skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Unit 3 Age of Absolutism Blog #3 Due Oct. 24
“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 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 Event
Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
Social Conditions in France
Louis XIVs Court
Lifestyles of 17th Century People
40 comments:
King Louis XIV built Versailles in 1682 for the Nobility of France. The Nobility at Versailles did not lose their privileges there because they were able to celebrate and dine with the king. However they were expected to live nowhere else but at Versailles. This way the King can keep an eye on all the Nobles and their plans whatever they might be. Whilst the Nobility of France experienced only the finest things in live the peasants had a very different experience. Many would go hungry since the soldiers took whatever they needed when they need it. And with no Nobility making sure the local environment is balanced and people behaved people with weapons did as the pleased. Especially when the Nobility is in Versailles too intoxicated and stuffed like a pig to do anything.
Since Elizabeth I didn’t leave an heir to the throne James I came into rule. However before that during The Tudors Dynasty there was major turmoil and a rebellion. Also there was issue with the faith of England since Henry VIII changed the religion in England sp that he could divorce his first wife for Anne Boleyn. There was also a huge national debt that was left over. At the same time the church was an even bigger mess that needed to be cleaned up. As a result Parliament passes the Petition of Right (later to be the base of the English Constitution.) This extremely restricts the monarch’s ability to rule and gave it Parliament. This would make it a give a take relationship for the monarch’s of England.
King Louis XIV ruled France with the form of government which has come to be called absolutism. Therefore he was the sole ruler atop the political hierarchy. The king pacified the nobility in many ways, the most successful of which was his elaborate illusion of their involvement by taking them to Versailles. Although they partook in many activities and court life, the king never allowed them any input or power.
In England, Elizabeth ruled with a Parliament which allowed for the coming of Constitutionalism. Her predecessors had rifts with other countries when it came to marriages and relations with the church. Eventually the English constitution limited power of said king/queen and allowed the monarchy to share power with councils such as parliament. The nobility in England gained favor by being high up in court or (males) by holding positions in Parliament.
louis the XIV was the longest rulr of France and he ruled in a way of what is called absolutism, meaning that he was meant to be king. he kept his power by bringer any who can stand in his way to Versailles so they can enjoy themselves while he rules with no competition of higher authority. with that method he did not allow anyone to overthrow or authorize him to do anything.
the ruler of England, Elizabeth, allowed the new concept of the time, constitutionalism to come forth with the help of ruling alongside with Parliament. they pass the english constitution, which gave a limit to monarch's power.
France in the seventeenth century was ruled by King Louis XIV through means of absolutism. Absolutism is a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by any other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. This caused French aristocracy retained its privileges but lost its power. French nobles would continue to live with their luxury, but lose any important say in political views or actions. The king basically had all power and right of actions, while French nobility had none, but made it seem to them as though they had some sort of power, an example being Versailles. Nobility would retain their power when implemented into parliament.
England during the seventeenth century was not ruled through absolutism, such as with France, but through parliament, which in turn, paved a way for constitutionalism. Parliament is a legislature in which discussions of the country would take place. This could be most comparable to American congress. Upon the foundation of constitutionalism, a balance of power was instituted, limiting the power of a ruler and allowed a monarch to share its power and implement actions through councils such as parliament.
This statement is a valid generalization, as 17th century France was founded on the basis of political absolutism. I agree with my classmates on this standpoint - due to Louis XIV's self-sufficiency in building a secure financial base, his power over his country was undivided. This display of absolute power was reinforced by the king's construction of Versailles, which served as an efficient means of pacifying the nobility. While the aristocracy lived in luxury at the sprawling palace, "Louis' motivation was not based solely on his desire to have a good time[,]but was a means of simultaneously controlling the nobility, reducing their power and watching for any potential rivals." The favors granted to the nobility were thus given solely by the king, who, by organizing every luxury at Versailles around his presence, shifted the emphasis from the nobility's influence to an emphasis on his own power. Therefore, the aristocracy retained its privileges by appealing to Louis XIV; in doing so, though, their local authority suffered.
Conversely, the aristocracy of England lost its privileges but gained parliamentary power. The English Bill of Rights, implemented as a result of the Glorious Revolution, subjected monarchs to limited authority and thus reinforced the jurisdiction of Parliament. England was now referred to as a "commonwealth" rather than a "kingdom" - real power, once delegated to the king, now lay in the hands of the nobility. However, some privileges of the aristocracy declined during the 17th century. Oliver Cromwell's tyranny over England resulted in strong Puritan prohibitions, among them a ban on theatergoing and dancing. In comparison to the opulence of France in the 1600s, I believe that England's nobility was forced to endure much humbler circumstances.
I agree with Abbey regarding the use of Versailles to limit the nobility's power. However, I don't believe that the entire French aristocracy was subjected to life at the palace. Some nobles avoided Versailles, retaining a bit of influence outside of Louis XIV's court. Some simply didn't possess the wealth to seek his favor. Ultimately, though, I acknowledge that Versailles was instrumental in decreasing the nobility's authority.
I also agree with Allen Sison, and appreciate his comparison of constitutionalism to the balance of power in America today. While the limitations set on our President may not be as extreme, these political systems do mirror each other to an extent. This comparison was helpful in allowing me to see how the nobility actually limited the English monarchy's authority. By instituting a checks-and-balances system, Parliament could guarantee the civil liberties of the aristocracy.
The validity of this statement is proven through the development of a parliamentary monarchy in England and political absolutism in France during the 17th century.
In England, the constant conflict between the Stuart monarchy and Parliament led to a decrease in social privileges but increase in political powers of the aristocracy. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Parliament forged the Bill of Rights which severely restricted the power of the monarchy. Henceforth, the nobility lost social advantages due to a more stable and centralized government but in exchange experienced a transfer of power from the monarchy. This is exemplified by a new class of nobility that held more of governmental power through legislative control of Parliament and less of luxurious superiority in social caste. However, the Puritan Republic of 1653-1658 is noted as an exclusion of aristocratic power under Oliver Cromwell's dictatorship during which Parliament was permanently dissolved.
In France, the rise of Louis XIV began an era of absolutism and reversed the political and social positions of the aristocracy. The construction of Versaille's luxurious palaces provided the pacification of the nobility as a political scheme that elevated Louis's superiority. This event enabled the development of a social system that kept the most powerful of nobles under the surveillance of the Sun King. Although nobles residing at the palaces experienced a multitude of extravagances through accompanying the king in luxurious mealtimes, celebrations, and entertainment, they unknowingly were appeased from gaining political influence and power. By engaging in the extravagant lifestyle in Versailles, the aristocracy were restrained from interfering with the king's supreme reign over all state affairs and secured in subordination to Louis.
I disagree with Ariel's statement "the aristocracy retained its privileges by appealing to Louis XIV...though, their local authority suffered." His primary operation was to make the monarchy the most powerful political institution in France, while also assuring aristocrats and other high-standing figures their social position and influence on the local level. His motive was not to restrict the power of nobles over existing local foundations but rather work with them through compromise and negotiation while still holding superiority in the relationship.
The statement was accurate as the French nobility during the 1600s were distracted and blindfolded by the king, Louis XIV. He brought most of the nobles to this wonderful city named Versailles in 1682. It acted as a diversion to all the nobles, where they lived together in the city and enjoyed its amenities. He kept a close eye on all the nobles in the city to help for see any uprising of conflicts and to make sure he was in total power. With the nobles indulged in the city he was able to rule without a noble interfering with his orders, which made it much easier for him rule his way.
The English continually had monarchs who were unable to handle Parliament, and the revolutions put the aristocrats in great power. The Petition of Rights, written by Parliament in 1628, was presented to Charles I in which it stated that the king was unable to complete many actions without the approval of Parliament. It helped slightly subdue the king and keep his total power in check. The Petition required the king to receive Parliament’s approval of raising taxes and it also stated that there was no billeting of troops or imprisonment/execution of man without the due process of law.
I sort of agree with Tiffany and her point about the pacification of the nobility in France. Louis’s method of distraction was quite effective in allowing him to rule, and gain total power. But, they were not restrained though. The nobles were merely manipulated into living in the city and were under the king’s influence. If they were able to see past it, I believe they would’ve been able to remain in control of their realms.
king louis XIV way of rulling was the absolutist way this way allowed him to have all the power with no interferance of any kind from abything or anybody.He ruled like this by getting rid of anyone who would be in his way from doing what he wanted.
theres also another way of rulling the constitutional way the ruler that did this was Elizibeth she ruled with the help of parliment this way the was a way to limit the power of one monarch.
In the seventeenth century, King Louis XIV ruled with absolutism, therefore he had all the power and no interference, by the nobility. He built Versailles, where he had the nobles live, so he can keep an eye on them, in case of any uprising or plan they might have that may interfere with his power. They participated in all the activities of courtly life, but Versailles denied them of their previous political power.Louis XIV never allowed the nobility to have a say, or obtain any power. The aristocracy during King Louis XIV reign, retained it's privileges, but lost all power, therefore giving Louis XIV complete control.
In England, Elizabeth ruled along side parliament. After the return to power of the Stuart kings between 1660 and 1688, a revolution furthered the authority of Parliament. in 1628, the Petition of Rights, was issued, that aimed towards limiting the kings power.Also the English Bill of Rights in 1689, restricted monarch's power by not allowing them to form or pass law or documents without parliament's approval. This was a time of glory for parliament. The time of Elizabeth's reign allowed the concept of Constitutionalism to prosper.
In France, King Louis XIV ruled his country with the government form of absolutism. This assured Louis of his power by making him the sole ruler. King Louis XIV built the extravagent palace of Versailles to keep a close watch on France's nobility. Although the nobles lived an elaborate, sophisticated life, they did not partake in any imput or gain authority.
In England, Elizabeth I ruled with Parliament. When she passed away, she did not leave a blood related heir to the throne and James I came into power. Coming into power, there were many problems such as faith, debt, and the church that need to be dealt with. Parliament passed the Bill of Rights which gave much more power to Paliament than to Englands ruler. The nobility lost privaledges because of the more stable government but also gained the power for a stronger influence.
The two most important forms of government to evolve in early modern times were the absolute monarchy and the constitutional state. In the seventeenth century, the political system of absolutism faded dismally in England and succeeded gloriously in France. Louis XIV gave Europe a masterful lesson on how to collaborate with the nobility to strengthen the monarchy and to reinforce the ancient aristocracy. He built Versailles and required nobles to attend him there if they wanted his favor. The nobility became courtiers with privileges intact but little real power. The power laid with the king, not the nobles. Louis XIV succeeded in expanding France at the expense of the Habsburgs. However, the economic progress he first made was later checked by his policy of revoking religious toleration.
Not only did the silver and labor run out, but this wealth ruined the Spanish economic and social structure. War with the Dutch, the English, and the French also helped turn Spain into a backwater of Europe.
England provided a demonstration of constitutionalism triumphing over absolutism. The English army and Parliament had destroyed the Stuart quest for divine-right absolutism. In addition, the Netherlands was important because it provided the political development of a loosely federated, middle-class constitutional state. The Netherlands also became the financial and commercial center of Europe.
This statement was accurate because during the seventeenth France was ruled by Louis XIV who believed in political absolutism and “the divine rights of kings”. In order to impose his beliefs he constructed the great palace of Versailles which provided him with a way to pacify the nobility and heighten his authority and power. This act also supported the development of the social hierarchy and it made it impossible for the strongest nobles in the land to overpower Louis XIV, the Sun King. The nobles that dwelled in the King’s presence may have experienced many indulgent things such as great scenery or mealtimes but were unaware of the King’s surveillance and how they were losing opportunities to gain political power. By living and abiding in the Versailles the nobles were blinded by privileges that were given to them to engage and consult in Kings aura which led them to increase in power to influence the monarchy
However in England a parliament monarch was rising which caused many clashing conflicts between parliament and the Kings. After the Restoration and Glorious Revolution, the Bill of Rights was incorporated and it made the King accept laws created by parliament and consent with parliament for suspending and executing laws. This document decreased the power and authority of the monarchy but helped with the centralization of the government and it assured the rule of aristocracy. Overall England during this time period illustrated a monarch in which the nobility were able to gain political power through parliament but lose privileges in the social hierarchy due to the stable government.
agree with Allen because having a constitution in England did lead to the balance of power in our American government. And just like our government today there was balance of power throw a system of checks and balances. This process made it so that everyone had their liberties protected.
I also agree with Ariel when she said “due to Louis XIV's self-sufficiency in building a secure financial base, his power over his country was undivided.” This was because finances have been a main issue thought out time. And by building Versailles he was able to keep control of his nobility, and keep them happy, feed and being entertained. And yet at the same time their local government would suffer greatly.
@Ariel ---> I agree with your analysis of this statement and agree with your views. The statement, while true as a generalization, can be more individualized with examples such as France's rise of absolute monarchs. As with England's rise of Parlimentary power and checks and balances on the monarch.
@Allen---> I also agree that constitutionalism has brought forth a system in America where, if compared, the President would be the king, but also there is a third party (in the US the Judicial System) which allows a three way check of power. I also agree with his view that the absolute ways of France allowed the monarchs such as King Louis XIV to rule with indisputed power and do as they (he) pleased.
The statement above is a valid for the parliament in England and absolutism in France of the 17th century. In 17th century for France Louis XIV ruled with absolutism. He had control over France for a long period of time and no one questioned him. His display of absolutism was also shown in the financial system of France. He also gained the nobility by building Versailles which made them think that they couldn't survive without him in power since Versailles exemplified how much power and wealth he had over them. The nobility didn't lose power over Louis but it gave Louis the opportunity to watch over the nobility which limited there say in the actions of Louis XIV. In England, Elizabeth ruled with Parliament with showed Constitutionalism in England. With the English Bill of Rights coming into play, it limited the powers of the Kings and gave more privileges to the people and more power to parliament in the 17th century.
I agree with Allen with how he compared constitutionalism to our government today. With the comparison with our government today and constitutionalism shows that the king is compared our president and how our president is in power but is limited to our congress which represents parliament.
I also agree with Eunice how she said that "This document decreased the power and authority of the monarchy but helped with the centralization of the government and it assured the rule of aristocracy" for it settled all major issues between the king and Parliament. Also it formed a vase for the steady expansion of civil liberties in the 18th and early 19th century in England.
In France the idea of absolutism developed leading to the Divine Right of Kings, which meant the king was not controlled by higher authority and chosen by God. Monarchs were able grow in power, but Louis XIV,in particular, made good use of absolutism and was able to help French economy. he believed that no more than one religion could coexist and in order to become absolute he revoked the Edict of Nantes and the Huguenots were exiled from France. Because most of the Huguenots that left were workers France's economy was greatly hurt. Also Louis XIV used his army to fight many wars within France, which eventually lead to France in the brink of bankruptcy. Though France had declined economically Louis XIV's reign was considered the Golden Age of France.In England the monarchs were kept in check by Parliament. This allowed Parliament to limit the monarchs power and make sure it wasn't being abused.Though Parliament kept the monarchs in check the monarchs were able to dissolve Parliament multiple times.
I agree with Allen about constitutionalism. The monarchs had limited power and they constantly had to get approval by Parliament if they were to do something. Through these approvals the monarchs could not abuse their power. Though the monarchs had limited power they were still the higher authority
I agree with Brittany about Louis XIV keeping an eye on the nobles. By doing this he was able to listen to any plans made by the nobles and possibly tax them. Louis the XIV had a lot of power and he made sure there was no chance of him being overthrown, though with all his power the chances were really low.
I agree with Allen Sison’s statement that the foundation of the constitutionalism helped institute a balance of powers. It allowed the monarch to share its power and actions through councils such as Parliament. Parliament was a legislature in which discussion about the countries current conflict/problems were taken place. The legislature helped in limiting the power of the king and did not allow the king misuse his power for his own selfish ambitions. This system of checks and balances can be seen in America today.
I agree with Ariel statement that Louis XIV displayed his absolute power through the construction of Versailles. This extravagant estate helped Louis XIV pacify the nobility due to the fact that he had a great surveillance of their every move. During this time he was able to shift the nobilities influence to his own power, which helped the absolute monarch of France.
First of all, England and France were governed using different methods. In England, Constitutionalism took place while in France, people were ruled through absolutism. In absolutism, people believed that the rulers were chosen through divine right, or the idea that they were told by God that they should rule. This meant that no one would challenge their authority and no one could over throw them. However, with Constitutionalism, the leaders would have to go through parliament in order to make decisions. The rulers were subject to law.
In France, Louis XIV wanted to make sure he had absolute power over everyone therefore he did something clever. He decided to have the nobles stay at the Versailles so that he could keep them in check. By having the nobles live there, he would be able to limit the nobles influence, but not limit their power. This meant that it would be harder for them to become more influential because they lived at the Versailles.
England was being ruled by Elizabeth and she had to get consent with the parliament about everything she needed to do. She wouldn’t be allowed to raise taxes or anything unless it went through the Parliament first. The English Bill of Rights ensured that the rulers must get the Parliaments consent about everything they wanted to happen.
This showed that i do think that statement was valid because in england, the aristocracy did lose its privileges but they were able to maintain their power, but in France, while being ruled by an absolute figure, they were able to maintain their priveleges but they lost their power.
I do agree with Peter's statement about how Louis XIV kept the nobles at the Versailles so that they can enjoy themselves while he rules without competition of higher authority. That's something I didn't exactly mention. Louis XIV didn't put the nobles in the Versailles so that they could just have a nice place to live. That wasn't his intention. His main intention was so that he could get the nobles out of the way of his own rule. He wouldn't have to worry about people gaining more power over him because he basically had all the nobles in check.
I also agree with Josh's view on Louis's gesture on getting the nobles to the Versailles Palace. He stated that if the nobles were able to see through what he was trying to do then they would be able to maintain their power and influence because the nobles were not forced to live at the Versailles. They were just strongly encouraged to stay there but if they didn't want to then they didn't have to. That's why some people who either didn't have enough money or just didn't want to stay there, didn't stay there.
France and England during the seventeenth century were governed by Constitutionalism and Absolutism. In France, Louis XIV ruled by absolute power. He wanted supreme power and the only way he could achieve this was to drain all the noble's power. So he built the palace of Versailles to pacify the nobles. This provided an easy way for Louis XIV to watch the nobles and make sure they weren't planning anything that would overtake him. The nobles were granted many privileges but never any real power.
While in England, monarchs ruled with parliament. This caused many issues between the King and Parliament. The Stuart Monarch had many conflicts with the parliament; often arguing on how to finance the government. It was then that the Petition Of Rights was signed by Charles I, written by the parliament. This petition limited the king's power by allowing the Parliament the right to approve or decline the king's actions. Monarchs consisted of a more stable government which decreased nobility's privileges but increased their political power.
I agree with Brittany's statement on the nobles participating in activities of courtly life, but Versailles denying them their political power. Nobles were high up on the social hierarchy and often had much power in the past. However, during Louis XIV's reign, he wanted no one else to have power so he somewhat tricked the nobles into believing they had power in the monarchy, but in reality, their input was never put in consideration.
I agree with Andrew when he wrote that Louis XIV revoked the Edict Of Nantes and drove the Huguenots out of France. Louis XIV wanted, as stated before, absolute/supreme power. He thought that if everyone shared a common religion, there would be no controversies regarding the religious aspects of the monarch, but rather focusing more on expanding and financing the monarch to become prosperous.
Louis XIV of France, was considered the most powerful absolute monarch during his 72 year reign, and had governed France through absolutism believing in the "divine right of Kings." The king's method of pacifying the nobility, by allowing the nobles to stay in the Versailles Palace, gave French nobles a place to live in luxury, as well as give Louis a chance to keep on eye on the nobles who might try to over power him. Although they had luxurious time at the palace, they had restrictions in power and influence over the Sun King. Thus, Louis' power was still maintained but damage to the aristocracy came as the result.
In England, Parliament was the main government that kept everything in check. It limited the King's "absolute" power, but allowed for a government in which there were different view points that would benefit the whole country rather than having one ruler deciding everything whether the people agree with it or not. King James and Charles I had conflicts with Parliament, being strong believers of divine right, and dismissed it a few times. Charles I signed the petition of rights which made decisions made by the King approved by Parliament and the people. This way it limited the King's power. Finally, the Glorious Revolution was the highest point for Parliament as absolutism had diminished and Parliament had become supreme.
I agree with Eunice on her statement of Louis XIV being a believer of divine right of Kings. This made him a strong ruler allowing France to be dominant and he pacified the nobility in a way that he manipulated the nobles. Also, I agree with her idea in which the King had restricted power by the English Bill of Rights and made the King have to go through approval by Parliament. This way, it created a centralized government in England.
I also agree with Nick when he states, "The English army and Parliament had destroyed the Stuart quest for divine-right absolutism." The early rulers of the Stuart dynasty had conflicts with Parliament because they believed in divine right. They didn't agree with the idea of Parliament having to check up on them and approving their decisions. After the Glorious Revolution and the passing of the English Bill of Rights, as well as the Petition of Rights, absolutism ended leaving Parliament with total power and shaping England into Constitutionalism.
France in the seventeenth century was ruled by Louis XIV who ruled with absolutism. Since Louis XIV was an absolute monarch he made the decisions and had all the power. The aristocracy lost power because in Versailles Louis XIV demonstrated how powerful he was and how he overspent. The nobles lost power but they were still able to have privileges live having a luxurious lives and have better education.
England was ruled by Parliament which limited the power of the king. Kings also would need to have the consent of Parliament to do things such as tax and they can not take a man's land by force. The nobles would not lose power but privileges because parliament did not take noble power away. Nobles lost privileges because the nobles would have positions in Parliament.
I agree with Allen Sison because Parliament did lead to constitutionalism since would share power. Also because parliament is like congress in america because the president of the united states of america does not have all the power. I also agree with Kevin Salgado since parliament did benefit the country bcause of the members views instead of just one view from a monarch. It also benefited the country because if the monarch was a tyrannt then the country would be devastated from what the monarch did.
In France, Louis XIV built the palace of Versailles allowing nobles to reside there.Some nobles had to pay for their own residence while others had to have royal patronage. Soon they became dependent on the monarch. Therefore, nobles in France lost their power because of the powerful Sun King but still had their privileges since Louis XIV supported France's traditional social structure and the social privileges of the nobility.
However, England was ruled through Parliament in which they were able to limit the power of the monarch. Parliament were able to restrict the monarchs power by being able to dismiss a law that the monarch would wish to pass,thus showing that nobility were able to retain their power unlike those in France.
I agree with Kevin about Louis XIV pacified nobility by allowing them to live in the palace of Versailles. The extravagant palace drew nobles in and some nobles had to pay for their residence and others had to have royal patronage, this shows that by building the palace of Versailles, nobles were under complete control of Louis XIV. Versailles is a great example to show how nobility lost its power.
I also agree with Andrew of how Parliament was able to limit the monarchs power. If a monarch wished to pass a new law it would have to get through Parliaments consent first. This made sure that a monarch would not abuse his or hers power. Through this, nobles were able to retain their power because of Parliament.
In France, Louis XIV built the palace of Versailles allowing nobles to reside there.Some nobles had to pay for their own residence while others had to have royal patronage. Soon they became dependent on the monarch. Therefore, nobles in France lost their power because of the powerful Sun King but still had their privileges since Louis XIV supported France's traditional social structure and the social privileges of the nobility.
However, England was ruled through Parliament in which they were able to limit the power of the monarch. Parliament were able to restrict the monarchs power by being able to dismiss a law that the monarch would wish to pass,thus showing that nobility were able to retain their power unlike those in France.
I agree with Kevin about Louis XIV pacified nobility by allowing them to live in the palace of Versailles. The extravagant palace drew nobles in and some nobles had to pay for their residence and others had to have royal patronage, this shows that by building the palace of Versailles, nobles were under complete control of Louis XIV. Versailles is a great example to show how nobility lost its power.
I also agree with Andrew of how Parliament was able to limit the monarchs power. If a monarch wished to pass a new law it would have to get through Parliaments consent first. This made sure that a monarch would not abuse his or hers power. Through this, nobles were able to retain their power because of Parliament.
During the 17th century France was ruled by king Louis XIV. Louis XIV was the longest ruler of France. Louis XIV was an absolutist, which means he was not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition. Louis XIV kept his power for so long by weakening the power Of the nobles, He did this by excluding them from his council and taking them to versailles.
Elizabeth ruled with constitutionalism in England. Constitutionalism is pretty much not giving as much power to the kings or queens. This gave parliament a lot more power. Parliament is basically a legislative assembly in certain countries. Because of this England had more balance in powers.
The statement is indeed valid because Louis XIV made sure that France was founded on the basis of political absolutism. His intentions were to have all the power with no interference at all, not even by the nobility. He ruled with great power doing what he wanted making sure he was in complete and total power. In 1682 he purposely brought all his nobles to Versailles. This diversion allowed him to keep a close eye on the threatening nobles though they were unable to obtain any power as they did before. The aristocracy during King Louis XIV reign, retained its privileges, but lost all power, therefore giving Louis XIV complete control. In England a parliament monarch was rising and so was constitutionalism. This limited power of monarchs and kings allowing the nobility to gain power once again along with parliament. Afterwards power was retained once again allowing different choices for the government.
I am aware that its not much but I do feel i got to my point.
-gardenia <3
I’d have to say I disagree with Brittany and Allen because although America does use the same base of constitutionalism as was used in England during the 17th century. They were both very different because power is handled differently; although England was more towards constitutionalism than absolutism it is not an accurate comparison between America today and england during the 17th century because today we have many different says in power and voting which spreads power really thin when back then power was still negotionable to who had the most say in decisions politically.
In England we see a decline in Monarchial privilege, but a consistency in power in the sense that though the Monarch had lost its claimed rights it granted itself these rights through direct confrontation of parliament. A prime example of which would be JamesI's claim to raise revenue. Although parliament was needed to condone these risings JamesI confronted parliament and raised these revenues anyways.This battle demonstrates the monarchs retention of power even though their specific priveldges had been limited
In contrast we see a disunified nation of France. Though the nobility and Louis indulged in extravagances and "powers" their nation suffered from hunger and poverty. The overall system in place in france remains privileged, but their nation suffered from it. Louis through pacification of the nobility ultimately took the say of the people completely out of government. Removing from them their actual power in the nobility
I agree with Reina in the sense that parliament must be gone through before laws could be passed, but question her in the sense that England was not ruled by Elizabeth for 100 years ;) I also question the validity of it because though parliament was incorporated was it truly effective?
France was under the absolutism control of Louis XIV. This ment that all power and decisions in France went through him. Louis created the Versailles to keep every aristocrat happy without acually being in a position of power. I think that this proves that in France they held special priveges but without power.
Howevever England was ran through constitutionalism. With this Queen Elizabeth's power was limited and a wider spread of people there had more of a voice through Parliament. Through Paliment middle class people and up of England had more of an opportunity to cause change in society.
I agree with Josh when he said that many English rulers had a hard time with Paliment, because many of them revoked it from time to time to get their way.
I also disagree with Brittney when
she said Louis had all the power of France. Although he held majority of power, nobility still had somesort of say in things.
i agree with Allen, that constitutionalism can be compared to america's government today, our government was very much influenced by contitutionalism in the 17th century. Our president is like the king, whos power was limited, and if he decides to make a law, it has to go through approval with congress and the people of the country.
i agree with Andrew when he stated that Louis XIV revoked the Edict Of Nantes and drove the Huguenots out of France. He wanted everyone to have the same religion, therefore there will be no controversies or war due to religious tolerance. also Louis XIV wanted to maintain his control over everyone, so if there was only one religion, everyone would have the same ideas, and therefore, he would have more control and power, for example how people believed rulers were chosen by God.
In seventeeth-century France nobles of the court did indeed lose power and any input within governmental affairs due to Louis XIV's rise to power in the form of absolutism. However in turn they were exempted from other burdens which a commoner in the walls of France would have to partake such as taxes. They we to live lavishly and luxuriously within this time period at the cost of power.
Whilst in England however, kings and others of aristocracy lost a major portion of power by the formation of parliament. This was due to tyrannical rule of the royalty in the previous generation. A new heir to the throne then came in the 17th century Elizabeth, due to her actions she gave rise to constitionalism with parliament.
@Allen I agree with your revelation of 17th century England to modern day America. America, just as France has levels of power in which even the person at the top of the hierarchy can be brought down if necessary. This is due to the division of powers from legislative, executive, judicial, etc. Even if you are a "king" due to seperation of power, your rule will never be obselete
In France and England, I agree that opposite effects did occur with the aristocracy, but to a certain extent. In France, they gained many privileges and lived extravagantly while in Versailles. However, they did not truly lose their power. On higher level this is correct, but Louis XIV encouraged them to be rulers on a local level. In contrast, in England the aristocrats had more power politically due to the English Bill of Rights and its increase of Parliamentary power. However, I do not believe that many privileges were lost besides the fact that they, as well as the monarch, were much more limited by law.
In France, Louis XIV showed a great deal of intelligence by pacifying the nobility using Versailles while still allowing them to be superior on the local level. This gave said aristocrats a sense of power while truly making only a small difference in the state because Louis was still supreme to everything in France. Also, in creating Versailles he gave them a great palace to reside and live worry-free while in his hands. They were in ecstasy and their political intelligence and power dwindled while Louis gained it. So, since they only had a small area to make small decisions for, not much was noticed by the people or anyone lower in class than the nobles. However, those who did not live in Versailles due to personal or financial issues still retained power locally. This state of power gave aristocrats enough power to be happy, but still not enough to interfere with the king and his rule.
On the other hand, in England, aristocrats gained power from increase in Parliamentary power whereas they lost some privileges from law being enforced, but there was not only a slight amount of truly significant change in the privileges of the English aristocracy. Due to the new policies enforced that banned Catholicism, some members of Parliament saw a change in religion due to forced conformity. However, this number was still minimal due to the fact that Parliament passed the law, giving one the assumption that the majority of Parliament already was believers in the Anglican faith. Adding to the decrease in privileges, they now had to be fully subordinate to English law. This seems to be the only truly significant change, but again the fact that they deliberated and passed these policies already states that the majority already supported those ideas. In addition, although these laws were passed, there were still many instances in which the monarch defied Parliament without punishment. Although, since Parliament gained a significant amount of power due to the rise of constitutionalism, the nobles not only retained, but gained a large amount of power. Also due to increased law enforcement, they had the legal right to pass laws based on their opinion no matter what the king wanted.
I agree with Ariel on the matter that some nobles avoided Versailles for what ever reason they had and this gave them more local influence since they were on their ruling territory.
I agree with Christian in the sense that the changes in power among Parliament in England were not concrete and absolute, although when James I defied Parliament in raising revenue, he was still on watch by the people and still took caution in later decisions because of his fear of Parliament.
The aristocracy did retain its power in 17th century England because there were absolute rulers like Charles II and taxed the middle and peasant class. While the aristocrats are not taxed as heavily as the other classes, they did lose their privileges. The absolute monarchs had supreme power due to Divine Right, leaving no power to the nobles. In France, the aristocrats did have privileges and lost power. Under the absolute monarch and politique King Louis XIV, nobility were issued insignificant powers while being held in the capital city Versailles. From this perspective the aristocrats did not have influence in politics, society, and/or the economy by being mitigated in Versailles. They still held privileges such as governing land.
I agree with Clara's comment about the Bill of Rights' constitutional ideas limiting the king, therefore allowing the aristocracy to retain their power. Checks or balances on the king's actions prevented supreme power.
I disagree with Allen's comparison to the current U.S. government to the 17th century English government. Currently there is no balance in power in the U.S. government because it is pre-dominantly lead by the Democrat party in Congress and the Executive branch, leaving no check/balance from the Republican party (vice-versa can also apply). Where as during the 17th century, a variety of seat-holders were in office, such as Anglicans and Puritans. By balancing the monarchy's power, the English Parliament indirectly benefited the nobility's power.
During the 17th century, England was ruled under Constitionalism. Constitutionalism basically is that the government has more power than the monarch. In England, the nobility were able to equally contribute to their country alongside Parliament. However the king's power was limited due to Parliament passing the Petition of Right.
On the other hand, France's nobility had no extreme power at all during Louis XIV's reign. Louis XIV demonstrated his superiority through absolutism. In order to limit the nobility's power, he established Versailles. The king had placed the nobility in this palace and gave them "jobs" to handle political issues at which they focused on and gave Louis XIV the freedom to pass laws or tax people freely.
I disagree with Allen about England having a balance of power. The monarch (king) had limited power and seemed kind of below the Parliament and nobility's status. Of course the Parliament had higher power and the king had to always confront Parliament to do things he wanted because of the passing of the Petition of Right. If the power of the monarch and Parliament were equal, the king would have not come to Parliament to ask for permission to pass laws he wanted.
I also disagree with Claudia about her comment on Louis XIV. Louis XIV did not actually get rid of people. For example, the nobility were to be somewhat "manipulated" into thinking they were of actual use. In Versailles they were given political occupations which kept them occupied. As they were occupied, Louis XIV did as he pleased to rule France.
In England, the rise of constitutionalism gave the nobility more power when it came to making decisions because of parliament. Parliament limited the power of the monarch and allowed the nobility to join in the making of decisions for the people of the nation. The English Bill of Rights limited the power of the ruling monarch and handed that power over to parliament and the nobles in it. They gained power in the changes they could make in government but lost social privileges.
However, France was ruled by an absolutist style of government under Louis XIV. He built the Versailles Palace where nobilities could live. He 'kept his enemies closer than his friends'. The nobility couldn't survive without LVIX so they latched on to him, losing power. But they gained privileges at the palace; they had benefits and access to many different amenities such as theatres, fine dining and entertainment. They were unaware of the political happenings therefore, losing their power in government and becoming inferior to The Sun King.
I agree with Ariel in the sense that he established a good financial base. Even though it cost an immense amount of money to build the Versailles, the revenue it brought about annually was enough the cover the costs and bring profit.
I also agree with Alinna on the fact that in the constitutional monarchy, parliament had the power to dismiss laws. This allowed for a fairer and more well rounded view on laws passed and actions of the monarch because their actions had to go through parliament before any action could be taken.
i agree with allen that constitutionalism helped institute a balance of powers. i think constitutionalism helped because it didn't put as much weight on the king/queen. instead if the king makes a bad decision parliament could help and change this decision. although absolutist countries had more powerful rulers constitutionalism takes out the chance of there being any mistake at all.
i also agree with kevin salgado because he says that in england there were different view points that would benefit the whole country. i think this statement is true because the chances of more than one person messing up and choosing the wrong decision are less than the chances of on ruler messing up and making a wrong decision. For example if the absolute king thinks something that is wrong it still goes but for constitutionalism if the the king thinks something wrong it probably wont go.
Post a Comment