2-3-4 Challenge Book Discussions #1 discussion
This topic is about
What Angels Fear
What Angels Fear
>
Question D
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jonetta
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Jan 15, 2016 04:50AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
I'm no historian, but from what I've read about the Regency period, the soldiers came home to unemployment and PTSD, and there were some revolts by the unlanded masses against the landed gentry, with violent results. After all, the poor served in the army against Napoleon along with the rich. Reminds me a little of the changes we saw in Downton Abbey when people returned from WWI. Of course, I've got the chronology backwards, but you know what I mean.
It is an interesting comparison and given the rather questionable behavior of the majority of Hanoverian monarchs, it is one possible interpretation. However, considering English history and the fact that they already had one revolution and did not enjoy the consequences, it is highly unlikely they would have embarked on a similar path even with the corrupt and dissolute Regent.
As Charlene points out, there was also a great deal of discontent immediately prior to and in the aftermath of WWI that led to social change but not revolution.
Mod
Well, there were definitely riots and demonstrations and much discontent among the lower classes but that is a far cry from revolution. Moreover, history has shown that revolution is usually carried out from within the ruling class. Both Charles I and Louis XVI were brought down by other nobles. None of the nobles during the Regency were going to stick their necks out to do the same.
Mod
Jonetta wrote: "Thanks for that insight, Lauren. Sticking your neck out would require courage...in short supply among that group."Yes it was
I also think that religion may have played a role in both the English and French Revolutions and this is not a factor that came into play during the Georgian and Regency periods - Protestants through and through.
Agreed, Lauren.Someday, I'd like to learn more than I did in history classes about comparison and contrast with these European revolts/revolutions and the American colonies' Revolutionary War.
I know many original colonists came to our side of the globe for religious freedom, but religion doesn't appear (in what I know) to be much of a motivation for our war of Independence. It was "taxation without representation," which may reflect the sentiments of the unlanded in the Regency. Conflict with France would have done a lot to have the Aristocracy squirm about giving up any of their "inherent" rights. I've heard that our original authors considered only landed gentry to be those with "equal, unalienable rights," but I am going off on a tangent here. Sorry.
Charlene wrote: "Agreed, Lauren.Someday, I'd like to learn more than I did in history classes about comparison and contrast with these European revolts/revolutions and the American colonies' Revolutionary War.
..."
I believed this was true in the colonies, Charlene. Republicanism was not a done deal, but there was a lot of discussion about who constituted a citizen with unalienable rights. The stipulations that slaves were only considered 3/5th human, shows that not everyone was considered a citizen.
I believe the social structure is accurate in this book. I was watching a documentary the other day about the 60s music revolution in Britain. Even at that time there is a distinct class system. There was still a problem with the upper classes having more opportunities than the lower classes.
They interviewed Eric Clapton (I think) and he was talking about how music was the only road for him to take to get out of the neighborhood where his parents lived. He talked about how most people don't have any way to advance economically, buy land or houses. The show went on to say how fashion, music, and youth worked together to pull people up, but they said there are still remnants of the old system still in place.
