Is Monarchy inherently a part of British \ English identity?

[basics]

Uh, I’m not sure I understand your post maybe you could re-phrase? Do you mean the monarchy makes us part of the EU?

Aexodus,

Or, perhaps it could be that monarchies dictate a country and not the European Union. For example, Britain being four united countries has a head who is our Queen yet the superstate has seven monarchies with absolutely no authority in it at all. France and Germany who rule the roost killed off their monarchs and so have no interest whatsoever in devolving any power at all to a King or Queen. So, when it comes to Merkel or Macron verses our Queen Elizabeth us Brits on the whole would have our Elizabeth anyday.

[95thrifleman]

The concept of British identity and the monarchy along with our relation to Europe is complicated. You have to remember that when the concept of Europe as a united entity for the first time (under the empire of Napoleon) they where our greatest enemy and we have fought wars with Spain, France and Germany that have effected our cultural beliefs on a fundamental level.

Britain has always seen itself as an entity apart from Europe and that has nowt to do with pretensions of empire.

[La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham]

Disband parliament, install Monarchy as the divine ruler of Britain...."we love our queen, god saves"

[Sar1n]

Disband parliament, install Monarchy as the divine ruler of Britain...."we love our queen, god saves"

Really? It's been my impression that the British monarch's popularity is inversely proportional to the power s/he wields. Just compare, say, Charles I to Elizabeth II.

[basics]

Sar1n,

You can't compare them as times were completely different as was the power both held or holds. To put it simply Charles believed in what the nation would do for him under the Divine rights issue whereas our Queen works on the principle of what she can do for the nation as her life portrays. Her whole life can be seen to serve rather than be served and that's why we love her.

[TheLeft]

Sar1n,

You can't compare them as times were completely different as was the power both held or holds. To put it simply Charles believed in what the nation would do for him under the Divine rights issue whereas our Queen works on the principle of what she can do for the nation as her life portrays. Her whole life can be seen to serve rather than be served and that's why we love her.

Speak for yourself.

Personally I find it difficult to love someone I've never met, am never going to meet and who wouldn't piss on me if I were on fire.

Face it. She's only there for the tourists.

[basics]

Speak for yourself.

Personally I find it difficult to love someone I've never met, am never going to meet and who wouldn't piss on me if I were on fire.

Face it. She's only there for the tourists.

The Left,

I take you're a young guy without much knowledge of what the Queen has done for this country. As a young lass she joined up to serve as others did when this country needed every help it could get learning not only to drive ambulances but to service them as well as did her sister. When the war ended both of them were in amongst the crowds outside the palace celebrating our victory. She didn't know then that not long after the crown would be thrust upon her as her dad was a dying man. She was twentyfive then although not actually crowned until two years later. I believe the number of Prime Ministers that came into office during her reign is now in double figures for this country but many others for those in the Commonwealth as well making her one very busy lady.

Finding it difficult to love someone you've never met how do you know that she wouldn't help you were you on fire? I'd wager her first instinct would be to help you, why? because as a young lass her first instinct was to serve as a soldier which she did and did honourably. Her privilege she never stood on when she could have if she had the same mentality as you but thankfully she hasn't. So, you face it, you're a moaner who thinks that the world owes you something when it doesn't but if you ever do as much work as she does and has done then perhaps you might be taken seriously.

[Prodromos]

What a load of crap. The only English monarch to be granted the title of "great" was an Anglo Saxon, Alfred the Great. Also it's got to be the most moronic statement to claim the American revolution got rid of the Normans as the monarchy of the time was from bloody Germany! Hanover to be precise.

The English civil war was a failure as the republic was deeply unpopular and replaced by a restored monarchy.

The truth is, the English have always had a deep respect and love for monarchy but we have balanced it out by law and tradition that started back with the magna carta. It is part of our culture, identity and traditions.

It's really tragic to see an Englishman parroting Norman propaganda like this. Please educate yourself, my friend. The truth is that unless you can trace your ancestry back to Norman "nobility", then without the English Civil War, you'd probably be an illiterate muckfarmer today if you hadn't died in infancy. Everything the world takes for granted today, from democracy and equality to human rights and economic liberty, is owed to the Civil War.

Seven reasons why the Battle Of Naseby changed British history forever

5. It showed what King Charles had been up to.

After the battle, the victorious Parliamentarians rampaged through the Royalists ‘baggage train’ – which is where an army keeps its supplies. While capturing great amounts of powder, arms, and food, they also seized the carriage carrying the king’s private papers, which had been left behind in the rout.

What it contained was sheer dynamite. Confirming all Parliament’s worst fears and suspicions about Charles, the papers showed that he had been trying to raise an army of Roman Catholic soldiers from Ireland to invade England, as well as negotiating help from French and Spanish mercenaries – all of them also Catholic.

What was wrong with them being Catholic? Bear in mind that Protestant England had been at war with Roman Catholic powers such as Spain and France pretty much ever since Henry VIII had broken from Rome and established the Church of England. Henry and his daughter Elizabeth had mixed Protestantism up with a bombshell cocktail of religious zealotry, national pride, and plain old xenophobia; the despotic reign of Bloody Queen Mary, the Spanish Armada, and the plots against Elizabeth were all still strong in the collective memory and Charles’ dad and King of Scotland, James VI, had only become King James I of England because he was Elizabeth’s closest Protestant relative...

Parliament wasted no time in publishing copies of this damning correspondence for the whole nation to see. Charles was shown to not only to be duplicitous but also that he seemingly only cared about being in power and he didn’t care a jot about how he got it.

This moment, combined with his sparking of the second English Civil War by getting the Scottish to invade in 1648, was what sealed his fate and led him to the executioner’s block in 1649.

6. It destroyed the idea of the divine right of kings.

Charles believed, as his father and many others before him, that he was divinely appointed to be king by God himself. Therefore, whatever he wanted to do was – naturally – what God wanted and those who were against him were against the deity himself. Unfortunately, Parliament was becoming increasingly dominated by ultra-devout Puritans who believed THEY were the ones divinely appointed by God and their mission was to overcome the tyranny of fallible Earth-bound kings.

While the war was sparked by issues over forms of worship, money, and power, it soon took on a dangerously dogmatic religious tone. With the removal of their critics in a purged Parliament and the decisive defeat of the King’s army at Naseby, it seemed to the Puritans that God now agreed with them.

After Naseby, the Puritan ‘Independent’ faction would become a political force to be reckoned with. And with one stroke of the executioner’s axe, they irrevocably changed the relationship between England’s monarch and England’s people forever.

7. It was a stepping stone to a political revolution.

In the New Model Army, Parliament had unwittingly created a pet bulldog that it could not control.

Once it had won the war and disposed of the king, and with no military force that could match it, the army quickly came to realise that IT carried the balance of political power and it became a hotbed of radical politics and discontent. Many, including political agitators within the army dubbed Levellers (because, their critics claimed, they wanted to bring rich and poor to the same level), demanded a greater say in government and a famous meeting called The Putney Debates in 1647 was the first time common people and their social superiors had sat down to debate the very question of the nation’s governance.

It hinged on the question of why had they fought in the first place. Surely, said leading Leveller sympathiser and friend of Cromwell Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, even the lowliest Englishman has the same right to a say in England’s affairs as the highest?

This, and The Leveller’s idealism, has echoed down the centuries ever since. Some claim them as proto-socialists, others as anarchistic radicals, but either way Putney set the terms of the argument for almost 370 years – an argument that is still going on today.

After Charles was executed in 1649, England (soon to be joined, whether they liked it or not, by Scotland and Ireland) became a republic called ‘The Commonwealth of England’. A limited form of Parliamentary democracy was now in practise and it finally seemed like the tyranny of absolute monarchs that had begun with the Norman invasion in 1066 was over...

After Cromwell’s death in 1658 it was ironically part of the army itself, led by General George Monck (who had been cunningly keeping out of things up in Scotland), that helped usher in the return of the monarchy in 1660.

But absolute monarchy had had its day in England and, following the invasion of the William of Orange’s Dutch forces in the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in 1688, England’s one and only true “revolution” came to a close with the constitutional monarchy that still stands, more or less in the same shape, today.

[Cope]

It's really tragic to see an Englishman parroting Norman propaganda like this. Please educate yourself, my friend. The truth is that unless you can trace your ancestry back to Norman "nobility", then without the English Civil War, you'd probably be an illiterate muckfarmer today if you hadn't died in infancy. Everything the world takes for granted today, from democracy and equality to human rights and economic liberty, is owed to the Civil War.

Since when has the Civil War been another name for God?

[Prodromos]

Since when has the Civil War been another name for God?

God gives us our rights, but the fact that we can exercise them, that's thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of men like Cromwell and Sidney. A tyrant can deny that all men are created equal, but he can't deny a blade piercing his heart. You can try to reason people into respecting you, but sometimes you have no option but to make them respect you.

[basics]

Since when has the Civil War been another name for God?

Well I can see what Prodromus is saying and perhaps he might have said God, why? Because he believes as I do that it is written that God is in everything and through everything that happens on this planet as well as outside it. Had the Civil War not happened and Britain not become Great Britain where would most of the world be today, thinking of Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia and many other places not forgetting India and Pakistan etc. Indeed there wouldn't be a Saudi Arabia or Jordan as we know them now. One can add Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong's reintegration with China to see how that nation has prospered. How did a small nation like Britain manage all these things were it not for God? The sad thing is that today we are not as God fearing as we were then.

[TheLeft]

The Left,

I take you're a young guy without much knowledge of what the Queen has done for this country.

Why do you assume that because I'm pretty indifferent to the Monarchy, I'm a young guy? Do only the middle aged and the elderly still care about the Monarchy in your eyes?

As a young lass she joined up to serve as others did when this country needed every help it could get learning not only to drive ambulances but to service them as well as did her sister. When the war ended both of them were in amongst the crowds outside the palace celebrating our victory.

Yes, she served during the war as did both my grandparents (one grandfather in shipbuilding, the other in the 8th Army, and both my grandmothers' were in nursing). The only difference is that they didn't get to lord it up in a mansion, or get given millions of pounds from the taxpayer.

Does she get extra special credit for doing what millions of others also did?

She didn't know then that not long after the crown would be thrust upon her as her dad was a dying man. She was twentyfive then although not actually crowned until two years later. I believe the number of Prime Ministers that came into office during her reign is now in double figures for this country but many others for those in the Commonwealth as well making her one very busy lady.

So unlike the rest of her feckless family, she had to do some work from the age of 25. Big deal. It's not like the rest of us mere plebs have to work for a living or anything...

Finding it difficult to love someone you've never met how do you know that she wouldn't help you were you on fire? I'd wager her first instinct would be to help you, why? because as a young lass her first instinct was to serve as a soldier which she did and did honourably. Her privilege she never stood on when she could have if she had the same mentality as you but thankfully she hasn't.

It was a figure of speech. Metaphors really do fly over your head...

So, you face it, you're a moaner who thinks that the world owes you something when it doesn't but if you ever do as much work as she does and has done then perhaps you might be taken seriously.

So anything other than complete and utter blind obedience to the Crown is moaning? Cool, then count me as a moaner then.

Also I'm pretty certain that pretty much every single working person in the country does more work than the Queen. Shaking hand with people, cutting ribbons and asking "Hello, and what do you do?" isn't exactly hard work.

Like I said, I have no personal grudge against her. I just find find the unnecessary fawning and deference pretty silly.

[TheLeft]

Well I can see what Prodromus is saying and perhaps he might have said God, why? Because he believes as I do that it is written that God is in everything and through everything that happens on this planet as well as outside it. Had the Civil War not happened and Britain not become Great Britain where would most of the world be today, thinking of Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Rhodesia and many other places not forgetting India and Pakistan etc. Indeed there wouldn't be a Saudi Arabia or Jordan as we know them now. One can add Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong's reintegration with China to see how that nation has prospered. How did a small nation like Britain manage all these things were it not for God? The sad thing is that today we are not as God fearing as we were then.

Sorry, but it's got nothing to do with God...

It's more to do with the unique social and economic circumstances of the time. Plus, the fact that Britain is sitting on a huge mound of coal. There's an interesting documentary that explains it all way better than I ever could.

https://documentaryheaven.com/why-in...happened-here/

[Cope]

Sorry, but it's got nothing to do with God...

It's more to do with the unique social and economic circumstances of the time. Plus, the fact that Britain is sitting on a huge mound of coal. There's an interesting documentary that explains it all way better than I ever could.

https://documentaryheaven.com/why-in...happened-here/

DocumentaryHeaven? Heaven isn't real. Must be fake.

[TheLeft]

DocumentaryHeaven? Heaven isn't real. Must be fake.

It's a BBC documentary, but it's not currently available on the iPlayer, hence the alternative link. But hey, I can't control the DNS of other websites and so the link is fine...

And yeah, there is no heaven, no God and Jesus (if he existed) was only a mortal man. Not that this is the thread for this topic.

[Sar1n]

It's really tragic to see an Englishman parroting Norman propaganda like this. Please educate yourself, my friend. The truth is that unless you can trace your ancestry back to Norman "nobility", then without the English Civil War, you'd probably be an illiterate muckfarmer today if you hadn't died in infancy. Everything the world takes for granted today, from democracy and equality to human rights and economic liberty, is owed to the Civil War.

Dude...I am still in doubt whether you mean it or you're just trolling.

The greatest effect of the Civil war was further erosion of the British monarch's power, which was a process which started long time ago and would happen, Civil war or not. Ironically, I think the Civil war saved the monarchy as without it, British monarchy would eventually follow the same path as most European monarchies and fall fast and hard in 19-20th century, rather than being gradually worn down to ceremonial role.

During most of 17th and good part of 18th century, Britain was mostly isolated, traditional country from intellectual standpoint while the modern, humanistic ideas were produced and championed mostly in continental Europe. Civil war had no bearing on them. And by the way...Adam Smith was a Scotsman, product of longstanding intellectual and educational tradition in Scotland that was unaffected by all that mess that was going on down south. To say that without Civil war, world would still be living in nearly medieval conditions is absolute nonsense.

[95thrifleman]

Dude...I am still in doubt whether you mean it or you're just trolling.

The greatest effect of the Civil war was further erosion of the British monarch's power, which was a process which started long time ago and would happen, Civil war or not. Ironically, I think the Civil war saved the monarchy as without it, British monarchy would eventually follow the same path as most European monarchies and fall fast and hard in 19-20th century, rather than being gradually worn down to ceremonial role.

During most of 17th and good part of 18th century, Britain was mostly isolated, traditional country from intellectual standpoint while the modern, humanistic ideas were produced and championed mostly in continental Europe. Civil war had no bearing on them. And by the way...Adam Smith was a Scotsman, product of longstanding intellectual and educational tradition in Scotland that was unaffected by all that mess that was going on down south. To say that without Civil war, world would still be living in nearly medieval conditions is absolute nonsense.

I have no idea what Podromos is smoking, but clearly he has some weird problem with Normans.

He seems to have no clue that the higher strata of English society in the 17th century was dominated by a combination of the merchant class and rich land owners like Cromwell himself. England had started it's transition from a feudal nobles v "muckfarmers" society to a more modern mercantile society during the Tudor dynasty.

[basics]

The Left,

I assume it because our kids are being indoctrinated into a system that has failed them that already have tried it and yet they still cry out that the world owes them something without the pain that goes wth life. The thing is about the Queen is that she never lords it up, rather does her duty according to the tradition set before her. She vowed to serve this family of nations to the best of her ability and she has done just that. Surely you must know that if your grandparents and parents were living in a mansion you would have nothing to complain about which puts your argument into the perspective of jealousy, why? Because in our free market economy everyone has the opportunity to better themselves, even perhaps becoming landed gentry. Oh, and her feckless family all have duties to perform as well some in active service where their lives were just as much in danger as anyone elses.

Nobody is demanding that you like the Queen. Unlike our commie countries where if you said your moans you would definitely pay for it one way or another, she demands nothing of you. I'm sorry but it has everything to do with God for just as the Bible says those that believe on Him He will bless and that was played out in the rise of the British Empire which your family played its part as did mine. Why the Empire is now broken up is because the people have for the most now given up on God. The we can have it all for nothing Labour lot got into power and made a mess of the economy which they always do and have done in my short lifetime, 76 years, and the Conservatives have always had to come in and sort out the mess, but that's socialism the world over. No personal grudge you say but of course you have and even that can be proven by what the Bible says. The Queen is a Christian, a real Christian, and therefore will be hated by many just as the world hates Christ which you have indicated in your posts.

Just a final note about the BBC. Next to CNN it's the most left wing biased broadcasting outfit in the world and so if you look at the enormous wages that it hands out to itself one has a great picture of socialism at work. The big nobs get more than Joe Bloggs as usual, why? Because they're the educated elite or so they think and bugger anyone else. They knock anything that smells of Conservatism and that can be seen by the attacks it is leading against Boris Johnston. You think the Queen is bad but just wait and see what happens to this land if Corbyn and MacDonnel ever get into power. There's no such thing as a socialist utopia, never has been and never will be. The Lord Jesus Christ is the only way.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Its an interesting question. I'd also argue that the Crown is a big part of Scottish identity too (Just to add to that 'English' part), The much-hyped (and sold ) clans are intricately tied to 'the Crown' (not necessarily a particular monarch though) and even the SNP had to make a concession last indy ref that the Queen would continue to be head of state.

For me, its a big part of Britain's tradition and history and indeed nostalgia (Though i too find the hype over Royal weddings, the BBC's forced 'low toned respectful voice' that they put on when even mentioning 'a' Royal and the parades and stuff rather dull), but i don't mind it being there.

Saying that, the Monarchy for me is interesting politically, and i actually thoroughly dislike its continued role. Firstly because Both the Queen and Charles (more so he) have actually actively interfered in policy far more than most Brits actually believe- https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/...als-veto-bills

The Royal veto is still very much in active use, of course i won't judge to say if it was for ill or not (Though knowing Charles, he's been in a fair amount of trouble for consistently promoting his interests when he can, over Britain's as a whole), the point more is the lack of democratic scrutiny.

A second issue for me, and quite ironic perhaps considering the above is that the Crown's place in the British political constitution has essentially meant that the UK's political arrangement has steadily become more unworkable, less democratic and more inscrutable than was perhaps originally intended. At most level the removal of the monarchy (relatively recently) from being an 'active' third-wheel checking approving or vetoing legislation (Told you it was ironic compared to my earlier point ) has meant a binary political structure that was only barely thought through. On top of this, the Crown's shaping of the House of Lords (Not active, but by being in existence as a political entity) has meant that a 'democratic' second chamber has thus far been an impossibility, and indeed instead, the Lords powers have been watered down and an appointee system used now for 2/3rds- meaning Governments can and do just stack the Lords with their chosen chappies and the remaining 1/3rd is based on the traditional crown enforced criteria of by blood or by church. To combat this (but to keep respect for the Crowns passive yet important presence) the powers of the 'unelected' Lords was watered down, so that there veto is not essentially meaningless compared to most modern states criteria and indeed precedent has now been set by May's early dealing of brexit for a way for the commons to bypass Lords scrutiny altogether if desired (also the Commons... because Royal powers are active for the Government still, just not the checks on this).

Thus more and more power is being concentrated in the Commons, and at the same time, as alluded to, the Crowns continued existence and the Royal trust and power invested in her majesty's government still remains, so that the Government can also have a great deal of options if they want their legislation to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, this would have been fine as the idea was that of course the Monarch's Lords, and the Crown itself could even into the 1930s amend and scrutinize their government, that is no longer really the case.

TL/DR having a monarchy has actively botched Britain's political system in a myriad of ways, effectively allowing successive governments to butcher out the scrutiny parts of the Crown, while retaining and indeed taking into their own briefs Crown powers that suit them, that the Monarch can now no longer technically prevent.

Reform to this is almost impossible though, because of the continued role of a passive (by design) Crown, which still has also very active relevance politically through its power being wielded by 'the Crowns Government' without real regard anymore for said Crown. It is a mess. Essentially think of a heart with complicated arteries and veins (The Monarchy), but the veins have been severed, and bits of the artery cut up, so that the Lungs (Lords) are barely working as they were envisaged, and the Brain(Commons), parts of which are dead and dying in some areas, that kept things in balance, but others haven taken all the remaining blood-flow and are greedily hoarding it in...i don't know...Tumors? (I'm not a doctor...), taking precious blood from pumped by the heart at the expense of the rest,and the heart itself. To fix anything, a new heart is needed with a new support system, but you can't do that as removing it means that the current system would totally collapse on itself (Hey i'm not a doctor...) and the patient dies.

That is the British political settlement in 2019. Its barely recognizable to how the system was originally intended to work, and can no longer really check itself properly.

and this is essentially the Monarchies current place, it'll be interesting indeed to see how popular it is if the threatened constitutional crisis comes to a head in the coming months, when the Queen may have to make a decision for the first time openly- in a context where there are already huge arguments about democratic deficits, it could see support for the Monarchy, Britain's last 'non-controversial' unifying political tool, become as polarized as other elements of the British, English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish identities.

[Cyclops]

Really interesting question Alhoon, and a good debate.

... I consider the significantly pro-monarchy Australia, where more people identify as "English" than as "Australians" or New Zealand, or pro-monarchy Canada "quite" British, not only because they speak English (USA speak that too) but also because of their stance on Monarchy...

You are giving the impression that Australia is a staunch Monarchist state and that's not the case. Just to clarify, that number you linked is for self-identified ancestry, not identity. Most Australians are only vaguely aware (if at all) that the Queen is our head of state and I've had to point out to educated people that she's the monarch and prove it by showing her head on coins, the "R" in court cases etc.

In Australia the Monarchy is a distant and vague institution, and the majority are in favour of a republic, its just a skilled rat of a politician spoiled the last referendum (John Howard, one of the small number of actual Monarchists) and the convention is the question is dropped for a long time once its been asked. In this case the death of the current Queen will trigger the debate, and we will almost certainly be a republic within ten years of that event.

On the question of British/English identity, that's actually two questions.

English identity is reasonably clear: people who speak English from within historic England. England was formed from a number of post roman statelets by Danes and French aristocrats. The central principle of England is the Norman state imposed by William the Bastard: the Anglo Saxons were a dreary mess and the Danes too disorganised to found a lasting polity.

Immigration has added a lot of French culture, law and language to the dull Anglo world. In fact "law" "language" and "culture" are all words from French, as is government, parliament, real estate, finances etc. Essentially England is Germano-Gallic province largely civilised by the French.

The English state, centred around the King has developed some more or less "democratic" (or at least isonomic and participatory) features, mostly on the French and Nordic model (hence Things and parliaments and not mythical "Witans"). The old myth of Anglo Saxon parliaments and common law is long exploded.

While the Monarchy is central to the development of England it has become a figurehead for a modern state apparatus that could dispose of the monarchy if that was required. It was a possibility in the 1930's when a pro-Nazi King abdicated. The monarchy is popular with some English and generates tourist revenue it stays for now.

British Identity is another thing altogether. It involves Acts of Union (Welsh as well as the semi-defunct Irish and Scots Unions), tax havens in the islands (Man, Jersey etc), multiple languages and political traditions. Our US friends describe an upper class English accent as "British" but would not call a Cornish or Welsh or Golder's Green Jewish accent "British" even though they all are accents from historic Britain (let alone accents from within Great Britain like Glasgow). "British" identity is an erasure of local regional identities.

British identity is essentially a tool for the London Parliament (and lets be clear, the so called British parliament is controlled largely by the Banking Elite of the City) to control the regions conquered or assimilated in the past. British identity subordinates regional identity and self-determination in favour of a BBC English bureaucracy. Its darker side includes using paramilitaries to terrorise separatists (eg Irish terrorists funded from private individuals in the US were opposed by loyalist paramilitaries often supplied by the British army).

The Monarchy is essential to British Identity, as White, English speaking and loyal to the Queen. No monarchy, no Britain.

The myth of Cromwell as the heir of democratic Anglo Saxon freedom is a load of bollocks. He was a military dictator who ruled without Parliament (he kept reducing it in size whenever it disagreed with him until it was gone), and impose a savage minority sect of Christianity on an unwilling country. On top of this he was a murderous hypocrite ("all plays are banned, except this one about me!") and on his unlamented death his entire junta chose to self destruct and invite the Monarchs back. His government and its institutions were swept away as if they had never existed. Cromwell serves as a warning against allowing the army too much power, a mistake no British leader has made since.

The modern British state is formed by the Stewarts, especially Charles II. The refounded parliament with its ministries, the Army, the Royal Navy, the centralised bureaucracy were founded or refounded by Charles II in emulation of Louis XIV (British identity, like English identity owes a huge debt to France). The excess of French absolutism were avoided by the treasonous Quislings of the London mercantile faction, who replaced James II with another Stewart Mary and her rent-a-king husband William III who continued to evolve the constitutional state.