Why did the English keep their Royalty while the French did not ?

[UndertheOcean]

I was always curious about that , but too lazy to research. Can someone spoon feed me the answer please?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Nope. Do your own research.

[CatWoman]

2. well

the PEOPLE rose up and desposed of the royals in France. Russia as well.

And Nicholas of Russia was the George V first cousin. They looked remarkably alike.

[mysuzuki2]

6. you left out Wilhelm II of Germany

who was also their first cousin. All were grandsons of Victoria.

[CatWoman]

that wasn't my point

but I see where you're going with that.

[cameozalaznick]

3. Uh, you ever hear of the French Revolution?

It seems the peasants rose up against the aristocracy and chopped all their heads off. Surely you've heard about this. It was in all the papers. I think it was kinda precipitated by the "let them eat cake remark." ringing any bells, now?

[CatWoman]

4. actually

Marie Antoinette never said that.

But I agree with your points.

[UndertheOcean]

7. I know that... I guess I should have rephrased the question as:

Why did a violent revolution occur in France but not England ... Was the English Royalty more "Progressive" than the French Royalty ?

[The Magistrate]

17. Violent Revolution Did Occur In England, Sir, In 1642, With the King Beheaded Seven Years Later

After a bellyful of rule by Puritans under arms, people welcomed return of a King a decade later, then decided they did not much like absolute monarchy after all, and invited a new monarch in under terms from Holland....

[enlightenment]

19. There are a lot of good books on the topic -

it's not a question that can be adequately answered in a sentence or three.

You might consider a couple of differences:

The power of the legislative bodies in England and in France.
The legal systems of the two nations.
The relationship between England and France.

A slightly older text that you might find helpful in explaining the power of culture and the nation is Linda Colley's "Britons"; though her focus is on the development of the quintessential British nation-state, she does a nice examination of the thought processes that drove the typical "Englishman".

http://www.amazon.com/Britons-1707-1837-Professor-Linda-Colley/dp/0300059256

[mmonk]

39. Actually there was the English civil war.

The Declaration of Breda led to the establishment of constitutional monarchy (generated by a secret letter from my ancestor to Charles II). The restoration as it was called reestablished monarchy, but different than before.

[white_wolf]

14. After Napoleon, the Bourbon kings were restored.

However, there were several other smaller revolutions in French which eventually ended the Monarchy. I remember one time I told my professor "It seems like France has a revolution every day in this class."

[The Magistrate]

18. And Then, Sir, the Second Republic Of The '48 Became the Second Empire Of Napoleon III

Republican rule only settled solidly after the War of 1870.

[pansypoo53219]

27. which revolution? they had three.

i read over 100 pages of french history in my 1903 encyclopedia. (i got 3 free ones at an estate sale), liked it so much i bought an 1891 set. i am REreading french history right now. they had quite few BAD kings. england had less rotters and more freedoms from the magna carta and their civil wars. and LOTS of inbreeding between this royal and that royal.

[Art_from_Ark]

30. The House of Bourbon was restored in 1814

With the exception of 100 days in 1815, and much of the period 1848-1852, France had a monarchy until its defeat by the newly unified Germany in 1870, when the then monarch/emperor, Louis Napoleon, was deposed.

[fishwax]

5. the French had a (series of) revolution(s)

The wave of revolutions in 1848 rose up against several monarchies throughout Europe, but Britain was relatively untouched.

[Kurovski]

8. I love how French business will eventually work things out with the workers.

You don't hear all the shitting on the poor that our upper classes and folks in power engage in so casually. They remember The Guillotine, the reign of Terror.

Here? we don't even take our elitist thieves, our robber-barons in for questioning let alone a trial.

[robinlynne]

10. right you are.

[canetoad]

9. In 1688 what was known as

'The Glorious Revolution' took place followed by the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1689.

This effectively ended the absolute power of the British monarch and established the constitutional monarchy which exists today.

'The Glorious Revolution' was also known as the Bloodless Revolution though this is not strictly true, as there were several violent clashes during the lead up to the crowning of William and Mary. In essence, the events of 1688 were the culmination of two hundred years of catholic/protestant clashes instigated by Henry VIII's decision to divorce Catherine of Aragon.

[Hannah Bell]

13. With some covert aid from global financiers playing global politics.

oh no, william and mary won't do

[Darth_Kitten]

47. Yup!

:)

[Darth_Kitten]

46. Yeah, "invite" a Dutch bigot to invade your country.

Glorious Revolution, my ass. :)

[Drew Richards]

11. Shortage of Steel?

Because there was a shortage of steel to make the guillotines. :) Just kidding...

there are a myriad reasons for a brief answer look up the French Revolution on google then look up...The Magna Carter...but in a nutshell...

Because the English "revolution" was fought in parliament and the French was fought in the streets.

Which one the next US Revolution will be fought in I am still trying to determine...

[Hannah Bell]

12. ...wrong place.

[somone]

15. Edmund Burke

and his little book "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Look it up.

[Historic NY]

16. hint.....

[Keith Bee]

20. The French are Smarter and Cooler

Yeah, I said it!

[WatsonT]

21. Britain was a naval power

never developed a large standing military like the continentals.

A navy is great for projecting power abroad, not so great at keeping the peasants in line at home.

As such they were forced to make concessions to the public to keep them in line that other monarchs did not have to do. Britain had a safety valve to blow off steam, elsewhere it built up and ended in outright revolt.

[rampart]

40. sorry, wrong thread

[happyslug]

22. After the fall of the Second Empire (1870) the Bourbons refused to be king under the Tri-Color

The, then current, heir to the Bourbon Throne, did not want to be King of France under the Tri-Color, by the time he died about a decade later, the Third Republic was well-established and the King was NOT needed to hold the Country together.

When Charles II was made King of England during the English Restoration in 1660, he was willing to accept all most all the changes Cromwell had imposed on England. Something the Kings of France were NOT willing to do in the late 1800s.

Thus the real difference was the willingness of the Royals to work with the rest of the Country to rule the Country. The Bourbons were just not able to make the needed requirements.

For more see the history of "Henry V" the pretender to the French Throne 1870-1883:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_comte_de_Chambord

[white_wolf]

23. I've always found it interesting that the same people who

executed their king, crowned an Emperor a mere decade later.

[cemaphonic]

25. Well, that's what a Reign of Terror will do for you. Anything for a little stability.

I'm always amazed that France went through the chaos that it did, got attacked by pretty much every other major European power at the time, and not only survived, but went on a conquering spree that only ended when the army melted away under the Russian winter.

[white_wolf]

26. If ever decide to try and conqueor the world, I'm leaving Russia alone.

Fuck it, they don't have anything worth dealing with their damn winters.

[WatsonT]

50. It always struck me as odd that invading russia was on every european tyrannts to-do list

at some point or another.

This in spite of mountains of historical evidence and common sense saying maybe just leave that one alone. Or at the very least consolidate the entire rest of the continent and build up your logistical support first.

But no, every one thinks "hey let's invade russia in the dead of winter for some reason, to secure their vast ice reserves or whatever, it'll be fun! And best of all we don't even need to bring supplies, we can find all we need on the way!"

Maybe Russias role in history is to break european military dictatorships.

[melm00se]

34. yup

what was the purpose of the exercise?

[WatsonT]

48. Maybe they weren't anti-despotism

they just didn't like that one despot.

Same thing happened with the Russians. Got rid of the tsars and replaced them with worse folks.

[white_wolf]

49. I don't know. Some the Tsars were pretty bad.

Though it is hard to be worse than Stalin, Hitler is the only one who can do that.

[Zambero]

24. The Brit royals managed to keep their heads attached

The French royals were not so fortunate.

[cali]

31. tell that to Charles I

[melm00se]

36. don't forget the

tens of thousands of the "people" who took it in the neck.

the death tool was north of 100,000 people many of which were average Jean Pauls.

Read up on the death chambers that were the Noyades.

[grahamhgreen]

28. The Guillotine.

[JDPriestly]

29. Based on my experience living a bit in England and also in France,

I would say that the people, the traditional populations of England and France are different in their histories, their cultures and their languages.

It used to be that if you walked down a street in Paris, you might very easily run into people arguing in public -- over the activities of dogs on the sidewalks, all kinds of strange things. The French are very expressive, quick to express themselves and I would say active -- volatile.

I remember noticing in the mornings when I road the Underground in London, the men sat in their seats in their suits, with newspapers in front of their noses. At that time, they did not speak to each other much as they road to work. At least in London, the British were far less likely to argue with each other about small things. Of course, eccentrics would get on soapboxes in certain areas of the park and talk about their ideas including their political theories. But the British at that time did not argue as quickly as the French.

National character. It does exist, and it does make a difference.

We were in France in the summer of 1968. We were not demonstrating at all, but still managed to get tear gas in our eyes as we emerged from the Metro on one occasion.

Of course, recently, the British and the French have been out in the streets objecting to cuts to education and other funding.

[BlueCollar]

32. prefer Royalty to Theocracy?

Actually, it's been better explained above, but the gist of it is that organised religion was responsible...

[melm00se]

33. in less than 15 words?

the English monarchy yielded it's power to the elected parliament.

[eShirl]

35. The English did get rid of their royalty but changed their mind and invited them back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War_timeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Interregnum
"The English Interregnum was the period of parliamentary and military rule by the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell under the Commonwealth of England after the English Civil War. It began with the overthrow, and execution, of Charles I in January 1649,<1> and ended with the restoration of Charles II on May 29, 1660."

[ikri]

37. As others have said...

England had already had its own revolution years earlier and the king wasn't able to wield the same sort of power as France's royalty.

But, Parliament & the king were aware of similar sentiments amongst the people of England and it may not have taken too much to start a similar revolution to France's. So we went to war with France. Given that we've always been up for a fight with France over pretty much anything it wasn't hard to get a lot of the very type of people who would have been revolting in England over to France to fight instead.

[JCMach1]

38. They got the benefits (i.e. democratic reforms) of the Revolutions of 1848 without rebelling

by the turn of the 20th century...

That, I think, is the only reason.

[rampart]

41. le roi, louis xx, duc de anjou, bourbon, and tourine

the king and his young wife are a handsome couple, aren't they? he also has a page on facebook.

http://www.ganges.com/Louis_XX_Heir_of_the_Throne_of_Fr...

[rampart]

42. jean christophe bonaparte

his mother, btw, a bourbon

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Jean+Christophe%2c+Prince+Napol%c3%a9on&view=detail&id=6EDE4F2154644A8998E1F8F30613761980289384&first=1&FORM=IDFRIR&qpvt=Jean+Christophe%2c+Prince+Napol%c3%a9on

[RainDog]

43. the Glorious Revolution v the French Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

it's more complicated than that, but that's the most basic explanation.

The British went through their own crisis a century prior to the French Revolution. After that time, the monarchy was no longer absolute. They had been fighting about religion for a long time, esp. in relation to monarchy. But they had a bill of rights after this time and power-sharing with a parliament.

The French Revolution happened in an entirely diff. intellectual climate - one in which institutions of power were questioned b/c of the enlightenment philosophers who began to tear down the edifice of monarchical and religious power by showing the irrational basis for their being.

The French revolutionaries faced invasion from other monarchies on the continent and concluded that Louis was behind these calls for invasion. The fear of a restoration of power as it had been allocated prior to the Revolution gave some the rationale to commit regicide - and not just regicide - other revolutionaries were murdered as well for not being ideologically "pure" enough.

The terror was a response to the fear of foreign interference in French governance.

If Louis had agreed to power sharing from the beginning, he would've had a better chance of keeping his head.

Even so, the French went through cycles of fights over monarchical power with the restoration and with Napoleon III in the Victorian era - so the French Revolution didn't fully settle the question.

[Bucky]

44. Excellent

Perfectly said

[RainDog]

45. wow. thanks for the kind words

I hadn't read all the replies - lots of others covered this too.