British Monarchy and French Revolution

Review on: The British Monarchy and the French Revolution

By Marilyn Morris

Written by Leah Tamara MacDonald

10101660

History 338-01

November 5th, 2014

“Indeed, during the 1790s, the crown became a powerful metaphor.” (p12)

The British Monarchy and the French Revolution, by Marilyn Morris. New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University Press, 1998. 229pp.

The author, Marilyn Morris, is associate professor of history at the University of North Texas who, aside from her writing and teaching, lives a very private life. This is Morris’s only novel written to date with a second, Sex, Money and Personal Character in Eighteenth-Century British Politics, due to be published and release this coming year. The British monarchy and the French revolution gives an inside look at what goes on behind the closed doors of the exclusive royals as they run their ever changing society. This book plays a fairly large role in answering the age-old question of how Britain managed maintaining monarchical rule in a time of revolt. Dr. Morris’ work depicts how the late 18th century British Monarchy’s response to scrutiny, headlined by the French Revolution, fortified the crowns position while laying the foundations for modern British rule. From the Stuart’s succession to the French revolution, this book investigates the importance of the British crowns profile and duty.

Marilyn Morris’s book is compelling and thorough, using numerous sources both primary and secondary in support of her argument. Her vast knowledge on the material she chooses to speak on is brings new light to the subject, however, within a limited scope. It seems to me that this work is an important part to the puzzle, though lacking vital pieces during this exceedingly contentious decade that could have been overlooked.

It is mostly likely no coincidence that this work, claiming the British government to be long established and utterly successful, was released only a year after Queen Diana’s tragic and fatal car crash in Paris. Morris published her politically historical book on the rulers of Britain in 1998, and demonstrated her thorough knowledge of many great historiographies written throughout the time period. The book begins with a helpful summary of that historical literature, from the works of Edmund Burke to Thomas Paine; Morris sets the stage for Britain’s inner conflicts even before the period of the French revolution. Between the recent interregnum of 1688, radical, loyalist and egotistical kings the crown was already being destabilized. Through subsequent chapters when see detailed accounts on just how complications such as legitimacy controversy, ideological crisis, and new reform debates were circumvented to produce a stronger nation for years to come. More specifically how King George III, 1738-1820, was able to evolve the image of the crown in order to guard the monarchy, keep peace between opposing political views, and the gain the love of his people when threatened with obsolescence.  

Morris argues an ideological crisis in Britain helped to getting lay the foundations of a new style of monarchy that, in the end, stabilized the monarchy for the French revolution. This crisis is claimed to force the monarchy to change from the King representing God through the divine-right ideology to the King representing the embodiment of the British heritage, both traditional and flexible. The constant proclamations by royals, such as King James I, of their divine rights and wisdom left no room for dissent in fear of going against religion itself and rendered many people suspicious of the royal’s religious prerogatives. Succession of the Hanoverian line through purely matrilineal lineage was cause for even more discourse in England, as someone so far removed from the latest Queen Anne was crowned as result of protests ascendancy. Lacking the support of a good deal of their people during this feudal time the first two George’s became severely dependent on politicians, further isolating them selves from their citizens, till the rule of King George III.

As the country was licking their wounds from loosing the American colonies, 1783, the late King contemplated stepping down, yet through his grim persistence of patriotism the monarchy became a beckon for the establishment of a national identity. The kingdom was strengthened by the crowns devotion to Britain which they had question up to this point since they believed the King had greater love towards his old country Germany. In this time of distress the people grew to admire their leader, not just because he was God sent but for the way he placed Britain above himself. A new role for the crown which both churchmen and dissenters could respect. “The divine right ideology evolved from support of the authority of Kings to the upholding of the entire social hierarchy; crown, religion, and law” (p116) They had finally buried the persistent divine rights notion that keep the British people in a state of vassalage that excluded a large body of loyal protestant citizens. King George was able to maintain his power by providing, through the monarchy, a sense of unity between the political and religious groups. Morris claims this helped avoid thoughts of revolt for the country as a whole was stabilized when they believed the rulers insured the existence of the nation as one, not for one.

Morris then goes to show how King George was seemingly able quell intense reform debates within his state prior the French revolution. As most of Europe during this time period, Britain was in turmoil as radicals and loyalist fought over what type of government should be implicated over their country. Loyalist opinions, such as Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, supported the monarchy and in most case the Church of England. These people valued tradition and were not in favor of abolishing the crown for democracy, “the tyrannical and personal cruelty of a king can never reach beyond the extent of a very small circle; but the tyranny of a people has no limits” –loyalist Charles Hawrtey. On the other side of the debate the radicals did seek social reform. Dr. Morris uses extreme radical Thomas Paine with his work, Rights of Man, to show the people will for monarchy abolishment however most within this group hungered mostly for an accessible and responsible monarchy to its subjects. Many saw that the government in place gave Britain a sense of national security. So instead disrupting the system people looked to Kings George to better accommodate both groups. Morris argues the persona and peculiar styles of the King allowed a “juxtaposition of libertarian sentiments and authoritarian principles” in the sense of a mixed constitution. Her argument here is similar to one between the exchanges of churchman and dissenters. King George was able to secure liberties and the prosperity of his people while being the best constitutional monarchy to ease the worries of both parties. “The monarchy that emerged in the 1790s synthesized reformist and loyalist positions: it was a mix of formal patrician grandeur and informal republican accessibility” (p187). The British people could claim this mix-constitutional monarchy more stable through its flexibility to a “rigidly constructed” monarchy, such as the one placed in France during the revolution were the hierarchical government was over thrown.