The British Royal Family

King Charles I of England was the first king in England that tried to have an absolute monarchy. An absolute monarchy is different than the constitutional monarchy of the kings and queens before him were trying to have. An absolute monarchy is where the monarch has all the power and there are no nobles or anyone interfering with the king’s rule; a constitutional monarchy is where the king or queen acts as the Head of State, and the Parliament makes the laws, not the monarch. King Charles’s strong will created conflicts with government, which ended up establishing a civil war & his execution.

The first article reporting of the Princess’s death was from the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) on August

A republic does not stand for a royal family, it stands for a nation. It stands for every single Australian, each of whom deserve to have an Australian head of state to represent them. A head of state that defends the interests of the Australian people in a global context. A republic does not invalidate the concept of royalty, but it spreads royalty to every single Australian, so that every single Australian had the right to serve as the head of state.

Hobbes, you are adamant in the claim that an absolute monarchy is the best type of government. However, it is clear that too much power in the hands of one individual will lead to corruption. You believe that people are prone to corruption and wrong deeds. With power solely rested on the divine rulers shoulders, should he fail, the nation will crumble. This kind of government could be toppled very easily, and a lack of a stable system set up in place should the monarch die would mean chaos would run rampant throughout the nation.

It was the late 1700’s, the New England Colonies were being ruled by the cynical, power-hungry tyrant known as King George III of Great Britain. Although King George did not initialize the colonization of America, he had a drastic effect on its history and what makes modern America what it is today. ¬¬

On August 31st 1997, two families bridged together through matrimony were suddenly broken by the death of Princess Diana. These two bloodlines, one of royalty and one of aristocracy, were forced to face the commonwealth with sadness; Speeches by The Queen and Diana’s brother, The Earl, were necessary. As multiple populations were grieving and reminiscing over the loss of such a popular public patron, many were growing irritable and suspicious of the tragic car accident and the lack of communication from The Queen. With pressures rising, the funeral approaching, and individuals still looking for someone to blame, Queen Elizabeth and Earl Spencer each delivered their own speech regarding the recent events. Despite the common topics and audience, it is evident how both speeches varied, especially concerning exigence, the use of rhetorical devices, and overall effectiveness

From 1500-1700, there were multiple European monarchs that were beneficial to their country, but there were also many other monarchs that were detrimental to their country. During this time period, certain European countries also had their own governmental issues, whereas other countries were thriving. Throughout the 1600’s, numerous European leaders were fighting internal and external wars, having social and economic problems, and losing faith in their people. On the other hand, some leaders were also providing support for their people and creating a strong government. There are several European monarchs who were beneficial and detrimental, but five key people control the discussion. King James I of England, Peter I of Russia, Louis XIV of France, Pierre Patel, and Queen Elizabeth I of England are all royals who had a substantial influence over their countries.

Generally over the years the Monarch’s role has slowly decreased as more jobs have been put on the PM’s.

They get in charge from the bloodline. The longest they remain in charge is until they are dead because i don’t think they can quit. their laws are not made by the president their the king, queen, or empire when they get chosen then they get to make the laws and sometimes there laws don’t go well. They all aren’t treated equally they don’t have the same laws as democracy does. In the monarchy they really don’t have a voice because they really just pick who is able to be in charge of the country the countries there are Korea, and japan.

Great Britain's political elite structure represents those fortunate enough to reap the benefits of being born into royalty or wealth. Derived from mostly royal influence, Britain's governmental structure symbolizes the lineage of the political elite. From an American perspective when viewing British government, I see many similarities and differences. Specifically, Britain's government and political structure is comprised of three components: a unitary state, constitution monarchy, and a parliamentary system. Those three components are akin to the United State's three branches of government. But, the influence of Britain's political elite affect all three components as well. Furthermore, Britain's high commendation of the royal family and the like provide enough influence on public opinion in order to determine what is best for the nation. In my opinion, Britain's political structure as well as their elite possesses vast amounts of qualities conducive to a successful economic, governmental, and social structure. Moreover, there are many qualities the British

Today monarchy has become an attraction, which flashes every side of the royal family. Hilary Mantel believes that we are looking at royalties as if they were figures or dolls, who we can treat as we want to. We always have a comment to what they are wearing, if they look good or not, what they are doing right or wrong etc. We are allowing monarchy to treat its persons as entertainment objects.

monarchy government. A monarchy government is a government ruled by a King or Queen in a

Thesis: Princess Diana was a very kind hearted woman, noble by blood, famous by marriage, but used her public light in a positive way.

The purpose of this text is not to tell readers only how Princess Diana died but also who’s responsible for the death and criticize them. However the news report failed to achieve their purpose they lacked to criticize the press, who were responsible for the death. Apparently BBC does not do a good job because they do not understand rhetoric and how it is situational. As a speaker they seem to be very boring and their details are not specific. News Report now these days have

The death of Princess Diana was an event which shocked the world. Many grieved for her death and sent prayers to the Royal Family while wondering how the event occurred. Throughout the next few days, many news articles and speeches were released about her death, and some were more effective than others. Four articles stand out, and out of the four only two are believed to be rhetorically effective.