The British Revolution

wasn't the American War of Independence pretty much the elites of a peripheral territory tossing out the instruments of control by the Center? as in, it was just the local Old Order replacing the national one.


Anyway, a England similar to post Napoleonic France would be interesting. However I'm pretty sure that at that point the Commons had enough institutional clout and smart politicians in it that if the "Nicholas" analogue pushed to hard they'd probably set themselves up as the opposition, or push back via the means that the law allows. That is, letting the King try and govern without income.

Anyway, if you want a revolution you could have (VERY loosely):

1.Commons attempts to pass GRA equivalent
2.Lords block it with support of the Crown
3.rioting across the Isles, probably an organized run on the banks, and Commons block any more income to the crown
4. At this point the result depends on (assuming that the Monarch is willing to go for broke and won't accept any of the compromises that Grey or his equivalent is probably frantically suggesting) the loyalties of the army. If they support the Commons then the Monarch "voluntarily abdicates" and the GRA passes.

However if the army's loyalty is behind the King, then Parliament is prorogued, and the Reformers are arrested.

The King can then either try and get a sham election to bring in a Commons stuffed with Tory's, or rule through the Lords. Either way, the government lacks any legitimacy in the eyes of the populace, the economy is a complete wreck, and the major urban centers will have to kept in a state of more or less military occupation to prevent any riots or protests. I think its obvious how things can get out of hand from here.

Interesting stuff. Paris, 1830, is a very interesting example to look at: the king's plans to reshape the country on reactionary lines run up against a lower chamber which refuses to pass them, he tries to get round this by subterfuges and finally alter the franchise with the help of the army. Educated radicals in the capital engage in mass pamphleteering and economic sabotage, the destitute mob get their hands on guns, and once the authority of the state in its capital has thoroughly ceased to exist, senior liberal politicians step in with a fait-accompli.

In France, of course, it led to a new monarchy as favoured by the senior liberal moderates (the Greys, is you will), but in this alternate Britain there's no obvious alternative like the Duke of Orleans, and of course the monarchy, having gone through three German Georgies and now this "Nicholas", may look a bit of a spent force...
 
Incidentally, I just snagged a copy of Revolutionary Britannia?: reflections on the threat of revolution in Britain to read. The author thinks that there was a shot in 1832, and around 1798; I'll read it, and see what he has to say.
 

Glen

Moderator
Incidentally, I just snagged a copy of Revolutionary Britannia?: reflections on the threat of revolution in Britain to read. The author thinks that there was a shot in 1832, and around 1798; I'll read it, and see what he has to say.

We await with anticipation your assessment....
 

terence

Banned
My reading of the mobs' opposition to the sovereign in the 18th and early 19thC centred around which of his current whores they supported.
20th C revolutionary spirit showed itself in the General Strike when striking workers and policemen faced each other and then had a game of football.
 
My reading of the mobs' opposition to the sovereign in the 18th and early 19thC centred around which of his current whores they supported.

Why hello there, Mr. Mountbatten-was-a-damn-commie-traitor!

Do you have any evidence to lay against the actual facts that we've been discussing?
 

Glen

Moderator
My reading of the mobs' opposition to the sovereign in the 18th and early 19thC centred around which of his current whores they supported.
20th C revolutionary spirit showed itself in the General Strike when striking workers and policemen faced each other and then had a game of football.

Why hello there, Mr. Mountbatten-was-a-damn-commie-traitor!

Do you have any evidence to lay against the actual facts that we've been discussing?

Play nice, kiddies.
 
Is the early 1860's too late?

What if men like Gladstone and Disraeli had not been in charge at the time

of the War of Southern Aggression?:D What if morons like North:eek:

Germain:eek: Wedderburn:eek: the Earl of Sandwich:eek: and the Howe

brothers:eek::eek: WERE?

Sorry if I'm pulling the thread offtrack, but as I am merely a humble

bloody yank, my knowledge of the history in this period is meager at

best:eek::(

My only observation is that prior to the Great Reform Act of 1867 the

commoners without property had no vote in Britain. IF the UK and

France had clumsily intervened on behalf of the South post-emancipation

proclamation but pre-gettysburg what happens on the streets of

Britain's cities?:confused: I'd love to hear responses from our Great

Cousins From Across The Sea:D

One Note-Even I know the imbalance of feelings along classlines in the

UK between North and South:)
 
Sorry...

What if men like Gladstone and Disraeli had not been in charge at the time

of the War of Southern Aggression?:D What if morons like North:eek:

Germain:eek: Wedderburn:eek: the Earl of Sandwich:eek: and the Howe

brothers:eek::eek: WERE?

Sorry if I'm pulling the thread offtrack, but as I am merely a humble

bloody yank, my knowledge of the history in this period is meager at

best:eek::(

My only observation is that prior to the Great Reform Act of 1867 the

commoners without property had no vote in Britain. IF the UK and

France had clumsily intervened on behalf of the South post-emancipation

proclamation but pre-gettysburg what happens on the streets of

Britain's cities?:confused: I'd love to hear responses from our Great

Cousins From Across The Sea:D

One Note-Even I know the imbalance of feelings along classlines in the

UK between North and South:)

This kind of entry belongs in ASB:eek::eek::eek: Sorry for wasting my time and yours.
I'm STILL learning this format:eek::eek::eek:
 
Churchill wrote that Britain actually HAD a successful, peaceful revolution. Our successful revolution also triggered a revolution in reaction in Britain. Because it was the King's leadership that had lost most of what the UK saw as their rightful empire in North America, monarchs from that point largely lost their positions of trust and saw an erosion of power from then on.

Churchill also wrote that, contrary to what we're taught in our schoolbooks, George III was pretty lucid during the American Revolution, just too stupid to treat us colonists equals of other Britons. Otherwise it would've had less of an effect.

If you're looking for something bloodier or more dramatic, you could have George III get worse in his later, madness-driven political conflict with Parliament. It can't get too bloody, though, because, few would fight FOR him, if you see what I mean.
 
It can't get too bloody, though, because, few would fight FOR him, if you see what I mean.

That's a good point, but then, it doesn't have to: constitutional change from outside the constitution is "revolution". After all, all the French had to put up with was a few Chouanerie-type things and the emigres, which hardly constituted civil war.
 

Glen

Moderator
If there's a British Revolution in the early 1830s, how does that impact the potential rebellions in Canada in the 1830s?
 
If there's a British Revolution in the early 1830s, how does that impact the potential rebellions in Canada in the 1830s?

Now that's a very interesting question, and the British Empire contains several more: whither the BEIC? How will the radicals go about abolishing slavery?
 
If Successful...

If there's a British Revolution in the early 1830s, how does that impact the potential rebellions in Canada in the 1830s?
If the Revolution is successful, whether it is conservative (1688), moderate(1776), liberal(1863),or radical(1789) how will it affect the year of revolutions in 1848?:confused:
 
If the Revolution is successful, whether it is conservative (1688), moderate(1776), liberal(1863),or radical(1789) how will it affect the year of revolutions in 1848?:confused:

We, that's to assume there is still a year of revolutions and it still happens in 1848. Basically the reasons for 1848 were:

-The French government had failed, providing the spark.

-Italy was ready to explode because the tentative liberalisation in the Papal States had inspired constitutions for the petty states and hope for the nationalists everywhere except in Lombardy-Venetia: when news came in from France (and Sicily) they were already ready to blow up, and Sardinia with its army and new constitution was right there.

-The Austrian state had reached a state of advanced administrative and financial decay and had to struggle to stay alive against various movements.

-The Germans did what all the cool kids were doing.

That much alignment might never occur. But if we assume for simplicity's sake that 1848 is pretty much the same, I'd imagine energetic British support for the Italians and a greater willingness to co-operate with France. The consequences of Austria loosing in Italy could potentially be pretty major for Germany.
 

Glen

Moderator
Now that's a very interesting question, and the British Empire contains several more: whither the BEIC? How will the radicals go about abolishing slavery?

Yes, those are other important question. I imagine the BEIC will do what they are told so long as it doesn't impact business too terribly.

Slavery depends on who comes to power, abolition will go forward or be delayed some but not much.
 
Top