England, France, and Spain all had their distinct identities coming out of the seventeenth century, but how they got those identities is the bigger question. England developed a new way to limit the powers of the King and allow more citizens to have a voice, which changed England forever. France would become the first place for medieval universities to pop up in Europe, and would start a war with England that transformed both states forever. Spain was a huge center for Christianity and went through a “reconquest” for land that was controlled by Muslims and eventually led to Jews and Muslims alike, being kicked out. There were many differences between these three countries, but also some interesting similarities that led them to greatness, each …show more content…
bill of rights), that established general rules for England and “stipulated that the king should levy no taxes without the consent of those he taxed, that no free man should be punished until he had been judged guilty by a jury of his peers, that no one should be arrested or imprisoned without a warrant, and that no unqualified person should hold public office.” (Pg. 226). So this limited the power of King John of England greatly. A big difference that set England apart from Spain and France is that they did not have something like the Magna Carta, also they transitioned, religiously speaking, from Christianity to Catholicism all the way to Protestantism, which neither Spain nor France had as many transitions.This was the start of the evolution of England of giving more power to the people, rather than the King and later on the Church. Eventually, new monarchs came to power in England due to the Glorious Revolution in 1688-89, and England now became a mixed monarchy that was “governed by the ‘king in Parliament’ according to the rule of law. After 1688, no English monarch ever again attempted to govern without Parliament, which has met annually ever since, while strengthening its control over taxation and expenditure.” (Pg. 412). France did in fact, have a parliament system like England’s but it was not as successful and used as properly, during their evolution to the seventeenth century. So we saw England start out with absolute Monarchs and eventually through the Magna Carta and Glorious Revolution, evolve into power for the commercial
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
Differently, England failed at absolutism as a result of unstable, unpowerful, and differently minded kings and their failure at overpowering the nobles. France was able to gain more royal power than England, leaving them with complete control over their country, and left Europe without complete control. Learning how countries gained an absolute monarchy is important in the modern world because from this, people learned how to develop modern governments. Afterwards, countries started to decide whether it would be in their best interest for sovereigns to be under the law, rather than above the law. The old need for an absolute monarchy turned into a need for a government that was right for the
The Magna Carta provides protection for English citizens by limiting the power of the government. This protection can be explained through a parable: Sam Purcell of Sheffield is building a house for his family. On a chilly, November morning the noble that is in charge of Sheffield starts taking wood from Sam’s temporary shed, (where he is building his house,) for his castle. The Magna Carta makes this illegal without the consent of the owner, (31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner. King John of England undersigned the Magna Carta; this shaped the start of England’s constitutional monarchy. Instead of being an absolute monarchy, King John and his descendants had to abide the laws listed in the charter. Without the Magna Carta, the United States might exist without the constitution or might not exist at
New monarchs paved the way for a more profitable future for the most powerful countries in Europe. Fledgling countries such as Spain, France, and England, profited from their new monarchs, ultimately becoming the powerful world powers they are today. The key components of a new monarch include limiting the nobles' power, increasing economic prosperity, uniting their nation, and stabilizing their army. The monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, King Louis XI of France, and King Henry VII of England, are prime examples of new monarchs. New monarchs strengthened their nations considerably, in more ways than one.
The Treaty of London (1604) ended the war between England and Spain and secured Spain’s position as a leading power in the world. Although the war was over, there were still plenty of tensions between the two countries. There is no hiding the fact, that the rivalry between England and Spain in the 1500s and 1600s assisted in spurring the colonization of the New World in completion of new land, wealth and power. Military bases for warring against Spain could also be created in the New World and encouraged England’s colonization as well. Without doubt, the war with Spain and the rivalry created afterwards, was a major stimulation in building new colonies in
Beginning in the 1600s, one of the main concepts for England, France, and Spain at the time was mercantilism. These were the three most powerful and blooming countries at the time. Starting from the earliest years as the late 1500s, and continuing on, all three countries were soon to battle for claim of the new land. Only one country could triumph. Despite success, even the strongest can become the weakest.
The Rise in Political Power of 17th Century England and France In the seventeenth century, the political power of the Parliament in England, and the Monarchy in France increased greatly. These conditions were inspired by three major changes: the aftermath of the reformation, the need for an increased governmental financing, and the reorganizing of central governments. These three points were each resolved in a different way in both England and in France. The first major point which eventually increased political power was
In the Age of Absolutism, both England and France had strong absolute monarchies and leaders. Though Louis XIV, monarch of France, and Charles I, leader of Britain, both served as their country’s king and served in this role in different ways.
Ideas from English history and the Enlightenment influenced the foundation of American democracy. Documents and events were two principles of English history that created lasting effects with its political ideas and changes in law. Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, Baron De Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, developed key ideas about natural rights, balanced government, and the social contract. Both concepts impacted the foundation of the American democracy, as it was strongly portrayed in the document, the Declaration of Independence.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
Through the Test Acts of 1673, Anglicans were the only one’s who could run office. Then, the Bill of Rights was granted ensuring rights to fair trial, rights to assemble, and no more taxes. Freedom of religion will then be granted in the Toleration Act of 1689. Act of Settlement, 1701 prevented Catholics to rule through throne-inheritance. Finally, 1707 United Kingdom of Great Britain Compare 17th century French absolutism with 17th century eastern European Absolutism.
In 1660 many English people were so tired of turmoil and wanted to restore monarchy. They invited the king’s son to return and rule England as Charles II, then they made him promise to allow Parliament to keep the powers it had won in the civil war. Power would include the right
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...