Final answer:
England's solution to checking monarchical power involved strengthening Parliament's role, leading to a balance of powers and the development of a constitutional monarchy. France, on the other hand, maintained a strong absolute monarchy without a true national assembly, leading to an eventual revolution propelled by a lack of representation and checks on monarchical power.
Step-by-step explanation:
Differences in the English and French Solutions to Monarchical Power
In the 17th century, the struggle between monarchs and those seeking to check their power manifested differently in England and France. In England, the aftermath of the Hundred Years' War and the impact of the Magna Carta laid a foundation for a government where the monarchy was balanced by the power of Parliament. The frequent calling of Parliament to fund wars led to the development of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and ultimately the English Civil War during the 1640s and the Glorious Revolution in 1668 reinforced the Parliament's authority over the monarchy.
Conversely, France solidified a strong monarchical government without a true national assembly. French King Louis XIV's reign exemplified absolute monarchy, where checks on the monarch's power by representative institutions were mostly absent. This solution contributed to grievances that culminated in the French Revolution towards the end of the 18th century.
The French monarchy's resistance to sharing power with regional assemblies or a national representative body led to a more centralized and absolute form of governance, contrasting with England's evolving constitutional monarchy that increasingly involved the people's representatives in government decisions.