18th Century Monarchy
Royalty and power has always been one of the major underpinnings of Western Civilization.
Throughout the course of European history, empires have risen and kingdoms have fallen. The
eighteenth century marks a time of great change and diversity for European empires and
monarchs. It was a time of enlightenment, a break from custom and tradition, absolutism and
constitutional rule. Based on this great rate of change, diversity and ultimate decline of
monarchial rule, the definition of monarchy may be left to interpretation. Throughout the
course of this essay I will analyze the different governing systems, the change, and decline in
monarchial rule. With an analytical approach to this subject, we will then apply a working
definition to the term “monarchy” and its implications in the context of eighteenth century
Europe.
Europe, in the 1700s, consisted of two different types of government systems: constitutional
monarchy and absolutism. Europe, as a whole, was predominately under absolutist rule,
England being one of the expectations. Constitutional monarchy is a system in which the
monarch has shared and limited power with the parliament. In contrast, absolutism is a system
in which the monarch has unlimited power and control over his or her country and society.
Absolutism, in theory, claimed that the monarchial position was acquired by social contract,
inheritance and divine right. However, it is important to note that Eastern European absolutism
differs from Western European absolutism but shared an ultimate goal for centralized power.
With the basic definitions of these different governing systems we will now examine these
systems and the monarchs who ruled them. Western Europe included monarchs such as Louis
XIV and Louis XV. Louis XIV, like the other monarchs, believed that he was in power because of
divine rule. He is known as one of the most significant figures when it comes to absolutist rule.
He wanted full power over the peasants, aristocracy and separation from the church. Being
reliant on the church or aristocracy was not an option for Louis XIV. He controlled taxes, built a
strong army and at the expense of the peasantry, pursued territorial expansion. Louis XV,
grandson of Louis XIV, did not control the aristocracy as much as his grandfather. Instead of
being fully engaged like Louis XIV, he was more passive and created more councils and official
offices to conduct affairs. History has shown us that Louis XV was more interested in his many
mistresses than the control of his state. Apart from his reforms, Louis XV’s reign can be marked
as one of the declining points of the crown’s political and moral authority. Some of the
significant Eastern absolute monarchs of this time included: Peter the Great, Catherine, Fredrick
William, and Frederick II. Eastern Monarchs lacked the support and collaboration from their
nobles like the West. Absolute monarchs of Eastern Europe also moved towards a more
enlightened system of governing. Fredrick of Prussia had a very effective bureaucracy and
focused heavily on his army. He too wanted a centralized government, taking power from the
local nobles and appointed power to royal officials. Fredrick II, who took power after the death
of his father, expanded absolute rule over Prussia. He was heavily influenced by enlightenment
thought and made his mark as a very effective absolute monarch. However, his rule was unlike
the rest. He wanted to stir away from self-interested rule and rather rule for the greater good
of his people. He became the “first servant of the state.” In context, this was a step away from
absolute power and into the direction of a societal based rule. In Russia, Peter the Great
wanted a centralized and absolute rule over his people. He regulated economic activity and
established a strong military. He wanted to divide, control and change the church and its
practices. The Church has great power over its subjects; to control a country a monarch must
strip the church of its authority. However, the crown lost a great amount of its authority after
the death of Peter I, as the aristocracy took control of the preceding rulers. Elizabeth, Peter’s
daughter, took the throne in 1791. She was one of the main characters in the decline of crown
rule. She restored nobles control over their lands and exempted them from taxes. The decline
in absolutism and the loss of the crown’s moral and political authority seem to be a reoccurring
pattern in the eighteenth century. Enlightenment thought, decline in custom and tradition are
also reoccurring factors in Europe at this time. One may find these patterns in a constitutional
monarchy. In England, patterns such as religious toleration, enlightenment thought and
parliamentary rule have already been established in England’s governing system. The
aristocracy of England wanted to limit the king’s power and protect their feudal rights.
Documents such as the Magna Carta, bill of rights and petition of right protected the rights of
the people and limited monarchial power. This is in complete contrast to some of the absolutist
kings who exploited their peasants. Kings, such as James I and Charles I wanted to establish an
absolute rule but were not successful because of the great power and wealth of the parliament.
Throughout the European experience in the eighteenth century, we have seen a pattern of
decline in absolutism and a transition into an enlightened despotism system of government.
Monarchs of the West, like Louis XIV and Louis XV established an absolute rule over France.
They moved away from the control of the church, established fiscal reforms and a strong
military. However, aristocrat control arose in result of the passive reign of Louis XV. Moreover,
power of the crown also declined for the Monarchs of the East, like Peter the Great, Elizabeth,
Fredrick William and Fredrick II. Enlightenment thought had also embedded itself into the
governing systems; a move to a more tolerable and secular society was inevitable. Patterns,
such as these, could be seen in England’s constitutional monarchy. Through the decline of
absolutism, rise in parliamentary rule and enlightenment thought; how might we define
monarchy in eighteenth century Europe? From the East to the West, we may define monarchy
as position of power and virtue. That, however, would not be the best definition to ascribe to
the monarchial powers of this time. Louis XV’s brothel involvement, Peter’s death threats and
Catherine’s multiple sex partners are the farthest things from virtuous. Power may be a likely
term, but from our analysis we can see that the power of the crown was in a great decline. As
we take a look into Europe in the eighteenth century, it would be most fit to define monarchy
as simply another chair authority. Their power is not unlimited, but rather controlled and
limited by the parliament and its citizens.