Absolute Monarchy was Limited Monarchy

Physical limits can’t really be said to make a monarchy limited as it applied to everyone at the time no matter the system of government.

The effectiveness of absolutism relied as much on the subjects acceptance as upon the ability of the monarch to coerce them.[[Miller, Introduction, p.13.]] In Sweden absolutism was very much with the consent of the majority, as it was voted for by the Diet, allowing the king to effectively go as far as he wished.[[Upton, A.F. ‘Sweden’ , in John Miller ed, Absolutism in Seventeenth Century Europe (Basingstoke, 1990), p.99.]] In Sweden the Land Law of Magnus Erikson was effectively the constitution. This stipulated that the King governed Sweden according to law and custom with the advice of a council, the main limitation was that the king was required to consult representatives of the community on such things as taxation, changes to the laws and on war. This could be interpreted as meaning Sweden should have an absolute monarchy In the Riksdag of 1680 Absolutism came about through consent, particularly as during the early phases of the Riksdag the crown had no clear plans, and royal absolutism did not come about in anything like a single bill. It was the commoners, supported by the Clergy and the Burghers who pushed for an absolute reduktion. That the King was absolute was confirmed when the King issued three questions too the riksdag, and got unanimous answers on all three; the King was not bound by the form of government, the riksrad was not an estate and did not have a mediating role, and that it was up to the king what he referred to the riksrad as he was solely responsible to God.[[A.F. Upton, ‘The Riksdag of 1680 and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism in Sweden’, The English Historical Review, Vol.102 No.403, (Apr 1987), pp.281-308, pp.296, 298, 305-306.]]

Louis XIV is a good example of a King who believed in virtually no limitations on the King. Louis XIV went further in being absolutist than most theorists would allow through violating some of the fundamental laws of France, the inalienability of the crown and of the domain. The only limits that Louis believed in were that he was subordinate to god, and that he must sacrifice his desires to the public welfare. Even these were rather flimsy theoretical limits as he believed that only the king could interpret the Kings obligation to god. Louis denied that what he wished arbitrarily could be different from the good of the people, as such he more often sacrificed his people’s interests instead of his own,[[Paul W. Fox, ‘Louis XIV and the theories of Absolutism and Divine Right’, The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol.26 No.1 (Feb 1960) pp.128-142, pp.138-140.]] making these limits no limits at all. How far the King wished to go is obviously a limit, however it cannot be said that absolutism is limited by this.

A permanent standing army was a new development in the late 17th century. It was this that was under the direct control of the King that gave absolutism substance. In Sweden in the Riksdag of 1682 the three commoner estates were united against the nobility who then gave way due to the crowns wishes. This allowed the establishment of a permanent standing army in which the king negotiated directly with the peasantry of a province, removing one of the main functions of the Riksdag and cutting out the participation of the nobility.[[A.F. Upton, Sweden, pp.115-116.]] Charles XI implemented the indelningsverk to provide for the permanent army, this benefited the propertied peasantry as they were exempt from military service if they between a pair of farms provided for a soldier who also doubled as a farm labourer. They were also exempt from taxation allowing greater profits.[[Robert I. Frost, ‘The Northern Wars 1558-1721’, (Harlow, 2000), p.221.]] The nobility did not however lose out too much as through the reduktion they could consolidate property and they gained regular payment in salaries.[[A.F. Upton, Sweden, p.118.]]

One of the main achievements of French absolutism was that the divisions of the nobility were built into a stable system where they fought their conflicts through the judicial system.[[David Parker, ‘Class and State in Ancien Regime France The road to modernity?’, (London, 1996), p.204.]] This was effectively taming the nobility and bringing them onside. The King controlled the nobility through being the principle fount of patronage, he could give the most desirable offices, dispersing them amongst the nobility to keep them from becoming disaffected.[[Roger Mettam, ‘France’, in John Miller ed, Absolutism in Seventeenth Century Europe, (Basingstoke, 1990), p.46.]] Patronage was a network that connected all levels and all areas of the country creating shared interests and reciprocal obligations.[[Nachison, Absentee Government, p.268.]] This occurred as The King gave out offices such as governorships which could then appoint numerous local offices. With the absolute monarch taking control of the army any elements of the nobility that wished to take part in wars were tied into the permanent army, having to be within the system of patronage that allowed them to be appointed as officers.

Whether absolute Monarchy was limited Monarchy in theory is already answered. The answer to that is, of course, no. Absolute Monarchy implies that there were no restrictions, laws etc., apart from those that the Monarch made up, but the Monarch themselves never had to abide by them. That is absolute Monarchy.

Limited Monarchy suggests that the Monarchy has restrictions and rules upon it either created by itself its government. These are two very different things.

However, what this question is actually asking is “Is there a difference in practice? (or was there a difference?)” The answer to this is yes. An absolute Monarchy would never attempt what was impossible to do/get away with. It would only act within its realistic predictions/options. However, this does not mean to say that Monarchs have never done terrible things. Monarchs could get away with pretty much whatever they wanted, on a small scale.

They couldn’t necessarily invade whoever they wished and, yes, they certainly had councillors, assistants, experts et al. helping them. But again, this in no way implies that Monarchs acted in a mostly limited fashion. The important point, anyway, is the question of whether there is a difference in theory and, as we have seen, yes – there is.