18th Century Britain and Democracy

Whats with all the hate for 18th Century Britain? There are people on this very forum who act like the Hannoverian Kings of (then) Great Britain being autocratic monsters when the truth is that the elected Parliament held and does hold all the power in the United Kingdom.

King George (I,II,III and IV) had to submit to the will of Parliament.

as in a chamber composed of rich people who didnt represent actual people but the land they owned.

and another (still powerfull) made out of lord and bishops.

Indeed very democratic. As democratic as a politurbo.

edited 12th Aug '11 6:13:03 AM by Baff

It was no less Democratic than the USA at the time.

"Elected" by the small elite who met the property (land!) qualification. Britain didn't get unqualified suffrage until 1918.

And the King may have had to submit to Parliament, but that doesn't mean the wealth and status of the crown were without influence, and the Royal Prerogative was still comparatively meaningful.

edited 12th Aug '11 11:40:24 AM by Jinren

And the USA didnt get Universal suffrage until 1971. I'm sorry but its just a Berserk Button for me when I hear about the "tyranny of Great Britain".

Great Britain in the 1800s was only slightly higher on the "stupidly malicious for stupid reasons" scale than the US during the Cold War. Given that, I rarely hear anything about the British Empire that isn't gushing about all it did for modern democracy (right...), so, I don't know where the OP is coming from here...

Yeah, democracy as we know it wasn't a thing back then and didn't really exist until the 20th century. To vote you needed to be an adult male who owned property worth 40 shillings or more, and you used to get instances of constituencies like Gatton (with seven registered voters) sending the same amount of M Ps to Parliament as major industrial cities.

Long story short, this was by and large the case until 1928. And even then...

edited 12th Aug '11 11:52:17 AM by TheBatPencil

Hey guys, I see you're talking about the government of 18th century Britain!

reads

...

walks out

@Whal: No, the situation in the US was different. At least class wasn't a factor, like it was in Britian.

I don't know, what is with the hate?

It was at least as democratic as 11th century Scandinavia.

You mean Iceland. They had kings in the 1000s on the mainland.

I probably do, I confess my knowledge of the political landscape of Greater Scandinavia of the 11th century is a little blurry.

@USAF

they where not stupid reasons... they where historical realities.

Right...

Ever hear of the "Race for Africa?" I bet you have. If so, justify it. That's the kind of stupid shit we're talking about...

edited 12th Aug '11 2:39:50 PM by USAF713

Britain's parliment in this time was mostly controlled by the rich elite but it wasn't all bad. Many of our politicans were pretty good and we were still more fair than most europeon countries from what I can tell.

Of course I don't see what the big deal with democracy is. I personally see it as a flawed system like every other style of goverment, it has it's pros and it's cons but it isn't the shining beacon of all that's good in the world like people make it out to be.

To bring out an overused Winston Churchill quote, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

Democracy, plainly, sucks. But... everything else sucks more.

It safeguards against leadership getting too bad. Democracy is, ultimately, a glorified failsafe system, but that doesn't reduce the failsafes importance.

However, to call 18th century Britain any kind of democracy is farcical.

No I haven heard of race for Africa... please explain

And democracy isnt all that great all the time. In certain ocations, certain dictatorships might be better.

edited 12th Aug '11 3:23:04 PM by Baff

However,if anyone wants a theocracy be my guest(Joking).

He's right democracy is a mess of politics.

Bleh... it meets Greek/Roman standards, anyhow. It was pretty bad, yeah, but it wasn't outright evil...

On a scale of Utopia to Hitler, Great Britain of the 1800s is only slightly right of center.

The empires of Europe decided to play "who has more Bling?" Their Bling, however, was territorial acquisitions in Africa. I.e. they marched in and took the place over entirely, carved it up into little plots, and argued over who's patch of dystopia was better.

You want to know why Africa sucks today? Look no further.

edited 12th Aug '11 3:26:02 PM by USAF713

Baff, during the period called "The Long Depression", there was a thing called "the scramble for Africa" in which all of the colonial powers divided up Africa between themselves.

Edit: But the scramble for Africa was in the 19th Century and involved "the United Kingdom" and not Great Britain.

edited 12th Aug '11 3:25:04 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Basically during the latter half of the 18th century, all the European powers rushed to get the best parts of Africa. Britain got the best bits, the others divided up everything else. Africa went from Europe only having a foothold in certain places to basically being everywhere bar Ethiopia, which managed to beat the Italians in round one.

...they weren't so fortunate the second time.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

edited 12th Aug '11 3:25:17 PM by GameChainsaw

It is indeed a failsafe.

Under a democracy, every leader will end up living as a commoner under the system he has introduced. It's not a perfect system, just a way of keeping leaders in line.

Sorry, the history grad in me just winced.

1918 is when all males over twenty-one, and women over the age of 30 were given the right to vote. If the women were married to a householder, were a householder, or were a university graduate. 1928 was when Universal Sufferage for all adults over 21 came into force.

Voting rights before the 1832 Reform Act are an utter nightmare, and it's not true to say only the rich could vote. It depended where you lived. Some places you might be able to vote if you rented a house or cottage, other places you'd have to be a freeholder, still other places you could only vote if you were on the town council.

We were actually moving (at the usual glacial British pace) towards reform - and then not only was there a revolt in North America, the French Revolution happened. After that there was pretty much zero desire for any reform, since it was generally held that reform would lead to people getting their heads chopped off. Been there, done that, everyone very glad to get the monarchy back.

After 1832 it was generally the prosperous middle class who could vote - either 40 shillings in free hold or renting a property worth £10. That was about a fifth of the male population.

edited 12th Aug '11 3:35:49 PM by Bluesqueak

I love the passing, underhanded "and it took so long because of America and France" that you sneaked in there.