British Revolutions, or rather a lack of them.

[Watercress]

I've been having a series of interesting chats/arguments with a friend of mine regarding a interesting historical subject: America, Russia, France and many other nations had their own Revolutions, where they cast off the previous government and established new revolutionary and radical states. Our discussion was thus: Why has Britain never had one?

Well, my answer was that the British political establishment, notably the Monarchy, wisely liberalised during the 18th and 19th Century, preventing any potential revolution having political justification. My friend, on the other hand, put it down to the very culture and psychology of British people, which means they are unable to be motivated to a sufficient degree to perform such a revolution. So, what do you guys think about this, and who do you think is in the right?

[boofhead]

I've been having a series of interesting chats/arguments with a friend of mine regarding a interesting historical subject: America, Russia, France and many other nations had their own Revolutions, where they cast off the previous government and established new revolutionary and radical states. Our discussion was thus: Why has Britain never had one?

Well, my answer was that the British political establishment, notably the Monarchy, wisely liberalised during the 18th and 19th Century, preventing any potential revolution having political justification. My friend, on the other hand, put it down to the very culture and psychology of British people, which means they are unable to be motivated to a sufficient degree to perform such a revolution. So, what do you guys think about this, and who do you think is in the right?

You're both wrong. Britain has had many revolutions, although none completely got rid of the monarchy. And for your friend to suggest that a people who ruled half of the known world are unmotivated is a bit of a lark, quite frankly old chap, what?

[Mausolos of Caria]

Does the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution not count? I mean, of course, there was still a King afterwards, but it changed a lot so I think that was a ''British revolution''.

[Watercress]

Ah, I see both your points. I think we were kinda talking about more 'radical' Revolutions though, such as the French and Russian ones. Why didn't those happen?

[Hazelnut]

Because there was no need.
Britain has compared to France and Russia been relatively liberal with rights. Although it repressed its population, comparatively, the people were no so bad off, meaning a major revolution was unnecessary.
That and the fact the British politicians didn’t made any of the stupid mistakes France and Russia did. Peace with Austria for example.

[Londinium]

The Glorious Revolution was the last real one before then we could be just as radical as others, indeed the American Revolution is based off English thought not French or natively American thought. The difference was that absolute monarchy had been broken in England as far back as the 13th century. When we had that long a history of rights, it created a political culture where concessions were easier to make and the elites considered limited reform every now and then much more preferable to revolution. Compare that to the likes of the Russian monarchs, whose powers were never curbed and who had religious support for their power as well and you can see why Britain found it easier to liberalise and avoid revolution and why Russia was prone to rebellion. Then there's the fact that we're an island nation that hasn't been successfully invaded in nearly a thousand years, which of course lends itself to stability, unlike say France who had the 1st Empire, 2nd Empire and 3rd Republic all fall as direct results of lost wars and the 4th Republic fall as a side effect of the Algerian War.

Of course if you wanted to be a Marxist about it you could argue about how the upper class brought in the mercantile/industrial classes into the political system thus creating a new form of government based around the bourgeoisie and avoiding Revolution and how later the bourgeoisie co-opted the proleteriat with the voting reforms of the latter 19th century

[Col. Tartleton]

Let's see. The Parliament after a brutal years long campaign against the Cavaliers murdered King Charles I, effectively for the crime of religious tolerance, and dissolved the institution of Monarchy and established a quasi theocratic dictatorship in the person of Puritan Warlord Oliver Cromwell whose name is still damned by the Irish and Scots more than 450 years after his death. That's got to be pretty major.

Then Charle's his son James II got overthrown and exiled by a Parliament conspiracy with the Dutch Prince Willem of Orange. One of Charles II's sons also tried to overthrow his Uncle James II but failed. So that was a pretty turbulent period.

The House(s) of Brunswick-Luneburg and Saxe, Coburg, and Gotha has generally been quite good to their people in Great Britain.

But we shouldn't forget that they built and lost an Empire. There were plenty of revolutions, rebellions and wars of secession and independence, some as near to home as Ireland, some as far away as America and India.

I mean you look at a map in 1922 and a map today England does not look so grand.

As Londinium alluded, the American War of Independence was a result of King George III failing to guarantee the Bill of Rights of 1689 established under William and Mary (Americans considered themselves equally English so they were miffed they were getting second class treatment). So in effect that was a Revolution which is why we Americans call it the Revolutionary War. We didn't have the military might or desire to invade Britain, although we did attack England at home with raids.

[SLN445]

They tried it a few times but found they prefered a Monarchy
Realy there was no need or catalyst for the type of revolutions others faced, it had a constitutional Monarchy and was fairly stable for one.

[Cyclops]

The British Monarchy wasn't "wisely liberalised" in the 19th century, it was castrated in the 17th century by harsh wealthy religious nutjobs. Parliament stole the Crown's powers and and had to share them with a widening pool of players

British Revolutions? There were a few. The Civil war was a revolution aimed at replacing the King with Parliament (ie wealthy merchants) and ended up with a religious nut dictator.

1688 was a foreign invasion where the Quislings imposed constitutional restrictions on the foreign rent-a-kings.

In 1776 British subjects revolted in the Americas, not as much of a revolution as it preserved the wealthy landowners, just cut the UK off the top.

The revolts in Ireland were rarely revolutions in that they didn't aim to turn the system upside down, although 1920 was a genuine revolution. Once again a revolt against British, and this time not even by British. Wolfe Tone in the 1790's was a genuine attempt at Revolution (on contemporary French principles) by a cultural Briton against the British.

So masses of revolts and a few serious stabs at revolution. I think most failed because they had nothing better to offer (esp Cromwell "I come to rid you of hereditary Kings and leave my postition to my son lol") but the Quisling merchants in 1688 managed to by a slice of sovreignty and were prepared to deal out slices as the price of keeping power (bloodshed was bad for business).

[Londinium]

1688 was a foreign invasion where the Quislings imposed constitutional restrictions on the foreign rent-a-kings.

Hardly. It was another coup d'etat by Parliament, who invited relatives of the current monarch, William and Mary to come and rule the country, made them agree to a strict delineation of powers between parliament and monarch and firmly put the monarchy into it's place solidifying the results of the Civil War while retaining the stabilising institution of the monarchy.

If Parliament hadn't invited William and Mary, they wouldn't be there in the first place, even in the incredibly likely event they had invaded, they'd have been defeated without the support of most of the political and military elite.

[Cyclops]

1688 was a revolution imposed by foreign arms, as legitimate as Napoleon placing his brother on the throne of Spain (only more lasting). In fact the Spanish Kings abdication in 1807 was legal (if underhanded) whereas James II's abdication was forged.

As for solidfying the results of the Civil war, well it revived some of the less attractive ideas of Cromwell like savagery in Ireland and brutal religious intolerance. However little remained of Cromwell's hypocritical dictatorship (which the Kingslayer tried to make into a hereditary position), its was dismantled as soon as practicable by its own officers. "Parliament", or to be honest a faction Whig moneymen, wanted Protestanism and intolerance, and a foreign rent-a-King to crush their fellow countrymen. Quislings.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Cromwell's revolution was arguably more radical than the French and American ones. It certainly was relative to its time.

[AUSSIE11]

1688 was a revolution imposed by foreign arms, as legitimate as Napoleon placing his brother on the throne of Spain (only more lasting). In fact the Spanish Kings abdication in 1807 was legal (if underhanded) whereas James II's abdication was forged.

As for solidfying the results of the Civil war, well it revived some of the less attractive ideas of Cromwell like savagery in Ireland and brutal religious intolerance. However little remained of Cromwell's hypocritical dictatorship (which the Kingslayer tried to make into a hereditary position), its was dismantled as soon as practicable by its own officers. "Parliament", or to be honest a faction Whig moneymen, wanted Protestanism and intolerance, and a foreign rent-a-King to crush their fellow countrymen. Quislings.

There are several key differences between the replacement of James II with William and Mary and that of Ferdinand with Joseph. For one thing the crown was not being removed from the family with one of James II Children, Mary, being co-monarch with her husband. James was quite unpopular from my understanding and also reigned during the Bloody Assizes and favoured Judge Jeffreys who was not an overly well liked person.

Furthermore William landed with around 11,000 men (according to wikipedia). Hardly an overwhelming force and from what i understood there was hardly any resistance from the populace.

[Vizsla]

France was still an unreformed absolute feudal monarchy. The people were oppressed.
Russia was still an unreformed absolute feudal monarchy. The people were oppressed.
Britain was not. The people were free ish.

In England the reforms to the feudal system that gave the people greater representation started in the year 1215 with Magna Carta. The principles of Magna Carta were derived from Anglo Saxon principles that a ruler had a responsibility to the people he governed. This was derived from the earlier principles of Germanic Kingship where a King required the consent of the people before ascending the throne and had a responsibility to them.
Throughout English history there was a continuous updating of people’s rights driven by events such as the Peasant’s Revolt and the Black Death. So many of the working population died during the Black death that the survivors were able to demand better working conditions from their overlords afterwards.
The English civil war was fought, in part, for the same mantra as the American war of independence: no taxation without representation. The King lost.

At the time of the French revolution Britain was constantly at war with the French. People were more worried about the threat of invasion than internal oppression.
Part of the reason for the French revolution was the massive tax rises to pay for the massive debts to pay for the wars the French King kept losing. The English, on the other hand, had borrowed advanced financial instruments from the Dutch and were able to support a much higher level of government debt with the Bank of England (Government bonds).

At the time of the Russian revolution Britain was fighting the First World War. People were busy worrying about that. Although the Irish did take the opportunity, while everyone was dying in the trenches, to become independent, so we sort of had a revolution then.

[Comrade_Rory]

Although the Irish did take the opportunity, while everyone was dying in the trenches, to become independent, so we sort of had a revolution then.

Well I wouldn't say that. The Irish war of independence happened a couple of months after WWI.

And I wouldn't class the Easter Rising as "the Irish" as the majority of the country, especially Dubliners, weren't too happy with them.

[Azog 150]

As has been pointed out, Britain did have several Revolutions that were just as game changing as the French Revolution and the American Revolution (which was itself a product of these British revolutions). However, its true that these revolutions weren't really 'popular revolutions' as such, being more orchestrated from the top.

Since the formation of the United Kingdom the British elite have been pretty clever in the way they have gone about dividing popular opposition, as well as giving just enough concessions to the population to keep them content while at the same time keeping a grip on power. That's why over the cause of the 19th Century Britain's moves towards democracy took the form of several different voting reform acts, gradually extending the voting franchise to the different segments of the British population over the course of the century. In doing so they avoided popular revolt while at the same time delaying the introduction of voting rights for the majority.

Well I wouldn't say that. The Irish war of independence happened a couple of months after WWI.

Indeed. Many of the men who helped lead and fight the Irish War of Independence (On all sides- whether they be Irish Unionists, Irish Nationalists or British) were themselves fighting against the Germans in the trenches not long before, side-by-side. Indeed, one of the blights on Ireland's early years as an independent state was the way in which these war veterans returned to Ireland only to be chastised by society, facing verbal abuse, discrimination and even physical assault. The fact that many nationalists joined up to fight in WW1 in the first place specifically to help further the cause of Irish nationalism was forgotten.

[Himster]

Well I wouldn't say that. The Irish war of independence happened a couple of months after WWI.

And I wouldn't class the Easter Rising as "the Irish" as the majority of the country, especially Dubliners, weren't too happy with them.

The general Irish attitude of the Irish people (specifically the intellectual class) is summed up by W.B. Yeats' poem "Easter 1916" where the first half condemns the motley assortment of idealists (many whom he personally knew) for their foolishness, but later in the poem his opinion is changed: "All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born", martyrdom can have that effect.

Although the Irish did take the opportunity, while everyone was dying in the trenches, to become independent, so we sort of had a revolution then.

Well actually Irish home rule was chartered in the Home-rule bill for 1914, when this promise was reneged on it caused the 1916 Easter rising, as a compromise the British government offered home-rule in return for volunteers for the trenches, these were given; home rule was not: it was not until after the great war that the war for independence began.

Anyway, more on topic: England did have a revolution of sorts, one of the most conservative revolutions in history, the civil war which the rebels won and a parliament was assembled and a constitutional monarchy reigned ever since. How is that not a revolution?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Ah, I see both your points. I think we were kinda talking about more 'radical' Revolutions though, such as the French and Russian ones. Why didn't those happen?

The English civil war was a pretty radical anti-monarchy war and successfully got rid of the monarchy for some years under a republican Commonwealth of England. And Cromwell was just as brutal as any Stalin or Robespierre.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'd say it was a Republic. I consider Nazi Germany to be a Republic of sorts. Rome was still a Republic under the Dictators. Cromwell had a Parliament. It probably only stopped being a republic when he appointed his son as his heir. Nepotism is one thing, but hereditary succession is something else.

[Comrade_Rory]

Well I think it comes under Republican Dictatorship in EUIII if I'm not mistaken haha.