arguments regarding the Revolution that had once been perpetuated by the Whigs while also rejecting the Marxist interpretation of events. While Speck downplayed the nature of the events in 1688 he rightfully concludes that 1688 was a revolution. The problem, and the source for the continuing fascination with the events of 1688, is determining what kind of revolution it was. There were numerous conferences and symposiums held in 1988 that met to discuss the events of 1688 and their impact on Great Britain. The talks held at these events covered every aspect of the Revolution from the meaning of the name to a broader interpretation of where exactly the Revolution occurred. Lois Schwoerer wrote that, in regards to the term Glorious Revolution, who used the epithet revealed how myopic and narrow was their ‘People perspective, for obviously Revolution: could apply only to England, not to Scotland or “Glorious Ireland.’ This is particularly true for Ireland where the Catholic majority rallied to James II in 1689 only to face a crushing defeat under William III that ensured that Ireland would be ruled by a Protestant minority. K.H.D. Haley wrote that William’s invasion of England would not have succeeded if he had not had support from the Dutch States-General, thereby adding support to the argument that William’s actions in 1688 were in some aspect a foreign invasion. John C. Rule extended the international element of the Revolution of 1688 to a discussion regarding why Louis XIV did seemingly nothing to help his potential ally, James II, ward off William III. These new arguments revealed that historians were finally asking the deep complex questions about the Revolution that the Whig historians had ignored and broadening the impact of the Revolution beyond England to the whole of the British Isles and Europe. These were important steps taken in beginning to truly understand what had happened in 1688 and there were a number of conclusions that many of these historians all seemed to reach a consensus on. Most seem to agree that the Revolution settlement did alter the nature of the
arguments regarding the Revolution that had once been perpetuated by the Whigs while also rejecting the Marxist interpretation of events. While Speck downplayed the nature of the events in 1688 he rightfully concludes that 1688 was a revolution. The problem, and the source for the continuing fascination with the events of 1688, is determining what kind of revolution it was. There were numerous conferences and symposiums held in 1988 that met to discuss the events of 1688 and their impact on Great Britain. The talks held at these events covered every aspect of the Revolution from the meaning of the name to a broader interpretation of where exactly the Revolution occurred. Lois Schwoerer wrote that, in regards to the term Glorious Revolution, ‘People who used the epithet revealed how myopic and narrow was their perspective, for obviously “Glorious Revolution: could apply only to England, not to Scotland or Ireland.’ This is particularly true for Ireland where the Catholic majority rallied to James II in 1689 only to face a crushing defeat under William III that ensured that Ireland would be ruled by a Protestant minority. K.H.D. Haley wrote that William’s invasion of England would not have succeeded if he had not had support from the Dutch States-General, thereby adding support to the argument that William’s actions in 1688 were in some aspect a foreign invasion. John C. Rule extended the international element of the Revolution of 1688 to a discussion regarding why Louis XIV did seemingly nothing to help his potential ally, James II, ward off William III. These new arguments revealed that historians were finally asking the deep complex questions about the Revolution that the Whig historians had ignored and broadening the impact of the Revolution beyond England to the whole of the British Isles and Europe. These were important steps taken in beginning to truly understand what had happened in 1688 and there were a number of conclusions that many of these historians all seemed to reach a consensus on. Most seem to agree that the Revolution settlement did alter the nature of the