Constitutional vs Absolute Monarch, Deuxième Part

In response to my post Constitutional vs Absolute Monarchy, a member of the Facebook group made the following comment,

I think the issue here is one of definitions. I voted for absolute monarchy, believing that to mean that the authority of the King came from God and not from a Constitution (which implies, at least in my mind, that the authority of the King comes from some social contract and therefore from the consent of those who are to be governed by the King himself). I did not mean, by absolutism, the Gallican Kings nor the Kingship of James VI/I.

The difference between constitutional monarchy, as I define it, and constitutional monarchy as my commenter seems to define it, is starkly shown by the openings of the Charter of 1814, under which the last Legitimate Kings of France ruled, and that of 1830, under which the Freemasonic, usurping, Revolutionary (only) 'King of the French' ruled.

From the Charter of 1814 (my emphasis)

Louis, by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre, to all those to whom these presents come, greeting.

Assured of our intentions, and strengthened by our conscience, we pledge ourselves, in the presence of the assembly which hears us, to be faithful to this constitutional charter, reserving to ourselves to swear to maintain it with a new solemnity, before the altars of Him who weighs in the same balance kings and nations.

For these reasons, We have voluntarily, and by the free exercise of our royal authority, accorded and do accord, grant and concede to our subjects, as well for us as for our successors forever, the constitutional charter which follows:

The Monarchy under the Charter of 1814 has been defined as a constitutional monarchy but not a parliamentary one.

From the Charter of 1830 (my emphasis)

Louis Philippe, King of the French, to all present and to come, greeting.

We have ordered and do order that the Constitutional Charter of 1814, such as it has been amended by the two Chambers on August 7th and accepted by us on the 9th, shall be again published in the following terms:

Notice, in the second there is no mention of God, tho' I will admit that his full title was, 'By the Grace of God and by the Constitutional Law of the State, King of the French'. It seems God had to share the power with the 'Constitutional Law of the State'!

It is also instructive that whilst the usurper began his 'reign' using his personal Arms which were those of France differenced with the label of a cadet House:

less than a year later, the arms were changed to honour the Constitution:

Could it be that his personal arms were a reminder that he was a usurper and not the Legitimate King? Hence, since his power rested only weakly on the permissive will of God, but primarily on the Constitution, he wanted to de-emphasise his usurpation and emphasise his 'constitutional claim' to the Throne.

However, to my commenter's remark, 'I did not mean, by absolutism, the Gallican Kings nor the Kingship of James VI/I', the problem is that kings, like all men, are fallen creatures, not angels. A man, even if he is a king, given absolute power in the state, will attempt to bring all things under his control, including the Church. And no monarch can rule without at least the implied consent of his people, whether expressed in 'constitutional form' or not.

Chevalier Charles Coulombe's thoughts on the subject bears out what I mean, especially on the limitations of the King in mediæval Europe.

I am reminded of the exchange between Frodo and Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings, when Frodo offers the One Ring to the Wizard.

'Will you not take the Ring?'

 'No!' cried Gandalf, springing to his feet. 'With that power I should have power too great and terrible. And over me the Ring would gain a power still greater and more deadly.' His eyes flashed and his face was lit as by a fire within. 'Do not tempt me! For I do not wish to become like the Dark Lord himself. Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me! I dare not take it, not even to keep it safe, unused. The wish to wield it would be too great, for my strength. I shall have such need of it. Great perils lie before me.'

Or, in the words of a Catholic statesman, albeit a Liberal, John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

Ergo, I believe that is inevitable if a King is not a 'constitutional monarch' in the sense of being 'rex sub lege' as the concept developed in the High Ages of Faith, and as the Angelic Doctor defined it, then mixed government will rapidly descend into tyranny.

Chevalier Henry Sire, SMOM (suspended), in his book Phoenix From the Ashes, an absolute must read for any counter-revolutionary integrist, (standard notice, if you buy from this link, I make a small commission at no additional cost to you), discusses the Enlightened Despots of the 18th century, who were the natural evolution of the Absolute Kings of the 17th.

He discusses at some length the suppression of the Jesuits, beginning in Portugal. These were not the Jesuits of today, modernists who've never met a revolution they didn't like. The Jesuits of the 18th century were solidly orthodox and taught the Thomistic theory of government I discussed in my earlier post on this topic. This made them the deadly enemy of the absolutists and their ministers who were wedded to the pagan/protestant concept of absolute rule.

In speaking of Joseph I of Portugal, he says, 

In 1758 an attempt made on the king’s life enabled Pombal (the Marquis de Pombal, Joseph's Prime Minister) to perfect his ascendancy. Quickly executing the hired killers, he used their alleged confessions to proceed against his political enemy, the marquis of Tavora, representative of one of the great noble families in Portugal. He, his wife, two sons, and a son-in-law were tortured and put to death by breaking on the wheel, and the marchioness’s Jesuit confessor was burnt alive. After Pombal’s fall and the release of his political prisoners, an enquiry into these proceedings denounced them for the crimes that they were.

Sire, H.J.A.. Phoenix from the Ashes: The Making, Unmaking, and Restoration of Catholic Tradition (p. 119). Angelico Press. Kindle Edition. 

Breaking on the wheel and burning people alive? But I thought that was mediæval? Pombal was an estrangeirado, an intellectual determined to introduce the ideas of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment into Portugal. This is pagan/protestant heresy! This is absolute monarchy! And this is what the Church has opposed throughout history.