Charles I: An Absolute Monarchy

in 1629. It was symbolic of a time when the King felt that any joint

A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France

A form of government ruled by one person whose authority is not restricted by law or governing bodies is absolutism. It is arguable if this form of government can truly be successful due to its impression left throughout the course of history. Justification of absolutism by Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Benigne Bossuet, and analysis of Louis XIV rule reveal why absolutism in ineffective. Due to its removal of self-authority, vulnerability to a power, and the possibility of weakening a country make absolutism inefficient.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

There has been many type of monarchies all throughout Europe's history that each had their own ideas of a good social structure. Usually, the lowest class is treated poorly by the higher classes. The monarchs would make certain actions to fulfill his needs or those of the higher classes even if it causes the lower classes to suffer. Political rule during the 18th century denied the people of some if not most of their natural human rights. This would lead to enlightened thinkers challenging the traditional rule of monarchy.

Catherine the Great is a absolute monarchy the reason why Catherine the Great is a absolute monarchy is because she intended on modernizing her country. She had ruled as the Empress of Russia more than thirty years after Peter III (husband) had been murdered but however Peter the Great had been using force. But Catherine decided to establish reforms that would improve the Russians society that wouldn't require her to use force on her people. She had improved education for the middle class and nobles but she had also modern agriculture. But while under her leadership the Russians had gained military success and territory. Russian was brought to the modern age but not only that it was also retaining an absolute monarchy by the time she had died in 1796.

Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also

Rulers of European countries during the 17th century had almost unlimited autonomy over their respective countries. They were the head of government in all respects, and all decisions were eventually made by them. However, along with this autonomy came responsibility in the form of the people. If the decisions of these rulers did not improve the country, the possibility existed that their power would be either curbed or taken away by the people. As ruler of England in the early 17th century, Charles Stuart believed strongly in absolute power and a king’s divine right to rule. He believed that a king was given his power by God and therefore had no reason to answer to the people. The Parliament in England at the time

King Charles I’s reign was unsuccessful, because he was unprepared to take on Scotland, England, and Ireland, each with its own political and legal structures. He was under the influence of bishops, priests, and friends who pulled him different directions in regards to war, religion, and economy. King Charles I’s was foolish and failed to rule England with an absolute monarchy, because he formed poor relations with the Protestant majority of Parliament, he raised and created new taxes, and he lost support of Scottish nobility.

Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other organisations such as Parliament. For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolving of Parliament in 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible.

In an Absolute Monarchy, the Monarch has complete, or absolute, power over his or her people. When faced with such a power one might not know how to deal with it and many people will have many different opinions about the system. During the time of the Holy Roman Empire and other absolute monarchies, the main opinions on the system were that the monarch should have absolute power over his or her people, no person should be faced with that much power, and that the people should be ruled by a group of people rather than one ruler. These opinions and different viewpoints are the same as many people today and are reflected by many of today’s governments.

In a practice, hard to get a really great monarch, and even if you do it's hard to find another to succeed him, so there are practical problems with monarchy. In an ideal situation, he advances the notion that a mixed constitution is best for it is a monarch, but also aristocracy (spread power around) and some democracy in that some officials should be elected by the people (Aquinas, La Monarquia, V, p.28-34)

During the late 1400s and 1500s, many rulers took great measures to centralize political power and place it in their own hands. This lead to the occurrence of absolute monarchies, some of which I thought were overall very effective. In absolute monarchies, theoretically the monarch is all-powerful, with no legal limitations to his or her authority. Absolutism in Europe was characteristically justified by the doctrine of divine right, according to which the monarch reigns all-powerfully by the will of God. The intention of absolute monarchs is to utilize his or her power in an effective, better-organized way, despite its weaknesses or negative consequences; and from my perspective, I would have to say

This writer focuses on two parts of the question ‘The Tudor Reformation was a method of strengthening absolute monarchy in England.’. The first focus is the word ‘method’ and the second focus is the word ‘strengthening’. The word ‘method’ means a planned way of doing something. In this case, the question can be interpreted as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a planned and intentional affair to achieve strenghtened absolute monarchy. Also, this writer is going to put emphasis on the comparison meaning of the word ’strengthen’. Then this essay has to show how the Tudor Reformation made aboslute monarchy stronger than before and what changes did the Tudor Reformation bring out in comparison with the past. According to these focuses, the question can be understood as ‘The Tudor Reformation was a calculated event and it was to accomplish more powerful abosolute monarchy than before in England.’ However, this writer disagrees with the sentence and thinks that the Tudor Reformation was not an affair that had an intention to reinforce abosolute monarchy. Therefore, in the main body, the essay is going to concentrate on whether it was an intentional or unintentional matter that is related to strengthen absolute royal authority. Moreover, figuring out whether the absolute monarchy was consolidated than before. Finally, this essay will examine how the politics was at that time. At the end, in the conclusion part, it puts this issue aside

A dictatorship is a form of government where a dictator is ruling usually with full authority and force. A dictatorship, in my opinion, is one of the harshest types of government because most of the time there is barely any freedom and the dictator rules by force. A dictator is usually elected when the government is in its democracy form and at that point, they are referred to as a president. However, they start prohibiting opposing organizations and canceling free elections. A dictator is basically the government where he or she acts as a whole for the entire political