Composite monarchy

Remnants of the Byzantine Empire from Eastern Europe were united under Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II by 1453, and the empire incorporated a vast collection of territories surrounding the Mediterranean. The Ottoman Sultan had succeeded in “superimposing” the Byzantine empire with Ottoman Rule.[14] Ottoman lands contained a wide variety of cultural, legal and religious traditions.

The Ottomans maintained an aeque principali empire where local customs and traditional practices were perpetuated. In many cases, the Ottomans allowed subject peoples including Christians and Jews to have their own communities where their own particular laws and customs were retained and integrated into the broader Ottoman system; which often included separate legal codes for each territory.[15] This approach is similar to the approaches of other composite monarchies except that the Ottoman territories included a more diverse population. Unlike most European examples, the Ottoman ruling class included a wide variety of people and cultural traditions. Entrance to the Ottoman ruling class was not exclusively by birth, but many other cultural and linguistic traditions were included as long as they were Muslim and had deep knowledge of the Ottoman court ways.[16][17]

The Ottoman Empire's most striking difference with other composite monarchies in Europe was that it allowed religious freedom to a greater extent than the Europeans did. The Ottomans did not require that their subjects adhere to the religion of the monarch, a requirement that usually was a major part of composite kingdoms.[18] The Ottoman Empire was diverse relatively to Europe and some historians argue there were minor restrictions on the freedom of minority groups. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Turks, Greeks, Hungarians, Arabs, Armenians, Kurds, guildsmen, and bureaucrats were free to work and live throughout the empire without major hassle.[19] However, others argue the forced abduction of children for the Ottoman military in the Janissary Corps or the practice of forced relocation of ethnic minorities betray a less positive policy in the Ottoman Empire towards internal polities, particularly those considered suitable for these measures by the Ottoman court.

Early modern Spain was an example of a composite monarchy based on the aeque principali approach. The Spanish approach involved separate administrative and taxation arrangements for each territory. Composite monarchy in Spain started with the Reconquista and the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon, the Catholic Monarchs in the late fifteenth century,[20] which united through a dynastic union, a form of federation, the Crown of Castille and the Crown of Aragon.[21]

Throughout much of the early modern period, each Spanish realm retained its own freedoms and laws, and this included administrative and governance arrangements, different monetary systems and borders. Modes of taxation are an excellent example of the differing arrangements in the Spanish composite monarchy. The system of taxation in Spain varied depending on the kingdom or territory, and sometimes even within kingdoms there were special tax arrangements. The differing tax arrangements led to a reliance on the revenues from the Kingdom of Castile as opposed to other areas of Spain.[22] While all of Spain was united under the same ruler, each territory was often treated very differently and was ruled by the King and central administrators in line with their power structures. The component estates of the Crown of Aragon had different laws, tax and monetary systems, governments and parliaments, and were not united politically except at the level of the king, who had to deal separately with their different Courts, vow them loyalty and request their financial help. In the Principality of Catalonia, the Catalan Courts had legislative power, and laws could only be made and repealed by mutual consent of King and Courts.[23] In 1519, the Catalan Courts met in Barcelona to recognize the first unified monarch of the crowns of Castile and Aragon, Charles I, and to discuss the granting of financial assistance to the King.[24] Although the King had no legislative power, he had the privilege to request papal bulls, and used that privilege to undermine the strength of local elites when it seemed convenient. For example, in the case of the petitions of papal bulls against hoarding to favor popular classes, the King took opposed decisions regarding the Principality of Catalonia and the Kingdom of Aragon: "In 1582 he favoured the demands of Catalonia’s elites over those of Barcelona’s artisans, but under different circumstances he took the opposite stance in Aragon.",[25] due to worsening relations between the Spanish monarchy and the Aragonese nobility, which was accused of "protecting bandits".

Monarchical rule in early modern Spain was a balancing act, as the monarch attempted to preserve unity and loyalty among each part, which required placating local interests. The approach toward governing each of the Spanish territories was to negotiate to determine the needs of different societal groups within the territory and then to govern based on the consensus achieved.[26] Composite rule in Spain involved consultation and negotiation between central state officials and each territory individually, often resulting in different agreements and laws for each territory. The composite and diverse nature of monarchical rule in Spain also included the diversity of social classes and the bargaining power that they had versus the central government. Diversity of social classes further complicated Spanish composite rule. The central government had to take into account not only peculiarities in local customs and institutions but also local variations in social structure and the interests of the social structure. In the case of the practice of hoarding in Barcelona, the interests of the Guilds and artisan estate differed from the interests of the clergy and nobility.[27] These differing interests also required resolution from the monarch and his central administrators.

The early modern predecessors of the United Kingdom (England and Wales, Ireland and later including Scotland) included both an accessory union and aeque principali union.

The union between England and Wales was an accessory union. English rules and laws were granted to Wales in the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543,[9] and Wales was thus absorbed into the Kingdom of England.

The Lordship and later Kingdom of Ireland were ruled separately in a personal union with the Kingdom of England (and Scotland after 1603; Great Britain after 1707) until they were legally united by the Acts of Union 1800, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland retained its own legal system, which continues today as Northern Irish Law.

The Kingdoms of England and Ireland were united with Scotland in a personal union from 1603 (Union of the crowns). England and Scotland were legally united by the Acts of Union 1707, forming the Kingdom of Great Britain. However, this union preserved institutions, customs and legal traditions peculiar to Scotland.[28] For example, the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian Church) and Scots law were preserved, while no separate church or legal system for Wales remained. England and Wales integrated, while Scotland retained many of its unique institutions and traditions.

To this day, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the majority of Ireland broke away as the Irish Free State in 1922, which later became the modern Republic of Ireland) remain separate legal jurisdictions within the UK.

There are also three Crown dependencies of the UK – the Isle of Man, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey – for which the British monarch is responsible but which have not had formal Acts of Union.