4 ms·

> We've never been a democracy I’ve definitely heard it argued that the brief commonwealth between Charles I and II was the first modern democracy, where ‘mode

> We've never been a democracy I’ve definitely heard it argued that the brief commonwealth between Charles I and II was the first modern democracy, where ‘modern’ means a system somewhat like current democracies rather than ‘after 1500’.

olivermarks 4y ago
May be of interest in relation to the opaque nature of British history - The City of London’s strange history Lord Glasman on what the Romans did for the Square Mile https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab... Alway interesting to try to read the tea leaves on the relationship between the two UK entities who run the two sovereign states - the palace and the city of London
- euroderf 4y ago
  Amen to that. The more you know about the City of London (which is NOT the city of London), the fishier the whole setup sounds. "An ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state." "The last of England's rotten boroughs." Predating Parliament and not subject to it. Kinda makes ya wonder if the entire purpose of Brexit was to resist any hint of financial regulation by the EU. Over the years The Guardian has had a number of interesting articles about the City, such as [1]. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...
notahacker 4y ago
That's a stretch. England was technically a republic, and had technically become a republic over the issue of Parliamentary privilege. But in practice what happened is that a Parliament purged of royalist sympathisers got little done before being dissolved at gunpoint by a general and replaced it with a council of "holy men" picked by the Army, then that council decreed that the general should have all the powers the king had previously enjoyed bar the title (which he later turned down) and then he ruled much like the previous king, convening Parliaments only when he saw fit, before his powers were inherited by his son despite his son's lack of aptitude for using them or support. Arguably the most democratic bit of the lot was ironically the restoration of the monarchy (passed by a less-restricted Parliament, due to a shift in the balance of military power, and generally considered to have been popular with the wider public). The UK already had the tradition of Parliaments elected by a narrow franchise passing legislation, the only difference is that it became senior military figures convening them and shutting them down. And whilst Parliamentary and military factions clashed over many things, they all agreed that movements raising crazy notions like non-landowning classes having voting rights needed to be suppressed First modern military coup d'etat might be closer to the mark.

olivermarks 4y ago

May be of interest in relation to the opaque nature of British history - The City of London’s strange history Lord Glasman on what the Romans did for the Square Mile https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feabdc0 https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab... Alway interesting to try to read the tea leaves on the relationship between the two UK entities who run the two sovereign states - the palace and the city of London

euroderf 4y ago
Amen to that. The more you know about the City of London (which is NOT the city of London), the fishier the whole setup sounds. "An ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state." "The last of England's rotten boroughs." Predating Parliament and not subject to it. Kinda makes ya wonder if the entire purpose of Brexit was to resist any hint of financial regulation by the EU. Over the years The Guardian has had a number of interesting articles about the City, such as [1]. [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corpor...

notahacker 4y ago

That's a stretch. England was technically a republic, and had technically become a republic over the issue of Parliamentary privilege. But in practice what happened is that a Parliament purged of royalist sympathisers got little done before being dissolved at gunpoint by a general and replaced it with a council of "holy men" picked by the Army, then that council decreed that the general should have all the powers the king had previously enjoyed bar the title (which he later turned down) and then he ruled much like the previous king, convening Parliaments only when he saw fit, before his powers were inherited by his son despite his son's lack of aptitude for using them or support. Arguably the most democratic bit of the lot was ironically the restoration of the monarchy (passed by a less-restricted Parliament, due to a shift in the balance of military power, and generally considered to have been popular with the wider public). The UK already had the tradition of Parliaments elected by a narrow franchise passing legislation, the only difference is that it became senior military figures convening them and shutting them down. And whilst Parliamentary and military factions clashed over many things, they all agreed that movements raising crazy notions like non-landowning classes having voting rights needed to be suppressed First modern military coup d'etat might be closer to the mark.