I have been asked to consider the above statement and draw a conclusion as to its validity. I intend to begin this process by first looking at the situation in France with regard to its central government desiring uniformity of religion. .
I shall attempt to show the position at the beginning of the period in question, referring back to the Edict of Nantes in 1598 and then illustrating the progression through the periods of Cardinals Richlieu and Mazarin, and then entering the early eighteenth century with Louis XIV.
I will then move onto the British Isles. I hope to give a picture of the English religious position and the relationship to the monarchy. Following England, I will discuss Scotland and finally Ireland, following a similar template. I feel that we will see the effect of religious dissent on political stability most easily at this point, in Ireland. I believe this to be because of the transplanted nature of sections in the population. The original English Catholics, the native population and then Protestant English settlers. .
Religion is still unsettling modern governments. We need look no further than our own country to see this. Therefore, in history it is quite natural that it should cause similar problems for governments, especially those seeking religious uniformity.
France in the late sixteenth century was a Roman Catholic country under Henri IV. The Huguenots, however, were a large group of Protestants who did not conform to the religious faith or ideals the monarchy hoped all it's citizens would adopt. They were the direct opposition to the Roman Catholic church. There were, however, other "sub-sections" of the main Catholic faith; primarily Jansonists and Jesuits.
At the turn of the century following the signing of the Edict of Nantes, there was an air of toleration towards non - conformist religions. Although not the desired religion at this time there was no direct pressure or measures in place forcing individuals to convert to Catholicism.