Her framing reveals a clear bias. The title, The Restless
Republic, depicts the Interregnum as a pathological deviation — a nation unable
to "settle" — suggesting it was a temporary disruption in the natural
order. The subtitle, Britain Without a Crown, emphasises absence, implying that
monarchy is the default state of political life and that its absence is a
cosmic mistake. This approach is not objective history but ideological signalling.
The Revisionist Orthodoxy Repackaged for a Popular
Audience
Keay’s work aligns well with the post-revisionist consensus
that has dominated academic history since the 1970s. Revisionists like Conrad
Russell, John Morrill, and Kevin Sharpe systematically challenged the Marxist
interpretation put forward by Christopher Hill. Their core argument, now widely
accepted, is that “there was no bourgeois revolution because there was no
rising bourgeoisie” and that the Civil War was mainly an avoidable mistake,
resulting from Charles I’s political errors.
Keay presents this orthodoxy confidently, as if she has
never needed to defend it. Her story focuses on elite figures — Cromwell,
Lambert, Monck, and the Rump — whose actions are seen as the main causes of
history. The mass movements from below — the Levellers, Diggers, Fifth
Monarchists — are shown only as interesting side notes or annoying disruptions.
The class forces behind the revolution are ignored. This is intentional. It
serves the ideological purpose of revisionism: to diminish the English Revolution's
revolutionary significance and portray it as merely a constitutional debate
among aristocrats.
Keay vs Hill: Two Histories of the English Revolution,
Two Visions of Britain
Anna Keay and Christopher Hill differ not just in their
academic specialities but also in their perspectives on history: one emphasises
Britain’s heritage institutions, while the other aligns with Marxist and
revolutionary ideas. Comparing Keay and Hill illustrates that discussions about
the English Revolution also reflect broader debates on Britain’s political
identity and future.
Keay functions within Britain’s official historical memory
framework; she writes from within the institutions
that exist to manage and curate Britain’s official historical memory.” Her
positions at English Heritage and the Landmark Trust place her directly in the
system responsible for preserving, interpreting, and showcasing the national
history to the public.
Hill was a Marxist historian influenced by the
mid-twentieth-century intellectual movements, including the workers’ movement,
anti-imperialist struggles, and global revolutions. He viewed the seventeenth
century not as a mere heritage but as a conflict zone of class interests. In
contrast, Keay’s perspective is conservative, focused on institutions, and
seeks to restore traditions. Meanwhile, Hill’s outlook is revolutionary,
grounded in materialist analysis, and internationalist.
Keay’s framing is notably negative. Her title, The Restless
Republic, depicts the Interregnum as a period of instability, unrest, and a
nation out of sync. The subtitle, Britain Without a Crown, highlights what is
missing — the monarchy — suggesting that the natural order has been temporarily
halted. In contrast, Hill’s framing is more positive. He views the 1640s–1650s
as the first significant bourgeois revolution in European history. The
execution of Charles I is seen not as an accident but as a pivotal historical
event that marks a fundamental break. “When the people
execute their king… it has a profound revolutionary significance entailing a
complete break with the feudal past.” While Keay perceives absence, Hill
perceives emergence. Where Keay sees chaos, Hill recognises transformation.
What Keay considers an interlude, Hill interprets as a revolution.
Keay’s narrative centres on elite figures—Cromwell, Lambert,
Monck, and the Rump—while the common people are hardly more than background
noise. The Levellers and Diggers are seen as curiosities rather than main
actors. This approach exemplifies the revisionist view: history is shaped mainly
by elite misjudgments, constitutional crises, and personal conflicts.
Hill’s work reestablishes agency among the masses, illustrating how the rising bourgeoisie, agrarian capitalists, and the “middling sort” challenged the feudal nobility. He highlights the Levellers, Diggers, Fifth Monarchists, and radical sects as manifestations of broader social forces unleashed during the revolution. Hill emphasises that understanding the English Revolution requires recognising the central role of class struggle. While Keay depicts England ruled from above, Hill depicts an England transformed from below. Keay inherits the revisionist dogma that the Civil War was essentially avoidable — a tragic accident caused by Charles I’s political incompetence and the breakdown of the “ancient constitution.”
Hill completely rejects this view. He sees the Civil War as
the inevitable result of a deep social change: the emergence of capitalist
relations within a collapsing feudal system. For him, the conflict was not
accidental but a fundamental clash between two incompatible modes of
production. While Keay views the Civil War as a constitutional failure, Hill
considers it a necessary revolution.
Keay views the Restoration of 1660 as a return to
rationality — a re-establishment of the natural order following a period of
risky experimentation. This aligns with the classic Whig perspective: Britain’s
strength lies in moderation, continuity, and steering clear of continental
extremes. Conversely, Hill considers the Restoration a political compromise.
The monarchy was reinstated, but only on conditions that maintained the core
achievements of the revolution — primarily safeguarding bourgeois property. The
old regime was not simply restored; it was made subordinate. Keay’s Restoration
symbolises a homecoming, whereas Hill’s version is a settlement enforced by
victorious social forces.
Keay’s work, like much of established historiography, plays
a political role: to erase Britain’s revolutionary roots and promote the myth
of peaceful, gradual change. As your document highlights, this tradition spans
from the late seventeenth century through Macaulay to the present day. Trotsky’s critique
of Macaulay also applies to Keay: “vulgarises the social drama… with platitudes
that are sometimes interesting but always superficial.” Hill’s work takes a
different stance: to emphasise the revolutionary nature of the English
Revolution, to bring class struggle back to the forefront, and to link the
bourgeois revolution of the seventeenth century with the socialist revolution
of the future. Keay’s history offers comfort; Hill’s history invites challenge.
What Keay Cannot Admit: The Revolution Was Real.
The Marxist analysis, shaped by Marx, Engels, Trotsky, and
Hill, views the 1640–1660 events as Europe's first major bourgeois revolution.
Keay cannot accept this because it would mean recognising that Britain’s modern
state emerged not gradually but through a break—marked by civil war, regicide,
and the overthrow of feudal absolutism.
Charles I's execution was not merely a mistake but a
historic act: “when the people execute their king after a solemn trial… it
has a profound revolutionary significance entailing a complete break with the
feudal past." Consequently, no monarch remained securely on the throne
until the late 19th century.
This act was driven by deep social forces. The growing
bourgeoisie—merchants, capitalist farmers, and the “middling sort”—faced a
feudal nobility whose economic base was deteriorating. The Civil War wasn't
just an internal elite dispute but a class struggle, with emerging economic
forces dismantling the old political power.
The revolution sparked mass movements whose demands exceeded
the cautious goals of the gentry. The Levellers called for democratic rights
and the end of aristocratic privileges. The Diggers claimed the earth as a
“common treasury.” Radical sects foresaw a complete overhaul of the social
order. Cromwell harshly suppressed these movements—not because they lacked
relevance, but because they threatened to push the revolution beyond the
boundaries needed for capitalist property relations. This is the true drama of
the English Revolution. Keay’s narrative fails to include it.
The Restoration Myth and the Sanitisation of Britain’s
Past
Keay’s book continues a long tradition of sanitising
Britain’s revolutionary origins. Since the late seventeenth century, the ruling
class has preferred to frame its legitimacy around the “Glorious Revolution” of
1688—a peaceful palace coup—rather than the turbulent events of the 1640s.
Macaulay, a prominent Whig historian, turned the revolution into a comforting
myth of steady, peaceful progress. As Trotsky noted, “Macaulay vulgarises the
social drama of the seventeenth century by obscuring the inner struggle of
forces with platitudes.”
Keay modernises this tradition for the twenty-first century. The Interregnum is depicted as a tumultuous, unsuccessful experiment and a cautionary tale against radical shifts. The Restoration is seen more as a return to rationality rather than merely a political compromise that safeguarded the core achievements of the revolution, especially the preservation of bourgeois property. Her book isn't mere crude propaganda; rather, it functions more subtly as an institutionally embedded narrative that renders revolution unthinkable by concealing it.
Why This Matters Today
The debate over how to interpret the English Revolution is
more than just academic; it reflects a wider ideological campaign against the
very idea of revolution. The revisionist shift of the 1970s happened alongside
the suppression of workers' struggles, the rise of postmodernism, and a move
away from class analysis. Disputing the occurrence of a bourgeois revolution in
seventeenth-century England is akin to denying the proletarian nature of
1917—it essentially removes revolution from history.
Keay’s book is a well-crafted addition to this topic. It
reassures readers that radical breaks are deviations, that it is elites who
shape history, and that overthrowing oppressive systems is neither essential
nor beneficial. The goal isn’t to dismiss Keay’s work but to uncover its
ideological underpinnings. The English Revolution should be recognised as a
crucial moment in global history—a bourgeois revolution whose contradictions
and successes highlight the route toward the socialist revolution, an ongoing
goal of our era.
