Monday, October 20, 2008
Blog #3 Due 11/3
“In the 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 6-8 sentences (yes it can be longer) and to respond to two of your classmates answers in 4-6 sentences. Do not just agree or disagree without defending or justifying your argument.) Think above and beyond the common answers that you may see. Be sure to challenge your classmates with controversial tactics, actions or selections. Good Luck!!!! Go Mustangs!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I believe that the statement “In the 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” is inaccurate. England had both privledges and power due to Elizabeth I political and religious techniques. France too had power. the Foreign Policy of Louis XIV rounded out national frontiers, imperialism, and expansion. And along with that, Louis XIII & Richelieu strengthened Absolutism.
I believe that there is a high level of accuracy to this statement. Frances 17th century aristocracy is said to have “retained its privileges but lost its power.” Politically, they lost their power to kings, but the aristocrats were still privileged enough to hold important government offices. Socially, the aristocrats maintained their position and control on the cultural aspects of their time, but they could not do it in a direct way, as they could have when they had more power. England on the other hand is said to have “lost its privileges, but retained its power.” In the political aspects, this is true. They started to be in, both, the local and central government giving them more power and control over the state; however, privileges were lost once the monarchies started to take over again. However, I do not think the aristocrats had a great deal of loss of privileges, or gained too much more power, in 17th century England. Overall, I strongly agree with this quote.
"In the seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost it's privileges but lost its power"
I agree with this statement because...during this time, it was the rise of Absolutism in certain regions. For example: in France, the power of the nobility was lost but they still had their "benefits" as you may say. The Second estate was only 1 percent of the population, so in thus the Kings would rather appeal to the mass than to the one percent. the nobles sought to limit the powers of the monarch and decentralize the government to be able to extend their own influence but unfortunately Mazarin subdued many nobles especially the Frondeurs. As Mazarin died, Louis XIV declared himself his own prime minister. Which thus "decentralized" the nobles even more because of the bourgeoisie and the peasants. The stated sentence is accurate because there was a lost of noble influence on the nation due to Absolutism in France.
Just a reminder to all of you I only have 3 of my 5 that should have gone first. That is not a good start. Secondly, be sure to address the entire question. Some of you are not mentioning any concrete examples to support your arguments.
The statement, “In the 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," I believe is true and false. England during the 17th century was ruled by the Stuart Monarchy. Charles I signed the Petition of Rights, which limited his political powers but kept him as the king. Also the Long Parliament made laws to limit the power of the king and share some of it with Parliament. Since he did not want this the Stuart family eventually lost the throne. Which socailly changed England from an absolute monarchy to a republic, untill the restoration of Charles II. Charles agreed to work with Parliament. This weakend his power but he got to keep his title. In France, Louis XIV used the idea of, "Divine Rights of Kings," to keep his privileges. this said that God had given him this title. Since France was Catholic, many people in different social clases belived him which let him have his privleges and power at the same time. Cardinal Mazarin, represented the people, and since he was Louis prime minister he supported the politics of the king. This statement is true for England but not entirely true for France.
I partially agree with the statement "In the 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." The Hampton Court Conference, James I wanted to maintain the Anglican episcopacy. James I reign was also known for being corrupt and confusion arose from his foreign policy (people questioned his loyalty towards Protestants.) Also, there is Oliver Cromwell, who led the parliament army. He was known to rule the Puritan republic in England, who later "disbanded Parliament" because the parliament was going to get rid of his army. This proves that England lost its privileges, James I had many religious and foreign policy problems, but they retained power, Cromwell disbanding the Parliament and dominating the Puritan republic. In France, Louis XIV, was very devoted to his work, to improve the social government of France, assuring that the upper class benefited. So France did in fact retain its privileges. Though France did not lose its power, it gained more power because, it produced a national army, and the parliament’s power was weakened (the parliament had to register the law before they could question it.) So, France did ultimately gain power. Therefore I partially agree to the statement as in, England did lose its privilege and retained power, but France retained its privileges and gained power.
In response to KIMARMENDARIZ...I agree with your resonings on why you agree with the statement. Though you did not include much examples to support your stance. It would have been helpful to mention the impact of James I, and Charles I of England and how they gained power in England. However, I do not agree that France gained power, because France established a national army and Louis XIV weakened the power of the parliament.
In response to BECCAXLYNN...I agree with your statement that the quote is true for England but not as true for France. I like how you mentioned Louis XIV's support of "Divine Right" and how that caused France to "retain its privileges."
Brittany:
For England Elizabeth I was in power in th 16th century not the 18th that is a good example but of earlier engalnd.France you used Louis XIV which is a good example but you do not have a lot of deatil why he is.
kimarmendariz:
You answered the question and supported your answer with evidence, but you didn't use solid evidence. You could of used different rulers or documents to support your answer.
Yes, finally some good examples are being used and students are making it know if others are not historically accurate (especially with time periods). With that said. Where and the world is everyone else's blog's, not a good start for the second quarter nor is it good for the class. Good Job for those who have posted already. "Stay Righteous"
I agree and disagree with this statement “In the 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.” In England, when James 1 came into reign he brought many religious and foreign policy problems, which weakened the privileges. James 1 and Charles 1 made sure to keep the power, so it didn’t decline in England. In France, most of the upper class helped to keep their privileges with the help of Louis XIV. He brought up the divine rights of kings to also keep privileges. Also France made an army that weakened the parliament’s power. So overall England did loose its privileges and retained power and France did retain its privileges but it gained power.
AKILAHRA
I agree with you in many ways. I like how you put in many examples to explain what you thought. Like when you mentioned James 1 and Louis XIV. I also agree that France gained power with their national army.
BRITTANY
I agree and disagree with you. I think that England lost some privileges. I agree that France did gain power. You used some good examples, but I think you could have added more.
I guess I am sort of ambivalent of this statement. The England aristocracy did lose the priveleges of being an absolute monarch and having full control by working with Parliament, but they stil gained the priveleges of having a constitutional government and less conflict in the country. Their power was sort of weakened, if i may, due to the fact that all major constitutional laws had to be agreed by parliament and that the king can't have the control that Louis XIV possessed. Although parliament was in partial control, rulers such as Charles tried to use their power to dissolve parliament and become absolute thus ganing more priveleges. In France's case, the rise of Absolutism in my opinion would have increased the power of the French monarch, and privileges would have either increased or remained the same.Using the term, divine rights supposedly stated that God gave you the power to be King which a that time, France and most of Europe of that matter revered God as the highest authority and therefore gave full loyalty to the King which increased priveleges such as full sustenance of loyalty and he peoples' naive ways to work with and a useful excuse to abuse powers to the fullest extent. This being said, this statement that both leans toward on the money and some bit off, I believe that England that retained power through pacified nobility and lost priveleges such as complete control also could have mixed with France's retained priveleges through power and absolutism. But the power was lost through means such as going against King's wishes and all that jazz. So I guess I'm not completely positive about this statement.
Thank goodness that's over. Now, to respond to two other classmates-hmm, let's see...
kristarae- you said that james I brought many religious and foreign policy problems. Religious, probably such as the Clarendon Code, yes? So could this not have affected the priveleges that England aristocracy received?
brittany- first blogger, well done! But when ou were talking about France's power composure, you kinda stopped in your tracks and didn't elaborate. Granted, you did give examples, but didn't get the message. I was hoping to hear a little more about divine rights and all that jazz. But being the first blogger with no one to get ideas from could have stumped you a cinch so I still applaud you.
"In the seventeenth century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but reatined its power; In seventeenth century France the aristocracy raetianed its privileges but losts its power". I believe this statement is false. The English did not money from the government(Pariliment) so they were dependent from the them and able to rule freely. The nobles believed they were above being taxed so they all had privileges. I agree with Brittant becuase both monarchs in England & France gained power and expanded their empires.
In response to
Chrisdebelen
Good job. I think you suppoerted your stance with a lot of fact behind it. You also gave tons of reasoning and evidence. You aslo mentioned Louis XIV and what he did to prove your stance, which helped.
Hillkidd
You went against the whole statement which none have done, but you showed hy you thought that. However, what did you mean when you put... The English did not money from the government. You also could have used a little bit more detail or examples.
I believe that the statement "In the seventeenth-century Engalnd, lost its privileges but retained its power; in the seventeenth century France the aristocracy retained its priviledges but lost its power" is partially correct. I believe this because Elizabeth I had alot of power due to her political and religious techniques. Also James I had major power ruling England and therefore religous quwarries were dissolved. France also had alot of power. Thanks to Louis XIV France held alot of power. Louis was able to create and hold a strong army which helped gian and maintian power, not only to his territories but to his northern bordered boundries such as the Spanish Netherlands.
BRITTANY:
I agree with you about Louis and him controlling and get in control of the counrty, however I don't remember anybody by the name of Richelieu
BECCAXLYNN:
I agree with you because of your strong points and examples like the Petition of Rights... I didn't even think of that! You had me agreeing with you from the very start.
The seventeenth century was a period of war and instability in Europe. The seventeenth century saw the decline of the French aristocracy’s power and the retention of its privilege. While English aristocracy, specifically the House of Commons in parliament, maintained its economic dominance and privileges. This is mostly due to the massive financial power they held. During the Elizabethan era. France too had power with Louis is the XIV but not nearly enough. So i believe England maintained their power and privileges. while France retained its privileges but lost thier power
I believe the statment “In the 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” is somewhat true. In England privileges had been kept and power was retained. There were many laws that had been passed by Parliament and certain iteams signed by kings, such as the Petiton of Rights signed by Charles I that limited his power. Eventually he lost the throne but it was soon over taken by Charles II. He had agreed to rule with Parliament. In France privileges were ratained, but power had also been gained. The new national army that France had was very strong and helped gain this power, also taken away power of Parliament. Louis XIV had the Divine Rights that had also helped maintain privileges France had. Therefore i agree with part of this quote.
Beccalynn:
You answered the question using great examples on how power or privileges were retained in these two countries. You mentioned the different rulers of the time. Examples of certain laws that had been passed during the time helps understand how certain things were gained or lost. Also stating how the families lost the throne but it was overtaken by someone else was a good fact.
kimarmendariz:
I agree with how you stated that the statement was true. You used great examples to support your reasonings. I disagree with yours thoughts about France.
I agree with the statement that "In the 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". It is true because they lost some of there power to other people such as kings, although they were not fully out of the picture. They were still able to do other things such as be in the government. Also, absolutism began to appear which took away some power but not all privelages.
in response to:
kristarae
i think you need to make sure to pick a side when answering these quesetions. you did not pick a side and you did not have a stance. your answer was "wishy washy".
jordanalexis
i thought that you had a good comment although it would have been better with more information, but overall, i thought it was good.
I believe that the statement, "In the 17 century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power; in 17 cent. France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power is incorrect. During the reign of Charles I in the 1600s, He wanted money from his wealthy subjects to fund his military expedition against Spain. When they refused, they were thrown in jail. Obviously, they had no power or else they wouldnt have been thrown in jail. They still held some privileges, but their power declined slowly. In france, Henry IV strengthened the power of the monarch and limited the power of the nobles over the regional parliaments. This suggests that they lost some power. Marie de Medici, Louis XIII's mother spend a lot of money of court expenditures and pensions to discontent nobles. They did have some privileges. Cardinal Richelieu destroyed castles of the French nobles. He also crushed the political power of the Huguenots. The Hugenots lost their cities, military, and territorial rights. He transferred local govt functions from nobles to royal officials. Because the nobility revolted against Louis XIV, he decided to establish an absolute monarchy. he established that he didnt have to answer to anyone. Louia created a personal army that was employed by the state instead of the nobles. Louis controlled nobles that lived at Versailles. There for they lost both power and privileges. The statement was not accurate.
BRITTANY: Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch reigned in the 1500s. Ur statement is invalid. It does not correctly respond to the prompt. Therefore, i do not agree with you. How did Louis XIII and Richelieu strengthen absolutism? Cite examples.
KIMARMENDARIZ: I do not agree with you because you do not defend your position on the prompt. Your statements are generalizations. Your arguement lacks facts and examples. French monarchs were controlling. The french nobility lost much of its power.
I agree with the above statement, “In the 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. Charles I of England attempted to limit the power of Parliament. He prevented them from assembling for eleven years. Although Charles prevented Parliament from assembling, he was unable to collect taxes. The House of Commons was made up of aristocrats or Gentry at the time. When they were allowed to assemble they had the power to keep the King in check. They eventually ordered his execution at the close of the English Civil War. Also, during the seventeenth century, the French Monarch Louis XIV had the idea just as the planets revolve around the Sun, so too should France and the court revolve around him. Nobles in France lost most of their power because Louis XIV ruled as an absolute monarch. He conducted trials such as Grands Jours d'Auvergne to persecute nobles who abused their power.
In response to STEPHIE RUIZ: I disagree with the part about the nobles/Gentry not having any power. They controlled Parliament. Charles I was unable to collect taxes without them. Also your statements contain a lot of generalizations.
In Response to TAKEYOUDOWN93: It doesn't appear that you argued both sides of the prompt. You should really work on omitting the word "they" and being more specific. Other than that your statement was decent and I agree with it.
Post a Comment