The study of the 28-year period of English history-from the restoration of the "legitimate" Stuart monarchy in 1660 to the "glorious revolution" of 1688-1689-is of undoubted scientific and theoretical interest. The study of various problems of restoration makes it possible, on the one hand, to trace the irreversible influence that the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century had on the socio-economic and political development of England, and, on the other, to find out the reasons for the "glorious revolution" that resulted in the establishment of the form of constitutional monarchy for which parliament fought for half a century.
English bourgeois historiography has long had two tendencies on restoration issues: conservative - Tory and liberal-Whig. Representatives of the former include those historians who, as a rule, underestimated the role and significance of the bourgeois revolution, portrayed the restoration as a return to the former, "legitimate" order, praised Charles II Stuart and claimed that there was supposedly "harmony", "peace" and "harmony"between him and Parliament. Social and class conflicts in English society at that time were either reduced to religious differences, or simply ignored .1 Representatives of the other tendency also ignored the class nature of the socio-political struggle during the restoration period, but (in any case, the largest of them2) paid more attention to the events of the revolution of the mid - 17th century, tried to think critically about what happened during the restoration, praising the "glorious revolution" in every possible way, although in general they also adhered to the the thesis of the "continuity" of the political development of England, the continuity of its laws and customs.
In recent years, English historians have focused on issues closely related to the legacy of the bourgeois revolution of the mid-seventeenth century, such as the restoration of the monarchy, the constitutional structure of England a ...
Read more