Kingship was the form of government most generally favoured by medieval Europeans. Not unlike ‘democracy’ today, it connoted a whole bundle of ideals, and could mean a variety of things. We will consider first the general conception of monarchy, then the problems associated with kingship or monarchy. This will take us through the major constitutional cruxes of later medieval Europe: election against hereditary succession; rebellion and the means of deposing a tyrant; the relationship between king and law; the place of counsel, especially by wise persons, in royal decision-making; and in chapter 6 the role of parliaments, and the concept of representation.

Belief in the rightness of kingship was a deep-seated conviction seldom contested outside the Italian city-republics. The word kingship (regnum) was commonly used for one's country or state; king (rex) was connected etymologically with right rule (recte regere). Rex and so on were not merely descriptive but, again like our ‘democracy’, carried favourable undertones; and were, therefore, sharply distinguished from tyranny. In France, the Hispanic realms, England, Poland, Hungary and elsewhere the title rex was an object of respect and awe. Allegiance and obedience to one's king was a serious moral obligation. Apart from ideological reasons for this, developments in royal justice, administration and control in kingdoms such as France and England (two of the evidently most powerful states in Europe) encouraged support for a king as one who stood above the local nobility and even clergy – above faction – who could bring peace to the countryside, impose more impartial justice, and defend the realm against outside attack.