He believes that the earth itself will “prove armed solder’s, ere her native king” (R.II.3.2-25). Richard appears convinced that his name is enough to protect him “arm, arm my name” (R.II.3.2-82). However, this is false; and perhaps god abandoned his duty to Richard because Richard abandoned his duty as king. A notion had emerged by the time of Richards rule, “constitutional monarchy [...] a sovereign who rules according to the constitution” (Bagdanor1) and this notion was documented via “The magna Carta 1215” (Bagdanor3). Significantly the Magna Carta advocated that a sovereign must rule in accordance with the law and
For such an organisation to have made a generous offer to the King previously shows a dichotomy between conservatism and radicalism. Cromwell embodied this dichotomy, first favouring the retention of the monarchy under Prince Henry,[3] later rejecting the chance to wear the crown himself, feeling that God had condemned monarchy. This is important because it shows a significant proportion of those that supported parliament were not opposed to monarchy, but rather wished to secure the rights of parliament. As
4. What is Henry implying when he says that he is loyal to "the majesty of heaven...above all earthly kings"? What tone (manner in which an author expresses his attitude) does this statement hold? Henry is implying that he will follow what order God wants him to follow, not the rule of the kings in present life. His tone directs a pointing finger at the king, saying that he won’t follow his order.
This was the factor which doomed the Directory to failure, no matter when it happened. This was aggravated by the circumstance absolutely no real, political efforts being made to make it work. Neither extreme knew what it wanted. The right wing did support monarchy, but not an absolute one. On the other hand, the left might have wanted more control at the centre and more equality throughout France, but not the rural based leveling of Babeuf.
• financial crisis faced by Louis that meant that he needed more money; weakness of the Ancien Regime’s system excluded nobility from paying and this therefore needed to be changed – something some nobility did not want • actions of Necker; he had made out that there was no need for any change in the tax system by saying via the Compte Rendu that the financial system was working well (and so nobility did not see urgency of reform) • ideas of philosophes which helped to strengthen arguments of nobility that the king could not force through change, was acting tyrannically and that the parlements were acting in the name of the people. and some of the following short-term/immediate factors: • actions of de Brienne and Calonne in trying to get radical tax reforms agreed to by the Assembly of Notables and the parlements. These reforms involved a land tax to be paid by everyone. This led to opposition from 1st and 2nd estate who had most to lose. The nobility claimed that such drastic change could only be decided on by an Estates General (most at the Assembly of Notables accepted the principle of a land tax but not the means of bringing it about) • weaknesses and mistakes of the King and his ministers: mistakes of Calonne in thinking that an Assembly of Notables would agree to such reforms – also of appealing to the public behind the back of the assembly which lost him support.
Sir Thomas More’s “adamantine” “sense of his own self” is juxtaposed with Henry’s conniving disposition. As a highly respected figure of the realm, the king’s annulment could not be passed without More’s sworn oath, however he refused which only ignited the conspiratorial egotism of the king. More’s disavowal to explain the reasons behind his opposition to the oath was an act of selflessness just as it is, paradoxically, an act of selfishness:
Bolingbroke strives to preserve his family honour and retrieve his rightful land, thus his ambitions prove him to be a competent co-ordinator. It is Richard’s irresponsible and puerile ruling mentality, and Bolingbroke’s ability to impose his powers and be an effective leader that led to Richard’s abdication. The Christian moral society in which Richard II is set, believed implicitly in ‘The Divine Right of Kings.’ This is governed by the ‘The Great Chain of Being,’ which is the hierarchical ordering of society and the power of a king as they are supposed to be ordained by God. Shakespeare portrays Richard as one who has
Whilst this does create a residual understanding of the royal prerogative, Dicey only takes accountability of the powers rather than the rights and immunities as well. Therefore Blackstone provided a narrower understanding by describing the royal prerogative as those powers that ‘the King enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects’ [William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, a facsimile of the first edition of 1765-1769, 1979, p111]. Originally the Crown exercised of power over the country in respect to land, however these caused issues and conflicts. For example, Nowadays the crown’s powers and rights are limited AG v De Keyser's Royal Hotel - The personal prerogatives were identified. R v Sec.
The war was between the Parliament and the Stuart Kings. The Kings tried to use the concept of religious freedom to gain the support of the people. The parliament, on the other hand, was against religious dissent by the people. In Hobbes’s view, monarch could never be for the people since the authority of the monarch came from the God and not from the people. It was in trying to think about how to resolve this conflict that Hobbes came up with his new concepts in political theory.
The separation of powers however, acquired greater significance when John Locke, an 18th century philosopher argued that the executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty. Montesquieu was a political philosopher of France and regarded as the chief architect of the principles of Separation of powers. He argued that ‘all would be lost if the same man or the same ruling body… were to exercise these three powers’. Montesquieu based his ideas of the British Constitution in the 18th Century, as he saw it. His ideas were, however, idealized and not entirely accurate, since he did not appear to understand the exact roles of the various participants in the British constitutional set up.