A reply to /u/John_Wilkes

In general it is difficult to prove why something didn't happen, but speaking of Bourbon Spain, they did have a sort of dress rehearsal for the French Revolution. I wrote about this here.

The late 1700s was a very interesting time. Bourbon Spain was ruled by Charles III, whose rule was absolute. When he ascended to the throne at the age of 43, he was perhaps the best prepared ruler of the era. He had ruled as the Duke of Parma and King of Naples, he was confident, strong and fair; at the start of his reign he was well-liked by most of his subjects. His critical flaw was that he was a reactionary. A conservative Catholic and traditionalist, he had zero tolerance for anything that did not bow the concept of his absolute power.

All that said, he was sensitive to the opinion of his subjects. He reduced the number of foreigners in court. He chose ministers who were university educated, mostly from lower nobility, such that they were dedicated to the well-being of the central state.

Unfortunately, Spain's ruinous involvement in the Seven Years' War -- something that Bourbon Pacte de familie brought upon them -- led to popular discontent, rising food prices, and harsh inflation. The requested higher tax rate led to rioting triggered by enforcement of ancient clothing laws (that men could not wear broad-brimmed hats and long capes lest they provide camouflage). In March 1766, up to 30,000 rioters gathered and forced the minister Squillace to flee his home to the royal palace. Confronted by the hated Walloon Guards, tensions flared and casualties fell. The church, seen as a pawn of the king, were side-stepped as priests tried to calm rioters. Charles III agreed to a broad program of reform, but then secretly retired and the next day was found shooting game, his main vice in life. Clearly, he had underestimated the rioters as they were infuriated and for days Madrid was without government. The Bourbons were genuinely surprised: but we had agreed to a broad program of reform, why did they still rebel?

The answer is simple: populist anger. The Bourbon belief of divinely-ordained absolute monarchy was no longer relevant. No longer could they be aloof. But they still insisted that there must have been a conspiracy. Somebody must have instigated the riots. They could not conceive that populist sentiment could have led to it.

What followed was an over-reaction. Soldiers were stationed everywhere in Madrid. Many were rounded up to be tortured and investigated. Charles III never again let his guard down. There must be a conspiracy led by a leader, but who was this mysterious leader?

So that was an example of an ultra-reactionary Charles III, even as he failed to grasp the idea of populist uprising. In a very real way, it was a dress rehearsal for the French Revolution a few decades later. Fortunately for Charles III, the royalists were able to take control of the situation.