Compare and Contrast Louis XIV's Economic and Political Impact on the Lower Class With That of William and Mary
European societies in the late seventeenth century were stratified andhierarchical. Society was viewed as being structured into orders, with eachsocial order fulfilling a particular function in society as a whole, andthe entire system being understood as a reflection of a divinely-orderedharmony that pervaded the universe.[1] At the top of this hierarchicalsystem were monarchs such as Louis XIV of France and William III ofEngland. Separated from these crowned heads by an unbridgeable gulf werethe lower orders of society - the urban and rural poor, smallholders,apprentices, laborers.[2] The lives of these humble people were greatlyinfluenced by the actions of their rulers, in terms of religion, taxation,law, war and peace, and the institutional and visual expression ofpolitical authority. This paper examines some of these issues withreference to France under Louis XIV and England under King William and The contexts within which ruler and ruled operated in France andBritain in the late seventeenth century were different in many ways.William III came to the throne of England as part of a politicaltransformation which saw parliamentary monarchy - rule through the
The major contrast wasthat in England a revolution had taken place which cemented the position ofstate protestant religion beyond serious challenge, whereas in France theCatholic Church found itself constantly on the defensive, caught betweenthe demands of an often suspicious court and the pressures of theprotestant challenge. Inthe late seventeenth century, both England and France were heavily indebtedstates, involved in constant warfare and requiring constant increases insubsidy and income. By contrast, France remained essentially a personal,centralized, authoritarian monarchy. In 1661, a year of famine and suffering in France, Louis wrotethat "Nothing seems more urgent to me than to relieve my people, to which Iam compelled by the misery of the provinces and my compassion forthem";[16] and in that year he took steps to reduce the burden of taxationon the poorest households. The system of Intendants in the regionsbecame the main agency for the activities of the crown throughout thecountry, and Louis's dominant minister Colbert took steps to use theIntendants as a means both of gathering information on such matters asagriculture, transport, military affairs and economic development in thelocalities and of imposing the policies of the central government down tothe lowest levels of society. [12] The lower orders of societyencountered central authority through its local forms: Sheriffs, Justicesof the Peace, Magistrates, Lords Lieutenant, and these offices were firmlyrooted in the local community. Louis's great enemy, as ruler of both Holland and England, wasWilliam III. It isimpossible to quantify the effects upon the ordinary people of a ruralcommunity of the loss of life in the king's wars and the costs ofsupporting crippled war veterans, no longer able to work to full capacity. although the Act allows no such liberty, the people will understand it so, and, say what the judges can at the assizes, or the justices of the peace at their sessions . ment - become the central tenet of government. [7] In both France and England religion was an issue at the heartof the nature of the state and the crown itself.
Common topics in this essay:
William Mary,
League Augsburg,
Louis XIV,
William III,
National Debt,
Sun King,
Toleration Act,
England France,
France Louis,
XIV France,
seventeenth century,
louis xiv,
william mary,
william iii,
england william,
munck seventeenth,
ordinary people,
century europe,
seventeenth century europe,
munck seventeenth century,
late seventeenth century,
england william mary,
england france,
france louis,
bluche louis xiv,
|
Acceptance Essays
