England is a Republic or Monarchy? Please explain.
England stopped being a monarchy after the rule of King Charles I. Monarchy was replaced by a republic known as the Commonwealth of England from 1649-1653. Oliver Cromwell and his son ran a government known as "the Protectorate which failed and exiled Charles II was called to regain the monarchy in 1660. Today the Parliament of Britain and the Prime Minister have ultimate power. The queen is still the head of the Government, but has limited power. England has a system of checks and balances not unlike the United States.
Which of the following was a major characteristic of the English monarchy in the eighteenth century?
Here is your source for your answer, but I don't have time to read carefully enough to choose a,b,c,d,or e. I'm pretty sure it is not a. I'm leaning toward c or d. Here's your most effective way of searching a webpage: 1. look at your browser toolbar for the word Find (there should be a magnifying glass beside it). 2. click on this button 3. a search box will appear on your webpage (mine appears at the bottom left corner). 4. type in the word characteristic, and read around the 'found' word for proof or disproof of your answer choice. 5. You will find the term several times. If you are still unsure between two answers, then try a different, more specific search term. Good luck! I'm sure that your background knowledge will enable you to find the answer more quickly than I can! PLEASE let me know what the right answer is. I am curious now! Edit your post, or email me!
Why has the english monarch only has one king or queen?
just wondering why the British monarch has one queen or one king instead of king and Queen, for example duke of Edinburgh as king and queen elizabeth as queen... is this a tradition thats been going on for centuries in the history of england? and can someone tell me how a king or queen is chosen? is it always the older person in the family?
How does someone become an English Lord?
By far the easiest way is to inherit a title, although that no longer carries either the legislative or judicial powers nor the landed estates that many foreigners still assume by reading history books.There are various appointments and offices which effectively carry a peerage as of right: notably the senior clergy, judges and soldiers. These are no longer strictly true, in the sense that the bishops only remain in the House of Lords until they retire; The Supreme Court Justices are called "lord" but do not have a seat in the House; the soldiers and top retiring politicians and civil servants only get elevated to life peerages of course , and not as of right; but they are all still embedded in popular culture as typical lords, unlike the hordes of life peers who get twenty or thirty years paid membership of the best club in London at the end of their careers.Others will tell you about the Appointments commission, etc. However, the real system is not about the formalities!Of course, if you had asked about becoming an English Lady, it is much easier: just marry a Lord. (Conversely, a man who marries a Baroness does NOT become a Lord)There are also various other roles and appointments which carry the title of Lord, which do not make you personally a lord: for example, the Lord Mayor of London (who also gets a personal knighthood as a matter of course), the Lords Commissioners of all sorts of things (the Prime Minister is appointed the First Lord of HM Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gets Second Lord, and the senior Government Whips get the others); you can even buy a feudal title as Lord of a Manor, but only Americans and brokers take that seriously; and in English law anybody can adopt the forename of "Lord", and many people have that surname. There are lots of other wrinkles if you want to play this game, but only gullible or pretentious people take them seriously!
What are some good nicknames for English monarchs?
Okay, so a little background: A couple of years ago I decided, for no reason at all, that I wanted to learn all the English monarchs at least as far back as William the Conqueror. Being an American, I did not learn them in primary school or anywhere else, and being already in my thirties, the mnemonic that English schoolchildren learn wasn't working for me. I mean, who calls Stephen Stee? Willie, Willie, Harry, Stee,Harry, Dick, John, Harry three;One, two, three Neds, Richard twoHarrys four, five, six... then who?Edwards four, five, Dick the bad,Harrys twain (VII VIII) and Ned the Lad;Mary, Bessie, James the Vain,Charlie, Charlie, James again...William and Mary, Anna Gloria,Four Georges (I II III IV), William and Victoria;Edward seven next, and thenGeorge the fifth in 1910;Ned the eighth soon abdicatedThen George the sixth was coronated;After which ElizabethAnd that's the end until her death.So except for Dick the Bad, which is awesome, none of that was working for me. I don't organize my thoughts the way most people do, and I'm too old for much rote memorization (that's what I tell myself, anyway), so I came up with my own "system." I put system in quotes because it's really haphazard and not at all systematic and there would be no point in my trying to explain it to you other than to say that in most cases I find it easier to remember the names if I translate them into Spanish. Any language will work, actually; I call Guillaume le Batard every language variation I know at one time or another, and Ricco Corleone is Italian and should be self-explanatory (lion heart = coeur de lion in French = Corleone in Italian, or close enough); but Spanish is the easiest for me and that's what I use most of the time for most of the monarchs, and for some reason I don't end up confusing them with Spanish monarchs, so it works.And for all the "Primeros" I have my own personal nicknames, which are all just inside jokes to help me remember them and not very interesting or worth sharing, except for one: Charles I aka Chucky Stuart aka Carlos el Primero (de Inglaterra, etc.) aka Carlos Danger. Annika Peacock thought that was hilarious, which is why she asked me to answer this. No offense to any actual monarchs or their subjects or descendants, really. Cheers!
What are the arguments for pro or anti monarchy in Britain?
Generally in the UK, the most common arguments stack up like this:Pro: The monarchy attracts tourists, who spend more money than it costs.The Queen is a non partisan head of state, who could act as a "brake" on the worst things an elected Government might try to do. (The supporting theory - for this is that something like Nazi Germany could not have happened in Britain, because the monarch would have started to veto things).Every country needs a head of state. If there wasn't a monarchy, there would need to be an elected head of state (e.g. a president). Lots of people fear who the British public would elect as a president!Con:It costs a load of money to keep a monarchy - if not in terms of paying the royal family directly, or the upkeep of their houses (those are mostly self funded by the family), then certainly in terms of the cost of security for them etc.It is an anachronism to have an unelected (albeit just a figurehead like the German president, rather than an executive like the US president) head of state in the 21st century. The monarchy is also tied to the Church of England, which is effectively the state religion - which is also anachronistic in a world where less than 10% of the population goes to church, and where most countries now have separation of church and state.Obviously some of the counterarguments are:Tourists would come anyway, there are plenty of other reasons to come to the UK.The British public would do just fine in electing an alternative head of state, thanks.The security costs for the royal family would instead be spent on the alternative head of state.It may be an anachronism, but it is what makes Britain different from most other countries.