“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!!!Resources:
17th Century England Events
Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
Social Conditions in France
Louis XIVs Court
Lifestyles of 17th Century People
39 comments:
The English house of commons, showed a petition to King Henry the eighth. It accused clergy of unfairness, disloyalty, and immortality. He presented it to the bishops, but the answer was offensive to the House of Commons. Henry united with the Commons and had help with Thomas Cromwell. After, through the people, it was recognized. By law, Henry was made the supreme head of the Church in England. Established, that the ecclesiastical laws must be subservient to the civil laws. England was now partially freed from a long political bondage, and the age of Reason dawned. The condition of the rural population in England improved by the new order of things. In the beginning of the seventeenth century, all of it had materially changed. Their agriculture grew. Farmers had an abundance of food, lived in better houses, and feather beds replaced those of straw and coarse wooden onces. "Good bread and good drink, a good fire in the hall."
In cities, among the nobility, they increased. They received elegant houses and nice furniture and clothes.
In the 17th century, the aristocracy did loose some of its privileges and yet retained its power. The reason being so was that the form of government England was taking form of was constitutionalism. In the beginning, the nobles lost their privileges because Cromwell dominated England as a tyrant. This lessened the privileges of the nobles after the restoration of the monarchy. However, when James II was succeeded by William of Orange, the terms were set bu the nobles that they had to accept the Bill of Rights in order to rule England. When they accepted, that increased the power of the nobles. Parliament was reestablished and the nobles gained more power. On the other hand, in France, the opposite effect was taking place. Louis XIV might have granted many trivial "privileges" to the nobles, they were kept on a tight watch in the palace of Versailles. This, the nobles more or less became dependent on the monarch which in turn, made them loose power. Therefore, I agree with the fact that in 17th century, England's nobility lost privileges but retained power while in France the opposite was true.
I agree with both statements.
As for “In the seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power”, Parliament had the power to make says and create policies that they wanted for their king’s throne, however they lost the privilege of having the final say. The king, like Charles I, had the privilege to dissolve the Parliament knowing that they have grown too strong. However, the power of Parliament remains when he had to call them back to help support him with war fees. Through numerous of times, from James I to Walpole, that Parliament had been dissolved, the reigning king would eventually bring them back knowing what they are capable of doing. In conclusion, Parliament during the seventeenth century lost many of it privileges due to the absolute rights of the king, but they gained and remained power through actions they have achieved for their country.
For “in the seventeenth century France, the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power”, France’s power was dominated completely by Louis XIV. Louis made sure to give equal to his nobility creating peace among his social classes. The nobles’ existences remained but not much was concerned since Louis weakened nobility’s power in order to make himself most important and powerful. He believed in divine rights of kings therefore, he only answers to God. In other words, his nobles did not have any power over the king. They still have the privilege of suggesting their ideas, but they were in no authority to enforce what they wanted. Louis’s absolutism surrounded around making peace, wars, religion, and economic activities, in which, taking all the power away from his nobles.
In comparison of the two, France’s king was more absolute than England’s kings. Louis was in more control of his land and power than any king of England who needed the assist of their nobles. Many of Louis’s nobles were nobles to gain money from their position; however nobles of England had the power to make a difference for their country.
Hip-Hip Hooray we have 3 bloggers...I think I am going to cry....thanks a million 3 of my first 5. Now the party can really start.
One more side note, don't forget to mention the social and political events of the time period that could have played apart in the loss or gain of privileges.
In England the aristocracy lost it's power but also gained some as well. When James I came into rule, he develpoed sources of income and brought in duties known as impositions. He lost power by governing favorites which was most done to those who were influential. On a good note, Charles II negotiated with the army and returned to England with great happiness and rejoicing. In France, a different picture had emerged. When Louis XIV started his reign he took control of goverment by making sure there was no chief minister. By doing this, he would have rebellious nobles wanting to confront him. When Versailles was put in place, Louis made sure it paid towards significant political divivdends. Some nobles avoided Versailles and instead managed their estates and cultivated local influence. By doing so, it made nobles dependendent on the monarch which made the aristocracy lose power.
I agree with all of the statements. As Cindy said, when Cromwell dominated England, many people deeply resented his actions and was just as harsh and hates as Charles I. Also, even when he dies, many were ready to restore the Anglican Church and the monarchy.
Obviously there are a lot of differences between the English and French during the 17th Century about their aristocracy since they come from two totally different points of views. One follows the parliamentary monarchy, while the other follows the political absolutism. In England, Parliament only met when the monarch summoned it, which only happened rarely due to James I's reign. Also members of the Parliament only regarded James I to develop impositions as an affront to their authority over the royal purse. On the other hand France rose in the monarchy because of Louis XIV's reign because the French monarchy exerted far-reaching, direct control of the nation at all levels. The French did have their privileges but had no power, unlike England who was the total opposite. In my opinion I am in total favor of the England aristocracy.
Well the English form of goverment was parlimentary goverment and the French form was political absolutism. England needed to have a balance of power because of the unfavorable things previous monarchs like James 1, Charles 2, and Oliver Cromwell. To keep things running smoothly the english people took in William of Orange and he signed an agreement with parliment that they could limit each others power to a certain degree. On the other hand France was desvasted by years of civil wars, powerful nobles,and struggles for the crown. Louis 14 took the best of what Louis 13 and Cardinal Mazarin did and did even better. Instead of trying to change the noble's social status he assured them there place socially which allowed him to easily take full control of the goverment.
This statement: "In the seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power" is true. The aristocracy did loose its power in the 17th century due to the fact that there had been very little improvement in the condition of the people in england. This led to a sucular revolt that assumed formidable proportions although, right of private judgment was proclaimed. The English house of commons who were representative of the people had presented a petition to Henry VIII which accused the clergy of disloyalty and immorality. Henry being a great ruler he presented this to the bishop for answers. The bishops responce however was arrogant, and offensive to the House of Commons. This was the reason as to why there was a war between the cleargy and the house of commons. King Henry VIII wanted a divorce from his current queen but the cleargy saw it as an unholy scheme. Therefore Henry united with the house of commons and Thomas Cromwell they all sought out to lead a movement the civil government of England would not control the spiritual power of rome. Because of this henry was made the supreme head of the church and he established the principle that canon or ecclesiastical laws must be subservient to the civil laws.
Things started to better in england for all such as the furniture the clothes, etc.
I believe that all the people are right they did loose and regain their power. Yes england did start to favor constitutionalism. All do have to consept of how england aristocrats gained and lost its power.
The aristocracy during the time of the rise of absolute monarchies did lose their power, but also retained it. Although the power of the nobility was dissolved during this time they were still recognized as of the second estate. For example, during Louis the XIV's Wars a balance of power emerged. This gave them the opportunity to regain the power they had lost. On the other hand England being lead by Oliver Cromwell and heading in the way of constitutionalism caused them to once again lose some of their power. After the death of Cromwell, due to the renewal of the English monarchy, now powered by William III and Mary II, the aristocracy lost their privileges.
RESPONSE TO 2 STUDENTS:
I agree with nartanna's response to the statement. Parliament did indeed have a lot to do with creating specific policies that only strengthened England. Because of having such great strength they were abolished by Charles I and no longer had a say in the political and religious aspects of England. This is an example of them losing their power but they were also able to attain it. For example the king himself recalled them for their support in his war fees. The Parliament refused to even consider funds for his war. This action proved that the Parliament was needed in order for society to run effectively.
I also agree with Denai’s response to the aristocracy losing their power. She mentioned in her response that the nobility lost its power due to the very little improvement in the condition of the people in England. She analyzed how secular revolts came about and how the English House of Commons played a major role in their loss of power. Both of these aspects made the nobility’s loss of power even greater.
I completely agree that the statement is accurate. Because England was constitutionaly ruled, the nobles indeed retained their power. They played a part in the governing of England. The aristocracy lost their privelages because they were too taxed as the rest of civialans. Once Oliver Cromwell died Mary II and William III held power of the English monarchy. they allowed the aristocracy to lose their privelages. because constitutionalism played a vital role in social mobility, including a commercial revolution, improved agricultural techniques and a larger middle class, the nobilty also had a gain in power because the size of parliament also increased.
On the other hand, the French aristocracy lost their power , but mauntained privelages. Louis XIV, being an absolute monarchist, took all power from the nobilty, but he allowed them to have privelage and stay in the picture. He did not completly aboloish them. Louis XIV created distractions, if you will, to allow the nobility to "think" they had importance to Louis. the Palace of Verailes is a good example of this. Louis also placed a major debt on the 3rd state, taking away the debt from the nobility.
STUDENT RESPONSES:
I completely agree with Alyssa Rico: RICO:p2012.
She also noted as I did, that the change of power from Cromwell to William led to the nobility losing their privelage, but maintaining power because they were governed under a constitutionalized monarchy. She also recognized that the rise of absolute monarchies led to the decrease of power among the nobility.
Cindy supported the prompt perfectly. She agreed with me by saying that the switch and succession of English power strengthened the aristocracy and weakened their privelages. I also agreed with her statement about the Palace of Versailes. I agree that Louis had a tight reign over the nobilty and kept a watchful eye overlooking his palace.
In seventeenth-century England the aristocracy did lose some of its privileges.The reason for this loss, was due to the rise of Cromwell as a tyrant. He dissolved Parliament several times thus diminishing both their rights and power. I think England did not regain their strength and power until William III or William of Orange finally came to power. However, for William to come to power, he had to agree to several terms set by Parliament. The terms were set so that Parliament could act as a check and balance to William's power over England. So in conclusion, I agree with the statement that England had lost its privileges but did retain its power.
Unlike the English's constitulionalist government, Louis XVI, who ruled France, believed in the divine right of Kings which was also known as absolutism. Louis controlled France completely. Even so, this wasnt necessarily a bad thing. Louis XVI did bring peace to the French society. Nobles retained their some of their privileges outside of politics while Louis held the power of France. With Louis XVI holding all the cards, there was no room for debate amongst the nobles and this allowed the king to make all the decisions for the country's well being. All in all, the French did not keep their privileges (for the most part) but instead kept their power in the seventeenth century.
I agree with nartanna's statement on the English Government. Parliament did retain most of its privileges throughout the seventeenth century. She focused on the English Parliament's power and influence over their kings totally as did I.
For my second response I have to disagree with amandazac'12. She stated,"On the other hand, the French aristocracy lost their power , but maintained privileges." The part about them maintaining their privileges is incorrect I think because like she said, Louis did pose several "distractions" for the nobles. After saying this, I cannot agree that Louis maintained the nobles privileges. The French government was based on Absolutism which meant that Louis XIV ruled over all aspects of France and could disregard all arguments that opposed him.
Ok, great job of getting started but some of you are putting your events in the wrong historical context. What does that mean, well some of your event don't fit the question criteria. Henry VIII (reign ended 1547) does not fit into this question thats being asked. Also be sure to discuss France and Britain and remember privileges are benefits that a person has and power is being able to have control over the politics in their respective countries. The 17th century means the 1600's don't forget that. So those who are a little historically inaccurate you may want to make your changes and delete your responses so your classmates don't expose you and then it will really be tough to back up what you said. Also feel free to use the sources that I have provided they will help you. Good Luck!!!!!
in the seventeenth ceuntry england, aristocracy lost some priveleges, yet was able to preserve its power. in the beginning of the seventeenth centruy, the english house of commons gave a petition to king henry the eighth, stating that the clery was disloyal and immoral. Henry sided with the english house of commons, and Cromwell led a movement hoping to break away from the civil government of england. Assisted by parliament, Cromwell succeeded. They were in favor of the rule of the people through representatives. During his reign, england was not successful. the population was low and food was scarce. After Henry the eigth ruled, England greatly improved. Agriculture and noble wealth increased. Nobles were interested in luxury goods such as furniture and clothes. Literature aroused because of famous scholars such as Spencer and Shakesspeare. England's aristocracy gained power and wealth.
The aristocracy of France lost power, but retained its privileges. Louis took away all the power of the parliament because he wanted all the power to himself. Through this method, he could make decisions on his own and does not have to check in with the parliament.
2 responses:
I agree with amanda because nobles kept their power because how england governed society. They used constitutionalism, which allowed parliament to make decisions, and not only the king. The parliament grew in size because of the nobles and there was a much bigger middle class. Louis took away power of the aristocracy, but gave them privileges such as entertaining the nobles with the Palace of Verailes. The nobles felt as if they were better then the rest of society.
I agree with Jason that france's aristocracy lost power. Louis took away their power because he wanted sole authority. Following "the divine of rights" he pursued absolutism. Since Louis controlled france completely, he made decicions on his own and there was no room for disagreements or aruguments.
In responce to OHaiTharJason's statement, the distractions that were made by Louis was what cause the decline in power of the nobles. They did not focus their time making powerful changes for teh kingdom, but rather simply enjoying their life. Louis did not take away any of there privileges. He only distracted them with luxurious leisures. Nobles then lost their power in having a say in the government because they were too occupied with the wealthy life you had living in the versailles .
I agree with Cindy that the reason why England aristocracy lost their privileges but retained their power was because their government was constitutionally based. Especially after Parliament was dissolved by James II, they lost all their privileges but was ablet o call help from William of Orange to attack James II. By doing so, William of Orange promised Parliament power over England once William was in reign. From Parliament's lost of privilege, they were able to gain back stronger power.
I agree with both of these statements.
In the seventeenth-century in England i believe that the aristocracy did lose their privilege and lost its power. Many of the nobles in England did have power but they didn't have the privilege to decide many things on their own or pass a law. The King always had the final say. For example King Charles I dissolved the Parliament when he felt they were gaining to much power. When Charles I need the help or support he would reinstate it. In this way the Parliament really did not have many privileges.
In the seventeenth century in France i believe that the nobles in France did keep their privileges but lost their power. King Louis XIV was definitely an absolute monarch he had complete control of everything in the country. The nobility there was really only for show. King Louis XIV would entertain the nobles to make them feel like they had power but in reality Louis XIV was controlling everything.The Palace of Versailles is a perfect example of how King Louis XIV entertained the nobility. Since king Louis XIV was an absolute monarch this led to the decreasing of power in the nobles.
Responses:
I agree with nartanna's response.
Since Charles I could dissolve the parliament he did so and in this way they lost the privilege to certain luxuries they had. Also since Louis XIV was an absolute monarch this led to the decline of the power in the nobility. I agree that Louis XIV weakened the power of the nobility to make himself more powerful. If the power were divided the king would not have complete rule.
I agree with amandazac'12's statement. I agree that Louis XIV took away all the nobles power but let them stay in the scene. He would give them distractions for example the Palace of Versailles like i stated above. I also agree with her statement that he put the debt on the 3rd estate rather than on the nobles. She stated Louis XIV being an absolute monarch took the power away from the nobles.
The 17th century was a time where England and France had a drastic change on the Aristocracy. Aristocracy is otherwise known as Nobility, or the Gentry. The Nobles of England lost their privileges but still kept its power. However, the Nobles of France gained privileges but lost their power. This was mostly due to the type of government that was being enlisted into the country. England was becoming a constitutionalism country and France was becoming a absolutism country. When England was becoming a Constitutionalism country,the main issue was the Parliament. Parliament was allowed to create policies etc, but they were denied the right to give the final sign. This is because the king had the right to "dissolve" the parliament. This means that the Parliament could be dismissed without objection and the king could act accordingly to his own pursuit. However, the parliament was a valuable asset because of Military issues. Without the parliament, the King had no other council to attend to discuss about the current issue. Also, constitutionalism is about having the power of the nobility limited, and giving it to the common people. This lowered the privileges that the nobles had, however because the nobles were still rich, they could have some degree of power through economical reasons.
France was becoming a Absolutism country. This means that all the power is ruled through one person. The King. One king that ruled France at the time was King Louis XIV. He deeply revered the right that kings had. It was known as the "divine rights of kings. This means that there is only one power that he had to listen to, and that was the Creator himself. Because King Louis believed in the divine right, he severely reduced the nobles power in rights because he believed only he should have the power. During the same decades, the Reform Acts of 1884 and 1918 and the Parliament Act of 1911 greatly reduced the power of Nobles because it curbed the hereditary power given to their heirs/successors.However, the nobles were allowed to discuss with the King about issues regarding the country. These could be economically or military. This allows some degree of privileges given to the Nobles.
In the end, this statement has been very accurate. I strongly agree with Nartanna's and Yvettem because King Louis XIV was a very strong advocate for Absolutism and the Divine Rights of Kings. He strongly denied the power of Nobles but he also gave some privileges to support him throughout issues.
“In the seventeenth-century England, the aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power” is very accurate. Kings were allowed to pacified the parliament in order to bring parliament to a standstill incase they got too strong. Parliament still had much power, such as creating polices and laws although the final and most significant decision was on the monarch’s shoulders. Even though the monarchs dissolved, meaning kings would dismiss the Parliament as if they had no need in the meetings, the Parliament many times through out the time period, the current monarch always needed to bring back the Parliament back because of their remaining power. Overall Parliament during the seventeenth century lost many of it privileges because of constitutionalism of their country. For “in the seventeenth century France, the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power”, is very accurate, France itself was ruled by Louis XIV, which ruled as an absolute monarch. He gained the public’s trust by using the “Divine rights”, saying the reasons for his actions are because of God, making him the soul authority. Although the nobles’ still had power however it was severely weakened by Louis XIV. The nobles could try to force ideas upon France, but they’re government status was lowered so with out Louis XIV’s consent they’re word were useless. His absolutism tactic of running the government worked because he weakened the nobilities, but other than that he also made treaties, wars, and economic activities. In conclusion I agree with both statements that the “…aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power” because in both situations the kings tried to weaken the parliament resulting in them having no leverage in the issues at hand.
I agree with Richard and nartanna, that both statements were very accurate in how the “…aristocracy lost its privileges but retained its power” in both situations, whether it’d be constitutionalism or absolutism; both did not want the aristocracy to have leverages in polices, laws, or current issues.
In the seventeenth century in France, the aistocracy kept its privileges but lost all of its power. the reason for this is because Louis XIV took over an had many disagreements with the nobility. he just had them for the people but he was an absolutist so he wanted all the power for himself. the nobility still had their right to speak, but they were in no control of Luois XIV since he believed in divine right and only responded to God.
As for seventeenth century England, the aristocray lost its privilegesand its power. most of the nobles had the power to speak out and give the king some options or suggestions, but they did not have the final saying whatsoever. I agree with sharonxx the reason for that is because in france, the aristocracy kept its privilges and lost its power. this hapenned because of luis xiv keeping all the power to himself. I agree with yvettem because in england, the aristocracy did lose their privilege and lost its power.since a lot of the nobles in England had power but they did not have the privilege to decide many things on their own nor pass a law.
Aristocracy during time of the rise of absolute monarchies had lost their power, but they had also had kept it. Even though power of the nobles was gone during this time period nobles had still though been known as the second estate. During time of Louis XIV's Wars there was balance of power that raised up. This gave nobles opportunity to restore their lost power. Also, England had been lead by General Oliver Cromwell he was going towards constitutionalism this in return had caused nobles to again lose their presence power. Death of Cromwell, by renewal of English monarchy, was now powered by William III and also Mary II, in which the aristocracy had lost their privileges by increaingly amounts of high taxes.
My response to two students
I agree with amandazac'12 for she believes that the the nobles still
had retained power for they took part in the governing of England. Amanda says that the aristocracy had lost many priveledges for they were taxed alot this is true for it is commonly that if you are richer and can afford more you are going to lose alot more of that wealth than a peasant or civilian. She is also correct by this statement nobilty had also recieved power because of the size of parliament increaseing.
I agree with cindy for she states that the nobles increase in power by bill of rights and when the parliment had been restored the nobles increased even more power.
I believe that this statement is very accurate. In France, Louis XIV began to try to eliminate the middle men of the government. Instead of consulting the nobles, he appeased them by giving them many extravagant parties. Also, he did not tax them, he only taxed the third estate. This made them think more of how to spend their time and money, and less about the economic and political welfare of their country. In England, the wealthy began to lose their money and high social status, but they were still given a very fair share of a say in the problems of the government. Charles tried to eliminate them, but when he was unable to fund his war with France, he was forced to ask them for help. They only gave him money on the condition that he would comply with the Petition of Right. Which said that no new taxes may be enforced with out the consent and permission of Parliament.
I agree with nartanna's statement in which she acknowledged that the Parliament ended up being needed to continue the ongoing war with France. They seemed to lose power, but essentially, they only lost some of their social status.
I also agree with amandazac'12's post because she said that Louis allowed his noble's to have privileges even though he did not allow them to dictate his political decisions.
I agree with Yvette and nartaana. I strongly believe that Louis XIV just entertained the nobles with parties and celebrations to make them feel like they had power when really, Louis controlled everything. This led the nobles with not that much power.
In the seventeenth century, in England, aristocracy had lost their privelages but yet was able to keep their power. Also, the englsh house of commons had accused the clergy of disloyalty and immorality. But, when king henry the eigth had presented the petition to the bishops, it seemed to be offened by the house of commons. then, when king henry the eigth wanted to get divorced by wife, the church saw it as an unholy scheme and that was when the king had united with the house of commons and thomas cromwell. That was when a law was given to king henry the eigth had then given the authority to be the supreme head of the church in england. Later on, everything started to get better, well only on some certain things. the food and all the goods started to come out more. though, the nobles were also given the opportunity to have a taste of the good life but by that, the nobles thought that they were more superior than everyone else.
"France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power"
that was tooken control by Louis XIV. In france, the entire nobility had to take residence and participate in elaborate ceremonies(festivals and dinners).
Louis XIV took total control of the nobility an decided to take away their power in order for him to take control and gain more power.
2responses:
I agree on what sharonxx, on what the she said about the nobles having to have more power. they were brought up to the middle classes and were given luxury and just have the good life. also, the food and the population of all the goods started to raise up even more in the seventeenth century. later, englands aristocracy had gained more power since everything else started to improve successfully too.
I also agree on what yvettem had to say about Louis XIV. he wanted control of everything and he got it by later on taking away the control of the nobility. he was able to anything he wanted without no one to do anything about it. he entertained the nobled by having them in festivals and dinners and without the nobles realizing was then tooken away their power by louis xiv.
in the seventeenth century aristocracy, i believe that it did lose its privileges in many different ways. not by only England being in constitutionalism but also all the absolutism that was against England. England becoming a constitutionalism nation made a total impact because of mostly Parliament, but as time went on, England had the petition of rights, and it made it difficult for nobles, and clergy to really pick either France, or England. constitutionalism is everyone has a say on what they wanted and didn't want, and there was really no one person power. aristocracy was also being taken away by Louis XIV, his fabulous parties, his pretty invitations were only little ways to making people feel like they really are something, but he just wants all the power to himself. Louis XIV never gave anyone else any such power, even if he was an absolute monarch, and constitutionalism made it difficult for everybody to really get what they wanted, since so many people wanted different things. Louis was a very greedy person, and wanted everything for his own, even if he had what he needed he wanted more.
i agree with lizbethhhh the trade and the economy started to actually come back, and the house of commons left people speechless on the disloyalty and dishonesty of others.
i also agree with sharonxx England really improved in being its own nation, and having its own government. they were going to middle class, and getting all the luxory that wasn't really needed.
The power of English aristocracy was gained, and the power of France's aristocracy was lost. The reason being was absolutism was the main source of leadership in France and England. Though, England fled away from that source of enrulement and converted to Constitutionalism. For England this was the much more conveniant way of ruling. Parliment always had a check on who was in charge. And power was never corrupted. Though, France still ruling with a weak and unsuccessful method caused them to lose power. Being under rule of an absolute monarch could easily spark political, social, and religious tensions. All of the reasons being was because there was always a biast opinion between the leader and government. Society was better off living by written law, Parliment. Parliment protected not only the society but also the country. Reason and logical ideas flowed among the aristocracy. And this only betterd England. On the other hand, France did not impose logical or written rules and guidlines. The society wasn't protected, thus that reflects that the counrty was not protected. And because of an absolute aristocracy France's power fell.
I diasagree with briana only about the agricultral and farming statements. Once henry became ruler of the chruch as well being the king it did change things but, I never saw or read anything that affected the fariming side of life. Other than that i agree with her one hundred percent.
I am agreeing with cindy about the english and the french. William of Orange came into to england and took power but, understood the rights of the people and discussed things with parliment. On the french side of things Louis 14 did in fact keep the nobles close to him to please them but, secretely let them on because he knew for French goverment to get better the noble's power would have to be shortened
“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 during the seventeenth century, the aristocracy was able to retain their power because of William of Orange. When he took over for James II after the Glorious Revolution, he had to sign an agreement that the parliament would be allowed to take part in the government. The parliament was made up of the House of Common and the House of Lords. The nobility dominated the House of Common, which gave them the more power compared to when James II was in charge. But with a constitutional based government, anyone was able to change their social class and everyone has the same rights by the Bill of Rights. In France, the aristocracy lost their power because of the Frondes. The nobility revolted against Mazarin to gain power and when Louis XIV was in charge, he made sure that they would not. Also, because of the Divine Rights, Louis had all the power and did not need to have permission from the parliament for his actions. The nobility was able to retain their privileges because there was no change in estates and they were able to dominate in their local areas, just not in the parliament like England.
Student Responses:
I agree with amandazac'12 because she states that England had constitutionalism and the nobility was able to take part in the power of the parliament. The social mobility also helped the others in gaining privileges such as being able to have their own business.
I agree with yvettem about her statement about France. Louis XIV had complete power over everything in his country and he just entertained the nobility with luxurious things so they would not focus on gaining power in the government.
I agreee with both of these statements.
In 17th century England had began to lose their privileges because they couldn't make decisions without the consent of parliament. Like with James I who argued that he should be able to raise revenues without the consent of parliament which struck parliament to then consider the powers of the King. Parliament in a way limited the privileges that the Kings had over running their country until James II used a different tactic by dissolving Parliment several times. But even though they may have lost privilges their power was still retained and even established The English Bill of Rights which helped to increase more power the the nobles.
This was different for 17th century France as Louis XIV came into power in favor of absolutism which reduced the power of the nobility. Louis XIV is the perfect example for an absolute monarch and how he limited the power of the nobility. During Louis XIV's ruling there was a revolt amongst the nobility known as the Fronde. It was from then on that Louis tried to reduce the nobility's power slyly by keeping them busy with extravegent parties and ceremonies in order to keep their power in check. Although the aristrocracy kept its privileges because of Louis XIV alot of the power was lost between them at this time in France.
2 respones:
I agree with Yvettem when she talks about Louis XIV using the nobility for show because that's exactly what he did. Louis XIV tried to make the nobility seem as if they were up in power with Louis when in reality their power was declining.
I also agree with JuliaFranco in that absolutism had a role in the lost of power within France. Because England took the route of having the English Bill of Rights and giving a more equal balance of power it left France to suffer a decline in power under the rule of Louis XIV who controlled most of France,
I agree that the aristocracy in the seventeenth-century Englad did lose some of its privileges and yet retained its power. Parliament had the power to make says and create policies they wanted, but they lost the privilege of having a final say. The king had the privilege to dissolve pariliament if he felt that they were becoming too strong, just like what Charles I, and other monarchs did numerous times. The power of parliament, however still stayed the same when the monarchs called them back knowing what they were competent of doing. The nobles also lost their privileges because Cromwell dominated as a tyrant. But when James II was succeeded by William of Orange, the nobles had to accept the Bill of Rights. after they accepted this, the power of the nobles increased. Both the parliament and the nobles gained more power. For “in the seventeenth century France, the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power”, is very accurate. France during that time was ruled by Louis XIV. He made people believe that he had the Divine rights and that God granted him his power, making him the soul authority. He ruled as an absolute monarchy and ruled over everything in his country. The nobility’s power was weakened by Louis XIV.
I agree with Yvettem’s statement that the nobility was just for show. Louis XIV entertained the nobles with parties and celebrations. He threw these parties to make them feel like they had power, but in reality Louis XIV had complete power. This left the nobles with not very much power, and weakened privilages.I also agree with sharonxx’s statement about the nobles and agriculture. The nobles were interested in luxury items such as furniture and clothes. They were brought up in the middle class, and were given these luxuries. Englands’s agriculutre also grew. The populatiuon of all goods started to raise up more in the seventeenth century.
During the seventeenth century the English aristocracy did loose some of their privileges but they were able to remain in power. This happened because England took on constitutionalism as its form of government. Due to this new form of government many of the nobles in England lost some of their privileges although they still managed to retain their power. The kings in England were able to retain their power but their privileges were limited because if the parliament. Once the Bill of Rights was established the king had to accept laws passed by parliament and he had to have Parliaments consent to suspend or execute a law. So even though the aristocracy lost privileges they remained in power. The opposite could be said for France. The aristocracy kept its privileges but lost its power. France’s government followed the guidelines of absolutism unlike England. Because of this the French aristocracy lost power but kept its privileges. The rulers in France were very weak and caused them to loose much of their power. The absolute monarchy was the grounds for many political, social and religious tensions, like the belief of divine right. Also unlike England the society wasn’t protected by and written rules and wasn’t represented by a national assembly of any kind. The aristocracy was able to keep all of their privileges by not having things like a parliament but in turn they lost power because of that.
Responses:
I agree with Julia Franco Constitutionalism was a much better way of ruling England. It was better for England because the society was represented in Parliament unlike before. Plus there was a new social mobility where you could move up (or down) the social ladder instead of staying in one section for your entire life. That also played a part in capitalism which improved agricultural techniques and helped the middle class grow.
I agree with Amanda because in England the Parliament was able to grow in size because the nobles were able to keep their power and under constitutionalism they were able to make decisions, not just the king. This was because they had abandoned absolutism. This also led to the middle class growing in size. I also agree with what she said about Louis taking away the power of the aristocrats but giving them special privileges to make them feel better then the rest of the society. He did this by entertaining the nobles at the Palace of Versailles.
:]
i believe the statement that in the seventeenth century the aristocracy lost some of its previleges and yet retained power is correct. Yes their powers were deminished but it was for the good of England.Their privelages were basically lost when Cromewell had deceased while in France it was about absolutism. Louis XIV took over the nobles'power because he knew that would increase his power. The way he perceived this was by holding dances and parties to entertain the nobility.
2 RESPONSES
I agree with Adam's response that King Louis XIV did give the nobility a social status. That still kept them in place instead of completely eliminating their say in society. With England's constitutonal move it did make things run more smoothly because their was balance of power between parliament and the monarch.
I also agree with Alyssa Rico that with Loui's wars the nobles regained power. This way the monarch didn't have total power.
In my opinion, the quote is highly accurate. In England, their government system of constitutionalism didn't allow laws and such to be passed without the consent of pariament. This was the privelage lost. Yet with the consent of parliament, laws pass were well thought through, making the laws more powerful in what they succeeded in. For example, King James I tried to increase revenue without the consent of parliament. Soon after, questions arose about the power of the king. Overall, the ONLY way to get passed the powerful consent was to dissolve parliament, which didnt happen to often.
The second part of the quote, "...in seventeenth century France the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power,” is also very accurate. Absolutism in my point of view was helpful and useful in France. The privelage kept, due to absolutism, was the privelage of the king having the sole authority. Obtaining the power to make ALL the decisions without anyones consent had its advantages. Some advantages included laws being passed in quicker amounts of time and laws being created for the greater good of the entire society, not just one group/division of society (In constitutionalism, people would only want laws to benefit themselves. As a reference to Thomas Hobbes, all people are "selfish & wicked", therfore the laws will only pertain to their own benefits). The downfault of this government style of constitutionalism is the fact that the laws being made by ONLY ONE authority don't have more than just the king's thought going into it. The idea of having only the king's consent came from an early dispute in Loius XIV's personal life. This is known as the Fronde: revolt among nobility. Because of the revolt, Louis XIV came up with the idea to reduce the power of the nobility as much as possible.
Overall, both pieces of the quote were well said and accurate.
I mostly can relate to the ideas of laurenG. We both had similar ideas on English constitutionalism. Both of us agreed that parliament played a big role in England, and that King James I started parliaments thinking about the power/authority of the king.
I am also on the same terms on France with Cheyenne b. <3. She stated how King Louis XIV made sure there was no chief minister ahead of him, in terms of power. We both had similar thoughts on Loius XIV and how obsolute he truly was.
England's 17 century was a change between citizens,king, and country they gained and lost aristocracy. James I imposed impositions to raise income into the cities of England, as king a protestant king James decided to take have a peace treaties with Spain, who was an enemy country although this attempt failed in his future. Charles I learned his father expertise and liked to tax people, the lower class including, the serf used the house of commons to abolish social classes. This law gave serfs and other the power of moving up in their social ladder. Although England was moving far from hierarchy Oliver Cromwell restrained religious freedom for a few decade to England citizens. It took a few years after Cromwell death for England to be a stable constitutional country during the reign of James II, William and Mary constructed the Bill of Rights limiting the authority power and giving people the vote.
Responses:
1. I agree with Stacie Ann that nobles were for show because in France Louis XIV tried to entertain his nobles in his palace. They seem to be forgotten, their power wasn't as influence in political power as in the Renaissance period. With the Bill or rights their power was semi-eliminated, this helped England become a political power.
2.I disagree with sharonnxx because because as i previously said the nobles where just there as an image, they didn't have much say in political issue in England. Nobel authority was removed by William and Mary allowing the limit of the monarchy which affected Catholics because since the authority was limited so was religion.
Wow, look how many people forgot to blog...I even extended the date. This is very disappointing. See you Monday...
Post a Comment