Pardon this ridiculously long post, I have a summary of notes from a course taught by Michael Leggiere at University of North Texas that gives a (staggeringly) detailed take on the origins of the French Revolution. In my second comment ( I hit the max! >_<) I also have part of summary I wrote using (all 5 notebooks) that is a bit less formal and hopefully a bit more fun to read. I will try to point out parallels or things that should seem familiar, but I feel you may be more in tune to the American political equivalents than I am. There is a short (but encompassing) bibliography for further reading!

---

“ANCIEN REGIME The Ancient Regime was the political system of not only France, but of all Europe. It has it's roots in feudalism of the middle ages. During that time, there was a two class social structure firmly established in Europe. In this structure, privileged elite (nobility) controlled all economic resources and political power. This was 5% of the population. This will become so focused in France that by the 18th century, the nobility will make up 1.5% of the population. The other 98.5% were the commoners. The vast majority of these were the laboring classes of the countryside and workers in cities. A small sub-segment were merchants, business owners and the intelligencia (educated class). In Western Europe, this subsegment will grow very powerful, but still limited because of their birth as commoners. As commoners, certain career paths were closed to them. What they could wear, own, and who they could marry was determined by status. The bourgeoisie became very powerful and they will be behind the democratic movements including the French Revolution. In eastern Europe, the middle class remained weak. It takes tremendous upheavals for the to be change in Eastern Europe. Looking at the A.R, it is easy to see the split, and it all starts with the French Revolution.

THE BOURBONS AND ABSOLUTE MONARCHY Bourbon is the last name of the ruling family of France. Louis XIII (1610-1643) puts France on the road to building a strong absolute monarchy. However, Louis XIV (1643-1715) was the king to perfect it. Louis XIV outlives his son and grandson and is succeeded by Louis XV (1715-1774). Under him, problems of the A.R intensify and fester and get to the point where only a strong king can fix them. After Louis XV, Louis XVI (1774-1793) took over but he was not, unfortunately, a strong king. The form of Absolute Monarchy that Louis XIV perfected remained until 1789. The term 'absolute monarchy's a little misleading. The monarch does not have absolute power. The king or queen ruled by divine right rather than consent of the people. The king has a divine sanction, and because God is absolute, the monarchy becomes absolute. This also meant the king was only accountable to God, not to any people. In theory, and usually in practice, all government powers and functions centred on the king. He appointed all government officials, generals, ministers, ambassadors, he instigated all foreign policy, alliances, war, and concluded peace. The French king was recipient of all government revenue. The king took whatever for his own expense and gave no account. Very few knew how much actually came in or how much the king spent. The king's power was absolute in the sense that no institution in France could prevent him from doing what he wanted to. This did not mean the king could ignore laws or disrespect institutions. One problem in France was that there was no consensus over which laws were and were not fundamental to the kingdom. A determined king could override laws that were generally not recognised, and there was no constitution. In France, the king was a sovereign to whom anything was not allowed, but possible. With this, the king bore full responsibility for what the state did or failed to do. If the government failed to reform itself, it was the fault of the king. Only he had the power, authority and right to reform the government. Only Louis XIV was a king of superior abilities. Louis XIII was overshadowed by Cardinal Richelieu. Louis XV was intelligent, but shy, lazy, and easily bored. he had no interest in reform. He preferred to avoid problems and gave stop-gap solutions that did not last. There was much corruption, decadence under his reign, and people hated him. Louis XVI was more ambitious and wanted to be liked and use his power benevolently. But he was ill-equipped intellectually, and had insecurity, and mistrusted his own judgment. In 1786, he tries to make changes and falls flat on his face. Louis XIV built the great palace at Versailles because he wanted the Bourbon seat away from Paris. He visited Paris as a child during the Fronde revolt. Paris still held a palace, but but the monarch relocated to Versailles in the 1660's - 1670's, and it was actually a hunting lodge for Louis XIII. Versailles was more than an elegant building, it was a place for the Bourbon absolute monarchy. Louis XIV Intended to share the stage with the most powerful people in the kingdom. He intended to concentrate powerful people with him to keep his eye on them because it was the nobles who started the Fronde rebellion. Duality when dealing with the nobles entailed waging a long and successful campaign to deprive the nobility of political power to break the last vestiges of feudalism, a political system where power is decentralized and placed in the hands of the elite. Louis XIII and Richelieu put France on the road to having an absolute monarchy, the very basis of which is strong centralized government. The two were not compatible. Louis XIV picked up where they left off to instill absolute monarchy, breaking the nobility's hold on political power. The Fronde revolt was caused by the nobility's reaction to the centralizing policies of Louis XIII. So with this example, Louis XIV had to crush the nobility's last hold on political power, but also compensate them and maintain their loyalty. Enter Versailles. Louis XIV made it essential for nobles to come and live at Versailles with him and attend king's court every day. Nobles who did not come were uncouth, "provincial nobles". The rich and powerful did come. There, he shared wealth and splendor of the kingdom with them. He took their political power and shared his stuff. He made such a coup that they were dependent on him. Versailles was the hub for the absolute monarchy. Nobles got stipends to stay at Versailles. Louis XIV was able to tame and investigate the nobility. The policy had a price, this was expensive and it isolated the king from the rest of the country. Louis only saw France when he was on his way to war. Louis XV and XVI did not break the pattern. Louis XV spent the least time at Versailles, but stayed in palaces around Paris. This had a bad impact on monarchy, court life was vicious and petty. Monarchs could not escape it and got caught up in it. French monarchs only knew things happening in the court and it gave them a warped view of the outside world. Louis XV & XVI never knew anything other than life at court. They never showed any desire to see anything outside court life. The rulers of 18th century France we intelligent, but not men of ideas or initiative. Europe's stage was one of enlightened despotism. Frederick the great was doing things to move forward. Emphasis shifted form monarch to state. DIFFERENCE: Louis XIV: "I am the state, the state is me" Frederick the Great: "I am the first servant of the state." The state was greater than the monarch. The objective of enlightened despotism was to improve the state and make stronger for war. The byproduct of a stronger state was increasing the quality of life for their subjects. Enlightened despotism was everywhere else but it was stagnant in absolute monarchs in France. Louis XV had no desire to run an absolute monarchy government and many of Louis XIV's accomplishments were undone. The nobility got a resurgence in political power. Another problem of Versailles policy was being cut off from the rest of the kingdom, and made the monarchs dependent on the advice of ministers and councilors mores than other monarchs. For Louis XVI, his wife, brothers, and court served as is ministers and get him into trouble. THE ADMINISTRATION France, in theory was a centralized nationstate, but it lacked centralization and unity. In the 900's provinces were added. They were given a degree of autonomy and were allowed to keep it's own everything (laws, currency, and weights and measures). In addition, France had been most fragmented during the medieval period, so feudalism was quite strong. On top of provincial rights, the nobility was strong, having their own rights and privileges, got small armies, law courts, taxation and mint their own currency. Feudal rights (the rights of the nobility) Municipal rights (rights of the city) and the church had it's own rights. It was the richest institution in France aside from the monarchy. 10% of France belonged to the Church. Royal jurisdiction competed with all of these, France is a balancing act until the monarchy takes over everything. It did not have a unified law code until Napoleon. The administrative machinery was overburdened.. All of these jurisdictions were heavily officialed, but the judicial system was the most complex. The provinces had their own laws and courts and on down, but the king's law was superimposed on all of them. This would have been okay if the government had closed down all other law courts, but they did not. The nobility still retained legal jurisdiction over serfs, cities, and towns and the church held cases involving widows, orphans, and clergy. In an absolute system, unity of law was extremely important. All law that came from the king was theory and not practice. No organized system of courts . Not only were there several courts and laws, but there was no clearly defined jurisdiction, things were only aggravated by this.”

---