Blog #4 Week 10/19-10/26
“In seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power; in seventeenth century France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power.” Assess the accuracy of this statement with respect to political events and social developments in the two countries in the seventeenth century. (Remember to respond to the question in 4-6 sentences and to respond to two of your classmates answers. Do not just agree or disagree without defending or justifying your argument.) Lets take it to another level this round. A few of you have...all that is needed is for the rest of you to get with the program.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Well...let's take a look at Louis XIV. A very good example of "aristocracy [retaining] its privledges but [losing] its power". Sure, the nobility got to live in a big palace (Versailles)and they had parties and court drama and money, but they had very little influence over what happened to their country, especially if Louis wasn't happy with them. If that isn't a loss of power, I don't know what is.
Meanwhie, you've got England. We haven't really talked about it in class yet, so to be quite honest, I'm a little fuzzy on what's going on there (it's easier to understand after we've talked about it, isn't it?), but here's my impression:
17th century England was busy with a Parliament/Royalist war, correct? The aristocracy was thus split into two factions. I think with the King favoring his loyal faction of them, some kept privledges, but the ones with actual power were the ones against the King, or the Parliament. So I'm not sure I agree completly with the prompt's statement concerning England, but I suppose it's correct in the sense that more of the English aristocrats were against the King and thus had less privledges.
But anyways...in general, yes, I agree with this quote. And you guys need to start posting, how else am I supposed to comment...?
-H
Alright...
This question is really subjective to interpretation. What do you interpret privilege as? Living in the most spectacular palace in France, or having the freedom to live at home.
I agree halfway with the prompt in the sense that I believe that French bourgeoisie lost power. It's quite evident in the sense that they were basically French peasants with means. I say that because Louis had them completely under his control -- he had them all live with him in Versailles, to reduce political mutiny.
Like Hailey, I'm really unclear on England, so I'll finish my response when we've covered it.
The part where it says the French lost their power but kept their privileges is very accurate. Louis XIV supported France's customary social structure and the social privileges of the nobility but he did make a point to show that he could outspend them and display greater grandeur to the public than the strongest nobles in France. The construction of Versailles is a perfect example of this. I don't believe the monarchs kept their power since they ultimately submitted to rule only with parliament's consent in the end of their civil war/dispute(s)
ill post my responses when there are more comments to choose from
Louis the XIV kept the social part of it very high with his palace Versailles. With this part he showed that he could keep controll of all the nobles.
Political wise Louis also used the palace to keep the politicans undercontrol and to keep from checking up on his things.
I agree with anu in the part that the palcae shoed that the nobles had serveal social privalages. I also agree with Jordan because France did loose his power to all of this.
Prompt: “In seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power; in seventeenth century France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power.”
My Comment:
Well, first of all, in England, during the “Restoration Age”, which was ruled by Charles II, he made the English upper classes to pay taxes and participate in the English government. Therefore, it’s accurate for us to say they lost their privileges because before they were not usually the one who the king levies taxes on. When it says the aristocrats retained its power, I think of the “Glorious Revolution”. In the Glorious Revolution, not only did William and Mary sign the English Bill of Rights, it also gave the English landed aristocracy the power to control the government through the House of Commons. As a result, it’s very accurate to say that they lost their privileges but retained their power. “…France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power,” I think this is partially accurate. The Fronde, which involved a lot of rebellions, destroyed the trust that Louis XIV used to have on the nobility. As a result, Louis the XIV appointed more middle-class men to the high office rather than the nobility. Therefore, it is accurate to say that the French aristocrats lost their power. However, I don’t agree with the part that it says the French aristocracy retained its privileges because after the Fronde, the king and Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who was the controller general of the finances, tried to eliminate the nobility’s ability to interfere with trading.
In conclusion, I agree that the English aristocracy did lose its privileges but retained its power and the part where it says the French aristocracy loses its power. However, I disagree with the part where it says that the French aristocracy retained its privileges.
My Response:
Anu – I agree with Anu when she said “…but he did make a point to show that he could outspend them and display greater grandeur to the public than the strongest nobles in France,” This point is evidenced in the Fronde. The nobility’s failure of the revolt demonstrated the success of Mazarine, who was under Louis XIV, in developing the strong political institutions that can go against the nobility’s opposition.
Jordan – “What do you interpret privilege as?” In my opinion, I think the “privilege” that we are talking about is the social ranking privileges, such as free from taxes. Right, Mr.Neal?
Hailey – I am not sure if answering Jordan’s question counts as a response, so I am just going to respond to Hailey also. I agree with Hailey when she said that “the nobility got to live in a big palace (Versailles) and they had parties and court drama and money but they had very little influence over what happened to their country”. After the Fronde, the nobility lost most of the power/independence because their revolts taught Louis XIV not to trust the nobility anymore. Besides partying in the Versailles, some nobility also fawn over the king to gain more trust back from him. During the partying and fawning over the king, the nobility really did reduce their influences in the country.
In France, aristicrats did lose their power over the people they used to tax and rule over, but they did not lose their money. They still have enough money to do most anything they want except interfere in most of the affairs of the government.
I'm not really sure that we talked or read about England, but I don't think that the aristicrats in England lost their privilages (depending on what their privilages included), and still had power. This seems to contradict the fact that nobles had a lot of money, even when being taxed by Charles II. I don't think that they could of lost their privilages because they were very rich. I can understand how they can gain power by having a say in government, but not how they could lose their privilages; unless they lost all their money or their lives were in danger.
I agree with violinist4life in that aristicrats in France did lose their power, but not privilages. Louis XIV took most of the power the nobles had over the peasants.
I also agree with Daisy in that the nobles were begining to be taxed more by the parliament. It is actually a smart polical move because nobles have tons of money. Although, this may not be a very smart move because nobles have mini armies that they could use to revolt.
Well... Lets see... During the seventeenth-century in France, the aristrocrats had the opportunity to live in humongous fancy palaces and whatnot, and they were LIVING THE LIFE. The only problem was that although they were all rich and whatnot, to be honest they did not really have a role in the community/city. This is because Louie XIV wanted to demonstrate his power, and that not even the nobles could compete with him.
As for England... The aristrocrats had to pay TAXES!! GASP! So they were not as rich, and were probably surprised actually, because usually the peasants pay majority of the taxes. However, in exchange for this, they were allowed to participate in the government. So both of these statements are equally correct.
Jordan, lets not get too philisophicalish here -_-;; Being allowed to live in a huge palace with parties, servants, and great food is of course a privilage. Assuming this, shouldnt your response be that you wholeheartedly agree with the statement? :D
Daisy, yes trading was a privilage, but compared to all of the other benefits they got, it really doesn't seem that big a deal. I mean, they were already super rich, so a little interference with trading wouldn't affect them THAT much.
Yes David, but I interpret "privilege" as being able to have some say in what's going on in the country i pay my taxes to, not having to bow to the authority of some hubris stricken monarch that's so scared someone will mutiny he has the nobles LIVE with him. Besides, put yourself in the French bourgeoisie position. You're already rolling in currency, so you already have a pretty nice setup. It's not Versailles, but you can at least have some say in the country's affairs. Put it this way, how would you like to have to LIVE with George Bush AND not be able to vote?
And last time I checked, "philisophicalish" wasn't in the dictionary.
"The aristocracy of France retained its privileges but lost its power." I believe this statement is very true because of King Luise XIV demonstrating his power of absolutism. Because of this the higher class was forced to be less associated with political and everyday affairs. Thus making the aristocracy in France lose their power. But they still maintained the social structure with the building of Versailles and social events. On the other hand in england the aristocracy gained power in the role of society. But to make everything fair, the higher class was forced to pay taxes as well as the lower class. Even though losing their privileges, the aristocracy gained power with the English Bill of Rights.
I strongly agree with Daisy's main points about the age of restoration which brought about the paying of taxes and the greater part in the government for Aristocrats. Also "The Frode" was another good pint portraying the loss of trust between the higher class and the King.
I also agree with David in the sense that King Lois XIV ruled with a iron fist. He didn't care about privileges, but absolute power to have no one stand in his way to his political and social affairs.
ok so England did lose their privileges like Daisy said. yes they did lose it because they focused most of their taxes on the wealthy or upper classes as she mentions. France, i believe, focused their taxes on the lower classes A Lot more than the upper classes. on the other hand, France, had a lot more privileges but less power as mentioned. "violinist4life" is right, they did have the "BIG ALMIGHTY" Versailles built for all upper classes, but King Loius was so protective that he took everyones power to make their own choices and abolished them. France's people seemed to be under King Louis control. France had power, BUT that power was all of King Louis NOT France's.
my responses:
jordan- i agree with you (though i wouldn't use the word 'peasants' to describe the French nobles since they weren't poor, uneducated,etc.) They still were rich and did have social standing-they just didn't have a say in matter such as political affairs.
daisy- signing the Bill of Rights mean limiting the monarch's power since they have to rule with parliament also Louis trying to 'eliminate the nobility’s ability to interfere with trading' be more a loss of power, not privilege
The aristocracy did retain its privileges while losing power. For example nobles were permitted to stay in Louis XIV palace simply because they were nobles and had influence on him and his power, but they had very little influence on the matters of their country. Because of the absolute monarchy occurring during this time period others in relatively high places with power did not get to participate in the affairs of France. They did lose power in the 17th century, for example; Louis xiv did use councils to help him out but he limited the influence of noble institutions and he controlled most of al foreign affairs. But he never wanted to completely get rid of them.
The aristocracy did retain its privileges while losing power. For example nobles were permitted to stay in Louis XIV palace simply because they were nobles and had influence on him and his power, but they had very little influence on the matters of their country. Because of the absolute monarchy occurring during this time period others in relatively high places with power did not get to participate in the affairs of France. They did lose power in the 17th century, for example; Louis xiv did use councils to help him out but he limited the influence of noble institutions and he controlled most of al foreign affairs. But he never wanted to completely get rid of them.
I agree with the first part of the statement which states the English aristocracy lost their privileges but retained their power. The Glorious Revolution was a major event that occurred where nobles lost their privileges. James II imprisoned seven Anglican bishops who refused to publicize his suspension of laws to the Catholics. These actions represented an attack on the authority of nobles, landowners who believed that they had some legal privileges which ended because of the Glorious Revolution. William of Orange and Mary II recognized the Bill of Rights which limited the powers of the monarchy and guaranteed the civil liberties of the English upper Classes which retained the noble’s power.
I also agree with the second part of the statement which says the French aristocracy retained their privileges and lost their power. In the Palace of Versailles, the nobles were kept by Louis XIV where he held parties to pacify them. Louis firmly restricted the noble’s authority over local institutions. He prevented the aristocracy from interfering with his authority completely. To sum everything up, the nobles lost their power during the reign of Louis XIV and had a few privileges such as being able to stay in the Palace of Versailles.
Comments:
Daisy: I completely agree with practically everything she said. Daisy mentioned about the glorious revolution in which the nobles lost their privileges and had power. She also stated that Louis XIV made the English upper classes pay taxes to participate in the English Government which made the nobles lose their privileges.
Hailey- I agree with Hailey as well. Hailey stated that the English nobility got to stay in Versailles but had no influence over what happened in the country. So the French aristocrats lost power.
Well first of all, we could use Louis XIV as an example for this question. He had a lot of privileges but he upset the balance of power and he lost it. he basically had all that he "wanted" but he didn't exactly affect his own society therefore meaning that he "lost" his power. People didn't really look to him for answers.
William and Mary started the Bill of Rights and finally ended the Glorious Revolution. they guaranteed privileges for the English classes and they would be able to rule by the agreement of the parliament. therefore, allowing them power.
Back to the Glorious Revolution; it attacked the authority of nobles, landowners, the church, and other corporate bodies and so they lost a lot of their privileges but still stayed in their positions (power).
responses:
i agree with daisy although it appears that at the begining thwy lost some of their power they werre able t get it back by the glorious revolution.
i agree with jordan but i think the aristocracy was more than "peasants with means" they had other resopnsiblities that were later taken from them and then regained back
I strongly agree with the statement that in the seventeenth century the aristocracy in France lost its power.Louis XIV kept his social status in a good position with his Palace of Versailles. He held parties for the nobles, and monarchs the rented the rooms in the palace. By doing this it helped him manipulate the nobles and take part in authority.
My responses:
I absolutely agree with Hailey with her stating that because the nobles partied so much at Louis's palace of versailles they didn't have much control over what was happening in their country.
I also agree with Anu's statement that Louis XIV showed that he could "outspend" them and also show the people of France a "greater grandeur" than those of the nobles.
Its 9 pm and many of your classmates have not posted. Remember that there is more to France than Versailles and for England you should refer to your notes from today and/or research a little. Good luck!
During these times most monarchs favored absolutism. Charles 1 and Louis the 14th being two great examples. Now, I kind of agree with this statement, here's why:
During the reign of Louis 14, Louis controlled/dominated the country. He was an absolute monarch. He controlled many aspects and basically didn't leave room for everyone else. Being a noble in France didn't come with great perks as it used too.
In terms of England, well.. Let's look at Charles. Charles 1 tried to rule as an absolute monarch but there was one thing in the way: Parliament. Although he successfully dissolved it (twice) he still had something in his way. Thus splitting the country in two (Cavaliers/Roundheads). If you have a king who is going against his country and you decide to go on his side.. I'm pretty sure you'll get some perks.
In conclusion I agree with the French statement but not so much with the English statement.
---
eek. I agree with Haliey. Almost on everything in her first comment.
I also agree with Daisy on the part about the taxing of the nobles. Wow. Yikes, if I had read a bit more I'd have a different response.
Oh well. Time for sleep.
In response to Daisy's question of whether or not privileges refers to the French aristocracy responsibility to pay taxes, that is correct. The only true privilege that the aristocracy (France) also members of the second estate. This is how French society was divided. This also enabled Louis XIV and those before him to control who was taxed and who was not taxed. This social hiearchy did not give French subjects the opportunity for social mobility. Another great point added by Daisy (I believe) was the unsuccessfulnes of the Fronde in the late 1640s. Louis was between 5 and 11 years old at the time but he never forgot the humiliation he faced at the hands of the nobles early on and was determined to control the nobiity. If you notice he recurited his chief ministers from the middle class in order to keep the aristocracy out of government. He also never called the meeeting of the Estates General (A meeting amongst the 1st Estate-Clergy, 2nd Estate-nobiity and 3rd Estate- bourgeoisie (middle class), artisans, urban workers, and peasants.) into session. The Estates General is a meeting amongst these three to vote on political and economic issues in France. Well if the king wanted to give them more power he would have called this meeting. If you noticed he did not and the only group of these three that were taxed was the 3rd Estate. The other two groups were not so they were not concerned with power (at the time) because the non-tax luxury was so rewarding.
Post a Comment