Why didn't England have a revolution in the 18th-19th century like most of the west?

Why didn't England have a revolution in the 18th-19th century like most of the west?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because they had one in the 17th century.

Constitutional mornarchary, parliament had an amount of power. Something something magna Carta...

queen elizabeth I based monarch

The 1700's has a very quick collapse of royal power and the 1800's is the era of true parliamentary power, so that is quite a revolution.

It was violent, it had economic changes, religious changes, social changes. In every way except the king getting his head lobbed off, it was a revolutionary period.

The monarchy surviving could be contributed to the crown not fighting it's loss of political power the way European kings did and the fear of what came after the Civil War.

Had the Civil War been staved for another century or so, it seems probable that the underlying problems would have boiled over at the same time as much of Europe.

Once being ruled by Parliament and puritan Cromwell cured the English of wanting revolution.

Because, unlike the rest of the monarchs in Europe, the British kings did not abuse their people, and gave no reason for them to revolt.

The Chartists developed the 'Peoples Charter of 1838' which demanded:
-vote for every man twenty-one years old
-secret ballot
-No property qualification
-Payment of members of parliament
-Equal constituencies
-Annual parliaments to prevent bribery and intimidation

On 10th April 1848 about 150,000 chartists marched on london and gave a petition to parliament which contained about 2,000,000 signitures. There was no real police force in Britain and the british government were so afraid of these Chartists that they deputised 25,000 property owners, who came armed with hunting rifles and barricaded the Financial center of the city

We had two in the 17th century instead.

Is this Tory cunt serious right now?

Consider the following.

First post best post

Because they had a large and powerful empire that was getting stronger by day and conquering inferior people which really helped to inflate the ethnic ego of the Anglos.

Any answer I'd give you is just speculation. The English Civil War might have lead to the Revolutions in the West, in fact. It might have been all sorts of reasons. Why didn't English have a revolution later? You could just as easily ask, "Why did other countries?" And I'm sure some historian could tell why, although he'd just be speculating. If we actually look at accounts from then, there is no inexorable cause for any revolution, each revolution is brought about by a long series of unexpected things, with the last one being the revolution itself. History is about probability, not about determinism, and the trouble is, the probability is virtually impossible to calculate.

I sense some sarcasm in your post, but isn't this true to some extent? Hard to be mad at your rulers when you're kicking everyone elses ass.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

I've met some Anglo-Australians who genuine hold some nostalgia for the British empire, how good it was being the top dog while everyone else were subservient or trying to kiss ass of the Anglos.

Basically this. England has been constitutionally stable since the late 17th century. It's why so many Saudis and Russians dump all their cash there.

The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution pre-empted the need for a revolution later on.

they did, they invented industry and were the richest and most tech in the world, God vless the Queen/

youtube.com/watch?v=tN9EC3Gy6Nk

>In every way except the king getting his head lobbed off

The French were way behind the times as usual.

INTERDASTING

We reform not revolt unlike the French monkeys.

Why do you think you dumb shit?

yep 1651 and 1688 prevented a French style revolution.

1832 to steady the ship but there was no real risk of a communist revolution in the 19th century anyway.