AHC WI reasonable relations between Revolutionary France and the UK

Britain in principle was not an absolutist state. It certainly was not Catholic. Yet the goverment supported those forces against France.

Any thing that France could have done to maintain reasonable friendship, whilst keeping the principle of mass electorate elections and secularism?
 
Britain in principle was not an absolutist state. It certainly was not Catholic. Yet the goverment supported those forces against France.

Any thing that France could have done to maintain reasonable friendship, whilst keeping the principle of mass electorate elections and secularism?

I suppose the common wisdom would say avoiding Terror and avoid expanding in the Netherlands, but I suppose that British hostility would be very difficult to avoid (It was, after all, a near constant in the XVIII century too).
 
There was support for revolution in Britain, particularly among the Whigs. This changed one the terror began and once France invaded the Austrian Netherlands in 1793, Britain could no longer remain neutral. This had more to do with a perceived threat of France occupying the region and threatening the United Provinces.
 
The war played a great deal in the internal history of the Revolution. Rapidly speaking, war (against Austria at first) was the combination of the interest of two group : the Girondins, being the leading leftwing group in 1792, wanting to get the definite leadership of the Assembly by a victorious war, and the court and King Louis XVI, wanting to re-establish the absolutism by a lost war. When started, war had consequences none of the planners had in mind. The first defeats brought insecurity, more men were called to arms, starting the Vendée civil war, the king was deposed and executed as he seemed (justly) to hope for the french defeat, reinforcing the hostility of the foreign powers. At this point, the Montagnards took control, eliminated opposition by ruthless policies and proceed to win the war, both civil and foreign. The Terror was brought by the war, not the other way around.

In order to have a Peaceful France, you need to have working institutions in 1790. The first compromise put the king and the assembly in a perfect equilibrium, meaning no one could solve the deadlocked bills when the king vetoed them. This too stable compromise satisfied none of the two and let to the scale up of the flight of the king and the declaration of war. So change the institutions (a good way os getting rid of Marie Antoinette, who was a conservative force at court) with the final say to the Assembly, and you could see a TL where the war follows more classical international power game. But this compromise would not lead to the more advanced political rights in France like universal male vote and abolition of slavery.
 
In the early 17th, they were more allies by circumstance, as I understand it. France counted Austria among its enemies and saw the 30 years war as an opportunity to get some cheap shots in, Britain I believe had at least one pre-existing alliance with one of the protestant states.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
You mean like in the 16th and early 17th century when they were allies?

That's when Spain was the power England feared. The overriding foreign policy objective of England/Britain is to prevent any single power from completely dominating Europe, so England/Britain will always ally itself with the second-most powerful nation in Europe to check the ambitions of the most powerful one. So in the 16th and early 17th Century, it would ally with France against Spain. In the 17th, 18th and early 19th Century, it would ally with Prussia/Spain/Austria/Russia against France. And in the 20th Century, it would ally with France and Russia against Germany, and in the late 20th Century it would ally with France and Germany against Russia.
 
That's when Spain was the power England feared. The overriding foreign policy objective of England/Britain is to prevent any single power from completely dominating Europe, so England/Britain will always ally itself with the second-most powerful nation in Europe to check the ambitions of the most powerful one. So in the 16th and early 17th Century, it would ally with France against Spain. In the 17th, 18th and early 19th Century, it would ally with Prussia/Spain/Austria/Russia against France. And in the 20th Century, it would ally with France and Russia against Germany, and in the late 20th Century it would ally with France and Germany against Russia.

Except when Henry VIII allied with Spain and HRE against France, and when Charles II allied with the France of Louis XIV.

And when it allied with France in the Quadruple Alliance. France and Britain were allied from 1716 to 1731.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Except when Henry VIII allied with Spain and HRE against France, and when Charles II allied with the France of Louis XIV.

There are always exceptions, clearly. And misjudgments were often made regarding which power was the greatest threat to England/Britain. But the overall pattern is clear.
 
There are always exceptions, clearly. And misjudgments were often made regarding which power was the greatest threat to England/Britain. But the overall pattern is clear.

Not really. The pattern is just an accident, especially in the early years.

Mary I having a son with Philip II would make the Spanish Alliance permanent, for example, and even pave the way for a Union with Spain. And Charles II having a son would make the English ally more closely to France. The only reason England went to war with France during the reign of Louis XIV was because its king was also stadholder. Without the personal union with the Dutch, the Stuart Kings would remain under the pension of the Sun King.
 
Britain in principle was not an absolutist state. It certainly was not Catholic. Yet the goverment supported those forces against France.

Any thing that France could have done to maintain reasonable friendship, whilst keeping the principle of mass electorate elections and secularism?

We should keep in mind that Britain was not a democracy as we would now understand it. Only a small percentage of the population had the right to vote for the House of Commons, which shared power with the House of Lords (and the monarch). From the perspective of the British governing class, their society still had some safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" which were collapsing in France.

Also, while not Catholic, Britain was a Christian society all the same. The move to to dechristianize France and change churches into "Temples of Reason" was not well-received in other nations, whether Catholic or Protestant. (Robespierre recognized this and began to promote the "Cult of the Supreme Being" instead but that proved insufficient.)

If France can remain under the constitutional monarchy of 1791 and avoid entering the more radical phase, it's possible the two nations can peacefully coexist. That's tricky to maintain and requires Austria/Prussia to not threaten war (and Louis XVI to fully accept the new reality instead of trying to flee).
 
Also, while not Catholic, Britain was a Christian society all the same. The move to to dechristianize France and change churches into "Temples of Reason" was not well-received in other nations, whether Catholic or Protestant. (Robespierre recognized this and began to promote the "Cult of the Supreme Being" instead but that proved insufficient.)

The Cult of Reason was created months after the beginning of the war. It was never a government policy, but a creation of the Hebertists, with the support of some municipalities (Paris, Lyon among others). I was a propaganda asset for the Coalition but not a casus belli.
 
Top