Why the British never had a revolution

[davywavy]

There have been several points in British history when a revolution might have been on the cards. The wave of fervour which swept the world in the late 1700's almost took hold in Britain as well with the Gordon Riots, but perhaps the closest Britain has ever come to storming the palaces of and tearing down the old order was on the 10th of April, 1848, the day of the great Chartist Protest.
The Chartists, a social reform movement, had gathered a great petition demanding reforms containing millions of signatures - they claimed 5 million, their detractors said 'only' 2 million (still a massive proportion of the population) and organised a rally to deliver the petition to Parliament. The powers were genuinely frightened. 170,000 special constables were drafted for the day due to fears the mob might run amok.

In the event about 40,000 people showed up, delivered the petition, and then retired to Trafalgar Square where are rally was held. Tempers ran high, and speeches were made about marching on Buckingham Palace. For a moment, civil disorder was a real possibility. And then a French agitator hopped up on a plinth and gave a great, passionate, rallying speech about the revolution and called upon the British to rise up and declare a republic.

Well, that did it. Nobody there was going to be told to do by a Frog, so a butcher's boy whipped off his coat, squared off against the Frenchman and gave him a beating. After which he was carried shoulder-high from the Square by the crowd singing "God save the Queen" before the whole thing dispersed peacefully.

And that's why the British never had a revolution: because the French told us we should have one.

Comments

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

You don't rate Wat Tyler and his lot storming the Tower of London, killing The Archbishop of Canterbury and the King’s Treasurer and forcing Richard II to come and speak with them face to face as maybe closer to revolution?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Given that he was seen off by the 14th century equivalent of Boris Johnson, I don't really rate him.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Then there's the great 17th century national sport of repeatedly tossing out disagreeable Stuarts.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

And replacing them with equally disagreeable Stuarts. Not hugely successful in the revolution stakes.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

Well, it does kinda pan out that way, until that one all-important exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution).

Which I actually think ties well into where I think davywavy is making a really interesting point. There is certainly an identifiable type of revolution, from about 1789 onwards, that rocks bits of Europe for a while, and is an especially big deal from 1846 to 1848. Not every revolution waves a tricolour, but lots do. In context, I took davywavy as chiefly saying that Britain never really had one of these, and specifically that there was never a Chartist coup. That's quite right. Part of why that is, I think, is that for much of the 19th century, continental states had to fight about sovereignty -- essentially about what the crown could get away with -- while Britain had settled the basics of that whole can of worms during and after 1688, which in some key ways sets the stage for the sort of gradual reform that Britain tends to work on from there onwards.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

He was a disagreeable Stuart, too, and Mary was directly in line to the throne. That was what I meant, it's not a revolution in the way we think of them, the French or Russian revolutions. It's just swapping branches of the same family.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

it's not a revolution in the way we think of them, the French or Russian revolutions

I think that's a slightly narrow definition, but fair enough.

[madwitch.livejournal.com]

Also, the Glorious Revolution was mostly arranged from the top down. Odd way to run a revolution.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

That is certainly true.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

There's a story i rather like. A French Nobleman, exiled after the revolution, was taken to the Derby by his English hosts. he was surprised to see that all classes of society were there and mingling, and the way the aristocracy and commoners rubbed along (Along the lines of "'Ere, it's teh Duke! 'e's got an 'orse in the next race! C'mon, yer dukeness, got any tips?")

His comment was "This is why England will never have a revolution".

[whiskeylover.livejournal.com]

Cromwell?

[sesquipedality.livejournal.com]

That was what I was thinking. The restoration presumably counts as revolution number 2.