Absolutism (Political)

what was life like fo the common european when absolute monarchs ruled

There are not many absolute monarchies in the modern world, because many civilisations want a more republic-like government.

Some of the last absolute monarchies in existence at this time are in third-world countries. However, countries like Oman, Swaziland, etc. still have absolute monarchies.

3 CAUSES support of the nobles beneath him.

heavy taxes

the growth of army's

Actually, quite the opposite.

Absolute monarchs exercise supreme power; similar to a despot, or dictator; and are bound by no laws of a constitution, or parliament.

If you mean Philip II of Spain, then yes, he was definitely an absolute monarch. At that time, England was the only country in Europe with any kind of democratic or representational body to limit the king's (or queen's) power, and even they didn't have much power.

Yes. He believed in the "divine right" of a french monarch--that is, the appointed of god to govern the country as and how he wished.

The king or queen.

He failed to provide a successor to his throne.

they provide from peopl;e so thats how they get money

Citizens have no rights to participation in an Absolute Monarchy. They have to do whatever the ruler says or pay the consequences. An Absolute Monarchy is in a way like a Dictatorship in the sense of total power.

Because although they were rulers with alsmost unlimited power (hence 'despots') they had been influenced by the ideas of the Engightment and generally used that power for the well-being of their subjects.

Labeling other groups as heathen or savage reflects cultural absolutism by asserting the superiority of one's own cultural values and norms while dismissing or devaluing those of others. This perspective ignores the complexity and validity of diverse cultural practices, framing them as inferior or primitive. Such judgments reinforce a binary view of civilization versus barbarism, stifling dialogue and understanding between different cultures. Ultimately, this mindset perpetuates ethnocentrism and hinders the appreciation of cultural diversity.

Judging by the reform she made, it is doubtful whether Maria Theresa of Austria was either enlightened or a despot. Her reign had been dominated by the figure of Fredrick the Great who threatened her state with extinction within weeks of her accession. He also deprived the empress of her most valuable province and obliged her to institute reforms in order to preserve her state.

It is also evident that most of Maria Theresa's reforms were not her own. Although she showed a good judge of character and expertise in appointing her advisors, Hugwitz and Kaunitz, she was very easy to manipulate. Indeed, many of the reforms were done against the wishes of Maria Theresa herself, most noticeably the curbing of the power of the Church introduced by Joseph. These reforms were very reluctantly accepted by the Empress, as she was a devout Roman Catholic and did not want to interfere with the Church's power. All of the reforms introduced were very Enlightened although some had small elements of enlightened ideas.

From what i have learned and gathered in class recently i believe that an constitutional monarchy would be better because more opinions would be considered. i think if it was an absolute monarchy then all opinions would be similar because it would all be in the family so to speak. And in a way I believe more power would be in the people's hands because the power is really outside the royal family. I don't know this may make not make any sense to anyone else but that's just how i see it. Sorry if i was not helpful.

-Tiffani

monarchy works by eating alot of consitutional chocolate. The up side of it is that it is awesome, the down side is that it smells.

1. In an absolute monarchy only the people selected by the ruler are allowed to participate in the government.

2. In an absolute monarchy one person, the ruler, has the power to make decisions.

3. Majority rules does not exist in an absolute monarchy. Minority rule and one-person rule exist in an absolute monarchy.

(I COPIED THIS FROM MY TEXTBOOK)

because during that time period it was widely aknowledged that they were chosen by God to rule, due to this they percieved themselves to far superior to everyone else, subsequently the were able to condone what they did.

In an absolute monarchy, the King (or Queen) makes the laws, and everybody is supposed to obey them. There have been a few successful absolute monarchies, where the King sincerely did the right things for his people, but most absolute monarchies degenerate when the first spoiled brat becomes King. The monarch is either deposed or he cedes some of his power to a council, parliament or legislature, and the monarch shares power with a elected or appointed circle of advisers.

One example of a relatively-successful "absolute monarchy" would be Richard, the Lion-Hearted, King of England. His younger brother named John was the "Prince John" mocked in Robin Hood legends and stories for the last 800 years. King John was such a failure as "absolute" monarch that in 1215, his nobles and barons assembled at the town of Runnymede, England, and forced King John to relinquish many of his "absolute" powers. In the new order of things, the nobles and barons had certain rights that the King was obliged to respect. This document, called the "Great Charter" or "Magna Carta", ended the absolute monarchy in England.

And since then, no male child who might ascend to the British throne has been named "John" - and likely, none ever will be.

The closest thing to an absolute monarch these days is probably King Salman of Saudi Arabia. Even he is not an "absolute" monarch, being limited by an advisory council of relatives.

Answer it yourself foo!

Most of them came to power through revolution or coup detente. (except in some monarchy countries). They are usually harsh and tend to kill their own people because they're afraid of competition.

!and thoy were faking aroud with irt hehehe h elol loklololol?

It was the growing power of Parliament, and several imcompetent monarchs which led to this. By the 17th century, Parliament had gained one power that the monarchy no longer had - they were in charge of raising taxes. King Charles I got into so many arguments over money, religion and political affairs that his own Parliament declared war on him.

In the end, Parliament won and had the king executed. Oliver Cromwell became the dictator of England for 10 years (this period is known as the Commonwealth), and abolished an increasingly corrupt Parliament. After his death, both the Monarchy and Parliament were restored, and king Charles II became King. The Civil War led to a gradual increase in Parliament's power, which may well have stopped the country from having a revolution.

Ha ha, did you have this in a history exam today?

Because I didn't! So I answered the question all wrong...

But apparently it means cruel and cold.

Absolutism:

power concentrated/consolidated to one monarch/ruler/person

Constitutionalism:

-rulers share power/authority with representative institutions

-a written constitution is not necessary

-harness popular support+use it to magnify state power

-recognize rights of individuals and representative institutions

-claimed limited powers

A absolute monarchy means the monarch acts as the sole power of authority for the state. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch acts as head of state, but is bound by a set of rules or constitution which limit their power in some way.

Constitutional monarchies often have a parlimentary system, and sometimes (but not always) the monarch plays largely a ceremonial role. Constitutional monarchies have also co-existed in facist states.

Between 1600 and 1721 europeans powers were constantly at war