Some notes on this video: First, off watch to other videos in the playlist, they’re awesome! bit.ly/Project_Revolution Second, a note about religion (this won’t go badly right?). When telling the story of the Glorious Revolution a lot of writers will present it as a Protestant vs Catholic story, casually placing Anglicans in with Protestants. There is some very good reasons for them to do this, it’s simpler and historically speaking there wasn’t the large division between the various Protestant denominations at this time. But, I think my viewers are smarter than most and can deal with the nuance, so I mentioned when people were Anglican vs Protestant. Anglicans diverged from the papacy in a very different way than other Protestants. Protestants, like Luther and Calvin, were challenging the policies and actions of the established Roman Catholic Church, they “protested” the church by leaving it on religious grounds. But the Anglican tradition is rooted with Henry VIII, who split from the papacy when the Pope refused to annul his marriage, the split came about because of political reasons. The resulting Anglicans had, at the time of the Glorious Revolution, a lot of comradery with other Protestants, but Mary, Williams wife, cousin and coregent, was an Anglican. She wasn’t just a good type of Christian (Protestant) but she was the best type of Christian (Anglican). Third, flags. You might have noticed I used a flag that looks like the flag of Luxemburg for the Dutch in this video. This is the “Statenvlag” and was the flag of the Dutch Republic at the time of the Glorious Revolution. The modern national flag of the Netherlands, officially introduced in 1937, is based on this flag. However, because it’s so similar to the flag of Luxemburg I didn’t use it in the thumbnail but used the earlier “Prinsenvlag”, this wasn’t in use by this time but it’s more recognisable and I guessed it would be more “clickable” on the thumbnail. So yeah, thanks RU-vid for making me less accurate in order to teach people things, sigh.
Glorious Revolution?! more like tribalism .. repeating every hundred odd years. As for "teach people things" Reading verified history and research is better than cartoons and info-graphs.
Do you know the payout difference between an annuity and a bond? Till this day the reason for war boils down to the monopoly on violence. James II was caught in an arbitrage between bonds and annuities for war payments. It was never a civil war, he was bankrupt - that is all. We look back at history with terms like 'revenue' or 'governance' or 'religion' but the principals are forgotten - like with Tony Blair (the credit crisis of 2008 was postponed for war in 2004). James tried to make England a better country, that is not ruled by bonds holders or annuity insurers, but to trust the monarch - he tried to make it about god. Tony Blair did the same. Ironically, war bonds was issued by William and later slave bonds by George IV. Both was intended to finance the navy and never the subjects or victims. In both cases, bond yield was lower than annuities on risk.
@@Soliloquy084 Which is always a shame, perspectives matter. Whether you're the winner or the loser, we can still make history more vibrant if we know these other sides too.
Video: is about the Netherlands Dutchmen: G E K O L O N I S E E R D Someone: says something about the Netherlands in the comments Dutchmen: Z E G M A K K E R
One of the most underrated revolutions! I've realised these are my favourite type of revolutions - not much violence involved and almost flies under the radar compared to the big boy ones but in the grand scope of things, ended up being pivotal! Good job on the video as well!
Thanks, there is certainly a tendency in history to focus on great battles and such, often the politics behind them are equally as interesting. However, a lot of "History" (in the classroom sense) is about building a national identity and battles and such lend themselves well to that. We also tend to teach about wars we won which helps, it becomes a story about how 'we' won and are the best and 'they' lost and are the worst, and here are our heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for your nation so you better well respect it.
Yeah I think it's a great example of how we use history to build national pride. We (anglophones) focus our story on the role of the English politicians, emphasizing the parliamentary supremacy aspect and minimizing the no freedom of religion aspects.
Great video and often a forgotten feat of the Dutch! Funny how in Dutch it is called the "Roemrijke omwenteling", doesn't really have the same ring to it as Glorious Revolution.
Fun fact: The accession of William of Orange to the English throne established the doctrine of constructive invitation in international law, by which a legitimate government can invite another country to invade in order to depose an illegitimate leader. This was (to my knowledge) not used again until the US invasion of Grenada in 1983.
Juan Guaidó (Legal president) has been told by Venezuelans that he should request the US to invade and remove Maduro But he won't cause he's a weak dumbass
Ignorant, That has happened in English history before , Back in the viking era of Wessex and York etc , rules would be asked to come over after a current one died
This event is actually the start of one my favourite alternate history scenarios. If William’s lineage had continued, there’s a reasonable chance that the Netherlands would have been incorporated into the UK, which has a major impact on the history of the world. The UK and NL had the two most powerful navies of their time, and together they would likely have been even more powerful. This is helped by the fact that both navies were weakened in the Anglo-Dutch wars that followed. A stronger “UK” would have had a far higher chance of being able to quell the American Revolution. (As their inability to supply their forces played a major role in the Continental Army’s success.) On top of this, Dutch colonies owned by the VOC would be incorporated into “Anglo-Dutch Empire”, leading to a world where the Empire has a far greater extent than in our timeline. Looking further into the future, the British ban of slavery in the 1800s could maybe have reduced the mistreatment of people in Dutch colonies, although that can be debated since the British weren’t too kind to their own colonies even after the ban. The UK’s new land in the Netherlands would also greatly affect the events of WWI and WWII (assuming they still occur), as the UK may have opted for a less defensive campaign, given that they would want to protect the Netherlands. If Germany still follows their WWII strategy or our timeline, the successful invasion of the “UK” would likely be a bit of a morale killer. However, in this timeline the US - still being in the empire - would have been able to enter the war at full force immediately, strengthening the allied cause, and leading them to likely still win in this timeline. After the war, it is reasonably possible that the Anglo-Dutch Empire survives, given the fact that the US economy (fundamentally still part of the Empire’s economy now) would massively reduce the impact the war had on the “UK” government. Either way, there’s lots to explore here, which is why it’s my favourite alternate history scenario. One tiny change that was reasonably likely to occur, and suddenly the history of the entire world is different!
The Dutch would not have a half-Dutch ruler in England claiming rule. Someone would tear the Netherlands away from the Willem IIi line and rule apart from them. Remember that Charles II fought two wars with the Dutch, so despite Willem being popular with Protestants there was still animosity against the Dutch.
Also, keep in mind that William was Stadtholder (and not actually of all of the provinces, although of the one that really mattered), in practice this was hereditary. The Stadtholder was appointed and likely at some stage, the provinces would choose someone other than the British heir. The new King in Britain would then have a choice to press a claim on the territory, but that would have been politically difficult. There wouldn't really be any legal basis for Britain, the Act of Abjuration was clear on this. Also, the last King to rule over a Stadtholder was Spanish, claiming the Netherlands as a birthright might have been seen as a declaration of war on Spain as well. A Jacobite pretender might have been around in France too, and so the French might have seen an opportunity. That is to say that a British King could easily find himself at war with much of the continent, fighting the Dutch and Spanish in the low lands and the French and Jacobites in Ireland. You might end up with a much weaker British Empire rather than a stronger one, in which case I'd be typing in French or Spanish.
Excellent thoughts, but bear in mind that from 1714 the Kingdom of Hanover was in personal union with the Crown of Great Britain. As Hanover bordered the Netherlands, the combined British, Hanoverian and Dutch states would have been such a great power that even Bourbon France or Austria/HRE couldn't challenge them. That means the French Revolution could be squashed and the history of Europe (and thus the world) would be radically changed
At this time, it's fair to say that England and the Netherlands were one country, but William didn't have everything go his way. He wanted the English army to help fight France, but instead the English pushed for an invasion of Ireland. William, being from the more religiously tolerant Netherlands, was willing to spare the Catholic Irish from land confiscations if they surrendered , but the English willfully ignored and broke that promise. And it's here too that England's institutions modernise by emulating the Dutch, while the Dutch from here on out go into decline as a major power. Also, the checks and balances on the monarchy not only frustrated William's plans for England, they also mark the definitive point where the English monarchy effectively loses their real political power, leaving the Crown as a figurehead and Parliament as the institution that held all the cards.
I wouldn't say they were one country. It's fair to say that England and most of the Dutch Provinces were in personal union but they were very separate nations and their legal systems were separate. With regards to Williams treatment of the Catholics, keep in mind the Holy Roman Empire was an important member of the Grand Alliance and was Catholic, William had promised Leopold he wouldn't persecute the Catholics in Britain and he couldn't really afford to lose Leopold's support. As you note the English were not really cooperating with this but William at least had to try and hold them back.
@@Soliloquy084 do you know much on henry booth, the first earl of Warrington at this time? I found it interesting as we both share the same last name even tho there most likely no relation.
Well, I am slowly making my way through the Best of History RU-vid playlist and am now on number 30! Anyway, I gave you a thumbs up and subscribed. I teach this topic in both my World and Western history class, so it was interesting to watch a video on it.
Yeah, for the animation I used the "effective date" for the US Constitution rather than the "ratified date", honestly it was a pretty quick decision and might have justified more thought if it wasn't for the collab deadline. In the grand scheme of things a minor issue.
As some guy who likes European history, it was pretty clear (for me at least) who this person was, along with Mary, Willem the III of England, and II of the Netherlands.
So cool to learn of my nation's history from the perspective of other countries. Of course I learned about it in Dutch high school but you can never trust your own countrymen, who made those lessons, to not be a tad biased.
As it didn't show up in the video: this is also the event which brought this particular sense of the word 'revolution' into the English language - as satire. One of the Royal Society crew, cant' remember which, referred to it as the Glorious Revolution, on the grounds that once it was over everything was back where they started again; as in the revolution of a wheel.
I never quite know what to make of these comments l, there are always going to be some people who could have used the video earlier but now its here and ready for those that need it in the future.
Hard to imagine that at some point England was ruled by a Dutchman... instead of Germans that rule it now or French that ruled it before or the Norman vikings that came earlier... xD
Eeuhm we beat the english and french navy(combined) once and almost did twice if it wernt for one incompetant guy who ignored his orders. This was in a diffrent time period tho
@@VanBurenOfficial it was the username made by 5 years younger me. I don’t have a clue what it stands for but I do know that 5 years younger me is a weird fella
What happened to the Dutch? Did William abandon them? Wasn't France trying to subdue the Dutch? William came over, but did he also bring any courtiers who became influential?
William’s ultimate goal was to merge the royal houses of England and the Netherlands, making the Dutch Republic a vassal state under England via a Personal Union. This plan failed however because William could not produce an heir and he died childless. (Some historians think he was a homosexual or severely introverted, which didn’t really help either). After Williams death, the Dutch Republic went into the Second Stadtholderless Period, but later elected William IV, part of the ‘Frisian’ Orange-Nassau dynasty, as their new stadtholder (and therefore the direct male line of William of Orange died out). In England Queen Anne, daughter of James II, was crowned, and family ties between the two royal houses were severed.
The video doesnt make it fully clear but in 1672 the French and English formed an alliance against the Dutch. The Dutch barrely survived this. William III planned this invasion many years in advance, but the French having a war in the Holy Roman Empire ( so being distracted) was the main reason for it. Being invited too help the British people is most likely propaganda. After the succesfull invasion he modelled the country after the Netherlands. A national bank was founded, a the first stock exchange came a long and the parlement got influence ( which was exactly the same in the Netherlands, but it was called de raad van staat). An agreement was made that if he had kids they wouldnt be the first to the throne just like in the Netherlands. This all lead to the rise of England as an empire. (without this invasion, GB would probably have never been important) After stabilizing GB the Dutch+GB went to war against the French again for years leading to a slight loss for the French. In the end The Netherlands was saved from an expanding French empire. The English got reformed to the Dutch standards and in ~10 years they took over the Netherlands in being the richest country on earth.
Except it wasnt beaten, because the majority wanted the current king gone. If you punch a guy and his mates are like yeah just hit him again please, you haven’t beaten the other guys. That chang must be hella strong that you guys are smoking over there
@@colonelturmeric558 It just depends on how you look at it. You can factual say: England got invaded by the largest naval invasion until D-day by there Arch-enemy for the last century, which they had 3 major wars with in the 50 years after their official independence of which 2 they lost. After which the country was completly moddeled after the country of the invader
I think you need to change the title. It must be how the stadholder of the Netherlands also become king of England. Because William 3 was certainly no ordinary Dutchman. It's almost blasphemy
If by first and only time this has happened in history, you mean a country having two regents, that is false, if you mean that two people invade and jointly become dual monarchs, then yes.
@Meneer Van dijk Phillip II was the best king. He established the 8-hour workday. British Ambition is what make the Netherlands break up. Remember that the current anthem reminds of the time before breaking up. "Wilhelmus van Nassouwe ben ik" "den Koning van Hispanje heb ik altijd geëerd."
William was not a Traitor.,. he and phiilip where like brothers and he saw that what phillip wants dont work... so he had constant contact with Phillip.. Phillip was at a point insane and banned William this is the part when Wiliam fights back.. as Catholic...
There’s a lot more to it than that, it goes all the way back to the original celtic culture of the now english (most english people are more similar genetically to the welsh and irish than they are the saxons) and also the magna carta and the establishment of common law. Bet you didn’t know that a jury of your peers originated with pre-saxon era britain? We dont just stop our monarchs being tyrants, we force them to write new laws afterwards too. It was about more than religion
This happened before this event. A lot of English and Scottish people moved to Ireland to convert them to protestantism. Most of them settled in Northen Ireland
@@mankytoes it actualy doesnt really matter the nobility clan was a international clan in itself, the british royal family maried before princes diana 400 years constantly abroad.
Which is funny because we never were fully nay of those. Modern dna research has shown that most english people except for in kent are far more native briton than we are led to believe. Thats really helped for the past several hundred years to keep the countries of these isles at each others throats in bitterness.
9:00 "The dutch declaration of independence". The declaration of independence is actually based on this, so the American Plakaat van Verlatinghe would be more accurate.
That William sold out the dutch and it is the time the Netherlands Lost lots of its power and trades. They should have stayed a Republic when William got older.
He didnt sell out the Dutch. He wanted to prevent a second alliance between the English and the French. And he succesfully defended the Netherlands against the French with the English support. But he did innovate GB to the point they became the most rich nation on earth which eventually lead to the Dutch down fall and the English rise to the number one position
