Monarchy

He served in the Royal Navy, was Emperor of India, was king during WWI, was the only British monarch to go to a Royal Durbar in Delhi, actually petitioned for better living conditions in India, and actually held some power in the government.

i should hope not

king geroge went crazy because when he was having kids and his and His's wife Dena mixed it made him go buzrk that how he went crazy

King Ferdinand funded Christopher Columbus to explore. King Henry VII funded John Cabot.

The advantages would be that the King can do whatever he want's. All of the advantages are for the king, not really for the people.

Not since l587 when Mary, Queen of Scots was executed. James I, her son, was King of England- actually the United Kingdom, after Elizabeth died in l603.

There have been 13 year old princes in the history of mankind. There have actually been quite a few of these young members of royalty.

Prince William is 29 so 29

Bloody Mary was the daughter of King Henry VIII and a murderous queen of Great Britain. Mother Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ and is considered by many Christians, especially Catholics, to be the Queen of Heaven.

When Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council exercises its judicial functions (through the Judicial Committee), Law Lords may make statements that are not technically a part of the decision, but are nonetheless relevant to establish the context of the decision or to explain an area of law. Such comments that are not part of the decision are obiter dictum.

No, Edward VIII (1894 - 1972) did not have any children. After abdicating in December 1936, he married Wallis Warfield Simpson, an American divorcee in 1937. He was given the title the Duke of Windsor.

Henry IV was into a lot of war on religion and philip was always with what he believed and did't change or have a war over it.

John Rogers, a man who had tried to make prints of the bible

No, Bloody Mary is not real and is simply a folklore legend.

tennis, bald haircuts and swearing however he did often use the word sh#t!

King William III ruled England starting in 1689. He died in 1702 and was replaced on the Throne of England by his son John William Friso, or William IV.

The parents of Queen Elizabeth II were King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (formerly Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon). When the King passed away, his daughter succeeded to the throne and became Elizabeth II in 1952. Her mother then stepped aside and became the Queen Mother. (Elizabeth I reigned in the 17th Century - The Queen Mother was NOT Elizabeth I.)

YES. While most Asian countries are no longer monarchies, some Asian countries still have kings or queens, like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Thailand, and Cambodia. Others have hereditary sovereigns (monarchs) who are not specifically called "kings" or "queens". For example, Brunei and Oman are both Sultanates and Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE are all Emirates, but all five are ruled by people who are effectively kings, even though the title will be "sultan" or "emir".

Additionally, in India, there are the Maharaja, who are the descendants of the former kings of the various independent regions of India. However, while the Maharaja keep their titles, they have very little if any political power or governmental role.

If you meant in England, quite possibly so. Elsewhere, there have been a number of boys younger than Edward VI who ascended to the throne. Theodosius II for example was only 7 when he became Emperor of the Byzantine Empire and Valentinian II became the Roman Emperor at only 4 years old. More surprisingly, Shapur II, a Persian emperor may have been the youngest of them all since he was 'crowned' king while still in his mother's womb (his father and eldest brother were killed and his second and third brothers were injured and sent into exile).

There were no Queens in English history called Anna, however there was 1 Queen Anne

the desserts that the kings and queens mostly ate were, juicy jam tarts and fruit that are in season.

It means that something seated deeply within a person makes them incapable of taking such and such an action. A belief or strongly held principle prohibits action. "Charles I of England was constitutionally incapable [because of his fervent, ingrained belief in the Divine Right of monarchs to rule] of being a constitutional monarch."

she doesnt haunt us we sorta summon her for the truth on life, life or death

The underlying assumption of this question, which is that constitutional monarchies are considered democracies by dint of being constitutional monarchies, is false. "Constitutional Monarchy" simply means that the power of the monarch (king) is limited by a constitution. This constitution can be enforced by some kind of oligarchy, aristocracy, or the common gentry. If the constitution is enforced by an oligarchy or aristocracy, the resulting state is not a democracy, whereas if it is enforced by the common gentry, it is democratic.

Now, since almost all current constitutional monarchies are of this latter variety (monarchies with a constitution enforced by common people), people generally drop the intermediate step of separating non-democratic constitutional monarchies from democratic constitutional monarchies and refer to constitutional monarchies as a form of democracy.

to make a tint