Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 3

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: English Civil War

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Oblivion and vengeance: Charles II Stuart’s policy towards the republicans at the Restoration of 1660

100%

Kaptur P.

2016

tom 14

The Restoration of Charles II Stuart in 1660 was reckoned in post-revolutionary England both in terms of a long-awaited relief and an inevitable menace. The return of the exiled prince, whose father’s disgraceful decapitation in the name of law eleven years earlier marked the end of the British monarchy, must have been looked forward to by those who expected rewards for their loyalty, inflexibility and royal affiliation in the turbulent times of the Interregnum. It must have been, however, feared by those who directly contributed to issuing the death warrant on the legally ruling king and to violating the irrefutable divine right of kings. Even though Charles II’s mercy was widely known, hardly anyone expected that the restored monarch’s inborn mildness would win over his well-grounded will to revenge his father’s death and the collapse of the British monarchy. It seems that Charles II was not exceptionally vindictive and was eager to show mercy and oblivion understood as an act of amnesty to those who sided with Cromwell and Parliament but did not contribute directly to the executioner raising his axe over the royal neck. On the other hand, the country’s unstable situation and the King’s newly-built reputation required some firm-handed actions taken by the sovereign in order to prevent further rebellions or plots in the future, and to strengthen the position of the monarchy so shattered by the Civil War and the Interregnum.

Samuel Rutherford – monarchia prawa czy monarchia świętych?

72%

Tulejski T.

tom 91

67-81

Samuel Rutherford – Scottish Presbyterian priest and political thinker who lived in the times of English civil war – is commonly considered as one of the theorists of the monarchy of law concept, the mixed constitution and the right of revolution. All these ideas are fundamental for modern English constitutionalism which is in opposition to the idea of monarchical absolutism which is based on the concept of the social contract. For this reason, he was among the authorities quoted by the Founding Fathers during their opposition against the arbitrary powers of the Metropole. Meanwhile, the global analysis of his achievements put in doubts many circulating opinions regarding the author of Lex, Rex. In this article, an author proves that the hermeneutic analysis of Rutherford’s political theology suggests that Rutherford was not the theorist of the monarchy of law in its common meaning, but rather theonomic vision of the state.

Samuel Rutherford – szkocki prezbiteriański pastor i myśliciel polityczny okresu angielskiej wojny domowej – uważany jest powszechnie za jednego z teoretyków koncepcji monarchii prawa, ustroju mieszanego oraz prawa oporu. Wszystkie te idee, konstytuujące nowożytny angielski konstytucjonalizm w opozycji do monarszego absolutyzmu, wywodzi z koncepcji umowy społecznej, co czyni zeń autora, do którego odwoływali się dla przykładu Ojcowie Założyciele w swym sprzeciwie wobec arbitralnej władzy metropolii. Tymczasem analiza całości jego dorobku każe poddać w wątpliwość wiele obiegowych opinii na temat autora Lex, Rex. W niniejszym artykule autor dowodzi, że hermeneutyczna analiza teologii politycznej Rutherforda skłania do wniosku, że nie był on teoretykiem monarchii prawa w jej powszechnym znaczeniu, lecz w istocie teonomicznej wizji państwa.

Norms and Legal Practice of Patriarchalism according to James II’s Advices to His Son (1692)

58%

Rigó B.

tom 80

319-334

James II inherited the throne from his elder brother Charles only because there was not any male heir. Even the Parliament wanted to exclude him from succession, that was the exclusion crisis of 1679-1681. The Tory propaganda published Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha to argue for the primogeniture principle, i.e. for the James’s title to the throne. That work introduced patriarchalism in which overlap the concepts of family and society and the authority of a father and the monarch. Therefore the monarch as the father of the nation ruled over the society that was considered to be a great family. He demanded unconditional obedience from the society just as the father demands it from the members of his family. Since Sir Robert Filmer’s name was connected to James’s right to the throne and to the conservative royalist Tory propaganda, my incentive was to examine whether James himself applied patriarchalism and the Filmer’s concepts in his political writings. This is the law (norms) in books if we apply the terms of the law in effect to the past. However, the aim of this article is to compare these norms with the practice found in the James’s declarations, proclamations, and deeds. The result of this comparison would be the law in action. Thus, the aim of this comparison is to reveal patriarchalism in James’s writings and after that to examine whether any characteristics of it can be found in his deeds and decrees of his administration. I mean especially three deeds: his coronation, the cure of the King’s evil (scrofula), and the practice of giving mercy to victims. Among the decrees I mean particularly the decrees issued during putting out the revolts against his reign. In the first two cases he was successful, however, he lost the throne to William of Orange and was expelled from it.