- Structural deficiencies: The Estates General were not structured in a way that would allow them to challenge the authority of the monarchy. They were composed of three distinct estates, each representing different social groups (the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners). This made it difficult for the Estates General to act with unity and coherence, and they often found themselves at loggerheads with each other. In contrast, the English Parliament was a more centralized and cohesive institution, with a strong lower house (the House of Commons) that was able to effectively represent the interests of the common people.
- Lack of institutionalization: The Estates General did not have the same level of institutionalization as the English Parliament. They did not meet on a regular basis, and there were no clear rules or procedures for their functioning. This made it difficult for the Estates General to develop a strong sense of identity or tradition. In contrast, the English Parliament had well-established traditions and procedures, and it met on a regular basis from the 13th century onwards. This allowed it to develop a strong institutional foundation that could not be easily undermined by the monarchy.
- Monarchical control: The French monarchy was much stronger and more centralized than the English monarchy, and it was able to exert a great deal of control over the Estates General. The king had the power to summon and dissolve the Estates General at will, and he could also veto any legislation that they passed. This made it difficult for the Estates General to challenge the authority of the monarchy in any meaningful way. In contrast, the English monarchy was weaker and more dependent on the support of Parliament, which gave the Parliament more bargaining power and allowed it to gradually increase its power and influence.