The Glorious Revolution of 1688: Causes and Legacy

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 replaced James II with the joint monarchy of William III and Mary II after a large Dutch military intervention. The resulting settlement restricted several royal powers and strengthened Parliament in England. However, the revolution was neither bloodless nor identical across the three kingdoms: Scotland adopted its own Claim of Right, while Ireland endured a major Williamite-Jacobite war.

What was the Glorious Revolution?

The Glorious Revolution was the political and military crisis of 1688–1689 that removed the Catholic James II from the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. His Protestant daughter Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange replaced him as joint monarchs.

The name “Glorious Revolution” became popular because later supporters portrayed the transfer of power as lawful, Protestant and comparatively peaceful. This interpretation emphasised parliamentary liberty and contrasted 1688 with the Civil Wars and regicide of the 1640s.

However, William did not simply accept an invitation and arrive as an unarmed mediator. He crossed the Channel with a Dutch fleet, professional soldiers, artillery and substantial financial support. His expedition constituted a foreign invasion, even though English political and military defections allowed it to succeed with limited fighting in England.

The revolution also developed differently across the Stuart kingdoms. England experienced a rapid collapse of royal authority. Scotland adopted a separate constitutional and religious settlement, while Ireland became the principal battlefield between Williamite and Jacobite forces.

Why did opposition to James II become a revolution?

James II had succeeded his brother Charles II peacefully in 1685. Many Tory and Anglican supporters accepted his Catholicism because they defended hereditary succession and feared another period of rebellion or republican government.

James initially possessed a reliable Parliament, substantial revenue and a standing army. The failed Monmouth Rebellion strengthened his position and allowed him to present political opposition as a threat to public order.

Nevertheless, James steadily dismantled the coalition that protected him. He appointed Catholic officers despite the Test Acts, used his dispensing power to exempt individuals from legislation and maintained a large army near London. He also intervened in universities, borough corporations and the Church of England.

His Declarations of Indulgence offered freedom of worship to Catholics and Protestant dissenters. Yet James suspended the penal laws through royal prerogative rather than securing their repeal through Parliament. Many dissenters welcomed religious relief but distrusted the constitutional mechanism that produced it.

The trial of the Seven Bishops

In 1688, James ordered Anglican clergy to read his renewed Declaration of Indulgence during church services. Seven bishops petitioned him to withdraw the instruction because they believed the Crown lacked authority to suspend legislation.

James prosecuted the bishops for seditious libel. Their acquittal on 30 June produced public celebrations and transformed senior Anglican clergy into defenders of law against royal prerogative.

The prosecution proved politically disastrous. The Church of England had supported hereditary monarchy during the Exclusion Crisis, but James now appeared willing to punish bishops who questioned his methods.

The birth of James Francis Edward Stuart

Until 1688, opponents could expect James’s Protestant daughter Mary to inherit the throne. That expectation allowed some politicians to tolerate the king’s policies as a temporary problem.

Mary of Modena gave birth to a son, James Francis Edward Stuart, on 10 June 1688. A male heir displaced Mary in the succession and created the prospect of a permanent Catholic dynasty.

Opponents circulated the false claim that attendants had smuggled the child into the birth chamber inside a warming pan. The rumour lacked credible evidence, but its popularity demonstrated the depth of distrust surrounding the royal family.

Why did William of Orange intervene?

William of Orange was James II’s nephew as well as the husband of James’s daughter Mary. He served as Stadtholder of several Dutch provinces and had spent much of his political career resisting the expansion of Louis XIV’s France.

William’s intervention therefore had European as well as English objectives. A pro-French or politically isolated England could weaken the Dutch Republic. A cooperative English government could instead contribute ships, money and soldiers to a wider coalition against France.

William also needed to protect Mary’s position in the succession. The birth of James’s son threatened to exclude her indefinitely and potentially align the Stuart monarchy more closely with Catholic France.

English politicians had communicated privately with William before the summer of 1688. However, the king’s prosecution of the bishops and the birth of a male heir convinced several prominent figures that domestic opposition alone would not remove James’s policies.

The invitation of the Immortal Seven

On 30 June 1688, seven English political and military figures sent William a formal invitation. Later generations called them the Immortal Seven. Their group included both Whigs and Tories, signalling that opposition to James had spread beyond one political faction.

The signatories assured William that a large part of the country would support him if he arrived with an effective military force. They asked him to secure a free Parliament and investigate the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Prince of Wales.

The invitation gave William valuable political legitimacy, but it did not represent a democratic national mandate. Seven elite figures could not speak formally for the population, Parliament or all three kingdoms.

William nevertheless used the letter to present his expedition as a defence of Protestant religion, English liberty and parliamentary government rather than an act of conquest.

The Dutch invasion of England

The Dutch prepared one of the largest amphibious expeditions attempted in early modern Europe. William assembled warships, transport vessels, cavalry, infantry, artillery and supplies while his supporters distributed printed declarations explaining his objectives.

The expedition initially sailed in October but encountered severe weather and returned to port. A favourable wind later carried the fleet through the Channel while preventing James’s navy from mounting an effective interception.

William landed at Brixham in Torbay on 5 November 1688 with approximately 15,000 troops, many of them Dutch or soldiers serving within the Dutch military system. The date deliberately coincided with the anniversary of the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot.

His standards proclaimed support for Protestant religion and liberty. Printed copies of his declaration insisted that he sought a free Parliament, the protection of established laws and an investigation into the legitimacy of the royal heir.

Why did William meet so little resistance?

William did not immediately receive the universal welcome later propaganda suggested. Recruitment proceeded slowly during his first days in Devon, while many politicians waited to see whether James could organise an effective defence.

James possessed a larger army than William’s invasion force, but he doubted the loyalty of its officers. Years of controversial appointments and religious division had weakened trust within the command structure.

John Churchill, later Duke of Marlborough, abandoned James and joined William. Prince George of Denmark, the husband of James’s daughter Anne, also deserted. Anne herself escaped from London and placed herself under the protection of opponents of her father.

These defections damaged James more than an immediate military defeat might have done. The king could no longer know which commanders, courtiers or local officials would obey his orders.

The collapse and flight of James II

James initially attempted to negotiate while preparing his army. He also reversed several unpopular policies, restored dismissed officials and promised a free Parliament. His concessions arrived too late to rebuild confidence.

The king’s army began to disintegrate as William advanced. James withdrew from Salisbury and returned to London, where political authority deteriorated amid rumours, anti-Catholic violence and uncertainty over the succession.

James attempted to escape on 11 December. Before leaving, he threw the Great Seal into the River Thames, apparently hoping to obstruct lawful government. Fishermen captured him near Faversham and returned him to London.

William did not want James to become a captive whose imprisonment or execution might divide the country. James received another opportunity to leave and reached France on 23 December. Louis XIV gave him protection and continued to recognise him as the lawful king.

James’s flight created a constitutional problem. England had a living hereditary monarch who had neither formally abdicated nor been lawfully deposed through an established constitutional procedure.

Was the Glorious Revolution bloodless?

The change of government involved relatively little battlefield fighting in England. James’s military collapse and flight prevented the invasion from developing into another English civil war.

However, “bloodless” remains misleading. Soldiers and civilians died in clashes during the invasion, while anti-Catholic riots and attacks accompanied the breakdown of authority. Armed intervention made the transfer of power possible.

The description becomes still less accurate when Scotland and Ireland are included. Jacobite resistance produced military campaigns in the Scottish Highlands, while Ireland experienced sieges, major battles, famine, disease and extensive displacement between 1689 and 1691.

The revolution was therefore comparatively peaceful only within a limited English perspective. Across the three kingdoms, it opened a new phase of the conflicts that had shaped Stuart rule throughout the seventeenth century.

The Convention Parliament

William entered London in December but did not immediately declare himself king by right of conquest. Instead, he arranged for former members of Charles II’s parliaments and other political figures to advise on the summoning of a national Convention.

The Convention first met on 22 January 1689. It was not technically a lawful Parliament because no reigning monarch had summoned it. Nevertheless, it had to decide who possessed the Crown and how lawful government could resume.

Whigs generally argued that James had broken the original contract between monarch and people and had therefore forfeited the throne. Many Tories resisted the idea that subjects could depose a hereditary king.

Alternative proposals included appointing Mary as sole queen or establishing a regency that would govern formally in James’s name. William made clear that he would not serve merely as Mary’s consort or as regent for another sovereign.

The Commons eventually resolved that James had attempted to subvert the constitution, had broken the original contract and had abdicated by leaving the kingdom. The language of abdication allowed Parliament to treat the throne as vacant without explicitly asserting an unrestricted right to depose monarchs.

Why did William and Mary become joint monarchs?

Mary possessed the stronger hereditary claim because she was James’s eldest Protestant daughter. However, William controlled the army that had made the settlement possible and would not accept a subordinate constitutional role.

The Convention offered the Crown jointly to William and Mary on 13 February 1689. William exercised the executive powers of monarchy in both their names, although Mary governed during his absences on military campaigns.

The joint monarchy offered a political compromise. It preserved Mary’s hereditary legitimacy while recognising William’s military power and political leadership.

The settlement did not establish an elective monarchy in the modern sense. Parliament departed from the immediate hereditary line under exceptional circumstances, then defined a new Protestant order of succession.

The Declaration of Rights

When the Convention offered the Crown, it read the Declaration of Rights to William and Mary. The document listed James II’s alleged abuses and stated principles intended to protect parliamentary government and the laws of England.

Contrary to a common account, Parliament did not negotiate a modern contract that William and Mary had to sign before receiving the Crown. They accepted the throne after hearing the declaration, but the document did not yet possess the status of an Act of Parliament.

The declaration became statutory law in December 1689 after William and Mary gave royal assent. It then became known as the Bill of Rights.

This distinction matters because the settlement emerged through several stages. The political declaration of February preceded the legally enacted Bill of Rights by ten months.

What did the Bill of Rights establish?

The Bill of Rights declared that the Crown could not suspend laws or their execution without parliamentary authority. It also condemned the use of dispensing power in the manner practised by James II.

The monarch could not levy money for the Crown without a parliamentary grant. Maintaining a standing army during peacetime without Parliament’s consent was also declared unlawful.

The Act affirmed that elections to Parliament should be free and that parliamentary speech and debate should not be questioned in a court or another external institution. This provision became a foundation of parliamentary privilege.

Subjects retained the right to petition the monarch, and prosecutions for lawful petitioning were condemned. The Act also opposed excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments.

Finally, the Bill supported frequent parliaments and settled the succession on Protestant heirs. It excluded Catholics and anyone married to a Catholic from inheriting the English Crown under the rules then established.

Did the Bill of Rights create parliamentary sovereignty?

The Bill of Rights greatly strengthened Parliament, but it did not create the modern constitution in one stroke. William retained major royal powers, including the authority to appoint ministers, conduct diplomacy, command armed forces, declare war and dissolve Parliament.

Nor did the Act state a complete abstract doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It responded primarily to specific actions attributed to James II and defined several areas in which the Crown required parliamentary consent.

Parliament’s position grew stronger because William needed taxation and military finance for war against France. Frequent parliamentary sessions became a practical necessity as well as a constitutional principle.

The settlement therefore created a new balance rather than immediately producing a modern ceremonial monarchy. William III remained an active and powerful ruler within a political system increasingly dependent on parliamentary cooperation.

Did it protect universal individual rights?

The Bill of Rights was not a universal declaration of human equality. Most of its provisions protected Parliament, established legal procedures and Protestant political government.

Women remained excluded from parliamentary elections, and only a minority of adult men could vote. Electoral rights depended on property, local custom and social status.

Catholics faced extensive religious and political exclusion. Protestant dissenters gained limited toleration but could still be barred from public offices and universities.

The constitutional liberties celebrated after 1688 therefore coexisted with religious discrimination, colonial conquest, slavery and highly restricted political representation.

The Toleration Act of 1689

Parliament passed the Toleration Act in 1689 to reduce conflict among Protestant subjects. It allowed many Trinitarian Protestant dissenters to worship publicly in registered meeting houses after taking prescribed oaths.

Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists gained greater security for their congregations. The measure ended neither social hostility nor every form of prosecution, but it made permanent Nonconformist worship more viable.

The Act did not repeal the Corporation and Test Acts. Dissenters could worship but still faced restrictions on holding civil, municipal and military offices.

Catholics and anti-Trinitarian Protestants did not receive the same protection. The revolutionary settlement established limited Protestant pluralism rather than general religious equality.

The Scottish Revolution and the Claim of Right

Scotland did not simply receive the English constitutional settlement. James ruled there as James VII, and the Scottish Convention of Estates had to decide the status of its own Crown, Parliament and Church.

The Scottish Convention met in Edinburgh in March 1689. Unlike the English Convention, it declared that James had forfeited the Crown through his violations of law rather than merely abdicated it by flight.

The Claim of Right condemned royal interference with law, Parliament and the Reformed religion. It offered the Scottish Crown to William and Mary while defining a constitutional settlement rooted in Scotland’s own institutions.

Religious policy also differed. The Scottish settlement rejected episcopal government and restored Presbyterianism as the established form of the Church of Scotland.

Jacobite resistance continued in the Highlands. John Graham of Claverhouse, Viscount Dundee, raised forces for James and defeated a government army at Killiecrankie in July 1689, although Dundee died during the battle.

Military resistance weakened after further fighting, but Jacobitism did not disappear. Support for the exiled Stuarts survived into the eighteenth century and produced major risings in 1715 and 1745.

Ireland and the Williamite War

Ireland demonstrates most clearly why the revolution should not be described as bloodless. James retained substantial support among Irish Catholics, who hoped his restoration would reverse political exclusion and the land confiscations of the seventeenth century.

Irish Protestants generally supported William because they feared the loss of property, political power and the established Church. The conflict therefore combined a dynastic war with religious division, land ownership and the wider European struggle against France.

James landed in Ireland with French assistance in March 1689. An Irish Parliament meeting in Dublin recognised him and attempted to reverse parts of the Protestant land settlement.

The Siege of Derry

Protestant forces resisted James at Derry and Enniskillen. The prolonged siege of Derry became one of the defining events of the Williamite cause in Ireland.

Disease, hunger and bombardment caused severe suffering inside the city. A relief force eventually broke the blockade in July 1689, denying James control of the north-west.

The siege later acquired powerful commemorative significance within Ulster Protestant identity. Its memory became inseparable from later political and religious divisions.

The Battle of the Boyne

William personally arrived in Ireland in June 1690. His army included English, Scottish, Dutch, Danish, German, French Huguenot and other troops, while James commanded Irish and French forces.

The armies met near the River Boyne on 1 July 1690 under the calendar then used in the British Isles. William forced a crossing and defeated James’s army, although much of the Jacobite force escaped intact.

James returned to France after the battle. The Boyne secured Dublin and strengthened William’s political position, but it did not end the war.

Later commemorations often treated the Boyne as the decisive conclusion. Militarily, the Battle of Aughrim in July 1691 inflicted a more destructive defeat on the Jacobite army.

Aughrim and the Treaty of Limerick

Williamite forces defeated the main Jacobite army at Aughrim in July 1691. The battle caused heavy casualties and destroyed the possibility of a successful conventional Jacobite campaign.

Limerick surrendered later that year. The resulting treaty included military articles governing the departure of Jacobite soldiers and civil provisions intended to protect certain property and religious interests.

Thousands of Irish soldiers left for continental Europe in the movement later associated with the Flight of the Wild Geese. Many entered French and other European armies.

The promised protections did not develop into lasting Catholic equality. Subsequent land confiscations and penal legislation strengthened Protestant political control and further marginalised the Catholic majority.

A revolution within a European war

The events of 1688 cannot be understood solely as an English constitutional dispute. William’s principal strategic objective was to build a European coalition capable of resisting Louis XIV.

England entered the Nine Years’ War against France after the revolution. William spent long periods campaigning abroad, while Mary governed in England during his absences until her death in 1694.

War transformed the relationship between Crown and Parliament. Military expenditure required repeated taxation, borrowing and parliamentary approval.

The constitutional consequences of the revolution therefore developed through the practical demands of war. A monarch who needed annual funding could not govern effectively without regular parliamentary cooperation.

The financial and military settlement

Parliament’s control over taxation became one of its most effective sources of influence. MPs granted revenue for limited periods and examined government expenditure more closely than before.

The Mutiny Act gave the government powers needed to discipline the army but required repeated parliamentary renewal. This practice linked the legal maintenance of a standing army to Parliament’s continuing consent.

The Bank of England was founded in 1694 as a private institution that lent money to the government. It helped finance William’s war against France and became part of a broader system of public credit.

These developments created what historians often call the Financial Revolution. The state could raise larger sums through taxation and long-term borrowing, allowing Britain to sustain expensive wars and expand its naval power.

This new capacity strengthened Parliament and the state simultaneously. Parliamentary control did not necessarily reduce government power; it made a larger and better-financed government possible.

Frequent parliaments and political parties

The Triennial Act of 1694 required regular parliamentary elections and prevented one Parliament from continuing indefinitely. It did not establish a fixed modern electoral calendar, but it reinforced the expectation of frequent parliamentary government.

Whigs and Tories became more organised during William’s reign. Their divisions concerned the war, religious policy, succession, finance and the place of the monarchy within the constitution.

However, the revolution did not immediately create a modern two-party system in which one disciplined majority formed a cabinet government. Political alliances remained fluid, and the monarch retained substantial influence over ministers and parliamentary management.

The office of Prime Minister also emerged later through gradual political development. It would be inaccurate to treat 1689 as the immediate creation of the modern British cabinet and premiership.

John Locke and the right of resistance

John Locke published the Two Treatises of Government anonymously in 1689. The work defended government based on consent and argued that rulers who violated their trust could forfeit political authority.

Locke had developed much of this argument before the revolution, particularly during the political conflicts surrounding exclusion. His work should not therefore be treated merely as a philosophical commentary written after William’s victory.

Nevertheless, the Revolution of 1688 created a political environment in which contractual theories of government gained new authority. Whig writers could present resistance to James as the defence of law rather than rebellion against lawful monarchy.

Locke’s arguments later influenced political debate in Britain, continental Europe and North America. However, his theory of consent coexisted with restricted suffrage, colonial dispossession and his own connections to English colonial administration.

The Act of Settlement of 1701

The revolutionary succession remained uncertain because William and Mary had no surviving children. Mary died in 1694, while her sister Anne’s only surviving child died in 1700.

Parliament passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 to secure a Protestant succession. After Anne and any surviving descendants, the Crown would pass to Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant heirs.

The Act reinforced the exclusion of Catholics from the throne and added further constitutional provisions. It demonstrated that Parliament now claimed authority to determine the succession rather than accept hereditary descent without qualification.

Scotland did not automatically accept England’s unilateral choice of successor. The resulting constitutional and economic disputes became important causes of the Acts of Union of 1707.

The Glorious Revolution in the American colonies

The political crisis crossed the Atlantic because James II had attempted to strengthen royal control over several colonies. The Dominion of New England combined colonies under Governor Edmund Andros and restricted aspects of local government.

News of James’s fall encouraged Boston inhabitants to arrest Andros in April 1689. Political upheavals also occurred in New York and Maryland, where local groups claimed to defend Protestant religion and English liberty.

Colonists interpreted the English revolution through their own political and religious conflicts. Some used it to restore assemblies or challenge governors, while imperial authorities sought to preserve royal oversight.

The settlement strengthened a political language that joined taxation, representation, Protestantism and inherited English rights. Eighteenth-century colonists later invoked this language against parliamentary and royal policies.

However, colonial advocates applied liberty selectively. Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans, women, servants and many religious minorities remained outside the political community whose rights colonists defended.

Did the revolution establish constitutional monarchy?

The Revolution Settlement placed important legal limits on royal government. The monarch could no longer suspend laws, raise taxation or maintain a peacetime standing army solely through personal prerogative.

Yet William III did not merely “reign but not rule”. He directed foreign policy, chose ministers, commanded armies and influenced parliamentary elections and legislation.

Constitutional monarchy developed through the cumulative effects of the Bill of Rights, parliamentary taxation, annual military legislation, regular elections, public credit and later political conventions.

The revolution should therefore be understood as a decisive stage rather than the instant completion of Britain’s modern political system.

The myth and reality of English liberty

Eighteenth-century writers often celebrated Britain as a uniquely free country governed by law and Parliament. Philosophers including Montesquieu and Voltaire contrasted its constitution with continental absolute monarchy.

This reputation contained an important truth. Parliament met regularly, public credit depended on legislative approval and political opposition possessed greater institutional protection than under James II.

However, political representation remained highly unequal. Small boroughs could elect MPs while growing towns lacked proportional representation, and most adults possessed no vote.

The government also used patronage, officeholding, controlled corporations and electoral influence. Parliamentary politics did not eliminate corruption, intimidation or aristocratic power.

Religious liberty remained particularly limited. Protestant dissenters received toleration without full civil equality, while Catholics continued to face exclusion and suspicion.

The revolutionary state also expanded through war, colonial rule and slavery. Liberty for Parliament and property-owning Protestants could coexist with coercion elsewhere in the British Atlantic world.

Why the Glorious Revolution matters

The revolution demonstrated that hereditary succession could be altered when political elites believed a monarch had violated the constitution. Parliament did not abolish monarchy, but it helped define the conditions under which the Crown could operate.

The Bill of Rights became one of the central statutes of the uncodified British constitution. Its provisions concerning taxation, parliamentary speech, elections, standing armies and cruel punishment retained lasting legal and political importance.

The Scottish Claim of Right established a related but distinct constitutional settlement. It strengthened the Scottish Parliament and helped restore Presbyterian government to the national Church.

In Ireland, Williamite victory reinforced Protestant political and landed power over a Catholic majority. The military and confessional consequences of the revolution therefore differed sharply from its later reputation as a peaceful victory for liberty.

Across the Atlantic, the Revolution Settlement contributed to a political vocabulary of consent, representation and resistance. American colonists would later use that inheritance to challenge the authority of the British Parliament itself.

• The Reformation in the British Isles
• English Expansionism
• The Stuart Crisis and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms
• The English Civil War and Cromwell’s Commonwealth
• The Restoration and the Road to the Glorious Revolution
• The American Colonies: Religion and Politics

Frequently asked questions about the Glorious Revolution

Why is it called the Glorious Revolution?

Later supporters called the revolution glorious because it removed James II, protected Protestant rule and avoided another prolonged civil war in England. The name reflects a favourable political interpretation rather than a neutral description of events across all three kingdoms.

Was the Glorious Revolution a foreign invasion?

Yes. William of Orange arrived with a Dutch fleet and approximately 15,000 troops. English invitations, military defections and political support helped the invasion succeed, but they did not remove its foreign and military character.

Why did James II leave England?

James lost confidence after senior officers, politicians and members of his own family joined William. His army began to disintegrate, and he believed escape to France offered a better chance of preserving his life and eventually recovering the Crown.

Did James II abdicate?

James did not issue a formal abdication. The English Convention declared that his violations of the constitution and departure from the kingdom amounted to abdication, allowing it to treat the throne as vacant.

Did William and Mary sign the Bill of Rights before becoming monarchs?

No. The Convention read the Declaration of Rights when it offered them the Crown in February 1689. The declaration became the statutory Bill of Rights only after receiving royal assent in December.

What powers did the Bill of Rights restrict?

It restricted the Crown’s ability to suspend laws, dispense with legislation, levy taxation and maintain a peacetime standing army without Parliament. It also protected parliamentary elections, debate, petitioning and several legal rights.

Was the Glorious Revolution bloodless?

It involved comparatively little fighting in England, but it was not entirely bloodless. Scotland experienced Jacobite warfare, while the Williamite War in Ireland produced major battles, sieges, deaths and displacement until 1691.

How did the Scottish settlement differ?

The Scottish Convention declared that James VII had forfeited the throne and adopted the Claim of Right. Scotland also rejected episcopal government and restored Presbyterianism within the Church of Scotland.

Did the revolution create religious freedom?

The Toleration Act protected worship for many Protestant dissenters, but it did not establish full equality. Catholics and some other religious groups remained excluded, while dissenters still faced restrictions on public office.

Sources and further reading

• UK Parliament: overview of the Glorious Revolution
• UK Parliament: invasion and desertion
• UK Parliament: the Convention and Bill of Rights
• UK Parliament: the original Bill of Rights
• The National Archives: the Glorious Revolution
• The Royal Family: William III and Mary II
• Legislation.gov.uk: Bill of Rights 1689
• Legislation.gov.uk: Scottish Claim of Right Act 1689
• Scottish Parliament: the Claim of Right
• UK Parliament: the Toleration Act and Nonconformity
• Heritage Ireland: the Battle of the Boyne
• History Ireland: the Williamite War, 1689–1691
• Bank of England: institutional history
• UK Parliament: the Act of Settlement
• UK Parliament: the original Act of Settlement

Report a typo