Palmerton negated the need for a revolution in the United Kingdom. Besides, if Prince Albert had not talked the queen out of attempting to dismiss him, then there might have been a real revolution in the United Kingdom. The fact that Prince Albert was so determined to encourage a lawful outlook on the limits of constitutional democracy has successfully led to the United Kingdom becoming one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in human history.
I think you're overestimating Victoria's power. Parliament settled its right to fire a king in 1690, and royal authority declined steadily all through the 1700s. I don't think any member of the House of Hanover ever vetoed a single Act of Parliament. If Victoria had made any serious effort to control public policy Parliament would have just ignored her and done what they were going to do anyway, and somehow managed to be exceedingly respectful about it.
*twists her head around sideways* Like I said, Prince Albert was firm on pointing out exactly that. In fact, my opinion is that Prince Albert probably did more, to restore the reputation of the royal family, than any reigning monarch ever did. I think there is widespread agreement that Prince Albert was a talented statesman.
C) Palmerton was really a very influential liberal politician. In fact, he was literally the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that represented the Liberal Party. In a way, the rise of the Liberal Party was really a sort of political revolution in its own right. They overthrew the domination of the Whigs vs. the Tories and introduced a whole new era in British politics. To say that Palmerton's leadership in the newly formed Liberal Party did not make him, in a way, a revolutionary would set one up as having a profoundly narrow-minded idea of what constitutes a revolution. The fact that the Whigs and the Tories were both overthrown was a big deal. Even though this occurred only 11 years after the Spring of nations, it still represents a major change, in British politics, that happened during the time-period.
That's a weird way to look at it. The Liberal Party
was the Whig Party, renamed, and reinforced with disaffected Tories. Palmerston was the Whigs' foreign secretary in 1848 and through most of the period leading up to it.
British politics acclimated to the changing times. To claim that successfully weathering such change constitutes evidence of an absence of change would be folly. There is just no argument to be made on the subject. The mid-19th Century was a period of social change that affected much of the European continent, and the fact that the British government succeeded at preserving their monarchy is an encomium to both talented statesmanship and to pure dumb luck.
*snaps her tail for attention*
Heed me. It is equally imperative to dissect a success as it is to dissect a failure. You can take that to the bank.
The formation of the Liberal Party, in the United Kingdom, constituted a very critical political alliance between the free trade-supporting Peelites, the previously politically excluded radicals, and the Whigs. This could have gone very differently, and the outcomes would have been very different. Letting the radicals form a part of a large political alliance, rather than continuing the previous pattern of the suppression and silencing of that political faction, was a historic decision in the history of British politics.
Over the next 20-25 years, I feel very certain that the political pressures behind both Trumpism and the Black Lives Matter movement are going to continue to mount, and this is going to be happening as we approach a historic milestone, in American history, at which we will cease to be a "white majority" nation. Those political pressures are not going to go away.
The concept of statesmanship is an important one. You do not have to be a politician in an elected office in order to practice it, actually, but it is particularly important for people in positions of power to practice it. Someone is not a statesman only because they hold a position of power. To say that someone is a "statesman" is very abstract, and it is like saying that someone is a "good person." When we say that someone is a "statesman," we mean that that person has done something important to preserve the stability and the best interests of the state. It implies having acted with wisdom and foresight. Quibble over specific definitions if you choose. I believe that I have defined it closely enough.
We are going to need talented statesmanship in the years to come, and this must occur, in my opinion, at all levels of society, even in the discussions that might occur on a small secular humanist discussion board.
In years to come, it will be important to work out a political alliance between otherwise disparate and contentious groups in our society. The alternative could turn out to be a more serious decline into barbarity that could result in a revolutionary sort of climate, and while there can sometimes be good outcomes to a revolution, I again insist that I do not like revolutions because revolutions are messy affairs and an utter insult to elegance.
I believe that we can do it, and we will do it. It will not be only because of the statesmanship that we practice on this small secular humanist discussion board, but it will be because of similar discussions that are being had in many other places. Other conversations like this one are occurring in bars, at local book clubs, and in classrooms. It is not happening here alone, but it is happening all over he country. None of them alone can do it, but all of them together can.
New political alliances must form over the generation to come, and I believe that we can make them occur if we let ourselves be informed by history in how we bring those alliances together.