Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on monarchy
An essay on monarchy
The British constitutional monarchy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on monarchy
Does the British Monarchy have too much power? Eight hundred years on from the sealing of the Magna Carta, and concerns are still prevalent. Despite this document curtailing the crown of many powers, some people oppose the monarch’s intervention in the nation’s affairs, or with their seemingly ludicrous wealth. Many want to see the British crown abolished outright. Yet there remains a quieter group- a silent majority- who back the institution completely. Additionally, some even believe in restoring some of these lost powers to the monarchy. This is perhaps an unconventional view, but is not only one that I can sympathise with, but I even argue is a beneficial idea.
Those who advocate the outright abolition of the monarchy tend to argue for
…show more content…
Surely, with unrestrained power, the monarch would likely rule without accountability and therefore only in their self-interest? However, I don't think this poses a problem. To address accountability, the monarch would still have to answer to the people – after all, who pays their wages? A country in shambles would have the monarch to blame, and they may be faced with dissent. After all, what happened to Marie Antoinette, or even King John himself? Naturally, due to the inheritance system, monarchs have further reason to keep a sustainable system. If you were passing on your house to your children, then you would want it to be in a good state. If you were passing on an entire country, then you would certainly want to ensure that it was in the best condition possible to bequeath to your children. This is the hidden accountability in the inheritance system, forcing the monarch to be loyal to the country in their every action. Politicians, conversely, have no such inherent loyalty to the country. Their successors in powerful cabinet roles may well be from opposition parties, giving them no such incentive to leave them a well-polished easy situation to manage. Indeed, many politicians do create difficult situations for their rivals to have to clear up - from interns removing the 'W' from White House keyboards with the incoming George W Bush to Liam Byrne leaving a note for …show more content…
Control over foreign affairs, at least. As the monarch is politically neutral, foreign leaders would not be immediately isolated due policy disagreements. As they have no political agenda to advocate, they have a superior negotiating position. Secondly, international negotiations are often lengthy, and involving complex deals that are only made harder by having to seek recurrent parliamentary approval, incentivising rushing deals to ensure they are delivered during a government's term. With a monarch, the change will be less frequent. Monarchs can use this extended time to form close, personal relationships with heads of state around the world, making it far easier to try to get deals with them. Furthermore, this means that deals can be done without a stopwatch, instead of having to be sped through within the lifetime of a parliament. While nothing can stop the intricacy of these arrangements, this would, at least, make it easier to accommodate. The oldest active treaty in the world, cementing an alliance between England and Portugal, was signed by two monarchs – Edward III and Ferdinand I. It has been invoked during times of war times since, and has also made trade easier between the two nations. On the flip side, the current (democratic) Greek and German governments promising incompatible financial deals to their respective electorates shows that democratic leaders can struggle to arrive at an
“The key factor in limiting royal power in the years 1399-1509 was the king’s relationship with parliament.”
Absolute Monarchy was a major form of government in Europe during the Renaissance. The monarch of that country controlled every aspect of their country and acts as the undisputed head of state. Whether economic, social, religious, or domestic the monarch had his say in every matter in their country. While except in places like the Middle East and Africa, absolute monarchs have ceased to exist, their policies and actions are used in the governments of today.
Parliament never desired a position where they could control England with full-fledged power. They simply wanted enough limitations on the king’s power that would guarantee the people certain rights that the king cannot take away, which juxtaposes the belief of divine right. Parliament tried numerous ways to create a structured administration where the king’s power was restricted and Parliament, including the people that they represented, was given a voice in government but their countless tries were futile and a disappointment. Preceding the Civil War and many times after it, Parliament tried to approach the king to present to him their ideas of how power should be distributed and used. They came up with laws and regulations to resolve political problems with the king, such as the Petition of Rights, Nineteen Propositions, and Grand Remonstrance. The king declined to acknowledge these laws as genuine laws. He either signed and disregarded it or he absolutely refused to bother himself with the minor complaints of Parliament. This eventually led to the conclusion that King Charles I was the type of man who could not be trusted with the legal promises he made to his people. The worries of Parliament were not seen as a major concern of his and he repudiated to consider any negotiations with whatever Parliament had to say. The king’s intractable ways caused Parliament to break away from his power before England became a place of political disaster.
"THE RELIGION OF THE QUEEN - TIME FOR CHANGE." University of Queensland Law Journa (2011): n. pag. Web.The British monarchy is a system of government in which a traditional monarch is the sovereign of the United Kingdom out of the country territories, and holds the constitutional position of head of state. According to the article, the Queen's powers are exercised upon the suggestion of her prime minister. Moreover, she firmly reserves powers which she may exercise at her own discretion. The Queen has many theoretical personal advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantages was that UK prohibits her from get married with a catholic member either being a roman catholic. However, with the exception of the appointment of the major minister, which is done with every prime minister, there are few positions in modern British government where these could be justifiably exercised; they have rarely been exercised in the last century. These powers could be exercised in an emergency such as a constitutional
Monarchs like King James on the other hand, abused his power. King James stated to Parliament and the world, that monarchs are equal to God himself and what they say goes. Bishop Bossuet describes this as “profane” and “arrogant” because King James was disgracing the divine right theory. A monarch’s divine right was said to have come from God himself. Sitting on God’s throne and decreeing laws contrary to Him was ludicrous to the Bishop.
Monarchy is a method where a single person oversees the government. This head of state reigns within bounds of a constitution but still creates a single entity with extreme power. Personal beliefs often override best practices.
A1. England was run by a Parliament and per history had very limited involvement of the monarchy or direct rule by the king. As well as the colonial legislatures; members were elected by property-holding men and governors were given authority to make decisions on behalf of the king. This system our leadership and how it controls its people the reason many
According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t like to be told what to do. These conflicts arose with the States-General in France, or Parliament in England who had substantial control. The first countries to have absolute rulers were the traditionally strong countries, such as England, Spain, and of course Louis XIV’s France.
Charles I was the second born son to King James I, who had also reigned under a constitutional monarchy, but large disagreement between Parliament and James I led to an essentially absolutist approach to governance. Likewise, Charles I disagreed with the Parliament on many factors. Charles was far from the contemporary model of a figurehead monarchy we see in today’s world, and his political reach extended throughout the English empire, even to the New World. Infact, I claim, he practiced a more absolutist form of monarchy than did the Czars of Russia; he dissolved Parliament three times. This unprecedented power led to (other than corruption) a strict contradiction of the principles of republicanism which most constitutional monarchies agreed on. And while many were in favor of an overlooking Parliament, his unopposed voice led the voyage to the New World as well as the charter for the Massachussets Bay Colony, and he fostered many internal improvements throughout England, which further benifetted the economy. Unfortunately, Charles began to push his limits as a monarch, and many became upset (including New Worlders from Massachussets) to the point of abdicating him and executing him for treason. Nevertheless, his positive effects on society and political rennovations persist in today’s
In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis
In 1603 the Scottish and English monarchies were united and at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the monarchy of the United Kingdom was deprived of the decision-making privilege they once had. For the purpose of this essay, I intend to examine the many different arguments both for and against the British monarchy being abolished. Proponents argue strongly that the monarchy symbolises all that is British throughout Britain and the Commonwealth Realms. However, contrary to this, the monarchy receives exorbitant financial aid from the British taxpayers to maintain the monarchy. Does the monarchy have a place in the twenty first century?
The Monarchy is Outdated and Expensive Discuss The phrase "the monarchy is outdated and expensive" immediately congers up a republican view. This immediately is wrong, I think this statement can be true without having to believe in abolishing the monarchy. To agree with the statement could be asking for moderate reform, that the monarchy be kept but its budget be cut, or on the other hand, as most people think, it could call for the formation of a republican Britain. I think the monarchy has uses, even though currently there are flaws in the system that critics can easily pick at, I think the monarchy should be kept, yet I do agree that their self proclaimed status and cost to the country are too high. The monarchy as its stands now could be considered out of date.
Chapter 8 p. 368-418. Straw, J, ‘Abolish the royal prerogative’, in A. Barnett Ed., Power and the throne: the monarch Debate (1994) London: Vintage, p. 129. Websites http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-03861.pdf.
Constitutional monarchy can be described as a form of government in which a monarch acts as the head of state but functions within the parameters or guidelines of a written and/or unwritten constitution. Although the government may function officially in the monarch’s name, the monarch does not set public policies or choose the political leaders. Constitutional monarchy therefore differs from absolute monarchy where the monarch controls political decision making without being restricted by constitutional constraints. Consequently, a constitutional monarch has often been defined as a sovereign who reigns but does not rule. Constitutional monarchies have also been called limited monarchies, crowned republics or parliamentary monarchies.
The British Monarchy. “The Queen in Parliament.” The Royal Household. Accessed May 4, 2014. https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueeninParliament.aspx.