> For example, the Magna Carta was a major concession of the power of the English King to lower nobility. There are always going to be people who dream of running their own fiefdom and see democracy as at best a nuisance and at worst an active impediment.
...what? Are you seriously trying to claim that absolute monarchy is a form of democracy?
The opposite. Absolute monarchy is essentially when an individual (the monarch) has absolute power over a fiefdom. Similarly to how slave-owning plantation owners wielded near-absolute power over their plantation.
What I'm saying is that there has always been this conflict where (some) private individuals want absolute reign over others, and democracy limits this power. The Magna Carta is just one classical example of that.
The distinction between private and public is a little blurred when it comes to absolute monarchs, but the general trend is that the more absolute power a monarch has, the more they're running it essentially as a private estate. That's why lists of the wealthiest people in history often include rulers with absolute power.
Due to the conflict, the private power of monarchs has weakened. That's why, for example, in The Crown we see a monarchy that has to concern itself with public perception and the Prime Minister. But William the Conquerer essentially owned much of England.