Why were the English so hostile to absolutism?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Why were the English so hostile to absolutism?

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Before the Stuarts it was the general opinion that the monarch was sovereign, but that parliament still had an important role, which separated England from nations like Spain. Parliament suddenly reversing this longstanding tradition on a dime during the Civil Wars was really just an instance of pure, undisguised opportunism. They had rebelled against their lawful master, and thus the only way forward was to completely revolutionize the way the realm was governed. And even then it still took many decades complete with armed conflict to win the whole nation over to the view that the "people" (parliament) were sovereign, and the kingship was merely a job.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      To add to this, when the Normans took over they had to ally with barons, merchants, and regional nobles in order to maintain power, otherwise there'd have been a nativist Anglo-Saxon restoration. This system of compromise and power sharing led to the magna carta, and with it parliament. Had Godwinson won Britain wouldn't have these traditions, so England would be more like Germany, or even Russia.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Had Godwinson won Britain wouldn't have these traditions, so England would be more like Germany
        VGH... IMPERIVM ANGLO-TEVTONTCVMS...

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        English common law stems a lot from Germanic tribal traditions established by the Anglo-Saxons, the Germans ended up disposing of those in favor of Roman traditions because of the influence of Northern Italy on the Holy Roman Emperor post Otto I.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        For all the causes of the 'Civil Wars', the argument of the 'Norman Yoke' is arguably the weakest. William Prynne was its core proposer, one of the three 'martyrs' of Parliament in the early days.

        Don't get me wrong, I'm no whig claiming a 'high road to civil war'.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >when the Normans took over they had to ally with barons, merchants, and regional nobles in order to maintain power, otherwise there'd have been a nativist Anglo-Saxon restoration.
        Literal fanfiction. What Anglo-Saxon nobles did the Normans ally with? After the rebellions of 1068-1071 all of the powerful Anglo-Saxon earls were gone. After 1071 there was never any realistic chance of an Anglo-Saxon restoration.
        >This system of compromise and power sharing led to the magna carta, and with it parliament.
        Absolutely not. Magna Carta was specifically a response to abuses against the barons and church by John, and to lesser extent, Henry II and Richard I. Parliament emerged due to the unpopular policies of Henry III.
        >Had Godwinson won Britain wouldn't have these traditions
        The Anglo-Saxon kingdom had the Witan, which while no parliament, was certainly more of a "system of compromise and power sharing" than any pre-parliament great council in the Norman and Angevin monarchies.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      England saw growth in commerce and industry in the 17th century, similar to the Dutch Republic which had shaken off its own brand of absolutists. Parliament was needed to tax this new economy and thus rose in power.

      It is not so simple as outright rebellion. Parliament had the right to collect taxes for centuries and as the war in Scotland went south the King consented to expand their rights, he then broke these promises by marching on parliament.

      To add to this, when the Normans took over they had to ally with barons, merchants, and regional nobles in order to maintain power, otherwise there'd have been a nativist Anglo-Saxon restoration. This system of compromise and power sharing led to the magna carta, and with it parliament. Had Godwinson won Britain wouldn't have these traditions, so England would be more like Germany, or even Russia.

      >Had Godwinson won Britain wouldn't have these traditions, so England would be more like Germany
      VGH... IMPERIVM ANGLO-TEVTONTCVMS...

      England had completely changed since the middle ages. Commoners and nobles shared an English identity, there were no unique quirks that had persisted for centuries.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >only a sith deals in absolutes

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because Charles I was just that incompetent, its like asking Russians if they want the Romanovs back

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but Russians are still authoritarian; the English have a national reflex against everything illiberal.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Russians really aren't sure what they want to be right now. The English are a spent race, and desire nothing more than a nanny state to easy the pain of their slow death. The present state of the United Kingdom is more of a reflection of their nihilism than liberalism, which is a dead ideology.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          If the English are a spent race I wonder what the fuck the Russians are. Have you seen their birth rates?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            LARPers.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            if I was born Russian, I wouldn't want to reproduce either

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              seething

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          liberalism==nihilism

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the English have a national reflex against everything illiberal.
        the English literally have a house of lords in 2022 lmao

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That is entirely unimportant

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Russia might take a constitutional monarch, maybe even the commies would put up with it.

      But if they only want to be absolute, they'd get rejected quickly.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        What would be the point of establishing a powerless figurehead monarchy more than a century after it was overthrown?

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ancestral memory of Germanic tribal government.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because nobody in Eurasia came up with the obvious solution of allowing and even encouraging nobility to be involved in mercantile ventures, which inevitably lead to wealth concentration happening outside the nobility, which included the royals, and after that all the wealth had to do was learn how to fight.

    And they fucking did. Because the nobility were in their way, for good and bad.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      marriage between merchants and landed gentry never ends well. In the long run you get the worse of both world, a corrupt landed gentry that knows every israeli trick in the book and a lazy mercantile class. Look the stagnation of Poland, Hungary, Italy, Spain, China, all countries that allow merchants to buy their way into the aristocracy.

      I've seen arguments about how capitalism and industrialism took off in northwestern europe because the merchants were left alone in their own corners and an energetic capitalist class emerged which seeks labor saving methods, sponsored and quickly adopted technological innovations. Where as if they had been able to buy their way into the nobility en masse they would have never venture out of their comfort zones

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        What do you mean happened in northwestern europe? It happened almost completely in America.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        The fuck are you on about, that's happened in pretty much every country, even - if not especially - the UK; the whole aristocracy vs bourgeoise thing is bullshit as well, since the aristocracy invariably invested in the ventures of merchants, and later industrialists

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't understand this.
        My great great grandmother was a noble, fled Poland, and ran a successful store.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    They weren't? Most English people supported Charles and he was only overthrown because of Scotland

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Based Scotland

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fucking Scots they ruined Scotland

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Its amazing the Americans can't distinguish between Britain and England even within a historic context

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    England was not even a unified polity until the 18th century. Even in the civil war period the north of England and many counties were effectively autonomous. The idea that these autonomous regions would abandon a millennium of autonomy just to appease some decadent king is absurd. Britain only unified through parliament.

    France had a similar problem and only unified through two centuries of revolution, stagnation, and confusion.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      LARP

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *