Which Tudor monarch killed the most people?
I believe that it was HRH King Henry viii, during his later years as King he became very unpredictable and would order a person to be tried for treason for the most minor incident. They say that this was due to a Jousting accident which probably left him a little brain damaged, this was also the reason that the King gained so much weight. At his death his waist was a massive 52 inches.
What is the significance of an absolute monarchy?
The following advantages of Absolute Monarchy are:
1) As the supreme head of the country, the King/Queen is the de facto richest person in the nation, rendering bribes and other forms of monetary corruption from businesses and agencies useless. (The head of a Republic is vulnerable to this).
2) Monarchs, serving their nation for life, seek long-term goals and are less likely to make decisions for short-term benefit followed by imminent disaster, such as overspending and other irresponsible actions whose consequences, in a republic, would be the next elected official's problem. Monarchs hence are more inclined to observe the possible long-term effects that may come back to harm them later in their lifetimes before they make a decision.
3) With only one ruler and no layers of government separating the people from their ruler, there is also a reduced, if at all existent, bureaucracy that would otherwise hamper policy implementation. The moment the king issues a decree is the moment the decree comes into effect. (In a republic, the bureaucracy is generally large and therefore slugish).
4) The King/Queen has historical and noble roots in the kingdom he/she defends, and hence, is a source of great national honor,pride, patriotism, and unity, all qualities and reasons for which the people look up to the monarch for guidance, strength, faith, leadership, and protection, especially in times of crisis.
It is the monarch's success or failure in fulfilling his/her duties for which he/she will be remembered for. It is hence a Monarch's best interest to do what is best for the country to insure that he/she leaves behind a powerful legacy.
5) The most poweful incentive for Monarchs not to compromise their people's rights and status as dignified citizens is the fear of revolution.
6) Much like private businessess offer the highest possible quality services to compete against other companies, Kings and Queens, out of their nation's sense of nationalism that is their very source of pride, also compete with other countries for the strongest economy to benefit their people and gain prestige above all other nations.
To be clear, these conditions are not always met, and this response is not an endorsement of monarchy, but rather reasons pertaining to theoretical advantages that can arise only as a result of strong and competent Monarchs.
The advantages of an absolute monarchy are highly dependent on the nation-state in question. Where the national identity is is fractured a single enduring head of state can provide a focus for a sense of national consciousness and pride. Where a nation lacks a tradition of the peaceful handover of power, infrequent changes of government can provide stability. Where these advantages have been sought outside of monarchy, warlords, political strongmen and such have never been able to achieve the political legitimacy conferred on a reigning monarch.
A monarch can also assist in economic development through the suppression of official corruption. Where the citizens (or subjects) lack the power to defend property rights these same property rights can be vested in the person of the monarch. Corruption by lower officials becomes a personal crime against the monarch to which, in theory, the monarch has the power to respond. The monarch can not him or herself engage in theft since in theory everything already belongs to him or her.
The list of nations for whom the lack of civil society and stability make the only alternative to single person rule, chaos and anarchy can be readily culled from the bottom of the index of failed nations states. For these nations, which may aspire to other more representative forms of government, monarchy may provide an attractive interim solution of national governance.
More developed nations may benefit from monarchy where ethnic identity is stronger than national identity. Under these circumstances, representative forms of government have a tendency to be developed into a "spoils" system, which divides resources and power among politicians with little incentive to serve the nations as a whole. In theory, the monarch can stand above the fractions and administer the nation fairly, efficiently and move quickly to address national crises.
It should be noted that all of the advantages listed here are highly dependent on finding a single person able and willing to nurture the power of the institution of the monarchy over a significant portion of his or her lifetime. Under the best circumstances the monarch will act to legitimize his or her rule through the building of a strong civil society, strong political institutions and the management of factions through power sharing arrangements that make long tenure in office acceptable to the various fractions of the political establishment.
Dont no but here are some cons By Telal Mohamed Monarchs have a difficult job. They have to walk the fine line of being strict enough that the subjects won't throw a fit when they don't get what they want but at the same time not being too dictatorial (or else the people will rebel)- and for some monarchs, this too much to ask. They will do what they want, no matter how many toes they step on. They do this because they feel worthy and their subjects are unworthy. The worst part of that is, if your current king is not like that, his son could be. So with monarchies you're taking a big chance.power mad, that's the only down side. as long as they keep the countries best interest in sight they will always do there best and not care for money.Cons
1 - No freedom
2 - No freedom
3 - No freedom
4 - No freedom
5 - No freedom
unilateral decision-making can lead to rash decisions with undesirable consequences
Citizens' interests may not be represented
Succession is not based on a person's fitness as a leader
Change of government is typically achieved through violent and bloody means
Experts and adviser may not be given a proper chance to give honest advice about ruler's policy decisions
Who was the first Stuart king of England?
Henry II, the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet and Henry I's daughter Matilda.
How did James II anger English parliament?
Largely by existing, it seems. There was an unfortunate tendency during that era for monarchs to believe the proper role of Parliament was to do whatever the monarch told them to do and for Parliament to believe the proper role of the monarch was to pose for stamps and coins, and eventually produce an heir, and to otherwise shut up and stay out of the way.
In James' case, one problem was that the produced heir was Catholic (as was James himself, which didn't exactly make him top of the pops either).
If you want a more specific answer, you'll need to ask a more specific question.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the job of a princess is meerly to await her place on the throne. The royalty has the job of finalising many big decisions for the country such as new laws, or the removal of old ones. But, I suppose a princess could also have jobs in shoe stores if they wanted. :p.
Who were the parents of bloody Mary?
Mary I, sometimes known as Bloody Mary, was Queen of England from 1556 to 1558. She was the daughter of King Henry VIII and his first wife Catherine of Aragon. The divorce of Henry and Catherine is what caused England to create the Church of England.
Why is Princess Anne farther away in line to the throne than Prince Andrew's girls?
The succession to the United Kingdom follows the male primogeniture process. This process is: 1. Eldest son of the sovereign followed by his son or if no son then his eldest daughter and successively younger daughters 2. Second and successively younger sons of the sovereigns, their sons or daughters. 3. If no sons of the sovereign, then the sovereign's eldest daughter and her sons or daughters.
How do kings get power of monarchy?
they usually get it by birth or by being married into the "royal family"
Did John Wesley have any children with Mary Vazeille?
No. Mary was a widow past childbearing age when she married John Wesley. Mary had four children from a previous marriage (to Mr. Vazeille). John Wesley is not known to ever have had any children.
Which country and city has the oldest surviving monarchy?
The oldest Monarchy in the world is probably the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which goes back many centuries, the Spanish monarchy and the Kingdoms of Thailand and Brunei also go back some time with the Sultan of Brunei being probably the richest living Monarch around today!
What did Charles I of England do?
Charles was born in Dunfermline, the son of James I and Anne of Denmark, was born in 1600. He was made the Duke of York at the age of five and the Prince of Wales in 1616.
When James I died in 1625, his son Charles became king. Later that year, Charles married Henrietta Maria, the fifteen-year-old daughter of Henri IV of France. As Henrietta Maria was a Roman Catholic, this marriage was not very popular with the English people. The Puritans were particularly unhappy when they heard that the king had promised that Henrietta Maria would be allowed to practise her religion freely and would have the responsibility for the upbringing of their children until they reached the age of 13.
The couple had six children, Charles (1630-1685), Mary (1631-1660), James (1633-1701), Elizabeth (1635-1680), Henry (1640-1660) and Henrietta (1644-1670).
At this time King Louis XIII was involved in a civil war against the Protestants (Huguenots) in France. Parliament wanted to help the Huguenots but Charles refused as he did not want to upset his wife or brother-in-law. Eventually it was agreed to send a fleet of eight ships to France. However, at the last moment Charles sent orders that the men should fight for, rather than against, Louis XIII. The captains and crews refused to accept these orders and fought against the French.
Parliament was very angry with Charles for supporting Louis XIII. When he asked for taxes of £1,000,000 they only gave him £150,000. They also asked Charles to sack his chief minister, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, as they thought he was guilty of giving the king bad advice. Charles refused and instead dissolved Parliament.
Charles now had a problem. He was very short of money, but under the terms of the Magna Carta taxes could not be imposed without the agreement of Parliament. Charles tried raising money in other ways. For example, he gave orders for Spanish treasure-ships coming from South America to be robbed.
This venture was not very successful, and in 1626 he was forced to summon his second Parliament. The Members of Parliament were still unwilling to grant the taxes Charles wanted. Instead they complained about the illegal methods that Charles had been using to raise money. Parliament also demanded a meeting with the king's ministers. Charles refused, declaring that Parliament had no right to question his ministers. Once again he dissolved Parliament and imprisoned critics such as Sir John Eliot.
In 1635 the king faced a financial crisis. Unwilling to summon another Parliament, he had to find other ways of raising money. He decided to resort to the ancient custom of demanding Ship Money. In the past, whenever there were fears of a foreign invasion, kings were able to order coastal towns to provide ships or the money to build ships.
Charles sent out letters to sheriffs reminding them about the possibility of an invasion and instructing them to collect Ship Money. Encouraged by the large contributions he received, Charles demanded more the following year. Whereas in the past Ship Money had been raised only when the kingdom had been threatened by war, it now became clear that Charles intended to ask for it every year. Several sheriffs wrote to the king complaining that their counties were being asked to pay too much. Their appeals were rejected and the sheriff's now faced the difficult task of collecting money from a population overburdened by taxation.
In 1637 John Hampden was prosecuted for refusing to pay the Ship Money on his lands in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. He appeared before the Court Exchequer and although he was found guilty, the publicity surrounding the case made him one of the most popular men in England.
Charles found other ways of raising money. Another scheme involved selling monopoly rights to businessmen. This meant that only one person had the right to distribute certain goods such as bricks, salt and soap. This policy was unpopular as it tended to increase the price of these goods.
In an attempt to improve his popularity with Parliament, Charles sent some soldiers to help the Huguenots in France. However, when he called his third Parliament, they still refused to grant him the taxes that he wanted. The king sent a message for Parliament to be dissolved. The Speaker (chairman) tried to close proceedings but a small group of MPs stopped him by holding him down. The doors were locked to keep the king out and the MPs continued with their debate. Charles was so angry when he found out what had happened that he had the MPs involved sent to prison.
In the first five years of his reign Charles summoned and dissolved Parliament three times. Charles now tried to rule England without Parliament. For the next eleven years no Parliaments were held.
The king's main adviser was William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud argued that the king ruled by Divine Right. He claimed that the king had been appointed by God and people who disagreed with him were bad Christians. Laud believed that Church reforms had gone too far. Anglicans tended to support the policies of Laud but the Puritans strongly disagreed with him. When Laud gave instructions that the wooden communion tables in churches should be replaced by stone altars. Puritans accused Laud of trying to reintroduce Catholicism.
Laud also upset the Presbyterians in Scotland when he insisted they had to use the English Prayer Book. Scottish Presbyterians were furious and made it clear they were willing to fight to protect their religion. In 1639 the Scottish army marched on England. Charles, unable to raise a strong army, was forced to agree not to interfere with religion in Scotland. Charles also agreed to pay the Scottish war expenses.
Charles did not have the money to pay the Scots and so he had to ask Parliament for help. The Parliament summoned in 1640 lasted for twenty years and is therefore usually known as The Long Parliament. This time Parliament was determined to restrict the powers of the king.
The king's two senior advisers, William Laud and Thomas Wentworth were arrested and sent to the Tower of London. Charged with treason, Wentworth's trial opened on 22nd March, 1641. The case could not be proved and so his enemies in the House of Commons, led by John Pym, Arthur Haselrig and Henry Vane, resorted to a Bill of Attainder. Charles I gave his consent to the Bill of Attainder and Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was executed on 12th May 1641.
Parliament then passed a law that gave members control over the king's ministers. Charles I was furious and decided it was time to retaliate. On 4 January 1642, Charles sent his soldiers to arrest Arthur Haselrig, John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles and William Strode. The five men managed to escape before the soldiers arrived. Members of Parliament no longer felt safe from Charles and decided to form their own army. After failing to arrest the Five Members, Charles fled from London. Aware that Civil War was inevitable, Charles began to form an army.
Religion was an important factor in deciding which side people supported. The king's persecution of Puritans meant that most members of this religious group supported Parliament, whereas most Anglicans and Catholics tended to favour the royalists. Large landowners often persuaded their workers to join their army. Landowners living in the north and south-west of England and Wales tended to side with the king, whereas people living in London and the counties in the south-east of England mainly supported Parliament.
On 22nd August, 1642, the royal standard was raised at Nottingham. This started three years of bitter fighting. The war effectively came to an end with the defeat of the Royalist forces at Naseby. The battle was a disaster for Charles. About 1,000 of his men were killed and another 4,500 of his most experienced troops were taken prisoner. After Naseby, Charles was never able to raise another army strong enough to defeat the parliamentary army in a major battle.
Charles continued to rally support from his base in Oxford. In January 1647, Charles fled to Scotland where he was captured and handed over to the parliamentary army. Charles was imprisoned in Hampton Court, but in November 1647 he escaped and managed to raise another army.
This time Charles was able to persuade the Scots to fight on his side. In August 1648 Cromwell's parliamentary army defeated the Scots and once again Charles was taken prisoner.
In January 1649, Parliament decided to charge Charles I with "waging war on Parliament." It was claimed that he was responsible for "all the murders, burnings, damages and mischiefs to the nation" in the Civil War.
The jury included members of Parliament, army officers and large landowners. Some of the 135 people chosen as jurors did not turn up for the trial. For example. General Thomas Fairfax, the leader of the Parliamentary Army, did not appear. When his name was called, a masked lady believed to be his wife, shouted out, " He has more wit than to be here."
This was the first time in English history that a king had been put on trial. Charles believed that he was God's representative on earth and therefore no court of law had any right to pass judgment on him. Charles therefore refused to defend himself against the charges put forward by Parliament.
Charles pointed out that in December 1648, the army had expelled several members of' Parliament. Therefore, Charles argued, Parliament had no legal authority to arrange his trial. The arguments about the courts legal authority to try Charles went on for several days. Eventually, on 27 January, Charles was given his last opportunity to defend himself against the charges. When he refused he was sentenced to death. His death warrant was signed by the fifty-nine jurors who were in attendance.
On the 30 January, Charles was taken to a scaffold built outside Whitehall Palace. Charles wore two shirts as he was worried that if he shivered in the cold people would think he was afraid of dying. Troopers on horseback kept the crowds some distance from the scaffold, and it is unlikely that many people heard the speech that he made just before his head was cut off with an axe.
Who were King Edward VII's children?
King Edward the VII had 6 children. 3 Sons and 3 Daughters. Albert Victor Christian Edward, known to the family as Eddy was born in 1864, He was followed by a second son, George Frederick Ernest Albert, in 1865. Louise, born in 1867, Victoria in 1868, and Maud, later to become Queen of Norway, in 1869. A sixth and last child, Alexander John, died at an early age.
Who is the leader of monarchy?
The head of state in a constitutional monarchy is the MONARCH, who may take a title of "King", "Queen", "Prince", "Princess", "Sultan", "Emperor", "Caliph", "Maharaja", or "Emir". The head of government, however, depends on the style of government established to curtail the Monarch's power. Usually it will be a PRIME MINISTER or similar person with a different title (e.g. CHANCELLOR) who represents an elected parliament, but it can be a leading oligarch or aristocrat.
What is the person second in command to a king called?
The King's elder son, the Prince of Wales - or if he is under-age, a temporary Prince Regent who is usually an uncle.
Who were King Richard's children?
It is only with the Peasants' Revolt that Richard starts to emerge clearly in the annals.[20] One of his first significant acts after the rebellion was to marry Anne of Bohemia, daughter of Charles IV, King of Bohemia, Holy Roman Emperor and Elisabeth of Pomerania, on 20 January 1382.[21] The marriage had diplomatic significance; in the division of Europe caused by the Great Schism, Bohemia and the Empire were seen as potential allies against France in the ongoing Hundred Years' War.[c] However, the marriage was not popular in England. Despite great sums of money awarded to the Empire, the political alliance never resulted in any military victories.[22] The marriage was childless, and Anne died in 1394.[23]
Michael de la Pole had been instrumental in the marriage negotiations;[4] he had the king's confidence, and gradually became more involved at court and in government as Richard came of age.[24] De la Pole came from an upstart merchant family.[25] When Richard made him chancellor in 1383, and created him Earl of Suffolk two years later, this antagonised the more established nobility.[26] Another member of the close circle around the king was Robert de Vere, Earl of Oxford (Aubrey de Vere's nephew), who in this period emerged as the king's favourite. De Vere's lineage, while an ancient one, was relatively modest in the peerage of England.[27] Richard's close friendship to de Vere was also disagreeable to the political establishment. This displeasure was exacerbated by the earl's elevation to the new title of Duke of Ireland in 1386.[28] The chronicler Thomas Walsingham suggested the relationship between the king and de Vere was of a homosexual nature.[29]
Tensions came to a head over the approach to the war in France. While the court party preferred negotiations, Gaunt and Buckingham urged a large-scale campaign to protect English possessions.[4] Instead, a so-called crusade led by Henry le Despenser, bishop of Norwich was dispatched, which failed miserably.[4] Faced with failure on the continent, Richard instead turned his attention towards France's ally, Scotland. In 1385, the king himself led a punitive expedition to the north,[30] but the effort came to nothing, and the army had to return without ever engaging the Scots in battle.[31] Meanwhile, only an uprising in Ghent prevented a French invasion of southern England.[32] The relationship between Richard and his uncle deteriorated further with military failure, and among rumours of a plot against his person, John of Gaunt left England to pursue his claim to the throne of Castille in 1386.[4] With Gaunt gone, the unofficial leadership of the growing dissent against the king and his courtiers passed to Buckingham - who had by now been created duke of Gloucester - and Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel.[4]
This writing has been taken from Wikipedia-en
Altough the history stated that he had no children, who knows ? He could have had children anyway.
Who is the present crown prince of England?
There has not been a Queen (or King) of England for over 300 years. England is a part of, but not the same as, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some European countries, notably in Scandinavia, use the title "Crown Prince" for the male heir to the throne, but this title is not used in The United Kingdom. The heir to the British Throne is His Royal Highness The Prince Charles and in this capacity he is referred to as the heir apparent.
King Charles 1st had some enemies in the House of Commons. And he also had some problems with The Parliament as he did not listen to them. "I don't like the parliament telling me what to do but I'll try my best to listen to them and work with them, I think that only God can tell me what t do. I call this the Divine Right of Kings 'meaning he was chosen by God. Made by E.l.a. s.u.s.8
How did Richard get the name of Richard the lion heart?
His courage and military prowess, even before he became king, was famous, earning him the nickname of Cœur de Lion (Lion's heart). By the young age of 16 he was already commanding troops in France, putting down rebellions, and he led the Third Crusade (after Philip II of France returned to his kingdom), scoring valuable victories over Saladin, including ending the Siege of Acre.
RICHARD IS A CHEAT THE ONLY REASON HE BEAT SALADIN IS BECAUSE SALADIN ALREADY FOUGHT IN TWO CRUSADES
What is the advantage of monarchy?
There are different types of monarchy, and they have different positive and negative attributes. However, there are some central advantages that all monarchies possess.
An absolute monarchy, such as that in the current Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Kingdom of France (up until 1789), is where the sovereign has absolute power to make law and to govern; it has the potential to provide a great degree of stability and continuity of policy. Usually unrestrained by public scrutiny of its actions, an absolute monarch can react quickly to events. These countries have a large potential for falling into authoritarianism and can easily be insulated from public opinion. The large amount of power put into the hands of the monarch makes it more likely that a weak monarch will be ousted in favour of a rival.
A strong constitutional monarchy, such as the current Principality of Liechtenstein or the Kingdom of England between 1689 and 1701, when it was merged with Scotland and Wales to then become the United Kingdom, and then in the United Kingdom after 1701 to the mid-1830's, is where the sovereign plays an active role in making policy, but appoints a head of government (usually known as a prime minister nowadays) from the legislature to make policy as well as govern. Provided the legislature is representative of the country, this tends to provide a great deal of stability along with laws formed around public opinion, but the more interference from the monarch, the more likely it will become either a weak constitutional monarchy or a limited monarchy.
He died of a coronary thrombosis in 1952 having suffered from lung cancer.
How many children did King Charles I of England have?
Prince Charles has two sons. His first Prince William Arthur Phillip Louis was born in July of 1982 and his second son Henry Charles Albert David was born September 15, 1984. There are rumors that he had another son in between William and Harry born to a Canadian woman he was having an affair with, but there is no proof that he is Charles son.
What nickname was given to Mary Tudor queen of England from 1583-1588?
Mary Tudors nickname was given to her at the time when she was ruling and was recordeed in history by various people. The rumor comes from people thinking that if you said bloody marys name then she would execute you.
Hope this helped :)