The new monarchs increasingly distanced the Count of Aranda from his gatherings. Aranda then began to “bombard” Queen María Luisa with letters to request an audience and clarify the situation of “royal misfortune” in which she found herself. The Revolution had broken out, and the European political context was complex. Aranda's letters, studied by Calvo Maturana, are full of arguments that show how the way of understanding the monarchy had changed. Aranda even goes so far as to admonish the kings as “cruel” for despising a servant of the country. Some of the letters will be reproduced to observe the drastic change that the monarchy was undergoing. «No madam, I would not be worthy of Your Majesty born to reign over all; It would not be proper to his distributive justice, that the scepter put in his hands; It would not correspond to his personal kindness to be specifically excluded from his honor […] » [] The relationship between king and kingdom was based on a fictitious contract that both parties fulfilled.
In that contract was “distributive justice.” Justice was the basis on which the system of power was articulated in the Old Regime and it was the main task of the monarch to exercise it in accordance with the fictitious contract with the community. That justice consisted of giving each person what they deserved, based on the privilege that the different hierarchies of society had. The king's advisors necessarily have to come from the political community. This is why participation acqu B2B Email List ires a sense of control, since it is the means that prevents the sovereign from becoming the sole source of power detached from any commitment to the kingdom [] . The favored of the kings, in this case still Floridablanca , constitutes a danger to the interests of the kingdom, from the moment in which its policy supports the usefulness and needs of the new monarchies embarked on a series of military and economic obligations [ ] . This is why royal patronage breaks with distributive justice and therefore with the dialogue between king and kingdom, in this case both the nobility, the church and the courts. Therefore, the advice to power, in this case the kings, must come from the people who make up the political community; the nobles, due to their virtues, are the ones who “should” be awarded with appointments.
If the natives are excluded from them [] , the kingdom is lost. Since Philip V we can see how, increasingly, monarchs are monopolizing and privatizing the exercise of power. However, with Charles IV the peak of privatization of this resource was reached, which not only corresponded to the king but also to the political community. The court will cease, slowly but inexorably, from becoming the space of power, to be reduced to its character as a Royal House, as a domestic space for sovereigns. It will gradually lose the ability to make political decisions until it only shelters the home of the royal dynasty. The way to carry it out is simple: the sovereigns emptied the old institutions of meaning, without eliminating them, where many members of the great lineages were, and channeled all their political decisions through the state secretariats. Secretaries that were occupied by a staff that met various requirements, a modest social profile and then elevated to high nobility and absolute fidelity and understanding with the head of the monarchy [] . The monarchy gradually became more bourgeois, hoarding more power and marginalizing the nobility from the exercise of political power.