Absolute monarchy

Absolute monarchy is a monarchical form of government in which the monarch has absolute power
among his or her people. An absolute monarch wields unrestricted political power over the sovereign
state and its people. Absolute monarchies are often hereditary but other means of transmission of
power are attested. Absolute monarchy differs from limited monarchy, in which the monarch's
authority is legally bound or restricted by a constitution.[1]
In theory, the absolute monarch exercises total power over the land, yet in practice the monarchy is
counterbalanced by political groups from among the social classes and castes of the realm, such as
the aristocracy, clergy (see caesaropapism), bourgeoisie, andproletarians.
Some monarchies have weak or symbolic legislatures and other governmental bodies that the
monarch can alter or dissolve at will. Countries where the monarch still maintains absolute power
are Bahrain, Brunei,[2] Qatar,[3] Oman,[4] Saudi Arabia,[5] Swaziland,[6] the emirates comprising
the UAE[7] and Vatican City[8] (the Pope, however is elected)

Historical examples
Throughout much of European history, the Divine Right of Kings was the theological justification for
absolute monarchy. Many European monarchs, such as those of Russia, claimed supreme
autocratic power by divine right, and that their subjects had no rights to limit their power. James
VI of Scotland (later also James I of England) and his son Charles I of Scotland and England tried to
import this principle. Charles I's attempt to enforce Episcopal polity on the Church of Scotland led to
rebellion by the Covenanters and the Bishops' Wars, then fears that Charles I was attempting to
establish absolutist government along European lines was a major cause of theEnglish Civil War,
despite the fact that he did rule this way for 11 years starting in 1629, after dissolving the Parliament
of England for a time. By the 19th century, the Divine Right was regarded as an obsolete theory in
most countries in the Western world, except in Russia where it was still given credence as the official
justification for the Tsar's power.
There is a considerable variety of opinion by historians on the extent of absolutism among European
monarchs. Some, such as Perry Anderson, argue that quite a few monarchs achieved levels of
absolutist control over their states, while historians such as Roger Mettam dispute the very concept
of absolutism.[9] In general, historians who disagree with the appellation of absolutism argue that
most monarchs labeled as absolutist exerted no greater power over their subjects than any
other non-absolutist rulers, and these historians tend to emphasize the differences between the
absolutist rhetoric of monarchs and the realities of the effective use of power by these absolute
monarchs. Renaissance historian William Bouwsma summed up this contradiction:

Nothing so clearly indicates the limits of royal power as the fact that governments were perennially in
financial trouble, unable to tap the wealth of those most able to pay, and likely to stir up a costly
revolt whenever they attempted to develop an adequate income.[10]
William Bouwsma

Absolute monarchy in France

Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th century and became firmly established
during the 17th century. Absolute monarchy is a variation of the governmental form of monarchy in
which all governmental power and responsibility emanates from and is centered in the monarch. In
France, Louis XIV was the most famous exemplar of absolute monarchy, with his court central to
French political and cultural life during his reign. He lent absolute monarchy in France its most
famous quotation: "L'tat, c'est moi!" Absolute monarchy in France slowly emerged in the 16th
century and became firmly established during the 17th century. Absolute monarchy is a variation of
the governmental form of monarchy in which all governmental power and responsibility emanates
from and is centered in the monarch. In France, Louis XIV was the most famous exemplar of
absolute monarchy, with his court central to French political and cultural life during his reign. He lent
absolute monarchy in France its most famous quotation: "L'tat, c'est moi!"

Establishing Absolute Monarchy In France

By the early 16th century, the efficient administration of Charlemagne's Empire was ensured by highlevel civil servants, carrying the, then non-hereditary, titles of counts (in charge of a
County), marquis (in charge of a March), dukes (military commanders), etc. During the course of the
9th and 10th centuries, continually threatened by Viking invasions, France became a very
decentralised state: the nobility's titles and lands became hereditary, and the authority of the king
became more religious than secular and thus was less effective and constantly challenged by
powerful noblemen. Thus was established feudalism in France. Over time, some of the king's
vassals would grow so powerful that they often posed a threat to the king.
Since then, French kings had continuously tried to strengthen existing royal powers scattered among
their nobles. Philip the Fair, Charles the Wise and Louis the Cunning were instrumental in the
transformation of France from a feudal state to a modern country. By the time of Francis I, France
was a very centralized state but the French Wars of Religionposed a new threat to royal absolutism
with quasi-independent Protestant strongholds developing in various locations in the country.
With his skilful Prime Minister Richelieu, who vowed "to make the royal power supreme in France
and France supreme in Europe." (source: Cardinal Richelieu's Political Testament),Louis
XIII established Absolute Monarchy in France during his reign. When his son and successor Louis
XIV came to power, a period of trouble known as the Fronde occurred in France, taking advantage of
Louis XIV's minority. This rebellion was driven by the great feudal lords and sovereign courts as a
reaction to the rise of royal power in France.

The rebellion was crushed; however, many obstacles stood in the way of absolutism in France:

Nobles had the means to raise private armies and build fortifications. The king did not have
the means to raise and keep an army himself and had to rely on these nobles to defend the
nation;

Lesser nobles, who had the ability to read and write, also acted as the king's agents.
Effectively, they were his representatives of government to the people. They collected taxes,
posted edicts, and administered justice.

The Huguenots, who since the 1598 Edict of Nantes by Henry IV, held the rights to bear
arms and to build fortifications in certain locations.

To overcome these obstacles King Louis XIV used several tools:

One of the more unsubtle acts of this consolidation of power was the repeal of the Edict of
Nantes with the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685.
A more subtle tactic was the demolition of the nobles castles, disguised as a budgetary act to reduce
maintenance costs by removing unnecessary fortifications on the nations interior, this Edict of 1626
removed any ability of the nobles to rebel.
Louis XIV reduced the nobles power further by requiring them to spend at least some portion of the
year occupying Versailles. At Versailles, the king could watch and be sure his nobles werent plotting
against the crown. Rather than seen as demeaning, the nobles took this as a high honor. Nobles,
being granted residence at Versailles, were only too happy to give up their duties as government
ministers, and Louis XIV, with the help of his minister of finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, replaced
them with members of the merchant class who could read and write and whose titles were revocable
and not heritable.
Consequences
The final outcome of these acts did centralize the authority of France behind the king. The
replacement of government ministers, removal of castles, and other financial polices of Colbert did
reduce French national debt considerably. In the 18th century, however, the relocation of nobles and
the sheer obsolescence of Versailles became an important place for a rising merchant class and an
instigative press.
Perhaps the most pressing consequence of absolutism in France is the emigration of the Huguenots.
Of the merchant class, their emigration effectively leads to a brain drain and a loss of tax revenue for
France. Moreover, barred from New France, they immigrated to other nations, most notably the 13

colonies, taking their skills of printing, glass making, carpentry, ceramics, a deep belief in the needs
for freedom of religion (at least for Protestantism), and the right to bear arms.