Scenarios for a "British Revolution" in the late 19th Century

Could anyone come up with a plausible way to have a Revolution or an armed uprising of any kind in late 19th Century Britain? The last attempt was apparently the 1839 Chartist "Newport Uprising". There's also the possibility of a British 1848 if the Reform Act of 1832 was turned down, alongside an Irish 1848 if the Young Irelander plot succeeds.

But something in the 1860's maybe? What if a stronger Chartist movement or a remnant/reincarnation of it somehow lingers on into the latter half of the 19th Century and the Reform Act of 1864 is turned down? Could that be a possible scenario for a "British Revolution?"
 
In a word, probably not; people like the monarch (unlike her predecessors), and the electoral, civil rights and labor problems of the first half of the century are mostly being addressed competently. You'd have to make Parliament significantly less competent somehow, which probably means tinkering a ways back - like having electoral reform fail, and probably Jewish emancipation fail too (not that there are a lot of Jews in Britain, but it had become an issue for Threadneedle Street; William Rothschild kept winning elections but couldn't take his seat because he was a Jew. The banking community was getting ticked off that its choice was not being respected...if that goes on, you have financial support for the rebels in spades).

I suppose you could have them try to intervene in the ACW in favor of the Rebels; that ought to create the kind of mess that burns down Parliament buildings back home...
 
That is a bit late in the day I agree, it was getting into the progressive era where elements in government were beginning to sit up and take notice of the struggles of common people.
Knock off 50-100 years though and its very possible. Its quite the freak of history that Britain turned out to be a monarchy in modern times whilst much of Europe is republican.
 
Its not a feak of nature, as we are seperated from the continent sufficiently enough to have a buffer.
However, it is lucky that Britain is not a Republic, because we wouldnt have a tourist industry.


possibly an early following of france c. 1800, due to the madness of King George.

(Thats king Penguin to his friends)
 
Quoted from the topic, Fail, Britannia!

The bullet that pierced William IV's coat in Flanders in 1813 instead pierces his brain. Keeping butterflies to the minimum possible, George IV still outlives his other brothers Frederick and Edward, but manages to eat himself to death a few years earlier, before Catholic Emancipation.

The throne can now be taken by Ernest Augustus, OTL's king of Hanover, militant defender of Protestant Ascendancy and Britain's least-liked man.

It's the late 20s or early 30s. The Six Acts are in effect. The situation in the countryside is plummeting towards the *Swing Riots. Chartism is stirring in the cities. The king is adamant that he will allow neither Catholic emancipation nor parliamentary reform. Commons and Lords at loggerheads. Days-of-May style conspiracies among the liberal middle-classes.

King Ernest goes the Charles X route: he decamps from London, declares the suppression of all the newspapers he doesn't like and the arrest and transportation of some prominent critics of his reign.

London is hungry and restless. Someone throws stones at the soldiers sent to close down the press. Paris 1830 ensues.

By the time the red-white-green flag of the commonwealth has been hoisted over Britain, then the Spanish have nicked Gibraltar, various colonial forces refuse to accept the new government, a variety of Indian potentates have asserted their independance, and of course conservative Europe hates our guts.

EDIT: Woops, realized you wanted a late 19thc POD. :eek:
 
Its not a feak of nature, as we are seperated from the continent sufficiently enough to have a buffer.
However, it is lucky that Britain is not a Republic, because we wouldnt have a tourist industry.


possibly an early following of france c. 1800, due to the madness of King George.

(Thats king Penguin to his friends)

Umm, the channel only holds back armies, not ideas. The ideals of the American and French Revolutions helped inspire the 1798 Rebellion in Ireland, so the ocean isn't going to stop revolution in Britain.
 
Well the loss of wars are the real reason why most of Europe is republican and Britain is not, and the English Channel has always given us that protective buffer from the wild forces overrunning the continent.
 
Well the loss of wars are the real reason why most of Europe is republican and Britain is not, and the English Channel has always given us that protective buffer from the wild forces overrunning the continent.

Although the Medway raid showed that Early Modern Britain wasn't invulnerable to invasion, and the Glorious Revolution was successful. ;)
 
Quite, but all the same not quite my point.;) Monarchies tend to be overthrown because of some major political/military crisis, rather than an ideological turning point.
 
I suppose you could have them try to intervene in the ACW in favor of the Rebels; that ought to create the kind of mess that burns down Parliament buildings back home...

Hmm... Interesting. Could you please elaborate on this scenario? How exactly would British intervention in the States affect the UK's domestic situation?
 
Woops, realized you wanted a late 19thc POD. :eek:

Actually, early 20C would be better. Had we lost WW1, some kind of revolution or civil war would have been distinctly possible, given how high the passions were running.

It also looked possible on the eve of the Great Reform Act, in the 1820s and early '30s, but the reformers headed it off. The late 19C seems to me about the least likely time to have one, since revolutions were extremely rare events then. Even France didn't have one after 1870, so there's little reason to expect Britain to.
 
Hmm... Interesting. Could you please elaborate on this scenario? How exactly would British intervention in the States affect the UK's domestic situation?
Financially, it would be a train wreck. 1848 didn't cause a revolution in Britain but it did wipe out most of the equity accumulated in the last 30 years; then a round of bond financing for the Crimea in 51, then a round of bond financing for the Sepoys in 57...an intervention in the ACW will mean another round of bond financing at perhaps the one time in the 19th century when Britain honestly can't afford it.

There's also the fact that Britain would be supporting a slavery-based state despite the fact that slavery has been illegal throughout the British Empire since 1833 (although the act was sort of ignored in the British-controlled parts of Asia). The realpolitik of the situation - better two republics that loathe each other than one huge one that can rival Britain - will not be persuasive to many voters, or potential rioters.

They just had an election in 1859, and in OTL won't have another 'til 1865. (assuming you start with the Trent affair). assuming Britain declares for the Confederates, they're going to have an embarassingly hard time funding an intervention, followed by a wave of interest hikes, possible bank failures...and the man in the street, having lost his savings account because some ninnies at the Foreign Office want to protect slavers...I can imagine it going very badly.
 
Its not a feak of nature, as we are seperated from the continent sufficiently enough to have a buffer.
However, it is lucky that Britain is not a Republic, because we wouldnt have a tourist industry.


possibly an early following of france c. 1800, due to the madness of King George.

(Thats king Penguin to his friends)

The channel stops armies well, it doesn't stop general ideas.
But that's not what I meant.
Historically the English were seen as the freedom loving anti-monarchal anarchist sorts of Europe. If you were looking from 300 years ago and expecting any nation to be a republic by now Britain would be pretty high on the list of likely candidates.
 
Top