While most monarchs in today’s political landscape merely occupy a symbolical or ceremonial role, absolutist monarchs for a long time possessed almost unrestricted power over the state and the people (Dupré 2010: 28). In spite of the consensus among historians that James VI. of Scotland, later on also James I. of England, was one of the strongest proponents of absolutism, there remains disagreement over the question whether James’ reign can be classified as tyranny. Arguably, reasonable arguments exist for both sides and a profound analysis of The Trew Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprock and Mvtvall Dvetie Betwixt a Free King, and His Naturall Subiects, seen as his “most vigorously absolutist” writing and published in 1598, will provide
…show more content…
As a first step, a terse recapitulation of the historical events leading up to the publication moves to the centre of analysis. Logically, James’ concept of rulership is embedded into the historical circumstances. However, he soon had to realize that the concept of uncontested kingship was no longer considered to be sacrosanct, as his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was first forced to abdicate and consequently compelled to flee to England, whereupon she was never able to recover her throne and eventually was placed under house arrest (Sommerville 1994: XV). During this period, critical voices have been raised that profoundly questioned the established order: One thing they all had in common was their demand for some sort of legitimisation and constraint of royal power. Thereupon, Hobbes and Locke emerged at the forefront of this movement, which, at its core, contained forethoughts of a social contract. While there existed competing perceptions of who was part of said social contract and about the consequences in the case of a breach of contract, all those considerations are an expression of a need for power control and orientation towards the common good. Specifically relevant …show more content…
Their central idea revolves around resistance theory, a perception that allows the people to revolt against a ruler on the condition that a ruler “fails to promote the true religion”, rules tyrannically, or fails to promote the common good (ibid.). Both Buchanan’s and Parsons’ arguments draw on natural law and share the similarity that the king’s power should be limited. Parsons primarily argues that all monarchies are, in principle, elective and, therefore, awards the commonwealth the basic right to “alter or divert the succession if the interests of the common good seemed to dictate that such a change was necessary (Lake 2004: 249), and thereby explicitly questions hereditary monarchy. To illustrate his point, he contends that the peace and welfare of the social whole requires the “coercive power and authority of the civil magistrate”, which, in substance, legally binds the ruler to the law (ibid.) – an obvious attempt at limiting power. Probably most influential in James VI.’s treatise was Parsons’ interpretation of the coronation oath, which, comparable to Locke’s theory, constitutes a formal contract between the ruler and the ruled and concedes resistance, chastisement, or deposition of the ruler to the ruled (ibid.). Correspondingly, Buchanan argues that any form of tyrannical rulership on part of the king legally provides the people with the right to resist or even murder their ruler (Erskine/Mason
As a first step, a terse recapitulation of the historical events leading up to the publication moves to the centre of analysis. Logically, James’ concept of rulership is embedded into the historical circumstances. However, he soon had to realize that the concept of uncontested kingship was no longer considered to be sacrosanct, as his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, was first forced to abdicate and consequently compelled to flee to England, whereupon she was never able to recover her throne and eventually was placed under house arrest (Sommerville 1994: XV). During this period, critical voices have been raised that profoundly questioned the established order: One thing they all had in common was their demand for some sort of legitimisation and constraint of royal power. Thereupon, Hobbes and Locke emerged at the forefront of this movement, which, at its core, contained forethoughts of a social contract. While there existed competing perceptions of who was part of said social contract and about the consequences in the case of a breach of contract, all those considerations are an expression of a need for power control and orientation towards the common good. Specifically relevant …show more content…
Their central idea revolves around resistance theory, a perception that allows the people to revolt against a ruler on the condition that a ruler “fails to promote the true religion”, rules tyrannically, or fails to promote the common good (ibid.). Both Buchanan’s and Parsons’ arguments draw on natural law and share the similarity that the king’s power should be limited. Parsons primarily argues that all monarchies are, in principle, elective and, therefore, awards the commonwealth the basic right to “alter or divert the succession if the interests of the common good seemed to dictate that such a change was necessary (Lake 2004: 249), and thereby explicitly questions hereditary monarchy. To illustrate his point, he contends that the peace and welfare of the social whole requires the “coercive power and authority of the civil magistrate”, which, in substance, legally binds the ruler to the law (ibid.) – an obvious attempt at limiting power. Probably most influential in James VI.’s treatise was Parsons’ interpretation of the coronation oath, which, comparable to Locke’s theory, constitutes a formal contract between the ruler and the ruled and concedes resistance, chastisement, or deposition of the ruler to the ruled (ibid.). Correspondingly, Buchanan argues that any form of tyrannical rulership on part of the king legally provides the people with the right to resist or even murder their ruler (Erskine/Mason