Absolutism vs Constitutional Monarchy

In: Historical Events

Submitted By kmcdowell
Words 709
Pages 3
Compare and contrast the theories and practice of absolutism and constitutional monarchy during the 17th century. The seventeenth century saw the evolution of two new types of government mainly because of the instability that was caused by religious wars. One type of government was a constitutional monarchy in which rulers were confined to the laws of the state, giving the people some liberties, best exemplified by William and Mary during the Stuart monarchial rule. Constitutional monarchy was successful in mainly in England because of the Magna Carta, which kept the king’s power in check. The other type was absolute monarchy, in which the king has power over everything, shown by the French under Louis XIV. Although these two different types of monarchies had some similarities, ultimately the constitutional monarchies were more successful because they allowed civilians to have more freedoms in everyday life and made the government less prone to rebellion. Though the systems of government differed in monarchial power, there were many similarities. Both constitutional and absolute monarchies were headed by single rulers, which allowed for some sort of corruption through their power. Since they usually ruled for life, rulers were able to spend large sums of money for personal gain as shown by Louis XIV with his palace of Versailles. To be effective, monarchs had to find ways to control the treasury, maintain a standing army, control religious protests, and expand a bureaucracy as shown by Louis XIV’s motto of “one king, one state, one God.” The two monarchies differed, however, in achieving their aims. Constitutional rulers believed that kings and nobles had to make a social contract and sacrifice some power to unite the country. The absolute monarchs believed that they acquired power from God. Bossuet said in his Treatise on Politics “Royal authority…...

Similar Documents

Monarchy in England

...Timeline to a Limited Monarchy in England JUNE 15, 1215 THE MAGNACARTA ISSUED IN ENGLAND The Magna Carta set in motion the future limitations on the English monarchy. Passed by barons, it attempted to limit the power of English kings by forcing to accept that they were bound by law, by protecting many rights of the English citizens, preventing unlawful imprisonment (habeus corpus), and more. This was the first instance of the citizenry limiting the power of the monarch. NOVEMBER 13, 1295 THE RISE OF THE MODEL PARLIAMENT The Magna Carta set in motion the future limitations on the English monarchy. Passed by barons, it attempted to limit the power of English kings by forcing to accept that they were bound by law, by protecting many rights of the English citizens, preventing unlawful imprisonment (habeus corpus), and more. This was the first instance of the citizenry limiting the power of the monarch. NOVEMBER 1, 1534 FIRST ACT OF SIPREMACY PASSED IN Henry VIII separated England from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It severed any ties that England had with the powerful outside authority that was the pope. The English government was now managed in both a political and religious aspect by the same figure, the king, and this would have significant repercussions for the final development of a limited monarchy. NOVEMBER 17, 1558 ELIZABETH 1 CROWNED QUEEN OF ENGLAND The ascent of Queen Elizabeth to the throne, and her subsequent rule over England marks a time......

Words: 494 - Pages: 2

Argument for and Against the British Monarchy

...Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12 9. References……………………………………………..……………………………………………………………… 14   1. Introduction Monarchy was the primary government form for a majority of European countries before 1914 (Bogdanor, 1995). However, in modern Europe, few countries retain the monarchies. The United Kingdom, as one of the most developed countries, still maintains the position of monarch as the head of state. Today’s British monarchy, which is also called a Constitutional Monarchy, is quite different from the past ‘absolute monarchy’. “The monarchical shell remains intact, but the inner workings have been taken over by party political leaders,” says Norton (2007). In the past, the monarch possessed a wide range of powers, but many have been restricted or eliminated after a series of battles and reforms (Peele, 2004). The monarch now plays an important symbolic and ceremonial role but the power of making policy has been shifted to a more representative function of government (Norton, 2007). Faced with this powerless and traditional shell, its existence has been criticized and debated by the public and politicians in this democratic and liberal era. However, many polls (e.g. MORI) and surveys have shown that the number of monarch supports outweighs those who oppose it (Olechnowicz, 2007). This report will examine the benefits and risks of Constitutional Monarchy currently in the United Kingdom and demonstrate that although the monarch is......

Words: 3077 - Pages: 13

Constitutional Law

...Beatson). Rouse Ball himself was not a constitutional lawyer, but I like to think that the constitution is a subject that would have appealed to him. Among his other activities, puzzles of different kinds fascinated him. He wrote a book called Mathematical Recreations and Essays, and founded the Pentangle Club for ‘Cambridge men interested in conjuring’. Perhaps he would have been entertained by the constitution, which seems to me to flourish in the gaps between appearance and reality: that which is not is made to appear to be, and the processes producing that which is will often be disguised by showmanship and magic incantations. For, as both Peter Ackroyd and Professor Ian Ward have pointed out, England and its constitution are islands of visions.8 When one widens the angle to look at the constitution of the United Kingdom, rather than just of England, we encounter a sea of conflicting visions. The constitution, as a single set of rules, is very hard to pin down. I should make it clear at the outset that I am not talking about the 8 Peter Ackroyd, Albion: the Origins of the English Imagination (London: Chatto & Windus, 2002), pp. xix, 20-21; Ian Ward, The English Constitution: Myths and Realities (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004), esp. chs. 1 and 5. 4 absence of a codified constitutional document. That is a relatively trivial, formal matter. I am concerned not with the form but with the substance and function of constitutional rules: what they require and what they...

Words: 10282 - Pages: 42

Constitutional Reform

...Introduction The monarchy has been described as ‘the keystone in the arch of the British Constitution’. It is, indeed, an extremely significant part of our culture and history, as well as being central to our system of Government. It will therefore be necessary to begin any discussion of the constitutional issues involved in its abolition by outlining the current functions of the head of state in Britain. As ‘a state without a monarch is a republic’, it will then be necessary to consider the constitutional issues which would be implicit in giving effect to such a republic. These issues will include decisions as to the type of president we would have, how they would be selected, and the scope and extent of powers they would possess. This discussion is not intended to be one of the relative merits of a monarchy versus a republic: indeed, the decision to abolish the monarchy has already been made. Rather, it is an attempt to answer the question of how this central feature of our constitution could be replaced. In answering this question, I will look to a possible alternative, namely an elected president, and determine whether, and on what basis they could take over the functions of the monarch. Other constitutional issues regarding the selection of such a President must then be considered, along with other constitutional issues arising in this context. As a preliminary issue, it should be noted that in this hypothetical situation, it is Prince Charles, or rather......

Words: 3236 - Pages: 13

Monarchy

...Constitutional Monarchy When you’re starting a government you want a strong but fair government that also makes the people in the country to have an option on how to run the country they live in. The reason why I choose a constitutional monarchy gives the people the rights of a democracy but is also has a royal family that doesn’t change and is the face of that country. There are a couple of changes that I would make to improve the way it is set up. There has to be ground rules for the type of government to be really effective. This government structure must have either a bill of rights or a constitution on what powers each person in this government will have and how much power the monarch will have. This system would allow the monarch to serve as head of its government and the monarch will represent the country. When you have a constitutional monarch the king and queen they would be the ones who travel to different countries and help with the relationship with other countries. They will have a more effect on other counties because they have more power than a secretary of state would because they represent the country instead of representing a president of a country who was elected. The Monarch would save money on election because the king or queen would be the ones to represent the country for life or until they can do the job and their succors would be a person in their family to carry on their legacy. The constitutional monarch will have elected officials to run......

Words: 778 - Pages: 4

Will the Monarchy Survive in the 21 Century

...Queen. What helped British monarchy survive? What will happen to it in the future? I got interested in the questions and decided to make a research on topic of British monarchy. I hope it may be interesting for the others too, because everything what is unique always attracts us and inspires us to explore it and use the experience if possible. So, the aim of my research is to find out the conditions which let the British monarchy change in a certain way but survive throughout centuries. So, I studied the history of British monarchy, the way it changed through centuries and tried to predict its future. The history of the country dates back to 55 BC when Julius Caesar established the first army camp on the Isles, and in 43 BC the territory was conquered up to what is now Scotland. So, the Roman emperor was the first governor of the British Isles. Then came 1066 – the year of the famous Hastings battle. William the Duke of Normandy conquered the territory. So, the country was ruled by a foreign sovereign again. As years passed, new monarchs came to power, ruled the country, quarreled, proclaimed wars, made peace and died to let the next ones come to power… In about 1642 civil war broke out. During the war the king had been executed, the monarchy had been abolished and a new republic called the English Union had been proclaimed. Oliver Cromwell gained the power in 1653, but in about 1660 the monarchy was restored. However, it was a different monarchy. The power of the king......

Words: 677 - Pages: 3

Spain Monarchy

...met as it only lasted about 18 hours as they had very little support. In a year’s time Carlos introduced one of the most important bill in Spain’s political history to the Cortes or parliament, ‘a political reform bill which would introduce universal suffrage and a two-chamber parliament, consisting of a lower house ,or Congress, and an upper house to be called the Senate.’ (Hooper pg.32) The parliament passed the bill with majority vote in favor of the bill. A referendum held regarding the bill received about 94 %( 1) favoring the bill. (Hooper pg.32) Carlos has played a vital role in the Spanish transition to democracy by putting an end to Franco’s regime. Spain was introduced to parliament monarchy, with Juan Carlos I recognized as the King of Spain, serving as a constitutional monarch. No independent executive powers are granted to the King by the constitution and each of the King’s political or governmental action requires a signature from the prime minister or one of his ministers. He also holds the position of commander in chief but has no actual authority over the army. He is given the status of Head of State making him the chief representative for Spain in international relations and also he actively participates in promoting Ibero-American relations. Carlos is considered a liberal philanthropist who had now been able to win over the heart of the Spaniards through his previous undertakings. Unlike under Franco, one can observe that the Spaniards have been able......

Words: 1466 - Pages: 6

Constitutional Law

...power was absolute, unfettered and not subject to any judicial scrutiny. From this source, it came to find a place in the Constitutions of India and the USA as well as the Constitutional structure of Britain. However it could hardly survive in its unrestrained nature in the democratic systems of these states. Over a period of time, it became diluted in the U.K. and U.S.A. to a limited extent through the exercise of judicial scrutiny. But its greatest dilution has occurred in India. The Supreme Court has conclusively established in the landmark cases of Maru Ram and Kehar Singh that the power of pardon is subject to judicial scrutiny. In subsequent cases, the Court enumerated specific grounds on which such scrutiny could be exercised. However the Court has wisely stopped short on laying down any explicit guidelines for the exercise of this power. This article seeks to analyse the Court’s jurisprudence with respect to the justiciability of the power of Presidential Pardon after taking a look at British and American practice and to find out the current legal position with respect to the same. History of the Power of Pardon in Britain In his Commentaries, Blackstone said that the Crown's use of the pardon power to ensure that justice was administered with mercy was one of the great advantages of monarchy over any other kind of government, because it softened the rigors of the general law. Although Blackstone is undoubtedly correct in asserting that clemency in England......

Words: 2659 - Pages: 11

Ethical Relativism vs Ethical Absolutism

...The question of whether ethical relativism or ethical absolutism is right has been the subject of much debate, and perhaps may never be answered for certain. It is certain, however, that at the present time, ethical relativism is in general accepted as the standard. Although I realize that given the fact that the best of philosophers have failed to give solid arguments for either ethical relativism or ethical absolutism will most likely be unable as well, however that is not my goal. Rather my purpose is simply to make us question the ethical relativism to which we have become so accustomed, and to demonstrate some reasons why ethical absolutism may be correct. We all know that people, in general, treat ethics as being subjective. Does that, however, make that right, just, and ethical? To put it simply, the answer is: no. This is obvious given the common example, "if all the other kids were jumping off a cliff, would you do it too." The masses are not always right. So now the thought in all your minds is "come on - go ahead! Prove us wrong." I'm not trying to prove anything, however I will hopefully give you enough information to make you question what is right, and if I do, then I've accomplished my goals. Lets begin with the basics. "What are absolute ethics?" Ethical Absolutism, is undeviating moral discipline. Nothing is relative; a crime is a crime, regardless of circumstances. For a quick demonstration of ethical relativism let us use the example of murder. Is it ok...

Words: 2114 - Pages: 9

Absolute Monarchy

...Political Absolutism/ Absolute Monarchy – France Constitutional Monarchy – England Steps Toward Political Absolutism in France: King Henry IV – 1) elected the Duke of Sully (Maximillian de Bethune) to reduce French debt that accumulated during fighting between Catholics and French Protestants (Huguenots) during the Age of Religious Wars. 2) Brought religious fighting to an end by granting the Huguenots religious toleration via the Edict of Nantes, and 3) Strengthened political power of the French Monarch by limiting the power of the nobility over the regional parliaments. Louis XIII – was assigned Cardinal Richelieu, by his mother Marie de Medici, as his personal advisor, when he was too young to rule at 9. Because of her inept capabilities to rule, Louis XIII, at 23, helped Richelieu send his mother into exile after which the king gave full support to Cardinal Richelieu to run the French Government. Richelieu succeeded in further strengthening the power of the monarch by 1) destroying the castles of the nobility and 2) crushing the political power of the Huguenots, who surrendered their fortified cities, military and territorial rights for religious toleration via the Peace of Alais (1629). 3) Finally, Richelieu transferred power from the nobility to royal elected officials through his creation of the intendant System. Louis IX – was assigned Cardinal Mazarin at the age of 3 as his personal and financial advisor and Prime Minister at the request of Louis’......

Words: 1365 - Pages: 6

Moral Absolutism

...relativism is a better system than moral absolutism” Moral relativism refers to the normative ethical system which rejects the idea of absolutes and instead believes that “man is the measure of all things”- which was skilfully expressed by Ruth Benedict. The moral relative system surpasses that of moral absolutism and this will be justified throughout this essay. Moral relativist systems exceed moral absolutist systems due to diversity. The system explains the different values that people hold and encourages diverse cultural expressions due to there being no rigidity or fixe ethical code. This allows for a better system as it signifies freedom of expression and people being able to share their opinions with each other, without there being a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. This is due to the system prohibiting dominant cultures from enforcing itself over others simply because of a disparity of opinions. This means that all cultures are valued by a relativist as there is no objective knowledge that one must accept, they instead must accept all actions as equally valid in the society in which they take place. This would then make is difficult for a relativist to criticise religious acts such as Muslim women wearing a hijab in England , which is beneficial to society due to the lack of discrimination and ignorance. In conjunction with diversity, moral relativism is a better system than moral absolutism due to circumstantial aspects. Moral absolutism does not take into account the......

Words: 633 - Pages: 3

Absolutism and Relativism

...Explain absolute and relative approaches to ethics Absolutism and relativism approach ethics in two very different ways. Absolutists believe that some things are either right or wrong and there is a rule that is true in all situations, this is a lot easier to apply, whereas, relativists believe it’s a judgement that depends on the circumstances where there’s no universal right or wrong. The theory of ethical relativism holds that there are no moral rules, all principles and values depend on a particular culture or age. There is no such thing as right or wrong what’s right to someone could be wrong to someone else. An action could be bad but in itself however the response could be right, for example if your dad is in a burning building with someone who can cure cancer who would you save? That one person who means the world to you? Or the majority of the population? This mean that there is no objective basis meaning there is no truth. Relativism originated from the western ethical thinking to the city of ancient Greece. At the time of 18th BCE, being good meant being a hero and doing heroic things and being a strong, courageous person. This idea started to develop and ethical theories of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle started to become accepted as they looked at the ideas of character and virtue. Things began to change in the 16th century BCE and there was no moral certainty. Due to the exploration of different cultures such as other civilisations with different ideas,...

Words: 555 - Pages: 3

Challenge to Absolutism

...Louis XVIs failings as a monarch primarily account for the strength of the challenge to absolutism in France which existed by the beginning of May 1789 - How far do you agree? Yes to a large extent it can be argued that it was Louis XVIs failings as a monarch that accounted for the strength of the challenge to the Ancien Regime. For example Louis' weak leadership meant he lacked the confidence to act assertively meaning he couldn't combat the growing strength of the privileged class and push through reforms. Moreover he was too easily influenced and took appeasement of the privileged too far instead of stopping them in their tracks. Although it could be argued that the power of the privileged accounted for the challenge to absolutism due to their self interest and corruption it is clear that without Louis weaknesses this would not of been such a serious issue and thus Louis failings remain the primary account to the strength of the challenge as he failed to keep control and influence within the privileged classes which in turn created difficulty when attempting the all important reforms. Moreover although the grievances could be seen as the primary reason and account for the strength of the challenge to absolutism it is clear they are not the most important. For example although it could be argued that the resentment from the third estate ,due to the tax burdens placed on them, mainly account for the strength in challenge it is clear that without Louis failures to reform......

Words: 2171 - Pages: 9

Absolutism and Constitutionalism

...Absolutism and Constitutionalism What are the merits of Absolutism and what are the merits of Constitutionalism? The word merit is relative, however in this case, it relates to how the people can benefit from either form of government. According to John Locke, Constitutionalism is “…to be directed to no other end but the peace, safety, and public good of the people” (82). Generally speaking, Constitutionalism has a more positive connotation than Absolutism because people associate constitutionalism with the idea of free will. However, there can never be total free will in a collective effort. Locke actually does not approve of the idea of total free will, “…the enjoyment of it is very uncertain…very unsafe, very insecure” (80). Locke addresses the states of Nature and why they are and can be destructive. “…passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far…negligence and unconcernedness, makes them too remiss in other men’s…They who by an injustice offended will seldom fail where they are able by force to make good their injustice” (80-81). In addition, Locke does not view men coalescing to make a constitutionalist government as giving up one’s rights, but rather the opposite, proclaiming that it indirectly preserves them instead, “…give up equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of Nature…the power of the…legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good…obliged to secure every one’s property by......

Words: 607 - Pages: 3

Relativism and Absolutism

...Relativism and Absolutism Absolutism and relativism are two extreme ethical approaches to reality. While they are both valid and supported by facts, they are very contrasting in their views. Values are what a person cares about and thinks is worthwhile. For example, values can include life, love, religious faith, freedom, relationships,health, justice, education, family and many other things. Usually these values are what provides the passion in a person's life, and gives them hope and a reason for being. A person might go to any lengths to protect what they feel is right and to preserve these values. Values can be divided up into two subcategories absolute and relative. Absolute values deal with conventional ethics. In absolutism, everything is certain. Relativism, on the other hand, is more subjective. Relativism and absolutism are only two of the many ethical viewpoints studied by ethicists today. Pope Benedict XVI brought up many issues revolving around these two viewpoints during his time as Pope. He never strictly used the term "relativism" but he did "fault modern people for missing the transcendent meaning of love and instead caring for one another just because we feel like it". The ideas behind relativism may be misleading or confusing to some, but are essential to any worldview, including the pope's. Pope Benedict worries that a person's individual autonomy has been lifted and valued above moral absolutes. Most people understand that lying is wrong and......

Words: 1323 - Pages: 6