Monarchy

yes

In case you didn't know, ray is NOT dead!

starting from India(Hindusthan), he extended his Kingdom towards arabia(arvasthan or arabsthan), after conquering Afghanistan, Baluchisthan, Hedjah, ....West asia,

For your reference...please read...

Another question which should have presented itself to historians for consideration is how could it be that Indian empires could extend in the east as far as Korea and Japan, while not being able to make headway beyond Afghanisthan? In fact land campaigns are much easier to conduct than by sea. It was the Indians who ruled the entire West Asian region from Karachi to Hedjaz and who gave Sanskrit names to those lands and the towns therein, introduce their pantheon of the fire-worship, imparted education and established law and order.

It may be that Arabia itself was not part of the Indian empire until king Vikrama , since Bintoi says that it was king Vikrama who for the first time brought about a radical change in the social, cultural and political life of Arabia. It may be that the whole of West Asia except Arabia was under Indian rule before Vikrama. The latter added Arabia too to the Indian Empire. Or as a remote possibility it could be that king Vikramaditya himself conducted a series of brilliant campaigns annexing to his empire the vast region between Afghanisthan and Hedjaz.

Incidentally this also explains why king Vikramaditya is so famous in history. Apart from the nobility and truthfulness of heart and his impartial filial affection for all his subjects, whether Indian or Arab, as testified by Bintoi, king Vikramaditya has been permanently enshrined in the pages of history because he was the world's greatest ruler having the largest empire. It should be remembered that only a monarch with a vast empire gets famous in world history. Vikram Samvat (calendar still widely in use in India today) which he initiated over 2000 years ago may well mark his victory over Arabia, and the so called Kutub Minar (Kutub Tower in Delhi), a pillar commemorating that victory and the consequential marriage with the Vaihika (Balkh) princess as testified by the nearby iron pillar inscription.

A great many puzzles of ancient world history get automatically solved by a proper understanding of these great conquests of king Vikramaditya. As recorded by the Arab poet Bintoi, Indian scholars, preachers and social workers spread the fire-worship ceremony, preached the Vedic way of life, manned schools, set up Ayurvedic (healing) centres, trained the local people in irrigation and agriculture and established in those regions a democratic, orderly, peaceful, enlightened and religious way of life. That was of course, a Vedic Hindu way of life.

God made man & man made religions...

For all (Including) who does not know what "hinduism" is first "Hinduism" is not a religion..

The definition of the word 'Hindu'

'Hindutva' was defined as :-

।। आिसंधूिसंधूपय􀁛ता यःय भारतभूिमका ।।

।। 􀇒पतृ भूःपु􀃖यभूयै􀆱ैव स वै 􀇑हंद􀇐रितःमृतःु ।।

'Everyone who regards and claims this Bharatbhoomi from, the Indus to the Seas as his Fatherland and Holyland is a Hindu. Here I must point out that it is rather loose to say that any person professing any religion of Indian origin is a Hindu. Because that is only one aspect of Hindutva. The second and equally essential constituent of the concept of Hindutva cannot be ignored if we want to save the definition from getting overlapping and unreal. It is not enough that a person should profess any religion of Indian origin, i.e., Hindusthan as his

पु􀃖यभू his Holyland, but he must also recognise it as his 􀇒पतृ भू too, his Fatherland as well. As this is no place for going into the whole discussion of the pros and cons of the question, all I can do here is to refer to my book 'Hindutva' in which I have set forth all arguments and expounded the proposition at great length. I shall content myself at present by stating that Hindudom is bound and marked out as a

people and a nation by themselves not by the only tie of a common Holyland in which their religion took birth but by the ties of a common culture, a common language, a common history and essentially of a common fatherland as well. It is these two constituents taken together that constitute our Hindutva and distinguish us form any other people in the world. That is why the Japanese and the Chinese, for example, do not and cannot regard themselves as fully identified with the Hindus. Both of them regard our Hindusthan as their Holyland, the land which was the cradle of their religion, but they do not and cannot look upon Hindusthan as their fatherland too. They are our co-religionists; but are not and cannot be our countrymen too. We Hindus are not only co-religionists, but even countrymen of each other. The Japanese and the Chinese have a different ancestry, language, culture, history and country of their own, which are not so integrally bound up with us as to constitute a common national life. In a religious assembly of the Hindus, in any Hindu Dharma-Mahasabha they can join with us as our brothers-in-faith having a common Holyland. But they will not and cannot take a common part or have a common interest in a Hindu Mahasabha which unites Hindus together and represent their national life. A definition must in the main respond to reality. Just as by the first constituent of Hindutva, the possession if a common Holyland-the Indian Mahommedans, Jews, Christians, Parsees, etc. are excluded from claiming themselves as Hindus which in reality also they do not,-in spite of their recognising Hindusthan as their fatherland, so also on the other hand the second constituent of the definition that of possessing a common fatherland exclude the Japanese, the Chinese and others from the Hindu fold in spite of the fact of their having a Holyland in common with us. The above definition had already been adopted by number of prominent Hindu-sabhas such as the Nagpur, Poona, Ratnagiri Hindu-sabhas, and others. The Hindu Mahasabha also had in view this very definition when the word Hindu was rather loosely explained in its present constitution as ' one who profess any religion of Indian origin.' I submit that the time has come when we should be more accurate and replace that partial description by regular definition and incorporate in the constitution the full verse itself translating it in the precise terms as rendered above.

Avoid the loose and hamful misuse

of the word 'Hindu'

From this correct definition of Hindutva it necessarily follows that we should take all possible care to restrict the use of the word 'Hindu' to its defined and definite general meaning only and avoid misusing it in any sectarian sense. In common parlance even our esteemed leaders and writers who on the one hand are very particular in emphasizing that our non-Vedic religious schools are also included in the common Hindu brotherhood, commit on the other hand, the serious mistake if using such expressions as 'Hindus and Sikhs', 'Hindus and Jains' denoting thereby unconsciously that the Vaidiks or the Sanatanists only are Hindus and thus quite unawares inculcate the deadly virus of separation in the minds of the different coustituents of our religious brotherhood, defeating our own eager desire to consolidate them all into a harmonious and organic whole. Confusion in words leads to confusion in thoughts. If we take good care not to identify the term ' Hindu ' with the major Vedic section of our people alone, our non-Vedic brethren such as the Sikhs, the Jains and others will find no just reason to resent the application of the word ' Hindu ' in their case also. Those who hold to the opinion that Sikhis, Jainism and such other religion that go to form our Hindu brotherhood are neither the branches of nor originated from the Vedas but are independent religions by themselves need not cherish any fear or suspicion of losing their independence as a religious school by being called Hindus if that application is rightly used only to denote all those who won India, this Bharatbhoomi, as their Holyland and fatherland. Whenever we want to discriminate the constituents of Hindudom as a whole we should designate them as 'Vaidiks and Sikhs', 'Vaidiks and Jains' etc. But to say 'Hindus and Sikhs', 'Hindus and Jains' is as self-contradictory and misleading as to say 'Hindus and Brahmins' or 'Jains and Digambers' or 'Sikhs and Akalees.' Such a harmful misuse of the word Hindu should be carefully avoided especially in the speeches, resolutions and records of our Hindu Mahasabha.

The word 'Hindu' is of Vaidic origin.

===========

He ruled:-

India, Iran, Afghanistan, oman, UAE, saudi arabia, uzbekistan, pakistan, china, north korea, south korea, some of russia, it can be seen here :-

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_tugjD0mUn6M/TTVD7ADSdPI/AAAAAAAAC9Q/7goq8MihRKw/s320/vikramaditya.jpg

Edict of Nantes

no Charles spaniels don't but springer spaniels help police out and sniff out drugs

It depends on your opinion of what makes a successful monarch.

Though longevity shouldn't be apart of it. Contrary to popular belief Queen Mary I 'Bloody Mary' had around 280 executed, a rather small figure compared with what many people assume to be in the thousands. A figure on a par with her half-siblings Elizabeth and Edward, and dwarfed by her father who had many tens of thousands executed.

In a religious sense Mary and Edward are the most definable, Edward was a committed evangelical protestant whilst Mary was a strict Roman Catholic. Mary had the difficult task of restoring a protestant country to Catholicism, and again contrary to popular belief she had plenty of support among the people.

Without a doubt Elizabeth was the best Tudor monarch, though had you only judged her first 5 years you wouldn't have thought so. Though both Mary and Edward would be judged differently had they reigned for longer.

Henry VIII was the worst Tudor monarch, i'll go further and say that Henry VIII was the worst tyrant (monarch or otherwise) England ever had. He killed people for the smallest of things, he killed his friends and his wives, and he would have killed his daughter Mary, had she not unwillingly signed an oath recognising Henry as head of the church, and her own illegitimacy. All in all, Mary's live was saved from both Henry and Edward because they both feared her cousin - the Holy Roman Emperor.

Henry presided over the English reformation, the dissolution or 'suppression' of the monasteries and the looting of the churches. Research the Pilgrims of Grace - the pilgrims who were loyal to their King who were branded rebels for wanting their monasteries back. Henry had the wives and children of these pilgrims killed, as well as the pilgrims them selves - thousands died.

I rate the disputed Queen Jane above Mary and Edward as she was an unfortunate pawn, and committed no wrongs in her 9 days as Queen

Worst (to best) Tudor Monarchs:

#1- Henry VIII

#3 - Edward and Mary

#4 - Jane

#5 - Elizabeth

No more than likely he did not. He may have loved her (or thought he did) and he even may have had fun with her in bed, but more than likely he did not want to marry her. For one she was already married when they started their affair. The second she was not exactly a good choice for Queen. She had been around while she was at the French court sleeping around with lots of men Francois I called her a weirdo and more infamous than anybody.

No, not unless there was a complete overthrow of the government and then it wouldn't be a monarchy but a dictatorship.

Mark Jester Casimero's uncle...

Some famous leaders include Louis XIV of France, Peter the Great of Russia, Ivan the Terrible of Russia, and Frederick William I of Prussia. They controlled the nobility and they transformed their armies from an absolute monarchy.

Mary Rockwell Hook died on 1978-09-08.

in some countries, like france, there were republics the head of state being the president. Others however moved into a transitional semi-democracy or constitutional democracy, where only wealthy male landowners could vote, like england, but almost all became democracies eventually. But the next form of autocratic government were totalitarian dictatorships, such as Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia

The British succession from Henry VIII to the present involves several significant changes. After Henry VIII, his son Edward VI took the throne, followed by Mary I, and then Elizabeth I. James VI of Scotland became James I of England, establishing the Stuart dynasty. Later, William and Mary jointly ruled, followed by the Hanoverians, of which Queen Victoria was a prominent figure. The current monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, ascended to the throne in 1952.

Thomas Cranmer

in 1905 the majority voted for monarchy after the separation from Sweden

Mary Tuthill Lindheim died on 2004-12-30.

None, since he was King in the 1500s but his decendants make up the British Royal Family today

If you're a woman, marry a royal man. If you're a man.. maybe get adopted by a royal man?

First , its not just bcuz my nephew James Stephen Jimenez Cerrero is a monarch but yes , I am not intendiing yung iflipover yung bansa bcuz maramin pagbabago like sa karapatan ng mga bakla at tomboy , at masama dahil mahirap sanayin pero kung husto natin umahon sa kahirapan tayoy bumagon na kc may times na gobyerno pa mismo an problema , kahit PDAF, senador man, presidente,

APEX: Charlemagne

Definition: Hereditary Absolute Monarchy

Example: Saudi Arabia

The organization that opened Edward I's tomb in 1774 was The Society of Antiquaries. They were able to find out his exact height since his body was well-preserved.