Constitutional Monarchies Pros And Cons

430 Words1 Page

1.A monarchy is a system of government where there is one absolute ruler who inherits the crown from his/ her parents or close relatives. 2.There are three different kinds of monarchies, absolute- the kind of monarchy in the selection-, as well as limited and constitutional . 3.An absolute monarchy has a King (or a queen ) who fully controls the government. He is in charge of the military, appoints all officials and has a final say in everything. There are only a few absolute monarchies left in the world today. 4. A limited monarchy is a government that is ruled by a King or Queen who shares power with a parliament (Congress) who helps him/ her make decisions. 5. A Constitutional monarchy is where a King or Queen acts as the head of state in a government. They have to follow the constitution and the ability to make and pass legislation is the job of an elected parliament, not the King's. The Netherlands Sweden, and Great Britain are some constitutional monarchies still around today.
Response to article (a paragraph for each topic below): …show more content…

It would have made the people in Illea a lot happier and could have prevented quite a few rebel attacks. If Illea was going to be a Limited monarchy, Clarkson's group of advisers could have acted as a parliament and they could have prevented Clarkson from making unreasonable laws and unreasonably executing or caning criminals. If Illea was a Constitutional Monarchy, I think that would drastically change what happened in the book and sort of make it pointless and almost completely like the bachelor ( Gross! ) But, if it were to become one, Clarkson would basicly loose most of his power and hand it down to the parliament ( what used to be his advisors). I think this would make Illea a way better country and keep Clarkson from making bad decisions. If it weren't for him, the war in New Asia that cost thousands of dollars and lives wouldn't have even

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Constitution

    1110 Words  | 3 Pages

    After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the

    Read More

  • The Most Successful Absolute Monarch in Europe was Louis XIV of France

    1549 Words  | 4 Pages

    According to the text book, an absolute monarch is a king or queen who has unlimited power and seeks to control all aspects of society (McDougall little, 1045). In more simple terms, it is a ruler who can do just about anything without having to get permission from anyone, or having to worry about the repercussions. This was a trend that started in the 1600’s by European leaders who were rich, and didn’t like to be told what to do. These conflicts arose with the States-General in France, or Parliament in England who had substantial control. The first countries to have absolute rulers were the traditionally strong countries, such as England, Spain, and of course Louis XIV’s France.

    Read More

  • Was absolute monarch the foundation of Democracy?

    909 Words  | 2 Pages

    During the fifteenth to nineteenth century, there were several leaders from different countries, who abused their powers as absolute monarchs. The misuse of their powers led to downfall of their country. An example of an absolute monarch who abused their powers is Louis XIV. He is a very important figure in history because he would make decisions and everyone would be under his power and control. For example, he controlled all the taxations, military power and justice. Furthermore, he did not set a list of defined rules. What this meant was that whatever he wanted to do at the time became the law and he could change it anytime. Louis built the Palace of Versailles which demonstrated the wealth and power of the monarch. The expenses for building the palace ended up with peasants unable to pay the increased tax. The country was enraged, countless suffered from poverty and famine. The proposition of a revolution was spread and Louis divine rights were being stripped away. The inevitable failure of absolute monarchy led to the uprising of the Reign of Terror and Napoleon Bonaparte. After the beheading of the King and Queen, France ...

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The US Constitution

    972 Words  | 2 Pages

    Much like a young child growing up, they are prone to make mistakes. The same can be said about the United States after gaining independence from Great Britain. In 1778 the law of the land was the Articles of Confederation, where a majority of governmental power went to the 13 individual states in order to avoid a large, overbearing government like the one we recently fought against. Although it was great in concept, the Article of Confederation was not what the United States needed. With each state governing on their own the states were not united. But with the adoption of the U.S Constitution, that all changed.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The US Constitution

    1238 Words  | 3 Pages

    The U.S. Constitution was written with a great vision to create a strong nation. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution is a very well organized and well thought out document that holds a strong bases for the future of America. It was September 17, 1787 that the Constitution was created, just a few years after we broke away from England’s control. In 1777, America’s government operated under the Articles of Confederation. This allowed states to operate independently like little countries. America’s government was weak because people were afraid of the government having too much power.

    Read More

  • Five Monarchy Guidelines

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    Absolutism was a time in history when kings and queens would rule their countries with complete power and authority. The five guiding principles that monarchs used to rule their country are as follow. The first one is that, a ruler should rule their country or Principality with absolute authority, the second one is that, “Might makes right” which is if the ruler has the power to do something then they should do it and they do not need to explain themselves, the third principle is that, a ruler should us military force when necessary to keep a country well defended and safe, the fourth is that, that ruler should not be worried about whether or not he or she is loved or feared but instead should focus on ruling the country in the best way possible. The final principle is a ruler should elect an able body of advisors to help in ruling the country. The five guiding principles of ruling a country impacted the countries of the monarchs who reigned during the Absolute Era in many ways. Three of these monarchs that that used the guiding principle were, Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled over England for 45 years from 1558 to 1603, King Louis XIV who ruled over France for 79 years from 1638 to 1715, and Catherine the Great ruled Russia as empress for 34 years from 1762 until 1796.

    Read More

  • A Tyrannical Leader verus a Benevolent Monarch in Shakespeare's Macbeth

    550 Words  | 2 Pages

    A benevolent monarch is one who reins over a kingdom with the purpose of goodwill. He is one who has preeminent power. He works for the purpose of doing good.

    Read More

  • Tyranny Pros And Cons

    800 Words  | 2 Pages

    Introduction: As an individual from the Anti-Federalist party, in effort to ensure individual rights disregarding race, sexual orientation, and financial status, we are resolved to make a record that will secure inalienable rights. In addition, a record that will guarantee a legislature that is equivalent and reasonable for everybody and not only the advantaged. The Constitution imperils the ensured Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The historical backdrop of endless wounds and usurpations have built up a Tyranny over the conditions of North America.

    Read More

  • The Absolute Monarchy Of France In The 17th Century

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this context, an absolute monarch would be revolve around a single leader (usually a king) that would make decisions without the assistance of the aristocracy, such as a the nobility, the parliament, or other organizations that include the interest of wealthy families or government officials. In this case, the king would act alone in deciding the political, economic, and military decisions of the people, which would illustrate the absolute power that is wielded by the individual making the decisions. This governmental interpretation of the term “absolute” defines how a king would rule without the interference or inhibitions of an aristocracy or democratic form of government. Of course, the realization of this type o government can be better explained through the context of the absolute monarchy in France, which was founded in the leadership of king Louis

    Read More

  • Republic Pros And Cons

    858 Words  | 2 Pages

    As the United States possesses a vast government there tends to be a controversy on how exactly the government’s runs and what kind of form it is. There are many forms to government, democracy, republic, oligarchy, constitutional republic etc. Although, it can be debated as to what true form of government our country is really, in the year 2016 the government is a republic. Benjamin Franklin was once asked what kind of government we had when the United States was forged and he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” A republic may not be easy to maintain or keep but it is the best thing our country can have.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Royal Prerogative Powers

    1796 Words  | 4 Pages

    The United Kingdom as one of the remaining monarchies of the world, which head of it, the Queen Elizabeth II, has powers that provide an essential evolution of the country. These powers, are called Royal Prerogative powers. Obviously, British people respect the Royal family and additionally the queen, nevertheless they could have their own beliefs as seen on their references. According to the Royal Prerogative (“RP”), it is definitely the most historically and continuing tradition of Britain. In some situations, circumstances tend to disappear them and replaced them by other recent means. In this essay, it will define the RP and how can preserve the separation of powers. Therefore, it should explain how these powers dying to a democratic environment.

    Read More

  • French Monarchy Vs Absolute Monarchy

    611 Words  | 2 Pages

    The largest difference between the two monarchies, is at the base of it. In France, each king chose to rule with an absolute monarchy. This in short means that the king had absolute power, and that he could not be questioned by anyone or any authority he had appointed. He was allowed to do what ever he pleased, to levy taxes, pass laws, and had direct control of all his subjects within his state. On the other hand, England went with a constitutional monarchy. Although this did not always play out, England's original ruling was to eliminate the destruction

    Read More

  • Royal Prerogative Pros And Cons

    862 Words  | 2 Pages

    ‘The exercise of the Royal prerogative by the Government to deploy armed force overseas is outdated and should not be allowed to continue as the basis for legitimate war-making in our 21st century democracy.’ M00536987 Saoirse Walsh Public Law Word Count: 914 Under the Royal prerogative powers, the Government can declare war and deploy armed forces to conflicts abroad without the backing or consent of Parliament 1, however in 2003 the government agreed to allow the Parliament to have a say in weather or not to deploy armed forces overseas but however in 2004 the House of Common’s public Administration Select Committee, released a report on the Minister’s prerogative powers stating that ‘any decision to engage in armed conflict should be

    Read More

  • Absolutism Vs Constitutionalism Essay

    439 Words  | 1 Pages

    Within this system there must be a maintained balance of the rights of their subjects and the power of government. England converted to a constitutional monarchy in 1688 where they allowed a monarch but there was a balance with an elected parliament put in place. The monarchs are not allowed full power to prevent rash action from happening but their actions took time because parliament had to be called into session. In 1689 a bill of rights was written that limited the power of the British Monarchs and was accepted by the monarchs at that time. This bill told the rights to their subjects, such as freedom of worship, and made the monarch respect those rights.

    Read More

  • The Constitutional Monarchy in Britain

    883 Words  | 2 Pages

    through fear of god and so now we can abolish them as this fear is no

    Read More

More about Constitutional Monarchies Pros And Cons

Open Document