AHC/WI: A successful liberal revolution in the UK

Thomas1195

Banned
What kinds of post-Napoleonic POD should happen to trigger a liberal revolution in the UK? I mean something like 1848 revolutions, but successful?

And if so, what would be the long-term impacts on British political climate? Would the right-wing party be still the OTL Tories, or a Republican one?
 
Britain had done too well post-war to actually have a revolution like that. Germany had been screwed over during the Napoleonic wars, and Austria Hungary as well. So these actually made sense. However, Britain had won, and sort of proved that Democratic Constitutional monarch based Conservatism worked, so there wasn't a need.
 
He was already very unpopular. This combined with a stronger Chartist movement may help.

Have King Ernest block the Great Reform Act. That would do it. But it would likely be led by a majority in the Commons, who would have the armed forces' allegiance, so would be more a coup than a revolution. If you want a real revolution, you need parliament to be anti-liberal. Maybe a Jacobite restoration and all the Whigs get kicked out?
 
Have King Ernest block the Great Reform Act. That would do it. But it would likely be led by a majority in the Commons, who would have the armed forces' allegiance, so would be more a coup than a revolution. If you want a real revolution, you need parliament to be anti-liberal. Maybe a Jacobite restoration and all the Whigs get kicked out?
Well, some revolutions have been closer to ideologically motivated coups, so, it wouldn't be exceptional if the British Revolution of 18XX is essentially a popular-backed coup d'etat.
 
I think part of the problem is that you need to disassociate the idea of an 1848 revolution with events in Britain. I'm not saying there was no revolutionary potential in Britain, far from it, but the circumstances that fed 1848 in Europe were very different to the ones shaping Britain at the time.

Your biggest chance for a sort of popular uprising would be in the harsh years of the 1830s, particularly the harsh winter of 1831-1832. There were massive problems with food supply, with agricultural unemployment, with industrialisation replacing workers in cities, and political repression. This BBC page by Prof. Evans is useful to provide context: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/revolution_01.shtml

People like to roll out King Ernest or the failure of the Great Reform Act, but really they are unnecessary. The nation was already on the brink of crisis in this period without any of those alt-history ideas. You just need, as Prof. Evans points out, the House of Lords and/or William IV to be more difficult or obstinate, radicals not to back down, the Swing Riots of 1830 to get worse or urban unrest to grow, and the powder-keg could be lit.

As for what it would look like (this is, of course, on the basis of a lack of compromise which is far more likely):
* It could be a coup d'etat, as @Whiteshore points out, but its more likely to look like the 1830 or 1848 revolution in France. A lot of unrest, across the country, in both the countryside and cities, but the decisive action coming in London. Riots in Liverpool or Manchester or Bristol (all major cities at the time) might prefigure this, but London would be the tipping point. Events in the period (Peterloo, suppression of the Swing and Rebecca Riots, etc) proved that sections of society and the military were more than willing to use violence to protect the status quo, so there would be fighting in the streets. Likely the Royal Family would not stick around to wind up like Louis XVI but flee the country to France).
* The Commons would assume ultimate priority over the country, and possibly accept universal manhood suffrage in line with later Chartist demands. There would be tremendous pressure to repeal the Corn Laws and, depending on the date, the New Poor Law.
* Like in 1848 there would be tension between the radical and liberal wings of the revolution, with the liberals probably winning out as they promise a more realistic and stable financial position. Working people, and their champions, would call for but likely not get workplace reforms, land redistribution, guaranteed work etc etc.

Long Term:
* Political instability as the shape of the new state is determined. Britain suffers financially and developmentally (this is at a crucial point for the railway revolution which needs stable investment).
* British politics may well polarise into a Liberal-Radical vs Conservative-Monarchist split akin to much of the continent.
* The European balance of power is destabilised and the future of the colonies, India, and the USA all changed as a result of disruption of British power, emigration, and investment.
* Don't discount the appeal of a restoration, popular or forceful, by the monarchy at a later date.
* It is highly unlikely - I really think this - that you will see the monarchy go to Canada/Australia/India. I know this is a favourite of people in alt-history, but it really is a cliche with very little historical basis.

That's my pennyworth, anyway. Hope it helps.
 
Long Term:
* Political instability as the shape of the new state is determined. Britain suffers financially and developmentally (this is at a crucial point for the railway revolution which needs stable investment).
* British politics may well polarise into a Liberal-Radical vs Conservative-Monarchist split akin to much of the continent.
* The European balance of power is destabilised and the future of the colonies, India, and the USA all changed as a result of disruption of British power, emigration, and investment.
* Don't discount the appeal of a restoration, popular or forceful, by the monarchy at a later date.
* It is highly unlikely - I really think this - that you will see the monarchy go to Canada/Australia/India. I know this is a favourite of people in alt-history, but it really is a cliche with very little historical basis.

That's my pennyworth, anyway. Hope it helps.

I would be interested in you expanding on your thoughts in the last four bullets a lot more.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, some revolutions have been closer to ideologically motivated coups, so, it wouldn't be exceptional if the British Revolution of 18XX is essentially a popular-backed coup d'etat.
I think part of the problem is that you need to disassociate the idea of an 1848 revolution with events in Britain. I'm not saying there was no revolutionary potential in Britain, far from it, but the circumstances that fed 1848 in Europe were very different to the ones shaping Britain at the time.

Your biggest chance for a sort of popular uprising would be in the harsh years of the 1830s, particularly the harsh winter of 1831-1832. There were massive problems with food supply, with agricultural unemployment, with industrialisation replacing workers in cities, and political repression. This BBC page by Prof. Evans is useful to provide context: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/revolution_01.shtml

People like to roll out King Ernest or the failure of the Great Reform Act, but really they are unnecessary. The nation was already on the brink of crisis in this period without any of those alt-history ideas. You just need, as Prof. Evans points out, the House of Lords and/or William IV to be more difficult or obstinate, radicals not to back down, the Swing Riots of 1830 to get worse or urban unrest to grow, and the powder-keg could be lit.

As for what it would look like (this is, of course, on the basis of a lack of compromise which is far more likely):
* It could be a coup d'etat, as @Whiteshore points out, but its more likely to look like the 1830 or 1848 revolution in France. A lot of unrest, across the country, in both the countryside and cities, but the decisive action coming in London. Riots in Liverpool or Manchester or Bristol (all major cities at the time) might prefigure this, but London would be the tipping point. Events in the period (Peterloo, suppression of the Swing and Rebecca Riots, etc) proved that sections of society and the military were more than willing to use violence to protect the status quo, so there would be fighting in the streets. Likely the Royal Family would not stick around to wind up like Louis XVI but flee the country to France).
* The Commons would assume ultimate priority over the country, and possibly accept universal manhood suffrage in line with later Chartist demands. There would be tremendous pressure to repeal the Corn Laws and, depending on the date, the New Poor Law.
* Like in 1848 there would be tension between the radical and liberal wings of the revolution, with the liberals probably winning out as they promise a more realistic and stable financial position. Working people, and their champions, would call for but likely not get workplace reforms, land redistribution, guaranteed work etc etc.

Long Term:
* Political instability as the shape of the new state is determined. Britain suffers financially and developmentally (this is at a crucial point for the railway revolution which needs stable investment).
* British politics may well polarise into a Liberal-Radical vs Conservative-Monarchist split akin to much of the continent.
* The European balance of power is destabilised and the future of the colonies, India, and the USA all changed as a result of disruption of British power, emigration, and investment.
* Don't discount the appeal of a restoration, popular or forceful, by the monarchy at a later date.
* It is highly unlikely - I really think this - that you will see the monarchy go to Canada/Australia/India. I know this is a favourite of people in alt-history, but it really is a cliche with very little historical basis.

That's my pennyworth, anyway. Hope it helps.

So, who would govern Britain after that?

I believe either the Radicals or commercial/industrial Liberals rather than the Whigs, because the aristocratic wing of the latter could be squashed during the revolution and riots. Certainly not the Tories, especially if the revolutionaries could impose land reforms (in an era when the conflict between landowners and middle-class businessmen still existed, this means that Tory landlords would be toasted)

For industrial development, agree, it depends on how quickly stability could be reestablished. However, a government with much weaker land-owning aristocratic influence would be actually much more beneficial for industrial development.
 
So, who would govern Britain after that?

I believe either the Radicals or commercial/industrial Liberals rather than the Whigs, because the aristocratic wing of the latter could be squashed during the revolution and riots. Certainly not the Tories, especially if the revolutionaries could impose land reforms (in an era when the conflict between landowners and middle-class businessmen still existed, this means that Tory landlords would be toasted)

For industrial development, agree, it depends on how quickly stability could be reestablished. However, a government with much weaker land-owning aristocratic influence would be actually much more beneficial for industrial development.

Long Term:
* Political instability as the shape of the new state is determined. Britain suffers financially and developmentally (this is at a crucial point for the railway revolution which needs stable investment).
* British politics may well polarise into a Liberal-Radical vs Conservative-Monarchist split akin to much of the continent.
* The European balance of power is destabilised and the future of the colonies, India, and the USA all changed as a result of disruption of British power, emigration, and investment.
* Don't discount the appeal of a restoration, popular or forceful, by the monarchy at a later date.
* It is highly unlikely - I really think this - that you will see the monarchy go to Canada/Australia/India. I know this is a favourite of people in alt-history, but it really is a cliche with very little historical basis.

That's my pennyworth, anyway. Hope it helps.

I would be interested in you expanding on your thoughts in the last four bullets a lot more.

Well, my belief is that in Alternative History you have to try and go on what happened in other, similar, situations. Not just theorize about what you might want to happen in a timeline. The closest analogy to a potential revolution in Britain would be the 1830 and 1848 uprisings in France, even though this is very imperfect, so I've taken those as a benchmark.

First of all, @Thomas1195 you need to be careful with using the term Radical. In the 1830s this wasn't the same as the later 1850s and 1860s Radical Liberalism of men like Bright. Pre Great Reform Act, which is the context given here, Radicals are a wide spectrum. This is, importantly, pre-socialism as a major political force. Yes you have people like Robert Owen, but Radicals in the 1830s are much more likely to be closer to the Jacobins of the French Revolution, the more extreme Democrats of the Jackson-era, etc. They are a very mixed bag without the large-scale trade-union or institutional heft that supported later Radicals.

Many countries in Europe in the 19th century saw politics polarize into a divide between Liberals, with a Radical fringe, and a Conservative-Monarchist right. The difference being, on the right, that there was a divide between those who saw support for, or restoration of, the monarchy as key to stable politics and society whilst "conservatives" as I dub them were more interested in living with and defending the status-quo. Think the divide between the Monarchists in France and men like Thiers who were more "law and order" pragmatists. On the left a dominant Liberal group, albeit quite widely defined, would present themselves as "respectable reformers" whilst the early socialists, radicals, and others would coalesce at the fringes. Sometimes working with the Liberals, sometimes opposing them.

I can't believe, as @Thomas1195 does, that such a revolution would sweep away the land-owning aristocracy. It didn't happen in the 1830s or 1840s in Europe, and British aristocrats are notoriously enduring. Plus, what about those landowners who supported the revolution? Or at least saw which way the wind was blowing? I can't see them being toasted - landowners and middle-class businessmen worked well together in many respects. They were the big financiers of the railways, of institutions like hospitals and schools, and provided a lot of money (admittedly some from slavery) to the growing industrial economy. If these were somehow swept aside in the revolution the financial effects on Britain would be dire.

To address my other points, as @Socrates asked, internal strife in Britain would destablise power in Europe. With no Queen Victoria, for instance, or Albert, attempts to steer British Government support towards the emergence of Germany as a counter-balance to Russia may well not happen. Likewise, Melbourne and other early Victorian PMs like Peel did much to calm tensions in Europe in the 1830s and 1840s. As for the colonies, India, and the USA, it really is a mixture of lack of investment given the economic disruption in Britain (slower industrial and railway development in North and South America), more/less emigration to the colonies depending on Government policy (particularly in relation to the Irish Famine) and as for India and the coming Indian Revolt of 1857, which may or may not happen, how company rule does or doesn't evolve into formal empire is complex indeed.

As for the Monarchy, I simply can't see it moving to the Empire. Too far away, especially before the telegraph networks and steam ships, and too underpopulated. Also people forget that for a Pretender Queen Victoria, for example, going so far away would be tantamount to giving up. You'd follow the examples of history - of Charles II, the Bourbons, etc - and stay close at hand. At sympathetic or family connections in Europe, the heart of the modern world at the time, and build connections and networks whilst waiting for the right moment. As for a restoration, it would be a popular rallying cry (it happened in 1660!) and you shouldn't underestimate how scared people were of republics and democracy in the 1830s - within living memory of the French Revolution and reign of terror.

Sorry for the word-dump, but hope that helps.
 
I think you're definitely write on land ownership. One thing to note here is that the British have the, largely unique in Europe, class of lower aristocracy known as the gentry. This not only means you have far more landowners than in other European powers, but the ease of access to get on this ladder means the merchant class and the land owning class are thoroughly mixed. It will be extremely hard to threaten property rights without full on socialist revolution. And, as we have said above, any "revolution" will likely be led by the Whigs in parliament before it got ot that point.

To address my other points, as @Socrates asked, internal strife in Britain would destablise power in Europe. With no Queen Victoria, for instance, or Albert, attempts to steer British Government support towards the emergence of Germany as a counter-balance to Russia may well not happen. Likewise, Melbourne and other early Victorian PMs like Peel did much to calm tensions in Europe in the 1830s and 1840s. As for the colonies, India, and the USA, it really is a mixture of lack of investment given the economic disruption in Britain (slower industrial and railway development in North and South America), more/less emigration to the colonies depending on Government policy (particularly in relation to the Irish Famine) and as for India and the coming Indian Revolt of 1857, which may or may not happen, how company rule does or doesn't evolve into formal empire is complex indeed.

As for the Monarchy, I simply can't see it moving to the Empire. Too far away, especially before the telegraph networks and steam ships, and too underpopulated. Also people forget that for a Pretender Queen Victoria, for example, going so far away would be tantamount to giving up. You'd follow the examples of history - of Charles II, the Bourbons, etc - and stay close at hand. At sympathetic or family connections in Europe, the heart of the modern world at the time, and build connections and networks whilst waiting for the right moment. As for a restoration, it would be a popular rallying cry (it happened in 1660!) and you shouldn't underestimate how scared people were of republics and democracy in the 1830s - within living memory of the French Revolution and reign of terror.

Sorry for the word-dump, but hope that helps.

I'm less sure about this stuff. I imagine a liberal revolutionary will have a more ideological foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe. They will likely support the July Monarchy in France and push for liberal republican nationalism in Germany. I imagine the new republican government will quickly establish very positive relations with the USA, who will be seen as an Anglo sister republic. British North America will likely see greater and quicker self-governance, leading to a third sister republic in the future. India will probably develop along similar lines in the short term - very few MPs actually cared enough to turn up for India debates - but when the 1857 crisis comes, there would be a different output. Most likely a greater mindset of white man's burden. Likely there could be a push to get rid of the Princely states, but the government would resist for stability reasons.
 
It already had a liberal revolution, this is what the Glorious Revolution was. It was an outside claimant, but inside forces betrayed the status quo to do it.
 
He put "Post-Napoleonic" in bold in the OP.

I know that, but it doesn't make sense to have a liberal revolution twice, unless the House of Lords was gaining power over time. on the contrary, while it wasn't irrelevant, it slowly lost influence from George II's time to... forever. So it doesn't make sense to have a liberal revolution, deal with Napoleon, aristocracy weaken over time, and then do another liberal revolution.

Maybe if it didn't have a liberal revolution in the first place or if the house of lords gain power over the commons there might be impetus for another one.

But post Napoleon, there really isn't a POD for another liberal revolution. Progressives see that time is on their side and just play politics. Advancing the liberal agenda is just another policy
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But post Napoleon, there really isn't a POD for another liberal revolution.
Ernst Augustus becoming King, then overriding the Whigs and the Great Reform Act?

I can't believe, as @Thomas1195 does, that such a revolution would sweep away the land-owning aristocracy. It didn't happen in the 1830s or 1840s in Europe, and British aristocrats are notoriously enduring. Plus, what about those landowners who supported the revolution? Or at least saw which way the wind was blowing? I can't see them being toasted - landowners and middle-class businessmen worked well together in many respects. They were the big financiers of the railways, of institutions like hospitals and schools, and provided a lot of money (admittedly some from slavery) to the growing industrial economy. If these were somehow swept aside in the revolution the financial effects on Britain would be dire.

Agree that we should never forget the Whig landowners. But, during periods of violent revolution, landowners in general are very vulnerable to random assaults, unless the leaders could control the revolutionaries' action. Not to mention that some radicals can use "land reform" or "free land" messages to provoke the tenants or small farmers to rise against their landowners. Besides, there were struggles between industrialists and landowners (IOTL Whigs vs Tory) during the early-to-mid 19th century, at least until the Repeal of Corn Laws.

I'm less sure about this stuff. I imagine a liberal revolutionary will have a more ideological foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe. They will likely support the July Monarchy in France and push for liberal republican nationalism in Germany. I imagine the new republican government will quickly establish very positive relations with the USA, who will be seen as an Anglo sister republic. British North America will likely see greater and quicker self-governance, leading to a third sister republic in the future. India will probably develop along similar lines in the short term - very few MPs actually cared enough to turn up for India debates - but when the 1857 crisis comes, there would be a different output. Most likely a greater mindset of white man's burden. Likely there could be a push to get rid of the Princely states, but the government would resist for stability reasons.
If the 1848 revolutions succeed, all the liberal republics could become natural allies. Russia could be used as a scapegoat. A liberal foreign policy would be the OTL Gladstonian foreign policy.

* Like in 1848 there would be tension between the radical and liberal wings of the revolution, with the liberals probably winning out as they promise a more realistic and stable financial position. Working people, and their champions, would call for but likely not get workplace reforms, land redistribution, guaranteed work etc etc.
Unlike in France in 1848, Britain already had a huge urban working class, and this could make the difference for the radicals, unless the liberals win over all spectrum.
 
Top