In the 1700’s, France’s government was controlled by one individual who had total or complete reign over all aspects of government,this was known as Absolutism. Its very existence was founded when the monarchy attempted to dominate the upper classes and others who were considered to be part of government. Absolutism was the type of government that did not allow authority to be distributed equally it was primarily based on the monarch’s ability to rule and conquer. In the online article “What was Absolutism?” stated, “In effect, the ruling individual has ‘absolute’ power, with no legal, electoral or other challenges to that power”. This proves that the government was entitled to rule as they pleased. In contrast, Constitutionalism, which is
…show more content…
The belief was “monarch's held their authority directly from God, that the king in his kingdom was as God in his creation, and enabled the absolutist monarchs to challenge the power of the church, effectively removing them as a rival to the sovereigns and making their power more absolute”. As stated in the article What was Absolutism? I don’t believe that his power was more absolute than men who were tried before him. Royalty in my opinion should not exempt any individual noble or peasant from being tried for their crimes. There should not be any bias especially when seeking justice or when attempting to uphold the law. On other hand, I do feel that despite his guilt he should have been allowed a fair trial by the very same people that were accusing him of undermining the law. I believe that Charles was tried for his crimes but also because of personal political agenda. If we look at the facts of the trial, there is reason to question such a violent verdict. Charles was the first royal to be put on trial. According to an online article titled “The Trial and Execution of Charles I”. The accusations against him alleged he was a tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England’’. The article explains how the court led his trial without all the members being present. The amount of judges that were set to appear did not attend his hearing. The facts state “that 135 judges
The belief was “monarch's held their authority directly from God, that the king in his kingdom was as God in his creation, and enabled the absolutist monarchs to challenge the power of the church, effectively removing them as a rival to the sovereigns and making their power more absolute”. As stated in the article What was Absolutism? I don’t believe that his power was more absolute than men who were tried before him. Royalty in my opinion should not exempt any individual noble or peasant from being tried for their crimes. There should not be any bias especially when seeking justice or when attempting to uphold the law. On other hand, I do feel that despite his guilt he should have been allowed a fair trial by the very same people that were accusing him of undermining the law. I believe that Charles was tried for his crimes but also because of personal political agenda. If we look at the facts of the trial, there is reason to question such a violent verdict. Charles was the first royal to be put on trial. According to an online article titled “The Trial and Execution of Charles I”. The accusations against him alleged he was a tyrant, traitor and murderer; and a public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England’’. The article explains how the court led his trial without all the members being present. The amount of judges that were set to appear did not attend his hearing. The facts state “that 135 judges