Before reading this article, I sincerely invite you to click the "Follow" button, so that you can continue to push such articles in the future, and it is also convenient for you to discuss and share, your support is the driving force for us to insist on creating~
Text: Han Qiao
Edit|t
introduction
In the modern history of the world, the bourgeois revolution in the West has always been an unavoidable topic.
But the form of revolution is different in every country, and the final degree of tragedy varies greatly. The most typical example is that in England and France, there was a gap of 100 years between the outbreak of the bourgeois revolution in the two countries, but the British royal family was preserved to this day, and the French royal family was completely liquidated.
So what is the difference between the two countries that makes the outcome of the revolution so different?
(European Royalty)
First, the political traditions of the two countries are very different
The difference in English and French attitudes towards the king was largely due to the different royal political traditions of the two countries. When the British made a revolution, they just wanted to change the emperor, while the French people wanted to change the dynasty.
This point can be easier for everyone to understand by going back to the history of the founding of the two countries.
France's founding mentality is actually an authentic land state, but also a feudal royal state. He was born out of the traditions of the Roman Empire's royal politics. After the founding of the country, France continued to promote the system of centralization of royal power.
(Conqueror Majesty)
The biggest problem with such a political structure is that once the royal power is loosened, it will inevitably arouse the covetousness of careerists, and even attack it en masse. Once the royal power is exposed to the masses, there is a risk of being subverted.
Unlike the way France was founded, England was also a monarchy, but the way in which the monarchy was established was very different from that of France. The earliest king of England, William I, also known as William the Conqueror, was the conqueror of the nomadic Normans.
It can be seen that the British royal power has always had a relatively strong tradition of co-governance.
One might argue that there were also kings executed in England, which is simply untenable. But we must recognize that the execution of the king of England did not shake the foundation of the entire royal power, and everyone only objected to the king of England himself, and did not resent the political tradition built around the king.
(The king is guillotined)
The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 was the starting point for this tradition, and successive English kings have perfected this tradition of co-governance, weakening the power of the English king, which means that by the time the Revolution broke out, the actual power of the English king was running out.
In 1629, King Charles II of England tried to raise taxes, but the feudal lords opposed it, and the king's taxing power was abolished and the power of taxation was transferred to parliament due to the intervention of domestic powers. After the Revolution of 1640 and the Glorious Revolution of 1689, the power of the Chinese king was further restricted.
At this time, the king was no longer just a spiritual symbol.
(Original text of British Magna Carta)
France, on the other hand, has always had a royal power that refuses to share and make concessions.
The outbreak of the French Revolution was triggered by the king's desire to levy taxes and convene the Estates-General, which led to a strong outpouring of people from all walks of life. Faced with the anger of the representatives of the various classes, the King of France refused to make concessions, because there would be no such concessions in the French tradition of royal power.
Thus the French Revolution could only oppose the entire royal class, the power-sharing structure, not just the king himself.
(Estates-General of France)
Second, the social structures of the two countries are very different
As mentioned earlier, the political traditions of the two countries are different, and in fact, there is another very important reason for the different outcomes of royal power: the social structure of the two countries is also different.
As the first country in the world to start the industrial revolution, Britain has a very complex social structure and is an olive-shaped social structure. At the top is the royal power represented by the king, in the middle is the expanding bourgeois new aristocratic force, and at the bottom is the broad masses of the people.
In such a social structure, at least the bourgeois neo-aristocratic forces are used as social buffers, and the tentacles of the royal power are not enough to reach the homes of ordinary people, and the people are not so disgusted by what the royal power has done.
(British Social Structure)
In contrast to this is the social structure of France. The social structure of France is more of a dumbbell-shaped structure.
Although it was also accompanied by the rise of the Industrial Revolution, the gap between the rich and the poor in France was very obvious, and the Paris area was almost a collection of all the development forces in France. Moreover, the French aristocracy was not deeply involved in the Industrial Revolution, and their main source of income was land exploitation.
(Comparison of the two social structures)
This made it impossible for the aristocracy to act as a buffer in the outbreak of the new revolution, and the king had to face the onslaught of the bottom.
The Estates-General's taxation is the best example of this, where there is no bridge or link between the king and the emerging bourgeoisie, and there is only a simple zero-sum game between them. Therefore, the overthrow of the Dharma King is almost inevitable.
3. The king also means different things to the two countries
The different circumstances of the king in the two countries are not the same as the meaning of the king himself to the two countries.
For England, the king is not simply a symbol of power, but also a key link in religious and national unity. The full name of the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is a federation in its own right, with domestic Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales each having their own royal systems.
(Map of the United Kingdom)
Only the King of England had the political clout to be able to glue these royal bodies together into a single nation. To this day, the King of England has been stripped of all power, but he still retains one last power, which is the power of final decision, which the king can veto when the country is facing division.
Therefore, the existence of the king is a major matter of the existence of Britain. The retention of the English king preserves the legitimacy of the royal power of other organizations.
(King Charles III of the United Kingdom)
In addition, the King of England has a very important identity, which is what distinguishes him from other kings, and he has a strong voice in the religion of England. Before the Reformation, the King of England was the only king who could appoint bishops independently without the approval of the Holy See, and he had a strong voice in British Christendom.
After the Reformation, the King of England was the first to follow the example and embrace Protestantism, which made him a strong religious representation in the hearts of the British people. Both of these are important reasons why the King of England was retained.
On the other hand, the French king, which had fully implemented the county system since the time of Louis XIV, and the feudal tradition was completely reformed, which greatly weakened the dependency between the nobility and the king, and the nobility no longer relied on the power of the king. The king became a mere symbol of power.
(Louis XIV, Sun King of France)
In terms of religious affairs, there have also been cases in France where the king bowed to the archbishop of the Holy See, which made the French royal power almost impossible to have in front of the clergy.
After the outbreak of the Enlightenment in France, radical ideas spread rapidly in France, and the French royal power became the target of the revolutionaries to build consensus, and the elimination of the royal power became an inevitable choice. It is also a direct result of the dumbbell-like social structure of France.
(Enlightenment)
The above is all the content of this topic sharing, if you are also interested in this topic, please leave a message in the comment area and discuss with me!
Resources:
[1] History of the British Empire, Chapter 4, "The Political Security of the Tudors"
[2] History of the French Revolution, Chapter 9, "Decentralization of Executive Power"
[3] Studies in Legal Culture, Part I, The Historical Formation of English Law