Comparison Of Absolute And Constitutional Monarchies

594 Words3 Pages
Absolute and Constitutional Monarchies An absolute monarchy is a government that controls every aspect of its nation’s life, including education, religion, and military. A constitutional monarchy also an anointed leader, but no one particular person or group has complete power. Instead, in constitutional monarchies have the power is split between a parliament or congress and a king or head of state. In Europe in the mid 17th century, nations were governed either as absolute or as constitutional monarchies. Rulers in these two systems, despite their obvious political differences, faced similar obstacles and achieved many of the same goals. Rulers in absolutist monarchies had complete control over every aspect of the nation and its citizens’ lives. The monarch in such a system held all the political power. The king controlled the church, the nobility, and local governments. Controlling the church during this time was essential, because the church held significant wealth and property, as well as the limited educational resources of the kingdom. The remainder of the wealth of the nation was controlled by the nobility, and so their loyalty was essential to the security of the monarch. Through local governments, absolute monarchs controlled taxation, communication, and the front lines of defense for the kingdom.…show more content…
A notable exception can be found in England, where in 1628, parliament forced Charles I, who had been an absolute monarch to sign the Petition of Rights. The Petition of Rights can be viewed as the first step taken towards developing a constitutional monarchy. Prior to this time, parliament had no real authority in the land, and English kings ruled with the same authority, as did their counterparts in France and Spain. The Petition of Rights prevented the king from levying and collecting taxes without the consent of

More about Comparison Of Absolute And Constitutional Monarchies

Open Document