Did absolute monarchies use constitutions? Examples please.

Join Teachers.Net

Chatboards

Recent Groups

Social Studies

MEMBERS

9 Members

+ Join Group

Pinned Posts

ALLAll Teachers

Teachers.Net LIVE CHAT Support group - Tues eve!

Featured Jobs

Full-timeMontessori Teacher

Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada

TemporaryTeachers, rural schools

Peace River North School District

Full-timeHead Teacher: 2nd/3rd Grades – Mills College Children’s School

Mills College

Teaching Jobs on Teachers.Net

Featured Job special only $39!

https://teachers.net/jobs

Become a Teachers.Net sponsor!

Social Studies Teachers Chatboard

Did absolute monarchies use constitutions? Examples please.

by Magnus

Nov 9, 2010

Did absolute monarchies use constitutions? Examples please.

Comment

(3)

report post

history teacher On 11/09/10, Magnus wrote: > Did absolute monarchies use constitutions? Examples please.

How would an abolsolute monarchy use a constitution??? The constitution would confirm its absolutetidness?

Seems a silly question to me - either you don't understand absolute monarchy or you don't understand constitution.

If an abs...See More

Nov 12, 2010

report post

Bob On 11/12/10, history teacher wrote: > On 11/09/10, Magnus wrote: >> Did absolute monarchies use constitutions? Examples please. > > > How would an abolsolute monarchy use a constitution??? The > constitution would confirm its absolutetidness? > > Seems a silly question to me - either you don't understand > absolute mon...See More

Nov 27, 2010

report post

Sara On >> >> However the first constitutions... were in Italy and the >> details of those I don't know but logic demands that once >> there is a real constitution, the absolute nature of the >> monoarchy is no longer absolute.

True it isn't quite that simple except in theory... King John signed the Magna essential...See MoreOn >> >> However the first constitutions... were in Italy and the >> details of those I don't know but logic demands that once >> there is a real constitution, the absolute nature of the >> monoarchy is no longer absolute.

True it isn't quite that simple except in theory... King John signed the Magna essentially with the arrows of nobles pointed out at his head or they had threatened civil war - same difference - but once granted, the nobles kept those powers more or less. Government and its structure is an evolving process.

The Nazis had a Constitution for themselves as a poliitical party or one for the nation? Either way the point's well taken that the presence of a Constitution doesn't guarantee anything - except that now it's been written down somewhere and or the precedent's been stamped into consciousness.

If a Czar had to allow it, that does make his power more, not less, absolute. I'm not following your logic there.

Constitutions don't have a 'tyrant' clause... Nor are tyrant and absolute monarch the same concept. An elected official can rule in tyrannical fashion, a husband can be a tyrant etc.

We're not mixing metaphors but we are mixing disciplines - a tyrant is not a term of political science - absolute monarch is. Not all absolute monarchs were tyrants.

And all at some point in time either made concessions or lost their throne - or their head. > > It seems simple on its face but look at it more closely. A > Constitution is defined as a formalized and written set of rules > for the nation. The Nazi's had a Constitution but ignored it. > The Czars or the 1800s "granted" a constitution but the mere fact > they granted it would make it a non-constitution by American > standards.If a Czar had to allow it certainly we would not call > his power absolute. But the ability to throw people in prison > without trial - a power kept by the Czar, - or to take > possessions or order war - we would call that certainly a > tyrant. > > So - there is perhaps no absolute certainty on this one. First > you have to determine your criteria. It is interesting that all > history books I have seen refer to them first as an Absolute > monarch - and then describe concessions made that changed that. > > I would be interested why the person is asking the question? Bob

Nov 28, 2010

report post