In the interests of wrapping up our discussion of 17th century England, Scotland, and Ireland, I offer the following from historian Steven Pincus for you to contemplate (i.e. consider/evaluate) concerning the events of 1688. You should be able to discuss intelligently Pincus’ position.

England’s Revolution of 1688-89 was the first modern revolution. It was a revolution that took place over a number of years rather than a number of months. It had both long-term causes and long-term intended consequences…  The Revolution of 1688-89, like all modern revolutions, was a struggle ultimately waged between two competing groups of modernizers. Both Whigs and Jacobites were modernizers. This was not the conservative and restorative revolution described in the establishment Whig historiography…. It is justifiable to understand the Revolution of 1688-89 as a bourgeois revolution in a cultural and political sense…. Modernization, in this as in all subsequent revolutions, was a cause, not a consequence, of revolution… The Revolution of 1688-89 was the culmination of a long and vitriolic argument about how to transform England into a modern nation. The depth of the argument, the intensity of the ideological differences, and the breadth of the social implications explain why the revolution involved such a broad swath of English society, why it was so violent, and why it was so divisive. It was this protracted argument, rather than a speedy palace coup against an inept king, that transformed England and then Britain into a great European and imperial power.