2007-12-10 04:24:14 · 5 answers · asked by sierra 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No one had to die in order to replace the monarchy of England.
Parliament, through the "seven notables" didn't have to shed a bit of blood in order to replace James II.
2007-12-10 04:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by Yun 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't really a revolution just a change of monarch.
William of Orange landed at Torbay with an army of Dutch and German soldiers.
James II sent an English army to meet them but they ran away when they got to Salisbury so there was no battle.
James fled disguised as a woman but was recognised before he could leave England for France and returned to London where the people who had betrayed him eventually sent him into exile and ended the Stuart dynasty.
I can't see anything glorious in all of this.
2007-12-10 12:38:35 · answer #2 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It only became 'glorious' in hindsight. In fact, the true monarch of England and Scotland ran away with his tail between his legs and allowed a foreign adventurer to take the crown. We boast about England never having been invaded - poppycock - we were in 1687. The establishment gave in because it suited their purposes.
2007-12-10 14:10:59 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yun has answered quite correctly.
2007-12-10 12:39:10 · answer #4 · answered by Loren S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Erm... they ate pizza?
2007-12-10 12:43:07 · answer #5 · answered by black eyed lady of the flowers 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋