Classical republicanism, also known as civic republicanism[1] or civic humanism,[2] is a form of republicanism developed in the Renaissance inspired by the governmental forms and writings of classical antiquity, especially such classical writers as Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero. Classical republicanism is built around concepts such as civil society, common good, civic virtue and mixed government.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_republicanism
Res publica (also spelled rēs pūblica to indicate vowel length) is a Latin phrase, loosely meaning 'public affair'. It is the root of the word 'republic', and the word 'commonwealth' has traditionally been used as a synonym for it; however, translations vary widely according to the context. 'Res' is a nominative singular Latin noun for a substantive or concrete thing—as opposed to 'spes', which means something unreal or ethereal—and 'publica' is an attributive adjective meaning 'of or pertaining to the public, people'. Hence a literal translation is, 'the public thing, affair' or 'the people's thing, affair'.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica
Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional institutions, practices, and values.[1][2] The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilization in which it appears. In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote a range of social institutions such as the nuclear family, organized religion, the military, property rights, and monarchy. Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability and evolved gradually.[2] Adherents of conservatism often oppose certain aspects of modernity (for example mass culture and secularism) and seek a return to traditional values, though different groups of conservatives may choose different traditional values to preserve.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
A monarchy is a form of government in which a person, the monarch, is head of state for life or until abdication. The political legitimacy and authority of the monarch may vary from restricted and largely symbolic (constitutional monarchy), to fully autocratic (absolute monarchy), and can span across executive, legislative, and judicial domains.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy
Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on secular, naturalistic considerations.
Secularism is most commonly defined as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state, and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.[1] The term "secularism" has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.[2][3] It may connote anti-clericalism, atheism, naturalism, non-sectarianism, neutrality on topics of religion, or the complete removal of religious symbols from public institutions.[4]
As a philosophy, secularism seeks to interpret life based on principles derived solely from the material world, without recourse to religion. It shifts the focus from religion towards "temporal" and material concerns.[5]
There are distinct traditions of secularism in the West, like the French, Turkish, and American models, and beyond, as in India,[4] where the emphasis is more on equality before law and state neutrality rather than blanket separation. The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely, ranging from assertions that it is a crucial element of modernization, or that religion and traditional values are backward and divisive, to the claim that it is the only guarantor of free religious exercise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
A civilization (British English: civilisation) is any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language (namely, a writing system).[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
Civilizations are additionally characterized by other features, including agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, taxation, regulation, and specialization of labour.[3][4][5][7][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
Traditionalist conservatism, often known as classical conservatism, is a political and social philosophy that emphasizes the importance of transcendent moral principles, manifested through certain natural laws to which society should adhere prudently.[1] Traditionalist conservatism is based on Edmund Burke's political views.[1] Traditionalists value social ties and the preservation of ancestral institutions above excessive individualism.[1]
The concepts of custom, convention, and tradition are heavily emphasized in traditionalist conservatism.[2] Theoretical reason is regarded as of secondary importance to practical reason.[2] The state is also viewed as a social endeavor with spiritual and organic characteristics. Traditionalists think that any change spontaneously arises from the community's traditions rather than as a consequence of deliberate, reasoned thought. Leadership, authority, and hierarchy are seen as natural to humans.[2] Traditionalism arose in Europe throughout the 18th century, mostly as a reaction to the chaos of the English and French Revolutions. Traditionalist conservatism began to establish itself as an intellectual and political force in the mid-20th century.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism
A number of traditionalist conservatives embrace high church Christianity (e.g., T. S. Eliot, an Anglo-Catholic; Russell Kirk, a Roman Catholic). Another traditionalist who has stated his faith tradition publicly is Caleb Stegall, an evangelical Protestant. A number of conservative mainline Protestants are also traditionalists, such as Peter Hitchens and Roger Scruton, and some traditionalists are Jewish, such as the late Will Herberg, Irving Louis Horowitz, Mordecai Roshwald, and Paul Gottfried.
Natural law is championed by Thomas Aquinas, called eternal law, in the Summa Theologiae, he reaffirms the principle of noncontradiction as being ("the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time"), Bonum precept is the first principle of that which precedes one's actions ("good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided").[4] The account of Medieval Christian philosophy is the appreciation of the concept of the Summum bonum or "highest good". It is only through the silent contemplation that someone is able to achieve the idea of the good.[5] The rest of natural law was first developed somewhat in Aristotle's work,[6][7] also was referenced and affirmed in the works by Cicero,[8] and it has been developed by the Christian Albert the Great.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism
Tradition and custom
Traditionalists think that tradition and custom should guide man and his worldview, as their names imply. Each generation inherits its ancestors' experience and culture, which man is able to transmit down to his offspring through custom and precedent. Edmund Burke, often recognized as the father of contemporary conservatism, noted that "the individual is foolish, but the species is wise."[10]
This conservatism, it has been argued, is based on living tradition rather than abstract political thinking. Some have drawn a distinction between pragmatic conservatism and rational conservatism, which holds that a community with a hierarchy of power is most conducive to human happiness. Returning to pragmatic conservatism, according to Kekes, "tradition represents for conservatives a continuum enmeshing the individual and social, and is immune to reasoned critique."[11]
Hierarchy and organic unity
Traditionalist conservatives believe that human society is essentially hierarchical (i.e., it always involves various interdependent inequalities, degrees, and classes) and that political structures that recognize this fact prove the most just, thriving, and generally beneficial. Hierarchy allows for the preservation of the whole community simultaneously, instead of protecting one part at the expense of the others.[12]
Agrarianism
The countryside, as well as the values associated with it, are greatly valued (sometimes even being romanticized as in pastoral poetry). Agrarian ideals (such as conserving small family farms, open land, natural resource conservation, and land stewardship) are important to certain traditionalists' conception of rural life.[13]
Classicism and high culture
Traditionalists defend classical Western civilization and value an education informed by the texts of the Roman and Medieval eras. Similarly, traditionalists are classicists who revere high culture in all of its manifestations (e.g. literature, music, architecture, art and theatre).[citation needed]
Patriotism, localism and regionalism
Traditionalists consider patriotism a core principle, described as a sense of devotion to one's homeland, in contrast to nationalists, who value the role of the state or nation over the local or regional community. Traditionalist conservatives believe that allegiance to a family, local community, or region is more important than any political commitment. Traditionalists prioritize subsidiarity and community closeness above the larger state, preferring the civil society of Burke's "little platoons" to the expanded state. Alternatively, nationalism can lead to jingoism, which sees the state as apart from the local community and family structure rather than as a product of both.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_conservatism
Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. It gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas stemming at least as far back as the 13th century within the Iberian, Anglo-Saxon, and central European contexts and was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly.[1][2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
A commonwealth is a traditional English term for a political community founded for the common good. Historically, it has been synonymous with "republic".[1] The noun "commonwealth", meaning "public welfare, general good or advantage", dates from the 15th century.[2] Originally a phrase (the common-wealth or the common wealth – echoed in the modern synonym "public wealth"), it comes from the old meaning of "wealth", which is "well-being", and is itself a loose translation of the Latin res publica (republic).[3] The term literally meant "common well-being". In the 17th century, the definition of "commonwealth" expanded from its original sense of "public welfare" or "commonweal" to mean "a state in which the supreme power is vested in the people; a republic or democratic state".[4][5]
The term evolved to become a title to a number of political entities. Three countries – Australia, the Bahamas, and Dominica – have the official title "Commonwealth", as do four U.S. states and two U.S. territories. Since the early 20th century, the term has been used to name some fraternal associations of states, most notably the Commonwealth of Nations, an organisation primarily of former territories of the British Empire. The organisation is not to be confused with the realms of the Commonwealth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth
In ancient Rome
Public property
Res publica usually is something held in common by many people. For instance a park or garden in the city of Rome could either be 'private property' (res privata), or managed by the state, in which case it would be part of the res publica.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_publica
In Ancient Rome, the Latin term civitas (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkiːwɪtaːs]; plural civitates), according to Cicero in the time of the late Roman Republic, was the social body of the cives, or citizens, united by law (concilium coetusque hominum jure sociati). It is the law that binds them together, giving them responsibilities (munera) on the one hand and rights of citizenship on the other. The agreement (concilium) has a life of its own, creating a res publica or "public entity" (synonymous with civitas), into which individuals are born or accepted, and from which they die or are ejected. The civitas is not just the collective body of all the citizens, it is the contract binding them all together, because each of them is a civis.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas
Citizenship is an allegiance of person to a state.
Each state determines the conditions under which it will recognize persons as its citizens, and the conditions under which that status will be withdrawn. Recognition by a state as a citizen generally carries with it recognition of civil, political, and social rights which are not afforded to non-citizens.
In general, the basic rights normally regarded as arising from citizenship are the right to a passport, the right to leave and return to the country/ies of citizenship, the right to live in that country, and to work there.
Some countries permit their citizens to have multiple citizenships, while others insist on exclusive allegiance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship
A state is a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory. There is no undisputed definition of a state.[1][2] One widely used definition comes from the German sociologist Max Weber: a "state" is a polity that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, although other definitions are not uncommon.[3][4] Absence of a state does not preclude the existence of a society, such as stateless societies like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy that "do not have either purely or even primarily political institutions or roles".[5] The level of governance of a state, government being considered to form the fundamental apparatus of contemporary states,[6][7] is used to determine whether it has failed.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
Most often, a country has a single state, with various administrative divisions. It is a unitary state or a federal union; in the latter type, the term "state" is sometimes used to refer to the federated polities that make up the federation. (Other terms that are used in such federal systems may include “province”, “region[citation needed]” or other terms.)
Most of the human population has existed within a state system for millennia; however, for most of prehistory people lived in stateless societies. The earliest forms of states arose about 5,500 years ago[9] as governments gained state capacity in conjunction with rapid growth of cities, invention of writing and codification of new forms of religion. Over time, a variety of forms of states developed, which used many different justifications for their existence (such as divine right, the theory of the social contract, etc.). Today, the modern nation state is the predominant form of state to which people are subject.[10] Sovereign states have sovereignty; any ingroup's claim to have a state faces some practical limits via the degree to which other states recognize them as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
A province is almost always an administrative division within a country or state. The term derives from the ancient Roman provincia, which was the major territorial and administrative unit of the Roman Empire's territorial possessions outside Italy. The term province has since been adopted by many countries. In some countries with no actual provinces, "the provinces" is a metaphorical term meaning "outside the capital city".
While some provinces were produced artificially by colonial powers, others were formed around local groups with their own ethnic identities. Many have their own powers independent of central or federal authority, especially in Canada and Pakistan. In other countries, like China or France, provinces are the creation of central government, with very little autonomy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province
A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. It may be a sovereign state or make up one part of a larger state.[1] For example, the country of Japan is an independent, sovereign state, while the country of Wales is a component of a multi-part sovereign state, the United Kingdom. A country may be a historically sovereign area (such as Korea), a currently sovereign territory with a unified government (such as Senegal), or a non-sovereign geographic region associated with certain distinct political, ethnic, or cultural characteristics (such as the Basque Country).
The definition and usage of the word "country" is flexible and has changed over time. The Economist wrote in 2010 that "any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies."[2] Most sovereign states, but not all countries, are members of the United Nations.
The largest country by area is Russia, while the smallest is the microstate Vatican City. The most populous is India, while Vatican City is also the least populous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country
A historical sovereign state is a state that once existed, but has since been dissolved due to conflict, war, rebellion, annexation, or uprising. This page lists sovereign states, countries, nations, or empires that ceased to exist as political entities sometime after 1453, grouped geographically and by constitutional nature.[note 1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_sovereign_states
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition
A sovereign state is a state that has the highest authority over a territory.[1] International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other sovereign states.[2] It is also commonly understood that a sovereign state is independent.[3]
According to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states.[4][5] Unrecognised states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers or engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state
Since the end of the 19th century, almost the entire globe has been divided into sections (countries) with more or less defined borders assigned to different states.[citation needed] Previously, quite large plots of land were either unclaimed or deserted, or inhabited by nomadic peoples that were not organized into states.[6] However, even in modern states, there are large remote areas, such as the Amazon's tropical forests, that are either uninhabited or inhabited exclusively or mainly by indigenous people (and some of them are still not in constant contact). There are also states that do not exercise de facto control over their entire territory, or where this control is disputed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state
The English word province is attested since about 1330 and derives from the 13th-century Old French province, which itself comes from the Latin word provincia, which referred to the sphere of authority of a magistrate, in particular, to a foreign territory.
A popular etymology is from Latin pro- ("on behalf of") and vincere ("to triumph" or "to take control of"). Thus a "province" would be a territory or function that a Roman magistrate held control of on behalf of his government. In fact, the word province is an ancient term from public law, which means: "office belonging to a magistrate". This agrees with the Latin term's earlier usage as a generic term for a jurisdiction under Roman law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province
A unitary state is a sovereign state governed as a single entity in which the central government is the supreme authority. The central government may create (or abolish) administrative divisions (sub-national units).[1] Such units exercise only the powers that the central government chooses to delegate. Although political power may be delegated through devolution to regional or local governments by statute, the central government may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail (or expand) their powers.
Unitary states stand in contrast to federations, also known as federal states. A large majority of the world's sovereign states (166 of the 193 UN member states) have a unitary system of government.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
Devolution is the statutory delegation of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to govern at a subnational level, such as a regional or local level.[1] It is a form of administrative decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area, thus granting them a higher level of autonomy.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution
Federalism is a combined and compound mode of government that combines a general government (the central or "federal" government) with regional governments (provincial, state, cantonal, territorial, or other sub-unit governments) in a single political system, dividing the powers between the two. Federalism in the modern era was first adopted in the unions of states during the Old Swiss Confederacy.[1]
Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, and from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level.[2] It represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation, bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state.[3][4]
Examples of a federation or federal province or state include Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Iraq, Malaysia, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. Some characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the "federal union of states".[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_system&redirect=no
Devolution compared with federalism
A unitary system of government can be considered to be the opposite of federalism. In federations, the provincial/regional governments share powers with the central government as equal actors through a written constitution, to which the consent of both is required to make amendments. This means that the sub-national units have a right to existence and powers that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
A stateless society is a society that is not governed by a state.[1] In stateless societies, there is little concentration of authority; most positions of authority that do exist are very limited in power and are generally not permanently-held positions; and social bodies that resolve disputes through predefined rules tend to be small.[2] Different stateless societies feature highly variable economic systems and cultural practices.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
While stateless societies were the norm in human prehistory, few stateless societies exist today; almost the entire global population resides within the jurisdiction of a sovereign state, though in some regions nominal state authorities may be very weak and may wield little or no actual power. Over the course of history most stateless peoples have become integrated into external state-based societies.[4][need quotation to verify]
Some political philosophies, particularly anarchism, regard the state as an unwelcome institution and stateless societies as the ideal, while Marxism considers that in a post-capitalist society, the state would become unnecessary and would wither away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
Most of the human population has existed within a state system for millennia; however, for most of prehistory people lived in stateless societies. The earliest forms of states arose about 5,500 years ago[9] as governments gained state capacity in conjunction with rapid growth of cities, invention of writing and codification of new forms of religion. Over time, a variety of forms of states developed, which used many different justifications for their existence (such as divine right, the theory of the social contract, etc.). Today, the modern nation state is the predominant form of state to which people are subject.[10] Sovereign states have sovereignty; any ingroup's claim to have a state faces some practical limits via the degree to which other states recognize them as such.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(polity)
Nationality law is the law of a sovereign state, and of each of its jurisdictions, that defines the legal manner in which a national identity is acquired and how it may be lost. In international law, the legal means to acquire nationality and formal membership in a nation are separated from the relationship between a national and the nation, known as citizenship.[1]: 66–67 [2]: 338 [3]: 73 Some nations domestically use the terms interchangeably,[4]: 61, Part II [5]: 1–2 though by the 20th century, nationality had commonly come to mean the status of belonging to a particular nation with no regard to the type of governance which established a relationship between the nation and its people.[6]: 1707–1708 In law, nationality describes the relationship of a national to the state under international law and citizenship describes the relationship of a citizen within the state under domestic statutes. Different regulatory agencies monitor legal compliance for nationality and citizenship.[7]: 4 A person in a country of which he or she is not a national is generally regarded by that country as a foreigner or alien. A person who has no recognised nationality to any jurisdiction is regarded as stateless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return
A civitas foederata, meaning "allied state/community", was the most elevated type of autonomous cities and local communities under Roman rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civitas_foederata
A Roman colonia (plural coloniae) was originally a Roman outpost established in conquered territory to secure it. Eventually, however, the term came to denote the highest status of a Roman city. It is also the origin of the modern term colony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonia_(Roman)
A standing army is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers who may be either career soldiers or conscripts. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war, and disbanded once the war or threat is over. Standing armies tend to be better equipped, better trained, and better prepared for emergencies, defensive deterrence, and particularly, wars.[1] The term dates from approximately 1600 AD, although the phenomenon it describes is much older.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription
- Complementarianism
- Cultural heritage
- Culture of life
- Familialism
- Family values
- Historism
- Loyalty
- Maternalism
- Monarchism
- Natural law
- Natural order
- Organicism
- Patriotism
- Property rights
- Public morality
- Social hierarchy
- Social norm
- Social order
- Subsidiarity
- Tradition
- Traditional authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
 |
| Ancien Régime |
|---|
| Structure |
| History of France |
|---|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topics |
|---|
| Timeline |
 France portal |
| Part of a series on |
| Conservatism in France |
|---|
.svg) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ancien Régime (/ˌɒ̃sjæ̃ reɪˈʒiːm/; French: [ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim]; lit. 'old rule'),[a] also known as the Old Regime, was the political and social system of the Kingdom of France from the Late Middle Ages (c. 1500) until 1789 and the French Revolution,[1] which abolished the feudal system of the French nobility (1790)[2] and hereditary monarchy (1792).[3] The Valois dynasty ruled during the Ancien Régime up until 1589 and was then replaced by the Bourbon dynasty. The term is occasionally used to refer to the similar feudal systems of the time elsewhere in Europe such as that of Switzerland.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien_R%C3%A9gime
.jpg)
Lettres de cachet (French: [lɛtʁ də kaʃɛ]; lit. '"letters of the sign/signet"') were letters signed by the king of France, countersigned by one of his ministers, and closed with the royal seal. They contained orders directly from the king, often to enforce arbitrary actions and judgments that could not be appealed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_de_cachet
The best-known lettres de cachet, however, were penal, by which a subject was imprisoned without trial and without an opportunity of defense (after inquiry and due diligence by the lieutenant de police) in a state prison or an ordinary jail, confinement in a convent or the General Hospital of Paris, transportation to the colonies, or expulsion to another part of the realm, or from the realm altogether. The lettres were mainly used against drunkards, troublemakers, prostitutes, squanderers of the family fortune, or insane persons. The wealthy sometimes petitioned such lettres to dispose of inconvenient individuals, especially to prevent unequal marriages (nobles with commoners), or to prevent a scandal (the lettre could prevent court cases that might otherwise dishonour a family).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_de_cachet
A black legend is a historiographical phenomenon in which a sustained trend in historical writing of biased reporting and introduction of fabricated, exaggerated and/or decontextualized facts is directed against particular persons, nations or institutions with the intention of creating a distorted and uniquely inhuman image of them while hiding their positive contributions to history. The term was first used by French writer Arthur Lévy in his 1893 work Napoléon Intime, in contrast to the expression "Golden Legend" that had been in circulation around Europe since the publication of a book of that name during the Middle Ages.[citation needed]
Black legends have been perpetrated against many nations and cultures, usually as a result of propaganda and xenophobia. For example, the "Spanish Black Legend" (Spanish: La leyenda negra española) is the theory that anti-Spanish political propaganda, whether about Spain, the Spanish Empire or Hispanic America, was sometimes "absorbed and converted into broadly held stereotypes" that assumed that Spain was "uniquely evil".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_legend
The power to issue lettres de cachet was a royal privilege recognized by the French monarchic civil law that developed during the 13th century, as the Capetian monarchy overcame its initial distrust of Roman law. The principle can be traced to a maxim which furnished a text of the Pandects of Justinian: in their Latin version, "Rex solutus est a legibus", or "The king is released from the laws." "The French legal scholars interpreted the imperial office of the Justinian code generically and arrived at the conclusion that every 'king is an emperor in his own kingdom,' that is, he possesses the prerogatives of legal absolutism that the Corpus Juris Civilis attributes to the Roman emperor."[2]
This meant that when the king intervened directly, he could decide without heeding the laws, and even contrary to the laws. This was an early conception, and in early times the order in question was simply verbal; some letters patent of Henry III of France in 1576 state that François de Montmorency was "prisoner in our castle of the Bastille in Paris by verbal command" of the late king Charles IX.
In the 14th century, the principle was introduced that the order should be written, and hence arose the lettre de cachet. The lettre de cachet belonged to the class of lettres closes, as opposed to lettres patentes, which contained the expression of the legal and permanent will of the king, and had to be furnished with the seal of state affixed by the chancellor.
The lettres de cachet, on the contrary, were signed simply by a secretary of state for the king; they bore merely the imprint of the king's privy seal, from which circumstance they were often called, in the 14th and 15th centuries, lettres de petit signet or lettres de petit cachet, and were entirely exempt from the control of the chancellor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_de_cachet
The French Revolution (French: Révolution française [ʁevɔlysjɔ̃ fʁɑ̃sɛːz]) was a period of radical political and societal change in France that began with the Estates General of 1789 and ended with the formation of the French Consulate in November 1799. Many of its ideas are considered fundamental principles of liberal democracy,[1] while the values and institutions it created remain central to French political discourse.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution
| House of Capet | |
|---|---|
 Arms of the King of France | |
| Parent house | Robertians |
| Country | Kingdom of France
Kingdom of England (claimant) Latin Empire |
| Founded | 987 |
| Founder | Hugh Capet |
| Final ruler | Charles IV of France |
| Titles | |
| Estate(s) | France, Navarre |
| Dissolution | 1328 |
| Cadet branches | |
| History of France |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Topics |
|---|
| Timeline |
|
France portal |
The House of Capet (French: Maison capétienne) ruled the Kingdom of France from 987 to 1328. It was the most senior line of the Capetian dynasty – itself a derivative dynasty from the Robertians.
The direct line of the House of Capet came to an end in 1328, when the three sons of Philip IV (reigned 1285–1314) all failed to produce surviving male heirs to the French throne. With the death of Charles IV (reigned 1322–1328), the throne passed to the House of Valois, descended from a younger brother of Philip IV.
Royal power would pass on 1589 to another Capetian branch, the House of Bourbon, descended from the youngest son of Louis IX (reigned 1226–1270). From 1830 on it would go to a Bourbon cadet branch, the House of Orléans, always remaining in the hands of agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet, except for the 10-year reign of Emperor Napoleon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Capet
| Robertian dynasty Robertiens | |
|---|---|
| Royal house | |
| Country | Francia West Francia |
| Founded | ca. 800 |
| Founder | Robert of Hesbaye |
| Final ruler | Hugh the Great |
| Titles | |
| Dissolution | 956 |
| Cadet branches | |
The Robertians (sometimes called the Robertines in modern scholarship) are the proposed Frankish family which was ancestral to the Capetian dynasty, and thus to the royal families of France and of many other countries.[citation needed] The Capetians appear first in the records as powerful nobles serving under the Carolingian dynasty of Charlemagne in West Francia, which later became France. As their power increased, they came into conflict with the older royal family and attained the crown several times before the eventual start of the continuous rule of the descendants of Hugh Capet (ruled 987–996).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertians
Robert the Strong | |
|---|---|
 Robert the Strong's image in a genealogy of French kings (c. 1384) | |
| Born | c. 830 |
| Died | 2 July 866 (aged 35–36) |
| Noble family | Robertians |
| Spouse(s) | Adelaide of Tours |
| Issue | Odo (or Eudes) Robert I of France |
| Father | Robert III of Worms (speculated) |
Robert the Strong (French: Robert le Fort; c. 830 – 866) was the father of two kings of West Francia: Odo (or Eudes) and Robert I of France. His family is named after him and called the Robertians. In 853, he was named missus dominicus by Charles the Bald, King of West Francia. Robert the Strong was the great-grandfather of Hugh Capet and thus the ancestor of all the Capetians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Strong
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (September 2022) |
Robert III of Worms | |
|---|---|
| Born | 800 |
| Died | 834 (aged 33–34) |
| Noble family | Robertians |
| Spouse(s) | Waldrada of Worms |
| Issue | Robert the Strong |
| Father | Robert of Hesbaye |
Robert III (800–834), also called Rutpert, was the Count of Worms and Rheingau of a noble Frankish family called the Robertians. It has been proposed that he was the son of Robert of Hesbaye.[1]
Biography
By his wife, Waldrada, he had, Robert the Strong.[1]
His first cousin was Ermengard, wife of the Frankish emperor Louis the Pious. His cousin Chrodogang was Archbishop of Metz and abbot of the Lorsch Abbey.
An uncle of Robert was Count Cancor, founder of Lorsch Abbey. Through Robert the Strong he was grandfather of two kings of Western Francia, Odo and Robert.
References
- Riché 1983, p. table 4.
Sources
- Riché, Pierre (1983). The Carolingians, a Family that Forged Europe. Translated by Allen, Michael Idomir. University Pennsylvania Press.
 | This biographical article of a European noble is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_III,_Count_of_Worms
| Odo | |
|---|---|
 Image of the coronation of Odo of France from the Grandes Chroniques de France (13th century) | |
| King of West Francia | |
| Reign | 888–898 |
| Coronation | February 888, Compiègne |
| Predecessor | Charles the Fat |
| Successor | Charles the Simple |
| Born | c. 857 [1] |
| Died | 1 January 898 (aged c. 41) La Fère, West Francia |
| Burial | |
| Spouse | Théodrate of Troyes (m. 882) |
| House | Robertian |
| Father | Robert the Strong |
| Mother | Adelaide of Tours |
Odo (French: Eudes; c. 857 – 1 January 898) was the elected King of West Francia from 888 to 898. He was the first king from the Robertian dynasty. Before assuming the kingship, Odo was the count of Paris.[2] His reign marked the definitive separation of West Francia from the Carolingian Empire, which would never reunite.
Family and inheritance
Odo was the eldest son of Robert the Strong, who was Duke of the Franks, Margrave of Neustria, and Count of Anjou. After his father's death at the Battle of Brissarthe in 866, Odo inherited the Margraviate of Neustria. Odo lost this title in 868 when King Charles the Bald appointed Hugh the Abbot to the title. Odo regained it following the death of Hugh in 886. After 882 he was the count of Paris. Odo was also the lay abbot of St. Martin of Tours.[3][4]
In 882 or 883 Odo married Théodrate of Troyes.[5] The eleventh-century chronicler Adémar de Chabannes wrote that they had a son, Arnoul (c.882–898)[citation needed], who died shortly after his father. Guy is named as one of the couple's children in an Alan I's charter dated 28 August 903, but genealogist Christian Settipani has argued that the document is false.[6] The genealogical work Europäische Stammtafeln refers to Raoul as a son of Odo by Théodrate, but its primary source is not known.
Reign
For his skill and bravery in resisting the attacks of Vikings during the 885–886 Siege of Paris, Odo was chosen by the western Frankish nobles to be their king following the overthrow of Emperor Charles the Fat. He was crowned at Compiègne in February 888 by Walter, Archbishop of Sens.[7]
Odo continued to battle against the Vikings and defeated them at Montfaucon, but was soon involved in a struggle with powerful Frankish nobles who supported the claim of Charles the Simple to the throne.[8]
In 890 Odo granted special privileges to the County of Manresa in Osona.[9] Because of its position on the front line against the Moorish aggression, Manresa was given the right to build towers of defence known as manresanas or manresanes. This privilege was responsible for giving Manresa its unique character, distinct from the rest of Osona, for the next two centuries.[citation needed]
To gain prestige and support, Odo paid homage to the East Francia's King Arnulf in 888.[10][11] Despite this, in 894 Arnulf declared his support for Charles the Simple, and after a conflict which lasted three years, Odo was compelled to come to terms with his rival and surrender a district north of the Seine to him.[12] Odo died in La Fère on 1 January 898.[13]
In popular culture
A character named Count Odo is portrayed by Owen Roe[14] in the History Channel's 2013 hit TV series Vikings. This fictional Odo actually saves Paris from a Viking attack, but is killed before ever succeeding in becoming king.[15]
Count Odo appears in The Siege of Paris, the second expansion to the 2020 video game Assassin's Creed Valhalla.[16]
Odo appears in the game Crusader Kings III as a bookmarked character. Players can play as him from the year 867, when he is ten years old, and may gain an achievement for leading his dynasty to rule the Kingdom of France.
References
- "Assassin's Creed: Valhalla -- The Siege of Paris - Review". IGN. Retrieved August 13, 2021.
Bibliography
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Odo, king of the Franks". Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 20 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 4–5.
External links
Media related to Odo of France at Wikimedia Commons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_of_France
As a tool
While serving the government as a silent weapon against political adversaries[3] or controversial writers[citation needed] and as a means of punishing culprits of high birth without the scandal of a lawsuit, the lettres de cachet had many other uses. They were employed by the police in dealing with prostitutes, and on their authority lunatics were shut up in hospitals and sometimes in prisons.
They were also often used by heads of families as a means of correction, for example, for protecting the family honour from the disorderly or criminal conduct of sons. The case of the Marquis de Sade (imprisoned 1777–1790 under a lettre de cachet obtained by his wealthy and influential mother-in-law) is a prominent example. Wives, too, took advantage of them to curb the profligacy of husbands and vice versa.
In reality, the secretary of state had a delegation and could issue them at his own discretion, and in most cases the king was unaware of their issue. In the 18th century the letters were often issued blank, i.e. without containing the name of the person against whom they were directed; the recipient, or mandatary, filled in the name in order to make the letter effective.
Protests
Protests against the lettres de cachet were made continually by the parlement of Paris and by the provincial parlements, and also by the Estates-General. In 1648, during the Fronde, the sovereign courts of Paris,[b] by their Arrêt d'Union, procured their momentary suppression in a kind of charter of liberties which they imposed upon the crown, but which was short-lived.
It was not until the reign of Louis XVI that a reaction against the abuse became clearly perceptible. At the beginning of that reign Malesherbes during his short ministry endeavoured to infuse some measure of justice into the system, and in March 1784 the baron de Breteuil, a minister of the king's household, addressed a circular to the intendants and the lieutenant of police with a view to preventing the most serious abuses connected with the issue of lettres de cachet.
The Comte de Mirabeau wrote a scathing indictment of lettres de cachet while imprisoned in the dungeon of Vincennes (by lettre de cachet obtained by his father). The treatise was published after his liberation in 1782 under the title Les Lettres de cachet et des prisons d'etat and was widely read throughout Europe.
Besides the Bastille, there were thirty prisons in Paris by 1779 in which a person could be detained without trial.[4] Convents were used for the same purpose.
They were reported to have been openly sold, in the reign of Louis XV, by the mistress of one of his ministers.
In Paris, in 1779, the Cour des Aides demanded their suppression, and in March 1788 the Parlement of Paris made some exceedingly energetic remonstrances, which are important for the light they throw upon old French public law. The crown, however, did not decide to lay aside this weapon, and in a declaration to the States-General in the royal session of June 23, 1789 (art. 15) it did not renounce it absolutely.
Abolition and reinstatement
Lettres de cachet were abolished after the French Revolution by the Constituent Assembly, but Napoleon reestablished their penal equivalent by a political measure in the decree of 8 March 1801 on the state prisons. This is all the more striking, given that Napoleon had pushed for measures ensuring the rule of law in the codes of laws adopted under his rule. This action was one of the acts brought up against him by the senatus-consulte of 3 April 1814, which pronounced his fall "considering that he has violated the constitutional laws by the decrees on the state prisons."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_de_cachet
No comments:
Post a Comment