Sorry but I don't see how the American revolutionary war, unlike the revolutions of 1649 and 1688, had any effect on how George III and his ministers wielded their power back in Britain or anywhere else.

Hi Squander Two,
Although I agree, from a republican standpoint in principle, with most of your argument, I cannot help but think how far the (egregious) European experiment would go if we did not, in fact have the monarchy to counter-balance those that would embrace the continental model. One can always argue, too, that many of the various revolutions and civil wars that you mention have come about because of the principles behind the unwritten constitution and not in spite of them?

For instance, the early Republican movement in Ireland was born in the Orange (and other) lodges where the aggrieved felt that the compact between crown and subject had been breached (similar principles informed the American Revolution). [Perhaps even the Orange lodges in Ghana had a similar influence there? I wouldn't know, and can't really be bothered looking it up this morning...]

I still find the citizenship ceremonies pretty creepy and reminiscent of indoctrination into the more totalitarian societies of the 20th Century.

Very good stuff, Jo, you're absolutely spot-on with the president v prime minister comparison.

To Mark Holland: you can't seriously be arguing that losing the American colonies did not have a major effect on George and his ministers: politically and economically it was an enormous blow. Yes, they remained in power, but their power was greatly reduced, and not only in America: every other colony must have watched the outcome with thoughts of how to improve their own position, and even in Britain such a reversal costs in terms of political capital. The power of the monarchy was not completely dissipated as in the French Revolution, but it was challenged, and the challenge was not effectively met. Hence it meets the point under discussion.

You are absolutely right about unwritten constitutions. And even the written bits of the UK constitutions are so vague and hedged about with qualifications that the politicians can do pretty much anything they like.

Take the Bill of Rights and the right to bear arms. The qualification in this article "..as allowed by law" has been so extended by successive governments as to make self-defence virtually impossible.

And now we have the Human Rights Act which has a qualified right to free speech. (something along the lines of "except insofar is required for the effective operation of a democratic society"). So free speech looks like it is going to go the same way as the right to bear arms. (Think "hate" speech laws")

James,

> One can always argue, too, that many of the various revolutions and civil wars that you mention have come about because of the principles behind the unwritten constitution and not in spite of them?

Absolutely, yes. And that's pretty much the opposite of saying that the principles behind the unwritten constitution prevent violent revolution, which was what Tom Utley wrote.


Mark,

Up until the American Revolution, America was a part of Britain: British subjects living on British land under the rule of the British Government under the authority of the British Crown. You can't see how the war affected how George wielded his power in that part of Britain? Really?

I stand by my comment. Like I said, "any effect on how George III and his ministers wielded their power back in Britain or anywhere else." which exludes the 13 American colonies.

Agree with Stephen's point that other colonies must have watched the position with interest (although at the time, other than Canada, what other colonies were there of any great political clout? The West Indies? ) but I still don't see any great political changes back in London because of the American revolution.

The impending Napoleonic wars probably concentrated minds while Hannovarian watchers would have been busy with the Prince of Wales and Duke of Clarence's carying ons.

> I still don't see any great political changes back in London

Which is wilfully missing the point. What's London got to do with anything I said?

> Like I said, "any effect on how George III and his ministers wielded their power back in Britain or anywhere else." which exludes the 13 American colonies.

Interesting definition of "anywhere else" you're using there, then.

Besides, even if you refuse to acknowledge that the American Revolution was the British Revolution, you're surely not claiming that Americans weren't subjects of the British Crown prior to the revolt. And, for the purposes of showing Tom Utley's arguments to be historically inaccurate bollocks, that's all you need.