Absolutism And France's Monarchial System
In the later portion of the 1600’s, the monarchial systems of both England and France were changing. England strayed away from an absolute monarch and ran toward a mightier parliament instead. The opposite was occurring in France as Louis XIV strengthened his own office while weakening the general assembly of France, the Estates General. Absolutism, the political situation in which a monarch controls makes all political, social, economic, and cultural decisions in a government without checks or balances, had been introduced by Charles I and James I. However, it never took hold. In France, Louis XIV took absolutism to extremes, claiming to be a servant of God. A limited monarch, England’s monarchial system, is a government in which a monarch
…show more content…
Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the …show more content…
They hoped to gain power by sanctioning the monarch. Bands of fighters, led by nobles, terrorized and plundered the lower classes around the country in an effort to deteriorate the king's authority. Eventually, they hired Spanish troops to carry on their fight, even though Spain and France were presently at war. Although the movement failed, it left an enduring imprint on the general public as to the worth of having a commanding monarch to safeguard them from things in analogous nature to the revolt. When the Cardinal died in 1661, Louis XIV, whom Cardinal Mazarin had been governing for a while, took supremacy. Louis XIV became the absolute, resilient ruler that France had been looking for to reestablish order in France. Louis XIV took hold of the country and put himself at the head of government. An excerpt from Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture states, “Without this absolute authority, the king could neither do good nor prevent evil. His power must be such that no one can hope to escape him”. It also states that, “Royal power is absolute”, and, “All the power of the individual subjects is united in the person of the king” (Bishop Jacques Bossuet). The Estates General was never called together, and most of the
Both Charles I and James I tried to rule without parliament’s consent, but parliament’s control at the time was so great that neither Charles nor James were able to successfully decrease its role in English government. In the Bill of Rights, it is declared by parliament that certain actions are illegal without consent of parliament. For example, “The king’s supposed power of suspending laws without the consent of parliament is illegal” (James Madison). The English were not ready to give all the power of government to a single person because they had been under the combined rule of both the king and the assembly for such an extended time. Parliament, where members could be elected and changed as necessary, as opposed to an absolute monarch with no restraints, was supported by land-owning nobles and merchants. In 1642, differences between parliament and Charles I sparked England's civil war, which was partially caused by the refusal of parliament to give up their power in government and partly by royal stubbornness to share control of the country. This was the chief turning point for absolutism in England. Beginning with Charles II, monarchs realized the amount of power Parliament had and knew that instead of working against one another, they had to work with each other. Since parliament was so centralized and so stalwartly entrenched into the …show more content…
They hoped to gain power by sanctioning the monarch. Bands of fighters, led by nobles, terrorized and plundered the lower classes around the country in an effort to deteriorate the king's authority. Eventually, they hired Spanish troops to carry on their fight, even though Spain and France were presently at war. Although the movement failed, it left an enduring imprint on the general public as to the worth of having a commanding monarch to safeguard them from things in analogous nature to the revolt. When the Cardinal died in 1661, Louis XIV, whom Cardinal Mazarin had been governing for a while, took supremacy. Louis XIV became the absolute, resilient ruler that France had been looking for to reestablish order in France. Louis XIV took hold of the country and put himself at the head of government. An excerpt from Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture states, “Without this absolute authority, the king could neither do good nor prevent evil. His power must be such that no one can hope to escape him”. It also states that, “Royal power is absolute”, and, “All the power of the individual subjects is united in the person of the king” (Bishop Jacques Bossuet). The Estates General was never called together, and most of the