Historians in Russia and France, and later in Spain, Portugal and Italy, can all fill their boots as they analyse and interpret the momentous revolutions and civil wars that changed the course of history in their countries. Britain’s historians, meanwhile, can only quarrel among themselves, in their brandy-soaked scrofulousness, about the level of danger posed by various types of village disturbances.
The real questions that need to be answered are these: why has there never been a proper revolution in Britain? Why, effectively, did Britain’s poor simply hold up Father Ted placards saying: “Down with this sort of thing”?
I guess nothing much happened in 1642 after all…
Ignorant, uneducated fuckwits, the lot of them.
One or two people below the line have taking this moron to task over that glaring omission. Not least because it undermines his whole pathetic whinge.
The English Revolution, like the later French Revolution, were bourgeois revolutions. So the question he should have asked is why Britain never experienced a proletarian revolution. But historians have a pretty good handle on that. The British ruling class has a track record of yielding just enough to put off the risk of revolution. In modern times, Britain was closest to a proletarian revolution in 1919, which panicked the government into introducing stringent controls on firearms to disarm the working classes.