Inter-Research And Studies (IRAS)

Like monarch, aristocratic elites have survived only they have not resisted fundamental political and social change, especially the gradual democratization of political authority and the development of new sources of wealth along with economic growth and industrialization. For example, in England, the aristocracy proved receptive to capitalism, in part because the land was early given over the raising of sheep for the profitable wool trade and in part because only the firstborn male could inherit his father's property and aristocratic title. In England, there were consequently many sons and daughters of aristocracy who were without inherited title of wealth and they frequently made alliances in business and through marriages with an enterprising bourgeoisie or middle class. In the most of the continental countries of Europe, however, the land remained under the plow for production of cereal crops. This in turn induced the land aristocracy to insist on maintaining its tradition...

Even when the divine right of the kings or sultans were an acceptable formula for legitimating royal authority, it was nevertheless true that the monarch depended on the support of a loyal cadre of advisers and bureaucrats to carry out his policies. It was the gradual evolution and institutionalization of the roles of advisers and civil servants that, in France and elsewhere, led to the establishment of the parliament (advisers) and the state's administrative apparatus (civil servants). An awareness of these historical trends, along with the conviction that democratic institutions are an illusion that conceals the political domination of a minority, has convinced some 20th century political scientists that government everywhere and always has been the affair of a few - neither one nor the many. In this context, aristocracy means government by an elite of the society that has high social status, wealth, fame and political power. These advantages are passed down from one generation o...

A large part of the answer to this question, though not all of it, has to do with the ability or willingness of the particular monarch and their successors to accept a progressive reduction in their political power. The classic example is that of England, following the establishment of William and Mary on the throne in 1689. Their coronation was contingent on their acceptance of parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy in the critical areas of public policy which includes taxation, finances, the military and its command, and the religion adopted by the monarch (This agreement between the English parliament and the monarch may be thought of as a social contract, although it was a social contract that excluded the participation of the majority of the people). Much of the subsequent political history England is the story of the increasing power of the parliament, especially the House of Commons, along with the declining power of monarchy. Today, it is fair to say that the British King an...