England vs France
An absolute monarch is a king or queen that believes in divine rights, Doesn’t share its power, and has control everything within his or her land. A constitutional monarch is a king or queen that’s head of the state, but when passing or making laws it must be passed by the parliament. While England had the same type of monarchy at first. England took a different path and became a limited monarch while France strength in absolutism grew. England developed a limited monarchy while France strengthened it absolute rule. This is due to parliament, religion, and the English Bill of Rights.
One reason why England developed a limited monarchy while France didn’t is because of the parliament. Before the Stuarts came to power; the …show more content…
When Louis XIV was a kid his father passed away and was too young to rule so they gave the crown to Cardinal Mazarin. Cardinal Mazarin use to raise taxes to help with the involvement of the Thirty Years’ War. After the war he didn’t lower down the taxes and this made the parliament or General Estate mad. The parliament started to revolt which ma d Mazarin attempt to arrest them. This triggered a widespread revolt. An angry mob even went to Louis XIV’s bedchamber. This revolt was known as the Fronde. Then when Louis XIV came to power he stated, “I am the state” which meant that he controlled everything. This made him say that cause when he witnessed the Fronde he thought the parliament couldn’t be trusted. So he never called the parliament. This proves how the parliament had a big role in how England became a constitutional monarch and how France growth in absolutism grew.
The second reason why England developed into a limited monarchy while is because of religion. In France, Henry IV made a law called the Edict of Nantes. This gave Huguenots and nobles the power to fortify there cities . But when he pasted away a Cardinal Richelieu didn't follow the Edict of Nantes. He decided to take down there cities fortress and armies. He did I thisTo lessen the power of the nobles or Huguenots. He also did it cause he was loyal to the and to give Louis XIV more and was afraid to that they were going to revolt against
An absolute monarch is a king or queen that believes in divine rights, Doesn’t share its power, and has control everything within his or her land. A constitutional monarch is a king or queen that’s head of the state, but when passing or making laws it must be passed by the parliament. While England had the same type of monarchy at first. England took a different path and became a limited monarch while France strength in absolutism grew. England developed a limited monarchy while France strengthened it absolute rule. This is due to parliament, religion, and the English Bill of Rights.
One reason why England developed a limited monarchy while France didn’t is because of the parliament. Before the Stuarts came to power; the …show more content…
When Louis XIV was a kid his father passed away and was too young to rule so they gave the crown to Cardinal Mazarin. Cardinal Mazarin use to raise taxes to help with the involvement of the Thirty Years’ War. After the war he didn’t lower down the taxes and this made the parliament or General Estate mad. The parliament started to revolt which ma d Mazarin attempt to arrest them. This triggered a widespread revolt. An angry mob even went to Louis XIV’s bedchamber. This revolt was known as the Fronde. Then when Louis XIV came to power he stated, “I am the state” which meant that he controlled everything. This made him say that cause when he witnessed the Fronde he thought the parliament couldn’t be trusted. So he never called the parliament. This proves how the parliament had a big role in how England became a constitutional monarch and how France growth in absolutism grew.
The second reason why England developed into a limited monarchy while is because of religion. In France, Henry IV made a law called the Edict of Nantes. This gave Huguenots and nobles the power to fortify there cities . But when he pasted away a Cardinal Richelieu didn't follow the Edict of Nantes. He decided to take down there cities fortress and armies. He did I thisTo lessen the power of the nobles or Huguenots. He also did it cause he was loyal to the and to give Louis XIV more and was afraid to that they were going to revolt against