Absolutism? 

I find it not that awful, as Russian History has shown, but prefer a constitutional monarchy. I find that a bit too much depends on the single individual. It is good if there is a good leader, but what if a poorly gifted leader receives the throne?

Even if the leader is monitored throguhout his whole life, there are still events that influence them sometimes in the negative direction. For example, Ivan the Terrible was rather quiet and religious up until his wife had died, sufferring a rather heavy shock and change of personality.

I am in favour of Absolute Monarchy, simply because it is the most traditional and effective form of monarchy. I believe there should be the monarch as absolute head and a small group of advisors that ONLY advise the sovereign, however the monarch would have the final and indisputable say. As the history of England shows us Absolute Monarchs got much more done, gained more land, and had more favour than other con. monarchs. I think this is because politics spoil the people's faith in government, if politics is absent from government leaders have more favour. 

MonarchistUK33 at January 24, 2011 at 3:45 PM

I am in favour of Absolute Monarchy, simply because it is the most traditional and effective form of monarchy. I believe there should be the monarch as absolute head and a small group of advisors that ONLY advise the sovereign, however the monarch would have the final and indisputable say. As the history of England shows us Absolute Monarchs got much more done, gained more land, and had more favour than other con. monarchs. I think this is because politics spoil the people's faith in government, if politics is absent from government leaders have more favour. 

Which English "absolute monarchs" were you thinking of? I was under the impression that England was never a true absolute monarchy except for that short period when Charles I dissolved parliament ... because otherwise the monarch has always needed the support of Parliament to govern or the support of the aristocracy and the Church. In medieval times especially the monarch has always needed to stay in the favour of the aristocracy, who have many times exercised what they consider their right to depose monarchs such as John, Richard II, Edward II, and in the War of the Roses, where successive kings were deposed and enthroned not solely by their own right but also - and especially - because they were backed by powerful aristocratic coalitions.

Anyway I don't favour absolute monarchy but I can sympathise with its supporters. Certainly I'd prefer to live in an absolute monarchy of yore than the vast majority of modern republics which are plagued by corruption, totalitarianism, instability, failed socialist regimes etc. I could support a system by which the monarch governed with the consent of Parliament though, but generally I favour the Westminster tradition of parliamentary constitutional monarchy (which is parliament governing with the consent of the monarch).

Before the Magna Carta, an English Monarch had a small group of around 10 barons, who were his advisors... however the king has absolute say.

MonarchistUK is more or less correct that the English Monarch did indeed rule absolutely prior to the Magna Carta.

However in the proper idea of 'Absolute Monarchy' did not fully develop until at least the Enlightenment period. The English Monarchy was never this form of Absolutism.

With this said, I am an avowed Absolute Monarch, I feel it is only proper form of Monarchy. I am however, tolerent of other forms of Monarchy, understanding each nations needs, conventions and culture neccesitates different forms of Monarchy.

One cannot imagine a Swiss Absolute Monarchy for example.

Inquisitor Galloglasses at January 31, 2011 at 9:27 AM

MonarchistUK is more or less correct that the English Monarch did indeed rule absolutely prior to the Magna Carta.

 

However in the proper idea of 'Absolute Monarchy' did not fully develop until at least the Enlightenment period. The English Monarchy was never this form of Absolutism.

 

With this said, I am an avowed Absolute Monarch, I feel it is only proper form of Monarchy. I am however, tolerent of other forms of Monarchy, understanding each nations needs, conventions and culture neccesitates different forms of Monarchy.

 

One cannot imagine a Swiss Absolute Monarchy for example.

It is rare to meet another absolutist. In my opinion I do consider the pre magna carta period as Absolutism, because the Monarch has final say and could conjure laws from thin air. The barons were kind of governor generals for cities and regions and only had opinions in court for the monarch to consider. There were more Ideas than the monarch's floating around, but he could choose to ignore all others but his own. 

MonarchistUK33 at February 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Inquisitor Galloglasses at January 31, 2011 at 9:27 AM

MonarchistUK is more or less correct that the English Monarch did indeed rule absolutely prior to the Magna Carta.

 

However in the proper idea of 'Absolute Monarchy' did not fully develop until at least the Enlightenment period. The English Monarchy was never this form of Absolutism.

 

With this said, I am an avowed Absolute Monarch, I feel it is only proper form of Monarchy. I am however, tolerent of other forms of Monarchy, understanding each nations needs, conventions and culture neccesitates different forms of Monarchy.

 

One cannot imagine a Swiss Absolute Monarchy for example.

It is rare to meet another absolutist. In my opinion I do consider the pre magna carta period as Absolutism, because the Monarch has final say and could conjure laws from thin air. The barons were kind of governor generals for cities and regions and only had opinions in court for the monarch to consider. There were more Ideas than the monarch's floating around, but he could choose to ignore all others but his own. 

Officially the Monarch had the final word. But by fact, the Monarchs' power was unquestionable only in his personal lands, while in the lands of his vassals he had little control and the vassals could even have more personally owned lands and troops than the King himself. So the King could create laws but his laws may not be followed by his vassals.  There was even the formula "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal".De-facto the Monarch of England had as much control over his subject feudal governors as the King of France over the King of England(or previously the Duke of Normandy).

Absolute Monarchy began later, when the problem with the low quantity of precious metals was resolved. 

I am an absolutist. I base my belief in Monarchy off my core belief  that the family is the building block and model for any society. While it is unfortunatly common today, I cannot imagine a real family with the father subject to his children in any way. In the same way, I do not think the King is subject to his people. 

He owes them his love, protection, good judgment, and well being.

They owe him love, allegiance, defense, and obedience.

That is the way I see the family, and that is the way I see monarchy.

I prefer constitutional monarchy- if any. It can be worrysom when one man has the authority of life and death with nothing stopping. Many monarchs who had absolute power got rid of peope because they disagreed with them (of course so did communists and socialists, I'm not one of them don't get me wrong! [nor even a complete republican! Though I have been raised up beleiving it's the best form of government. So I'm just checking out what you guys say!]) I think that's why they got such a bad name. They abused power. They shouldn't have the authority to abuse power!  

Why have Republicans infested this MONARCHIST site? 

I'm opposed to absolutism, as constitutional monarchy was the only type of monarchy we ever had. Also, people don't see it well,and prefer keeping electing some guys.

Caesarevich at February 3, 2011 at 8:17 PM

MonarchistUK33 at February 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Inquisitor Galloglasses at January 31, 2011 at 9:27 AM

MonarchistUK is more or less correct that the English Monarch did indeed rule absolutely prior to the Magna Carta.

 

However in the proper idea of 'Absolute Monarchy' did not fully develop until at least the Enlightenment period. The English Monarchy was never this form of Absolutism.

 

With this said, I am an avowed Absolute Monarch, I feel it is only proper form of Monarchy. I am however, tolerent of other forms of Monarchy, understanding each nations needs, conventions and culture neccesitates different forms of Monarchy.

 

One cannot imagine a Swiss Absolute Monarchy for example.

It is rare to meet another absolutist. In my opinion I do consider the pre magna carta period as Absolutism, because the Monarch has final say and could conjure laws from thin air. The barons were kind of governor generals for cities and regions and only had opinions in court for the monarch to consider. There were more Ideas than the monarch's floating around, but he could choose to ignore all others but his own. 

Officially the Monarch had the final word. But by fact, the Monarchs' power was unquestionable only in his personal lands, while in the lands of his vassals he had little control and the vassals could even have more personally owned lands and troops than the King himself. So the King could create laws but his laws may not be followed by his vassals.  There was even the formula "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal".De-facto the Monarch of England had as much control over his subject feudal governors as the King of France over the King of England(or previously the Duke of Normandy).

Absolute Monarchy began later, when the problem with the low quantity of precious metals was resolved. 

Your Ideas only work in smaller nations. And even in families the father can be unnesesarily oppresive.

Joseph Rhodes at June 29, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Caesarevich at February 3, 2011 at 8:17 PM

MonarchistUK33 at February 3, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Inquisitor Galloglasses at January 31, 2011 at 9:27 AM

MonarchistUK is more or less correct that the English Monarch did indeed rule absolutely prior to the Magna Carta.

 

However in the proper idea of 'Absolute Monarchy' did not fully develop until at least the Enlightenment period. The English Monarchy was never this form of Absolutism.

 

With this said, I am an avowed Absolute Monarch, I feel it is only proper form of Monarchy. I am however, tolerent of other forms of Monarchy, understanding each nations needs, conventions and culture neccesitates different forms of Monarchy.

 

One cannot imagine a Swiss Absolute Monarchy for example.

It is rare to meet another absolutist. In my opinion I do consider the pre magna carta period as Absolutism, because the Monarch has final say and could conjure laws from thin air. The barons were kind of governor generals for cities and regions and only had opinions in court for the monarch to consider. There were more Ideas than the monarch's floating around, but he could choose to ignore all others but his own. 

Officially the Monarch had the final word. But by fact, the Monarchs' power was unquestionable only in his personal lands, while in the lands of his vassals he had little control and the vassals could even have more personally owned lands and troops than the King himself. So the King could create laws but his laws may not be followed by his vassals.  There was even the formula "The vassal of my vassal is not my vassal".De-facto the Monarch of England had as much control over his subject feudal governors as the King of France over the King of England(or previously the Duke of Normandy).

Absolute Monarchy began later, when the problem with the low quantity of precious metals was resolved. 

Your Ideas only work in smaller nations. And even in families the father can be unnesesarily oppresive.

Suprisingly, I would say the inverse. It is very common to find examples of absolute monarchy in the history of larger nations.Though it is true, they may possess some danger, which is why I am not an absolutist.

One of the greatest mistakes that sometimes I encounter is the idea that "the king does everything". Which is a very common misunderstanding of the term "absolute monarchy". It is doubtful, no matter how talented the Monarch is, that he will cover all field personally. He of course has helpers who are ministers, governors and advisers.  Thus, an absolute monarchy doesn't define as the Monarch taking care of everything on his own. Often times the Monarch talentless in a single field finds himself a talented minister which reduces the particular weakness of a Monarch, like Augustus and Agrippa.

Hello all,

I found this website a couple of weeks ago, and as I acknowledge myself a monarchist (didn't realize I wasn't alone being such an oddball in the Western World :o), I decided I might as well join in.

More on topic, I too support a form of absolute monarchism.  First, I don't believe constitutional monarchy (in its common form such as the one we have here in Canada) is any monarchy at all.  The advantage of monarchy is to have an individual having the ability and the power to rule over one kingdom, as opposed to republicanism being a hundred (or more) individuals ruling through an inefficient and often self-serving bureaucracy.  Constitutional monarchy to me is republicanism with a honorary aristocracy doing little but waste resources for the sake of tradition (nothing wrong with tradition, but aristocray without power seems like such a waste of perfectly good royal blood to me).

17th and 18th century monarchism (such as French absolute monarchy) however was the Dark Age of monarchy.  It saw weak monarchs fall to their own incompetence, bad advice and bad harvests, as well as an aristocracy that lost its way and enjoyed a lifestyle that was way too opulent compared to that of their subjects.

The best form of monarchy to me is a form of feudalism, where the King rules from the top, with Governors or Lords ruling mostly independently in their counties, with minimal bureaucracy to make royal decrees reality and a staff of advisors/ministers to help the King and his Lords with matters they are not competent in.  It maintains a small government while having the advantage that with the support of each vassal being necessary for the King to maintain his rule, the King is forced to demonstrate political skills and wise ruling - and may even be replaced by the council of nobles should he be found unfit for kingship.

At least, that's my reasoning.