History questions not worth their own thread

[aronnax]

Would you consider the Glorious Revolution an invasion and subsequent military occupation of Britain by Dutch forces?

 

[Dachs]

No .

 

[aronnax]

No .

So one can say that the last time England was occupied was in 1066?

 

[say1988]

I would say the event contained both a revolution and an invasion.

 

[LightSpectra]

Would you consider the Glorious Revolution an invasion and subsequent military occupation of Britain by Dutch forces?

No, since 1) William III was a member of the House of Stuart, and 2) he was invited to overthrow James II. It was a popular coup.

 

[say1988]

I would say you are correct, but the popular coup was supported by a foreign invasion.

 

[LightSpectra]

I would say you are correct, but the popular coup was supported by a foreign invasion.

It wasn't a foreign invasion since William was invited on behalf of the Whigs. It's comparable to American troops docking in France during World War I.

 

[say1988]

If the American troops arrived and overthrew the French President.

I would say that the Monarchy was the legitimate government of the country and a foreign military force entered the country with the intent on overthrowing the Monarch and replacing him (though with support from the people).
I would more closely compare it to the recent Western invasion of Afghanistan in support of the Northern Alliance.

 

[aronnax]

If the American troops arrived and overthrew the French President.

I would say that the Monarchy was the legitimate government of the country and a foreign military force entered the country with the intent on overthrowing the Monarch and replacing him (though with support from the people).
I would more closely compare it to the recent Western invasion of Afghanistan in support of the Northern Alliance.

So in that case this sentence is true than

The last time Britain was occupied by a foreign power was in 1688.

 

[holy king]

If the American troops arrived and overthrew the French President.

they overthrew the government of france. which was the german government at that time.

 

[say1988]

I can't say if it was occupied, as I don't know what happened after the invasion, whther the foreign troops left, were disbanded, became part of the English military, or were an occupying force.
I would say Western Powers have been an occupying force in Afghanistan. Even if a country's government invites foreign troops to enter the country and the government remains, it is likely still an occupation, in my opinion.

 

[LightSpectra]

If the American troops arrived and overthrew the French President.

At the request of the French people and Vice President of France, yeah.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So how exactly do a "people" request something like that?

 

[LightSpectra]

So how exactly do a "people" request something like that?

Parliament theoretically represents the people; though that's a bit beside the point.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Parliament theoretically represents the people; though that's a bit beside the point.

A representative can only speak for the people the represent when their interests are mutual. Plutocratic and proletarian interests are NOT mutual.

 

[BananaLee]

As far as law is concerned, it is the people. It is the very theoretical basis of a representative democracy.
Whether that statement is true or not is another matter altogether, but legally, the people did ask politely.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No they didn't, Parliament did. Just say "Parliament asked them."

 

[carmen510]

Does anyone have a link to Vichy France's Constitution? (Assuming it isn't this)

Also, is there an example of one of Petain's or Laval's speeches?

 

[say1988]

Except neither parliament nor the people did not have the authority to decide who is the Monarch, so I don't think it really matters.

And as it is today, legally parliament represents the people and legally they voice the opinions of the people, or more specifically the electorate, which doesn't entirely equate to "the people" at that time. Maybe they don't do their jobs as they should in theory, but legally there is no difference.

 

[Plotinus]

William of Orange was not a member of the house of Stuart - he was simply married to a member of that house. (And even if he were a member of the house, I don't really see why that's relevant to the question whether what he did was an invasion and occupation.) More importantly, he was not invited to invade by parliament. Some MPs, acting on their own initiative as private individuals, invited him to invade. That was not a formal invitation by parliament. Once they'd done it, parliament basically said, "We would like to be the first to welcome our new Dutch overlords," but parliament did not initiate the event.

The fact that some people invited the invasion doesn't stop it from being an invasion. If, during WWII, Oswald Mosley had written to Hitler inviting him to invade Britain and it had happened, it would still have been an invasion.

William didn't just turn up on the ferry from Ostend and walk into London unopposed. He had a great big army standing right behind him. In the event, there was no fighting, because James II decided to run rather than fight (probably wisely). But if William hadn't had that army, he wouldn't have got past James and his army. What I'm saying is, he needed the army to succeed in the endeavour. I'd say that makes it an invasion. You can say it was a benevolent invasion, a welcome invasion, and a bloodless invasion (apart from James' nosebleed), and you may be right. But it's still an invasion, and moreover a foreign one.

Obviously there are other occasions when Britain was invaded and "occupied" even after 1066. The one that springs to mind is the invasion of Henry Bolingbroke in 1399, who also landed in the country with an army and displaced the king (in his case, forcing him to abdicate and then probably having him murdered). Of course that's not exactly a "foreign" invasion since Henry was English, but he did invade from overseas.