During the seventeenth century, two of the world's most significant European powers, England and France, both starting with very similar forms of government, took two different and very contrasting directions to government rule. These two directions, an absolutist monarchy in France and a parliamentary monarchy in England, would become the models of government for many countries to follow, and one can draw parallels to the twentieth centuries' more dominant form of governments, democracy and communism.
The reasons for these two contrasting forms of government were centered on the monarchs for both countries. The French monarchs, Louis XIII and Louis XIV, were able to work with the nobles and upper class of their society, even manipulate them, all the while maintaining the "divine right of kings". The French monarchs also benefited from a society that was largely monotheological. The Roman Catholics vastly outnumbered citizens of different faiths, such as Protestants and Catholic Jansenists. This enabled the French monarchs to mostly avoid the internal religious strife that devastated England during the seventeenth century. These factors together with the abilities of both French monarchs, as well as their advisors, as able rulers helped to establish a government where the King ruled with autonomy, answerable to nobody - an absolutist monarchy.
The English monarchs, James I, Charles I, Oliver Cromwell, Charles II, and James II ruled at a time when competing religious ideologies were tearing England apart. At various times during the seventeenth century, differing religious views held supreme. Catholic, Protestant, and Puritan beliefs were at constant odds, and religious tolerance wasn't a high concept. Religious strife was not the only factor for these monarchs to deal with. Parliament, which was comprised of nobles and upper class, and therefore controlled the purse strings, was mounting a constant struggle with the monarchy for control of power. The English monarchs never learned the lessons from their French counterparts, and joined the struggle against the upper class instead of working with them. By the end of the seventeenth century, Parliament held more political power than the monarch did, and the parliamentary monarchy was born.
Louis XIII became King of France in 1610 at the age of nine when his father, Henry IV was assassinated. Henry IV came to the throne after the French wars of religion. His struggles with the French nobility and the regional parliaments laid the groundwork for the absolutist monarchy that would develop in the next century.
As Louis XIII was only nine, the responsibility of governing fell upon the queen mother, Marie de Mèdicis. The queen mother, finding herself in a vulnerable position, fortified herself on two fronts. She signed a ten-year mutual defense act with Spain known as the Treaty of Fontainebleau to shore up her foreign front, and promoted Cardinal Richelieu to the role of king's chief advisor to make peace with the French nobility, shoring up her domestic front.
The appointment of Cardinal Richelieu to the role of king's chief advisor turned out to be a defining moment for France in the seventeenth century. For all intents and purposes, it was Cardinal Richelieu, and not Louis XIII, that determined France's course in the first half of the seventeenth century. Cardinal Richelieu was a devout Catholic, loyal to the King, and politically shrewd. He was able, with the King's backing, to centralize power on the throne, and thus himself, by stepping up the campaign against the regional parliaments and imprisoning or executing any defiant nobles. Cardinal Richelieu also started the campaign against the Protestant Huguenots, and successfully employed propaganda campaigns to enhance power.
Cardinal Richelieu's efforts worked to centralize power for the King, but created a growing resentment towards the crown.
The Reign of Louis XIV (1643 - 1715)
When Louis XIII died in 1643, rule was transferred to his 5-year-old son Louis XIV. As had been done for Louis XIII, a regent was assigned to administer the country until the King had matured. This regent, Cardinal Mazarin, was a student of Cardinal Richelieu and continued Richelieu's policies leading to an absolutist monarchy.
Eventually, Cardinal Mazarin's heavy handedness and years of resentment towards the crown by the nobility produced a backlash in the form of widespread rebellions in the years between 1649 and 1652 known as the Fronde. Cardinal Mazarin and Louis XIV were forced into exile as the nobles took control of France. Ironically, the rule of the nobles was so fractious that Louis XIV and Cardinal Mazarin were able to return in October 1652, and the idea of an absolutist monarchy was strengthened.
By the time Louis XIV assumed control of the monarchy, upon Mazarin's death in 1661, he was well prepared. He and his advisors perfected the art of propaganda started by Cardinal Richelieu and he started to cooperate with the nobles and regional parliaments instead of working against them. Louis XIV believed in the "divine right of kings", a belief that the king is God's regent on earth, and not subject to human judgment. He was known as the "Sun King" - just as the solar system revolved around the sun, France revolved around him. However, he realized that in order to rule efficiently, he would need the help of the nobles, and by cooperating with them he was able to complete the idea of an absolutist monarchy.
As Louis' power grew, so did his appetite for major conquest. He believed, as Cardinal Richelieu before him, that there should be religious conformity in France. His first move in this respect was the suppression of the Jansenists, which began in 1660. Ironically, the Jansenists supported a form of Catholicism that would actually be palatable to the Protestant Huguenots, and might have brought about more religious tolerance. His second move towards this end was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. This act ended the so-called religious tolerance in France, stripping Protestants of their rights and forcing many to flee.
Louis' appetite for military conquest also grew. His love for war cost France dearly in manpower and money, and never achieved much. His many wars, either for religious or territorial reasons made his rule a very bloody one.
At the time of his death, in 1715, he had succeeded in creating an absolutist monarchy, but perhaps not the one he had envisioned. The King of France was feared, not admired. The government's indebtedness, religious intolerance, and stifling control of every aspect of daily life would lead to dire consequences for France in the centuries to follow.
The Reign of James I (1603 - 1625)
James I of England began his rule in 1603 under less than ideal circumstances. He was succeeding a very popular Queen Elizabeth. He was Scottish, an outsider. He inherited a large royal debt and a deeply divided Church of England. Added to all of this, he believed deeply in the "divine right of kings" and kept council with nobody. He believed his rule was absolute, which alienated the nobles in parliament who controlled the purse strings.
James I added insult to injury against the nobles in parliament by finding ways of collecting money without parliament, which degraded their importance, and angered the populace. One of his chief advisors, the duke of Buckingham, openly sold peerages and titles to the highest bidders, which further eroded and contaminated the "blue-bloods".
Although James I had a Protestant upbringing, he managed to alienate the Puritans and Protestants in his short reign. Through a series of acts, such as trying to allow the playing of games on Sundays, peace with Spain in 1604, and hesitation in 1618 to join the thirty years war on the side of Protestant Germany, he was suspected of being pro-Catholic. It was during this time that some well-financed Puritans fled England for America. It was also during his reign that the King James Bible was published.
At the time of his death, in 1625, the English monarchy, and confidence in the throne, was beginning to unravel. England was again at war with Spain, forced by pressure of parliament, England was still in debt, and the religious conflict in the Church of England was seething.
The Reign of Charles I (1625 - 1649)
When James I died in 1625, his son, Charles I ascended to the throne. Charles I continued in his father's footsteps with many of the same failings, which eventually lead to civil war in 1642.
Again, religion was an important factor in English politics. Charles I, even more than his father, was suspected of having Catholic sympathies. The war with Spain now included France, a war that Charles I could not afford without calling parliament. When he made peace with France in 1629 and Spain in 1630, it was considered by many as a Catholic victory. Charles I also favored High-Church practices with elaborate ceremony, which offended the Puritans. To make matters worse, his wife was Catholic and heard mass daily.
It was Charles I's heavy handedness with parliament that proved to be his downfall. He was determined to call parliament as rarely as possible, and continued his father's practice of raising money without parliament. When parliament was called in 1628, during the war with Spain, they forced the King to recognize a Petition of Right. Though largely symbolic, it was the first step in the direction of reducing the monarch's power to tax and imprison people without the consent of parliament. In 1629, Charles I disbanded parliament, and intended to never call it into session again.
In 1638, Charles I's religious policy instigated a war with Scotland. Unable to raise the funds for war, he was forced to call parliament into session. This parliament, known as the "Short Parliament", tried to force the King to acknowledge a long list of grievances, and was promptly disbanded. The war was going badly, however, and Charles I was forced to call parliament into session again, this time on its own terms. This parliament, known as the "Long Parliament", instituted many reforms and conditions that were too constraining to any monarch. When Charles I tried to have the leaders of parliament arrested, it lead to a civil war that lasted four years, 1642-1646. The war ended with a parliament and Puritan victory.
Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Republic (1646 - 1660)
Under the military leadership of Oliver Cromwell, and with an alliance with Scotland, the Puritans were swept into power. The monarchy was abolished, the Anglican Church and the House of commons were disbanded, and Charles I was executed. It was during this time that Cromwell's armies invaded Scotland and Ireland, creating what is now called Great Britain.
Oliver Cromwell was not patient with the messy wrangling in parliament, and in 1653 had it disbanded. Although officially called a Puritan Republic, it really turned into a military dictatorship with an iron-fisted Oliver Cromwell in charge. His rule and the Puritan ways were so severe, that army leaders eventually lead a coup that returned the monarchy, under Charles II, son of Charles I.
The Reign of Charles II (1660 - 1685)
Charles II started his reign amidst a great deal of popularity. His personal charm was a great contrast to Cromwell and the Puritans. He immediately instituted policies that returned England to the status quo of 1642, before the civil war.
Again, religion proved to be a great obstacle. Charles II had secret Catholic leanings, his wife was Catholic, and his brother James, next in line for the throne, was a recent convert to Catholicism. All of these circumstances lead to a tremendous amount of suspicion and rumors of conspiracies, even one about James planning to kill his brother to assume the throne.
Due to a war with Holland, which France was also at war with, Charles II and Louis XIV of France became allies. Because he was receiving funds from France, Charles II did not have to struggle with parliament for money, and did not call it into session from 1681 to 1685. He used this time efficiently, using his influence to stack parliament with loyal friends. When he died in 1685, after a deathbed conversion to Catholicism, he left his brother James in a good position.
The Reign of James II (1685 - 1688)
James II, showing an incredible ability to grab defeat from the jaws of victory, quickly alienated the whole of England, including parliament. His staunch Catholicism was out front for everyone to see, and he quickly instituted policies that promoted Catholicism over all other religions, promoting Catholics to all areas of government, and replacing members of parliament with Catholics.
His steady and powerful march towards the French model of an absolutist monarchy complete with religious intolerance laid the foundation for a revolution. When a Catholic male heir was born, parliament asked his eldest daughter Mary, who was Protestant and married to William of Orange who was also Protestant, to invade England and assume the throne. This they did without incident, and the "Glorious Revolution" was complete.
William and Mary allowed parliament to take more control of the government, which reduced the monarchy to a figurehead. This new parliamentary monarchy has lasted, almost the same, to this day.
There were several reasons for the different directions taken by France and England in the seventeenth century. Religion, providence, and the character of the monarchs themselves all contributed.
Religion was probably the chief reason for the separate paths. None of the monarchs, with possibly the exception of Charles II, believed in religious tolerance. The competing religions, Protestant, Catholic, Puritan, Anglican all felt the need to subjugate and convert the others. In this respect France, which was 90% Roman Catholic, held a distinct advantage as it was able to follow a policy of religious intolerance without much acrimony. England, by comparison, was ripped apart by religious intolerance.
Providence, or fortune, played a hand in the form of foreign wars. If Charles I had not had to fight Scotland in 1640, he would not have had to call parliament, and might have been able to rule indefinitely. Likewise, the many wars fought by Louis XIV may have had a devastating effect on France's economy, but as absolute ruler he was able to rally his people under his banner.
Finally, the character of the rulers made the final impact. Both of France's monarchs, as well as Cardinal Richelieu, were able leaders who knew how to rule. By comparison, the English monarchs were weak, ineffective rulers.
It is an irony however, that although the seventeenth century can be considered to be won by France, it was England that started the eighteenth century with a better form of government. History has shown that a strong centralized government with absolute control, such as the absolutist monarchy or its relatives, dictatorship and communism, are destined to fall from their own weight and corruption. When the people in these forms of government require change, their only recourse is revolution. More representative forms of government, such as the parliamentary monarchy still in place in England, and democracy, achieve change in steps, and their leaders are held accountable.
By Matthew R. King
Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner. (1995). Western Heritage, Volume 2, 5th Edition. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
| Return to Home Page |