Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Houghton M.
By judging absolute vs. limited monarchy in terms of the treatment of the Catholic Church you are using a definition that no historian I'm aware of uses and one that leads to a distorted view of history.

The Tudors did not repeal Magna Carta. Elizabeth respected the prerogatives of Parliament and the aristocracy. She was constantly politicking to get the appropriations she needed.

In France, I had the Bourbons in mind. So, by your definition Henry VIII was an authoritarian because he took England Protestant but France was not, even though Richelieu actually made war on the French Protestants. And by your definition Louis IV wasn't an authoritarian King, even though he is universally regarded as such.

42 posted on 09/21/2010 12:42:34 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]


To: colorado tanker

No, you distort what I wrote. I’m simply saying that in England royal absolutism was de jure over the Church as of Henry VIII and growing in all other areas until it reached its zenith under James I. Parliament was increasingly being reduced to rubber stamp, which is why the Civil War erupted. Please don’t tell me Elizabeth was some kind of nicey, nicey respector of liberties. For her courtiers and allies, yes. Her enemies got the the rack and sword.

I do not judge the degree of absolutism in terms of the treatment of the CATHOLIC church. That’s just plain false. I judge it in terms of de jure and de facto. It was de jure in Protestant territories, not just England but Zurich etc.

It was de facto in Spain and France. It became de jure in Austria at the tail end of the absolutist period.

I make no brief for Louis XIV or Richelieu. They were scoundrels. But the church was not reduced de jure to a department of state—that attempt came with the French Revolution and it failed.

Where in heaven’s name did I say that Louis XIV was not authoritarian? What part of de facto absolutism don’t you understand? It’s authoritarian for sure. De jure a settlement was reached (Gallican settlemetn) that left the Church freer than if it were a department of state. Not much, but some.

The situation in France was bad, but it’s not the same as Henry’s de jure act of supremacy. The popes fought against the de facto absolutism in Spain and France.

Absolutism was in the air. Both Protestants and Catholics embraced it. But Protestants are the ones who created the state church. Period. Catholic monarchs had to stop short of that, not because they wanted to—they’d have gladly created a state church just as much as Protestants did. But they had to stop short because the kings were still Catholic and reducing the church to a department of state could not be done de jure in a Catholic framework. So monarchs like Louis XIV had to work around it—de facto.


47 posted on 09/21/2010 3:46:46 PM PDT by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson