer destined to be England's next monarch. Tories as well as Whigs were both fearful of the fate of the Anglican church .

  1. To what extent was a revolution in England between 1642 and 1688?

    I think this is the period where things where it all fell apart with the nation who had once being one, splitting up into different sides and religion (again). The English revolution was really a revolution because it was a period of time when various group of people (Cromwell, Charles, Parliament)

  2. How close to revolution was Great Britain in the 1790s?

    Britain was a country that was very theist at the time, which meant that the absence of atheism helped Britain to steer clear of revolution. All in all, in terms of the society of Britain at the time, despite certain strains such as the weakening of the economy and rise

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work