The Constitutional Monarchy in Britain
Royalists versus republicans; It is an age old debate and one that
perhaps will never be solved, however I will attempt to untangle the
arguments and make my own mind up. Many say that the monarchy is
outdated and it is true to say that the world into which the Queen
Mother was born did not have aeroplanes, computers or nuclear
missiles. In the 100 years of her life, there have been two world wars
and The British Empire, which once ruled the world, has now been
reduced to a few islands in the Pacific and the Caribbean. So surely,
some might say, because of all the changes the monarchy is now an
outdated system that we no longer want nor need. However, through this
turmoil, our monarchy has survived; and surely this is testimony to
the staying power and the hard work of the sovereigns and if they have
lasted through all of these changes then surely they will last for
many more during the centuries ahead.
During the dark ages there was a growing society which needed to be
kept in its place and this allowed for the development of the legend
of the "divine right" of Kings, expressed no better then in
Shakespeare's Richard II fervent believe of his right to power at one
point describing himself as, "this deputy elected by the Lord"
(III:ii:57). This was the easy idea that a king or queen's rule was
blessed by god. And certainly this thought had the bonus of offering
some protection for the rulers from the god-fearing masses. This fable
lasted until the late 17th century by which time the budding nobility
and land owning gentry were affirming their power through a developing
parliament. Indeed after the civil war there was a time when the new
republic lasted without the rule of kings. And so surely now we as no
longer believe in this strange notion of divine right we can abolish
the monarchy without fearing what will happen, once we kept them
through fear of god and so now we can abolish them as this fear is no
In the late fifteenth century, rulers started to solidify their nations by creating a more nationalistic view in each kingdom’s inhabitance. Through political and economic stability people were ruled by a more centralized government and felt more national pride. Unlike in the past when lands were constantly changing rulers and mercenary soldiers fought for the highest bidder. Monarch’s such as Louis XI of France, Isabella and Ferdinand of Spain and Henry VII of England helped to unite their kingdom’s and contribute to the phrase “new monarchies”.
Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism. Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules. supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other. organisations such as Parliament.
grew out of a demand for voting rights for the working class at a time
In this excerpt from Democracy in America Alexis Tocqueville expresses his sentiments about the United States democratic government. Tocqueville believes the government's nature exists in the absolute supremacy of the majority, meaning that those citizens of the United States who are of legal age control legislation passed by the government. However, the power of the majority can exceed its limits. Tocqueville believed that the United States was a land of equality, liberty, and political wisdom. He considered it be a land where the government only served as the voice of the its citizens. He compares the government of the US to that of European systems. To him, European governments were still constricted by aristocratic privilege, the people had no hand in the formation of their government, let alone, there every day lives. He held up the American system as a successful model of what aristocratic European systems would inevitably become, systems of democracy and social equality. Although he held the American democratic system in high regards, he did have his concerns about the systems shortcomings. Tocqueville feared that the virtues he honored, such as creativity, freedom, civic participation, and taste, would be endangered by "the tyranny of the majority." In the United States the majority rules, but whose their to rule the majority. Tocqueville believed that the majority, with its unlimited power, would unavoidably turn into a tyranny. He felt that the moral beliefs of the majority would interfere with the quality of the elected legislators. The idea was that in a great number of men there was more intelligence, than in one individual, thus lacking quality in legislation. Another disadvantage of the majority was that the interests of the majority always were preferred to that of the minority. Therefore, giving the minority no chance to voice concerns.
In 1787 in Philadelphia, PA the Constitution of the United States was established. What do you think life would be like without the Constitution? This would result in absolute tyranny. Tyranny is when too much power is given to a certain person or group causing them to seize control of the government. Have you ever thought about how the Constitution guards against tyranny? The Constitution guards against tyranny by requiring federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states vs small states.
Parliamentary sovereignty, a core principle of the UK's constitution, essentially states that the Parliament is the ultimate legal authority, which possesses the power to create, modify or end any law. The judiciary cannot question its legislative competence, and a Parliament is not bound by former legislative provisions of earlier Parliaments. The ‘rule of law’ on the other hand, is a constitutional doctrine which primarily governs the operation of the legal system and the manner in which the powers of the state are exercised. However, since the Parliament is capable of making any law whatsoever, the concept of the rule of law poses a contradiction to the principle of parliamentary supremacy, entailing that Parliament is not bound by the Rule of Law, and it can exercise power arbitrarily.
Absolutism was a time in history when kings and queens would rule their countries with complete power and authority. The five guiding principles that monarchs used to rule their country are as follow. The first one is that, a ruler should rule their country or Principality with absolute authority, the second one is that, “Might makes right” which is if the ruler has the power to do something then they should do it and they do not need to explain themselves, the third principle is that, a ruler should us military force when necessary to keep a country well defended and safe, the fourth is that, that ruler should not be worried about whether or not he or she is loved or feared but instead should focus on ruling the country in the best way possible. The final principle is a ruler should elect an able body of advisors to help in ruling the country. The five guiding principles of ruling a country impacted the countries of the monarchs who reigned during the Absolute Era in many ways. Three of these monarchs that that used the guiding principle were, Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled over England for 45 years from 1558 to 1603, King Louis XIV who ruled over France for 79 years from 1638 to 1715, and Catherine the Great ruled Russia as empress for 34 years from 1762 until 1796.
Jeremy Silbert, This is not an attack, just my reply. You said: " The British government in the 1700s was not democratically elected. Within Britain, franchise was limited to the wealthiest.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
The scenes in creation being intellectual, the put together of constitutional democracy was very empirical. The Constitutional Convention was convened to formulate the constitution. What had to be clear was that the only way to assure a functioning constitutional democracy was the public's discussion. In philadelphia the delegates compromised. The outcome was to integrate states with large populations and states with small populations with a bicameral legislative branch. Also compromises that guaranteed say from both slave owning states and non-slave states could be listened to. The Bill of Rights
Exam Question: The British King and Parliament were depriving colonists of their natural rights, therefore justifying the colonists' actions of rebellion and independence.
The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.
Only God can and that in turn causes hostility among humans. The love of God,
Constitutional Democracy The basic premise of a constitutional democracy is that government has rules and all of the people have voices. Through free and fair elections, we elect candidates to represent us. The Constitution of the United States guarantees us the right to do this, and to live democratically. The framers attacked tyrannical government and advanced the following ideas: that government comes from below, not from above, and that it derives its powers from the consent of the governed; that men have certain natural, inalienable rights; that it is wise and feasible to distribute and balance powers within government, giving local powers to local governments, and general powers to the national government; that men are born equal and should be treated as equal before the law.
Jali, N.H.M., M. Redzuan, A.A. Saman, and I.H.M. Rashid. 2010. Malaysian Studies: Nationhood and Citizenship. Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall.