Talk:Reflections on the Revolution in France

Work still needed

I think this is a pretty good description of Burke's argument. I removed a reference to Plato in the statement about Burke's "human-heart" based government, and I'm not convinced that the rest of the statement should remain. Plato, at any rate, makes no sense as an antecedent for Burke's thinking. The section on Intellectual Influence still needs editing for both content and style. Dactylion (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monarchist?

Monarchist? Why is Burke called a Monarchist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.33.204.157 (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

A vindication of Burke.

The Background reads like a vindication of Burke's attitude to the events of 1789 and not a statement/ summary of fact(s). Specifically, rather than offering a rather negative critique of the mob, what caused the mob to revolt might be worth a mention. I'll say more if (respectfully) we can address this matter first. I have no dog in the race but a revolt without causes seems like a wanton riot which hardly says it, at least not for this writer. Thank you. M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.242.146.148 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of the positive things that came with the events of 1789. 'In the course of a few hours, France abolished game-laws, seigneurial courts, the purchase and sale of posts in the magistracy, of pecuniary immunities, favoritism in taxation, of surplice money, first-fruits, pluralities, and unmerited pensions. Towns, provinces, companies, and cities also sacrificed their special privileges.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_feudalism_in_France

I'm just wondering whether Burke's position might be seen, perhaps unfairly, as defending privilege which never (typically) seems to have been his thing. For an argument to be convincing, readers need to feel that Burke acknowledged that there were abuses before then going on (quite rightly imv) to show that replacing one tyranny with another, while not better, at least acknowledges that the regime was in need of reform, if not revolution. Long before studying Burke I felt that his reaction to 1789 failed to credit the forces that brought an end to the old regime. It seems my first impressions were justified. If Burke recognised the need for change, I think it ought to be stated front and centre. Otherwise he'll be claimed by conservative forces and I don't think that does him or his record justice. Thank you. M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.242.146.148 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Burke supported the Americans from 1774, but not the French in 1790. It seems a contradiction. The common theme in Burke's time was Montesquieu's belief that the right to own property is an essential part of liberty, that is often removed by an autocracy. American property interests were under threat in 1774, and French property interests in 1790; those of the nobility and the church.78.16.82.235 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)