Title. Think I would make sense as the people would have legal way to show their displeasure at the government, rather than overthrowing it. It also gives the reform a bit more importance late game.
- 3
- 1
- 1
- 1
Upvote
0
Then technically the English monarchy should give near immunity to it.
(I have no idea how the Papacy fits in this, but maybe that too)
Adds american republic too
To the best of my knowledge, England was one of relatively few countries that did spawn their own home-grown revolutionary movements in the French Revolution era, namely in Ireland (Wolfe Tone & that lot). A lot of more absolutist countries (Prussia, for example) did better than parliamentary England in that regard. So I don't see any historical justification for this idea.
To the best of my knowledge, England was one of relatively few countries that did spawn their own home-grown revolutionary movements in the French Revolution era, namely in Ireland (Wolfe Tone & that lot). A lot of more absolutist countries (Prussia, for example) did better than parliamentary England in that regard. So I don't see any historical justification for this idea.
Nah. I mean the English had a parliament and still cut the head off their own king more than a hundred years earlier than the French did. They even had a army general rise to absolute dictatorship in Cromwell mirroring Napoleon in many ways. I don't think there is any government invented by human minds that is immune to revolutions and such. As a matter of fact if England and France had traded socioeconomic conditions (ie enlightenment ideas spreading + financial bankruptcy + corrupt/incompetent leadership + angry peasants) I don't particularly see any governmental magic that would inherently have saved England any more than France.
I agree that Wolfe Tone and Napper Tandy were basically sepratist rebels, but you have to admit that their particular rebellion had a revolutionary vibe in a way that previous Irish an Highlander rebellions didn't, even if just because they were living in a revolutionary time and getting support from the French. The main point for me though is that the English Parliament might have prevented a revolution in England, where people had a stake in government (and indeed you do seem to see that effect in later revolutionary waves in the 1800s); but it didn't stop the revolutionary itch in those parts of the Empire where people were disenfranchised, precisely because they didn't have any stake or ability to affect what was going on in Westminster.
Maybe a more granular way of doing it would be to have parliaments slow down the revolution in places with the right culture group, or something on similar lines. Or to make it slow down (or stop completely) in provinces with a non-rotten parliament seat.
Perhaps the reform itself wouldn't give a resistance to the Revolution but, having a seat in Parliament in a state would give a state-wide bonus to resistance to revolution, along side a bonus to spread in unaccepted cultured provinces?
Nah. I mean the English had a parliament and still cut the head off their own king more than a hundred years earlier than the French did. They even had a army general rise to absolute dictatorship in Cromwell mirroring Napoleon in many ways. I don't think there is any government invented by human minds that is immune to revolutions and such. As a matter of fact if England and France had traded socioeconomic conditions (ie enlightenment ideas spreading + financial bankruptcy + corrupt/incompetent leadership + angry peasants) I don't particularly see any governmental magic that would inherently have saved England any more than France.
Yeah - in an alternate history the Westminster parliament could make some horrible policy decisions.
Oh wait, that's just happened. =P
Edit: Self-deprecating British citizen here.