Royalism Vs Hobbes

Such a caveat, indeed promoted aspects of liberalism as it denied the unconditional absolutism of monarchy that had been driven in much of Europe and certainly did not accept that divine monarchy, pushed by the royalists at the time was a legitimate system. Leviathan suggested an uneasy alliance of liberalism and totalitarianism for the securing of peace and stability, which Hobbes saw as the principle condition of freedom and liberty. Hobbes, moved away from royalist thought in other ways as well. While royalists believed that the people should give their absolutely loyalty to a system of sovereignty based on dynasty and primogeniture, Leviathan rejected such principles. Instead, whatever form of absolutely power could provide peace was the best suited solution, whether that be a protector such as Cromwell or a sovereign like Charles II, there was nothing intrinsically good or valuable about Charles II’s family or dynasty that made him fit to rule in Hobbes view. Similarly, if the sovereign had been defeated and replaced then the citizens loyalty should be duly transferred to the new conquering leviathan, such was the case in 1650 with the royalists looking for ideological justification for the return of Charles II. This is where the idea of Leviathan supporting despotic totalitarianism or duty to a line of kings totally falls apart.

For Hobbes, the only reasonable cause for loyalty to the central power was on the tenet that in exchange your life and security would be safeguarded; however, if the central power were to abuse this relationship, the citizen should revolt at once, as Hobbes claims in this