Parliamentarism over absolutism

[Atterdag]

Hello

As european states began to go from medieval feudal societies into more modern states there were to very different kinds of states that appeared. One was the absolute monarchy where the king was supreme and could not be challenged. The other was parliamentarism where the monarch had limited power, contained by a parliamentarism or the like.

While historically most european states ended up absolutist, there are some famous parliamentary countries like England, the Netherlands and Poland, as well as some others.

What could prompt more countries to become Parliamentary states over absolute monarchies to such a degree that absolute monarchies are seen as the exception in history rather than the norm?

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Succession crisis followed by another succession crisis, with no clear heirs having good birthrights to the throne. Thus new monarch needs to be elected (thus, can't claim that his power came from God, when it is clear, that it came from the votes of electors. Something like that happened in Poland (no male heir was born to Polish King between 1310 and 1424). Also personal unions with monarch being absent in the country could decrease monarch's power easily, or monarch not interested in rulling the country (look how quickly power of Swedish monarchs was reduced after death of Charles XII).

 

[The Professor]

You essentially need a situation where the monarch is reliant on a deliberative body of some sort for funds or arms.

 

[alexmilman]

Succession crisis followed by another succession crisis, with no clear heirs having good birthrights to the throne. Thus new monarch needs to be elected (thus, can't claim that his power came from God, when it is clear, that it came from the votes of electors. Something like that happened in Poland (no male heir was born to Polish King between 1310 and 1424). Also personal unions with monarch being absent in the country could decrease monarch's power easily, or monarch not interested in rulling the country (look how quickly power of Swedish monarchs was reduced after death of Charles XII).

This schema does not necessarily produce the PLC-like results. Look at XVIII century Russia which was going from one succession crisis to another. The only attempt to create a constitutional monarchy ended with a failure because nobility preferred absolutism. Strictly speaking, in France change of a dynasty from Valois to Bourbons did not result in a constitutional monarchy either even if Henry IV was elected/chosen (whatever you prefer).

 

[alexmilman]

You essentially need a situation where the monarch is reliant on a deliberative body of some sort for funds or arms.

Which implies (more or less) that such a body already exists, controls the funds and can’t be ignored with impunity.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

This schema does not necessarily produce the PLC-like results. Look at XVIII century Russia which was going from one succession crisis to another. The only attempt to create a constitutional monarchy ended with a failure because nobility preferred absolutism. Strictly speaking, in France change of a dynasty from Valois to Bourbons did not result in a constitutional monarchy either even if Henry IV was elected/chosen (whatever you prefer).

This is why I've written it would not give 100% chance, but it would clearly increase it.
In Poland after death of Casimir III power was taken by regency council, because Louis d'Anjou was absent, similar thing happened later in Lithuania-Grand Duke resided in Cracow, leaving GDL under control of council magnates.

Mazovia, where Piast Dynasty survived until 1526, land with the same language, religion and climate as the rest of Poland, was hereditary duchy, while Poland was elective monarchy. Nobles of Mazovia had less priviledges than in other parts of the country and they paid higher taxes.

 

[Dante]

This schema does not necessarily produce the PLC-like results. Look at XVIII century Russia which was going from one succession crisis to another. The only attempt to create a constitutional monarchy ended with a failure because nobility preferred absolutism. Strictly speaking, in France change of a dynasty from Valois to Bourbons did not result in a constitutional monarchy either even if Henry IV was elected/chosen (whatever you prefer).

Yes, but the Valois-Bourbon succession was a case of one branch of the Capetian dynasty taking over from another, you can still make the claim that technically the divinely chosen family is still on the throne. Same with Russia, in the 18th century, different branches of the Romanovs basically jockeying for power. In Kingdoms like England, and later Great Britain, you have an absolute monarch being deposed and replaced with his nephew/son-in-law that while related is still a foreigner. This gives you just enough wiggle room to make the argument that William was only King because Parliament backed him and consequently he has to rule with their consent, or they'll find someone else. This is an oversimplification, of course, but it is an important distinction.

 

[Alienspacebats]

For Sweden, this much easier because all you have do is keep the age of liberty between cap and hats.

Even Denmark-(Norway) can if the right situation presents itself could become parliamentary

 

[alexmilman]

Yes, but the Valois-Bourbon succession was a case of one branch of the Capetian dynasty taking over from another, you can still make the claim that technically the divinely chosen family is still on the throne.

"Technically" it took a combination of (a) military success, (b) his willingness to change (again) his religion, (c) position of Duke of Mayenne (who rejected candidacy of his own son AND did not want to support the most radical elements of the League) and (d) position of the Parliament of Paris (Salic Law as the only principle) for him to be accepted. Perhaps the divine element was involved somewhere somehow but it definitely was not on a top of the list because there was nothing divine in the Salic Law.

Same with Russia, in the 18th century, different branches of the Romanovs basically jockeying for power.

Well, there was "Succession crisis followed by another succession crisis" and as for a birthright, neither Catherine I nor Catherine II had any "birthright" (1st being a former washerwoman and 2nd - a German princess with no trace of the Romanov blood).

As for the branches "jockeying for power", this is not quite correct either. Empress Anne was not "jockeying" for anything (except for the small amounts of money) when she was a widowed duchess of Courland. Decision to invite her (and not one of Peter's descendants) had been made by other people who, actually, wanted a constitutional monarchy but failed to get support of this idea among the Russian nobility.

In Kingdoms like England, and later Great Britain, you have an absolute monarch being deposed and replaced with his nephew/son-in-law that while related is still a foreigner. This gives you just enough wiggle room to make the argument that William was only King because Parliament backed him and consequently he has to rule with their consent, or they'll find someone else. This is an oversimplification, of course, but it is an important distinction.

In Emgland/Britain Parliament existed for centuries and never was fully abolished as a meaningful institution even at the top of what amounted to the English absolutism. In the PLC Sejm also was a meaningful institution for centuries. This is a fundamental difference from Russia where such an institution simply did not exist and, among other things, nothing stood between a monarch and the pockets of his subjects.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Which implies (more or less) that such a body already exists, controls the funds and can’t be ignored with impunity.

Well, most European countries had some sort of deliberative assembly during the Middle Ages, although with a few exceptions their monarchs were generally able to sideline them over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries.

 

[alexmilman]

Well, most European countries had some sort of deliberative assembly during the Middle Ages, although with a few exceptions their monarchs were generally able to sideline them over the course of the 16th and 17th centuries.

That's the whole point: in the Muscovite state/Tsardom such a body was historically absent which made an "absolute absolute monarchy" possible to a degree incomparable even with absolutism of Louis XIV. An additional ...er... "helpful factor" was the fact that by the time of the 1st Romanov an overwhelming majority of Russian nobility almost completely depended on the land grants regularly confirmed (or not confirmed) by the government, subject of the military service. In other words, unlike his Western counterparts, Russian noble of that time usually could not live off his own hereditary property. Hence a somewhat slavish dependence upon the government and absence of the "standard" behavioral attributes like the duels (only rarely sanctioned by the court judicial fights but mostly a litigation). Peter I could simply order all nobility to serve in the army/navy starting from the soldier/sailor rank. Louis XIV probably could not even dream of something like that.

Situation started changing only well into the XVIII when all estates had been made hereditary and military service voluntary (with some conditions) but the absolutist state already was there and creation of a state bank (owned by an Emperor) in which nobility could get loans with their lands as an escrow, strengthened emperor's position: as de Custine remarked, Nicholas I was a de facto creditor of almost all Russian nobility.