Discursive Essay - The British Monarchy

After reading Machiavelli’s The Prince and watching Shakespeare’s Henry V in class, one begins to notice similarities between the authors’ idea of what a “perfect king” should be. The patterns between the ideal ruler of Shakespeare and the ideal ruler of Machiavelli can be seen in numerous instances throughout this story. For the duration of this essay, I will compare the similarities in both pieces to give the reader a better understanding of how Shakespeare devised his view of what a “perfect king” should be.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued October 7, 1763, by King George III following Great Britain 's acquisition of French territory in North America after the end of the French and Indian War/Seven Years ' War, which forbade all settlement past a line drawn along the Appalachian Mountains.[1] The Royal Proclamation continues to be of legal importance to First Nations in Canada and is significant for the variation of indigenous status in the United States. The Royal Proclamation may have played a role in the separation of the United States from Great Britain as colonists at the time wanted to continue in the economically beneficial cultural practice of taking land for one 's own livelihood as part of the drive west. It eventually ensured that British culture and laws were applied in Upper Canada after 1791, which was done to attract British settlers to the province. Its geographic location is similar to the Eastern Continental Divide 's path running northwards from Georgia to the Pennsylvania-New York State border, and north-eastwards past the drainage divide on the "St. Lawrence Divide" from there northwards through New England.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 was issued by King George III after the gain of French territory resulting from the French and Indian war. The proclamation prohibited the settlement of the land beyond the appalachian mountains in order to maintain peace with Indians and to prevent further casualties. Although the proclamation was made with the intention of protection the colonists, the colonists viewed it as oppression. It angered the colonists who wished to expand into new farmlands, as they believed that they, “...purchased the land with their blood in the most recent war” (The American Pageant, 113). Feeling defiant, the colonists decided to resist the proclamation and still expanded west.

Tyranny, cruel and oppressive government or rule. This is what is wanted to be prevented in our country. But with Federalism, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances, we can make sure that we don’t have tyranny. This is how each principle of government would help prevent tyranny.

The British originally came in as a decent sized company in East India, but when the sepoys attacked that company, England sent their whole army and navy to get the sepoys under control, but while doing that they also took over all of India. Although economically and socially the Indians did benefit in some ways, the British established a massive infrastructure by controlling India and having a huge political, economic, and social impact on India that helped them more than it helped the Indians.

"The reign of Charles II and the revolution against his brother James show that England in the later seventeenth century was ready to be Tory and Anglican but not Roman Catholic and Francophile." Discuss.

For approximately two hundred years Britain ruled over India, allowing them almost no control of their own country. This is what imperialism was like for many countries. Initially India was colonized for its natural resources by the East India company but the companies hold on India became compromised after the sepoy rebellion in 1857 so the English government took control in a time of crisis. After decades of British Imperialism India finally gained independence in 1947. Brittain helped develop India by creating a government, education, and millions of jobs, however they negatively affected India by using the government and its powerful army to control and suppress the Indians along with Britain's unfair policies which

Charles I and the Establishment of Royal Absolutism Royal absolutism is a state of government whereby the monarch rules supreme, with virtually no legislative power placed in other organisations such as Parliament. For the people of England in the 1630s, it was a very real threat. After the dissolving of Parliament in 1629, Charles I embarked on his Personal Rule. Without analysing whose fault the breakdown in relations was, it was probably the only thing Charles could do in the circumstances. Certainly, no dialogue with Parliament was possible.

On the other hand it can be argued that the sources are suggesting that the Queen is not being portrayed as a God, instead highlighting her devotion and reliance on religion. For example, in both sources it is clear that the Queen was concerned about the religious aspects of her rule and therefore attempts to incorporate it in everything she does. In the Rainbow Portrait the eyes and ears decorating her dress may simply be showing that Elizabeth puts all her trust in God to lead her to victory. This is similar in her speech when she states that she will ‘live or die amongst you all- to lay down for my God’. It is clear that the Queen is willing to risk her life for her creator, also highlighting that the battle would be fought was for the sake of God, not for her.

Perhaps the most important part of the Queen's’ speech lies in her constant discussion of herself. In both paragraphs one and two, she expresses her own feelings as if they were facts. “I come amongst you,” she says, “being resolved… to live or die amongst you all.” For sixteenth century England, the death of a queen is a monumental and significant thing, as many considered queens (and other monarchs) to be almost godly. By discussing her own decision to trust and stay with her people, no matter what may happen, she effectively secures their trust and love for the english government. Appealing to and empathizing with the men’s fears makes the Queen seem like a down to earth person they could trust and believe in. Granted, the Queen does not solely act as a relatable figure, but also reminds the men of her strength and power.

Henry the Fifth has been noted as England’s best King throughout history. He was loved among the common people and nobles alike for his fairness, his effectiveness on the throne, his justness, and his ability to relate to people of all classes. The kings that reigned before him, especially his father King Henry IV and King John, provide a striking contrast to Hal’s attitude on the throne. Kings of the past had not experienced the life of the common people, and chose to lead their lives in the realm of the castle. As we witnessed in I Henry IV, Hal’s father even went as far to discuss this approach to ruling at length with Hal. Henry IV believed that a king was best admired and supplicated if he was kept

The Magna Carta is the most famous document in British history, being introduced and signed by King John in 1215. The Magna Carta opened the doors to democracy in England and America. The Magna Carta or the “Great Charter” has been hailed as the “sacred text” of liberty in the Western World. The Magna Carta set the foundation and basic ideas for modern democracy. It gave the people basic rights and abolished absolute monarchy for England. The Magna Carta provided and built the foundation for modern democracy with its premises the government guarantees basic rights for the people, established a basic rule of law and allowing a group to govern rather than an individual.

Some say the glorious revolution was one of the greatest landmarks in the history of England. The glorious revolution is a very important event in history for multiple reasons. It wasn’t exactly a peaceful occasion but it was one in which no war of fight occurred. This was a pleasant change for England at the time because they had been experiencing plenty of fights over the throne and for once it was a relatively smooth transaction.

Dicey named ‘conventions’ the non-legal rules that regulate the way legal rules are applied . Prerogative powers are legal powers held by the crown but exercised by government without the authority from parliament. There is no doubt about their importance to the British constitution but their unwritten nature has caused disputes regarding their extent. Therefore some believe that conventions and prerogative powers should be codified. This could be in legal or non-legal form. Codification might clarify their existence and extent; neither form however will generate a more effective constitution.

The United Kingdom is a country located in the North West of Europe that has four parts, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The capital city is London, which the River Thames flows through from Thames Head to 140 miles later at Teddington Lock where it ends. Compared to the United States, the United Kingdom is quite small in fact it is approximately the size of New England. Despite being diminutive in size, there is layer upon layer of cultures and history. Also, it has geographic diversity, from the moors of Devon to the swamps in the southeast to the highlands of Scotland. Although dwindling, many native languages survived and still spoken to this day. Some of those are Celtic, Irish, Scottish Gaelic, and Welsh.