British Election: peaceful revolution

[Rhyfelwyr]

The last bout of political warfare we had was the Civil War. As a result of that, we got a government that sought to make the English people morally worthy of their puritanical ideals. We didn't like that, and we invited the deposed prince to be King, on condition that he didn't actually try to do anything. It worked well enough, until the throne passed to his brother who did actually try to do something. We deposed him, and invited someone else over to reign whilst not doing anything. When his line passed, we went the full monty and got someone in who wasn't capable of doing anything. Those are our heads of state. We allow our executive governments to do a bit more, but the same mentality is there. We don't like revolution or anyone who tries to impose their ideology on others. If we're to change, make your argument and let us change at a pace of our choosing, which will be gradual. If you can't make your case, the status quo remains.

That's a very English-centric take on what happened. I would say the constant flux was more due to trying to impose a single government over three kingdoms with distinct political traditions and competing factions, as well as the fact that many years of conflict had allowed an almost Bolshevik-style revolution where political power had been seized by an upcoming sort of lower middle-class of artisans and wealthy tenants, at a time when Britain was still to a large degree under the yoke of feudalism. Combine with that the dynamic of urban support (parliament) and rural support (monarchy and the old elite) and you get a recipe for trouble with a lot of intermeshed factors.