Absolute Monarchy vs. Parliament: A Comparison Between France and Britain

Compared to the government of England, Louis XIV had a much richer lifestyle. He had courts that were much more extravagantly decorated. This caused historians to believe that Louis XIV had a more powerful government, as Louis appeared much wealthier than Charles I. In the eyes of a 17th century historian, Louis XIV’s French government was the leadership of the future since it showed greater stability and control in political power, economy, and culture than England’s government.

In the time of Louis XIV, historians found France’s political power much more stable than England’s because of several flaws in the government of England. First, England’s government split in two when Charles I was monarch. Charles I had chosen to not consult Parliament when he wanted to tax his people. In result, Parliament rebelled against Charles and executed him in public. On the other hand, Louis XIV had the Estates’ Generals, but never called upon them. The Estate had absolutely no power and so could do nothing about that. Also, Louis XIV could take power from nobles and give it to intendants while in England, poor people were left to fend for themselves. Taking power from nobles gave Louis more power for himself. Finally, Charles I had to take a long time to make decisions since he would have to consult with Parliament first. Louis XIV could make instantaneous decisions. Putting all this information together, historians could piece together the fat that France had more political power than England.

Economy is another factor that would cause historians to see France as the future of governments. First, France used mercantilism to gain a profit. England on the other hand had a civil war at hand and landed in major debt. Once again, money is a large factor that separates the two countries, France and England. Also, Louis XIV controlled the taxes on his country through his intendants while Charles had to fight Parliament for taxes. This showed historians that Louis had an infinite supply of gold to spend while Charles had a limit to which he could earn. Finally, Louis put his tax money to use by spending it upon his lavish courts while Parliament would jnot allow Charles to waste the country’s gold on unnecessary luxuries. Such an expensive court would force historians to believe that France was doing very well economically. The amount of money Louis XIV had from mercantilism when England was in huge debt would make historians think that France was much better off than England. Finally, the culture of France versus that of England would have historians think that France had the government of the future. First, France’s music and art was the model of Europe. Every country in Europe including England was emulating the music and art of France. If a country has the time to work on music and art then it must be doing well and this is what historians must have believed. Second, France combined Church and State together. Louis called himself the Sun King. This would cause historians to believe that they had no right to say anything bad about King Louis. Finally, in England women were beginning to get more religious rights. People through Europe would not be ready for such a sudden change. Historians would think that England was becoming weaker if women were beginning to gain more power. All in all historians would find that France had a richer culture and one that was changing in the right direction.