Civil disobedience : Matt Damon speech/ Opinions ?

[DieselDaisy]

7 minutes ago, The Archer said:

The crash of that little White Ship and a King by the totally un-King like name of Stephen.

The Anglican takeover of Catholic England under Edward VI.

Them Roundhead fellas.

 

 

I should probably say we got all our revolutions out there by the end of the 17th century. 1688's 'The Glorious Revolution' was the last one.

[The Archer]

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I should probably say we got all our revolutions out there by the end of the 17th century. 1688's 'The Glorious Revolution' was the last one.

Yeah, but I didn't include it because that was just name tagged as a Revolution for good PR.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, The Archer said:

Yeah, but I didn't include it because that was just name tagged as a Revolution for good PR.

Well it was a very 'English' revolution, the aristocracy inviting a Dutchman to take the throne, James fleeing.

[The Archer]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

Well it was a very 'English' revolution, the aristocracy inviting a Dutchman to take the throne, James fleeing.

Yes, but the fact that he was Dutch or a foreigner was just incidental - he was a Protestant married to a Protestant heir and any viable Protestant spouse, British or foreign would have done. James was an anomaly - his conversion to Catholicism was essentially a personal decision. As you pointed out, his replacement was just the existing aristocratic apparatus enforcing the status quo. Now, if the Jacobites had succeeded, that would have been a real, grass roots led revolution, with a much better claim to being called glorious.

The signing of the Magna Carta too could be seen as a revolution of sorts, but it was more revolutionary than revolution - once again, aristocrats asserting their rights but also defining important new ones, with far reaching effects. Those changes eventually led to and inspired the American Revolution, which can also be argued to have been a legitimately 'English' revolution.

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, The Archer said:

Yes, but the fact that he was Dutch or a foreigner was just incidental - he was a Protestant married to a Protestant heir and any viable Protestant spouse, British or foreign would have done. James was an anomaly - his conversion to Catholicism was essentially a personal decision. As you pointed out, his replacement was just the existing aristocratic apparatus enforcing the status quo. Now, if the Jacobites had succeeded, that would have been a real, grass roots led revolution, with a much better claim to being called glorious.

The signing of the Magna Carta too could be seen as a revolution of sorts, but it was more revolutionary than revolution - once again, aristocrats asserting their rights but also defining important new ones, with far reaching effects. Those changes eventually led to and inspired the American Revolution, which can also be argued to have been a legitimately 'English' revolution.

Finally, someone who can talk history as well as Dies' does   How do you know all this?  I mean being from Arizona and all.  Books i guess, same way as anyone but you seem to know a shitload offhand, you study it or somethin?

[The Archer]

6 minutes ago, Len B'stard said:

Finally, someone who can talk history as well as Dies' does   How do you know all this?  I mean being from Arizona and all.  Books i guess, same way as anyone but you seem to know a shitload offhand, you study it or somethin?

 Nah, I didn't study it. But I did grow up with a lot of books around.

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, The Archer said:

Yes, but the fact that he was Dutch or a foreigner was just incidental - he was a Protestant married to a Protestant heir and any viable Protestant spouse, British or foreign would have done. James was an anomaly - his conversion to Catholicism was essentially a personal decision. As you pointed out, his replacement was just the existing aristocratic apparatus enforcing the status quo. Now, if the Jacobites had succeeded, that would have been a real, grass roots led revolution, with a much better claim to being called glorious.

The signing of the Magna Carta too could be seen as a revolution of sorts, but it was more revolutionary than revolution - once again, aristocrats asserting their rights but also defining important new ones, with far reaching effects. Those changes eventually led to and inspired the American Revolution, which can also be argued to have been a legitimately 'English' revolution.

Do you really believe a Jacobite success - let's just say if the Old Pretender had succeeded in 'The '15'', or Bonnie Prince Charlie had succeeded in 'The 45' - would have signified 'revolution'. I would have called that counter-revolution being that their cause combined the ancient Stuart principals of intransigent Catholicism and divine right - it would have been a throwback to Charles I. The 1688 Revolution was truly a revolution as it brought in a wealth of legislation which created (arguably) the world's first modern state and acted as a platform for Britain's imperial power through the ensuing next two centuries. Consider this,

- Bill of Rights 1689, confirming the sovereignty of Parliament. Britain was well on the path of becoming a 'constitutional monarchy' now, i.e. a monarchy as a mere figurehead.

- The Toleration Act of 1688, admitted (partial) religious toleration unprecedented in Europe at that time

- Bank of England Act 1694 creating a public subscription fund (this is how Britain built up the Royal Navy). 

And slightly out of the Williamite era,

- The Act of Union 1707, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain

 

 

[Dazey]

6 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Its just nonsense, you got 300 different strands of the same unmanageable idea all masking the fact that it is a ridiculous and untenable philosophy, some of em talk up a scheme that is akin to tribal systems they got going in Afghanistan (and we all know how well they got on), half of em are just commies dressed up as lamb and the rest are just wankers.

Yeah, let's all do anarchy until some cunt nicks Tarquin's telly then it's "oh Mr Policeman, please do help. The beastly proles are picking on me". 

Basically anarchists are wankers. Scruffy, jobless, unwashed wankers!

[DieselDaisy]

3 minutes ago, Dazey said:

Yeah, let's all do anarchy until some cunt nicks Tarquin's telly then it's "oh Mr Policeman, please do help. The beastly proles are picking on me". 

Basically anarchists are wankers. Scruffy, jobless, unwashed wankers!

That reminds me of an anecdote in a world war two memoir, a Spitfire pilot, that I have read. Quoting from memory, he describes witnessing first hand a Communist campaigner proselytising on the street to a sizable, largely apathetic, crowd: ''We'll take all property. It is all ours anyway. We'll go into the shops and take back what is ours. Workers unite''. He goes on in a similar manner until saying, ''hey, who's nicked my bike?''.

[PappyTron]

Talking of Spitfires:

 

 

 

[Dazey]

25 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Talking of Spitfires:

 

 

 

I remember seeing that live.

[The Archer]

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

 I would have called that counter-revolution

I don't disagree. Counter revolutions need be no less revolutionary.

In this hypothetical case, rather than an intransigent monarchy or state religion, I would hazard a guess that under the reinstated Stuarts, who counted on both Highland Catholic and Protestant support, Britain may have actually seen official sanction of multi-sectarianism. Presbyterianism may have held or receded in Scotland while both Catholicism and Anglicanism ( as well as the various breakaway factions of the latter ) may have been forced to coexist in England under full state tolerance, a few hundred years before that eventually happened. But of course, this is in the realm of historical fiction, so I shall leave it at that.

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The 1688 Revolution was truly a revolution as it brought in a wealth of legislation which created (arguably) the world's first modern state and acted as a platform for Britain's imperial power through the ensuing next two centuries. Consider this,

- Bill of Rights 1689, confirming the sovereignty of Parliament. Britain was well on the path of becoming a 'constitutional monarchy' now, i.e. a monarchy as a mere figurehead.

- The Toleration Act of 1688, admitted (partial) religious toleration unprecedented in Europe at that time

None of which were not built on previous developments or the already evolving British state - British colonial expansion, its growing naval and colonial power, and parliamentary supremacy were set in motion well before William came over to England.

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

- Bank of England Act 1694 creating a public subscription fund (this is how Britain built up the Royal Navy). 

A great act of statecraft, but borne out of necessity, and not directly a cause or effect of the move to reinstate a Protestant ruler. Stuart losses to France could have spurred this as much as losses by the House of Orange.

4 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

- The Act of Union 1707, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain

The proximate cause of which was the bankruptcy of Scotland. But sooner or later, this would have been the logical conclusion of events under the Stuarts or anyone else ruling Britain.

 

 

 

 

 

[wasted]

We don't do revolution because we've been borrowing money to keep things running smoothly. It nevers gets to that point where everyone one is starving and ready to the storm the castles of power. But there is something to british people not needing much. They live in tea and toast and radio and culture. Virtually commie lifestyle. 

Leaving the EU is an interesting one, it's really a Tory thing where those rich people think they can do better businesswise. They are deluded to think the UK can be a real country that actually is productive and successful, not just a nation of freeloaders. But maybe it has to happen if we don't want to be become like Greece. Got to leave behind this fake socialist stuff and become more like the US. Enough loafing. 

[Len Cnut]

Oh stuff revolution anyway, quite frankly whats wrong with our way of life is more to do with people and the preference for the easy and comfortable more than what governments are doing.  We dont need mass change in socio-political infrastructure we need honest people in charge...and thats never gonna happen because there aint a man in this world thats got anywhere in life in any substantial sense (talking about your wealthy here) whoose honesty weren't worth a pound note or two, so you just make the choice, you wanna be an honest man with a little who MIGHT work his whole life to earn a comfortable few or do you wanna be a lying thieving bastard and go for the big big money.  All this revolution stuff, its a load of flannel.

Its like one of my favourite actors once said, when the revolution comes the dustmans just gonna be a communist dustman, nothings gonna change for ya through politics and voting, its gonna change precisely when you choose to so something about your shit situation and exchange it for a shit situation that sits better with you.  No Russell Brand, John Lennon or Lenin or new way is gonna solve anything, its all a massive con, everything, literally everything is a con, you name it, its a con, every passion, every creative endeavour, all art, media, film, news, sports, even important things like family, friendship and love, all cons, you just gotta find the one you're best off bluffing yourself into living by...and thats about it.

Lots of Love,

 

Uncle Len the Nihilist . Uncle Len, they should stick me on a packet of boil in the bag, shouldnt they?

[DieselDaisy]

11 hours ago, The Archer said:

In this hypothetical case, rather than an intransigent monarchy or state religion, I would hazard a guess that under the reinstated Stuarts, who counted on both Highland Catholic and Protestant support, Britain may have actually seen official sanction of multi-sectarianism. Presbyterianism may have held or receded in Scotland while both Catholicism and Anglicanism ( as well as the various breakaway factions of the latter ) may have been forced to coexist in England under full state tolerance, a few hundred years before that eventually happened. But of course, this is in the realm of historical fiction, so I shall leave it at that.

Presumably it would have seen the reversal of what happened. Under the Toleration Act, non-conformists were permitted to worship, Presbyterians, Puritans, congregationalists, etc. Under a restored Stuart monarchy, non-conformism would have been prohibited and persecuted whereas Catholics (and perhaps High Church Anglicans) preferred in positions of office holding and royal preference. You have to remember that the Stuarts - the exiled court of Saint-Germain in French pay, and thereafter - sought to emulate the monarchy of Louis XIV, a monarch who seemed to epitiomise the majesty of royal absolutism and divine right; in 1685 Louis had revoked the Edict of Nantes leading to the persecution of the Huguenots

 

11 hours ago, The Archer said:

None of which were not built on previous developments or the already evolving British state - British colonial expansion, its growing naval and colonial power, and parliamentary supremacy were set in motion well before William came over to England.

The precedence were there. But in regards to parliamentary supremacy the state was in permanent flux. During the 17th century England had gone through eleven years of personal rule, the Long Parliament, war with Scotland, Civil War, republic - of which there was a purged 'Rump' Parliament and an army dominated Protectorship. Since the Restoration, there had been a failed attempt at religious toleration, the Popish plot and Exclusion Crisis. A further attempt at religious toleration under James II circumnavigated parliamentary sovereignty and broke with the Anglican establishment.

In summary, England seemed to go from royal absolutism to parliamentary control, from Catholic/High Church dominance to Presbyterian and/or Dissenting theocracy - and vice versa - with the changes in seasons. Throw in the presence of a professional army and Oliver Cromwell and the picture becomes incredibly confused. However Whiggish this seems, the Revolutionary Settlement seemed to have implemented the lessons acquired over c. sixty years of constitutional warfare and religious squabbles, namely the end of royal arbitrariness, confirmation of parliamentary supremacy and religions toleration - however flawed the latter, Catholics being proscribed until 1829. 

The problem with the Stuarts is they tended to reenact the same mistakes, and they always stuck adamantly to their principals. Even Queen Anne had a typically Stuart Tory/High Church bias, and was the last monarch to withhold the Royal Assent.

11 hours ago, The Archer said:

A great act of statecraft, but borne out of necessity, and not directly a cause or effect of the move to reinstate a Protestant ruler. Stuart losses to France could have spurred this as much as losses by the House of Orange.

William of Orange's accession brought England directly into the Dutch orbit (the Stuarts favoured France), the most modern and fiscally sound state in the world, and a state acquiring an enclave empire based around the Indies' spice monopoly  (ironically perhaps, the British were late-bloomers at empire). Now consider the example set by the Dutch: chartered share-holding companies and adjacent stock Exchange, the Bank of Amsterdam, a modern navy. It is true that the English may have implemented the Dutch Republic's fiscal revolution regardless of the accession of the Stadholer to their throne, and indeed had already began to do so with the creation of their own East India Company, however William's accession no doubt hastened and made more durable the results. After all, the French state struggled with financial solvency for around one hundred years with tumultuous results! (I'm bordering on mentioning Weber's out-dated 'Protestant work ethic' but Protestantism was linked with financial solvency).

11 hours ago, The Archer said:

The proximate cause of which was the bankruptcy of Scotland. But sooner or later, this would have been the logical conclusion of events under the Stuarts or anyone else ruling Britain.

This is perhaps true, as James I had sought political union and there had been a short-lived Cromwellian union; the proposal was still been discussed under William and Mary. The Stuarts however would have been working with a different set of people, a different parliament, than the lowland Presbyterians, those hurt by the Darien disaster and consequentially had most to gain from union. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[DieselDaisy]

4 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Oh stuff revolution anyway, quite frankly whats wrong with our way of life is more to do with people and the preference for the easy and comfortable more than what governments are doing.  We dont need mass change in socio-political infrastructure we need honest people in charge...and thats never gonna happen because there aint a man in this world thats got anywhere in life in any substantial sense (talking about your wealthy here) whoose honesty weren't worth a pound note or two, so you just make the choice, you wanna be an honest man with a little who MIGHT work his whole life to earn a comfortable few or do you wanna be a lying thieving bastard and go for the big big money.  All this revolution stuff, its a load of flannel.

Its like one of my favourite actors once said, when the revolution comes the dustmans just gonna be a communist dustman, nothings gonna change for ya through politics and voting, its gonna change precisely when you choose to so something about your shit situation and exchange it for a shit situation that sits better with you.  No Russell Brand, John Lennon or Lenin or new way is gonna solve anything, its all a massive con, everything, literally everything is a con, you name it, its a con, every passion, every creative endeavour, all art, media, film, news, sports, even important things like family, friendship and love, all cons, you just gotta find the one you're best off bluffing yourself into living by...and thats about it.

Lots of Love,

 

Uncle Len the Nihilist . Uncle Len, they should stick me on a packet of boil in the bag, shouldnt they?

What usually happens in revolution is, to quote Townsend and The 'Oo, ''meet the boss/same as the old boss''. When revolutionary ardour has cooled, and the fruits of power put before one, usually you see the creation of a new wealth or aristocracy. This is as true in the French example as any, whereby landowning was confirmed under Bonaparte who also created a new aristocracy; many Émigrés returned also, gaining positions in the Bonapartiste state and armies. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks acquired all of those sumptuous Tsarist palaces. The banquets put on for Second World War foreign liaison officers and ambassadors would become the stuff of legends among British and American military/diplomatic circles, champagne, the finest caviar, etc. (One Briton recalls seeing a well-known Red Army general passed out, horizontal, on a table.)

[wasted]

6 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Oh stuff revolution anyway, quite frankly whats wrong with our way of life is more to do with people and the preference for the easy and comfortable more than what governments are doing.  We dont need mass change in socio-political infrastructure we need honest people in charge...and thats never gonna happen because there aint a man in this world thats got anywhere in life in any substantial sense (talking about your wealthy here) whoose honesty weren't worth a pound note or two, so you just make the choice, you wanna be an honest man with a little who MIGHT work his whole life to earn a comfortable few or do you wanna be a lying thieving bastard and go for the big big money.  All this revolution stuff, its a load of flannel.

Its like one of my favourite actors once said, when the revolution comes the dustmans just gonna be a communist dustman, nothings gonna change for ya through politics and voting, its gonna change precisely when you choose to so something about your shit situation and exchange it for a shit situation that sits better with you.  No Russell Brand, John Lennon or Lenin or new way is gonna solve anything, its all a massive con, everything, literally everything is a con, you name it, its a con, every passion, every creative endeavour, all art, media, film, news, sports, even important things like family, friendship and love, all cons, you just gotta find the one you're best off bluffing yourself into living by...and thats about it.

Lots of Love,

 

Uncle Len the Nihilist . Uncle Len, they should stick me on a packet of boil in the bag, shouldnt they?

We speak from a spoilt position though. Of course we won't revol because we either have a job, most likely paid for by the state through borrowed money or welfare again paid through borrowed money. That's what western govs do, they borrow money to pay for what we want. Which is salaries or dole. Of course there are some superheroes actually generating wealth through real work. But the whole thing is carried by borrowed money. A revolution doesn't happen on principles, it's because the people are poor and there's no food because the top guys took all the money. Like Libya or Syria or any shit hole. Greece keep ducking and diving. 

The US have borrowed so much but they will never have to pay it back. As long as the top 1% can keep everyone happy with refined sugar and plastic they will remain in power. That's why they cheer on the wars abroad. Deep down they know it's what keeps them living well. 

 UK kind of needs to do something. We are treading water. I think they are running out of credit and are delusional enough to think they can actually run a successful business. We've seen it before Tory delusion ends in strikes and riots because they let the rich cream offthe top and shit on the poor until they are too slint and have a bit of a riot. But the difference is there's no money to fall back on. So they are going to have to become America's bitch. The socialist ideals have already drained the country and we are sorry for the empire but it has to end. But after this delusion fails the UK will become a third world country and everyone's soft after bring spoilt for 2-3 decades. 

[Len Cnut]

To my understanding Libya were doing alright til we got involved.  I dont think the poor want revolution, the poor are the most aspirational people in the world, though I am speaking with a knowledge of not a lot else but England.

The poor or working class are an odd connumdrum, on the one hand you are kind of prompted to be proud of it but at the same time no true proper actual working class person wishes to remain working class, not really.

Look at all the examples of poverty stricken countries or whatever, they dont aspire to anything but to get higher up the greasy capitalist pole, its the middle classes are the ones that fanny on about revolution, the days of the old school socialist revolts like Nicaragua or whatever are long gone.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Len B'stard

[The Archer]

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Presumably it would have seen the reversal of what happened. Under the Toleration Act, non-conformists were permitted to worship, Presbyterians, Puritans, congregationalists, etc. Under a restored Stuart monarchy, non-conformism would have been prohibited and persecuted whereas Catholics (and perhaps High Church Anglicans) preferred in positions of office holding and royal preference. You have to remember that the Stuarts - the exiled court of Saint-Germain in French pay, and thereafter - sought to emulate the monarchy of Louis XIV, a monarch who seemed to epitomize the majesty of royal absolutism and divine right; in 1685 Louis had revoked the Edict of Nantes leading to the persecution of the Huguenots

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The problem with the Stuarts is they tended to reenact the same mistakes, and they always stuck adamantly to their principals. Even Queen Anne had a typically Stuart Tory/High Church bias, and was the last monarch to withhold the Royal Assent.

Perhaps, but as I pointed out, the Stuart rebellions had Presbyterian and not just Catholic support. Despite any pretensions, exile may in fact have just given them some much needed humility.

The edict of Nantes is itself a precedent for tolerance, but its repeal doesn't necessarily indicate that the Stuarts would have followed the same path, nor do I think that the restored Stuarts would have inevitably remained rigid and strict absolutists. For one, previous history shows that even after formerly being under the protection or influence of the French, English sovereigns or claimants, and their legatees, have changed their allegiances and positions after crossing the channel. Secondly, France was still overwhelmingly Catholic under Louis and the Huguenots were a small percentage of the population compared to the situation in England, where the Stuarts could not have ruled in stability without compromise and tolerance.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

The precedence were there. But in regards to parliamentary supremacy the state was in permanent flux. During the 17th century England had gone through eleven years of personal rule, the Long Parliament, war with Scotland, Civil War, republic - of which there was a purged 'Rump' Parliament and an army dominated Protectorship. Since the Restoration, there had been a failed attempt at religious toleration, the Popish plot and Exclusion Crisis. A further attempt at religious toleration under James II circumnavigated parliamentary sovereignty and broke with the Anglican establishment.

In summary, England seemed to go from royal absolutism to parliamentary control, from Catholic/High Church dominance to Presbyterian and/or Dissenting theocracy - and vice versa - with the changes in seasons. Throw in the presence of a professional army and Oliver Cromwell and the picture becomes incredibly confused. However Whiggish this seems, the Revolutionary Settlement seemed to have implemented the lessons acquired over c. sixty years of constitutional warfare and religious squabbles, namely the end of royal arbitrariness, confirmation of parliamentary supremacy and religions toleration - however flawed the latter, Catholics being proscribed until 1829. 

I acknowledge most of that. Where I differ from you is that in the matter of the continuing evolution of the British state as a parliamentary system with a monarchy, I see the accession of the House of Orange as a sort of regression to the mean, after a period of back and forth. The only way in which the 'glorious' revolution was 'glorious' was that it didn't cut off a king's head and there was limited bloodshed. Rather than a real revolution fomenting drastic change, I see it as the establishment reasserting itself. 

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

William of Orange's accession brought England directly into the Dutch orbit (the Stuarts favoured France), the most modern and fiscally sound state in the world, and a state acquiring an enclave empire based around the Indies' spice monopoly  (ironically perhaps, the British were late-bloomers at empire). Now consider the example set by the Dutch: chartered share-holding companies and adjacent stock Exchange, the Bank of Amsterdam, a modern navy. It is true that the English may have implemented the Dutch Republic's fiscal revolution regardless of the accession of the Stadholer to their throne, and indeed had already began to do so with the creation of their own East India Company, however William's accession no doubt hastened and made more durable the results. After all, the French state struggled with financial solvency for around one hundred years with tumultuous results! 

Yes, I agree for the most part but see this as part of an ongoing progression and largely inevitable. The Bank of England was certainly among the first of its kind and set precedents, and while there is no question about Dutch innovation in finance, I don't see its influence on the English banking system as unique or a direct consequence of William's ascension to the English throne. The requirements of the colonial age demanded and spurred these developments and national banks were widespread within the next one hundred years and not linked to a state's preferred or sanctioned sect.

6 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

(I'm bordering on mentioning Weber's out-dated 'Protestant work ethic' but Protestantism was linked with financial solvency).

It's a perfectly valid approach to the argument. It's just that the term is more reminiscent of a dour Calvinism and I don't particularly associate it with High or Middle Church Anglicanism.

Edited May 18, 2016 by The Archer
Edited for formatting

[DieselDaisy]

1 hour ago, The Archer said:

Perhaps, but as I pointed out, the Stuart rebellions had Presbyterian and not just Catholic support. Despite any pretensions, exile may in fact have just given them some much needed humility.

The edict of Nantes is itself a precedent for tolerance, but its repeal doesn't necessarily indicate that the Stuarts would have followed the same path, nor do I think that the restored Stuarts would have inevitably remained rigid and strict absolutists. For one, previous history shows that even after formerly being under the protection or influence of the French, English sovereigns or claimants, and their legatees, have changed their allegiances and positions after crossing the channel. Secondly, France was still overwhelmingly Catholic under Louis and the Huguenots were a small percentage of the population compared to the situation in England, where the Stuarts could not have ruled in stability without compromise and tolerance.

Some estimates place the Huguenot population at around 900,000 at the time of the Revocation of Nantes, from a population of around 19 million. 

Is this the same Stuart monarchy which sent a Naval expedition to aid the suppression of the Huguenots at La Rochelle, and whose usage of the Star Chamber persecuted Protestants dissenters? Who prohibited religious non-conformism (the Clarendon Code), established a shady alliance with France and had a deathbed conversion to Catholicism? Is it the same Stuarts who flooded their government and armies with Catholics, removing protestant officer-holders, and who persecuted refractory Presbyterians in Scotland. Absolutism? Just how many Stuart Parliaments were dissolved, prorogued or hamstrung by the Stuarts, the 1928 Parliament and the Short and Long Parliaments of Charles I, those of Charles II during the Exclusion Crisis, James II's 'Loyal' Parliament?

Queen Anne's support for the Occasional Conformity Bill and dismissal of the Whig Junto were merely a continuation of Stuart high mindedness.

There is nothing really present to convince me that the Stuarts were not crypto-Catholic High Church Anglicans if not open Catholics, with that attendant disdain for non-conformism which characterises the age, and that they did not believe in divine right. There is also little to convince me that they were enamored with the majesty of the Bourbon court of The Sun King.

1 hour ago, The Archer said:

I acknowledge most of that. Where I differ from you is that in the matter of the continuing evolution of the British state as a parliamentary system with a monarchy, I see the accession of the House of Orange as a sort of regression to the mean, after a period of back and forth. The only way in which the 'glorious' revolution was 'glorious' was that it didn't cut off a king's head and there was limited bloodshed. Rather than a real revolution fomenting drastic change, I see it as the establishment reasserting itself. 

This would only work if the tumultuous politics of the 17th century had ever represented the overthrow of a distinct 'establishment'. The Puritans of the Long Parliament were largely from the same class as the Cavaliers of Charles I, namely the gentry and aristocracy. The Dutchman of William were largely from the same class as the French-Irish-English Catholics of James II's establishment. Leveller agitation following the English Civil War, the closest this all came to socialist anarchic revolution, was curbed through imprisonment and military force. The differences in outgoing and incoming regime were defined by religion and political opinion, and submerged peacefully into the two parties of Whig and Tory - this is what I meant by it being a very 'English' revolution.

 

1 hour ago, The Archer said:

Yes, I agree for the most part but see this as part of an ongoing progression and largely inevitable. The Bank of England was certainly among the first of its kind and set precedents, and while there is no question about Dutch innovation in finance, I don't see its influence on the English banking system as unique or a direct consequence of William's ascension to the English throne. The requirements of the colonial age demanded and spurred these developments and national banks were widespread within the next one hundred years and not linked to a state's preferred or sanctioned sect.

Do you not find it significant that six years into William of Orange's reign a Bank of England was established? France failed to establish a sound and modern monetary policy throughout this period. Why is that? From the wars of Louis XIV, until the deposition of Louis XVI, the Bourbon state was effectively insolvent - indeed France did not establish a bank until Bonaparte.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by DieselDaisy

[The Archer]

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Some estimates place the Huguenot population at around 900,000 at the time of the Revocation of Nantes, from a population of around 19 million. 

Yes, less than 5%. The percentage of Protestants (even if you ignore high church anglicans) living under a restored Stuart monarchy would be much larger I'd guess, without even looking at comparative statistics. 

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Is this the same Stuart monarchy which sent a Naval expedition to aid the suppression of the Huguenots at La Rochelle, and whose usage of the Star Chamber persecuted Protestants dissenters? Who prohibited religious non-conformism (the Clarendon Code), established a shady alliance with France and had a deathbed conversion to Catholicism? Is it the same Stuarts who flooded their government and armies with Catholics, removing protestant officer-holders, and who persecuted refractory Presbyterians in Scotland. Absolutism? Just how many Stuart Parliaments were dissolved, prorogued or hamstrung by the Stuarts, the 1928 Parliament and the Short and Long Parliaments of Charles I, those of Charles II during the Exclusion Crisis, James II's 'Loyal' Parliament?

Queen Anne's support for the Occasional Conformity Bill and dismissal of the Whig Junto were merely a continuation of Stuart high mindedness.

There is nothing really present to convince me that the Stuarts were not crypto-Catholic High Church Anglicans if not open Catholics, with that attendant disdain for non-conformism which characterises the age, and that they did not believe in divine right. There is also little to convince me that they were enamored with the majesty of the Bourbon court of The Sun King.

My conjecture that the restored Stuarts would be accommodative of Protestant subjects and parliamentary supremacy is not based on the positions of their historical forbears, their allegiances while in exile, or their willingness to test parliamentary power, or the dynasty's insufficient fidelity to Protestantism. Perhaps it should be. But, as I've said before and shall reiterate, the Stuarts' support from, and willingness to co-opt native Protestant allies for their cause, the impracticality of governing a majority Protestant nation without enforcing a policy of tolerance in a multi-sectarian society, as well as the long entrenched nature of evolving and growing parliamentary power in Britain, are what I base my hypothesis on.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

This would only work if the tumultuous politics of the 17th century had ever represented the overthrow of a distinct 'establishment'. The Puritans of the Long Parliament were largely from the same class as the Cavaliers of Charles I, namely the gentry and aristocracy. The Dutchman of William were largely from the same class as the French-Irish-English Catholics of James II's establishment. Leveller agitation following the English Civil War, the closest this all came to socialist anarchic revolution, was curbed through imprisonment and military force.

I do not see this as class warfare. Let me clarify - by establishment, I meant the Protestant governing order of Britain, the key word here being Protestant. 

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

The differences in outgoing and incoming regime were defined by religion and political opinion, and submerged peacefully into the two parties of Whig and Tory - this is what I meant by it being a very 'English' revolution.

The first part corroborates my position - I see a change of head of state, pushed by the established religious and political order which was at odds with the previous monarch's personal conversion, and not the top to bottom upheaval implicit in the word revolution. As for the second, I don't disagree with the truth of what you are saying, except for the semantics of it.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Do you not find it significant that six years into William of Orange's reign a Bank of England was established? 

As I already mentioned, I do. I just don't see it as a direct cause or effect of the change in head of state, which was ultimately, an event involving sectarian motives, not economic ones. It is no doubt, a byproduct of that change. But as I said it is not inconceivable that a national banking system would have been established under a Catholic monarch in England.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

France failed to establish a sound and modern monetary policy throughout this period. Why is that? From the wars of Louis XIV, until the deposition of Louis XVI, the Bourbon state was effectively insolvent - indeed France did not establish a bank until Bonaparte.

Again, my position was that the institution of a National Bank cannot be credited solely to William being a Protestant and therefore justifying by extension that his ascension for the fact, was revolutionary. While I'd consider Napoleon effectively a deist and not a Catholic, the absence of a banking system under the Bourbons, is not a case for defining state religion as the defining factor in financial policy in this period. Spain, under a Catholic monarch had a national bank a full two decades before Napoleonic France. If you go further back, the large private bankers of Renaissance Catholic Europe were precursors to the successful Protestant and Jewish Bankers of the 1700s. Irrespective of religious beliefs, whether those prohibited usury or encouraged frugality and saving, the evolving colonial powers could not have regulated their economies and financed their expansion with the help of private banking alone. Strong national banks were inevitable. All credit though to those who got there sooner.

 

[wasted]

7 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

To my understanding Libya were doing alright til we got involved.  I dont think the poor want revolution, the poor are the most aspirational people in the world, though I am speaking with a knowledge of not a lot else but England.

The poor or working class are an odd connumdrum, on the one hand you are kind of prompted to be proud of it but at the same time no true proper actual working class person wishes to remain working class, not really.

Look at all the examples of poverty stricken countries or whatever, they dont aspire to anything but to get higher up the greasy capitalist pole, its the middle classes are the ones that fanny on about revolution, the days of the old school socialist revolts like Nicaragua or whatever are long gone.

You're talking about the working class people. I'm not talking about stable poor living on borrowed money, I'm talking about dole and credit cards, I mean a lot of jobs are paid for by the borrowed money. They have the luxury of aspirations built on an econmy of borrowed money. No attack on working classe values or life. We all live a happy delusion. 

I'm talking "the poor". When everyone has no income, no dole, they struggle on for years but eventually if nothing changes and they see finally it's the system. Then it will happen. Only then. It's not a romantic thing to do based on ideology. Maybe in the past when it was an even greater mess than now. 

Like the scenario in the US is ripe for that. Where the top 1% have the wealth. And more importantly the people don't own the land. So certain families own the land. Simple example like Bush family, own land with oil. That will never change. But in this situation where the people don't own the land the rich will milk it dry. It just becomes a way for the rich to get richer. And that's what we see, the gap between rich and poor getting wider. If the US runs out of money to service it's debts and keep the 90% happy, then you might see revolution. But it has to be an extreme case. Like you said working classes will toil away for years for a glimmer of hope. False hope often. You have politicians dancing around telling them everythings ok. Short term fixes etc. it's a consoiracy that makes you happy. Why fight it?

I'm saying they lose everything. That's when people take to the streets. When you have no money, and there is no hope of aspirations. We don't really have a lot of really poor people in the UK. They have access to  the dole, they could even potentially get a job. There's a ststem of sorts. 

But Libya people got nothing but if they complain Ghadaffi police would string them up. It was a rigged system where a family or group lived well, the rest not much of a future. And there is dissent in those places like Syria where we support to topple the regime from within. Look what happens to Ghaddifi in the end. Half the people want to rape him with a knife. 

BUT it never happens because govs keep borrowing money to keep them happy. Or enforce it by violence.

It's easier for UK gov to borrow more money to pay salaries to teachers, nurses, the middle class, the welfare system, everything is on borrowed money. We service the debts. We continue to be happy but when the credit runs out then what? It's not like no one knows what we are doing. Everyone does it. Germany lends money to Greece so greeks buy German products to fuel their economy.

So what I'm saying is maybe leaving EU is a way to try to become more of a real country, not part of this borrowing cycle like the rest of europe. Maybe we think we are better than that? Maybe it's the ultimate folly because we are so used to the easy life. But how long can that last?

[DieselDaisy]

...5% in (then) the most populated country in Europe, even more than Tsarist Russia at that time. By contrast, the population of Great Britain stood around 6 million. It is no coincidence how exiled Huguenots and their descendants seem to crop up in European (and North American) history, wherever you look.

28 minutes ago, The Archer said:

My conjecture that the restored Stuarts would be accommodative of Protestant subjects and parliamentary supremacy is not based on the positions of their historical forbears, their allegiances while in exile, or their willingness to test parliamentary power, or the dynasty's insufficient fidelity to Protestantism. Perhaps it should be. But, as I've said before and shall reiterate, the Stuarts' support from, and willingness to co-opt native Protestant allies for their cause, the impracticality of governing a majority Protestant nation without enforcing a policy of tolerance in a multi-sectarian society, as well as the long entrenched nature of evolving and growing parliamentary power in Britain, are what I base my hypothesis on.

Well the Stuarts always co-opted High Church Anglicans, Tories to give them their political equivalent from the 1670s onward, into their governance. At worst they were Catholic in sympathy yet saw Anglicanism as a method of state control with which to curb Non-conformism and radicalism (James II), at best, they regarded themselves as Anglicans, albeit a particularly High Church brand of Anglicanism which their critics would regard as 'Popish' (Charles I).

40 minutes ago, The Archer said:

Again, my position was that the institution of a National Bank cannot be credited solely to William being a Protestant and therefore justifying by extension that his ascension for the fact, was revolutionary. While I'd consider Napoleon effectively a deist and not a Catholic, the absence of a banking system under the Bourbons, is not a case for defining state religion as the defining factor in financial policy in this period. Spain, under a Catholic monarch had a national bank a full two decades before Napoleonic France. If you go further back, the large private bankers of Renaissance Catholic Europe were precursors to the successful Protestant and Jewish Bankers of the 1700s. Irrespective of religious beliefs, whether those prohibited usury or encouraged frugality and saving, the evolving colonial powers could not have regulated their economies and financed their expansion with the help of private banking alone. Strong national banks were inevitable. All credit though to those who got there sooner.

 

I am not implying that the religion of William of Orange had something to do with the creation of a Bank, with which I would be recycling the 'Protestant Work Ethic' theory - although Protestantism was connected with financial solvency during this era. What I meant was, the accession of William III brought England/Great Britain into a Dutch sphere of influence; William, arriving with a small army of compatriots, began to dish out lucrative English appointments to interloping Dutchmen; William's accession locked Britain in a war with France, allied with the Dutch Republic. This, being interlocked with the most advanced economic maritime state, no doubt increased and made more durable the establishment of Britain as a naval power upon a fiscally sound footing.

The British proceeded to do exactly what the Dutch had been doing - against them in fact - which is, financing warfare on public credit!

I'm not denying there were precedence: the East India Company (already imitating Dutch practice) was nearly ninety years old; there was also a Tudor maritime tradition as well as Cromwelllian and Restoration naval reforms, however I certainly see the Revolutionary Settlement hugely significant in modifying the shape, tempo and character of Britain's modernisation.

[The Archer]

 

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

...5% in (then) the most populated country in Europe, even more than Tsarist Russia at that time. By contrast, the population of Great Britain stood around 6 million. It is no coincidence how exiled Huguenots and their descendants seem to crop up in European (and North American) history, wherever you look.

Yes, and thanks to the Farages of Euro-sceptic fame, in the UK as well.  But, at the time, Catholics were a proportionally much more significant minority in Britain and a clear majority in Ireland. Ruling Britain clearly required some sort of religious compromise, which I believe would have been the case if Britain had continued to be ruled by the Stuarts.

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Well the Stuarts always co-opted High Church Anglicans, Tories to give them their political equivalent from the 1670s onward, into their governance. At worst they were Catholic in sympathy yet saw Anglicanism as a method of state control with which to curb Non-conformism and radicalism (James II), at best, they regarded themselves as Anglicans, albeit a particularly High Church brand of Anglicanism which their critics would regard as 'Popish' (Charles I).

If the Stuarts, with whose reign the de-facto religious text of Protestantism will be forever linked, were crypto-Catholics, then Tudors' sham conversion to Protestantism is the root cause of English royalty's religious schizophrenia during this period.

William's ascension and the act of succession may have formalized and mandated Protestantism as the royal family's religion. But I don't see this as revolutionary, because whatever be the original cause of English royalty's insincere rejection of Catholicism, by the time of James II's rejection of the reformed faith, Protestantism had already taken genuine root among both the general populace as well as much of the aristocracy and its continued adoption was not dependent on royal sanction.

On a separate note, these events did lead to re-establishing German royalty in Britain after more than 1600 years of mostly Anglo-Norman rule, and that persists to this day. So, maybe if there are going to be qualifiers attached to the word revolution, what England got was a 'German' revolution.

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I am not implying that the religion of William of Orange had something to do with the creation of a Bank, with which I would be recycling the 'Protestant Work Ethic' theory - although Protestantism was connected with financial solvency during this era. What I meant was, the accession of William III brought England/Great Britain into a Dutch sphere of influence; William, arriving with a small army of compatriots, began to dish out lucrative English appointments to interloping Dutchmen; William's accession locked Britain in a war with France, allied with the Dutch Republic. This, being interlocked with the most advanced economic maritime state, no doubt increased and made more durable the establishment of Britain as a naval power upon a fiscally sound footing.

Where I disagree is not on the chronology and the impact of these events, but in their immediate magnitude. The changes that were wrought by these events were incremental and substantial, but not revolutionary and not related directly to the need to substitute a Catholic monarch with a Protestant one. 

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The British proceeded to do exactly what the Dutch had been doing - against them in fact - which is, financing warfare on public credit!

I'm not denying there were precedence: the East India Company (already imitating Dutch practice) was nearly ninety years old; there was also a Tudor maritime tradition as well as Cromwelllian and Restoration naval reforms, however I certainly see the Revolutionary Settlement hugely significant in modifying the shape, tempo and character of Britain's modernisation.

Yes, your first point echoes my earlier thoughts about the expanding (and competing) colonial powers needing the means and infrastructure to finance their growth, leading to the emergence of these state banks.

Again, we are in agreement on the precedents involved, and the effect of these changes - but differ on their characterization.

However, if I were to play devil's advocate and throw in an argument in your favor, I would say that the re-establishment of Britain as a largely Protestant nation under exclusively Protestant rulers, allowed (albeit overtime) for creation of a unified national sentiment and character, as well as confidence, that it carried into the next two and a half centuries of Empire, and where, as you pointed out, divisions in the public sphere were largely political and not sectarian. Perhaps Britain may not have been as confident a global colonial power if it had continued under Catholic rulers, however benign. But that is speculation.

[netcat]

Revolutions are concieved by idealists, implemented by fanatics and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels. im not sure who said it but sounds about right.  

as someone who recently participated in civil disobedience acts that turned violent and resulted in 100 people killed in my city and thousands killed in war on the other side of the country, sometimes i think if that was necessary. or was it worth it. and i figure, trouble was brewing for years so one way or another it would happen  - civil conflict, foreign agression, economy collapse, etc. country was in a structural crisis for decades. revolution just catalized the process, made things go faster. could it be done less brutaly, with less victims? maybe. but it's not our style. in this part of the world where i live revolution always get in the way of evolution 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2016 by netcat