Why Was William A Successful Than One Or Two-Party System?

Secondly, we have seen that William was not considered to be the legitimate King by some Tories. They applied passive obedience with James, but could they do as well with a King they did not believe to have been appointed by God? With the sudden death of Mary who had produced no heir, the succession of William was found in Mary’s sister Anne which contented both Tories and Whigs as she was from the Stuart dynasty, although some Tories would have preferred for James’ son, the Old Pretender, to be crowned instead. Anne’s succession became a complex issue, discussed even before Anne became Queen, as her only surviving son died in 1700. The Whigs agreed on the Hanover family but Tories were split, permitting Whigs to come to power thanks to their stronger unity. Thirdly, the Tories believed everyone should be a member of the National Church while the Whigs were much more tolerant of dissenters: they managed to pass the Toleration Bill in 1689, encouraged by
Indeed, both parties did compromises and concessions in order to have a viable parliament. Nevertheless, the two-party system cannot be called a success. It was common for people to switch party when they were disagreeing with a policy, which proves the artificiality of the supposed division as the same man could be contented by the two ideologies. The two parties were also rather similar to William who disliked both of them and switched between the two in his government. He surprisingly favoured the Whig party, which comprised a number of anti-monarchical politicians. In the end, what divided the two parties the most was their common goal to be in power, which was prevented from happening by William and Anne who always made sure to have a mixed government, meaning that no one was entirely happy but helped them avoid making