There was also a revolt against the crown in Ireland in 1798 that was directly inspired by the revolution in France, and indeed involved the French.
Sorry about the double post, just thought of another element.
Look at the English and French legal systems. The French system starts from fundamental, very general principles and works its way down. It is characterised by a priori thinking. The English starts from concrete cases, solving problems as they arise and works its way up. It is characterised by a posteriori thinking.
Ever heard of Old Bailey? Why is it named that? For some arcane reason that goes back long ago. Why hasn’t it been changed to something else? Because it isn’t creating a major problem so why not let it as is and muddle through? Now look at France where everytime they change a comma, they have to establish another republic.
This attitude is much less conducive to sudden breaks, like the French revolution, than a Cartesian attitude where the whole system starts from first principles and has to be planned and coherent from alpha to omega.
The purchase system. “The Reason Why” by Cecil Woodham-Smith lays out the thesis that this largely came about because Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth had scared the bejeezus out of them. In order to see that THAT didn’t happen again, they were willing to accept a system which allowed the military to become a dumping ground for the more useless offspring of the aristocracy (a wealthy landowner has a kid who is too stupid to be trusted to take over and run the estate? Buy him a commission and let him play soldier.). She also claimed it was the reason they opposed having a police force for a long time - it was seen as a paramilitary which would not be commanded by the gentry.
We had a revolt several hundred years before France did. It failed.
To be fair revolts like those of Wat Tyler were depressingly ( upliftingly? depends on your perspective, I guess ) common in Europe generally in that period. Pre-modern Europe was pretty contentious in general and popular jacqueries often occurred when local government found itself under a great deal of stress. In fact the actual French Jacquerie pre-dated England’s Great Rising 
( and both were caused in part by stresses emerging from different phases of the Hundred Years War ).
It happened after a much more successful revolution. The people were ready to rise up against the king. The king fled without a fight. Parliament invited William of Orange to be their new king, but stripped the monarchy of most of its powers.
No
1215 is 149 years away from 1066, but 796 years away from 2011. I guess it’s a matter of interpretation, but I doubt I’d nitpick a claim that 149 is smaller than 796.
**Derleth **didn’t say that. He or she said that 1215 is not much closer to 2010 than 1066 is.
So King George III in 1776 had limited powers? It didn’t seem like it to the American Colonies. 
I do recall reading Benjamin Franklin got brought up before Parliament for a rather severe reprimand in the early days of the revolution. He returned to the colonies afterward and became a supporter. I suppose in an earlier time Ben might have lost his head. 
Yes.
Yes he had limited powers. To be fair, the King still had lots of actual executive powers in 1776, especially in the colonies themselves. It wasn’t like today where absolutely positively every official action by the current monarch is by the advice of her ministers.
Americans make the mistake of thinking of George III as a tyrant who personally oppressed them. Whilst in Lord North, the King had a Prime Minister who was wholly to his liking, the policies which colonists objected to were devised and implemented by government ministers and the British Parliament. Kings at the turn of the 18th c. still had more power than they have now, but a lot less than a century before and a lot lot less than a century-and-a-half before. The English constitution evolved, gradually yielding to radical demands, whereas the French royalty, aristocracy and Church clung ferociously to their privileges until the pressure cooker blew off.
I just checked the Declaration of Independence. It blames the king for everything. Well there is a paragraph near the end addressed to ‘‘our British brethren’’. Of course, demonizing George may have worked better than parliament. No sense weakening your case by sticking to the facts.
I think that was what they did to his liver and the rest during his posthumous execution…
Wasn’t France in worse financial shape in 1789 than England? I think England had a more extensive colonial system than France that could help them more when the economy went down. I don’t think France got much of a return on helping America win its independence while a lot of Americans were of English decent and went back to trading with England after the revolution was won. Plus England did have a Parliament functioning for quite a while while a French version hadn’t met for decades until Louis XVI summoned it.
Of course the French did bring back the Bourbons after the defeat of Waterloo but they managed to blow it after 30 years. One of them, Henri V, refused to become King unless France dropped the tri colour flag, they refuse and established the Third Republic. By the time he died some 40 years later, France figured a republic was the least bad form of government.
There was a saying that Bourbons never learn and never forget.
Maybe that’s what Derleth meant to say, but he didn’t parse his remark, or the one he was responding to, ideally to say that.
I thought about pointing this out, but decided not to as it was so obvious. However in the course of thinking about it, I realized something that wasn’t so obvious: Cromwell and the Civil War are closer to the present than to the Magna Carta!
As I understand it, the French state had a much more complex, less stable, and less efficient revenue base than the British had. This complexity was also reflected in the way that society was involved in the legislative process, and the way that laws were enforced.
Generally speaking you paid the same taxes, duties, etc. wherever you were in Britain,* and those taxes were determined by Parliament. Parliament met annually, was effectively a standing body, and in theory passed laws that did not distinguish between people according to their position in the social hierarchy. Parliament’s laws also extended throughout the whole of either England (incl. Wales) or Scotland, or both. The central government only had to turn to one place to get a new tax brought in for the entire country.
In contrast, you paid different rates for the same tax in different parts of France, and even different taxes in different parts of France. Also, there were internal customs barriers within France, so you had to pay duties to “import” from one part of the country to another. Taxes, etc. were imposed by the Crown in some areas, but in other areas could only be introduced in agreement with the relevant regional Parliament. Some of those regional Parliaments were highly independent and would not always agree to changes (especially of course if this meant their region would be paying more). Thus, the Crown was not able to impose uniform taxation, nor pass laws of universal application. The nobility were exempted from taxation; and in contrast with just a few hundred peers in Great Britain, the nobility ran into tens of thousands in France. Taxation was also “farmed” in France, meaning that someone would pay the Crown for the privilege of collecting taxes; I’m not sure how this actually worked, but it seems to be considered A Bad Thing.
It had been recognised in English constitutional theory since the fourteenth century at the latest that the Crown would call Parliaments to agree to taxes in return for the redress of grievances. The French system didn’t have sufficient flexibility to allow for this, so when things finally blew up, they blew up big. (Obviously the English system had problems of its own, as shown in the 1600s!)
- I’m not sure how long it took for Scottish taxes, etc. to be brought into line with the English ones after the Union. But then, the OP does refer specifically to “the English”.
Quite so. I highly recommend Iron Tears by Stanley Weintraub for anyone who wants to understand British politics during the American Revolution. George III had a lot of influence in Parliament, played favorites among MPs, and often bankrolled the campaigns of favorites, or of those seeking to unseat MPs he disliked. Lord North definitely worked for him, and not the other way 'round. After Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781, the King went so far as to draft a letter of abdication, so closely was the badly-failed war policy personally identified with him.
The French Revolution is one of the most studied, complex events in history. If the OP wants a definitive answer, we’re looking at the beginning of the longest thread in history 
This revolution had standard reasons: expensive bread and a state out of money. The 18th century had seen steady economic growth, so people were not used to going hungry. This is always a bad thing Also, a passive and soft king was essential to the process: Louis XIV or Napoleon would have crushed the sans-culottes, making the revolution look completely different, possibly like a non-revolution. All this is hardly unique to France.
It all started when the king had no money and the commoners couldn’t pay any more taxes. The nobility had paid no taxes and refused to start now. Many of them had become noble fairly recently by purchace or bribing, so they were not going to give away their tax-exempt status so dearly paid. This was part of the problem: the noblesse was growing because the state had sold titles ever since Louis XIV. The noblesse had priviledges which the most powerful of the commoners, lawyers and such, hated. While tensions between commoners, nobility and crown were problems elsewhere too, they were more pronounced in France.
France had a medieval parliamentary institution like almost everybody, but it had not functioned since Louis XIV. These parliaments were sometimes a nuisance to the crown, but they helped to keep the wealthy aware and even resposible of the state economy. Trying to re-start this institution triggered the revolution.
Unique events are unique. If you move the French Revolution elsewhere it becomes different. Maybe you even get a Cromwell or something! But the triangular drama of 18th century class struggle is unstable, so even in France it could have gone differently. The commoners and nobility were at each others throats demanding that somebody must pay more taxes. If Louis XVI had been even mildly interested in politics or had chosen a capable prime minister with suitable powers, he could have made millions out of this. E.g. the Brabant revolution had a complex balance between the two parties with the crown eventually succesfully restoring power .
P.S. Now that I look at my text, Louis XIV is everywhere. I have to say that to me, the revolution is the failure of his system. He started to sell titles, he removed any safeguards from a weak monarch.
Right. He was responding to this:
That quote appears to indicate that 1215 (“Magna Carta” is closer to 1066 than today is, which is indeed the claim for which I provided a citation (“arithmetic”).
While it’s true that Derleth might have meant “that 1215 is not much closer to 2010 than 1066 is,” I can only respond to what people say; I can make no defense if people mean something other than what they say.