Was the Glorious Revolution a Dutch Conquest? Documentary
video description
Date: 2022-07-19
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 19
rising
Ireland wasnt under english control in the 1600's. england claimed ireland while having very little terratory.
Like c'mon ffs england didnt get control of the island until the late 1700's.
So is this such a hard concept to grasp by people interested in history.
Also please stop refering to ireland as britain. ireland has never been britain its always been seperate from britain. another simple concept being struggled to get a grasp on. ireland has always been seperate to britain. the uk in 1801 isnt just britain. its the united kingdom's of britain and ireland. do you see that kindom's as in plural. britain AND ireland. for gods sake just get the right would you.
reply
Ireland wasnt under english control in the 1600's. england claimed ireland while having very little terratory.
Like c'mon ffs england didnt get control of the island until the late 1700's.
So is this such a hard concept to grasp by people interested in history.
Also please stop refering to ireland as britain. ireland has never been britain its always been seperate from britain. another simple concept being struggled to get a grasp on. ireland has always been seperate to britain. the uk in 1801 isnt just britain. its the united kingdom's of britain and ireland. do you see that kindom's as in plural. britain AND ireland. for gods sake just get the right would you.
reply
SymphonyBrahms
This video is ridiculous. First, King James II was unseated by the English parliament. He left England in a hurry, so as to keep his head on his shoulders. William of Orange was his nephew, and was also married to James' daughter Mary. Both of them were in line for the English throne. So parliament invited William and Mary to England and made them co-rulers of the country. There was no Dutch conquest. This video is just click bait.
reply
This video is ridiculous. First, King James II was unseated by the English parliament. He left England in a hurry, so as to keep his head on his shoulders. William of Orange was his nephew, and was also married to James' daughter Mary. Both of them were in line for the English throne. So parliament invited William and Mary to England and made them co-rulers of the country. There was no Dutch conquest. This video is just click bait.
reply
Matthew
I think at the end of it, I'd ask well who was the next king? What was their position? Obviously, the two nations weren't united into one, and it might seem that even one generation later, things were back to normal. If the Dutch didn't still have sway, it wasn't really much of a coup, and more if a mutually beneficial arrangement. England was still England, and the masters of their own destiny. The Netherlands can claim the same.
reply
I think at the end of it, I'd ask well who was the next king? What was their position? Obviously, the two nations weren't united into one, and it might seem that even one generation later, things were back to normal. If the Dutch didn't still have sway, it wasn't really much of a coup, and more if a mutually beneficial arrangement. England was still England, and the masters of their own destiny. The Netherlands can claim the same.
reply
Richard
In the Highlands of Scotland, the arrival of William of Orange heralded the beginning of the end of Highland Culture. It started with the Massacre of Glencoe (that happened on William's orders) and culminated in the post-Culloden clearances and cultural genocide.
In/Around Glasgow, he's a sectarian poster-boy - revered by one half, and reviled by the other.
reply
In the Highlands of Scotland, the arrival of William of Orange heralded the beginning of the end of Highland Culture. It started with the Massacre of Glencoe (that happened on William's orders) and culminated in the post-Culloden clearances and cultural genocide.
In/Around Glasgow, he's a sectarian poster-boy - revered by one half, and reviled by the other.
reply
Sage
Neither, does it seem, do many Dutch today know that they were the original European colonizers (conquerers) of what we now call New York City. Perhaps it suits some people to be seen, and to see oneself, as a small and inconsequential nation in history, when in fact the Netherlands is responsible for much of the modern world being as it is.
reply
Neither, does it seem, do many Dutch today know that they were the original European colonizers (conquerers) of what we now call New York City. Perhaps it suits some people to be seen, and to see oneself, as a small and inconsequential nation in history, when in fact the Netherlands is responsible for much of the modern world being as it is.
reply
jigi
To sum up, Glorious Revolution is letting a foreigner seize the throne without fight, which is not glorious. And replace a king by another, which is not a revolution. But it created the first parliamentary monarchy of England, and imported Dutch financial know-how and investment. So the Successful Dutch Deal would be more accurate.
reply
To sum up, Glorious Revolution is letting a foreigner seize the throne without fight, which is not glorious. And replace a king by another, which is not a revolution. But it created the first parliamentary monarchy of England, and imported Dutch financial know-how and investment. So the Successful Dutch Deal would be more accurate.
reply
Stephen
I think it is important to know that under Charles II, England and the Netherlands were great rivals, and had many navel battles. Indeed, in 1667, the Dutch Navy destroyed the British Royal Navy while it was still docked in the River Medway. So one way to view this event is that the Dutch were eventually victorious in this war.
reply
I think it is important to know that under Charles II, England and the Netherlands were great rivals, and had many navel battles. Indeed, in 1667, the Dutch Navy destroyed the British Royal Navy while it was still docked in the River Medway. So one way to view this event is that the Dutch were eventually victorious in this war.
reply
Oreste
If the Glorious Revolution was not a conquest, then neither was the so called Moorish conquest of Iberia was a conquest because it was exactly the same circumstances: Visigoth King Achila called the Moors to support him against the other visigothic King, Roderick and there was almost no resistance.
reply
If the Glorious Revolution was not a conquest, then neither was the so called Moorish conquest of Iberia was a conquest because it was exactly the same circumstances: Visigoth King Achila called the Moors to support him against the other visigothic King, Roderick and there was almost no resistance.
reply
saphorr
Regarding the bit at 1: 19 about William's claim to the English and Scottish thrones: this didn't just come from his wife Mary. William was himself a grandson of Charles I through his mother Mary, sister of Charles II and James II. And yes, that means he and his wife were first cousins.
reply
Regarding the bit at 1: 19 about William's claim to the English and Scottish thrones: this didn't just come from his wife Mary. William was himself a grandson of Charles I through his mother Mary, sister of Charles II and James II. And yes, that means he and his wife were first cousins.
reply
Deldarel
Dutch here. Nobody looks at this like an invasion unless they were taught a twisted version.
If it were an invasion, Willem would have brought have set up his own laws, but he ruled by a constitution set up by the English. England just had a Dutch king.
reply
Dutch here. Nobody looks at this like an invasion unless they were taught a twisted version.
If it were an invasion, Willem would have brought have set up his own laws, but he ruled by a constitution set up by the English. England just had a Dutch king.
reply
Stephen
I'm very surprised the British don't teach it as a conquest of the Netherlands. So there was this conflict, some stuff happened, and at the end of it the ruler of the United Kingdom had some Dutch territory that the previous ruler didn't.
reply
I'm very surprised the British don't teach it as a conquest of the Netherlands. So there was this conflict, some stuff happened, and at the end of it the ruler of the United Kingdom had some Dutch territory that the previous ruler didn't.
reply
warren
The incredibly messed up time in history when the English betrayed the crown and the Irish defended it. To this day Unionists in Northern Ireland celebrate the betrayed while the rest of the island prefer to forget it ever happened
reply
The incredibly messed up time in history when the English betrayed the crown and the Irish defended it. To this day Unionists in Northern Ireland celebrate the betrayed while the rest of the island prefer to forget it ever happened
reply
Rhoze
What I absorbed in this story is that, the Dutch landed in Britain and the Brits surrendered, pleaded with their new king to accept their terms of surrender and the King approves.
Thus, the Dutch totally invaded Britain.
reply
What I absorbed in this story is that, the Dutch landed in Britain and the Brits surrendered, pleaded with their new king to accept their terms of surrender and the King approves.
Thus, the Dutch totally invaded Britain.
reply
Sven
Pretty sure none of the Anglo-Dutch wars are part of the curriculum at any level of secondary education. Only thing we learn about England is about the start of the industrial revolution and their imperial empire.
reply
Pretty sure none of the Anglo-Dutch wars are part of the curriculum at any level of secondary education. Only thing we learn about England is about the start of the industrial revolution and their imperial empire.
reply
thecianinator
Was Britain ever formerly considered to be part of the Netherlands? Or did a guy from the Netherlands just wind up ruling Britain? It's not a conquest unless their country becomes part of your country.
reply
Was Britain ever formerly considered to be part of the Netherlands? Or did a guy from the Netherlands just wind up ruling Britain? It's not a conquest unless their country becomes part of your country.
reply
Andy
Woah woah. Stop the bus. The objections to James II weren't about supposed tyrannical ambitions, rather his more Catholic leanings and his desire to remove the anti Catholic laws in England at the time.
reply
Woah woah. Stop the bus. The objections to James II weren't about supposed tyrannical ambitions, rather his more Catholic leanings and his desire to remove the anti Catholic laws in England at the time.
reply
Taco
Correction: The Dutch don't view this as a conquest (joking apart, but as persuading England successfully into their League of Augsburg against Louis XIV (speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.
reply
Correction: The Dutch don't view this as a conquest (joking apart, but as persuading England successfully into their League of Augsburg against Louis XIV (speaking softly, but carrying a big stick.
reply
Walter
Not bad Netherlands. You conquered Britian without anyone even knowing.
Now lets see what Britian did under Dutch rule after 1688.
. Netherlands, you've got a lot to answer for.
reply
Not bad Netherlands. You conquered Britian without anyone even knowing.
Now lets see what Britian did under Dutch rule after 1688.
. Netherlands, you've got a lot to answer for.
reply
PokeNeon
Imagine dying in a worst case scenario and later on in distant future someone will make a video about you saying the worst part you did is. Dying that had me choking ngl
reply
Imagine dying in a worst case scenario and later on in distant future someone will make a video about you saying the worst part you did is. Dying that had me choking ngl
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
