During the seventeenth century the system of thought known as "absolutism" was attempted in both the Kingdoms of England and France. Yet where as the system was fruitful for the French monarchy in dealing with its subjects and nobility its English counterparts did not enjoy the same success. This article aims to look at the reasons why.
What was Absolutism?
Absolutism according to the doctrine of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’, entailed a system of thought derived ultimately from medieval theories of kingship; namely that certain kings ruled because they were specifically chosen by God to be kings. The idea encompassed the prospect that the best form of government is an autocracy, or rule by a single person. This person was not to be questioned or disobeyed; this became known as absolutism, since the monarch ruled with absolute power, shared with no other.
Several of Europe’s states were governed or attempted to be governed under such principles most notably England and France.
Absolutism had been introduced into England by James I and his successor Charles I.
Why was Absolutism unsuccessful in England?
Both James I and Charles I attempted to rule the country without consenting Parliament. This ultimately failed as Parliament had gained much control and power under the later Tudor monarchs; powers they were not prepared to relinquish.
Parliament had the support of merchants and land owing nobles and members could be elected and changed if necessary.
In 1642 the differences between Charles and Parliament over the issue of Absolutism became the spark for the English Civil War with neither side prepared to compromise.
This was also the major turning point as far as Absolutism in England was concerned. The monarchs who would succeed the disposed Charles were well aware of the power Parliament now wielded and the only hope of a successful reign was to work with and not against the MP’s.
Parliament was strongly ingrained into the English process of government and it status as a centralised body meant it survived when faced with the threat of absolute rule. Parliament would continue to gain power over the monarchy through the end of the seventeenth century, and would eventually become the leading governmental body of the English state.
Absolutism in France
When Cardinal Mazarin died in 1661 Louis XIV took power the strong absolute ruler that France had been looking for to restore order. Louis took a firm grip of the country putting himself at the head of government. The Estate General (French parliament)was never called together and most of the feudal lords were enticed to live in the Versailles a palace Louis built strictly for the consolidation of government.
Louis managed to control all aspects of government, from economics to foreign policy thus in turn defining France’s position of an absolute monarchy.
In comparison to England France around the mid seventeenth century saw a crisis in monarchy, not too dissimilar to the mid-Tudor crisis which had preceded Elizabeth’s reign in England during the sixteenth century.
Led by Cardinal Mazarin who was governing the crown for the young Louis; who had inherited the position at just five years of age, the monarchy faced opposition by the various and scattered parlements. These institutions had aimed to gain the right to proclaim royal edicts unconstitutional and alongside this the nobility had hoped to gain power by sanctioning the monarch or removing him from power.
Why was Absolutism popular in France?
This had thrown France into disarray with the Nobility leading bands of fighters around the country, pillaging and terrorizing the lower classes at will in an attempt to weaken the Kings power. They eventually hired Spanish troops to continue the fight despite France and Spain currently in a state of warfare.
In the end the Nobles attempts at dislodging the monarchy failed not before leaving a lasting impression amongst the general public as to the value of having a powerful monarch to protect them from revolt and disorder.
Why was absolutism a success in France and a failure in England?
The contrasting fortunes of the two nations in the quest for Absolutism were centred on three basic factors on which the two nations were heading in opposite directions.
Firstly as England’s parliament grew in power, France’s was on the decline which had a vice-versa affect on upon the monarchies in both countries.
Secondly and closely linked to this first factor is the nature and competence of the respective elite classes. This played into the hands of the French monarchy whilst having a limiting the authority of its English counterpart.
Thirdly and somewhat overlooked is the length of the reigns of the respective monarchies a point central to the issue of absolutism.
France’s success can be largely attributed to the reign of Louis XIV’s long reign (5th September 1638 -1st September 1715), whilst during the same period England suffered a series of short rules by personalities who differed in temperament, ability, gender and even a period of republican rule under Oliver Cromwell as the monarchy was abolished from 1653 to 1658 after the English Civil War.
The time span allowed Louis to implement, consolidate and sustain his rule successfully. Changes in the English monarchy meant a lack of consistency vital to the implementation and consolidation of absolute rule whilst facing increasingly powerful and emboldened parliaments and elite classes.
This contrasting nature and actions of these two sects of powerful institutions meant that absolutism was a success in France while a failure in England.
Sources
D. Hirst, Authority and Conflict: England 1603-58 (London 1986)
D. Parker, The making of French absolutism (Oxford 1983)
G. Treasure, Mazarin: The crisis of absolutism in France (London 1997)
M. Knights, Representation and misrepresentation in later Stuart Britain: partisanship and political culture (Cambridge 2004)
Melvin Richter, “Absolutism” in: Blackwell’s Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, ed. D. Miller (Oxford 1987)
Faisal Hanif - I graduated in 2008 from the University of Leicester with Bachelor Hons in History. I have recently completed a Masters in the History of ...
Join the Conversation