Similarities And Differences Of Monarchy In England And England

The late seventeenth, the eighteenth, and the early nineteenth centuries saw political issues move away from religion and onto the issue of monarchies, especially of France and England. During this time, France’s power waned due to bad leadership while England’s, and later Great Britain's, power increased due to technology and overseas colonies.

The 17th century of European history, colloquially known as the “Age of Crisis”, gave rise to a new form of government: absolutism. Religious wars, economic troubles, inflation, and new agricultural challenges such as the Little Ice Age wracked the nations of Europe and caused tremendous fear and uncertainty among the masses. Thus, as many felt that life itself was endangered, they were willing to accept the rise of a strong, independent ruler who might lead them from the darkness. In this way, absolutism emerged- a new form of monarchy based on a hereditary ruler with complete authority. Perhaps the most well known example of an absolute monarch in European history is Louis XIV, the ruler of France from 1643 to 1715.

Compare and contrast the theories and practice of absolutism and constitutional monarchy during the 17th century.

A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France

Some of the founding fathers have been firm believers in the ideas posed in John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”. The one idea that can be seen quite clearly is the complete dissenting stance taken by Locke on the thought of monarchy in civil government. “Absolute monarchy,

By the close of the 17th century, England had developed into a Constitutional Monarchy and France had developed into an Absolutist, centralized form of monarchy.

Who was King Henry VIII and who was King Louis XIV? How are they different and similar to each other? Well, one thing for sure, both of these rulers were Roman Catholics. Henry ruled England from 1491 to 1547 and Louis ruled France from 1643 to 1715. This essay analyzes the differences and the similarities between these two Roman Catholic kings. Henry VIII, compared to Louis XIV, was overall a ruthless monarch who wasn’t afraid to show off his greediness, abuse his power, or influence others with his clever political strategies. Louis XIV had the longest reign in European history (1643-1715). During this time he brought absolute monarchy to its height, established a huge and grand palace.

Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

The English colonies had different political structure, population size, and reasons for colonizing in the New World. Although the colonists were all British descent, their societies were completely dissimilar. Some ultimately left power in the hands of the church while others became royal colonies where the governor holds control. Northern colonies had a population that was not as spread out as the other colonies in the New World. And finally, those who ventured over from the Old World were either persecuted or wanted to expand Britain’s empire. These differences eventually lead to the development of distinct societies.

Throughout the pass of time, human history has seen different forms of governments, from the tribal leader, to the Roman Republic, to the absolutist monarchies of Europe. Yet, few of them had centered their main ideals in freedom and sovereignty. Actually, sovereignty is a fairly recent term, grasped among Europeans when they finally decided to stop intervening so much in each other’s affairs. For many centuries, monarchies, especially those with an absolute ruler, had been the top choice for European governments, and, as it should have been expected, they had brought the same governing style to the American colonies. Thus, it was not a surprise to observe European governments where an absolute leader had control over everything and everyone,

Patrick Henry vs The King of England What would force a nation to declare war? In 1774, the American colonies declared war on the British King because he was demanding that the colonies pay taxes on certain items and to house the soldiers. Some of the colonists did not agree with the King, so they decided to become revolutionists;however, there was some of them who thought that the new laws put in place were not unreasonable and became loyalists. Furthermore, the revolutionists wanted to get more to join their ongoing quest to defeat the King of England, so they started to write papers, articles, and books to persuade the public.

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France

This writer focuses on two parts of the question ‘The Tudor Reformation was a method of strengthening absolute monarchy in England.’. The first focus is the word ‘method’ and the second focus is the word ‘strengthening’. The word ‘method’ means a planned way of doing something. In this case, the question can be interpreted as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a planned and intentional affair to achieve strenghtened absolute monarchy. Also, this writer is going to put emphasis on the comparison meaning of the word ’strengthen’. Then this essay has to show how the Tudor Reformation made aboslute monarchy stronger than before and what changes did the Tudor Reformation bring out in comparison with the past. According to these focuses, the question can be understood as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a calculated event and it was to accomplish more powerful abosolute monarchy than before in England.’ However, this writer disagrees with the sentence and thinks that the Tudor Reformation was not an affair that had an intention to reinforce abosolute monarchy. Therefore, in the main body, the essay is going to concentrate on whether it was an intentional or unintentional matter that is related to strengthen absolute royal authority. Moreover, figuring out whether the absolute monarchy was consolidated than before. Finally, this essay will examine how the politics was at that time. At the end, in the conclusion part, it puts this issue aside