Shortly, sovereignty stands for political autonomy to rule, which implies that it can be used in different forms. Feudalism and popular sovereignty exercise sovereignty in two different ways (how the power is distributed).

Popular sovereignty is based on the consent of the people, who participate in forming the government, electing their representatives, and maintaining that government. Figuratively speaking, those who govern and have all political power ( for example political representatives and political parties ) are actually the servants of the people, as their power should be used in accordance with and for the will of the people.

In contrast, feudalism is a chaos “baby” thanks to the failure of centralized governments in the past. This led to the creation of a loosely organized system that based on powerful lords who owned large chunks of land which were then divided up among other less powerful lords. Those who owned land held power because the economic units in this system were pieces of land, also called lords manors. Lords traded the protection of peasants in return for their loyalty and services such as harvesting and soldiering. A feudal chain between the lord and his vassals (peasants, slaves etc.) and a lesser lord who pleaded loyalty to the ranking lord (sometimes called a monarch). They controlled the people through harsh forms of justice, strength, and violence. The people lived a harsh life compared to system of popular sovereignty.

Both concepts are *based on sovereignty*. Feudalism is a lot different compared to popular sovereignty *in the way power is exercised*. **Popular sovereignty** is ***for the people***, **feudalism** is the opposite of that, it is ***for the rulers***. Considering that women and “regular” people had no voice in feudalism, it is different in popular sovereignty. Sovereign power is used in a different manner.

**The black plague practically precipitated commercial revolution**. It was a *catalyst* of the commercial revolution because it preceded the revolution. The Black Plague accelerated the revolution in Europe by indirectly weakening the power of the conservative system of feudalism, whose lords didn’t strive nor seek change because the system worked in their favor.

The Black Plague wiped out a third of the population of Western Europe *which led to a shortage of labor*, which in turn increased the demand for labor because the same amount of labor was still required to maintain and keep the feudal system functioning. This led to better conditions and higher wages for people. The black plague gave the feudal lords no choice but to adapt to the situation as they still relied on human labor.

In conclusion, the black plague did not destroy the feudal system, but *the effects it had and the situation it created destroyed it*. The effect of the black plague turned the tables, the economy was geared towards money and trade rather than the land. This went in favor of the people, for example, made merchants and craftsmen more powerful.

Without the occurrence of the Black Plague, *feudalism would continue*, *the class division in Europe would seemingly “never end”*, and the world would move closer to the idea of giving one man enough power to kill a million, which was the motto of feudalism, to put it simply.

As the revolution of mankind has slowly unfolded through the centuries, so did *peoples’ viewpoints*. This is one of the main reasons for the development of the Enlightenment, to add a new way of thinking that was based more on intellectual and individual progress. Of course, *new scientific discoveries* played a positive role in the movement as they literally allowed more and added to something that just wasn’t there before.

People like: *Thomas Hobbes*, who stated that people and rulers should be based on vice-versa rights and power relationships between each other, *John Locke*, who made known the natural rights of all human beings, *Francois Arouet*, who promoted religious freedom, noted how crucial scientific observation is, and the idea that everyone has so much progress ahead of them, as a whole. There are other notable ideas such as the separation of powers of government into a system of branches that control each other. *William Blackstone* pointed out the belief in *”common law”* where all legal decisions are supposed to be based on the similar ones made in the past.

All of this together led to people gaining more mental freedom by realizing that rulers do not necessarily have to be God-sent, that *power should reside in the people*, and that people grant rulers the power to rule. People began to turn to *secular thinking* and all of this led to the idea that government should be governed by the consent of the governed so those who rule can be held accountable for their actions. People were enlightened and since then almost all governments have addressed popular sovereignty.

The relationship between church and monarchs was power-based, dating back to late Roman Empire, when Christianity became the official religion of Roman Empire, or we can say Europe. Even after the empire had disappeared, *the Church managed to convert rulers to Christianity*.

The Catholic Church declared that *disobedience to the king was a sin*, and in return the monarchs promoted and embraced the faith of the Church. There was a widespread belief that the Church supports a God-given authority of the monarch. The divine rights of kings was basis of a right for monarchs to rule because God has given it authority. On the other hand, the sovereignty of monarchs had to be in harmony with the Church, or in other words God.

Monarchism is a *monarchical system* of rule in which all political power emanates from *one individual who rules*, a monarch. Conquering parts of the world that provide resources and free (slave) labor is a much easier and of a simpler realization with one individual who has absolute power and wants to exploit foreign territories. Monarchies had complete control over the territory of another foreign state, a colony.

As a result, a monarchy that acts colonially and creates its own colonies will *compete against other* powerful monarchies in order to claim colonies and *reap as much of the “fruits”* that a monarchy can get from a single colony. This has led to colonialism spreading around the world. With the rise of global trade and the wealth of the monarchies due to the resources extracted from the colonies, the monarchies introduced **mercantilism**. A system whose purpose was to protect prices so that the monarchies, rather than the merchants, could take full advantage.