Throughout the course of the Middle Ages the meaning behind the title of king evolved, while at the same time the power of the nobles and the Church was constantly threatened and taken by these secular rulers. Various kings had many different methods that they implemented in order for them to gain more power than their nobility and the Church. From the simple building of castles to the intricate workings of law, secular rulers found ways to slowly erode the power of others in favor of gaining power themselves. These efforts did not go un-noticed, the church fought back with excommunication and interdicts playing on the ruler’s, as well as their subjects’ fear of eternal damnation. The nobility used the leverage they had with their money …show more content…
At the start of the medieval period the king was just at the top of the feudal system, meaning that in return for the services of those below him he was expected to give protection and land. In this system the king’s laws were ignored in favor for those of the local lords. This view of the king is seen in source 10, the Portrait of Emperor Otto III. The emperor is shown on a throne with the a crown , an orb to represent the church, and a scepter to show the union of secular and ecclesiastical power. Yet, the emperor is shown to be close to an equal of the nobles and the religious figures as shown by the close proximity of the two groups and how they are not worshipping or bowing to the ruler. In the Coronation of Richard the Lionhearted, 1189 (source 9) , earls, barons, and other nobility play major roles by carrying symbols of power or by helping out in the ceremony itself. The wording of the document itself reveals that Richard was seen as a duke who was chosen to assist God and therefore the Church. This means that he was seen as more powerful than the kings who were only at the top of the feudal system, but less powerful than the absolute monarchs such as Louis XIV. Richard is seen more as a human elevated to the status of king
When we look at Henry as a king we have to look in the context of
During the reigns of King Louis XIV of France and King Peter I of Russia, also known as Peter the Great, the nobility was under strict control to limit its power and status in society and government. Both autocrats, or absolute rulers, put the nobles in an area separate from the rest of society to keep them under close watch. The kings’ opinion on religion also impacted the status and power of the nobility because most of them were skilled Protestants. This would prove to be a problem in the long run for Louis XIV. Overall, Peter the Great and Louis XIV despised the nobility and their power in the government and went to many measures to subdue them.
Although it is often argued that rulers such as Joseph II, Catherin II, and Frederick II were motivated to instate enlightened principles; oftentimes, these rulers were slaves to the ideals of despotism, where the preeminent goal was to obtain more power. Indeed it may be a legitimate claimed that these rulers realized the greatness of Enlightenment ideas; however, since most of their reigns were spent preserving dominance over their people, it is safe to say that these individuals may have been more dedicated to serving their own self-interests.
When Louis the XIV began his rule in 1643, his actions immediately began to suggest and absolute dictatorship. Because of the misery he had previously suffered, one of the first things he did was to decrease the power of the nobility. He withdrew himself from the rich upper class, doing everything secretly. The wealth had no connection to Louis, and therefore all power they previously had was gone. He had complete control over the nobles, spying, going through mail, and a secret police force made sure that Louis had absolute power. Louis appointed all of his officials, middle class men who served him without wanting any power. Louis wanted it clear that none of his power would be shared. He wanted "people to know by the rank of the men who served him that he had no intention of sharing power with them." If Louis XIV appointed advisors from the upper classes, they would expect to gain power, and Louis was not willing to give it to them. The way Louis XIV ruled, the sole powerful leader, made him an absolute ruler. He had divine rule, and did not want to give any power to anyone other than himself. These beliefs made him an absolute ruler.
In short, disestablishment is the most literal form of separation of Church and State; it prohibited the state from funding or establishing a religion. This was a continuation of the fight for the freedom on conscience. James Madison was very influential in this fight, “Religion was not invented by human policy” thus he argued that it should never be subjected to human policy (Maddison, 120). Maddison expresses that a person’s religion is to be determined by his own conviction and conscience, “and it is the right of every man to exercise it” (Maddison, 118). Freedom of religion, the first amendment, existed before disestablishment, but in it’s entirety was dependent on disestablishment. Establishment was achieved through imposing taxes on
In Political Testament, Cardinal Richelieu explains that the nobility is something to be used as a tool, a perpetual game of appeasement and request of services. He understood that the nobility could be a nuisance and a body of dissent against the King, but that they were necessary to the crown to provide military aid and money. Richelieu explains that one must know how to manage and manipulate them: “To take away the lives of these persons, who expose their lives every day for a pure fancy of honor, is much less than taking away their honor and leaving them a life which would be a perpetual anguish for them. All means must be used to maintain the nobility in the true virtue of their fathers, and one must also omit nothing to preserve the advantages they inherited.” ...
Since the beginning of the sixteenth century, Western Europe experienced multiple types of rulers which then led to the belief that rulers should be a combination of leadership types. Some rulers were strong, some weak, and some were considered to rule as tyrants. All of these were versions of absolutism which gave kings absolute power over their provinces and countries. Over time kings began to believe that their supreme power was given to them by God in a belief known as Divine Right. The people looked at Divine Right kings as those who would incorporate God’s will into their politics; however, many kings took this power and turned it into tyrannical opportunities. By the time the seventeenth century came around, kings continued to believe in Divine Right and absolute power which continued to create many tyrannical kings and caused many of the people to begin to fight the king’s power by granting some rights to the people. These uprisings led to more people believing that they have certain rights that the king cannot ignore. By the eighteenth century, many rulers started to combine their absolute power with including the newly granted rights of the people. The belief also shifted from Divine Right to one that the people gave the king his power which led to kings like Frederick II of Prussia to rule with his people’s interests in mind.
The aim of absolute monarchy was to provide ‘stability, prosperity, and order’ for our territories (458). The way Louis XIV set forth to accomplish this was to claim complete sovereignty, to make laws, sanction justice, declare wars, and implement taxes on its subjects. This was all done without the approval of any government or Parliament, as monarchs were to govern ‘by divine right, just as fathers ruled their households’ (458). In Bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet’s Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, he described that absolution was one of the four characteristics imperative to royal authority, “Without this absolute authority, he can do neither good nor suppress evil; his power must be such that no one can hope to escape him” (460). This was epitomized when Louis XIV sought to control the legal system as well as the funding of the financial resources through a centralized bureaucracy for the monarchy.
During this time, the Magna Carta was written and signed. This limited the power of the king and he had to earn approval by the lords before he could make a decision. It also made it so a law can only be passed if it doesn’t go against the Magna Carta. It also implies religion by helping with giving the Church full rights that allows
The Post Classical Era was a period of time that ranged from 600 BCE through 1450 BCE. This era followed the decline of the great empires but later on served as guidance for Christian and Muslim empires. The Post Classical Era was filled with fluctuation causing numerous people to seek stability through political, social and religious duties. During this time period it was extremely difficult for the people especially the Muslims and Christians; therefore, they searched for rulers to uphold their empires. From an analytical perspective based on The Ideal Muslim King by Shaikh Hamadani, and The Life of Charlemagne by Christians and Muslims did share similar duties in different aspects to create a foundation and to guide their people.
Richard can never bring himself to be "eased" with being ordinary, with being what he sees as "nothing" and so he can never live as a subject instead of a ruler. It is perhaps significant that when he dies he seeks to return to the only identity he really knew, that of a ruler, and warns that "Exeter, thy fierce hand / Hath with the King's blood stained the King's own land" (V.v. 109-10). He has accepted intellectually the transient nature of kings' power and understands he can no longer possess even that, yet in death he reaches for the only identity he ever really held, that of absolute monarch.
In Richard II, the divine right to rule is a contentious issue. In each play by Shakespeare, the kings are susceptible to certain errors that stem from divine rule or from flouting it, and seizing power on their own. For instance, Richard II has believed his entire life that his kingship is a gift from God and that his actions are an extension of God’s will. By believing that everything he does is an act of the lord, he alienates himself from his subjects and ends up losing his throne to Henry, who does not have the authorization of the lord, but is more politically minded that Richard. This creates a question that spreads through many of the history plays that Shakespeare wrote; is it divine right or power that allows one to rule? This struggle leads to a myriad of issues throughout Richard II and contributes extensively to these representative works of some of England’s famous rulers.
Henry implemented many methods in order to control the nobility with varying success. Henry sought to limit the power of the nobles as he was acutely aware the dangers of over mighty subjects with too much power and little love for the crown or just wanted a change like Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick who deposed two kings to replace them. Also Henry’s own rise to the throne was helped by nobles dislike towards Richard III. By restricting the nobles Henry wanted to reduce the power of the nobles and possible threats against him and return the nobles from their quasi king status to leaders in their local areas but under the power of the crown.
The United States of America is a country that was formed on different beliefs. These beliefs are what make America the diverse country it is today. One of the biggest debates in this country is the division between church and state. The United States is one of the few countries that believe in a separation between church and state. I believe that the United States is a secular nation with religious influences. We are not fully on one side of the argument, fully secular or fully religious, but blended to compliment both sides.
During the Middle Ages, there were many kings ruling Europe. Some of them were good, and some of them were not. The kings and people who had power constantly used their influence in order to become richer or more powerful, and many times took advantage of all that to exploit the poor. But, not only the poor were affected by the way some kings ruled, the noblemen whom were also rich and powerful, that was the case of King John I. The way he ruled in England was disapproved by a lot of people, especially