He could afford to raise and maintain a powerful army, and could dominate Europe. He conquered countries who fought against France, and also attempted to unify France religiously. Overall, his reign was a success, and he left his successors with a solid foundation of France. Although Peter I improved Russia and attempted to modernize areas regarding the economy and military, he failed to lay the foundations of a stable state. However, Louis XIV succeeded to make France a powerful and superior state, and improved most classic areas of the
To a certain extent I do agree that Germany was an entrenched authoritarian state as the population was being led by a hereditary monarch that detained an unnecessary amount of power; the Kaiser was the defender of traditional privileges and enjoyed a large amount of support from other ruling elites, especially those leading Prussia. However, Germany was not an absolute monarch as there was an elected branch of the government, the Reichstag. As well the Kaiser also desired a world role; he therefore supported industrialisation as well as being enthusiastic about new technology and new industries. The prestige status of the Kaiser was still deeply ingrained in the minds of the Reichstag members. The constitution granted the emperor extensive powers which established his personal rule, as he had the power to appoint key government members, such as the chancellor and Reichstag members.
Henry VII had more crown lands than any previous king and some lands had been confiscated under the acts of attainder meaning more money for the crown. The kings annual income from his royal estates rose from £12,000 to £42,000 which was a significant improvement showing that his techniques were working in this area, also another example of ordinary revenue that was used effectively was custom duties. Henry cracked down on corrupt officials and constantly updated the book of rates of custom duties. Historians estimate custom duties rose from £33,000 to £40,000. This was also an improvement becasue money was still being raised adding more value to the crown.
Louis XIV’s reign was an absolutist reign. The extent of the success of absolutism under Louis however is up for debate. Absolutism is a form of ruling whereby the monarch at the time has absolute control over the country and every government decision is made by him. 1661 is the time Louis’ personal rule starts and this is when absolutism is introduced. Source B shows Louis at the height of his power in 1679, the year when the attack on the Huguenots became much more aggressive.
Therefore Pitt would not be able to be Prime Minister. In this time it was impossible to lose an election because the Kings’ support or lack of support determined who was in power. Kings could control what governments were in power regardless of the election result. The elections were only there to confirm the Kings’ decision. This also means that a party could be dismissed at anytime the King wanted.
Sovereignty is used to describe the idea of the power of law making unrestricted by any legal limit, Parliamentary sovereignty is part of the uncodified constitution of the United Kingdom. It dictates that Parliament can make or unmake any laws as it is the ultimate legal authority in the UK. Parliament is still sovereign as it can make law on any matter and it has legislative supremacy. However parliamentary sovereignty can be questioned due to the membership of the European Union and the Human Rights Act. Parliament can make laws on any matter due to Dicey in ‘Law of the Constitution (1885).’ He said that ‘in theory Parliament has total power.
To what extent was Philip II an absolute monarch One could argue that Philip II was an absolute monarch as he was the King, not only that but the most powerful King in Europe as he had control of parts in South America such as Mexico and also parts in Italy, Sicilia and the Netherlands and for a short time England. As a King it meant he had the ‘divine right’, which meant that he had the right to rule from God and were accountable only to God. As a King he had the power to create war and peace, which he did against Italy in 1556. Furthermore he was in charge of an immense military power. The Spanish Armada in 1588 alone had the size of 160 ships and he was able to push back the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Magnificent, ending their threat in the Mediterranean in 1585.
There were so many different monarchs at the time; they all had different ways of running their perspective courts. In Machiavelli’s book, The Prince, he states that a prince must rule independently and not trust anyone but himself or herself. (Doc1)This statement is proven to be true with the example of King Louis XIV. He only trusted himself and nobody else, and by bringing the nobles to live with him at Versailles, it proved that he only trusted
Despite this political remoteness, the vast majority of colonists remained loyal to the king, and recognized the British Parliament as the decisive source of governmental power. Relations between Britain and the colonies was congenial. The colonies relied on the British for trade and commerce for economic success, their military for defense from other nations who had interests in North America and political solidity. In 1756, the French and Indian War broke out between Britain and France, the two principal powers in North America. For the most part, this war was an imperial struggle for colonial land and wealth.
However, the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty is the unshakeable keystone of Britain’s judicial system; it guarantees the continued supremacy of parliament. A codified constitution, which in many other countries restricts the powers of government, does not exist in Britain. Thus the only check on the power of Parliament is the sovereignty of future parliaments – legislation can