Generally, throughout history, the king depended on the nobles, and the nobles depended on the king. Nevertheless, there was always a struggle going on as to who had what power and authority. In some countries, the king was definitely stronger, and the central government was strong. In others, such as the Holy Roman Empire, the central government was very weak, and the emperor had little power to command.
The situation changed with time. In France, the power of the king gradually increased, but in the Holy Roman Empire, it did not. In much of Europe, both king and nobles lost some measure of power to the middle class as time passed. The ideal king was a person who understood the nobles, their strengths and weakness, and also what they wanted, and was able to work with them.
ov corse : )
Comitatus
There both fighters
This is a rough description of the "feudal" relationship between the King and lesser nobles.
The king could decide to go to war, while the nobles could not.
Equality.
Nobles were able to choose a new king, while commoners were not.
Yes
Charlemagne maintained a complex relationship with the nobles. He relied on them for support and governance of his vast empire, but also closely monitored their loyalty and enacted policies to limit their power. He sought to centralize authority and ensure their allegiance to him as the sovereign ruler.
The medieval nobles were the richest people during their time. The renaissance nobles were a step down from royalty. They helped to protect the king and in return land was given to them.
the king to govern according to established rules of law
"Comitatus" is what i found in an article. :/ Good Luck with SOS.