Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Father-Son Advice the Royal Way
After reading the letters which Louis XIV and Peter the Great wrote to their heirs, as well as hearing the stories of how Frederick William I of Prussia treated his own son and heir to the throne, post a few comments on their paternal advice and how the sons responded. Whose advice was the best, whose was the worst? Which was most useful for a future monarch? With which of the sons' responses, if any, do you most agree? Please respond by Tuesday 11/21, and remember that if you choose to disagree, do so in an agreeable manner.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ill try to refrain from sounding like Dr. Phil when giving my critiques of these monarchs and their sons.
ReplyDeleteLouis XIV gave the best advice; the most fatherly and scholarly advice. While the idea of an absolute monarchy is very foreign to us as Americans, Louis' advice can be applied to rulers of all ages. Fortunately, Louis knows his history and understands that those who do not are doomed to repeat it. However, unfortunately for Louis' family they are only as informed as they could be but even still that is not good enough. Within the next few generations Louis' family will fall. Louis' family will join the infamous group of past rulers, who we now learn lessons from.
In contrast, Peter's advice, to his son, is rather depressing. Peter's entire letter seems completely ill fitting for a father to be writing to any of his children. I understand where Peter is coming from but I do not agree with him. Despite Peter's unpleasant catalyst, Alexei's response was very smart. Instead of trying to take on his father by asserting his right to the thrown he bowed out gracefully. Instead of going down in a blaze of glory.
I hope this is most agreeable.
From reading the monarch's letters to their heirs, I feel that Louis XIV's advice was the most useful and set a clear agenda for his heir. In his letter, he explains the importance of some of his policies and the keys to keeping an absolute monarchy in power. Louis letter can be seen as sort of a checklist for his heir, as they are things that can be done to keep the monarchy as it is, in a powerful state. Peter the Great's letter, in my mind, was definitely the worst. There was very little advice given to Alexei, as he took my of his time writing about how Alexei is unworthy of being Peter's heir. The letter showed that Peter may think himself to be infallible, and to be the savior of Russia. The letter could possibly be a motivational tool for Alexei, in that the criticisms of him could change his attitude to fit the monarchy. But in Alexei's response, he simply agrees with his father, and does not see himself fit for the monarchy. Because of this, Russia experienced a period of power struggle after Peter the Great passed away.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that Peter the Great's advice was most useful for an absolute monarch. Ultimately, the power of a state rests on its martial prowess, or its appearance of prowess, as can be seen in France's power during this time, or even Prussia's use of its army as a deterrent. In this light, the advice to cultivate military skills is extremely useful and good advice. I think that Alexei responded to it in an appropriate manner for himself, but one inappropriate for a head of state. The wishes of the monarch must be subordinated to the good of the country, and the country is not served by an abdicating heir and an unclear line of succession.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Peter the Great advice was the worst because it wasn't really advice at all but rather a letter that was meant to threaten Alexei to conform to Peter's ideals if he wanted the throne. The only advice Peter offered was the importance of having a strong military and not being afraid use it to expand or defend Russia. This was the same idea that Fredrick William I of Prussia tried to make his son understand as well before he became king. The importance of the military isn't really advice but rather common sense and wouldn't help a future monarch rule on a day to day basis. Louis on the other hand explained to his successor what he did that helped him rule such as dividing confidence among many so that these people would check the "elevation of his rival" and knowing all the affairs so that he is dependent on no one. These specific examples given by Louis are the most useful because they give the successor a guide to absolute power just like Louis had. Alexei's reply, to me at least, came out of left field. I thought he would try to convinced his father that we was capable of ruling rather than agreeing with him. Although Alexei might feel the way he does, I don't agree with his reply because now their is no clear line of succession which is never good and could lead to a power struggle.
ReplyDeleteIf you call the treatment by Peter the Great of his son advice, then I really don't understand the words meaning. It was basically just a letter that talked about how great Peter was(no pun intended) and how his son was unworthy of receiving his throne. Peter's son Alexei responds in the best way possible to his fathers arrogance by agreeing with him which I love. He steps down from the monarchy which probably left his father turning over in his grave. Louis gave the best advice to his son because he gave him detailed explanations about what does and doesn't work in the monarchy. Also, he gave his son instructions about how to take over and he did so in a far less derogatory manner. I really appreciated Louis' letter to his son and I felt it was the best advice given by a monarch to his successor.
ReplyDeleteLouis XIV gave the best advice to his son. Louis had done so much during his reign from centralizing the power of the monarchy, to making France a top European power. I think it was Louis concern or suspicion of the nobles and how they would react to him dying and his son taking power. Louis wanted to prepare his son for the throne and give him advice that would make it a smooth succession. It was all business to Louis and still did it in a much kinder way than Peter did to his son. Louis wanted to make sure his son was fully prepared to become the King of France. Peter just did not get along with his son. His entire letter focused on insulting and making his discontent clear with his son. He told him he was not worthy of the throne and that he could not be king. His son responded in the way that would most enrage Peter; by agreeing with him. Instead of stabding up for himself and potentially showing there was more to him.
ReplyDeletePeter the Great could not separate his role as ruler of Russia and role as a father apart from each other. His advice is flawed and set in such a negative manner, it does not give the boy any confidence or hope, which is something that a good ruler should have. Peter was so focused on setting up his family with power, and fighting off the old ways of Russia, and so busy working for his country, and used to adjusting things and controlling them, that when it came time to speak with his son, which is usually the one person a father can most easily control, he could not do it the right way, because he was so used controlling everything in Russia and setting things up his own way. Louis' advice was given in a more a positive tone, and therefore was more focused on the progression of his the next heir as a leader. Perhaps this is attributed to why the French monarchy was more successful than that of Russia. I cannot quite relate to the son of Frederick and Peter, and i feel sympathy for them, particularly Frederick William's son. However, his reaction did lead him to build an even stronger Prussia that his father left him, so it did somehow have a positive impact on he and his country.
ReplyDelete