Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. Collection: Louis XIV

The British author Thomas Babington (later Baron) Macaulay in his 1848 work The History of England from the Accession of James the Second wrote that the Duchess of Portsmouth, a mistress of Charles II at the English court, had “soft and infantine features [which] were lighted up with the vivacity of France.”¹  Macaulay was justified in likening her beauty to that country, which was becoming the pre-eminent force in the Western world.  France, where the future Duchess of Portsmouth was born in the year in which Charles I was executed, had the boy Louis XIV as its king, who would reign until 1715.  And the Glorious Revolution, in which the future William III, Charles I’s grandson, deposed James II, Charles I’s son, took place against the backdrop of Louis XIV’s dominance of Europe.

England and France are closely connected, separated by the English Channel, which is as narrow as 21 miles in places.²  Both countries were invaded and ruled as parts of the Roman Empire.  Another invasion of England by William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, in 1066 began a new era in which “Norman feudalism became the basis for redistributing land among the conquerors, giving England a new French aristocracy and a new social and political structure.  England turned away from Scandinavia toward France, an orientation that was to last 400 years.”  And English kings waged the Hundred Years’ War, which began in 1337, in an unsuccessful attempt to capture the French throne.  A longstanding, shared enmity between the two countries, one Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, existed so that during the reign of Charles II, directly preceding the reign of James, there had been in England “a very strong Francophone sentiment and great fear of Roman Catholicism.”³

Despite their close histories, England and France in 1688 politically and constitutionally were very different.  England was a country with a well-established history of constitutional monarchy.  The 1215 Magna Carta, the 1297 Confirmation of Charters, English common law and a powerful representative body in the form of the English Parliament buttressed by a corresponding tradition of limited government all served as checks on the power of the English monarch.  The English reinforced this tradition of limited monarchy with the execution of Charles I.⁴  France, however, had Louis as an absolute monarch, with no analogue to the check provided by the English Parliament.  Thus, it is little wonder that the English simply traded an unpopular monarch for a popular one in the relatively bloodless Glorious Revolution, while the removal of the Bourbons took place only after a bloody, nationwide civil war over 100 years after the success of the Glorious Revolution.

And, in an era in which religion was an important political factor, England gave allegiance to the Protestant Church of England while France followed Catholicism.  During the Reformation England broke beginning in 1529 its ties with Rome.⁵  France remained Catholic, and its attitude towards Protestantism was “schizophrenic,”⁶ consisting in part of persecution, which came to a deadly climax during the 1572 Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day and the following months.  However, French Protestants later were the beneficiaries of some measures of toleration embodied in the 1598 Edict of Nantes.⁷

Louis XIV was born at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1638 to Louis XIII and his wife, Anne of Austria.  Louis XIII died before his son’s fifth birthday, and Louis XIV ascended to the throne of France, with his mother as regent and Jules Cardinal Mazarin as de factor ruler.  Mazarin schooled Louis in being a king, and Louis grew up a zealous Catholic.  After the death of Cardinal Mazarin, in 1661, Louis declared himself to rule on his own, without the assistance of a chief minister.⁸  Thus began the rule of the European archetype of an absolute monarch.

By the end of his reign, Louis had done much for France, but his rule was not without negative consequences.

“Louis inherited a kingdom that was internally divided, militarily exhausted, and nearly bankrupt. He left to his heirs the greatest power in the Western world.  Louis’s main achievements were expanding the effectiveness of the central government, increasing the boundaries of France to the north and east, and placing one of his grandsons on the throne of Spain.”⁹

However, “[t]he economy suffered during the long years of war, taxes increased, and the countryside was left vulnerable to punishing famines.”¹⁰

Despite any excesses from Louis’ power, France was doubtlessly the dominant political and cultural power in Europe during Louis XIV’s age.  Louis moved the mass of the French nobility to his court at his greatly enlarged Palace of Versailles, and French fashion spread all across Europe.  “People prided themselves on emulating the court of Louis XIV, and began to wear the great leonine wig.”¹¹  Macaulay writes of the dying Charles II’s bedchamber:  “On the hangings, fresh from the looms of Paris, were depicted, in tints which no English tapestry could rival, birds of gorgeous plumage, landscapes, hunting-matches, the lordly terrace of Saint Germains, the statues of fountains of Versailles.”¹²  The French language took on a prominence in Europe, turning into a lingua franca, particularly for diplomats and scientists.¹³

Louis’ high sense of himself and ambition were so great that Voltaire remarked, “It must be acknowledged that Louis always had a sense of exaltation in his soul which drove him to great things.”¹⁴  This ambition led Louis to pursue an aggressive foreign policy in the hope of enlarging French possessions.  Much of Louis’ reign, especially the last thirty years of it, were full of wars against neighboring powers united against Louis’ belligerence.  The League of Augsburg, called the Grand Alliance, was composed of England, Holland, Austria and Denmark and was formed to stop Louis’ territorial aggression.¹⁵

The relationship between and the actions of the two rulers Louis and William, Prince of Orange (and later William III), played an important part in causing the Glorious Revolution.  Early in their dealings with each other, in an attempt to cooperate with the Dutch, Louis offered the hand of his illegitimate daughter Marie-Anne to William.  William took offense and responded that “in his family one married the legitimate daughters of kings, not their bastards…." Louis XIV, always touchy on the subject of his illegitimate family, never forgave William the insult.¹⁶  Louis further had reason to dislike the Dutch for their Protestantism, their republicanism and their free press, which continually printed material critical of Louis, material which never would have been printed by the heavily censored French press.  The enmity was mutual; William “was an uncompromising foe of France, a stalwart protagonist of the reformed religion, and a stubborn fighter for the rights and interests of his country.  He regarded himself as the natural antagonist of Louis XIV, and all that Louis stood for.”¹⁷

Louis reigned supreme as a supremely Catholic monarch, even though his policies as an earthly ruler strained his relations with the head of his Church.  “[Louis], zealous even to bigotry for the doctrines of the Church of Rome, but tenacious of his regal authority, accused the Pope of encroaching on the rights of the French crown, and was in turn accused by the Pope of encroaching on the spiritual power of the keys.”¹⁸  Louis’ aggression caused Protestant rulers to side with the Pope against France,¹⁹ even though the “zealous Predistinarian Calvinist” William hated Catholicism.  William’s zeal for Protestantism and against Louis’ Catholicism later caused many Nonconformists and members of the Church of England to view William as the defender of Protestantism and public freedoms, a much more acceptable figurehead to the English than the Catholic James.²⁰

Louis’ Catholic fervor was so strong that in 1685 he revoked the Edict of Nantes,²¹ causing his country to lose hundreds of thousands of Huguenots and enraging the Protestant English.  Even before the revocation, Louis had oppressed French Protestants, including interfering with the education of their children, confiscating their property, shutting down Protestant churches, harassing Protestant ministers and keeping Protestants from practicing law.²²  In 1680 Louis entered and declared sovereignty over the French principality of Orange, which belonged to William, probably because Orange “was a possible haven for Huguenot exiles and as long as it was under the Prince of Orange it could be a shelter for both hostile press and conspiracy.”²³  William’s Holland, on the other hand, had and still has a strong tradition of religious tolerance.

William had another reason to dislike Louis: the French attacked Holland when William was a young man.  William’s leadership helped save his country:

“When [William] was little more than a boy his country had been attacked by [Louis] in ostentatious defiance of justice and public law, had been overrun, had been desolated, had been given up  to every excess of rapacity, licentiousness, and cruelty.  The Dutch had in dismay humbled themselves before the conqueror, and had implored mercy.  They had been told in reply that, if they desired peace, they must resign their independence, and do annual homage to the House of Bourbon [from which Louis came].  The injured nation, driven to despair, had opened its dikes, and had called in the sea as an ally against the French tyranny.”²⁴

Macaulay writes that the possibility of Louis’ territorial aggressions confronted William in such a manner when William was coming into his formative years as a ruler, and that possibility lingered over William’s mind for the rest of his life.²⁵  William consequently was the force behind the League of Augsburg, coalition of several nations of different languages, cultures and religious persuasions all united by their fear and loathing of Louis.²⁶

Like other European monarchs, the staunchly Catholic James II, king of a Protestant country with a limited monarchy, modeled himself in many respects after Louis, even allying himself to Louis.  James attempted to reintroduce Catholicism as a central part of English life and government, an avoidable political blunder which hastened his downfall:

“[James] piled error upon error, and to such a degree that, within three years, Protestant opinion had turned almost entirely against him.  He installed Catholic worship in the queen’s chapel, sent an ambassador to Rome in 1686, attracted Catholic regular orders and Jesuit college to London, sacked his most Anglican ministers and promoted into senior positions in the government Catholics such as the Duke of Tyrconnel, Lord Deputy of Ireland.  By publishing…the (first) Declaration of Indulgence, which exempted Catholics and Nonconformists from the Test Acts, he not only angered the Established Church, Parliament and the man in the street, but also annoyed Nonconformists by lumping them together with papists….Whilst he made deals with Holland, public opinion was calling him accomplice of Louis XIV, and he narrowly escaped being held responsible for the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes”²⁷

 James sought to paint Louis and his revocation of the Edict of Nantes in the most positive light possible.  Exiled Huguenot ministers were warned to speak reverently about the French king who caused them to flee their homeland.  James declared that a book detailing the suffering of the Huguenots be burned, an unprecedented action under English law.  James forbade the Archbishop of Canterbury from preaching about the hardships of the Huguenots.  All these actions further alienated the English people, who supported their Huguenot brethren against the actions of the aggressive Louis.²⁸  However, “James was determined not to tolerate declamations against his religion and his ally.”²⁹

 In addition to his pro-Louis actions on religion, James received active support from Louis and the French, so much so that “…in becoming King of England, [James became] a hireling and vassal of France.”³⁰  James received money and other gifts from Louis, and James became so dependent on French support that Macaulay writes that James “became the slave of France.”³¹  James’ continued mistakes, his attempts at becoming more of a Louis-like absolute monarch, and reliance on Louis were so damaging to his power that Voltaire wrote:

“It is sometimes a simple matter to make a religion supreme in a country…but in order to bring about such changes, two things are absolutely essential: a deep-laid policy and favourable conditions.  James had neither.  His self-esteem was wounded by the sight of so many despots in Europe and of Denmark and of Sweden on the way to that condition; in short, Poland and England were the only countries where the liberty of the people coexisted with royalty.  Louis XIV was encouraging him to become absolute in his own land…”³²

While James blundered by following and being associated with Louis, William was making preparations for a great invasion.  William “regarded himself as appointed by God to right the wrongs that Louis had committed against [Protestantism] and against Europe.”³³  William set about building a navy and army, an army composed in part of dragonnades formerly in the service of Louis, with Marshal von Schomberg, a Protestant who had served as one of Louis’ military leaders, at its head.³⁴  Schomberg “was generally esteemed as the greatest living master of the art of war.”³⁵  Observers in Europe wondered whether this force was to be used to attack France or England.³⁶

Louis further alienated other European powers during this time, making those powers even more likely to side with William in any dispute against Louis.  Macaulay describes one of Louis’ fights with the Pope as one “in which the injustice and insolence of the French king were perhaps more offensively displayed than in any other transaction of his reign.”³⁷  In another dispute Louis quarreled with the Vatican over who should become Archbishop of Cologne.³⁸  Louis turned formerly pro-French forces in Holland against him by levying tariffs on Dutch goods entering France, so much so that the Amsterdam town council, which hitherto had supported Louis, announced that it supported William.³⁹

The end result of Louis’ errors and bellicosity were the creation of a climate which was hostile to Louis and favorable to William, ensuring that an attempted invasion of England by Williams would not encounter serious resistance.  Macaulay summarizes:

“Thus, [Louis], by two opposite errors, raised against himself at once the resentment of both the religious parties between which Western Europe was divided.  Having already alienated one great section of Christendom by persecuting the Huguenots, he alienated another by insulting the Holy See.  These faults he committed at a conjuncture at which no fault could be committed with impunity, and under the eye of an opponent second in vigilance, sagacity, and energy to no statesman whose memory history has preserved.  William saw with stern delight his adversaries toiling to clear away obstacle after obstacle from his path.”⁴⁰

Louis’ well-developed system of intelligence learned and transmitted to James that in all likelihood the military preparations being made by William were for an invasion of England, but James made yet another error in failing to heed those warnings.⁴¹  The Count d’Avaux, the French ambassador to England, believed that the first priority for Louis should be to prevent William’s invasion of England, so he recommended that French forces invade the Spanish Netherlands and attack the Batavian frontier.⁴²  Louis chose not to take the advice of Avaux, and instead he “underestimated the strength of William of Orange and the weakness of [James].  Like [James], [Louis] did not think that the admirals of the Royal Navy would betray the ex-Duke of York who used to lead them into battle.”⁴³  Moreover, James refused whatever help Louis was willing to offer.  And, Louis attacked the Palatine instead of the Netherlands, making yet another error which enabled the Glorious Revolution to occur:

“[Louis and his ministers] were making a great mistake:  William would be the master of the game; James II would demonstrate his incompetence; French troop movements in the Rhineland would encourage the Dutch to support the Prince of Orange…”⁴⁴

The result of Louis’ errors was that opposition against William at the Hague was no longer, and “…the errors of the court of Versailles, and the dexterity with which [William] had availed himself of those errors, made it impossible [for William’s enemies in Amsterdam] to continue the struggle against him.”⁴⁵  And thus, “William’s army landed on the English coast, but instead of encountering a stubborn resistance, [it was] received with open arms,” feats made much more possible by the actions of Louis.

After the Glorious Revolution, Louis’ affection for James continued.  Louis welcomed James to France and allowed James to live at the place of Louis’ birth, the Chateau of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and the city of Saint-Germain became a site of Jacobite activity.⁴⁶  Louis provided clothing for James and gave him and his queen precedence over everyone else at the status-conscious French court at Versailles.⁴⁷  Louis viewed James as an equal, since James had been a king, and “came to respect him as a man, almost a saint.  At the same time his courtesy, almost gallantry, toward James’s lovely queen, Mary of Modena, made some wonder if his intentions were completely innocent.”⁴⁸  Mary, after all, was the charming and beautiful grandniece of Cardinal Mazarin.  The French liked Mary and felt sorry for her in her new condition, given that it was largely the fault of the errors of her husband.⁴⁹

 James, however, was an unpopular figure in his adopted country, much like he was while he was king in his native country.  “Voltaire records that the Archbishop of Reims…said openly in James’s antechamber: ‘Look at this fellow who has sacrificed three kingdoms for the Mass.’”⁵⁰  James was “a tremendous bore…whose troubles were so obviously of his own making.”⁵¹  If the French courtiers disliked James, then the French absolutely hated the Glorious Revolution and its effects:

“England was again the England of Elizabeth and of Cromwell; and all the relations of all the states of Christendom were completely changed by the sudden introduction of this new power into the system.  The Parisians could talk of nothing but what was passing in London.  National and religious feeling impelled them to take the part of James.  They knew nothing of the English constitution.  They abominated the English Church.  [The Glorious Revolution] appeared to them, not as the triumph of public liberty over despotism, but as a frightful domestic tragedy in which a venerable and pious Servius was hurled from his throne by a Tarquin, and crushed under the chariot-wheels of a Tullia.  They cried shame on the traitorous captains, execrated the unnatural daughters, and regarded William with a mortal loathing, tempered, however, by the respect which valor, capacity, and success seldom fail to inspire.”⁵²

William took note of the closeness of James to Louis and sent Hans William Bentinck, Earl of Portland, to France to persuade Louis “to send James further away from England than Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where, surrounded by English exiles and receiving all the malcontents from over the Channel, he was busily plotting the assassination of William and his own return to the throne.⁵³

James later did use help from Louis in an attempt to regain the English throne.  Louis gave James a French army and French ships⁵⁴ for James’ unsuccessful invasion of Ireland, and James was soundly defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690.⁵⁵  “James had been a good Lord of the Admiralty, but he was a poor politician.  He did not know how to organize Irish loyalty or how to use French assistance.  His invasion of Ireland resulted in a disaster for him and his followers…”⁵⁶  At the Battle of the Boyne, a bullet brushed past William, setting off in Paris a false rumor that he had been killed.  Parisians lit bonfires and celebrated.⁵⁷  France suffered another defeat at the Battle of La Hougue, in 1692, after James persuaded Louis to invade England.  A French army “augmented by ten thousand Irishmen—a howling blunder, in view of the English hatred of the Irish”⁵⁸—was to attempt an amphibious assault on William’s kingdom.⁵⁹  The Jacobites were anxious to have a shot at retaking their country and were optimistic.  The French army was unsuccessful, being beaten back to France by English ships.  La Hougue was “the only decisive action of the war, in that England, deeply divided for over a century, now regained her unity and her will to ‘rule the waves,’”⁶⁰ further factors in the expansion of the unquestioned English naval supremacy, which was to exist for the next 200 years.

The Glorious Revolution in the long term was disastrous for Louis, serving as a check on his power.  Now, “William of Orange was…in control of both England and the Netherlands with greatly increased prestige and power that permitted him to bring England into the war on the side of the coalition” against Louis.⁶¹  Furthermore, William was “able to fulfill his dream of creating a European coalition against Louis, the aims of which were to reduce France to the frontiers of 1659.  The French devastation of the Palatine, a strategy designed to deprive the enemy of supplies and to terrorise the opposition, appalled the German states and alienated them still further.”⁶²  And William, the lifelong enemy of Louis, was in a position to intensify his efforts against Louis, which is exactly what he did.  “Full of bitterness, William lost all interest in the domestic affairs of England, which were run…by an aristocratic and mercantile oligarchy.  Hardly ever resident in London, and spending half of the year on the continent, he focused all his energies on the struggle against France.”⁶³

A French-language pamphlet published in Amsterdam in the year after the Glorious Revolution, a pamphlet which was a result of the free press which Louis so hated, argued that “France must awake and fell the weight of the frightful tyranny under which she groans, remembering the happy freedom enjoyed by all the neighbouring States under their legitimate princes and in possession of their ancient laws.”⁶⁴  And, the Glorious Revolution hurt Louis in another way: it served to weaken monarchical absolutism, of which he was the prime example.  “William fascinated all those who were weary of absolutism, including a large fraction of the rising generation.  His star was still dim, but it heralded the twilight of the Sun King.”⁶⁵

Bibliography

Francois Bluche, Louis XIV, Franklin Watts (1990).

Peter Robert Campbell, Louis XIV, Longman (1993).

Ian Dunlop, Louis XIV, St. Martin’s Press (1999).

Phillipe Erlanger, Louis XIV, Praeger Publishers (1970).

Thomas Babington Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, Volume I (1879, orig. pub. 1848).

Thomas Babington Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, Volume II (1879, orig. pub. 1848).

Nancy Mitford, The Sun King, Harper & Row, Publishers (1966).

John B. Wolf, Louis XIV, W.W. Norton & Company (1968).

¹ Thomas Babington Macaulay, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, Volume I (1879, orig. pub. 1848), 395.