| dbo:description
|
- sistema monárquico, aristocrático, social y político establecido en el Reino de España desde aproximadamente el siglo XV hasta principios del siglo XIX (es)
- Sistema monárquico, aristocrático, social e político establecido no Reino de España desde aproximadamente o século XV ata principios do século XIX (gl)
- Sistema monarchico, aristocratico, sociale e politico stabilito nel Regno di Spagna da circa 15 ° secolo fino all'inizio del 19 ° secolo (it)
- Monarchisch, aristocratisch, sociaal en politiek systeem gevestigd in het Koninkrijk Spanje van ongeveer de 15e eeuw tot het begin van de 19e eeuw (nl)
- Sistema monárquico, aristocrático, social e político estabelecido no Reino de Espanha desde aproximadamente o século XV até o início do século XIX (pt)
- système monarchique, aristocratique, social et politique établi dans le Royaume d'Espagne à partir du XVe siècle jusqu'au début du XIXe siècle (fr)
- System monarchiczny, arystokratyczny, społeczny i polityczny ustanowiony w Królestwie Hiszpanii od około XV wieku do początku XIX wieku (pl)
- Monarchisches, aristokratisches, soziales und politisches System, das im Königreich Spanien ab etwa dem 15. Jahrhundert bis Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts etabliert wurde (de)
- monarhični, aristokratski, družbeni in politični sistem, vzpostavljen v Kraljestvu Španija od približno 15. stoletja do začetka 19. stoletja (sl)
- Monarchical, aristocratic, social and political system established in the Crown of Spain from approximately the 15th century until the beginning of the 19th century (en)
- Sistema monàrquic, aristocràtic, social i polític establert a la Monarquia d'Espanya des aproximadament el segle XV fins a principis del del segle XIX (ca)
- Monarkiskt, aristokratiskt, socialt och politiskt system upprättat i Konungariket Spanien från cirka 15-talet till början av 1800-talet (sv)
|
| dbp:quote
|
- The State of the Ancien Régime protected the interests of the nobility. Precisely for this reason, in addition to being absolute, it has been called by some authors – P. Anderson, Kiernan, Porshnev, etc. – as nobiliary or lordly. The monarch never questions his nobility, nor vice versa. The former is concerned with pampering the latter and maintaining its economic, social and other privileges. Naturally, this is in a general way, and seen as a long-term situation. Of course there are conjunctural conflicts. Hence, it is necessary to break with the cliché that the Catholic Monarchs put an end to the power of their nobility. It seems a methodological error to consider the beginning and development of the Modern State as the resolution of a conflict of interests between the monarch and the nobility, in which the Crown emerged victorious. The members of the high nobility were the first to be interested in having a strong central power that would enable social control and make it difficult, if not impossible, for the less wealthy social groups from which they obtained their rents to protest. The so-called Modern State protects, defends and consolidates the nobility's interests... On the other hand, it would be a serious error, very numerous among historians, to conceive its evolution in a linear way. Developments are not usually like that, but have their progress – an ethereal term – and their setbacks. The same is true of the function of the nobility and its role in the State. Shortly after the end of the Reconquest it forgets its military character, begins to act politically, with an intensity that finds its warmest point in the 17th century, and gradually its role is reduced to occupy exclusively diplomatic and honorary positions, both in the administration and in the Army, although this in a very general way, and as such quite distorting. Finally, it is necessary to banish the cliché that during the 19th century, the liberal State definitively cornered the nobility. This did not happen, among other circumstances, because their privileged economic situation was not significantly damaged. Much of our historiography is plagued by clichés that need to be refreshed. (en)
- The way to determine the scope of royal power is to consider it as the reverse of manorial power and the inverse..... Manorial power never went beyond the exercise of local powers... the accumulation of lordships, however copious it was and even if it gave rise to the appearance of territorial manorial offices, never managed to extend its powers. Phenomena such as the sale of offices in manorial places but for the benefit of the Crown, or the well-documented fact of the appeal to royal justice, call into question the image of manorial power as a limitation of royal power. (en)
- There were three instances with independent fiscal capacity: the Church, the Kingdom and the Crown. Ecclesiastical taxation consisted in the collection of tithes and first fruits, direct taxes levied on the income from the land.... The Church, which, because of its pastoral function, had its individuals distributed throughout all the places, was in a position to demand a tribute of this type, things that the crown could not do.... The Cortes of each kingdom had limited powers in the legislative process – they formulated petitions that the king granted, postponed or denied – and decisive powers with regard to the voting of services. At the beginning of the sessions, the king or his representative presented the most significant points of his foreign policy and requested a service or donation that was usually fixed after often laborious negotiations, and only on one occasion, the Catalan Cortes of 1626, was the service not voted on, due not to the refusal of the procurators but because the sessions did not conclude.... The royal treasury lacked unity. Each kingdom constituted an independent administration and in all of them, with the exception of the budgets of the Kingdom in Castile, the principle was applied of consuming all the resources obtained in the territory... there was no treasury unity until 1799, when the so-called "reunion of revenues" was established. (en)
|
| dbp:text
|
- The influence of the royal confessors was only one aspect of the enormous prestige enjoyed by the Church, perhaps the most powerful of the pressure groups, according to today's terminology. But its authority was more social than political. It defended its interests and exemptions, even the less justifiable ones; however, in its clashes against an unpopular civil power it usually had the sympathies of the people. Some preachers criticized the actions of the rulers; not a few tried to influence them with their writings; more than one obtained important positions.... It is enough to remember the main role played by Cardinal Portocarrero in the struggles for the succession. But the Church, as a hierarchical body, did not have a defined political action. (en)
|
_01_var.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01_var.jpg){kind=link}