Was the Glorious Revolution a Dutch Invasion of England?

In 1688, William of Orange crossed from the Dutch Republic and ousted King James II of England in what has since become known as the "Glorious Revolution", an event that was followed by William and his wife Mary become co-rulers of England, Scotland and Ireland as monarchs, while William retained the position of Stadhouder in the Dutch Republic. As the term suggests, this event is not often referred to as an "invasion", however, for reasons stated in this video I will argue that for all intents and purposes, William invaded England in 1688.
Music Used:
Lost Frontier - Kevin MacLeod
Midnight Tale - Kevin MacLeod
Crossing the Chasm - Kevin MacLeod
Loopster - Kevin MacLeod
Sunday Dub - Kevin MacLeod
Raid the Merch Market:
teespring.com/en-GB/stores/hi...
Go Fund My Windmills (Patreon):
/ historywithhilbert
Join in the Banter on Twitter:
/ historywhilbert
Enter the Fray on Facebook:
/ historywhilbert
Indulge in some Instagram..?(the alliteration needs to stop):
/ historywithhilbert
Send me an email if you'd be interested in doing a collaboration! [e-mail]
#history #nederland #documentary

[@badluck5647]

British: It wasn't an invasion. It was a Dutch "special military operation".

[@silver12561]

Gekoloniseerd

[@Game_Hero]

ouch, that burn

[@j.p.vanbolhuis8678]

Well... It did take more than three days, So it at least ticks that box...

[@dogukan127]

An attempt to De-Nazify England perhaps?

[@TheEvertw]

I don't care what you call it. It meant that the Dutch weren't attacked by the Brits anymore for 90 years, whereas before we had to fight 3 wars in 20 years.

[@markaxworthy2508]

It was mounted as an invasion, but received as an opportunity for an internal coup.

[@samdog166]

Perfectly summed up

[@rogink]

Basically, pushing at an open door

[@samdog166]

@@rogink no need to be vulgar

[@samdog166]

@@secretname4190 he’s using an innuendo about s E x

[@samdog166]

@@secretname4190 lol

[@savvageorge]

I find it interesting how the Bank of England was set up in 1694 a few years after this revolution/invasion. It was basically a copy of The Bank of Amsterdam which was set up in 1609. Seems like a bit of a coincidence that massive changes in the financial system took place shortly afterwards based on the Dutch style of banking. I'm not sure British people would have voluntarily moved to this style of banking as it gave a lot more power to the banking industry.

[@JPJ432]

I agree with you but your talking about to deep of logic for most people. Many people online don't care much for that.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

Or was it a way to avoid the sort of revenue/debt/tax/military expenditure issues that had led to the Inter Regnum

[@avus-kw2f213]

The eternal Dutchman strikes again

[@godlovesyou1995]

If it were an invasion, this never could have happened due to the opposition it would have caused

[@glenfordburrell1076]

So, too, was the London stock exchange established after the Amsterdam stock exchange - which was the world's first.

[@urseliusurgel4365]

What was also important was that William was of royal Stuart blood himself. Mary was not only his wife, but also his 1st cousin and James II was his uncle. William's mother was the Princess Royal of England, daughter of Charles I. This undoubtedly limited the level of popular anti-Dutch sentiment directed at William.

[@paigetomkinson1137]

That's good information to know! Thanks for sharing it.

[@oliversherman2414]

England: *Gets invaded* The Dutch: Don't worry, it's just a "special military operation"

[@dominicadrean2160]

And then there's the alternate history community on what if on if Netherlands and the UK had a union interesting scenario

[@micahistory]

i want him to make a video on that

[@Jokkkkke]

I do wonder about this as a Dutchie who lived in Scotland for five years. I mean Scottish soldiers fought with us during the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, and Dutch people went to study in Scotland during the Enlightenment, yet a union over England would've probably shifted the power dynamics quite a bit. Maybe the constituent nations would've gotten more autonomy though?

[@DenUitvreter]

Even more vomit in the streets of Amsterdam.

[@sebe2255]

It would give the English a continental liability, but it would probably have helped them early on, before the British Empire really took off

[@AaronOfMpls]

​@@sebe2255 Though to be fair, the personal union with Hanover (under the Georges) gave the UK some continental liability anyway.

[@TorvusVae]

I started this video scoffing like the commenters you highlighted, not knowing that William basically "invited" himself. That kind of blows the lid off the idea that it wasn't an invasion, I stand fully corrected.

[@sebe2255]

It doesn’t undo the elite support for him though, or the complete lack of English army resistance (which William knew about)

[@bla5102]

Even if he was invited. It is still an invitation to invade. In other words an invasion.

[@kalterverwalter4516]

​@@sebe2255 Elites backstabbing? *Schoked Pikachu Face*

[@Joshua-fi4ji]

Yeah still not sure I'd call it an invasion, even if he would have invaded regardless and took half is military with him. Invasion has connotations of something it wasn't. He was mostly welcomed on arrival. It's a weird one but it was more like a revolution or coup with a foreign monarch taking charge. It's very much a grey area and a unique situation in history. I can't think of another similar example. Could we call it a friendly invasion or foreign coup maybe? Do those make sense?

[@bla5102]

@@Joshua-fi4ji actually there are a lot of similar examples. It is actually a common casus Belli. In recent ongoing history the invasion of Ukraine is an example

[@henryvegter8773]

Twice as big as the Spanish Armada a hundred years earlier… I’d call that an invasion - with or w/o the requested invitation. 😮

[@sebe2255]

And supported by the English elite, daughter of the king and being aware the army would probably not resist. Basically just a foreign backed coup

[@tommyhill7645]

Weird cos the Spanish armada had alot of British supporters as well, little know fact but England was actually still majority Catholic at the time of the invasion, many of them believed king phillip would restore the true faith to England

[@henryvegter8773]

@@tommyhill7645 yes - very little known.

[@Saddam_al-Husseini]

This is a classic case of “history is written by the winners”. Because William was Protestant and the legitimate king Catholic, James was painted to be the villain and William a national hero, despite being Dutch and James being English. You could just as easily say the Norman invasion of Ireland was an invitation, but because Ireland is independent and Catholic in their national story it is viewed as a full invasion and conquest.

[@sebe2255]

He was not just a foreigner, he was married to James’ daughter, and they were both co-monarchs

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

James was a Catholic king in a Protestant country. your analysis is weak here.

[@onezerooneo]

The Norman invasion of Ireland is not viewed so bad actually in Ireland because they assimilated into the culture, learned the language, adopted Gaelic customs, and married into Gaelic families. Unlike the English invasions where they tried to destroy the language, laws, and culture, stole the land, and viewed the Irish as savages.

[@godlovesyou1995]

Members of parliament invited William

[@asuka7309]

@@sebe2255 If a Brit moves to the Netherlands and marries a Dutch person, does that make their spouse a Brit?

[@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617]

Yes it was an invasion but it was an uncontested invasion that was militarily supported by the English Army. Also it was a religious and dynastic conflict not a national / international conflict. We don’t consider operation overload a conquest of France but we do consider it an invasion.

[@ronaldderooij1774]

Indeed, Elisabeth did not become Queen of France. William... ahem... So, the discussion now is, was it a mere invasion or a conquest?

[@ringtail6670]

No. They were invited. You don't ask your buddy to come over to watch the match and then say he "invaded" your house.

[@ringtail6670]

@Immortal Science of Hauntology If your buddy turns up with many pointy sticks and catapults, and he comes to watch the game, then he still hasn't invaded. No one would say that.

[@5thMilitia]

The army only started to disintergrate when it was clear that James II was panicking and the Royal Navy actively tried to oppose the Dutch invasion fleet

[@halorecon95]

@@ringtail6670 Was the Anschluss of Austria not an invasion and conquest? Because the Germans were "invited" by a minority, much like the Dutch were, and there was no significant armed opposition, much as with the Glorious Revolution.

[@glenfordburrell1076]

There's a monument heralding the "Dutch invasion" in the fishing village of Brixham - South Devon. It mentions William's forces "landing on shores nearby."

[@Sylvysprit]

This is a really interesting challenge to the commonly accepted narrative of history. As a fellow Dutch person, i think it's really important that we look at our own history critically, like how i was taught about the "policing actions" in the 00's at school, yet now, because that perception was challenged succesfully over the years, it is now finally commonly accepted as the Indonesian War of Independence. By initiating a discussion like this, i think you're doing a very good job at making a start at potentially challenging the commonly accepted perception of this part of history as well, in fact, it has inspired me to talk to some of my fellow history fan friends, both here in the Netherlands, and internationally, about this, and it has lead to some very interesting discussions.

[@LMvdB02]

Do you know how it's taught now? When I went to school in the 2010s the narrative in history class was still not very decolonised.

[@Zadir09]

It has nothing to do with you being Dutch or him being Dutch. You were the containment country for current American style capitalism and the rich in the UK adored it. However a King can't survive only helping the rich and the wealthy barons below the King didn't understand that or how power balances are so delicate

[@Zadir09]

@@LMvdB02 School would never teach you this in depth. Read about it more and more and you see how much is buried. It's not even a conspiracy, just history continuing

[@kevinstryder5461]

I believe the real debate is not whether it was an “invasion” but whether England was truely “conquered”

[@5thMilitia]

True, but even that is pretty easily dealt with. Conquerimg means "to get control of a certain place by military force". That is what William and the Dutch did

[@markwithak2055]

Special Military Operation A.K.A. Regime change

[@williamfluit6198]

You present a good case for your view and I agree with you. Just the size of the fleet shows the Dutch were loaded for bear and serious about defeating any force that opposed them.

[@Ye_Olde_Duke_of_Edinburgh]

What's bear? 🐻 🐻

[@AMS97PS3]

True, however it's clear that a large proportion of people in England didn't support James, and even if James had met him on the road to London, it would not be reflective of how regular people felt as such. Soldiers doing their job doesn't reflect the feeling of the public. William I faced rebellion and resistance when he invaded in 1066, it seems by comparison William of Orange faced very little from the English people and indeed, seemed to be supported. And by Parliament too, which is quite an important note. For that reason, I find it hard to call it a true invasion, as usually you categorise an invasion as something hostile, whereas this was welcomed and preferable to Protestant England.

[@reintaler6355]

@@AMS97PS3 So just because French people largely welcomed the Allies, they never "invaded" France?

[@RealUlrichLeland]

To me it's natural that there's some ambiguity in whether you consider it a comprehensive invasion because it was at the turning point in history where countries were moving from feudalism to nation states. In 1066 changing from an Anglo Saxon to a norman monarch led to a complete upheval of every English institution, but by the Georgian period the UK could quite happily change to an entirely foreign royal house without many visible changes at all. This was only a few decades after the interregnum where parliament demonstrated that it was the dominant political force in the country. A change of monarch was still a significant political development at the time of the glorious revolution, but without also changing parliament you can't fully count it as genuinely changing how the country was governed. Clearly it didn't have much of a lasting effect on the politics of Britain because a century later there was another anglo dutch war.

[@Jay_Johnson]

I think this hits the nail on the head. England had become a nation state in the 1600s and as such the two grandchildren of Charles I invading with a foreign army but with the popular support of the state (ie parliament) can’t really be seen in the same light as 1066 as for all intents and purposes the English state remained the same, in fact had James not had a child the crown would have passed to them anyway. I don’t see any world where if W&M didn’t invade parliament wouldn’t bar the catholic sons from inheritance anyway. The glorious revolution in my opinion was equal parts invasion and coup.

[@DenUitvreter]

How was England already a nation state when the divine right of kings was claimed? The king was the souvereign and there was no souvereignity outside the king. If the king would have gotten posession of a part of France or Norway that would just as much be a part of the same kingdom, wouldn't it? The move from that feudalism to the nation states consisted of first the Dutch Republic denouncing the divine right of the king in 1581 claiming he had to serve the people with their inalienable rights and could be removed when shown to be a tyrant. Later by invading England and basically shaping it in it's own image, as the the relatively and most royal like stadtholder William III, allthough appointed by parliaments, saw it. The rest of Europe developping towards nation states, without the Dutch making it happen, was something that only started a century later with the French revolution, the USA and the rest of Europe only joining in another half century later. This nation state thing was really new, the Dutch had to come up with a flag without any monarch's coat of arms, they had the first natonal anthem to spur the nation identity, they bred carrots orange in support of the stadtholder, a unifying force in the federal republic where Holland didn't care too much about the dryer parts. They had to make up a lot of stuff as they went along because they didn't become a republic out of an intellectual ideology, but stumbled upon it as they were outraged about their tyrant king who trampled the rights they had taken for granted as an already very free part of Europe with merchants more dominant than the nobility. William once sighed that he felt like he was stadtholder of Britain and king of the Netherlands, about how much of a pain they were. But he had London occupied and no English soldier was allowed near it for years. What would they have done about it when he had claimed absolute power and the divine right of kings? He created and protected the order in which there was a balance of power with parliament himself. He had his wife accompanied by John Locke on her journey from the Dutch Republic to London. Locke had written most of his works and his most important works in the Dutch Republic, where there was freedom of thought and print. It's seems to me he just wanted a stable ally, a soul mate of the Dutch Republic, to make sure a 1672 would not happen again, which was not only traumatic to him and the Dutch, but also was an existential threat to protestantism and therefore religious tolerance. The catholics were still about total annihilation. Fact is that before the invasion, England as a nation state with a substantial parliament was fragile at best. Of course the durable solidity of the alliance suffered from William not having any offspring.

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@DenUitvreter England got rid of the divine right of kings the second our parliament decided to chop his head off. It made it clear that parliament could and would remove a monarch regardless of what god thought of it. In fact, at least one source state William had decided to invade as James II was so unpopular he was worried there would be a second English republic and his wife would lose her inheritance. Everything you say about the creation of the Dutch nation state is true but that does not mean England was not developing along similar lines at the time. The English had to come up with a flag without any monarch's coat of arms, They had to make up a lot of stuff as they went along because they didn't become a republic out of an intellectual ideology, but stumbled upon it as they were outraged about their tyrant king who trampled the rights they had taken for granted. Those statements go for both countries in the mid 17th century. 'But he had London occupied and no English soldier was allowed near it for years.' - I mean this is just factually false 'What would they have done about it when he had claimed absolute power and the divine right of kings?' - again false, I would not call the monarchy absolute upon signing the bill of rights. William was only made king conditional on signing, and by the bill of rights. And said bill is legal basis and practice for the idea of parliamentary sovereignty, developed in the Commonwealth and Protectorate years, the very sovereignty you say was within the king.

[@DenUitvreter]

@@Jay_Johnson No, they were completely different societies in terms of feudalism, nobility, equality, balance of power and the Dutch weren't declared protestant by their king either, but actually protested. For the Dutch it was 16th century development that had already solidified. With a recent civil war and a king with absolute and divine right of kings pretentions sidelining parliament, it was very fragile at best. No reason to assume it wouldn't have gone full Dark Ages again if William hadn't intervened, France also managed to keep it up for another century. The misconception here seems to me that William was forced to these conditions. The first question is by which actual force this would be. The second is, why did he have John Lock accompany his wife across the channel and to London if he didn't like this rights stuff? You claim a revollution amidst a foreign invasion, but you have no revolutionary deeds to show for, you claim William was forced to concessions but you have no actual force to show for, and you claim the new king really wanted something else, something more, while nothing in his choices and actions speaks for that. I don't think his motives can be understood without understanding the existential threat to the Dutch Republic and protestantism when Britain and France would team up again. What makes you think William could be bothered with such petty little things he was used to at home anyway?

[@Jay_Johnson]

@@DenUitvreter I never claimed there was a revolution, I said there was a coup. I never said there wasn't a Dutch invasion, it very much was. However just as William was a political opportunist in his seizing of the English succession, Parliament was also using this opportunity to actually establish parliamentary sovereignty and remove a pro-catholic pro-French king - two things both parliament and the Army despised. 'No reason to assume it wouldn't have gone full Dark Ages again if William hadn't intervened, France also managed to keep it up for another century.' - You are right the Dutch were a country of merchants. and France was the country of Aristocrats. The thing is the England was in the middle. sure it may have been ~100 years behind the Dutch in economic development but it was still 100 years ahead of the French. The Dutch revolt was a Bourgeois revolution as was the English Civil war. Capitalism was coming no matter what and that was putting more power into the hands of the bourgeoisie and the city of London and less in the hands of the monarchy and aristocracy.

[@MrMomo182]

William's mother was Mary, Princess Royal, daughter of Charles I. Making them 1st cousins, incidentally.

[@Trecesolotienesdos]

England was invaded in 1014 and 1016 by the Danish Norse - Sweyn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great. There was an invasion of sorts in the First Barons' War under King John when the Dauphin was invited to invade to help depose John. The Jacobites - perhaps more notedly James VII/II's grandson Bonnie Prince Charlie - invaded England in 1745 but obviously lost at Culloden.

[@Dryhten1801]

The claim is that there hasn't been a successful invasion of England since 1066.

[@oscarosullivan4513]

I don’t understand why it is called the Glorious revolution as it lead to the penal laws. An interesting part of the Williamite wars is the siege of Limerick which was led by the Patrick Sarsefield who had a song written about him the jackets green.

[@andyrules999]

0:11 - The voices at the start were amazing!

[@silviasanchez648]

I love all your videos, but more about Dutch history is always welcome. The Lower Countries like Scandinavia don't show up often in most history books, videos or even videos. At least not outside their respective regions. So if you have plans of new videos on Dutch history, I'm all for it!

[@dutchuncle2716]

The low countries and Scandinavia are two different things though.

[@ChristiaanHW]

@@dutchuncle2716 that's why he mentions them both, and not as Netherlands being part of Scandinavia. but i have heard that The Netherlands could be grouped in with Scandinavia before. because we and the Northern countries have a lot in common (especially more than with France of the UK). so if you have to choose between The Netherlands being part of either Western or Northern Europe it depends if you look at it from a geographical point of view or from a cultural one. geographical: definitely Western Europe. cultural: maybe more Northern/Scandinavian (and yes Scandinavia and Northern Europe aren't 100% the same)

[@constantius4654]

It was a Dutch invasion but not a conquest due to major acquiescence by the English ruling class who then continued to be the English ruling class.

[@matthewmannion4227]

I think you could still call it a conquest. I don't think it change sjust because ethe English gave up so fast

[@CyberTribalism]

Hengist and Horsa where also 'Dutch'.. with knowledge of Southern Dutch dialects you can make sense of more then one old English placename. the Frisian influence on old English and the Scots dialect is also huge.

[@jhibberd6290]

No, the accents have changed a lot over the years. After the Norman's and switch to modern English a new accent. The Scots accent is more Norwegian influenced

[@Kuudere-Kun]

You left out another important cause of the Invitation, James II granting Toleration to Religious Minorities, not just Catholics, the succession stuff they have waited to deal with it was was James denying Parliament the right to persecute minorities that really upset them. By most of the same logic can't Henry VII be considered a Bretan/Welsh Invasion of England?

[@someguy3766]

I tend to think of it as a popular invasion where most English people hated their king and were more than happy to see him removed by a religiously similar country's army. I guess it was both an invasion and a revolution - an invasion because Dutch troops landed and occupied parts of the country, and a revolution because the people supported that occupation and the overthrow of the unpopular king. I suppose you could compare it to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where initially at least many Iraqis who saw Saddam as a tyrant supported the Americans removing him from power. It's a less than perfect comparison of course, especially since that operation was far messier with less great lasting results. But a lot of Shiites and Kurds were happy to see Saddam gone, akin to the English protestants and their king.

[@DenUitvreter]

What revolutionary acts did the people perform? What did they make happen?

[@badluck5647]

I doubt most people at the time cared about the Game of Thrones. It just seemed that way because literate people cared.

[@sebe2255]

Not just a protestant, but a protestant married to the daughter of said king.

[@lazyzombie5138]

I don’t think iraqis would agree with you💀 it was absolutely not an invitation

[@someguy3766]

@@lazyzombie5138 Depends on which Iraqis you asked at the time. The Shiite majority and the Kurds were both oppressed by Saddam and wanted him gone. There was not a unity of support behind his regime among the people, that's partly why the US and UK were able to invade the country in just three weeks. Most Iraqis were not willing to fight for him.

[@hassanminbaghdad]

very nice coverage thank you

[@johnkilmartin5101]

I would think that the 1326 landing by Roger Mortimer which resulted in Edward III replacing his father as king definitely counts as an invasion. And again a large number of people from the Low Countries involved.

[@robertstrommer2778]

If I had a nickel for every time a foreign William invaded England and became its king I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird it happened twice.

[@dutchman7623]

We still have a William, and the English a Charles... Just send an invitation!

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Actually, William was James' nephew. Does that make him a foreigner? I don't know.

[@dutchman7623]

@@heronimousbrapson863 Arrived by boat on the English south coast, said he was invited, said he had family in the UK... Clearly a foreigner! 😄

[@jhibberd6290]

His mother was British in fact he looked a lot like James in his portrait

[@dutchman7623]

@@jhibberd6290 Correct, mother and wife were both daughters of an English king. And both ladies were related more than once. Furthermore both his parents and both her (Anne) were decedents of Johan Willem Friso van Nassau Dietz. So some look alike cannot be denied.

[@Guderian0617]

Wouldn't Henry VII's landing in Wales to fight Richard III count as an invasion as well? So technically, England has been invaded since 1066 (if we count Wales to be part of England) before the Glorious Revolution.

[@andreidarie4076]

America: We didn’t invade Iraq, the oil invited us to liberate it

[@Ronnet]

And now we call it freedom oil.

[@franklin7387]

it has to be said

[@drscopeify]

The sad thing is that Iraq did have chemical weapons like the events of Halabja massacre. I am not sure how Iraq would get those weapons and use them then destroy the weapons?

[@andreidarie4076]

@@drscopeify where they at tho?

[@drscopeify]

@@andreidarie4076 All over Northern Iraq.

[@TroyDowVanZandt]

Yes, more videos on Dutch history. Give us your take on the former Dutch colony of New Netherland.

[@johnmccabe8078]

An invasion would presuppose that the country being invaded would then be united in its defence against a 'foreign' invader, which is very obviously not the case here. Since William was ultimately invited (even if it was his suggestion in the first place), he wasn't taking an entire country by surprise or taking an entire country by force. I would say it's more accurate to call it a mercenary contract with the Dutch providing just the right amount of support to prevent the Catholic ascendancy in Great Britain. William wasn't invading GB, he was a Protestant defender of the faith. However, the most important thing to remember is that there was no fighting in Great Britain! The only skirmishes that actually occured were in Ireland, at that time not in any way in union with the crowns of England and Scotland!

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

It was kinda a well known thing that when a country is not united that it is a good time for an invasion. Just like when the Moorish people invaded Spain. The difference is that the Moorish got eventually kicked out ,while William died without a child. He wasn't a religious person for that time it was just way easier to invade England than to have a glorious revolution in France given the population differences. Given that the Dutch had the largest navy in Europe at that time.

[@auldfouter8661]

There are echoes down the ages of this time. As a dairy farmer I did costings of my herd ( a service provided by the company BOCM - British Oil and Cake Mills ) Each month I entered the amount and type of dairy cake we had fed to the cows , using BOCM's own product codes. Their most expensive ( and most nutritious) cake was BOCM Gold Label , which happened to have a product code number of 1690. The traveller for BOCM was a college classmate of mine , and as West of Scotland boys we used to remark on the insensitivity of that number choice. The farming community in Scotland is largely Protestant so it wouldn't have deterred sales , but nevertheless a Scots or Irish company would never have alighted on that number for a product to be sold in the West of Scotland. Obviously BOCM based in Port Sunlight didn't feel the need to be sensitive.

[@abbofun9022]

The more honest explanation is that you are over sensitive and are seeing ghosts were there aren’t.

[@yesid17]

thank you for this video! i realized how little i know about what was going on in europe in the 1600s. One question, @ 1:00 it felt like you were going to say "since 1066" but then 'corrected' yourself and said "apart from 1066," and then again at the end you said "Britain has only been invaded in 1066" do you not consider that Germanic invasions of Britain to be invasions?

[@benqurayza7872]

Hilbert makes a convincing argument, but should use the past tense when describing past events.

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

I came to this conclusion just by looking at the facts. It was not a bloodless coup and there were skirmishes on the mainland and of course the Battle of the Boyne on British territory i.e. Ireland. History written by the victors so is presented differently. I'd say 1485 where Henry Tudor lands in Pembrokeshire and marches up to Leicestershire to defeat Richard III and become Henry VII was also an invasion.

[@MrGerben123]

never knew the full context of this, indeed the victor writes the history and in this case it's been a fine tuned piece of marketing! even as a lover of history this has eluded me. thank you for this video and your channel in general, i enjoy it very much. if this had indeed been named an invasion it would have been in every history book right next to the 80 year war stories.

[@hubabava]

You miss the point of William's claim to the crown. His mother was a sister of Charles II en James II, in age between the 2 brothers. That was the reason for the joined rule of William and Mary

[@jemoedermeteensnor88]

Given the amount of propaganda that was used during this invasion, it is more likely that Mary got co-monarch , because she was English. It sounds better than: And your new king that foreign invador from that country that was our main rival the last 90 years.

[@johnwilkin1277]

"And James may himself have been a closet Catholic". James II was openly Catholic. Charles II converted on his deathbed, and was very possibly a closet Catholic for all of his reign.

[@douglasfur3808]

An invasion, yes but one in support of a coup d'etat. A revolution in the sense that the elite class overthrew their ruler but that doesn't mean that William didn't invade. He fought battles against James' loyal forces and defeated his counterevolutionary invasion. William's invasion was no less so than the French invasion supporting James. [Given that William received a share of the monarchy in payment for his efforts was he a mercenary? Yet that wouldn't refute that this was an invasion.]

[@andrewrobinson2565]

Bloody marvellous, as usual +1👍👍.

[@raphlvlogs271]

the term invasion is often avoided when describing a conflict due to its negative and unpopular correlations

[@Game_Hero]

yet an invasion is an invasion, we shouldn't whitewash them and actually call them for what they are.

[@5thMilitia]

It was the biggest fleet assembled in European waters until D-Day according to the Historian Nolan

[@paigetomkinson1137]

So, that would make it the second biggest fleet to invade, ever, since Normandy 6 June, 1944 was the largest. Good to know!

[@jbb4105]

the real “William the conqueror”

[@armygetic2509]

Exactly!

[@Tyler-fe5pl]

Hey hilbert I'm a big fan for real!! My paternal grandma last name is vanrooyen or vanrooijen. I to am proud of my Dutch ancestry. How do u find good info on Dutch family from Netherlands history. Anyways love your channel and your Dutch pride hahah

[@duncanmoore3623]

I think this shows how small details of language can matter. "Britain hasn't been invaded since 1066" is unambiguously false, and not just from this, the invasion under John and the Napoleonic expedition to Wales come to mind. I think people implicitly actually mean "invaded successfully" or "conquered" when this comes up - the former is a huge stretch but the latter can definitely be argued. Not that this distinction really matters - I never really considered this an invasion before (though it is one - if the army makes landfall and it's not a raid...) but I wasn't naïve to the force behind it. I guess I considered it a mostly peaceful takeover but with a hostile takeover planned as a backup for if things didn't pan out.

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

Was that pre-Napoleon.

[@Eshanas]

Good king Willy. Also England has been invaded, raided loads of times after 1066. Louis Viii in 1260? and some Norwegian raids in the 1080s-1100s and so forth up

[@Mmjk_12]

Key word 'Successfully'

[@Kevc00]

Be careful saying that in Ireland hahah

[@shocklogic8107]

Louis Viii also invaded England in 1216 when he was still a prince and was even crowned Louis I of England. He would only rule England for a year before being driven out by English rebels. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpS5dZ17fNFni9U

[@mkooij]

England is invaded dayly by Africans right now because they're weak and frail

[@arthurbriand2175]

​@@Mmjk_12Invasion doesn't mean automatically winning the war in the end, it's just about entering a foreign territory, controlling at least a part of it and doing some military operations on this territory. For example Napoleon invaded most continental Europe but eventually was beaten back and France went back to its borders. You could make a case that piracy and raids don't count but Louis the Lion was briefly recognised as Long of England. It was a successful invasion but an unsuccesful War.

[@theodwyn4491]

Well done on the Dutch pronunciation. Also an interesting perspective. The Dutch and the English were very close in the 17th century, rivals and on occasion friends. The Commonwealth of England even discussed a union with the United Provinces. I feel though that this was a take over by a Protestant elite, in line with the wishes of the vast majority of English people, perhaps on the lines of the British “invasion “ of Iceland and the Faroe Islands in 1940, to prevent a German invasion.

[@Breaker_Excessive]

It’s seems much more like a coup to me, with large support of English nobility and armies.

[@bigkennyp]

Damn that American accent Hilbert that's going to live in my mind rent free

[@giovanni8199]

Als je nederlands bent en meer wilt weten over dit onderwerp raadt ik het boek Oranje tegen de zonnekoning van Luc Panhuysen aan

[@DenUitvreter]

O ja, die zou ik nog bestellen. Dank voor de reminder.

[@B_men_apo]

Ik ga er uit van uit dat dat boek meer over het ramp jaar gaat?

[@giovanni8199]

Nee, ik had dat eigenlijk ook verwacht toen ik het boek kocht maar het rampjaar is slechts een heel klein gedeelte van het boek. Een ander boek met ook de titel Het rampjaar van luc panhuysen gaat wel geheel over het rampjaar

[@donalfoley2412]

Thank you. I think Chesterton called it the Revolution of the Rich. We Irish suffered the brunt of it for backing the wrong horse, though the Pope supported William’s side. At the end of the day William was fighting to protect his own country.

[@666johnco]

I'd call it an invasion but of course I'm aware of regime change by landings with troops a plenty, for example Henry Tudor arriving via sea in 1485 with, shock. an army, so where this 1066 business arrives from, no idea.

[@brachiator1]

Very interesting. I am curious as to how the Glorious Revolution affected the Netherlands. Did William rule both countries?

[@archmilan]

He did rule both; for a brief period there was a personal union between the two. Of course the Netherlands being a republic this union didnt last after his death. This event is seen as the downfall for the netherlands even though this was seen as the best course of action. With the glorious revolution ended the possibility for an alliance between england and france, which was still fresh in the memory of the Dutch (because England, France and some german states waged war together against the Dutch in 1672). Unfortunately this geopolitically sound decision became the netherlands' downfall because William would keep court in England and therefore all of the Dutch powerbrokers (financial institutions etc.) moved to London to conduct their business.

[@xaraun]

If only William and Mary had produced an heir...

[@Ronnet]

Not sure the world would've looked all that different if they had.

[@dutchman7623]

Medical science was not able to keep such incest thing alive back then. They were 1st cousins on both sides.

[@cbarclay99]

The British Navy was as pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic as the Army. Dartmouth may have been loyal to James but he could not rely on his officers and men. That may have been a deciding factor in his calculations as to whether or not to try to prevent William's fleet leaving Holland and landing in Devon. The choice of south-west England as a landing place was not an accident. In 1685, there had been the Monmouth rebellion and sentiment against James had only been hardened by the brutal retributions by Judge Jeffreys acting on behalf of James. What stands out is the lack of support for James in England. Scotland was still an independent country though sharing the same monarch as England and Wales. Ireland was a colony that sought to use James to win its independence. You are correct in assessing the reasons why James was not executed even though a war with France was made almost inevitable by him staying alive. There is also a contemporary relevance for how the 'Glorious Revolution' was PR spin. In the pro-Monarchist propaganda ahead of Charles' coronation much was made of how the Monarchy offers continuity and prevents political upheaval. The removal of the Catholic James II and the Nazi-supporting Edward VIII is glossed over.

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

William co-reigned with Queen Mary as he realised alone there was no legitimacy, no continuity. Maybe those plotters sent letters out to a number of European movers & shakers.

[@BritishRepublicsn]

"It wasnt an invasion because there was no resistance" -me back when Thats just the best case scenario in an invasion

[@iangarrett741]

Would it help to look at how Britain was governed after Mary took power? Did we have any kind of vassal status? Where did the money go? Who/how were decisions made? If James had won in Ireland I doubt the English would have welcomed a French/Irish invasion lead by a failed Monarch.

[@halorecon95]

The English likely wouldn't, except for the few Catholics perhaps, but the Scottish definitely would have.

[@DeezNuts-cg9gl]

@@halorecon95 the Scottish were more staunchly protestant than the English. Only in a fee highland clans did Catholicism persist

[@dominicadrean2160]

You should do a video on Queen Elizabeth the First and her suitors because she had a lot, which could have created a lot of unions between countries. I mean, if he married the king of Denmark and Norway she would have remade the Black Sea Empire, which at that point had been gone for almost 500 years not to mention with England's hope probably would have conquered Sweden eventually

[@erikvandoorn1674]

But she rejected to become queen of the 7 provinces, which were in rebellion with Spain, when she was offered sovereignty over (and by) them.

[@Retaliatixn]

If i had a penny each time a Glorious Revolution happened, I would have 2 pennies. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice in two different countries (one of which ruled the other at some point). Even weirder is the fact that the years of these revolutions are 1688, and 1868, containing literally the same numbers, a different of 180 years. Ps : when i say "happened in a country" I don't mean the place where it happened, but the ones responsible for it, spoiler alert : the Dutch and the Spanish.

[@MrHawkMan777]

You do raise some very good points and I think the basic understanding of events we get told is wrong, but I still can't really consider this an invasion. As I think we have to look to the Bill of Rights (1689) upon Williams accession to the throne which gave statutory rights for Parliament to meet, have elections and make laws without expressed permission from the monarch. It also reset the conditions for monarchy as something that exists through parliament (and therefore the people as a whole), and not the other way around which it had been in England for most of its history (excluding the interregnum of course). This shows to me that William never had the ability nor desire to control England like a traditional monarch. I just don't think you can regard it as an invasion when the people of the country you invade are setting the very terms by which you rule. This makes the 'Glorious Revolution' an actual Revolution. It shifts the power in England from the monarch to parliament which has massive ramifications for the future of Britain and the world as a whole.

[@landsea7332]

Bingo ! - The critical point is that John Locke's Enlightenment ideas were written into the 1689 English Bill of Rights ELECTED Parliamentarians said to William and Mary here are the terms if you want to sit on the throne . William went along with this because his objective was to use the English to help the Dutch defeat the French . . At the time , only land owners had the vote and Parliamentarians were the ultra wealthy . .

[@MrHawkMan777]

@@landsea7332 yeah, although I don't think John Locke really was a major inspiration for the Bill of rights. The ideas behind it go back further I'm sure as England has always had a sense that parliament must play a role in government it's just the Bill of rights goes way further than other previous eras.

[@landsea7332]

@@MrHawkMan777 - I think the very first group to promote the idea that all citizens should have equal rights were the Levellers. I'll need to study John Locke - Two Treaties - a bit more . The part I don't understand is why isn't the 1689 English Bill of Rights given more recognition ? One thing that is clear , Jefferson studied moral philosophy while attending William and Mary . This included Locke , Adam Smith's first book and Isaac Newton's scientific method . .

[@landsea7332]

16:46 - Yes - William's major motive was to use the English military to help the Dutch defeat the French . .

[@pinchevulpes]

Just passed my praxis text and this was a question on the exam. Thanks for the deeper delve!

[@dominicadrean2160]

What are three things you would change in British history

[@dutchman7623]

Discovery...

[@G4KDXlive]

It was an “invitation” in the same way the German troops entering Austrua in 1938 were “invited” into the country.

[@SterbsMcGurbs]

Technically correct, the best kind of correct

[@rchap-grab]

Yes it was an invasion. Two points that support are that James was about to pack parliament with supporters to repeal the test act, once Catholic, James could rule alone as an absolute monarch. Second, James had enough money to raise an army to put down the Monmouth rebellion. His money came from the East India and Hudson Bay companies, the first time a Tudor or Stuart monarch had resources not under parliamentary control. The Tories and Whigs had to rebel to maintain their power

[@sebe2255]

That means it is a foreign backed coup more so. He made himself unpopular with the elites, and perhaps more crucially, the army and its officers. That is why there was almost no military resistance

[@neuralwarp]

Oh, we're used to it. The Beaker People, Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Vikings, Danes, Normans, French, Welsh, Spanish, Scots, Dutch, and Germans. We've had everyone on the throne of England except the English.

[@pedanticradiator1491]

Angles and Saxons = English

[@rursus8354]

New nosy question: "What is it that is so effing 'glorious' about it? That gold is orange, and Willy was an Orange?"

[@KootFloris]

My assumption is that the introduction of the stock exchange in England laid the basis for their empire. And thus, whether this was an invasion or invitation, this successful revolution, ended the Dutch dominance on the global seas and helped the British to become supreme for a long (too long) while.

[@5thMilitia]

It was neccecery in the short term tho. Without the Glorious Revolution the Dutch Republic would have been subjucated by France and England.

[@johnpotts8308]

There was also a French invasion in 1215 that deposed King John, Henry IV invaded in 1399 to depose his cousin Richard II and French troops aided both sides in seizing the throne in the Wars of the Roses in the 1470s. Of course, in each case they claimed that God and right were on their side (and the fact was that they won was cited as proof)!

[@LordBitememan]

lol I had to deal with some of that kind of "this was the last invasion" stuff when I was in New Mexico. Folks down there liked to say "Pancho Villa's invasion of New Mexico was the last time the US was invaded." I'd usually retort with "The Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands of Alaska in WWII." "THAT DOESN'T COUNT!!"

[@henkcornelisse-cf1sq]

From that perspective you could argue that Britain was succesfully invaded in WW2 with the taking of the channel isles.

[@LordBitememan]

@@henkcornelisse-cf1sq And?

[@henkcornelisse-cf1sq]

@@LordBitememan Well, firstly, that would push forward the last invasion even further. Which will tick off even more British no doubt, which is fine. Secondly, This view would also mean that all colonial powers have been invaded by pretty much all their peers at some point. After all, at that time all the colonies were viewed as rightfully owned by these powers, including all the Caribbean islands which changed hands left and right, by force. Successful invasions off the 'motherland' too? History is full of made up versions to please who ever came out on top in the end.

[@LordBitememan]

@@henkcornelisse-cf1sq New rule: If you fly your flag over a place and it gets invaded, you got invaded.

[@grewdpastor]

Hilbert, a great and (I believe) correct analysis of the so-called "Glorious Revolution". The predictable reactions in the comment section are mainly a source of entertainment for me. Just as we Dutch have difficulty weighing the past behaviours of our ancestors, other nationalities also have the same problem. Hopefully, people will come to the conclusion that they are only accountable for their own actions. So not as written in Exod. 20:5-6 with the explanation that this is inevitable (something else is meant, but that belongs in a theological discourse 😉).

[@jtgd]

Yes

[@SINcitySEAL]

It's wild to see Charles Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury. I found him in my genealogy, but would never have guessed he would be an "immortal seven".

[@henryvonblumenthal7307]

The Royalists in the Civil War, and the Jacobites after 1689, stood among other things for sound money. This was in opposition to the two bourgeois revolutions of 1642-9 and 1689.

[@finngregory3599]

Pretty accurate impression of my accent

[@YarPirates-vy7iv]

After finding an army on their shores, the nobles said to William "Let's go Dutch! " and split the bill...er, throne.

[@hvermout4248]

William was NOT invited by Parliament. In fact, the matter wasn't even ever discussed in Parliament. The requested invitation came from seven English traitors. But the military intervention could look like an invation, because its purpose was to pull the English into the anti-French "Augsburg" alliance. As enthousiastic and reliable "friends" of the Dutch. So it had to look like a hearts and minds operation and some evasive fairy tale had to be concocted. Those sort of things you can safely leave to the English ... They still believe today that some sort of "Glorious Revolution" had happened. But what really matters is that for the next 150 years the English indeed fought with their nose in the right direction. The direction of Paris.

[@simonh6371]

Exactly! If WW2 had gone the other way, and Operation Sealion had gone ahead, now in year 90 of the thousand year Reich we would now know that as ''Die wunderbare Befreiung'' or something like that.

[@sonicgoo1121]

It's generally a bad idea to invade somewhere you're not wanted. See... much of history. And the present. And, probably, the future...

[@Jobe-13]

Interesting.

[@GamerFrisco]

"... and the DATCH!"

[@SensitivityGames]

so the raid on med way wasnt an invasion? XD

[@dutchman7623]

No, a special military action to wipe out the English fleet.

[@simonh6371]

No it was a raid. Was the raid on the U boat pens at St Nazaire in 1942 the start of the allied invasion of Europe in WW2? No that was in Normandy in 1944. I don't think De Ruyters men even set foot on British soil to destroy the fleet, at least not in any great number.

[@Falkriim]

Interesting

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The impression I had been given from the history textbooks was that English people had gone and invited William, and brought him back as part of a relatively small party which joined up with a large political movement in Britain. That is obviously very far from the truth, though this invasion was an unusually uncontested one.

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

Battle of the Boyne.

[@freestylevimto3109]

@@celtspeaksgoth7251famously uncelebrated battle in Britain

[@chequereturned]

It was an invasion but not a conquest. In fact, England has been invaded a few times at this point since 1066: by Louis VIII, by Isabella of France and Roger Mortimer...

[@nickelientje8395]

The stadtholders were pretty much de facto head of states/kings also considered the title kinda became hereditary

[@dutchman7623]

Nope! This kind gentleman came to power in the Netherlands after he murdered the Dutch government leader and his brother. He had a lot of blood on his hands. And his uncle Maurits did the same! Read a history book.

[@j.p.vanbolhuis8678]

Yes, and No. The yes: There basically was never a real alternative to an "Oranje" for the position of Stadhouder The No: The estates had to elect him. And in at least 2 cases they did not really do so.

[@molecatcher3383]

William's invasion and the glorious Revolution ended decades of severe oppression of the Scottish presbyterians (the majority of Scots) by the Stuart monarchs. Thank God that it happened.

[@adammartin7007]

Well hurray for the Presbyterians. Look at what they did to Catholics in Ireland.

[@molecatcher3383]

@@adammartin7007 Dates, details ?

[@dutchman7623]

I am sure the NSB invited the Germans in 1940..., and those were more than six.

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

Exactly and now we would be reading of the imperialist gangster cabal led by warmonger Churchill being caught, tried & executed

[@fado792]

Only the Raid on the Medway was an invasion. The Dutch still have the Royal Charles.

[@simonh6371]

No it was a raid. The attack on the German U boat pens in St Nazaire in 1942 was a raid not an invasion. The invasion was D-Day in 1944. You have to have boots on the ground for an invasion. The Royal Charles was a ship and was in the water, not on the ground.

[@fado792]

@@simonh6371 the first royal marines ever , the dutch, took the castles on the coastline with boots on the ground. The dutch still have the back of the ship in their museum in amsterdam. First study than react.

[@fado792]

@@simonh6371 e.g. Upnor Castle

[@JimmyStiffFingers]

GEKOLONISEERD

[@landsea7332]

2:45 As historian David Starkey joked , "You can draw a direct line from Henry VIII to Nigel Farage . " Meaning that England / Britain wants its right to self determination . Would it be accurate to say that at the time , there was a strong sentiment in England , that Papal rule was viewed as foreign interference ? .

[@zakbook15]

I'm gunna use that next time someone says Britain invaded the world. no no darling we were invited. we may have been the ones to send the invitations but that doesn't matter

[@johnpartridge101]

Queen Isabella: "Am I a joke to you?"

[@010Jordi]

If Willem landed with a couple of ships in London he would have been captured or killed he landed far away with a big army just because James was cowardly and didn't want to fight doesn't make it any less of an invasion

[@plukette]

I'm finally able to point my British friends here who insist Britain hasn't been invaded for over 900 years. Good times!

[@rey_nemaattori]

Dutch be like: G E K O L O N I S E E R D

[@armygetic2509]

Precies! We invaded Engeland en namen in het over.

[@Wee_Langside]

Certainly wasn't bloodless with minor battles with few casualties. Battle of Killiecrankie 27 July 1689, Battle of Dunkeld August 1689. Then the Battle of The Boyne 1 July 1690. Related the Battle of Beachy Head July 1690 between naval forces of France totally defeated an anglo-dutch fleet capturing 15 ships. The French supporting the deposed James VII. You could say the quick bloodless Glorious Revolution didn't end until 1746.

[@IchabodvanTassel98]

That is the Jacobite Rebellion, not the Glorious Revolution.

[@Wee_Langside]

​@@IchabodvanTassel98 The "Glorious Revolution" started when James VII was deposed 23 December 1688. Thereafter there were a series of rebellions in Scotland and Ireland to have him and his heirs reinstalled on the throne of the countries of the UK, Scotland still has to accept the new monarch in its own right as happened last week in Edinburgh. As I say there were battles in 1689 and 1690 against the new usurping monarchs. These efforts to reinstate the Stewart monarchy continued until 1746 and the Battle of Culloden, finally ending when the last of the Stewart heirs died in 1807. To claim that the unrest that followed 23 December 1688 wasn't part of the "Glorious Revolution" is bizarre in the extreme, as is to claim it was a bloodless revolution even if you try to discount events after 1692 and the Battle of Aughrim. and Glencoe. A bit like claiming the Normans had conquered England by Christmas Day 1066 and there after it was peace and tranquility and nobody died as the result of the Normans Conquest after that.

[@edwardblair4096]

I find it strange that you are repeating the statement that "England was only invaded in 1066". What about the earlier viking invasions? Would it not be better to think of William's invasion in 1066 as the "last of the viking invasions"?

[@celtspeaksgoth7251]

I didn't realise that Vikings settled across England until i started putting two & two together with all those Viking place names around the coast and Leicester itself, where I was working.

[@eelco_de_haan]

lmao i recognize the argumental response when stating that "we" were asked to invade, thus adhered and invaded, got a king appointed and shaped england's further future steps. were totally fine with england for the english....until that ginger lady came along and enamored our curly wavy haired Stadholder with gifts of land, power and a quality streets box of assorted candy. and got inadvertedly involved in the discussion how to pray to the same god. feels like we played the role of gulliver in gulliver's travels. intermediating between lilliputians and Blefuscudians on how to officially crack an egg..... never understood that after suggesting "why not? lets go to england!", nobody took a deep breath and engage in some internal narrative to say: "On second thought , let’s not go to england. ‘Tis a silly place".

[@franklin7387]

The comparison with Ukraine falls short completely. For one the stakes are much higher now, a world war, nuclear missiles, uranium enriched ammunition, the death-toll. And you have to go back 8 years ago when Guy Verhofstadt and the now deceased Hans van Balen made there 'revolution' speech at the Maiden square. Since then it's war in the Russian speaking regions of the Ukraine. That 'invasion' didn't just happend over night. The only comparison is that In any war ordinary people are always suffering at the behest and betterment of a small group of people.