That is the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700. The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow power base that would be prone to collapse.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know it started to take shape.
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
I agree. I was thinking that it could have evolved to reduce the risk of destructive change and revolution, or to entrench the privileges of the powerful. I didn't fully appreciate the point that, to the rich and powerful, there is no distinction between those aims.
Comments
That is the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700. The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow power base that would be prone to collapse.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know it started to take shape.
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
Act of Union, 1707.
England is what I meant.
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
I agree. I was thinking that it could have evolved to reduce the risk of destructive change and revolution, or to entrench the privileges of the powerful. I didn't fully appreciate the point that, to the rich and powerful, there is no distinction between those aims.