Award Name

Restricted to Claremont Colleges First-Year Award Winner

Researcher ORCID Identifier

0009-0000-5235-9451

Award Date

2026

Description/Abstract

This paper examines how historians have interpreted the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 and asks whether it should be understood as a true modern revolution or as a conservative restoration. Rather than offering a narrative account of events, it traces three major historiographical frameworks through which scholars have analyzed the Revolution: legal, fiscal, and political. The legal interpretation shows how concepts such as abdication, social contract, trust, and consent allowed Parliament to frame the removal of James II as a constitutional act rather than an act of rebellion. The fiscal interpretation emphasizes the post-1688 transformation of public credit, parliamentary control over taxation, the growth of long-term borrowing, and the emergence of a more accountable state. The political interpretation explores debates over the ancient constitution, parliamentary sovereignty, the rise of partisan conflict, and revisionist critiques that stress continuity and oligarchic preservation. These interpretations suggest that the Glorious Revolution did not simply preserve the old order or create an entirely new one. Instead, it redefined the terms of legitimate political authority in England by making constitutional accountability, parliamentary scrutiny, institutional trust, and parliamentary consent central to governance.

Terms of Use & License Information

Terms of Use for work posted in Scholarship@Claremont.

Download

Share

COinS