Nigel Farage's assertion that after the constitutional settlement of the 1680s (the Glorious Revolution), "We had a system of government that we all understood. We all understood" is a rhetorical generalization that contains some truth but materially overstates the case. **What is accurate:** The Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 did establish a relatively stable constitutional settlement — a constitutional monarchy with parliamentary supremacy, codified in the Bill of Rights (1689), the Mutiny Act, and subsequent fiscal-constitutional reforms. This system was indeed a landmark in British governance and established clear principles about the limits of royal authority and the role of Parliament. Historians broadly agree it was a significant and durable constitutional achievement. **What is inaccurate or overstated:** The claim that the system was "understood by everyone" is contradicted by several lines of evidence: 1. **Literacy was extremely limited.** In the 17th century, only about 30% of adult men and 10% of women were fully literate. Even reading ability among the lower classes was limited — perhaps 15–20% of labourers and husbandmen could read. The vast majority of the population could not engage with written constitutional materials. 2. **The franchise was minuscule.** Even as late as 1831 (long after the settlement Farage references), only about 5% of adults in Britain were entitled to vote. The franchise was based on complex, varied property qualifications that differed wildly between constituencies — from 20,000 voters in Yorkshire to just 2 in Gatton. Farage himself acknowledges in the same turn that "there wasn't full emancipation," which undercuts the idea that "we all understood" the system in any meaningful participatory sense. 3. **The settlement itself was deliberately ambiguous.** Historians describe the Glorious Revolution settlement as "somewhat confused and clumsy in construction." The word "abdicate" was chosen precisely because it could mean different things to different political factions — reconciling those who believed in hereditary right with those who accepted that kings could forfeit their crowns. This ambiguity was a feature, not a bug, and it meant the system was not as clearly "understood" as Farage implies. 4. **Even today, the UK's unwritten constitution is widely described as impenetrable.** Queen Elizabeth II said it "has always been puzzling and always will be." A 2008 Hansard Society survey found that knowledge of "the constitutional arrangements governing Britain" ranked at the bottom of public understanding. A parliamentary committee described the constitution as "impenetrable to most people." The claim thus mixes an accurate observation (that a significant and relatively stable constitutional settlement was achieved) with a sweeping overstatement (that it was universally understood). The reality of widespread illiteracy, a tiny and complex franchise, deliberate ambiguity in the settlement itself, and the ongoing difficulty of understanding the UK's unwritten constitution all contradict the assertion that "everyone" understood the system of government. Sources: - EH.net, "The Glorious Revolution of 1688" — https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-glorious-revolution-of-1688/ - Britannica, "Glorious Revolution" — https://www.britannica.com/event/Glorious-Revolution - Past and Present, "'The Rabble that Cannot Read'? Ordinary People's Literacy in Seventeenth-Century England" — https://pastandpresent.org.uk/the-rabble-that-cannot-read-ordinary-peoples-literacy-in-seventeenth-century-england/ - History of Parliament Online, "Constituencies 1754–1790" — https://historyofparliamentonline.org/research/constituencies/constituencies-1754-1790 - ECPPEC, "Electorates and Turnout" — https://ecppec.ncl.ac.uk/features/electorates-and-voter-turnout/ - Historyhome.co.uk, "Elections and the Electorate in the Eighteenth Century" — https://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/constitu/election.htm - UK Parliament, "Mapping the Path to Codifying – or not Codifying – the UK's Constitution" — https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmpolcon/writev/mapping/cde02.htm - UK Parliament, "The Arguments For and Against a Written Constitution" — https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/46308.htm - The Guardian, "The Guardian view on Britain and its constitution: a country we should know better" — https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/19/the-guardian-view-on-britain-and-its-constitution-a-country-we-should-know-better - Cambridge University (Claremont), "Revolution or Restoration? Historiographical Perspectives on the Glorious Revolution" — https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=cclura_2026