2 ms·
I don't know enough about UK history, but was the king also expected to provide for the people? In that case, I would argue that my power dynamic argument still
by daenz 6y ago
I don't know enough about UK history, but was the king also expected to provide for the people? In that case, I would argue that my power dynamic argument still applies. In other words, a king that provides is seen as having more legitimacy to the people over one that doesn't, and so their decisions are more willingly accepted.
- pmyteh 6y agoArguably they were expected to provide security against external threats, but otherwise no: any social services were the responsibility of the parish in the early history of England. National poor relief laws date to the late 16th Century, but the responsibility falls locally, not from the King. This doesn't really begin to change until the early 20th Century, with the national provision of old-age pensions. Most of the sense of the national government as directly providing for the people comes post-World War 2, not before.