Why no British Revolution?

[King]

Personally I think that Britian aviod revolution due to a more flexable rulling class. The British rulling class was open to penitration by the newer elites in a way the French class wasn't. If you had money you can buy a country estate (land was a mark of status in 18th and 19th centuary Britain) and then buy your way in Parlaiment. From there you got a chance to sit at the big table. Also when thing got tough, like the agitation that was building up prior to the first reform act, the British elite passed limited reforms. This bought off enough of the opposition for a revolution to be averted. Well that's my pennies worth.

 

[King]

you hit the nail on the head with that one. The 'new' aristocrats in america were wealthy landowners and merchants. They wanted more power. My god, the colonists had it easy! Taxes? What taxes?! Opression? What oppression?! In all honesty, one needs only look at the differences in the composition of the social stratification between and Britain and America, and figures on annual taxes to see that the average American was better off than the average Briton.

Nevertheless, the American complaints of taxation have to be assessed in terms relative to what the Americans were used to, rather than being assessed in in terms relative to the Britons....the latter perspective was unfortunately taken by the majority on Parliament during the crucial years before the outbreak of war.

As for the initial question, I think the key issue, which had been touched on before, is the advent of a political forum with which 'revolution' could have an outlet...Parliament!

And King George III was no absolutist monarch, and doubtfully ever would have become one.

I disagree with the answer being a Parliament. Britian practiced then and still does, to lesser extend, today a system known as virtual democracy. It is the duty of elected representive to represent not just the people who voted for them but also those who do not and more importantly those who could not. For example the government taxes sweets here which are clearly aimed at children and thus practices taxation without representation but no one minds because everyone knows that childrens interests are considered by elected representives even though they don't have the vote. In the era of the 40 shilling freehold franchise, where only two constituacies had any real working class representation, and a large empire it was the duty of MPs to consider these interests as well, and everyone knew this.

If I was to point to a cause for the American revoltuion I would say Land was the big one. Even George Washington was telling his fellow Virginnians to get there asses over the Mountains and get onto that new land which the crown had reserved for the Indians. The Crown was interested in managing white settlement because it was it's army that had to fight the resultant wars while the settles only saw the ££££ (soon to be $$$) that could be made from the land.

 

[King]

I think you've missed my point. In Britain, Parliament gave those less 'fortunate' a peacefull (relative to a bloody warrring revolution) forum to voice their concerns. There are instances of Parliament in French history, but absolutely nothing that can compare contemporarily i.e. take a French 15th century parliament, and a 15th century English parliament...Britons accomplished a helluva lot in terms of 'democracy', very early on. Having said that, obviously Britain did have bloody revolutions, but that was mentioned before. IMO, when it came to the French Revolution, I think the Britons coulda been like 'been there, done that, what's next?' kinda deal.

For the ultimate reasons, well, look at the cultural composition and the geography of the ol' Isle for the answer. Easier to centralize and formulate a national identity within a small cramped island that's rich in resources, a mere boat trip away from the continent (for contact and exchange of goods/ideas) and already had a long history of in-fighting and invasion.

I disagree with this assesment because the winners of the British "revolution" weren't really interested in overthrowing the existing system rather the fought against the King to defend the system and prevent absolutism. At the same time there were British revolutionaries calling fro the same kind of revolution as in France and the overthrow of the 100 or so families that really ran the country. the British also brought in quite draconian laws to prevent any revolution in Britain as well.

 

[King]

The British had much more of a revolution than America ever did. Yes, the English "civil war" was a struggle to maintain the status quo by some, but to others it was about fighting against opression, catholicism, and the powerful few.It's just that their's mostly failed. Sure, there was taxation and opression in America before the rebellion of the colonies, but not the extreme kind which causes mass starvation and murder like, say, there had been in Russia. Britain had no taxation without representation? Tell me, would you call 180,000 eligable voters representative; especially when entire cities were forbidden from voting? They had limited representation, though it was more than America had... but under no circumstances did America want a proportional voice in Parliament, because they would have been outvoted. They wanted independent legislature, which is more rebellious than revolutionary.

The Georgian political system was not fair but was by the standards of the time (read wealth) representative. Entire cities were noy forbidden from voting it was just they did no have seperate Burgh seats for them so they were represented by their county. There were more Free Holders in the countryside than in the cities so the County seats represented rural interests more. The Burghs that did have their own seats had individual rules for each so you would have the situation were you had pocket and rotton burghs and places like Westminster and Preston where everyone had the vote. I really couldn't tell you want the actual total number of voters were, but I know it was rather small, I think it was something like 1:15 of the adult male population. My claim if memory served was that the elected members of Parliament were expected to represent the people who could not vote, that included the colonials. I also reject the claim that the American demand for an elected assembly was rebellious, the Irish Act of Unioin was not passed till 1808 and thus a demand for a seperate parliament under the Crown would of given the American Colonies the exact same status as Ireland had inside the United Kingdom. What the British government failed to understand just how a serious situation it was in and would not make that mistake again (at least along as you are not talking white colonies like Canada and Australia which got Paraliaments without too much difficulty)