Throughout the course of European history, empires have risen and kingdoms have fallen. The eighteenth century marks a time of great change and diversity for European empires and monarchs. It was a time of enlightenment, a break from custom and tradition, absolutism and constitutional rule. Based on this great rate of change, diversity and ultimate decline of monarchial rule, the definition of monarchy may be left to interpretation.
Throughout the course of this essay I will analyze the different governing systems, the change, and decline in monarchial rule. With an analytical approach to this subject, we will then apply a working definition to the term “monarchy” and its implications in the context of eighteenth century Europe. Europe, in the 1700s, consisted of two different types of government systems: constitutional monarchy and absolutism. Europe, as a whole, was predominately under absolutist rule, England being one of the expectations. Constitutional monarchy is a system in which the monarch has shared and limited power with the parliament.
In contrast, absolutism is a system in which the monarch has unlimited power and control over his or her country and society. Absolutism, in theory, claimed that the monarchial position was acquired by social contract, inheritance and divine right. However, it is important to note that Eastern European absolutism differs from Western European absolutism but shared an ultimate goal for centralized power. With the basic definitions of these different governing systems we will now examine these systems and the monarchs who ruled them.
The Essay on Importance Of Monarchy Monarch State Head
How important is the Monarchy in Britain? To answer this question first of all, we have to know how Monarchy was created. The British have been a monarchy now for most of the last thousand years. When the Roman Empire began to crumble, the Roman Church began to establish itself over the same empire in its own right. Rather than exert direct military power, the way it did this was to endorse the ...
Western Europe included monarchs such as Louis XIV and Louis XV. Louis XIV, like the other monarchs, believed that he was in power because of divine rule. He is known as one of the most significant figures when it comes to absolutist rule. He wanted full power over the peasants, aristocracy and separation from the church. Being reliant on the church or aristocracy was not an option for Louis XIV. He controlled taxes, built a strong army and at the expense of the peasantry, pursued territorial expansion. Louis XV, grandson of Louis XIV, did not control the aristocracy as much as his grandfather.
Instead of being fully engaged like Louis XIV, he was more passive and created more councils and official offices to conduct affairs. History has shown us that Louis XV was more interested in his many mistresses than the control of his state. Apart from his reforms, Louis XV’s reign can be marked as one of the declining points of the crown’s political and moral authority. Some of the significant Eastern absolute monarchs of this time included: Peter the Great, Catherine, Fredrick William, and Frederick II. Eastern Monarchs lacked the support and collaboration from their nobles like the West.
Absolute monarchs of Eastern Europe also moved towards a more enlightened system of governing. Fredrick of Prussia had a very effective bureaucracy and focused heavily on his army. He too wanted a centralized government, taking power from the local nobles and appointed power to royal officials. Fredrick II, who took power after the death of his father, expanded absolute rule over Prussia. He was heavily influenced by enlightenment thought and made his mark as a very effective absolute monarch. However, his rule was unlike the rest.
He wanted to stir away from self-interested rule and rather rule for the greater good of his people. He became the “first servant of the state. ” In context, this was a step away from absolute power and into the direction of a societal based rule. In Russia, Peter the Great wanted a centralized and absolute rule over his people. He regulated economic activity and established a strong military. He wanted to divide, control and change the church and its practices. The Church has great power over its subjects; to control a country a monarch must strip the church of its authority.
The Essay on “Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”- to What Extent Is This Maxim Borne Out by Events in Animal Farm?
Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely- and this is vividly and eloquently proven in Orwell’s short novel. “Animal Farm” is a simple fable of great symbolic value and can be seen as the historical analysis of the causes of the failure of communism. “Animal Farm” resembles the Russian Revolution but it is also represents political revolutions where the fundamental ideas of justice ...
However, the crown lost a great amount of its authority after the death of Peter I, as the aristocracy took control of the preceding rulers. Elizabeth, Peter’s daughter, took the throne in 1791. She was one of the main characters in the decline of crown rule. She restored nobles control over their lands and exempted them from taxes. The decline in absolutism and the loss of the crown’s moral and political authority seem to be a reoccurring pattern in the eighteenth century. Enlightenment thought, decline in custom and tradition are also reoccurring factors in Europe at this time.
One may find these patterns in a constitutional monarchy. In England, patterns such as religious toleration, enlightenment thought and parliamentary rule have already been established in England’s governing system. The aristocracy of England wanted to limit the king’s power and protect their feudal rights. Documents such as the Magna Carta, bill of rights and petition of right protected the rights of the people and limited monarchial power. This is in complete contrast to some of the absolutist kings who exploited their peasants.
Kings, such as James I and Charles I wanted to establish an absolute rule but were not successful because of the great power and wealth of the parliament. Throughout the European experience in the eighteenth century, we have seen a pattern of decline in absolutism and a transition into an enlightened despotism system of government. Monarchs of the West, like Louis XIV and Louis XV established an absolute rule over France. They moved away from the control of the church, established fiscal reforms and a strong military. However, aristocrat control arose in result of the passive reign of Louis XV.
The Term Paper on Account For Stalin’s Rise To Power In The Period 1922 To 1929
Stalin’s ascent to the leadership of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was neither easy nor inevitable. Following the incapacitation and subsequent death of Vladimir Lenin, there were many legitimate claimants to this leadership: Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Nikolai Bukharin and, particularly, Leon Trotsky, Lenin’s right-hand man and heir apparent. Among such company ...
Moreover, power of the crown also declined for the Monarchs of the East, like Peter the Great, Elizabeth, Fredrick William and Fredrick II. Enlightenment thought had also embedded itself into the governing systems; a move to a more tolerable and secular society was inevitable. Patterns, such as these, could be seen in England’s constitutional monarchy. Through the decline of absolutism, rise in parliamentary rule and enlightenment thought; how might we define monarchy in eighteenth century Europe? From the East to the West, we may define monarchy as position of power and virtue.
That, however, would not be the best definition to ascribe to the monarchial powers of this time. Louis XV’s brothel involvement, Peter’s death threats and Catherine’s multiple sex partners are the farthest things from virtuous. Power may be a likely term, but from our analysis we can see that the power of the crown was in a great decline. As we take a look into Europe in the eighteenth century, it would be most fit to define monarchy as simply another chair authority. Their power is not unlimited, but rather controlled and limited by the parliament and its citizens.
