It's time for /history/ to take the anglopill
Peasants vs. capitalistic farmers:
- The peasant "owner" cannot legally sell family land without permission of children
- A peasant must divide land equally between children; there is no real last will and testament
- Peasants marry young, have children young, and use the children for farm work
- Multiple generations live in the same household
- Poor subsistence farmers

Capitalistic farmers:
- A living man has no heirs and can buy and sell land freely
- An Englishman was free to give his children as much or as little as he wanted, meaning they were at risk of being disinherited if they disappointed him, but land must never be divided; it has to go to only one heir
- Englishmen married late and hired labor instead of using their own children for work; this led to a cash economy
- The nuclear family was the norm as far back as records go
- Rich market traders

tl;dr:
> The English have never been peasants as far as records can reliably show, going back as far as ~1250, according to "The Origins of English Individualism"

>>17802001
>The rise of the Parliamentarians was one of the first victories for the low-church bourgeoisie. It was a coup against the ecclesiastical and aristocratic elite which had ruled in England for at least a thousand years. It wasn't about what the King had the right to do, it was simply negating that he had any such rights to begin with.
Britain (england and lowland scotland really) never had an ecclesiasiastical and aristocratic elite
It was always a relatively egalitarian and socially mobile kingdom reaching back into the 1100s at least but likely long before that