Absolutism In France And England Essay, Research Paper
Absolutism in the Seventeenth Century
In the latter half of the 1600 & # 8217 ; s, monarchial systems of both England and France were altering. In England, the move was off from an absolute sovereign, and toward a more powerful Parliament. In France, the antonym was go oning as Louis XIV strengthened his ain office while weakening the general assembly of France, the Estates General. Absolutism, the political state of affairs in which a sovereign controls all facets of authorities with no cheques or balances, had been introduced in England by James I and Charles I, but ne’er rather took clasp. In France, on the other manus, Louis XIV took tyranny to extremes, claiming to be a retainer of God ( the & # 8220 ; divine right of Kings & # 8221 ; ) and fade outing France & # 8217 ; s merely general assembly. Why tyranny failed in England but flourished in France is due chiefly to the political state of affairs in each state when the thought was foremost introduced.
In England, during the first half of the seventeenth century, two sovereigns came to power that attempted to develop royal tyranny in that state. Both James I ( James VI of Scotland ) and Charles I tried to govern without accepting Parliament, but Parliament had so much control at the clip that neither James nor Charles successfully decreased the function of Parliament in English authorities. The English had been under the combined regulation of both the male monarch and the assembly for so long that they weren & # 8217 ; t ready to give all the power of authorities to a individual individual. The merchandisers and land-owning Lords supported Parliament, where members could be elected and changed in necessary, instead than an absolute sovereign with no restraints. In 1642, differences between Charles I and Parliament sparked England & # 8217 ; s civil war, which was caused partially by royal obstinacy to portion control of the state, and partially by Parliament & # 8217 ; s refusal to give up their power in authorities. This was the major turning point for tyranny in England. Monarches, get downing with Charles II, realized how much power Parliament had and knew that they had to work with, non against, each other. It is because Parliament was so strongly ingrained into the English procedure of authorities, and was so centralised ( merely one parliament-type assembly in all of England ) that Parliament survived while absolute authorities died miserably. Parliament continued to derive power over the King through the terminal of the 1600 & # 8217 ; s, and would finally go the prima governmental organic structure of England.
In France, around
the center of the seventeenth century, a revolution against the current sovereign, Cardinal Mazarin, by the assorted and scattered parlements, who wanted the right to claim royal edicts unconstitutional, and aristocracy, who hoped to derive power by approving the sovereign or taking him from office, threw France into confusion. Nobles led sets of combatants around the state, plundering and terrorising the lower categories at will in an effort to weaken the King’s power. They finally hired Spanish military personnels to transport on their battle, even though France and Spain were presently at war. The motion failed, but it left a permanent feeling in the general populace as to the value of holding a powerful sovereign to protect from things such as the rebellion. When the Cardinal died in 1661, Louis XIV, whom Cardinal Mazarin had been regulating for while he grew up ( Louis was merely five when he inherited the throne ) , took power, and became the strong, absolute swayer that France had been looking for to reconstruct order in France. Louis XIV took clasp of the state and put himself at the caput of authorities. The Estates General was ne’er called together, and most of the feudal Godheads were enticed to populate in Versailles, a metropolis Louis ordered built purely for the consolidation of authorities. Louis managed to command all facets of authorities, from economic sciences to foreign policy, as is the definition of an absolute sovereign. There were no big parliamentary organic structures to dispute him as there had been in England, and Louis had support from the bulk of the citizens of France, as opposed to English absolute sovereigns. In this manner, Louis XIV instigated an tyranny that was popular with the citizens of France, about the antonym of England.
It is because of the differing political systems in topographic point within France and England that led to the credence of tyranny in France and its corresponding failure in England. In England, Parliament had had so much power for so long that it was unwilling to give it up, while in France, nil comparable to Parliament existed to take power off from the sovereign. In France, feudal Godheads fought against the King, while the populace supported a strong caput of authorities to maintain the peace. In England, a bulk of the people supported the Parliament, which had representatives from the center and low categories, every bit good as the Lords, and served as a cheque to the King & # 8217 ; s power. Had the political establishments of France and England been similar, either a system of parliament or tyranny would hold succeeded in both states.
348
