Ok, I was watching the 2003 adaptation of the Scarlet Pimpernel with Richard E. Grant just now, and I wondered why the French peasantry rebelled in the 1700s and the English peasantry didn't?
Were the French more or less thoroughly repressed than their English counterparts or was there more to it than that?
2006-08-14 11:53:50 · 8 answers · asked by alexjcharlton 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
England had 2 revolutions, if I am not mistaken. The first was in 1642 when Charles I was behedad. The other was in 1688 The Glorious Revolution- no blood shed and Parliament gained more power.
I know there is a lot more to the history, but this is the "Quick and Dirty" part of it.
2006-08-14 13:47:58 · answer #1 · answered by Malika 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there were several rebellions,against the crown, how ever England has had a Parliament that curtailed an absolute monarchy and the aristocracy played a large part in ruling England. This allowed a spread of power not seen in France. however the monarch and Parliament were worried about a similar revolution in England. After the terror began it was a propaganda coup for the monarchy.If a monarch lost the confidence of the aristocracy then he or she could be or was removed.
England also had a large empire that increased the wealth of England while France had ruinous expensive wars that they lost.
While the intelligentsia of France would be aware of the American revolution. For the peasant on the street the lack of bread or the price of bread (in excess of 90% of the calorie intake of a peasant) was crucial at various times preceding the revolution a working peasant could afford either rent or food but not both. The french taxation system was riddled with exceptions and privileges that forced the taxation burden onto that least able to pay.
The Magna carta was not an declaration of rights for the common man, it preserved the barons rights against the king
2006-08-14 12:03:44 · answer #2 · answered by brinlarrr 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The English had already had their revolution - in fact, they had two of them...once when they beheaded Charles I, and again when they kicked James II out and crowned William. This got rid of the notion of divine right and absolute rule in England. By the way, Magna Carta had nothing to do with the establishment of the constitutional monarchy during this period. Magna Carta was 400 years back in history at this point, and it was an agreement between the king and his nobles... there was no parliament involved.
2006-08-14 13:24:57 · answer #3 · answered by Spel Chekker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The generally accepted consensus is that France required a revolution after decades or centuries of corrupt nobility. England, on the otherhand, gradually adopted more and more democratic principles as it went along in the course of its development. When the Magna Carta was developed, giving feudal lords a voice in government, it gave the peasants under them a voice with the king. Britain had a revolution, it just did not involve bloodshed. It was more of a cultural revolution.
2006-08-14 12:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by darkvelvetrain 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
...actually the English rebelled long before the French. They established a form of constitutional Monarchy with the signing of the Magna Carta.
2006-08-14 11:59:46 · answer #5 · answered by Wicked Mickey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as far as i know the american independance was the gateway to the french revolution. basically they saw that a group of people could stand up to a monarchy and win. not sure about the level of opression but i do know that most of the real riffraff in england came to the good old US before we rebelled.
2006-08-14 11:58:37 · answer #6 · answered by gsschulte 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Man, we could get into this forever but, how ' bout I throw what you might perceive to be a curve ball even though I know it's a definite factor?
Destiny.
2006-08-14 11:58:16 · answer #7 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
England still executes non loyalist
2006-08-14 15:37:45 · answer #8 · answered by giantdwarfbat 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋