alternatehistory.com

Lands of Red and Gold #62: Heaven’s Mandate

Taken from Intellipedia.

Absolute Monarchy

Absolute monarchy or supreme monarchy is a monarchical form of government where the monarch wields supreme governing authority. The monarch fills the role of head of state and head of government, with powers that are unrestricted by a constitution, law, or any other official constraints. An absolute monarch possesses full sovereignty over both the state and its people. Absolute monarchies are usually hereditary but other forms of succession are sometimes applied, such as elective (a designated body chooses the successor) or selective (the monarch chooses the successor). Absolute monarchy contrasts with bound monarchy, where the monarch’s authority is constrained by a constitution or other legal or religious limits.

Notionally, an absolute monarch possesses supreme, unrestricted power over the land and the people. Examples of such pure [questionable term: discuss] absolute monarchs are rare; in most instances the monarchy is still subject to political constraints from other social groups or classes, e.g. the aristocracy or clergy.

Some contemporary monarchies have ineffectual or façade legislatures or other governmental bodies which the monarch can remove or change without constraint...

Historical Examples

In the words of historian Matthew Perry: “The history of early modern Europe is the history of the transition from feudal contract to absolute monarchy.”

Among the most apt examples of an absolute monarch is James II of England [1], epitomised in his famous declarations: “I cannot break the law; I am the law.” and “In my heart, that is England.” While some modern historians [who?] criticise him for his opulent lifestyle, he ruled England for nearly half a century, and he is widely recognised [dubious: discuss] for his achievements both domestic and foreign.

As King of England, he held in his person the supreme executive, legislative and judicial powers. As head of state, he had the power to declare war and to raise war funds by any means he chose. He was the ultimate judicial authority, with final right to condemn men to death with no appeal. He considered it his duty to punish all crimes, and to prevent crimes being committed. While advised by the Privy Council, he alone retained the power to enact and repeal legislation.

Absolutism in early modern Europe first found formal written expression in the 1656 Kongeloven (“King's Law”) of Denmark [2]. The Danish monarchy already exercised absolute authority in its realm of Rugen, where as King of the Vends he had no constraints on his authority. The 1656 declaration extended this authority to all of the realms of Denmark and Norway, and ordered that the monarch “shall from this day forth be revered and considered the most perfect and supreme person on the Earth by all his subjects, standing above all human laws and having no judge above his person, neither in spiritual nor temporal matters, except God alone.”

Under this authority, the Danish monarch removed all other sources of power. The most significant of these was the abolition of the Rigsraadet, the Danish Council of the Realm, which had been a long opponent of unfettered royal power.

However, testament to the limits of absolutism also came from Denmark. Even an absolute monarch turned out to be not so absolute after all. In the next year after the Kongeloven Declaration, King Ulrik sought to enforce his personal rule on the city of Bremen. Bremen had historically been a free city within the Holy Roman Empire, but Denmark had claimed sovereignty over the city at the end of the Twenty Years’ War. However, Bremen continued to hold itself to be a free city. In response to the absolutist declaration, the city council of Bremen declared that it was a free imperial city, paid homage to the Emperor, and sought a seat and vote in the Imperial Diet.

King Ulrik responded by ordering a siege of Bremen to force the city to acknowledge his rule. Heavily fortified, Bremen could not be easily conquered, and the city found support from the Netherlands and the Emperor, the one on the grounds of religion and commerce, the other on the grounds of imperial prestige, and the both on the grounds that Denmark already had too much power. With imperial and Dutch troops on the border, Ulrik had to abandon the siege. While Denmark did not yield its formal claim to absolute rule of Bremen along with its other territories, it did allow Bremen to remain de facto separate, with levels of taxes and duties paid that were minimal in comparison to the Danish norm, and the Emperor sought to preserve this peace by removing Bremen’s participation in the Diet.

Sweden under King Charles X instituted a form of government which was never formally called absolute monarchy, but which in practice conformed to that standard. Under Charles X and his son Charles XI [3] all other centres of power were systematically removed or reduced to impotence. The Riksrådet, the Swedish Council of the Realm, had served as a bastion of aristocracy with nobles who advised the monarch. The institution was rarely called under Kristina and was dissolved by Charles X in 1672, replaced by a Royal Council of bureaucrats who advised and were chosen by the monarch, and served at his pleasure. In 1675 the power of the aristocrats was further curbed by the Great Reduction which returned most of the noble estates to the Swedish crown.

The Swedish legislature, the Riksdag of the Estates, was not formally abolished, but became ineffectual because the Swedish monarchs treated it as having authority only in the pre-1618 borders, and not in the lands acquired during the Twenty Years’ War. In the new territories, Sweden broke the power of the local aristocracy, with most of their lands falling under the rule of the monarchy, leading to Kristina and Charles X being absolute monarchs within those dominions, which comprised the majority of the population of the Swedish empire. With these lands and resources at their command, Charles X and Charles XI reduced the Riksdag to a rubber stamp that approved their decisions, when they bothered to assemble the Estates...

For most of history, absolute monarchy found its theological underpinnings via the Divine Right of Kings. European monarchs such as those of Russia claimed supreme power by divine right, with subjects having no rights to check monarchical authority. The House of Stuart (James I, Charles I, and Charles II) imported this concept to England during the seventeenth century, leading to political dissension, rebellion, and ultimately the English Civil War during the reign of Charles II and the beginning of the era of English Absolutism. However, Portugal [flagged for irrelevance: discuss] never had a period of absolute monarchy in early modern Europe [citation needed].

Even where the concept of Divine Right had been abandoned or become outmoded, except in Russia, absolute monarchs continued to claim their supreme sovereignty on the grounds of the State; the monarch was the state. This doctrine of personal sovereignty first found explicit expression in France: “L’état, c’est le roi” – the State, it is the King. The same fundamental concept was adopted during the Absolutist period in England, and in most other European states, however, Russia retained the explicit trapping of Divine Right.

Objections to the doctrines of divine right and personal sovereignty were prominent in the ideas expressed during the Age of Enlightenment...

Saxony

Saxony had a nearly unique political framework in early modern Europe: a de facto absolute monarch in a de jure limited monarchy. The emphasis in Saxony was on the Elector (and later, the king) in the role of “sovereign servant of the state”, rather than possessing explicit supreme authority. Despite this, over the course of the seventeenth century, especially during and after the Twenty Years’ War, Saxony developed in a way which paralleled the rise of Absolutism.

John George II (r. 1628-1667), the Musician-Elector, acquired enormous new territories during the later part of the Twenty Years’ War, and in keeping with the trends of the time, these became part of the dominion of the sovereign rather than being awarded to nobles. These new estates supported the extravagant expenditure of the Musician-Elector, who made Dresden a major centre of music and the arts and attracted composers and performers from across Europe [4]. His son John George III had a strict Lutheran education, focused on the duty of the Albertine Wettins as the protectors of the Reformation (as they saw it), and learned more about fortification and warfare than he did about music; those same incomes were used for more martial pursuits. Under John George III and his successors, the “sovereign servant” became simply sovereign, and in time each of the representative assembles of ancestral Saxony [5] granted the monarch the authority to levy taxes without needing their consent: a mark of Absolutism.

Sicily

Sicily is the most well-known example [dubious: flagged for discussion] of the replacement of absolute monarchy by limited monarchy within early modern Europe. Insular Sicily had been an absolute monarchy under the Aragonese and Spanish crowns since 1409. However, the Sicilian Agricultural Revolution, starting circa 1660 [6], dramatically increased agricultural productivity, & in turn sent population increasing and economic strength was boosted.

Lacking in any local sovereign representation, Sicily was ruled by the distant absolutist sovereigns of Spain, who never visited the island except in time of war, and viewed it merely as a source of funds. Discontentment and dissension followed, particularly over arbitrary decisions of Spanish-born magistrates about taxation and sometimes confiscation of the newly-productive lands. Lacking systematic land tenure or inheritance, discontented younger sons turned to agitation, and in time to revolution.

The Advent Revolution was ignited by objections to the absolutist rule of Spain, and led to the establishment of a new, native monarchy. Lorenzo Piazzi claimed the title of monarch in 1729, and won international recognition of his rank in 1736 with the culmination of the Revolution, but what he could not claim for himself was the role of an absolute monarch.

Sicily was independent, but reliant on foreign support that constrained it from overseas adventures that might have been used to distract the populace. Lorenzo I had no legitimate claim to royal birth, and thus no hereditary authority to use as sanction for Absolutism. During the revolutionary era, local assemblies had raised both troops and funds to support the rebellion. These assemblies did not willingly disband after the Revolution was successful, but instead demanded a form of permanent recognition. While Lorenzo I would have preferred to establish an absolutist monarchy [citation needed], circumstances forced him to create a constitutional monarchy with a permanent representative assembly...

* * *

[1] Not the historical James II of England / James VII of Scotland (b. 1633), who was son of Charles I of England. The historical James II of England does not exist because his father died from the Aururian plagues in 1631. This James II (b.1652) is the allohistorical son of Charles II of England and Luise of Hesse-Kassel (herself the allohistorical daughter of William V, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel).

[2] Denmark made a similar declaration historically, but nine years later (1665). The enhanced monarchical power of the Twenty Years’ War leads to the earlier introduction of the King’s Law.

[3] The allohistorical Charles XI of Sweden (b. 1650) is the son of Charles X Gustav of Sweden (while still only Duke of Öland and heir presumptive to the throne) and his wife and cousin Queen Kristina of Sweden.

[4] Historically, John George II’s expenditure on music and the arts nearly sent him bankrupt, and he was forced to grant much revenue-raising power to the nobles and burghers. Allohistorically, the income from his new estates lets him indulge his heart as patron of the arts without needing to make any concessions.

[5] i.e. the pre-Twenty Years’ War territories of Electoral Saxony.

[6] i.e. the introduction of new Aururian crops and farming methods into the island of Sicily, and the consequent agricultural development with increased output and new farming technology.

* * *

Thoughts?