Imperial Council constitutionalism (Denmark-Norway)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reichsrat constitutionalism is a term given by historians to the constitution of the Danish-Norwegian Union until 1660, when absolutism was introduced, which is opposed to Reichsrat constitutionalism. In contrast to the absolutist king, the Reichsrat constitutionalist king was limited in his power by legal, institutional, political and ideological boundary conditions.

The legal limits

Like the rest of the Nordic empires, Norway had been an elective monarchy since 1450. The king was obliged to rule the country in accordance with the law and custom. Law was not at the disposal of the king and was not a function of his power. The specifications for the government of a king during his reign resulted from the election surrender , in which he had to present his government program in the event of his election. It was seen as a kind of constitutional document for the time of his administration. Norway received the first electoral surrender when Christian I was elected in 1449. In addition to these electoral surrenders, Reichsrat constitutionalism was also established in the Union Treaty between Norway and Denmark of 1450 in Bergen and its renewal in 1532.

The institutional limitations

In Norway (until 1536) and in Denmark-Norway 1536–1660 there were constitutionally protected institutions with which the king had to share his ruling power. Above all, this included the Imperial Council, which was abolished in Norway in 1536. From this point on, the Danish Imperial Council assumed its function. The king was only allowed to make all important decisions in agreement with the imperial council (rikets råds råd). In addition, there were those Reich officials who supervised the central administration. Even if they were appointed by the king, they were in reality representatives of the Imperial Council. The general commissioner for Norway was added later. In the war with Sweden it became necessary to establish a central government power over Norway, especially in the military and financial fields.

The political boundaries

The institutions mentioned were supposed to look after the interests of the Reich, but in practice they often looked after the interests of the ruling classes, known as the Reichsratsadel. The political influence of the nobility over the Imperial Council and the high imperial offices were also an important limitation of royal power. In addition, there is the almost monopoly domination of the feudal system by the nobility. After the election surrenders, the king was obliged to manage the castle and castle fiefs in agreement with the Imperial Council. This also included the definition of the content of the loan agreement. Until 1450 it was a matter of dispute who was responsible for this fief after the death of the king: the imperial council or the successor to the throne. After the king's death, the fiefs initially reverted to the sovereign. After 1540, the right to occupy these fiefs was viewed by the Reichsrat as the most important guarantee for the preservation of Reichsrat constitutionalism. The posts reserved for the high nobility included top positions in the judiciary and in the military.

The ideological barriers

Reichsrat constitutionalism has its origins in late medieval state thinking. This drew its ideas from the council movement in the first half of the 15th century. They were based on the basic idea of ​​a kind of popular sovereignty, as it had been developed in 1324 by the state theorist Marsilius of Padua in his work Defensor Pacis as a counter-position to the ever-advancing papal absolutism. After the church split in 1378 it was felt in many places that only a church assembly would be able to heal the break. Such views spread towards the end of the 14th century also in the sphere of profane rule. A distinction was made between two main types of rule: the so-called regimen regale , which moved towards absolutism, and the regimen politicum , which tended towards a constitutional monarchy under the control of a representative body. The union struggle in Scandinavia after 1434 is interpreted by many as a struggle between these two models of rule. The election surrenders are permeated by these constitutional thoughts.

The idea of ​​the independence of the law is a central element. The law stands outside and above royal government. Equally important is the idea that the king's government is fundamentally based on the consensus of the subjects represented by the Imperial Council. He is also the keeper of imperial sovereignty during the vacancy of the throne. This notion of consensus is expressed in the electoral capitulations through the provisions according to which the king needs the consent of the Imperial Council in order to declare war and levy taxes. The Imperial Council elects the king and administers the fiefdom until a new king is elected and formally installed in his office. The election surrender can also be seen as a contract between the king and the subjects. This is particularly evident in the right to revolt against the king if he disregards the provisions of the electoral surrender.

literature