- This topic has 9 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
England started Parliament and France started Estates-General , which seems very similar to the English parliament. Did France copy or mirror England's government, or did it just form on it's own (i.e. without being influenced)?
Based on what I remember from teaching the FrRev (sure didn't pay any atttention in college on this as the prof was recovering from having all four wisdom teeth pulled… mumbled anyway but this made it worst!)… the Estates-General consisted of reps of the three estates (clergy, noblity, commoners) and were summonded rather than elected… not real power either, more advisory or a rubber stamp. In fact at one point the body didn't meet for over 170 years… King did the business. One of the Louis's told them he'd call when he needed them and a successor or two followed suit.By the time things were getting sticky Louis the Last called but then totally ignored anything they put forward... not a smooth move. Set up a close shave he couldn't avoid.Parliament started out just a way for the Barons (my shorthand for whatever rank the nobles were) to have a bit of say-so over the Kings' wide ideas... not really much to do with the common man 'til a bit later. Over time ,we get to Parliment as we imagine it to be (used to be that is)... the model for out bicameral legislative body, co-equal to the exec. and judicial branches. According to some English friends, much more like a Socialist club these days.I'd say the influence issue was a pretty common ideal of the late middle ages (many paliamentary bodies pop up about this time); how to keep the King under control and how he keeps the people under his influence. I really don't see Eng or france influencing the other... last thing they'd want; to be influenced by the other.
Yeah, that last paragraph says a lot. If it was over a span of a hundred years or so, I'd say there may be some influence. But they all seemed to develop their systems of government simultaneously.So far (Chap 10) it's working. But I see trouble on the horizon in the remaining chapters.
What years are we talking about here? England's Parliament didn't actually gain power over the monarch until the Glorious Revolution of 1688, well after the Middle Ages had passed. France was known for the power of its monarch until around the time of the French Revolution around 1793, so I don't think you would have seen real democratic government until that time. I think that the two nations were close enough together geographically (and perhaps culturally, whether they wanted to admit it or not) that they would have competed and copied one another. I think they had a kind of love-hate relationship whereby they would copy each other in certain things, only to long for independence from the other as well. But in terms of the best form of government, I think that in theory it is very likely that France would have considered England's Parliament as a model upon which to base its own form of representation. I suppose we could always research this point just to make certain.
What years are we talking about here? England's Parliament didn't actually gain power over the monarch until the Glorious Revolution of 1688, well after the Middle Ages had passed.
Quite true; prior to that Parliament collected taxes and sometimes acted as advisers of the King. This relationship changed during / after the English Civil War(s) (1642-1651) as Parliament sought more direct control and power. Ends as you say with Wm & Mary signing over much of the Crown's power.
France was known for the power of its monarch until around the time of the French Revolution around 1793, so I don't think you would have seen real democratic government until that time.
Nor for sometime afterward... 10 years of revolution against a monarch got them a dictator... Napoleon.
I think that the two nations were close enough together geographically (and perhaps culturally, whether they wanted to admit it or not) that they would have competed and copied one another. I think they had a kind of love-hate relationship whereby they would copy each other in certain things, only to long for independence from the other as well. But in terms of the best form of government, I think that in theory it is very likely that France would have considered England's Parliament as a model upon which to base its own form of representation. I suppose we could always research this point just to make certain.
The Wiki article on the Estates General indicates that a parliamentary body was the logical outcome of the feudal system... the Duke (or whatever) ultimately has to listen to the folks that are providing for him... as they get more control over the calls they will want more... there you have it (IMHO).
First foundation of English parliament formed around 1290's, France's Estate-General around 1300-ish. (according to my book). But then again the book says the House of Lords and House of Commons “eventually came into existence”. So how long did this “eventually” take? A few hundred years, or just a few years?
In 1341 the nobility and clergy were summoned separately for the first time, creating what was effectively an Upper Chamber and a Lower Chamber, with the knights and burgesses sitting in the latter. This Upper Chamber became known as the House of Lords from 1544 and the Lower Chamber became known as the House of Commons, collectively known as the Houses of Parliament.… From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_England
England's Parliament was formed from old English Commonwealth Law and a reaction to Cromwell's excesses. France's Estates-General was formed based on social class distinctions. France never had a document like the Magna Charta to base their civil government on. France was never stable after the Revolution either like Britain. France was way more radicalized politically which allowed Napoleon and Phillip III to bankrupt the country. France has since then flirted with socialism and dictatorships (De Gaul), and gone through four or five constitutions…not to mention a collaborationist government that helped the Nazis. It is a tradition for France to tear down its government and remake it every generation or so. England, on the other hand, is loathe to make many changes to its governmental structure. America, ironically, exhibits both traits of France and England (the good traits–stability and radical egalitarianism). Perhaps this is why we have prospered so mightily in such a relatively short amount of time as far as nations go.
England's Parliament was formed from old English Commonwealth Law and a reaction to Cromwell's excesses. France's Estates-General was formed based on social class distinctions. France never had a document like the Magna Charta to base their civil government on. France was never stable after the Revolution either like Britain. France was way more radicalized politically which allowed Napoleon and Phillip III to bankrupt the country. France has since then flirted with socialism and dictatorships (De Gaul), and gone through four or five constitutions...not to mention a collaborationist government that helped the Nazis. It is a tradition for France to tear down its government and remake it every generation or so. England, on the other hand, is loathe to make many changes to its governmental structure. America, ironically, exhibits both traits of France and England (the good traits--stability and radical egalitarianism). Perhaps this is why we have prospered so mightily in such a relatively short amount of time as far as nations go.
With all my respects, this is really biased.Phillip III (or the Bold) reigned from 1270 to 1285 ! France was already bankrupted during Louis XVI reign, that's the reason for the General Estates' calling.About De Gaulle, he didn't seize power but was elected, not really the definition of a dictator.About the collaborationist governement, Vichy ruled by Petain, half of France was under his control.And so on ...Humbly yours
England's Parliament was formed from old English Commonwealth Law and a reaction to Cromwell's excesses. France's Estates-General was formed based on social class distinctions. France never had a document like the Magna Charta to base their civil government on. France was never stable after the Revolution either like Britain. France was way more radicalized politically which allowed Napoleon and Phillip III to bankrupt the country. France has since then flirted with socialism and dictatorships (De Gaul), and gone through four or five constitutions...not to mention a collaborationist government that helped the Nazis. It is a tradition for France to tear down its government and remake it every generation or so. England, on the other hand, is loathe to make many changes to its governmental structure. America, ironically, exhibits both traits of France and England (the good traits--stability and radical egalitarianism). Perhaps this is why we have prospered so mightily in such a relatively short amount of time as far as nations go.
With all my respects, this is really biased.Phillip III (or the Bold) reigned from 1270 to 1285 ! France was already bankrupted during Louis XVI reign, that's the reason for the General Estates' calling.About De Gaulle, he didn't seize power but was elected, not really the definition of a dictator.About the collaborationist governement, Vichy ruled by Petain, half of France was under his control.And so on ...Humbly yours
1). I mistyped Phillip III when I meant Louis Phillipe III my bad.2). Hitler was elected too but was he not a dictator? Same with De Gaul and Franco for that matter.3). Petain only controlled what the Nazis allowed him to.Might I suggest looking up the phrase "Red and Black France." This might help to explain where I'm coming from in regards to the constant governmental changes France underwent.
After 1789, France had much difficulty getting it right: One Terror, Two Empires, Five Republics, and Vichy.That is the source of the clich? I used to hear when I was a boy: "40,000,000 Frenchmen can't be wrong." When and if they agree on something.The 4th Republic is the only democracy to have voted itself out of existence so Vichy could be created.
2). Hitler was elected too but was he not a dictator? Same with De Gaul and Franco for that matter.3). Petain only controlled what the Nazis allowed him to.Might I suggest looking up the phrase "Red and Black France." This might help to explain where I'm coming from in regards to the constant governmental changes France underwent.
I'm not particularly fond of De Gaulle but you can't compare him with Hitler and Franco !If you check the following English sources (whom can't be suspected of a pro-view of De Gaulle) you might notice these few facts:- As president of the provisional government, he guided France through the writing of the constitution on which the Fourth Republic was based.- On 13th November, 1945, the first Constituent Assembly unanimously elected de Gaulle as head of the French government. He held the post until resigning on 20th January, 1946. (When his desires for a strong presidency were ignored, he resigned.)- In 1958, a revolt in French-held Algeria, combined with serious instability within France, destroyed the Fourth Republic. De Gaulle returned to lead France once more. The French people approved a new constitution and voted de Gaulle president of the Fifth Republic. - He granted independence to all 13 French African colonies but the Algerian War continued until 1962.- In 1968, De Gaulle held elections and the country rallied to him, ending the crisis. In April 1969, De Gaulle resigned the presidency after losing a referendum on a reform proposal. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdegaulle.htm http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/gaulle_charles_de.shtml About Hitler: - in the 1932 elections became the largest party in the German parliament. In January 1933, Hitler became chancellor of a coalition government. He quickly took dictatorial powers.About Franco: - After WWII Franco came under considerable pressure to restore the monarchy. In 1947 Franco announced a referendum to establish his position. The vote confirmed him as lifetime regent. - Franco's strong anti-Communism made him popular with the United States and in 1950 Spain was allowed to join the United Nations. In 1953 Franco signed an agreement that enabled the United States to establish four air and naval bases in Spain. In return the National Atlantic Treaty Organization protected Franco's regime from foreign invasion. - military general and head of state of Spain from October, 1936 (whole nation from 1939 onwards), and de facto regent of the nominally restored Kingdom of Spain from 1947 until his death in November 1975.Not really the same for that matter TMOAbout Red and Black France, if you refer to a leftist government: - the Popular Front, which won the 1936 elections and brought Blum to power as France's first SFIO Prime Minister. Indeed, for the first time in its history; L?on Blum became the first socialist and the first Jew to serve as Prime Minister of France. - A social-democratic and democratic-socialist party, the PS first won power in 1981, when its candidate Fran?ois Mitterrand was elected president of the Fifth Republic. Under Mitterrand, the party achieved a governing majority in the National Assembly from 1981 to 1986 and again from 1988 to 1993.Socialists held power in a government twice only.About Vichy under P?tain, you're right. 🙂
Donnie,I am surprised to hear you repeat the common myth that Hitler was elected. He was not, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President Hindenburg and formed a minority government with his Nazi party being the largest. Not once did the Nazi party ever outright win an election and they always had to form coalitions with other far right parties until the passage of the law recognizing the Fuehrer Prinzip. As a matter of fact the Nazis never polled higher than 36% in any free election. That Hitler was popularly elected is a widespread myth and also one that is hard to get across to Americans most of whom only dimly understand parliamentary government in the first place. Parliamentary democracies are very different from the federal type set-up in America. BTW, many Europeans dont really understand American government either because it is so different from the usual European model.
Donnie,I am surprised to hear you repeat the common myth that Hitler was elected. He was not, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President Hindenburg and formed a minority government with his Nazi party being the largest. Not once did the Nazi party ever outright win an election and they always had to form coalitions with other far right parties until the passage of the law recognizing the Fuehrer Prinzip. As a matter of fact the Nazis never polled higher than 36% in any free election.
What is more, Mr Hitler had to proceed bloody Nacht der langen Messer inj 1934 to eliminate his most dangerous political rivals and after that he enforced law which made that "solution" justified.
Donnie,I am surprised to hear you repeat the common myth that Hitler was elected. He was not, he was appointed Chancellor by the German President Hindenburg and formed a minority government with his Nazi party being the largest. Not once did the Nazi party ever outright win an election and they always had to form coalitions with other far right parties until the passage of the law recognizing the Fuehrer Prinzip. As a matter of fact the Nazis never polled higher than 36% in any free election. That Hitler was popularly elected is a widespread myth and also one that is hard to get across to Americans most of whom only dimly understand parliamentary government in the first place. Parliamentary democracies are very different from the federal type set-up in America. BTW, many Europeans dont really understand American government either because it is so different from the usual European model.
I was totally unaware that Hitler was appointed. I read up on this here.Still, Hitler worked his way up the system (albeit with his minions manipulating things secretively) and obtained power by the consent of the people (their consent was their passive acceptance). As for De Gaul, he certainly was no Hitler, but he was on par with Franco in terms of dominating the government with his will. Of course he used his war hero status to do it (no different than what Hitler did as he raised Germany up from the ashes of the Depression).
