In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, people started to question the logic of having a single all-powerful ruler. Naturally, the monarchy fought this challenge to their authority by parading divine right and the issues of constitutionalism. However, constitutionalism eliminates the danger of having a bad king and the issue of divine right while also maintaining order. Absolutism lacks constitutionalism’s validity as a form of government. In a constitutional government, every citizen must follow a set of laws, even the king. Under an absolutist government, a bad king would have entirely unlimited power to cause harm to his subjects. According to James I a king would have power overwrite the laws so a constitutional government with a Parliament was unnecessary, but in actuality an ideal constitutional system would remove a rogue monarch from power or punish him accordingly. James I also wrote that kings did not require laws, because they would set an example for their subjects by behaving appropriately without laws. Writing from Duc de Saint-Simon disagreed with this statement by describing King Louis XIV and his many flaws as a leader despite his skill as host of the …show more content…
James I wrote that to question divine right was blasphemy, which would seem to a reader a horrible crime if royal court weren’t already a sinful place. According to writing from Liselotte von der Pfalz, Versailles housed adultery and scandal, gambling, and verbal blasphemy. The nobles in the royal court did not highly value piety and purity, however they claimed to strongly believe in divine right. Religious freedom also required divine right to be done away with and replaced with constitutional governing. Many converted to Protestantism across Europe during the Reformation, and forcing Christian divine right on a population reminds a reader of forcing a religion on a