I have never understood, and it blows my mind, that England could have a king AND a Parliament? Was the Parliament established to fool, I mean, appease the people? Also, in history, some kings dissolved Parliament when they seriously disagreed. So, why did a king have to listen to Parliament at all? Makes no sense to me! (Or, am I seeing through the “emperor’s new clothes”? What’s the SD here? 
Since 1215 with Magna Carta the English crown has not been allowed to levy or collect taxes except by consent.
Those that operated without parliament used their own sources of revenue. Usually the necessity to finance a war forced them to recall parliament.
All the modern constitutional monarchies function quite adequately with this very arrangement.
If you thought that “no taxation without representation” was something originated by the US Founding Fathers, you’d be mistaken by half a millenium
Henry VIII: “We be informed by our judges that we at no time stand so highly in our estate royal as in the time of parliament.”
Because a King in England has never, ever been an absolute ruler. There were always limits to their power. The monarch’s power is at its maximum when in Parliament.
In England, the King could never raise taxes arbitrarily. He had to ask, and had to have them be freely given by the realm. In the 1200s the best institution by which this consent was given was parliament.
Because the king had a need, and Parliament had the right to gift, Parliament used its right to tax to accrue lawmaking powers. Parliament was the King’s perfect partner; it could give him what he wanted, but it could also hold him back.
A king who ruled for his own benefit, and not the good of the realm, was a tyrant.
… dude, most of Europe had Parliaments at the time. Heck, most of Europe had Parliaments throughout the Middle Ages!
In some places, Parliament was a specific group of people who met regularly in a specific location; in others, it was a specific group of people who met at the monarch’s behest; in some, the people attending were a mixture of elected, inherited and appointed; in others, it was a call from the ruler for anybody who wanted to expose an issue to the realm to come and do so - no limits by social class, no need to be elected except by your own feet. Through history, the amount of monarchs who really could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted equals exactly zero, Louis XIV’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding.
What Nava says is true. Parliaments are a thoroughly Medieval construction to handle the disparate interests and weak nature of the State of the time, and have been sustained and evolved to become voices of a democratic nation.
In the early modern period the dichotomy wasn’t between an absolute ruler and a democratic, parliamentary state; it was between a Medieval, diffuse one and a centralised, absolute one. Different countries experiences meant that the end result was different. In France, the legislature (Estates-General) was dormant for over a century while the King ruled alone. That never happened in England, although Charles I and James II/VII dabbled in it.
It’s sometimes confusing because in modern times a parliament means a democratically-elected body, but that’s mostly because those democratic institutions essentially adopted the framework and structure (and sometimes the meeting hall) of those earlier very much non-democratic parliaments. In 1776, the British parliament had moved away from being a purely feudalistic institution but it was still very far from being a democratic one. It had moved from only representing the interests of the landed aristocracy like the old medieval parliaments to more-or-less representing the interests of all very wealthy Britons, but the idea of proportional representation (let alone universal suffrage and all that) wouldn’t come until the next century.
Ultimately, one person’s power is based on whether or not other people will do what they say when they give an order. Sharing a certain amount of power is a proven means of getting people to buy into a political system. So a monarch will work with a parliament or some other democratic assembly because it gives the people a reason to support the monarch.
From the other end, a democratic assembly is by its nature a diffuse and transient thing. A monarch can serve as an important symbol to unite a nation and the parliament benefits by ruling over a more unified nation.
Also, when talking 1776, even after the revolutions of a century earlier the Establishment found it necessary to govern in the name of the exalted crown/King rather than in the name of the merely oligarchic parliament for the mutually-supportive reasons Little Nemo points out. Which of course meant that for the purposes of the American rebels, it was equally more effective to argue their case in terms of being opressed by a personally arbitrary King as opposed to by a deliberative body however oligarchic (to no small degree because they were not populist democrats themselves).
Indeed - the slogan was about the colonies’ lack of direct representation in parliament. They were peeved that parliament was taxing them without them having the ability to have their own MPs representing them and helping make taxation decisions.
1776 isn’t the date Jinx should be concerned about. It should be 1688. Or rather 1649, which is when Parliament demonstrated its superiority over the crown by removing said crown (and the head it was resting on) from Charles I.
This is the main point. Anyone who thinks any ruler is absolute needs to take a deeper look at the internal politics of each situation. Even North Korea, a lot of what we see as erratic craziness is maneuvering to make sure one faction or another inside their own government does not become more powerful.
A kingship is no different than a teen street gang. If the leader says “do this” it only works if the people who do it, do it. If enough of them get together and say “no” or decide to pull a pre-emptive strike, then the leader is toast.
Whether it’s a “cabinet” or “privy council” or meeting of the King’s advisors, any ruler would be smart to involve many of the higher ups and knowledgeable types in his decisions. Making the general(s) feel that they are not considered important, or worse that they might be next for the gallows, was a good way to become an ex-king. Include them in the decisions, be sure they see that a decision was not just the king but a large number of the rest of the big shots, give them an opportunity to say their piece and have it considered, and they are more likely to obey whatever orders come out of the council.
I won’t get deep into the evolution of law, but somewhere along the way, people started demanding that the rules be written down and followed, so there was some stability; many,especially businessmen, did not want a setting where the government - king or local barons, etc. - could arbitrarily decide “I need more money, so Fred, hand over half your savings”. As government became bigger and more complex, the need for stability and continuity became more important.
The lower house of parliament (as opposed to the house of Lords) evolved when the rich and merchants of the cities, and other non-noble free men, asked for a group to represent their point of view. Since a lot of the commerce and industry (and source of money) was the towns, it made more sense to appease them than to be fighting against a passive-aggressive resistance at best.
King John was apparently a relatively arrogant, “I’ll do it my way” type. He ticked off everyone, but especially the nobles by ignoring the rights of his barons. Start picking off the barons one by one, and it doesn’t take long for the rest to get together and fight. (Lesson number two in governing - don’t try to force your will if your combined enemies can round up just as big an army) Evntually, they forced John to sign the Magna Carta, making formal what had until then been a rough collection of rules and traditions, establishing the right of parliament. This meant that the King must ask parliament for various things, including the right to raise taxes.
Read about James I, his head, and Oliver Cromwell. Parliament may not have been any better than a king, but the point was made the king had to do what parliament said.
This is the attitude that many Englishmen took to the new world - that to raise taxes, or make other socially significant decisions, the crown should consult the elcted representatives. Most colonies already had assembly bodies in quasi-governmental capacities. Usually, the appointed governor could ignore or overule them. When they started to see their money being taken to finance England’s other problems, they started wondering “why don’t we have the same rights as our brothers back home?”
So that’s what led to 1776.
The question, put like that, shows extreme ignorance, not only of human history in general and of European history in particular but of human nature as well.
Nobody in human history has become or stayed king or president or dictator or big boss unless they had a very substantial support from those they led. Nobody.
Today in western countries we like to repeat to ourselves the simplistic mantra that western-style elections are what makes a country governable and the only thing that gives the government legitimacy. This is hogwash, of course. Throughout most of history and today in other cultures people have found other ways of building social ties and selecting their leaders.
But make no mistake about it, leaders always rely on the support of their followers, not the other way around. A leader without support is no longer a leader.
The notion that one guy said “I am king and you all have to do what I say” and the rest just said “oh, dang it! Why didn’t I think of that first?” is just childishly silly and simplistic. The notion that someone like Hitler or Mussolini or Franco could singlehandedly oppress millions of unwilling people is just childish and simplistic fiction we tell ourselves to justify and support our side. Those men were tremendously popular in their time and had massive support.
The notion that one person had absolute power and was blindly obeyed by all has never been true anywhere in the history of the world because it is just impossible given how humans interact and organize themselves into societies.
The history of Europe and of the world is the history of leaders who said to a bunch of people more or less “if you follow me I will make you rich because I will give you victory over those yahoos over there”. Sometimes they conquered the yahoos, sometimes they were conquered by the yahoos but leaders, whether kings, counts, dukes or presidents have always relied on the support of their followers and have often found themselves on the wrong side of a sword when things did not go as hoped.
In all of Europe men and women who were or would be King found one day they were no longer anything, maybe even not alive, because the people on whose support they relied had changed their mind.
In Spain (actually several kingdoms at that time) many became queen or king by fighting for the title. And many had to fight rebellions and plots by competitors. Leaders were elected and sustained in battles. Which, if you think about it requires a high level of support by their supporters. The loser of the “election” often ended up dead or locked up for the rest of his life.
Kings evolved as leaders of nobles and as “primus inter pares” (first among equals) not the other way around. Any king who was incompetent or abusive could find himself dead in short order or at least out of the job if he was very lucky. The notion that people need elections to select their leaders is just silly.
In the sixteenth century the kings of Spain (actually several kingdoms in personal union) had to govern in accordance with the laws of the realm and with the cooperation and support of parliaments. There was no such thing as an absolute monarch, not even close. Far from it.
Queen Isabella had to fight for the throne. King Charles had to face the insurrection of the comuneros and King Phillip also had to face popular revolts and found himself very much constrained by the laws and the parliaments. How he tried to chase his secretary Antonio Pérez and was finally unsuccessful just goes to show how limited was the power of the King of Spain at that time. The King had no power to lay taxes without the consent of parliament and he knew he better play nice if he wanted to get his way. And very often he did not get his way.
The legendary formula used in Aragón to swear allegiance to the new king is quite revealing of the mentality because it was totally conditional on the king abiding by the social contract.
You can’t get much more direct and clear than that.
The American declaration of independence is based on the same principle that the king, as he is no longer fulfilling his duties as king, is no longer recognized as king. This was not exceptional, rather, it was to a greater or lesser degree true in all of western culture.
Over the centuries the balance of power between kings, nobles, clergy, church, cities, parliaments, guilds, etc. changed and evolved but the king was always very limited in what he could do and was constricted by the customs, privileges and laws of the realm. A king who try to overstep his bounds did so at his own peril.
In 16th century Castile the King had much more power than in Aragón where getting the parliament to support anything was always quite complicated. The king in Aragon was always reminded of the limits of his power and they always insisted in following all bureaucratic formalities.
When King Philip was trying to get his secretary Antonio Lopez extradited to Castile and the authorities of Aragón were dragging their feet, King Philip gave orders to cut through the red tape and just grab the guy already but things did not go down well with the people of Zaragoza who helped Antonio Perez escape to France and revolted and killed the viceroy.
In the end military might is what decides who gets their way but you need to have enough support to impose your will by force.
In England and other kingdoms of the UK there were also plenty of rebellions, riots, mutinies, wars, etc. The more power the king had the more likely he was to be overthrown by those who weren’t happy.
In the end all leaders derive their power from the support of their followers.
Yes. A ruler might rule through fear and intimidation, but he rules with a group of loyal followers.
Stalin for example, was not simply a crazy, bloothirsty tyrant. He was also a cunning, crazy bloothirsty tyrant who with his clique, ruled by ensuring anyone who appeared to be plotting against him, or even questioning his orders, was killed or sent to Siberia.
Of course, showing any concern that tehre was too much blood was a quick way to get yourself on the list - so as a result, most of the people in charge were equally bloody-minded. Millions were starved in the Ukraine not on a whim, but because they had not been collectivised, and these private farmers appeared to be becoming to powerful and uppity about toeing the party line. Factions of the army, secret police, or civil service were rounded up if there was a hint of disloyalty.
The trick was to not allow any one group to have enough power to lead a revolt. this is also how North Korea works, it is how the Roman Empire worked, many of the kingdoms of Europe operated this way.
When people got tired of the arbitrary actions and threats of instant death, they demanded instead formal rules - we promise not to revolt, but in return we want you to follow these rules.
As the exmaple of Spain above illustrates, you break these agreements at your peril.
Also - read this:
The rules didn’t even need to be written: they just needed to be accepted by all parties. In Navarre, another of Spain’s realms, it was one of our kings who asked to put them in writing: he was the first king of our second dinasty, an import from France, and had taken several repeats to understand that nnnnoooo, in the previous 5 centuries nobody had felt the need to do so… then again, that king’s nickname is The Poet, he liked books 
To better understand this, look at the American system where both the congress and president are elected. While the president has clearly limited powers, people still expect him/her to actually run the country and exercise powers granted exclusively to other government bodies.
Congress is our parliament, and the president is our king (sort of). The “king” serves as the face of the government, makes the decisions when there’s no time for debate, can provide a vision or long-range plan for parliament to follow (whether they buy into the plan/vision is up to them), and perform the other functions that aren’t well handled by a committee.
Facetious answer: consider the USA today. Titular head, (President or Kinglet) commander of the army, dependent for supply on a parliament (Congress). The US is closer to Britain (not England) in 1776. We have virtually all power invested in the PM who has assumed all the monarch’s real powers save veto. It is fairly described as an elective dictatorship.
True, although by the 1770s, I wonder just how much executive power the king had. It was understood by all that the king’s veto could not be actually exercised (it last used in the early 1700s). The king could threaten to pack the House of Lords in the 1830s* although I wonder how much of that was the Prime Minister actual power and how much was the king.
*Not sure about the date
A fair bit, still. George III had to bargain, cajole, wheedle, maneuver and very occasionally bully to get his way. And he couldn’t always get his way. So he was miles from a Louis XIV. But the fact that he could still play the bully on occasion and was very actively involved in the political decision-making process puts him miles ahead of Elizabeth II.
Monarchical power pretty in Britain slid gradually but inexorably. George IV had less power than George III. William IV had less than George IV. By the time of Victoria the monarchy had primarily become decorative.
Ok, now that last statement really blows my mind! Who did Louis XIV have to answer to during his rule (other than the people who revolted against him)? And, why else would they have revolted, then?) Obviously, I am lacking a clear understanding of European history.
Queen: King! King! The people are revolting!
King: They certainly are! 
Thanks for sharing your knowledge on European history. It is still hard for me to grasp that a king actually had someone to answer to. And, if what you say is true, then King George was not a tyrant. The colonists’ beef was with Parliament and only Parliament, wouldn’t you say?