The Pros And Cons Of The Estate Of Monarchy

I argue for Great Britain to still continue being a Constitutional monarchy. Why you may ask, Well I argue for them because it makes Great Britain running smoothly. If they change it may cause money problems and more. On page 29, it says "According to the rule of male primogeniture, a female could take the throne if there were no direct male heir to fill the seat. In 2013, with the queen's support, a new law was passed to end that rule. As a result, Great Britain may have even more queen in the future." That means Queen Elizabeth II believes that there are going to be queens in the future and I'm sure that nobody doesn't want to not be queen or king of England.

The seventeenth century saw the evolution of two new types of government mainly because of the instability that was caused by religious wars. One type of government was a constitutional monarchy in which rulers were confined to the laws of the state, giving the people some liberties, best exemplified by William and Mary during the Stuart monarchial rule. Constitutional monarchy was successful in mainly in England because of the Magna Carta, which kept the king’s power in check. The other type was absolute monarchy, in which the king has power over everything, shown by the French under Louis XIV. Although these two

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.

It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

The people that the monarch's were governing believed by their actions that their rulers believed themselves to be equal with God. This caused a

Therefore, the king/queen only had to answer to God, not the people. Since the ruler was chosen by God it was considered axiomatic that the monarch has absolute power, after all God has great power so His earthly representative does as well (Document 7, James I of England 1609). Furthermore, because God chose the sovereign, disobeying the king was considered the same as disobeying God (Document 4, The Ideal State 1697 by Jean Domat). Of course, because the monarchs had such great power and were God’s chosen people they had to govern per God’s will, which was absolute justice. (Document 5, On Social Order and Absolute Monarchy by Jean Domat). As important this concept was in maintaining absolute monarchs, the reason that the Divine Right to Rule was so effective is because absolute monarchies primarily occurred in Catholic countries, where the monarch could gain the partnership of the Roman Catholic Church and thus win power over the

Once the seventeenth century began, western civilization became based upon bounds. In a structured and shared-power system known as limited monarchy, rulers either became hastened within their bounds or exploded from them. As the British Isles were frustrated in the religious, political, and national voices going unheard, England developed a Protestant-run nation in conjunction with Scotland as a bounded country in 1707. Their Parliament would make their decisions, distribute the country’s wealth, and stand for the rights of individuals. The model of one man who could not be chained to a Parliamentary system was France’s King Louis XIV. His reign begins in 1643 which brings about the genuine definition of an absolute monarchy and it’s faults. Absolutism was a practice built heavily within the Middle Ages, it would include Kings as the primary shareholders of their land, partnerships with nobles and their Churches. It would prove unsatisfactory for most kingdoms as they failed under civil war and invasion until the seventeenth century shines a new importance on superior command. Through the strife of religious reformations and international conflicts, absolutism grants those in kingship unlimited power. King Henry IV had brought France from fifteenth century centralization and the Reformation’s civil war to cleanse the people’s doubt in their King. The Bourbons built a monarchy for the ages with their grandson Louis XIV, and Boy-King in 1643. Utilizing absolutism to accept

England’s lengthy history of hereditary monarchs and abusive absolutists has led to the system of constitutionalism in 17th century English government. The encouragement of these absolutism practices triggered the need to search for a new way to govern. The reigns of the Stuart monarchy led to the shift from absolutism to constitutionalism during 17th century England. After witnessing the success of Louis XIV's of France establishment of absolutism, England would soon see that James I, and his son Charles I, will fail at establishing absolutism in England and see a constitutional government established.

Prior to the Enlightenment, the rules, laws, and social structures were set in stone, relying on the Kings and Queens to make all decisions and declare rights for them, even if they were completely unfair. People of this time argued that, "Royal power is sacred, and nothing is more firmly grounded in the Word of God than the obedience due, as a matter of faith and conscience, to lawful authority...the prince [is] one to whom obedience [is] due without exception."(Bossuet Doc. 4). They believed that God wishes for the King to rule over the people, and only those people could rule, making all decisions about the civilization on their own, and no person should give anything but

Centralized authority during the late 17th century and early 18th century was the basis for reformation. The royal leadership of this period accomplished many achievements, established policies for expansion and established control centrally

The monarchs only listen to god not their own subjects.Divine right was the idea that God made the monarchs.During the the war between the church and the protestants,leaders tried to get a grip on the church,and war and death broke lose from this

There are many events that happened in history that makes the world how it is today. Many people don’t realize that society has changed dramatically from the 17th century to now. In those days they dealt with a different type of government system, (monarchy) in which the king is in control of the government. Some kings are great in which they run their country well and have the respect of those around them and beneath them in society, and you also have those who don’t have the respect or the authority to the people.

Political dynasty is a well known method of politicians in the Philippines wherein the members of the family been made also a member of the government in order for them to not lose power but gain more power. This act abides an unfair and unjust for the reason that the government is not a business that a family can run by themselves, but the government is for all and other people should be given chances wherein they can be the one that leads a community. The government or politics is not a business that can be run by generation and generation of a family the government comprises a critical part of a community having different leaders in every generation and not only one leader that has his or her family in the position of the government cause the system will not change it will just proceed constantly

During the 1700s, wars were mainly fought within nations and majorly over throne succession as opposed to between countries. Moreover, Monarchy ruled in the 1700s although it had less security compared to the previous periods. In 1642, the English king was executed while France executed their queen and king in 1794 and 1793 respectively as the French Revolution was ongoing. Other European monarchies fell gradually. Royal instability was an indication of social order insecurity that had been used in ruling aristocracies (Outram 58).

Political dynasty is evident when a person runs for an elective office who has an incumbent elective official occupying a position in the government (Pamaos, 2012). Political dynasty in the Philippines is very prominent due to the numerous lines of families governing a specific area. Filipinos are known for their close relationship with their families. Such is the familial love in Philippine society that some clans have made politics their family’s line of work (Santos, 2010). From the Aquinos, the Marcoses, the Estradas, and to the Binays that is currently handling the city of Makati. Political dynasties here in the Philippines are prohibited as it is stated in the Constitution (Article 2, Section 26) that: “The State shall guarantee equal