[inkyoto]

In 1812, Britain was a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system dominated by landed aristocracy and gentry – 3% circa of the population, and it was exclusively males.

Members of Parliament (MP's) were often elected in rotten and pocket boroughs where a single patron could (and unashamedly did) buy up the votes in one or multiple boroughs and essentially dictate the outcome of elections. Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk controlled 11 boroughs, as an example.

The rotten boroughs were only disenfranchised by Reform Act 1832 which granted seats in the House of Commons to large cities instead.

In the pocket boroughs, the landowner could evict electors who did not vote for the two men he wanted, the practice that did not cease to exist until secret ballots were introduced in 1872.

There were also «open boroughs» where the vote was more competitive but still limited to male property owners only.

Since «demos» in «democracy» stand for «people», calling Britain a democracy in 1812 is not even a stretch.

[skissane]

> In 1812, Britain was a constitutional monarchy

And in 2024, it still is a constitutional monarchy - how is that relevant to the question of whether it is or was a democracy?

> Since «demos» in «democracy» stand for «people»,

The meaning of words isn’t determined by sum of parts like that. The people who coined the word “democracy” used it to refer to systems in which only a small percentage of “the people” counted. Herodotus used the word in the 5th century BCE, whereas universal adult suffrage didn’t exist in most places until the 20th century, well over 2000 years later. If you want to argue that everyone was using a word incorrectly for over 2000 years, well, you can define words however you like, but other people aren’t obliged to accept your novel definition

[inkyoto]

I am not following it. On the one hand, valid points have been made that I have a wholehearted agreement with, yet the next moment there seems to be the gish galloping going on. Or that is how I perceive it, anyway.

> In 1812, Britain was a constitutional monarchy […]

[…] a parliamentary system dominated by landed aristocracy and gentry – 3% circa of the population […]

That was the key point that was conveniently or otherwise omitted. 3% of the entire population being landed aristocracy and gentry is not the rule of people by any measurable account, and, no, it does not constitute the British Empire a democracy in 1812. There was also a reason why I originally emphasied «Empire» – empires do not place a focal point on the power of people as there are no people in an empire, there is only the empire.

> The meaning of words isn’t determined by sum of parts like that.

Yes, the modern defintion of «democracy» is multifaceted and elastic, it has evolved to mean much more since its inception, including universal suffrage as a fundamental property of a functional democracy today. Yet, democracy in Ancient Greece is not what most would call a democracy today. I am accutely aware of that.

> […] other people aren’t obliged to accept your novel definition

That is an opinion, and it is not that of mine.