Sorry, but for the Western countries in the Victorian era and even the 18th centuries, things tended to go the other way around. The aristocrats tended to imitate the up and coming Bourgeoisie, not the other way around.
There’s a very telling little quote about a boy asking King Edward of Britain if he could make the boy “A Gentleman”, to which the King replied that he sadly could not; he could “only” make him a noble.
And arguably, I’d have to say that in a lot of ways, that tend was there for far longer than just that time. As far back as the Italian Renaissance people like the Habsburg rulers patterned themselves after Italian leaders who probably could not claim as many titles combined as a single Habsburg, Valois, or Stuart. Not just in matters of style, but also in more functional matters (like finance- such as the growth of Italian-style moneylending-, the military, and what have you).
Of course, this isn’t to say that it was all one way, and it is certainly true that the Bourgeois “Gentlemen” sought to pattern themselves off the aristocrats and royalty in turn. But I am pretty sure that the dominant trend has been the other way around for quite a while.
Also, blaming the Whigs for Clement Attlee is a horrendous slur, especially when you match up their politics against them. When you make even Fox look mild and moderate, you might well be a maroon.
And frankly (as a Republican myself), you really probably do not want a republican revolution to end up like 1848. Because the great message of 1848 was that absolutism could be just as brutal, bloody, and merciless as the other totalitarian ideologies that came after it.
The runner up was that reasoning with such hard cores was utterly futile, and even (in the case of the Frankfurt Parliament, who stood by and kept trying to talk even as Bismarck and co had their fellows shot down) suicidal. That’s probably part of the reason why said later totalitarian ideologies (Fascism, Nazism, Communism, etc) came to be so popular.
Marx’s frothing at the mouth rambling about how the great flaw of 1848 was that the revolutionaries did not kill enough people who disagreed with them looks a lot more convincing when you area dealing with Bismarck, Franz Josef, and Tsar Nicholas. And since it at least gives you a better chance than sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger… you can see where things went down the line.
As for Bonaparte, I believe the man was no saint, but I do think he wasn’t that bad compared to the Bourbons or the Terror, and was probably better than most of the people he happened to fight against.
Regarding the American Revolution, the tax issue is important but probably nowhere near as much as some might think. For one, you have to realize that the overlap between the ideologues and the “colonial aristocracy+ middle class” was considerable. Charles Lee and especially George Washington- to give the people who were mentioned specifically- both had strong ties there, and probably would have supported the resistance on moral (and personal) reasons alone.
Also, I think the tax issue is a bit overblown in terms of what caused things. It was important, yes, but it wasn’t exactly the tipping point as far as I can tell. Parliament and the King had more or less authorized illegal (by the charters and agreements that founded the colonies, you could not do this) martial law in order to deal with the also-illegal tax evasion. This basically involved *really* onerous political and military occupation, the shuttering of elected colonial governments (and thus removing any hope of people who could calm the tensions), and the attempted disarmament of a population that had been armed and militarily organized out of necessity for nearly two centuries at the same time as you were making an agreement with the Amerindians (which both looked and sometimes did open them up to attack or retaliation for all kinds of things, like the illegal Westward migrations).
Was the government entirely wrong in all of this? I don’t think so. But I do think they were wrong in a lot of ways, and more importantly from a coldblooded POV: it was just bad politicking. The British government pushed the issue (out of justified frustration, unjustified frustration, innocence, naivety, desperation, or desire to subjugate or control? More than one of the above?) in ways that were- frankly- bad and ill-advised, and had a far more dramatic way than just the taxes did alone (because you don’t really see widespread resentment prior to the military occupation). They also forgot that even without significant numbers of the “upper crust”, they were still dealing with a very formidable military force they were alienating, and an ideological one that was not to be trifled with.
To this day, I still think the American War of Independence was Britain’s Yemen or (arguably) Vietnam, but even worse.
As much as people like to believe otherwise, the Egyptians were not really beaten conventionally in Yemen, and the Western Allies (French Union, America, etc) were not really defeated conventionally in Indochina. But the British were in North America, and had the war gone on we probably would have seen a disaster greater than Yorktown or Dunkirk at New York City.