To What Extent Was Philip Ii an Absolute Monarch

1130 Words5 Pages
To what extent was Philip II an absolute monarch One could argue that Philip II was an absolute monarch as he was the King, not only that but the most powerful King in Europe as he had control of parts in South America such as Mexico and also parts in Italy, Sicilia and the Netherlands and for a short time England. As a King it meant he had the ‘divine right’, which meant that he had the right to rule from God and were accountable only to God. As a King he had the power to create war and peace, which he did against Italy in 1556. Furthermore he was in charge of an immense military power. The Spanish Armada in 1588 alone had the size of 160 ships and he was able to push back the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Magnificent, ending their threat in the Mediterranean in 1585. Philip II is described by J.L.Motley as a ‘perfection of evil’. In 1561 Philip made Madrid the permanent capital of his empire which meant that he had central control from Madrid. This is significant to being an absolute Monarch as it meant that he had all the knowledge on specific subjects which allowed him to keep control as others did not have the full knowledge. He could also veto any decisions that he didn’t not like and was able to appoint or dismiss anyone from the council. The restrictions on Philip such as the power of the Castilian Cortes were also limited. By the time of Philip’s accession it had lost virtually all its privileges and it had the main purpose to raise extra revenue. This meant that Philip was able to do what he wanted as there were no real restrictions. Another reason would be that Philip had the power over the appointment of bishops within his empire, which meant there he was like a pope in Spain, and he was able to implement his own aspects into the Council of Trent. This meant if he saw something which didn’t fit into his view he would force his view into the
Open Document