Comparison Of Richard And King Philip Of France

A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France

During the XVII century, most of the European countries were ruled by more or less absolute Monarchy. Born in 1638, Louis XIV will have the longest reign out of all French ruler ( 72 years). A few years later, while Louis XIV’s reign was at his apogee, another important ruler of this era get to the throne: Peter the Great. Both of these rulers, known for being an absolute monarch, have been influenced by the traumatic event of their childhood. For Louis XIV, it was the insurrection of the nobility against the royal power, known as the Fronde; Forced to flee Paris, he will hold a grudge against this feudal power . As for Peter The Great, it was the rebellion led by his step-sister, after the death of his brother with whom he ruled as Tsar, that will influence his way of ruling the kingdom.

Was Philip II of Spain a successful absolute monarch during his rule? Many people believe he had what it took to be absolute monarch, but there were several constraints he faced as a ruler in Spain. Philip II was known for building one of the largest empires from creating effective domestic and foreign policies to gain leadership of his kingdom instead of the local authorities in charge, but he did face problems while ruling the kingdom. His addressed many of these policies, such as the policy against the Turks, but there were also many policies that were humiliating to his rule in power. Philip II faced many problems, some of them as a result of his policies and some of them were to fix his problems while in power.

Almost every scholar who has learned about King Henry V can agree that he is one of the most popular kings of his time period. Henry V was a young king so many scholars have questioned his actions. Especially, due to his earlier lifestyle because Henry V was an immature adult before he became king but when he became king he seemed very wise. This might be because he did not want people to expect much of him. But, one question that has been debated for a long time now is: is Henry V a Christian King or a Machiavelli tyrant? Henry V was a Machiavelli cruel leader and not a Christian king for these three reasons: He was not merciful, he led his men into battle because of his own desires, and Henry’s disguise.

Answer: When Henry VIII was too young, Richard Foxe helped manage England for him. Henry started an alliance with Charles V of Spain and both nations started a war with France. Henry went against the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the English Church. Elizabeth I was jailed in the tower of London under suspicion of supporting the rebels against her sister Mary. Elizabeth defeated the Spanish Armada, in return making England the new superpower in Europe. Elizabeth rebuilt England 's economy and passed the religious unity act which made England to be the first protestant nation. Both Monarchs fought Rome over religious control in England, they

People gain power through acts of honor, effective leaders take action and help others on the other hand some lie to attain power and use it to benefit themselves and their cores. King Henry the fourth written by Shakespeare revolutionized the way in which play are written and presented through iambic pentameter allowing the play to consistently have ten syllables per line allowing the play to run smoother. A few good men directed by Rob Reiner in 1992 presents a story of injustice as Marines are wrongly accused of murder through lies and politics. Through each character we see how politics affect some aspect of their lives, through various false accusations truths begin to emerge causing great disruption to the hierarchy.

For my source I chose a note written by King louis XVI. This Source is commonly called “the kings note on fleeing Paris”. King Louis the sixteenth was a very well-known king from the mid to late 1700’s and was the king of France. He was able to complete several huge accomplishments such as establishing equal rights amongst religion for those who did not personally consider themselves to be a member of the catholic faith, supporting American revolutionary efforts, and even refusing to raise taxes which, as a king, directly affected how much he earned from his time with the crown. However, because of these things like funding other countries revolutions, he sent France into a depressed financial state that hurt the middle and lower classes of

     Both men had a common ability to see the goodness in other men as royal

King Richard the First, also known as Richard the Lionhearted was the king of England from 1189 to 1199. His life was filled with surprising evince and interesting stories. He did not like the weather in England and only spent a little of his time in England, when he was king. Some interesting things that happened in his life time is he was imprisoned as king and he joined the Tired Crusade. He had a good relationship with the church in the time of his reign.

Comparing the President of the United States to the King of England is like comparing renewable energy to fossil fuels, one is better for the people, and one has an almost absolute power. The anti-federalists argued that the President would be similar to an elected monarch, which is false due to a variety of reasons. The President of the United States does have several powers similar to the King of England, but they are to a much smaller extent. Hamilton is correct that the President of the United States is not an elected monarch, due to the President having to rely on congress, and the President not having complete power over any other branch.

I think I do agree with calling it King Philip’s perspective. Truthfully I believe that it was a colonist or the several colonists that said King Philip brought this up to them in a meeting.

What makes a king an effective king? Is it how long they rule? No, it is actually the way in which they interact with their subjects. The way they are able to separate the personal from the political, not allowing personal feelings to interfere with his ruling. King Henry the 5th is a perfect example of this. He is able to rule his kingdom according to the kingdom's laws and doesn't let his personal relationships with his subjects to change

Parr used her charm to not only pacify Henry, but to entertain and influence foreign dignitaries as well. While Henry is confined to sitting and talking to dignitaries due to severe gout in his leg, Parr was able to actively engage them in the court tradition of dancing, participating, as one Spanish ambassador (probably Eustace Chapuys) points outs, even when she is “ill.” The Duke of Najera’s secretary described Parr’s entertainment as “a lively and pleasing appearance” and praised her “as a virtuous woman.” She encouraged the friendship of Charles V of Spain and Henry VIII and was constantly trying to “soothe Anglo-Imperial relations.” She was even able to secure a safe departure home in May 1545 for Charles’ imperial ambassador Chapuys,

Many English monarchs believed in the divine right to rule. This right was given to them by God, therefore they believed that no one could take their crown or it would destroy the rightful line of succession. However, this was not always the case and some kings such as Richard II had their crown forced from them. If a king believed in the divine right he often had a close relationship with God. In William Shakespeare’s comedies, the divine right to rule a kingdom is present in the ways in which Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V are come to rule England. Both Richard II and Henry V were powerful rulers, whose ruling was heavily dictated by their divine right to rule and their relationship with God. Through exploring the King’s relationship to God in Shakespeare’s tragedies Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V, one can see that Henry V is the ideal Christian King.

A general conclusion of most critics is that Richard II is a play about the deposition of a "weak and effeminate" king. That he was a weak king, will be conceded. That he was an inferior person, will not. The insight to Richard's character and motivation is to view him as a person consistently acting his way through life. Richard was a man who held great love for show and ceremony. This idiosyncrasy certainly led him to make decisions as king that were poor, and in effect an inept ruler. If not for this defect in character, Richard could be viewed as a witty, intelligent person, albeit ill-suited for his inherited occupation.