ArchDruid, even when royal families are intricately linked it does not give a legal excuse to go to another country to take the crown without the consent of the ruler there - in my book, it's an invasion as long as one party tries to take power and/or territory from another, with the ruling government disagreeing. This was clearly the case in all these examples.
As to it being a surprise that the UK was never under anyone else's dominion - with the exception of the Glorious Revolution, invasions of another country were not done as they disturbed the balance of power too much - this was especially true of Western Europe. It was generally pretty easy to establish strong coalitions to drive out the conquerors.
Even if you look at land powers such as the Dutch Republic during the early modern period, you will find the number of invasions to be low - after Louis XIV's Dutch War the only serious attempt at conquering the country came in 1795 (apart from that the only two incursions of Dutch territory would be the sieges of 's Hertogenbosch and Maastricht in 1747-'48, which were done as bargaining counters for the peace negotiations, not for conquest). Because the Western European countries were all so closely related, any of them being conquered by another would lead to a major unbalancing of power. Hence the major outrage across Europe when France tried to only conquer the Spanish Netherlands (modern-day Belgium) in the 1660s: not even such a minor conquest would be allowed by the other foreign powers.
Furthermore, sound political and military thinkers will only divert their armies and resources to an invasion if they think they can actually pull it off. Prince Louis invaded because the rebellious barons invited him; William because four parliamentarians invited him and there was a lot of dislike among the people for the Catholic King; the French in 1797 came in hopes of sparking revolt among the Welsh, who they still considered to be anti-English.
In the case of the Glorious Revolution, the UK actually can be seen as being somewhat under foreign dominion - certainly under foreign influence. William of Orange appointed many Dutchmen to top governmental posts in the British Isles, and there was some dissent among the British about this. However, they still preferred a Protestant King over a Catholic one, so they decided to just sit him out. Another reason why they accepted William as their king was that they could set him harsher terms: when William ascended the throne, he had to accept the return of regal limitations that Charles II and James II had abolished to consolidate their position.
Historically, the term "Glorious Revolution" didn't mean a revolution as we know it today. Rather, revolution meant going round, the full circle; the Glorious Revolution of 1688 returned royal and parliamentarian power to what it was before the Civil War, restoring the old order.
Furthermore, you ignored most of my arguments to simply return to your "But they were family!" point.
Kor |
The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
[This message has been edited by Kor (edited 02-04-2006 @ 06:23 AM).]