Human ambitions contrast the notion of social harmony, as evident in historical examples of absolute monarchy. Tyrants led onslaughts on denizens, fueled simply by their will to power. Entire demographics have suffered for the sake of elite luxuries. In order to maintain such privileges, the elite must silence sceptics. Such abuse of absolute power led to new concepts of power structures, which ultimately led to the development of modern democracy. Such examples include the power struggle of the English and French monarchy, and the independence of the United States.
During the rule of Charles I, his decision to outright ignore the Parliament turned him into a controversial figure. Moreover, his marriage to a Roman Catholic princess during a time of turbulence between the Protestants and Catholics (with England being predominantly Protestant) further contributed to his controversies1. The Parliament, albeit limited in power, acquired de facto power in previous centuries, making them a significant group in the kingdoms. Due to their power, the king could only adjust taxations with their approval. During the Thirty Years War, Charles I desired to intervene, which would require heavy taxation in order to make up for foreign expenditure. His decision to appoint an unpopular Duke as a commander of the English army led to further hostility and criticism from the Parliament, that were deemed as the voice of a society1. In backlash, Charles I dissolved the Parliament and assembled another, which unfortunately for him, created the Petition of Rights that he was forced to sign2. The Petition of Rights “sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing”3, which includes restrictions on taxation without P...
... middle of paper ...
... American Revolution. Ultimately, the United States Bill of Rights along with the American Declaration of Independence, among the leading examples of modern democracy, were heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment as reformers like Jefferson understood that cyclic destruction of social oppression.
In conclusion, misuse of absolute monarchy leads to vicious cycles. Even though monarchs have argued for social benefits, they fail to meet with expectations of commoners. Indeed, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Turbulence in politics and the government led to the development of new philosophies, which ultimately replaced broken ones that favored monarchy. The English Civil War that directly influenced the American Revolution, as well as the French Revolution along with other examples, proves that absolute monarchy inexorably led to the rise of modern democracy.
One monarch who faced limited royal power due to his relationship with parliament was Henry IV. This uneasy relationship was mainly down to the fact that Henry was a usurper, and was exacerbated by his long periods of serious illness later in his reign. Parliament was thus able to exercise a large amount of control over royal power, which is evident in the Long Parliament of 1406, in which debates lasted from March until December. The length of these debates shows us that Henry IV’s unstable relationship had allowed parliament to severely limit his royal power, as he was unable to receive his requested taxation. A king with an amiable relationship with parliament, such as Henry V, and later Edward IV, would be much more secure in their power, as taxation was mostly granted, however their power was also supported more by other factors, such as popularity and finances. Like Henry IV, Henry VI also faced severely limited power due to his relationship with parliament.
During the rule of King Charles I, the Parliament had limited powers, and were not entitled to govern independently as a Parliament should. This is shown through King Charles’ power to veto their decisions, and his dissolving of the Parliament three times between 1625-1629. Consequently, the Parliament became frustrated with their minute role, and responded in attempt to control the King’s power, to maintain their control. This is clearly depicted in their refusal to grant tax raising and revenue for Charles’ increased expenditure, including the abolishment of the ‘ship tax’ which had been previously collected illegally. Following on from this was the enactment of legislation through the Petition of Right in 1928, after MP’s had been called back by Charles in his third parliament. The Petition of Right demanded that Charles could not imprison anyone without being found guilty in a court of law, that no tax could be implemented without Parliamentary consent, and soldiers could not be billeted against their will. Furthermore, the Parliament also abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber, disallowing for Charles to continue the arbitrary punishment of opposers to his reforms. The Parliament’s pressure on Charles through these reforms was largely driven by
During the enlightenment period in the 1600’s to the 1700’s, writers like Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau influenced some of America’s founding documents, including the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. During this time period, these writers had no idea that their works would impact such influential documents. The first document these writers influenced was the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Thomas Paine conveyed his dislike for monarchies in many ways throughout “Common Sense”. One of his numerous dislikes was that most monarchs are a hereditary system. Paine’s thoughts over the hereditary system were that they were not valid and would bring evil with it. People that were born into elite existence are very often to be ignorant and unfit. Some people thought that hereditary succession reduced civil wars however there were also the issues, 12 battles
Two enlightenment-inspired documents of the 1750-1900 periods were the Declaration of Independence or the United States and the Declaration of Rights of Man. The Declaration of Independence was profoundly influenced by the works of John Locke and Adam Smith, it praised limited government and Free Market Capitalism, it denounced the King of England, it advocated secularism and the three rights of men: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of the Rights of Man was another document, inspired by the enlightenment theories of secularism, free thought and limited government, it was also influenced by the American Declaration of Independence. Both documents were fuel for the Age of Revolution.
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
This evolution has brought on a new problem known as the tyranny of the majority, which the democratic majority forces its will on the minority. According to Wikipedia the phrase tyranny of the majority is” used when in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule involves the scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process”. The democratic majority can exercise a tyrannical power even outside the political realm, when the people state their opinions it causes rebellions. John Stuart Mill emphasizes the importance of individuality. The aim was to limit the amount of power the ruler should have to exercise over the community and this limitation was what John Stuart Mill meant by
The very history of the country, a major contributor to the evolution of its political culture, shows a legacy of democracy that reaches from the Declaration of Independence through over two hundred years to today’s society. The formation of the country as a reaction to the tyrannical rule of a monarchy marks the first unique feature of America’s democratic political culture. It was this reactionary mindset that greatly affected many of the decisions over how to set up the new governmental system. A fear of simply creating a new, but just as tyrannic...
Absolutism was the most widespread political system used in Europe and in some parts of Asia from 1550-1750. The term Absolutism refers to a form of government by which the leader assumes power through the belief they have a divine God given right to rule with unlimited control. Several events probably contributed to this political system, the feudal wars of the 14th Century, the weakening and decline of the Catholic Church and the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia, which established that every European state would be given supreme authority over their own territories. While the style of the absolute ruler was similar in parts of Europe and Asia, the best example of the absolute ruler was King Louis XIV (1638-1715). King Louis XIV was crowned king in 1643, took complete control over France and swiftly declared his divine right to rule. He declared himself the, “Sun King”, took authority over all of Frances fiancés, economy and military, placed the church under his control and took power from the feudal nobility. King Louis XIV allowed the nobility to become part of his court and gave them positions of importance to gain their support. He did this to prevent the nobility from being a potential threat; to being his supporters. He even exempted them from paying taxes. This nobility dictated the aristocratic flare that King Louis XIV so flamboyantly displayed during his rule. It was the baroque style, the aristocratic style, in all its grandeur, greatness and flare for the extravagance. (Fiero) The movie Vatel brought to life what it must have been like under the rule of King Louis XIV, the dominance of the absolute ruler, the hierarchy of the social classes, the grandeur of King Louis XVI rule and the aristocratic style...
Another source of opposition to Charles’ personal rule was that of the parliament and Charles’ financial expenditure. Charles’ personal rule lasted 11 long years in which he didn’t call parliament for any money or subsidies. To finance his problems, he used his position of power as king to call upon favours and rules that enabled him to gain money without calling parliament. One of these was selling titles. Distraint of Knighthood. This was where men who owned estates worth £40 per annum were in theory supposed to present them to be knighted at a new King’s coronation. Charles thus fined people for not doing so even though the practice had...
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
In view of the legitimate and illegitimate governments, power could corrupt. Initially, legitimate government exists because the majority has the motive that it should be so. However, when those in power advance their interest more than the collective, they turn out bad. This is because if they become illegitimate, it is because they breach the general will with their own will. It is their self-interested will other than the ones they serve that make them corrupt. They use the general will to advance their own interest because they already hold power – and being blind by it, strive to have more power for their own advantages. Thus, for Rousseau, it is never wrong to revolt against illegitimate governments when the general will is no longer in force because corrupt individuals have turned it for their own use.
The challenges to the power of the Monarch was by the reign of James I (1603-25) the monarch was faced with an increasing effective Parliament, culminating in the temporary abolition of the monarchy in (1625). Consequently, the monarchy’s powers were eroded by both revolution and by legal challenges, which included the case of Proclamations (1611) , the monarchy could not change the law by proclamation. The law of the land, which required that the law be made by Parliament, limited the prerogative. In the case of Prohibitions Del Roy (1607) the Monarch had no right to act as a judge, and in the case of the Ship Money Case (1637), although th...
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...