“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!!!
17th Century England Event
Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
Social Conditions in France
Louis XIVs Court
Lifestyles of 17th Century People
54 comments:
In the seventeenth century England's Parliament was able to have their own privileges of having national power, but they had to give up their regional power. In this way, they were able to retain most of their power. France's Parliament retained their privileges of nobility, such as title and status. After the king, Louis XIV, constructed Versailles they lost their power. England and France began their ideas of politics at the same level, but France moved on to succeed in having an Absolute Monarchy. England maintained a Parliamentary Monarchy after failing to establish an absolute monarchy. Each resulted from the historical developments and political personalities that molded each nation during the seventeenth century. The political forces were military concerns and in addition to the costs of government, monarchs sought new revenues. Only certain monarchies that succeeded in building a secure financial base, assemblies, or diets achieved absolute rule. The French were the ones that succeeded, whereas the the English failed.
In france when louis xiii was in reign. The nobility was able to control louis the viii because he was so narsisstic. He had weakness for flattery and praises. The nobility new this and used it agianst him by distracting him so the Nobiles can deal with the important matters. But when Louis XIV came in power he sent the court to live in paris. That way louis Xiv can get away with stuff without having to deal with them. He did let the court have priveleges but they lost their complete power. They could not control Louis Xiv how they controlled Louis Xiii. This was partly due to that in France the way of goverment was Political abolutism.
In england Parliament did not have the privelege to change taxes by themselves. the king had to be there to decide with parliament. parliament did not have prvileges like these. But it did have power in the way that if the king needed money parliament was in power of that. it provided the money and consent. parliament in france sought to gain power by revolting agianst the king causing the English civil war.They had control of the army. England at the end had to give them power.
Check this second to last sentence L. Santos:
parliament in france sought to gain power by revolting agianst the king causing the English civil war.
Also be sure to stay on track with the question is asking you Michaela....valid statement and why? or not a valid statement and why? Your to the point but you distract from the question with other items. Be sure to mention specific leaders to solidify your answers. Thanks for getting us started.
In the seventeenth-century, there were two different models of government in Europe. In England, the aristocracy retained its power above the King due to the parliament monarchy. However, they lost privileges, like altering taxes without the monarch's permission. The Parliament had power over the king in that they permitted the king's necessities of finance. The political development in France was absolutism, which kept the privileges of the aristocracy, but reduced it's power. Louis XIV believed in absolute monarch and dominated the nobility by sending them to Versailles, but he didn't threaten their social standing. The French monarchy achieved in the effort of having a safe financial foundation without depending on the nobility.
In France, the growing aristocracy had an extreme amount of power, which,they later lost many privileges. This is the exact opposite when compared to the rest of Europe, especially England. King Louis XIV saw that that true greatness comes from absolute power, and he realized that the power lied in the nobles. In contrast, England almost did the exact opposite of what France did, with an opposite outcome.The imbalance of power in both France and England were impacted by religion through all because of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the influence France had on England.The economic aspect through what social group was taxed the heaviest and political aspect ,because of how they choose to control and reign over the country.
I am adding on to my blog. English aristocracy, specifically the House of Commons in parliament, maintained some and lost privileges. In England the nobility did not have that many privileges. For example, they could not pay taxes themselves. When it came to power if money was involved then they usually were. Almost all of their power was money. The French aristocracy lost power but kept privileges.Two key players are Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin. Mazarin attempted to impose direct royal administration on France. Richelieu circumscribed many political privileges that Henry IV had extended to French protestants in the Edict of Nantes. Mazarin also, had a series of rebellions that were among French nobles known as Fronde. Louis XIV began to rule by himself and take all power because of this. For example he ruled as an autocrat to break apart the power of the nobles. He also ordered Versailles which required that nobles, if they wanted to advance, need to become courtiers. The nobles had privileges intact but little real power; the power then on stayed with the king.
Thank you Mr. Neal for the advice; I have revised it many times and I hope this is what you are looking for.
You better believe it...great job folks, lets see if your classmates can add some more flavor to this blog...
Mr.Neal I must have not been thinking ,when i wrote that.
I agree with Tt for 3
The French monarchy sent the nobleman to versailles. With the nobleman out of sight, Louis XIV did not have to run things trhough them. Louis XIV made it seem like they had some privleges.
I agree with Danielle. When the edict of nantes was revoked it made the French monarchy lose some of its power and control. French citizens were used to freedom of religion so when Louis XIV revoked the Edict of nantes they were harshly disturbed. Louis the XIV started executing Jesuits.
France obtained a large amount of power for then lost a good amount of their privileges. One main person that contributed to this was King Louis XIV. King Lewis strongly believed that power lied in the aristocracy and that true greatness came from power. I believe that a main reason why the power was so unbalanced was due to religion.The Edict of Nantes was influential at the time. I believe that the Edict of Nantes was put in place for religious tolerance. Since the aristocracy wanted religious unity, it would appear that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes would be giving power to the aristocracy. Revoking the Edict of Nantes gave a privileged of religious unity but reduced the power because of the influence it gave upon King Louis XIV . England was influenced by Charles 11 to bring Catholicism to an anti-catholic community. As the aristocracy was struck in amazement by this movement the legislation decided to pass a collection of laws that would limit the power of the English King. For limiting the power of the crown by the laws passed gained power towards England aristocracy. But they lost privileges of religious separation. Not only religion came into play when it came to power, taxation of which class also played a large role.
In France, the aristocracy seemed to have gained privileges and lost power. While the monarchs such as Louis XIV took all the power, the nobility were left with favorable remainders. Louis XIV believed that the monarchy should have all authority, and because of this, power was taken away from others due to his idea of absolutism. Even though power was taken from the nobility, they had the privilege of paying for luxury. When Louis XIV built the palace of Versailles, nobiles were able to pay for their residence at the palace, and this luxury made them dependent on monarchs. If one is dependent, the person that is being depended on holds all the power. However, nobles were still able to enjoy the glory of the palace in exchange for their independence. As for the English, it would seem as if people gained power and lost privileges. With parliament, there was more of a focus on what the community wanted, rather than the desires of a single person. This gave representatives of this society more power, but at the same time, all these decisions limited privileges. Seeing as monarchs and parliament both wanted power, they were always coming up with new laws and acts that made them superior. This affected the nobility and citizens because the laws placed limitations on their freedom as higher authorities tried to tell people who to obey. All in all, the way I interpreted the chapter differed from the quote.
Danielle Eales: I agree with your response, despite the fact that my answer differs. I forgot to factor in the idea that France was at its peak during this time. For this reason, it must have gained power. Since absolutism was represented by Louis XIV, the French monarch gained power by taking everyone else's influence on the country. Although the monarchy did, in fact, get stronger, their rise in power led to a decrease in power in the nobility and citizens of the towns.
Bryanna Esplana: I liked the way you took the Edict of Nantes into consideration as you responded. I failed to take religion into consideration as I reflected on the French and English aristocracy. I agree that religion plays a big role, especially in this time in history. After all, we had just learned about the reformation, and the revival of religion. This connects with our change in subject to absolutism because now the monarchy is trying to gain their power back, which of course, affects the power and privileges of society.
In France, the ruler didn't go out of his way to bring down the social status of the nobles, so they didn't feel as if their power was threatened. In reality, there were councils which checked the nobles' powers while making them think they still had some power. Due to the monarch managing to retain the nobles' power while not attacking them, the nobles felt no threat to their position. This maintained the noblity's social standing and influence, but their political and secular influence lowered due to the people who oversaw the nobles' actions under the king's orders. In England, however, the nobility managed to keep much of their power due to the king needing their financial support. Parliament had a strong say in England's ongoings because the king always had to refer back to them whenever he needed help - this put the king under the Parliament's influence when it came to certain aspects. However, the monarchs ruling in the 17th century tried to separate themselves from Parliament, and revoked many of its acts and dispersed Parliament many times. This differs with the situation in France because, while the English nobility lost their influence, they still managed to maintain their power.
Looking into France, it appears that the aristocracy gained power in certain areas and lost power in some. Meanwhile the monarchs, such as Louis XIV, believed in Absolutism that allows them to gain more power and rule freely, and because of this powers were absorbed from others, such as the nobles, due to his beliefs. Even tho a moderate amount of power was taken from the nobility, they still had enough power, and wealth to pay for luxuries. When Louis XIV built the palace of Versailles, nobles were able to afford a residence at the palace, and this luxury made them totally dependent on monarchs. If either one side is dependent on the other, the side that is depended on is believed to have all authority and power over the other side. However, even without power, Nobles were still able to enjoy their wealthy life because they own such a luxury, but in exchange for all this fortunates they have to give up on their independence/freedom. On the otherhand, the English would seem as if they gained power and lost privileges just like France did. With parliament, there was a more certain amount more of attention on what the society was desperate for, rather than the desires of just a single person of the high class which was more usual back in that era. This action allowed the representatives of this society to gain more power, but at the same time, all privileges and authorities were limited. Monarchs and Parliament both were intensely desperate for power and control, which caused them to constantly establish new laws and acts that made them superior to their opponents. This event may have deeply affected the nobility and innocent citizens because the laws restricted their freedom even more as higher class citizens/authorities attempt to inform people who to listen to. All in all, France and english differed in powers and authorities, France were able to retain privileges of nobles and English were able to contain their own privilges of having national power but had to sacrifice regional power. Both areas were desperate and aiming for the same goal, but in the end they gain and lose the opposites.
I agree with Danielle, on the gaining and losing of the opposites of the rest of europe. Not only did King Louis XIV realized, he also took actions and successfully gain more power and authority. The process of gaining power and authority led him to achieve the Absolute power he was longing/desperate for. The palace he built mesmerized the noble's and had them be dependent on him but in exchange, he allowed them to own a residence at his new built place.
I agree with Michaela on the fact that she stated French succeeded whereas the English failed. Tho the succession and failure, I believe, only applied to Absolutism. In the end, both areas were aiming for the same goal but at the same time both of them gained half of the power but lose the other half. They couldn't totally manipulate the overall and conquer with absolute power. So therefore, I agree on the achievement in Absolutism but there was not an actual success or failure because their amount of power was similar and somewhat equal.
in the 17th century England lost their privilages but were still able to keep their power.The monarchs that ruled during the 17th century were not able to handle the parliament.the revoloutins that resulted put the aristocrats of England in great power.Englands aristocrats also showed great arrogance due to the massive financial power they had.they also maintained their its economic dominance and priviliages.Louis XIV strengthened the French Monarchy.
I agree with the point Lily made "If one is dependent, the person that is being depended on holds all the power." I feel that this summarizes how the French nobility maintained their priveledges but lost their power. Due to the Versailles and other factors, the nobility was puting their dependency on the monarch, which resulted in them losing their. However, because the Versailles was constructed for the nobles, that indicated how their social standing was still important to Louis XIV.
Tommy, when you said "This action allowed the representatives of this society to gain more power, but at the same time, all privileges and authorities were limited," regarding acts of parliament and their focus, I feel that what you said Parliament focuses on does not demonstrate how their authoratative priveledges were limited. I think that when the English monarchs dissolved Parliament, that was a key factor in restraining Parliamentary and nobles' priviledges.
In the seventeenth century the French's Parliament maintained their nobility status. During Louis XII reign the nobles were able to take advantage of his flaws of his weakness towards compliments. The nobles used this to their advantage and dealt with important matter the way they saw fit and distracted the king. When Louis XIV took over the throne he knew how the Parliament was an chose to limiit their power and say in government affairs, therefore Louis XIV ruled as a absolute ruler during his reign.
English Parliament obtained the right to have national but but unfortunately had to abandon the right of regional power.In England the Parliament had some power, but the king still had to approve matters before they were put into action. The nobilities powers were limited, such as not paying taxes themselves. Religion and taxation played a significant role in the struggle of power.
In 1649, after the English civil war of Roundheads (Parliament men) vs. Cavaliers (nobles), the British king Charles I was beheaded and the government was taken over by Parliament.The rule of the king was abandon by the rule of people elected to Parliament, who made the laws and also cancelled them.Since to vote and be elected to Parliament you had to be a male landowner, the nobility adjusted much of Parliament and the House of Lords retained its power.
In the 1660s, Louis XVI began ruling himself after the civil war (The Fronde). He wanted to lower the weaken the power of the nobility by ruling himself. This civil war brought Louis XIV poverty, misfortune, fear, humiliation, cold and hunger. This shaped his character and he would never forgive either Paris, the nobles, or the common people
In seventeenth century France, the aristocracy had retained power because Louis XIV distrusted them so much, however, he manipulated them so he could keep them in check; he also used Versailles to keep the nobles in check by having the uppermost nobles spend a part of the year there however, they were to pay for their own luxury, which shows how they lost some of their power, however they get privileges in return. Louis XIV needed to have absolute power over them, and seeing as he did, he was able to have complete control over his subjects including the nobles, and this is where we could say that absolutism succeeded in France because this helped kept the social mobility stable, and by giving the nobility "privileges" he was able to keep them happy and oblivious to what he was doing. In England, where the struggle for power was prominent, the English parliament had two bodies, The House of Commons, and House of Lords. The house of commons were made up of the Gentry, the wealthy landowners in the countryside. They had relied heavily on legal precedent to limit the monarchy's power over economic and political matters. And continuing on to what Laura and Ishani said, Parliament did not have a whole lot of power over everything, especially with taxation. They could not tax unless the king had approved of it, which could be said that this also contributed to England's struggle for power.So while, the nobles in France had lost power they had gained some privileges in return, in England however, where absolutism was beginning to fail, Parliament had issues with the monarch, seeing as they did not want an absolutist but simply a ruler that knows how to compromise and meet halfway for agreement, however, seeing as James I and Charles I were not sufficient rulers, and dissolving Parliament more than once, you could say that their power was limited.
Tommy Cheong: I agree with you in the fact that France was capable of reducing the nobility’s power, but Louis XIV still allowed the nobles to have privileges in his Palace of Versailles. The nobility lost authority to the monarch due to his strong belief in absolutism and divine right of Kings. England had a parliamentary government in which the monarch’s authority was limited by checks.
Sarah: Louis XIV had complete control over France and his absolute power kept the nobility confined. I agree with your comment about how England’s parliament struggled for authority over the monarchs because they still had to have approvals from the King.
In the seventeenth century, France's parliament kept their status and title of nobility, however i disagree with Sarah when she said that parliament kept their power. King Louis XIV constructed Versailles so that they would not have power. He did not trust parliament/ nobles because they tried to manipulate him as a child and take away his power. King Louis XIV gave parliament luxuries and kept them happy, but they had no power and did nothing for France. I also disagree that King Louis XIV was an example of great absolute power. He did do a lot of good for his country. However, when he died, he left his country weak and in debt. I will say though that King Louis XIV was much more successful with being an absolute ruler than English kings. He had a much better hold on parliament/nobles and more power over them aswell. KIng Charles I for example did not compare to the power that King Louis XIV had over his people. During King Charles I's reign, England's nation divided. One side was King Charle's I and his followers. And the other was Parliament with Oliver Cromwell leading them and their followers. King Charles I was executed and Oliver Cromwell took power. He was a horrible ruler and once he died, King Charles II took charge with more of a monarchy- parliamentary unity.
Laura:I agree with you on the action that Louis XIII used to get rid of the court to be able to get away with his harsh actions,but I believe when the court came back they standardized the adjustments.
Byanna:I agree that a main reason why the power was so unbalanced was due to religion.The Edict of Nantes changed the opinions of many of the common people. It provided civil unity and after it being released Protestants and other religions weren't treated as mere heretics to the catholic church.
i believe this has something to do with england having a parliamentary monarch and france having an absolutist monarch. Due to this reason whatever power the nobility had in france was overshadowed by the sole authority, though since they had money they still had privileges. The nobility of France were put in the Palace of Versailles to pretty much keep them from trying to build up their already reduced power.In contrast their power in england was still there but parliament's presence "took" some of their privileges like changing taxes. The difference of power for nobility in the two countries was all due to their choice of governing.France quieted the nobility without altering their privileges while england allowed them to keep most of their power but they made sure to monitor the power they had.
Sarah I agree with your statement on how Louis XIV had to keep his nobles on check and absolutism did come in place and it did benefit france. Englands main struggle was taxation. The king had the right to tax people. That is where the questionof weather or not the king can rule without parlament. Their wasn't much of a stable parlament that could oppose the king and that is where absolutis rulers came in place. Though the house of lords and house of commons did limit the power of the king by his economic and politica issues the outcome of that brought puritents into taxation. King louis XIV was one of the best absolute rulers of his time. He was the reason why france was in the top 5 best countries in europe. It had the greatest populaton. The economy was stable and trade was at large .
i agree with laura, louis xiii wasn't the best leader but louis xiv fixed this by cracking down his power on the nobility. While Parliament in France was existent they were always getting pushed away by a lot of the leaders. In england parliament did reduce the nobility's power such as changing taxation methods but nobility in both countries were reduced anyways. The power of the nobility was either reduced by parliament or the king in this time.
i agree with danielle, Louis xiv saw that nobility had the power which is why he quieted them by putting them in the Palace of Versailles. With them out of the way his power was at its prime. In england parliament's presence lowered mostly the king and the nobility's power hence evening out the power of the upper class. The scale of power in both countries were on different ends, in france the king outweighing everyone's power while in england it was mostly equal.
I disagree with Bryanna Esplana that religion was the main cause of the disagreements. I believe that religion played a big part in it. The main reason for the arguing was the question of how the government would be ran and by who. Many people didn't agree with Louis XIV being an absolute ruler and not listening to what the people wanted and disreguardibg their rights.
I agree with Tommy Cheong when he stated that France and England taught for the same goals and went about it in different ways. Both countries wanted to establish themselves and centralize a government. I like how you said both monarchs and parliament sought to be in control. In France the monarch was possessed more authority than the parliament. However in England they had power but it was limited.
Englands aritocracy lost its privledges but retained its power. In england the king still depended on the nobles finanialy by paying taxes, which limited there power. The king had to keep getting input from the parliment to inforce his rules.The monarchs soon revolted
against them to be seperate.Unlike England the French aristocracy retained privledges but lost its power. The privledges were still retained due to the king not looking to depend on them. The had more luxury. The power was lost due to no one really knowing who had the actual control.
Lily L: I agree with lily. I like how she justified how both sides either gained or lost power.I like the points of how she added "However, nobles were still able to enjoy the glory of the palace in exchange for their independence".It showed how england in a way still kept its power. They did by trying to keep the nobles content.
Bryanna esplana: I like how you used religion. It was a different point on view on the affects. You also did a very well job of backing up your reasoning using the edict of Nantes. I do agree that religion played a very big role.
In the seventeenth century England, parliament played a major role that led to constitutionalism within their country. The aristocracy in England did maintain power by fighting back when the king is just using them for money. They demanded a say in the decisions regarding their country. The kings had no choice but to, as they needed money for wars. Even though Parliament had a say over political matters, they had laws limiting their power and restrict them from their loose extravagant lifestyle. In France, the aristocracy retained its privileges but lost power. The nobility were bribed by Louis XIV offering a luxurious stay at the Versailles. Louis XIV did so to make sure he kept the nobilities happy but under control. He also appointed favored nobilities or accepted payments from nobilities to be a part of the nobility of robe.
Bryanna E.:
I disagree with you. When the Edict of Nantes was revoked, it removed a great deal of Hugenots, who were the more of the upper class people that held high positions in the society. Therefore, power was withdrawn from the nobilities rather than given to. Religious unity didn’t really occur in France as most of the influential upper/middle class was exiled out of France.
Sarah :
I also disagree with you. Your answer regarding the taxation by parliament is incorrect. Parliament can alone levy taxes. They obtain the power to deny the king’s wish to levy tax on people; therefore they can place taxes without the king’s consent because the king is revoked of that right. Although parliament was dissolved by Charles I, he failed to rule sufficiently without them. He had to again call back Parliament when he was defeated by the Scots in 1640, making him dependent on Parliament. This gave the Parliament an upper hand over the situation which bestowed power upon them.
During the seventeenth century, England's government was overthrown by parliament. Voting was limited to male landowners only, and had very few people actually eligible. Nobles lost most of their power, and couldn't pass laws without others' consent. They also had monarchs during this time period, in certain regions of the country. Monarchs gave a single man, never a woman, ultimate power. This meant that the ruler could pass whatever laws they felt they needed to instill. Absolutism could become a very bad thing very quickly, and dictatorship was always a very viable option.
I agree with Sarah in the fact that the aristocracy had retained power because Louis XIV distrusted them so much. Also bringing into account the House of Commons and the House of Lords I thought displayed proof extremely nicely. She proved that absolutism in France succeeded. The House of Commons and The House of Lords were wealthy landowners in the countryside and mainly the Gentry.
I agree with Natsuki that in England the nobility power was stable due to the king needing their financial support. Also that the parliament played a huge part in England and the power between classes. This put the king under the Parliament's influence when it came to certain events as Natsuki said. Even though in the 17th century they tried to separate themselves from the parliament this is different than France. The English nobility managed their power but lost their influence.
Bryanna Esplana, I also disagree with you on your statement that the primary cause was religion. I do not think religion played as much of a factor in politics as they did before. They separated religion and politics, for the most part, and did not rely on a certain religion to govern a particular nation. I see where you could think that though, as it did have a part in aristocracy, but very minor. Each nation did have the recommended religion to follow, but it wasn't necessarily based upon only that.
Sarah.. I agree with you, that the parliament didn't have a large amount of power over their people. And the point you made, "especially with taxation", the rulers could not change everything. Some did get greedy, but it was very difficult to make such big rifts among the people without any dispute. The parliament and voting, even though voting was not fair, helped partially to keep things under control.
Bry I disagree with you also with the fact that religious acts had a lot to do with politics during this period. Religion and politics yes before this have definitely gone hand and hand together but for this particular time politics and religion broke off from each other and didn't reflect on each other as much. It was very difficult to govern religiously at this time due to the fact there was no one religion as there had been before. There now was the idea that the two were not completely separate concepts.
I agree with what Sarah said about Louis XIV and how he was a perfect example of absolute ruler. Sarah explained the reasoning for what he did with his power. She also explained the privileges that the nation had. She also explained the places of where the people were in society of how they knew where they stood.
"One king, One law, One faith"... These were the words spoken in the seventeenth century by a man known as the sun king who is an excellent
ent example of absolute power. Like Sarah and others may have said Louis XIV limited the nobles power. The main reason Louis XIV demonstrated resentment towards the Nobles was because he relied on childhood memories of when he was given the throne at I recall five years old where nobles saw this as an advantage to take over so they tried to take over young Louis XIV. As Louis XIV grew up that judgment on the nobles seemed to stay with him and that is why he limited their power.
Both France and England shared their ideas on politics about absolute monarchy. England failed to establish it but France seemed to gain an absolute monarchy. This put France way ahead of England politic wise in the seventeenth century.
In France ,the aristocracy had an a large amount of power which they lost in the 17th century for an exceeding amount of privileges.This result in franc was due to the actions of an absolutist, King Louis XIV who saw "that the true greatness comes from power". Contrasting France, England did have the complete opposite views and thought that having a balance of powers with a Parliament was the way to go.The imbalance of power and privileges in both France and England were impacted by religion through the Edict of Nantes. Since the aristocracy wanted religious unity the edict of Nantes was put in to place for religious tolerance. In doing so the revocation of edict of Nantes would be giving power to the aristocracy.Revoking the Edict of Nantes gave a privilege of religious unity, but reduced their power because of the actual influence that made King Louis XIV make the decision.
England was influenced by King Charles II to make it an anti-catholic country. In doing this it made the aristocracy scared. In this result the legislation passed a bunch of laws to limit the power of the English king. In result the aristocracy gained power in limiting the power of the king but lost privileges of religious separation.
Seventeenth century France the aristocracy was able to gain a large amount of power but had unfortunately lost many privileges. The person who made that happen was no doubt king Lois XIV. Absolute rulers such as Lois XIV wanted all the power and did not want people such as the nobility to stop them, so that is why he got rid of many of the privileges that the nobility had. One way that he tried to get rid of the nobilities power by making the nobles depend on the monarchy because Lois XIV forced them to live in the Versailles. What England did was completely the opposite from France because England's aristocracy may have lost power but had many privileges. A large part of it is because England's Parliament helped the other social classes. The Parliament created laws that helped limit the power of the monarchs. With the Parliament the king of England can not do laws without checking with Parliament causing the kings power to be limited.
i agree with Brynna Esplanna. The edict of Nantes did have a big influence on privileges and power be gained and lost.Because of the aritocracy wanting relgious unity,the decision of revoking the Edict of nantes gave privileges to france but reduced the power because of the religious influence. In contrary England being influenced by Charles II to try making England a anti-catholic country, the aristocracy gained power by limiting the king of England because of his decision but lost privileges with the unity of religion.
I also agree with danielle when she said "The economic aspect through what social group was taxed the heaviest and political aspect ,because of how they choose to control and reign over the country". In France the lower class or peasants had a big say in where the money went.The aristocracy’s tax breaks led to them having no say in anything political decreasing their power severely, but giving them the privilege of tax breaks.In England, the exact opposite happened.A lot of the responsibility was on the nobility and the middle class to provide taxes. When compared to France, they lost a significant privilege, but gained a substantial amount of power.
This statement is accurate for both french and english aristocracy. As for the english, they gained power all throughout the 17th century.This began in the late 1620s when they forced Charles I to sign the petition of right, forcing him to go through parliament for just about everything he did, and culminated with the Glorious Revolution 1688 when parliment brought in King William of Orange if he agreed to their Bill of rights. The french on the other hand, were under the rule of an ablosute ruler, Louis XIV, who minimized the aristocracy's power by forbidding parlements to oppose his decree. Among other things, he implements the intendant system, which weakened the nobility further.
Danielle Eales: I disagree with your assessment of the french aristocracy's power gain. Though King Louis XIV did gain a great deal of power, I do not think he is representative of the aristocracy. The aristocracy made up the parliment that he was in control of, which didnt have any ability to contradict the decisions of the monarch. Because of this, I believe that because of the rise of absolutism in France, the aristocracy lost much, if not all, of their power.
The statement made could very well be considered accurate. In the seventeenth century, the "aristocracy" can refer to the nobility that took its "power" in being part of the English Parliament, the governing body used to check the power of the English monarchy. Parliament held the right to decide whether or not to grant funding for things such as wars that the monarch in charge requested, but if they went against what the king wished, he had the authority to, and frequently made us of this authority, dissolve them as a Parliament. In this way, they really did keep their political power, but lost their privileges. The counterpart to this in France's society concerned the nobility there. After witnessing the fronde as a young boy, King Louis XIV understood that the nobility having power that challenged the king was not something that a ruler wanted. Because of that, he took measures to keep the nobility out of influencing political affairs. Aristocrats in France were bribed with the beautiful Palace of Versailles, which they could maintain residence at only if they stayed in the king's favor, and to do, must refrain from exercising their power in any way against him. They could keep their lives free and live leisurely, but at the cost of their political power. This is the way they retained privileges, but lost their power.
I disagree with Morgan's response. I feel as if she is drawing conclusions from irrelevant information. The role of women in society held almost no significance in the balance of "privilege" and "power" in England and France. Realistically, women WERE given absolute power, with a prime (though also irrelevant to the topic) example being Maria Theresa of Austria.
I agree with Adrian. The Palace of Versailles is in fact a great example of a "privilege" given to the nobility in France. I also agree with your conclusion that this was the work of the king trying to "silence" them. I would add that Parliament was dissolved multiple times, as this is good way of proving that the english nobles lost their rights.
I agree with Lily because Lois is the perfect example of an absolute ruler in this time. The idea of monarchs at that time was that most rulers wanted themselves and ONLY themselves in charge of their country. They especially did not want nobles in their way. In order to do this they would have to make sure that they were in charge by themselves and to make everyone else depend on them.
I also agree with Tommy with the idea that rulers such as Lois XIV were in defiantly in favor of absolutionism. As i stated earlier one of the ways that monarchs did this was to make nobles rely on rulers. I also agree with Tommy that what England did was an exact opposite of what France did. Also as I said before, England's Parliament greatly affected England's monarchs decisions.
England and France during the seventeenth century did have a shift in power concerning the aristocracy. In England, previously, the nobility was privileged with tax exemptions and had very little to do with the decisions in government decisions, only being convened when the monarch was in need of financial support. I don't believe that the aristocracy had retained it's power, seeing as it had not really had any to begin with; they would still come and go at the king's will. But, when the Stuart monarchs came to rule, that is when they took a stand and were adamant on being apart of national reforms. Even after parliament victory of the civil war, Oliver Cromwell also did not follow their wishes to disband his army and he dismissed them. Charles II was able to rule without parliament as well. Only after the Glorious Revolution was the English parliament able to gain standing political power when Mary II and her husband William III recognized the Bill of Rights, subjecting future monarchs to rule with parliament as their equal.
In France, the situation had been the opposite to that of England's. The monarch's rule had been riddled with interference from the French nobility, who had their hands rooted in political affairs. Louis XIV came into power in 1643 and was successful in controlling the nobles by restringing their hold in government. He did this by the having the palace at Versailles constructed; the palace was a social center, drawing in the nobility with its lavish furnishings and extravagant decorations. It was understood that the king would not hurt their social standings or withdraw their privileges, as he had a respect for the traditional French social hierarchy. Versailles took in money from the nobility and occupied their time, keeping them out of Louis XIV's political plans.
Ishani:
I agree with your statement about Louis XIV and his ability to reduce aristocratic power is true, but you didn't mention how or why he knew how to do this. He restricted the noble's influence on political affairs with his palace of Versailles, extorting both their time and their money. Louis XIV knew that a strict, suppressive ruling would not get him anywhere with his people; when he had at first tried retracting noble privilege it resulted in a string of rebellion.
I disagree with your statement regarding the English Parliament. When you say "English Parliament obtained the right to have national but but unfortunately had to abandon the right of regional power," the national power they"obtained the right to have" is the same "regional power" they "unfortunately had to abandon." They also gained power after the Glorious Revolution when the Bill of Rights ensured that Parliament's consent would be needed in order for monarchs to pass new laws and that it would be convened every three years, so they did have political power during the seventeenth century.
Ryu:
The Fronde was an unsuccessful attempt by the nobles to gain the privileges that they had lost from Louis XIV's initial ruling; because it was unsuccessful it didn't lead to a civil war. What Louis XIV got out of it was a new perspective on ruling, with that experience he realized that such harsh governing would erupt in violence. He turned to a new direction: centralizing the monarchy without the expense of wealthy groups' social privileges. Louis XIV advocated this strategy with the palace of Versailles, successfully limiting aristocratic power in politics while still letting them live in the luxury of their social position.
Post a Comment