| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | I. Introduction | |
<
< | Through contingency, the disempowered in England were able to transform unfreedom into freedom by unifying their might to usurp some power from the ruling classes. Power in England was wielded through rhetoric, resources, or unity. In England’s power ladder, the king was theoretically at the top, followed by the peerage and Parliament, and lastly, the commoners. But each rung depended in some way on a lower rung: the king depended on the peerage to raise funds and armies, and the peerage, in turn, relied on the commoners for taxes, labor, and military service. If a lower rung unified in opposition to a higher rung, they could deny that rung’s needs. In these moments, concessions could be forced upon the higher rungs, forcing them to give up some power and redistribute it more favorably to a lower-rung. Unfreedom in England gradually transformed into freedom through incremental concessions forced on the higher-rungs. | >
> | Through contingency, the disempowered in England were able to transform unfreedom into freedom by unifying their might to usurp some power from the ruling classes. In England’s power ladder, the king was theoretically at the top, followed by the peerage and Parliament, and lastly, the commoners. But each rung depended in some way on a lower rung: the king depended on the peerage to raise funds and armies, and the peerage, in turn, relied on the commoners for taxes, labor, and military service. If a lower rung unified in opposition to a higher rung, they could deny that rung’s needs. In these moments, concessions could be forced upon the higher rungs, forcing them to give up some power and redistribute it more favorably to a lower-rung. Unfreedom in England gradually transformed into freedom through incremental concessions forced on the higher-rungs. | | | II. The Distribution of Power on the Ladder | |
<
< | Despite the propagandist and ecclesiastical notion of the absolute monarch, the king could not directly and independently raise an army, impose taxes, or control local affairs. These powers were instead directly wielded by the peerage under the feudal expectation that their benefits would flow upward to the king. Thus, the peerage controlled England’s resources and if the king needed money or an army, he had to go to the barons or Parliament. | >
> | Power in England was wielded through rhetoric, resources, or unity. Resources were firmly the domain of the peerage, the king could not directly and independently raise an army, impose taxes, or control local affairs. These powers were instead directly wielded by the peerage under the feudal expectation that they were exercised on behalf of the king and their benefits would flow upward to him. Thus, if the king needed money or an army, he had to rely on the barons or Parliament. | | | Despite this reliance, the king exclusively wielded the rhetorical power to lend his subjects royal legitimacy. The peerage frequently squabbled among themselves for power, and the king’s rhetorical support for one faction or another could be enough to tip the balance in their direction. Once a faction had the explicit backing of the king, dissent became rebellion. Even though those opposed to the king’s chosen faction often had the resources to potentially prevail in a rebellion, victory still meant risking their position and their lives. Furthermore, the legitimacy bestowed by the king’s support helped rally undecided nobles to his chosen faction while at the same time giving dissenters a pretense for backing down. In the constant struggle for power among the nobility, the king’s support could help Davids beat Goliaths and help Goliaths crush Davids. Thus, even though the king alone could not raise funds or an army, those would could needed his support. | |
>
> | | | | But the king and the peers both relied on a lower-rung for power. The king’s economic and military power relied on a supply from the peerage and his ability to empower a faction with royal backing needed a faction to empower. If opposition to the king was united, he would have no independent means of raising funds or an army and no rhetorical power to use as a bargaining chip. Unified, the peers commanded enough resources to credibly threaten the king and make demands on him. But the peers relied on a lower-rung to muster those resources, they needed commoners to pay taxes, work their lands, and populate their armies. When the commoners united against the peers or the king, they too had enough leverage to make demands.
III. Freedoms for the Peerage Won by Contingency |
|