An article linking to a video in the Glasgow Herald by TV historian Lucy Worsley has the following.
IT is one of the central events of modern British history, which still
resonates today on the streets of Scotland and shapes the islands upon
which we live.
But our understanding of the so-called Glorious Revolution of King
William of Orange is based on myth and spin. In fact, you would be
forgiven for saying it was a case of 17th century fake news.
The official line is that the bloodless revolution changed the course of
British history, establishing the supremacy of parliament over the
On the 300th anniversary of the ousting of 'tyrannical' King James II
during the 17th century to place his son-in-law William of Orange on the
throne was proclaimed in Parliament in 1988 by then Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher as one of the "great events in the history of these
islands" which helped bring constitutional freedom and was "important in
establishing Britain's nationhood".
But TV historian Lucy Worsley, described the official version of history
surrounding the installation of the Dutch prince who would be
"reinvented" as a Protestant hero as one of the three biggest myths of
In a BBC documentary to air next week, she will describe how the
revolution began with an act of treason inspired by an anti-Catholic
politician and how King William III, was a foreign invader who was
engaged in "spin" over his motives and whose real agenda was to prevent a
French and British Catholic alliance waging war in Europe.
The Joint Chief Curator at Historic Royal Palaces places the King
William III story alongside three tales of turning points in British
history that "have been manipulated and mythologised to become
cornerstones of our national story".
The historian says a Dutch invasion was "spun into a triumphant
liberation... and celebrated ever since as the foundation of our
We at our sister blog SOYMB are glad academia and the mainstream
press in Scotland have caught up with some of the falsehoods surrounding
this event, but as usual socialist education on history tends to be
more accurate than ruling class spin, as we had a feature on precisely
this point in January 2010. written by our comrade Richard Montague in 1985.
Our purpose was to disabuse workers on both sides of the notions and
fictions that keep them divided; to show that neither , Unionism nor
nationalism have anything to offer the working class and to bring them
an examination of the cause of their real, common problems.
King James and King Billy
James II succeeded to the throne of England following the death of his
brother. Charles II, in 1685. A convert to Catholicism and a sickly
pious man –following a life of profligacy and sexual abandonment---he
was determined to re-establish the power of Catholicism in his in his
kingdom. Within three years of becoming king, James’, polices had
provoked fierce opposition in England and fear and distrust among the
protestant population of Ireland. In 1688 seven members of the English
parliament petitioned James’ son in law, William, Prince of Orange, to
become King of England. James reacted by allying himself with the French
king. Louis XIV, who manipulated the situation to his own advantage by
making England of a semi-dependent his own kingdom.
According to Orange fiction, James was the agent of Rome and popery.
Nothing could be further from the truth. In seeking the help and support
of Louis XIV, King James was allying himself with the pope's bitterest
enemy. Louis, bent on European domination, had made Lorraine a subject
state, had attacked Genoa and attempted to sack Rome. The pope of the
period, Innocent XI, was outraged and humiliated. In 1686 some of the
European Powers, alarmed at the strength and ferocity of the French,
entered into the Treaty of Augsberg. This Treaty, established
specifically to resist the marauding armies of Louis XIV, was subscribed
to by the king of Spain, the Emperor of Germany and by William, Prince
of Orange. The nominal head of the Treaty powers was Pope Innocent XI.
So, rather than being an enemy of the pope, as Orange mythology asserts,
“King Billy" was the pope’s ally when, in November 1688, he invaded
England and his armies were partially provisioned and equipped by the
powers of Augsberg Treaty - and he had the official backing of the Roman
Catholic church Contrary to myth, when they fought in the Battle of the
Boyne on 30 June and I July 1690. King Billy was an ally of the pope
and king James an ally of the pope's most bitter enemy Louis of France,
Indeed, when news of King William's victory over king James at the Boyne
percolated through to Rome, the pope ordered the singing of a special
Te Deum in St. Peter's and similar celebrations and rejoicings were held
in Catholic churches in Madrid, Brussels and Vienna .
James was a Catholic , of course, and William a Protestant but, as
always, the politics and economics underlying their conflict rose above
"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits...
A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification...
Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class , but in which the whole ...