Several European nations underwent significant changes and continuities in the 17th and 18th centuries due to the process of establishing and building strong states. The Age of Enlightenment was one of the fundamental driving forces of these new adjustments in political, social, and economic spheres of life. By assessing England, France, and Prussia, it is evident that the given changes affected monarchs, religious officials, and people in a positive manner by improving the dynamics of power balance.
The emergence of states was the critical moment in the history of Europe, which was opposed by monarchs but supported by people. For example, the king of England and Scotland argued that the parliament should not forget the divine nature of kingship. In other words, he was displeased the general role of the monarchs was declining with the development of states. This rejection was caused, first of all, by the gradual loss of power, which departed to other people, making the royal family less significant. Consequently, the monarch, in this case, tried to preserve the continuity of the established order. Others, such as free thinkers, claimed that industry, growth, and prosperity are impossible without commonwealth, which cannot be ensured by one monarch. These people personified change and defended the interests of emerging societies, such as industrial. Consequently, the community had a clear understanding of the necessity and inevitability of the coming changes and changes in the form of a decrease in the role of the monarch, no matter how the latter tried to maintain continuity.
The establishment of new forms of government and changes at the political and economic levels also affected the interests of the common population. However, even in spite of their support, the structural processes of social change in society were prolonged. Undoubtedly, as a result of the events taking place around, people’s attitudes towards housekeeping and the methods of adulting have changed, but at a very slow rate. As the example of England shows, the basis for building households remained essentially the same throughout the 18th century, changing only towards the end of the 18th and early 19th centuries.
However, the changes that followed in the coming years were not sudden. All these years, changes in the household have been hidden, at the level of the essential foundations of the structure. By the end of the 18th century, the concept of the extended family began to change, the views on single life and single parenting changed. Economic and cultural growth forced people to reconsider their positions on many issues, but this process was associated with continuity and significantly slowed down. Nevertheless, for the common population, this period a time of continuity, change and defence of their interests, since people ceased to be only servants of monarchs.
The changes and continuities high affected those who represented the religious institutions. According to a cardinal Richelieu: “even the best regulated parliaments were affected by it, and endeavored, in certain cases, to diminish your royal authority as far as they were able in order to stretch their own powers beyond the limits of reason.” In other words, two specific parties were primarily opposed to the development of states, which were the Church and monarchs. The reason for this behaviour, first of all, is the unwillingness to give up the power accumulated over many years of rule. It was the monarchy and the Church that ruled people for many years, announcing their will to them, which had to be strictly carried out.
However, changes in the 18th century led to the active development of philosophical works and various theories that did not fit into the concept of religion. The Church tried to suppress outside teachings, especially scientific ones, trying in this way to preserve its power and continuity. Nevertheless, many writers have resorted to cunning tricks, publishing under false names and distributing their works in secret. Ultimately, despite the initial desire to maintain its position, the Church began to give in little by little, reducing the pressure on scientists and philosophers, thus changing its interests following the changing world.
Therefore, there was a significant power shift, which was flowing in favour of the common people. This was manifested not only in the Church but also at the government level. Another evidence from Prussia shows that kings were vulnerable to a wide range of vices, and although they should be servants for the people, in practice, this was not the case. Until the 18th century, kings and common people lived in entirely different conditions, and the contrast between the nobility and the common people was enormous. This state of affairs could not but cause indignation and demands for change.
Ultimately, the growing resentment of both the common population and the nobility led to the official establishment in Prussia of the policy of the so-called “enlightened absolutism.” In other words, this course consisted of preserving the monarchy but introducing certain indulgences and innovations into the country’s politics, aimed at improving the lives of the population. The ruler was recognized as the servant of the people and therefore had to work to ensure their good. As part of this policy, several reforms were carried out, including the emancipation of commoners and the spread of education. Therefore, the given changes made kings realize the importance of their duties, where their weakness and flaws could impact the entire nation.
Since the late Middle Ages, all favourable laws in France were divided into primary rules and ordinary ones. The first was distinguished by the fact that they lie at the basis of the state, are invariable, and extend their effect not only to the subjects of the king but also to the monarch himself. The king of France, not subject to ordinary laws, was obliged to observe the fundamental. Fundamental laws were not written down and belonged to the sphere of customary law. Their strength was based not so much on the authority of the sovereign but on the head of the historical tradition dating back to ancient times. The unwritten nature of fundamental laws, their reliance often on an elusive and amorphous tradition, led to the fact that the rules were not clearly formulated. There was not even an exact list of the fundamental laws themselves, and therefore different lawyers determined their actual composition differently. Some of the fundamental laws did not cause controversy and disagreement, and some were questioned.
In conclusion, by analyzing the history of England, France, and Prussia, one can derive that the emergence of states positively affected ordinary people, monarchs, and religious representatives. Although the latter two might have been against these alterations in the form of governance, some kings improved themselves by becoming more responsible and serious in regards to their duties. Therefore, both continuity and changes resulted in an improvement of power dynamics, which gradually became more dispersed and balanced.