King Louis XIV reign of France was exampled by an absolute monarchy, which gave him the ultimate governing authority over his sovereign state and subjects. Louis was a believer in dictatorship by devine right, and viewed himself as God’s representative on earth. In Bossuet’s Holy Writ, he speaks of how, “Rulers then act as the ministers of God and as his lieutenants on earth, it is through them that God exercises his empire” (www.history.hanover.edu). Bossuet lets the people know that as God is the ruler of everything, he has a king who he uses on earth to rule over them while they are on earth to guide their decisions. Louis, in the early stages of his reign as the sole ruler of France, after the death of Cardinal Mazarin, showed strong determination to be a real king.
He was familiar with Lutheran and humanist ideals, and as a lawyer he had the capabilities to carry out his ideological reforms in Parliament. He created a powerful state, based on law made by ‘King-in-Parliament.’ By enhancing the power of a joint King and Parliament, he was putting limitations on the King acting alone, as a Rex Solus. In addition to his changing parliament, he set about building up the recourse of the Crown and by organizing a more modern, beaurucratic system of administration, based on an inner privy council, and organized departments of state that could act without a monarch. So while Cromwell did make Henry able to make huge changes in the system with the Royal Supremacy, he (Henry) was unable to do so without Parliament, and effectively Cromwell, who in 1535 became the Vicegerent in Spirituals, giving him more power to make further changes. Between 1533 AND 1536, there were major changes in how things were governed at central and even local levels.
ANDREW FRANCIS Why did power cause the civil war? Charles believed in the Divine Right of Kings - he was king because God wanted him to be, and therefore everyone should obey him as they would God,without question. Further, because God wanted Charles as king, then no earthly power could challenge this power,or remove the king from his position. Charles therefore believed that,as king, he had supreme political power. Parliament believed that,as the elected representatives of the People (albeit on a very narrow franchise),that they had the right to wield supreme political power.
The majority of power stands in the electorate and its representatives. The monarch serves as the head of state, while having some authority, certainly doesn’t control all of it. In contrast to the absolutist state, where there is no parliament in any sense. It is solely on the king or queen, who has the ultimate decision on everything. Absolute rulers had control over religious sects; they could “.
This way of thinking was totally different from that of England who was a monarchy even up to now. Americans going a different and bold direction with the well established Constitution made sure that this Constitution was monarchy hostile. An example will be the title of nobility, which states that the title of nobility usually leads to inequality among people even though there is no such thing as equality but the theory was still created a government where under the circumstances people are treated equal. Therefore, the main reason the Constitution was dedicated to the idea and goal of equality. In other to discourage monarchy and reinforce the American idea, our founding fathers came up with the three branches of government where they would each have certain role to fulfill, share power which will allow them to oversee each other.
How far do you think Russia had moved in the direction of a parliamentary system of government by 1914? A parliamentary system of government is where there is a government in which members of the cabinet are appointed from elected members of an assembly, and in order to remain in power, must hold the vote of the majority. Right from 1613, Russia had been an autocracy ruled by Tsars. The tsar had no limits on his power and one of the Tsars strongest supporters was the official State Church, the Russian Orthodox Church. The Tsar had advisers, but he was not bound to listen to their advice, and laws were made by imperial decree.
Nathan Daniel Period 2˚ Forms of Government Claim: Luxembourg Luxembourg is a constitutional monarchy. One pro of having a constitutional monarchy is that there is a single ruler who must follow rights, duties and responsibilities, and he must stick to a constitution. Another benefit is that there are executive, judiciary, and legislative branches who work in government as well. There is also a Prime Minister who is the head of the branches. A con to having a constitutional monarchy this are that the Grand Duke is a hereditary position, meaning it is passed down through the generation of one family.
Khang Nguyen Period 5 14/10/12 The Results of Different Rulers Although these two countries are in the same continent, their government is very distinct from each other. In France, absolutism gradually developed into a strong idea and soon became the political stance of the monarchy. However, England’s monarchy is parliamentary and the power of the monarch is limited unlike France. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the heightened in power for absolute monarch in France was resulted from strong, capable rulers and religious conformity; likewise, the parliamentary in England sharpened as the Parliament gains more influences and unpopular rulers in England being overthrown by the people. France had many tenacious and wise rulers that
In the adaptation by Neil L. Cooney it’s mentioned that Thomas Hobbes had three ideas. The first one it states that God gave the right of government upon the king or the monarch. This meant that the people were supposed to listen to the king because he had the same power as God. Since Britain and France wanted to get rid of their king they had to come up with new ideas of the origin of government. Making a “Social Contract” where it stated that God’s authority was actually given to the people and not the king himself.
According to the text, the first stage of the French Revolution was based totally on the liberty to succeed, own, and compete. Next, the second stage of the revolution took on equality to rally their troops, which was also the revolution of the working people in the French cities. In fact the French adapted a national motto for brotherhood which was Liberte’, elgalite, fraternite…which is French for Liberty, equality, and fraternity. The debates on the compatibility of the three terms as well as their order began at the same time of the French Revolution. France was known as what is called an absolute monarchy in which King Louis XVI had complete control over the nation.