Absolutism Vs Constitutional Monarchy: Power Dynamics Explored

Absolutism and constitutional monarchy are two opposing forms of government that have been historically prevalent in Europe. Absolutism, also known as absolute monarchy, is a system where the monarch holds supreme power and rules with absolute authority, often as a dictator. On the other hand, in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch's power is limited by a constitution and shared with an elected parliament or official. This model of monarchy is considered more modern and allows for representative governments, capitalist economies, and religious tolerance. While absolutist states were once common in Europe, the growth of constitutional monarchies, particularly in England and later the United Kingdom, challenged this trend and led to the evolution of more democratic forms of government.

How does Absolutism differ from Constitutional Monarchy?

Explore related products

Monarchy Complete Collection

$97.53

Missing Monarchy: Correcting Misconceptions About The Middle Ages, Medieval Kingship, Democracy, And Liberty

$16.99

Monarchy With David Starkey

$35.99 $39.99

Henry and Anne: The Lovers Who Changed History (TV Series)

$2.99

Monarchy With David Starkey, Set 2

$19.99 $26.26

Proof Of The Black Monarchy Of England During The Middle Ages: Short Edition

$29.99

Power of the monarch: absolute vs constitutional

In an absolute monarchy, the monarch holds supreme power and rules as a dictator, with no higher law than their own commands. Absolutist states often have a clear hierarchy, with the monarch at the top, followed by other nobles. For example, Louis XIV of France had a branch of the government devoted to verifying the claims of nobility and stripping titles from those without adequate proof. Absolute monarchies were the general pattern in Europe during the seventeenth century, with notable examples including Czar Ivan IV of Russia and Henry IV of France.

In contrast, a constitutional monarchy is a system in which the monarch's power is limited by laws outlined in a constitution. The monarch in this system is typically a figurehead or representative of the country, with political power vested in an elected official, such as a prime minister, and an elected parliament responsible for policy decisions. England's transition to a constitutional monarchy is often cited as a significant example, where William and Mary, as joint rulers, swore to rule according to the laws created by Parliament.

While absolute monarchy may grant the monarch unlimited power, constitutional monarchy restricts the monarch's power, allowing for greater representation and power-sharing with elected representatives. The constitutional monarchy system emerged as a political alternative to absolute monarchy in Europe, with the United Kingdom of Great Britain becoming the first major constitutional monarchy on the continent.

The power dynamics between absolute and constitutional monarchies can be nuanced, with some arguing for a strong constitutional monarchy that grants the monarch greater powers than a purely ceremonial role. For instance, the King of England can technically dissolve parliament and appoint the Prime Minister, but exercising this power would likely lead to a political crisis.

In summary, the key difference lies in the degree of power held by the monarch and the presence or absence of checks and balances provided by a constitution and an elected parliament. Absolute monarchy vests supreme power in the monarch, while constitutional monarchy distributes power across various branches of government, limiting the monarch's authority.

Rights of the people

In an absolutist monarchy, the rights and privileges of the nobility are codified into clear laws. Most absolutist states create ""tables of ranks" that specify the exact positions of nobles in relation to one another, the monarch, and "princes of the blood". For example, Louis XIV of France had a branch of the government dedicated to verifying claims of nobility and revoking titles from those without sufficient proof.

In contrast, constitutional monarchies limit the power of the monarch and grant certain rights and powers to the people. The people are allowed to elect their representatives in parliament, which is responsible for making policy decisions. The role of head of state is typically given to an elected official, such as a prime minister. Constitutional monarchies also tend to be more flexible and allow for the monarch to have some freedom of action if necessary.

Absolutist monarchies differ from constitutional monarchies in terms of the rights and powers granted to the people. In an absolutist monarchy, the monarch holds absolute power and rules as a dictator, while in a constitutional monarchy, the power of the monarch is limited, and the people have a voice in how they are governed. The people in a constitutional monarchy have the right to elect their representatives and have a say in policy decisions through their elected parliament.

The English Civil War in the 17th century, which resulted from the conflict between the absolutist model and the emerging constitutional monarchy, provides an example of the struggle between these two forms of government. The war ultimately led to the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of a republic in England for a brief period. However, the monarchy was later reinstated, but with the official power of the Church of England.

While Britain was an exception to the general trend of absolutism in Europe during this period, it still experienced significant growth and transformation comparable to its absolutist rivals. The size of royal governments across Europe increased by approximately 400% in the 17th century, and standing armies grew from around 20,000 men in the 16th century to over 150,000 by the late 17th century.

Role of nobility

The role of nobility in absolutist monarchies is significantly different from that in constitutional monarchies. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch holds supreme power and rules as a dictator, with no higher law than their own command. This often results in the nobility enjoying great legal benefits and privileges, which are codified into clear laws. For example, Louis XIV of France had a branch of the royal government devoted to verifying claims of nobility and ensuring that only those with adequate proof held noble titles. Absolutist states often created "tables of ranks" to specify the standing of nobles in relation to each other, the monarch, and "princes of the blood".

On the other hand, in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch's power is limited by laws outlined in a constitution, and they typically share power with an elected parliament or official, such as a prime minister. The monarch becomes a figurehead or representative of the country, with policy decisions made by the elected body. This shift in power dynamics can lead to a reduction in the influence of nobility. For example, in France, both Henry IV and Louis XIV limited the power of the nobles, with the latter giving power to government officials who were loyal only to him.

The transition from absolutist to constitutional monarchy can be seen in England's historical context. Initially, England was an example of a state where the absolutist form of monarchy failed during the seventeenth century. However, in the following century, England, now the United Kingdom of Great Britain, became one of the most powerful constitutional monarchies in Europe, alongside its political opposite, absolutist France.

The shift towards constitutional monarchy in England brought about changes in the role of nobility. William and Mary, as joint rulers of England, swore to rule according to the laws created by Parliament in a Declaration of Rights. This marked a shift in power dynamics, where the nobility's influence was curtailed by the increasing authority of Parliament and the elected official's role in policy-making.

While the specifics may vary depending on the country and historical context, the fundamental difference between absolutist and constitutional monarchies lies in the distribution of power. In an absolutist monarchy, the nobility often enjoys great legal benefits and privileges due to the monarch's supreme authority. In contrast, a constitutional monarchy limits the monarch's power through a constitution and shared governance with an elected body, which can lead to a reduction in the influence of nobility.

Relationship with parliament

The relationship between the monarch and parliament is the key difference between absolutism and constitutional monarchy.

In an absolute monarchy, the monarch holds absolute power and rules as a dictator. There is no higher law than the command of the king or queen. The people have no say in how they are governed, and the monarch is not bound by any laws or limits on their power. This is in stark contrast to a constitutional monarchy, where the monarch shares power with an elected parliament. The laws in a constitutional monarchy are outlined in a constitution that serves to limit the power of the king or queen. The monarch in this system is usually a figurehead, with the role of head of state typically given to an elected official, such as a prime minister.

England in the 17th century is a notable example of the failure of absolutism and the rise of constitutional monarchy. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658, parliament decided to reinstate the monarchy and the official power of the Church of England. However, this did not resolve the issues that had led to the civil wars, and Cromwell had ruled as autocratically as King Charles I. By the end of the 17th century and the start of the 18th century, England had become a constitutional monarchy, with the monarch ruling according to laws created by parliament. This was a significant shift in the relationship between the monarch and parliament, as parliament now had the right to meet frequently, hold open debates, and be freely elected by the people.

In the 18th century, France also transitioned from absolutism to constitutional monarchy. King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were executed, and France became a republic, with the people now able to choose their own government. This marked the end of absolutism in France and the beginning of a new era of constitutional monarchy.

The relationship between the monarch and parliament in an absolutist system is characterised by the concentration of power in the hands of the monarch, with the monarch having the final say in all matters. In contrast, a constitutional monarchy is defined by the sharing of power between the monarch and an elected parliament, with the constitution serving as a limit on the power of the monarch. While the monarch in a constitutional monarchy may have some ceremonial powers, they are largely a figurehead, with the real political power resting with an elected official and parliament.

Historical examples

Absolutism, or the Age of Absolutism, is a term used to describe a form of monarchy in which the monarch holds supreme power and rules with absolute authority, unrestrained by other institutions such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. This form of monarchy originated in early modern Europe, with the breakup of the medieval order and the rise of new nation-states. The power of these monarchs was often justified by the "divine right of kings" theory, which asserted that their authority was derived from God.

• France under King Louis XIV: Louis XIV is often considered the prime example of an absolute monarch. He centralized authority, claimed divine right, and had a branch of the royal government devoted to verifying claims of nobility.
• England in the 17th century: While England is known as a notable failure of absolutism during the reign of Charles I, it later became an absolute monarchy under Oliver Cromwell, who ruled through his control of the army.
• France during the Bourbon Restoration and the July Monarchy: The reigns of Louis XVIII, Charles X, and Louis-Philippe are considered constitutional monarchies, but the power of the monarch varied, and they still exhibited some aspects of absolutism.
• Prussia under Frederick II: While Frederick II is known for his transition to "enlightened absolutism," where the general well-being became his primary goal, he still ruled as an absolute monarch.

Constitutional monarchy, on the other hand, is a system of government where the monarch shares power with a constitutionally organized government, which may include an elected parliament and a judiciary. The monarch may be the ceremonial leader or the head of state, but their power is limited by a constitution.

Now, let's look at some historical examples of constitutional monarchy:

• United Kingdom of Great Britain: After the failure of absolutism in England in the 17th century, Britain transitioned to a constitutional monarchy, becoming one of the first major constitutional monarchies in Europe.
• France after the French Revolution: France transitioned from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy with the French Constitution of 1791. This period was short-lived and ended with the establishment of the French First Republic in 1792.
• Belgium: Belgium is known as an explicit popular monarchy, with the king's formal title being "King of the Belgians" instead of "King of Belgium."
• Thailand: In Thailand's constitutional monarchy, the monarch is recognized as the Head of State, Head of the Armed Forces, Upholder of the Buddhist Religion, and Defender of the Faith. The former King Bhumibol Adulyadej played a significant role in mediating political disputes.
• Poland-Lithuania: The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, formed in 1569, operated as a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral parliament and a collection of legal documents resembling a constitution. The king was elected and had the duty of maintaining the people's rights.

Frequently asked questions