After James had already practically lost

Isn't it VII, not VI?

And their ‘gifts’

He was invited because he was married to the next in line to the throne and was in the line of succession himself. Then he had to agree to be the co-monarch with his wife and agree to all the limitations put forth by the English parliament. If you want to claim it as an invasion then it must be the weakest invasion in history.

@@murmursmeglos so that army (which was better equipped then the Eglish army I might add ) were just the guests for the corronation?? No it was an invasion, the fact you choose to hide behind the fact the leading class was fine with it does not change that. Dutch troops patroled London for months after the corronation

@@robvoncken2565 I didn't deny the word invasion (or else this just becomes a game of wordplay), I said it's a weak invasion because it wouldn't have happened without permission and William agreeing to limited power. You've got to ask yourself why you want it to be classed as an invasion when it was about gaining a strategic ally in the war with France and Catholicism.

There have indeed been multiple successful continental invasions of England post-1066. However, none of these, including William of Orange's, were the same kind of classical invasion as the Norman one for instance, and are therefore, understandably, not usually treated the same and often are not even called invasions. All of these, such as Elizabeth of France's, Henry Tudor's and William of Orange's, took place in the context of civil war or internal upheaval, with the invader very firmly identified with one of the opposing internal factions. They weren't 'conquests' in the traditional sense - they were accompanied by widespread risings of popular support and facilitated major internal machinations, and they didn't impose any kind of French or Dutch ownership or even hegemony over England, though of course there were benefits for the countries from which the invasions originated as well and their success did come with some influence of those countries on England. So yes, it was an invasion, but not an 'invasion' invasion.

@@vulpesaustralis1452 not an invasion invassion...liked that. We still not should have , really put an end to our golden age

It was a glorious victory for the Dutch : )

@@nonegone7170 nope, it was the start of the end for the Dutch Republic. The Navigation Acts were not reprieved. The Dutch navy was allowed to be only 2/3 of the British navy and the global trade hub went from Amsterdam to London, cementing the foundation of what would become the British Empire. I would call it a pyrrhic victory for the Dutch

It should be noted that the whigs who were put in power by william ruled over the entire industrial revolution. Makes you wonder if it really was the english responsible for the Industrial Revolution or the windmill people?

@@nonegone7170 If anything it was a victory for Protestantism, which was the whole reason behind it. But it wouldn't have even happened without William being married to Mary and I don't think it benefitted the Dutch much. Mary had to be co-monarch with him and then her sister would take it over anyway.

@@reinhardtburger7108 I think it was more The Whigs that helped the Glorious Revolution happen rather than it making the Whigs happen. Feels like William was more of a passenger in an ever-changing Britain, with a reduced monarchy and more powerful government. The Whigs and Tories would continue to wrestle for power during and after William, with the Whigs taking the most power long after William was gone.