A number of European nations underwent major 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 key 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 (James I 1610). In other words, he was displeased the general role of the monarchs was declining with the development of states. Others, such as free thinkers, claimed that industry, growth, and prosperity are impossible without commonwealth, which cannot be ensured by one monarch (Hobbes 1651). Therefore, there was a strong realization that states were necessary for both political stability and economic advancements.
The changes and continuities high affected those who represented the religious institutions. According to a cardinal: “even the best regulated parlements 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” (Cardinal Richelieu 1906, 268). In other words, two specific parties were primarily opposed to the development of states, which were the Church and kings. There was a major shift in power, which was flowing in favor of the common people. 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 (Frederick II 1916). 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 positive laws in France were divided into basic 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 (Merriman 2009). 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.
References
Cardinal Richelieu. 1906. “ Political Testament.” Hanover Historical Texts Project. Web.
Frederick II. 1916. “Essay on the Forms of Government.” Fordham University. Web.
Hobbes, Thomas. 1651. “Leviathan.” Then Again. Web.
James I. 1610. “Two Texts.” Then Again. Web.
Merriman, John. 2009. A History of Modern Europe: From the Renaissance to the Age of the Napoleon. New York: WW Norton & Company.