| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "MONARCHY TRANSFORMED BRITAIN 1603 1714": |
|
|
|
"A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714", 2007.
A review of "A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714," written by M. Kishlansky.
1,303 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper reviews "A Monarchy Transformed: Britain 1603-1714," written by M. Kishlansky, regarding the Stuart Monarchy in Great Britain. The paper suggests that the book is an interesting and comprehensive work that helps to illustrate the important political notions that influenced Great Britain. It gives examples of Kishlansky's depiction of the events of history through his text, in order to illustrate this point.
From the Paper
"It seems surprising that while the events of the 17th Century can be so clear, they leave much to interpretation. The events depicted in A Monarchy Transformed are exceptionally clear, such as the Great Fire of London or the Gunpowder Plot, and they help to lead into the narrative which is what is really important, because it is necessary to know the political story before history can be told. The work begins with two overview chapters which help to put the social and political context in perspective before jumping into the narrative. It would perhaps be helpful for a more fitting overview, but that does not detract from the effective narrative in bringing the political details of the British monarchy to life. The Stuart dynasty is accurately, informatively, and with great attention to readability, made clear as to their place in British history and the political events in which they partook."
| |
|
Monarchy in the Modern World, 1998.
Discusses the role of monarchical forms of government in the contemporary world. Focuses on the British monarchy, but also discusses other monarchies around the world.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Monarchy remains a form of government in a number of other countries throughout the world, though the nature of the monarchy in these nations has changed greatly over the centuries. The monarchy in great Britain is well known throughout the world, once as a powerful head of government but now more as the symbolic head of state. Yet even this role has been brought more and more into question in England and in other monarchies. The recent death of Pricess Diana may be cause for even deeper questioning of monarchy. Likely, the monarchy will survive well into the next century, and it may remain the reality in some countries for a long time. In the long run, though, the trend is clearly toward a more republican form of government, with elected representatives and elected heads of government and with the power emanating form the people and not from an inherited family dynasty.."
| |
|
Constitutional Monarchy, 2005.
An explanation of why the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government.
839 words (approx. 3.4 pages), 9 sources, MLA, £ 20.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper attempts to prove why the Constitutional Monarchy is the best form of government. It shows how it protects the well-being of the population through its written constitution and how it adapts to the ever-changing society through its democratic system of the people having the power. It also demonstrates how it gives the people a reason to follow the government's decisions through the presence of a monarchy that inspires a sense of community and nationalism.
From the Paper
"One of the major causes for the dissolving of governments is an inability to adapt to the changes and advancements in the world around them. For example, with constant advancements in science causing a decline in religious followers, there is no way a Theocracy could survive. Plato proposed a government that was ruled by the intelligent and although this may seem flawless in theory, the reality is with an ever-changing world around them it could never work. Therefore a good government must be able to meet these changes and advancements, and work with them. A constitutional monarchy does this through following the utilitarian 'greatest good for the greatest number' (Kay 1997) ways of its democratic system. "
| |
|
Canadian Monarchy, 2002.
A review of Canada's monarchy and whether they should remain a part of the Commonwealth.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A review of two articles discussing Canada's monarchy rule and the opinion that it should not be eliminated.
| |
|
The Monarchy in Canada, 2002.
Discusses the future of the Canadian monarchy.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 7 sources, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The following discussion will contemplate the future of the monarchy in Canada.
| |
|
The Role of Religion in Medieval Monarchy, 2002.
The paper discusses the role religious beliefs played among the European kings during the Middle Ages.
1,330 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper points out that religion was the only constant in a continually warring Europe. The paper traces the rise of a "Christian" Europe. It also analyzes the way the battles were fought between a pagan infidel and a Pope as well as the resulting supremacy and dominance of the religious leaders over the citizens of a country, even over Kings.
From the Paper
"Religion and the monarchies often sparred, disagreed, even fought wars. But, in the end, while monarchs held power, it was still the religious spirit that gave them the excuse to invade, maim, conquer and kill- all in the name of their ?anointed? rights. Power, in the Middle Ages, was nothing subtle. It seems every monarch was a MacBeth, and every Pope a Boniface VIII. Religion, then, was both crutch and sword for monarchies who continued to exist in the belief they were given that existence by God and his earthly servants."
| |
|
David Establishes a United Monarchy, 2006.
This paper analyzes King David's life, rise to power and unification of the Israelites.
2,100 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper details David's historical success in gaining power and unifying the people of Israel. This paper also discusses David's complex character that learns from each experience and recognizes the value of keeping promises and honoring alliances. The author of this paper examines Deuteronomy's theory that David's rise to power and unifying the Israelites was simply because he was appointed by God to do so. This narrative offers a steady path of intellectual growth and self-awareness that would contradict a strict Deuteronimistic interpretation.
From the Paper
"However, David also takes his men into battle against other tribes, and does not shrink from wiping out entire populations because he does not want survivors to spread the word that he has restricted his attacks to Canaanite peoples. He has also been building his own wealth with booty from his conquests. In addition, he takes two wives, Abibail, the wife of Nabal and Ahinoam of Jezreel."
| |
|
Henshall's "The Myth of Absolutism, Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy",, 1994.
This paper is a critical analysis of Nicholas Henshall's methods of questioning the validity of absolutism as label for 18th Century. European monarchiesin as presented in his book "The Myth of Absolutism, Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Mo
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 1 source, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Nicholas Henshall, in his book "The Myth of Absolutism, Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy", argues that the concept of absolutism as generally used by historians to describe kingly rule in early modern Europe is badly misleading and inaccurate. Henshall argues that absolutism is no longer a valid and significant concept, for it is too often equated with outright despotism, instead of being seen as a description of broader and more varied forms of monarchic rule. Therefore, the author examines the misuse of the term and endeavors to redefine the governments it was meant to describe in a way that will be useful to the understanding of the era and the governments in question. Monarchies were not "absolute" in terms of force and despotism and the crushing of liberties. In opposition, to traditional theories, Henshall argues that monarchies were ... "
| |
|
Absolutist Monarchy, 2005.
An explanation of absolutism and its effects.
942 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, £ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the concept of absolutism and gives examples of absolutist monarchs. The paper also provides an explanation of King Louis XIV's impact on absolutism and describes the results of this kind of reign of power.
From the Paper
"Throughout history, political absolutism has been something many countries have faced. According to Wikipedia, a??absolutism is a political theory which argues that one person should have all powera??. Rather than dispersing duties to noble representatives of the country, the ruler had complete control over everything. The control included the power to demand laws, make justice, collect taxes, keep a permanent army, submit employees, judge attempts against public goods, and the authority to determine exceptions to whom and when the laws applied (National States). The monarch could enforce and abolish rules just as a small child would when making up their own game."
| |
|
The Canadian Impact on the Battle of Britain, 2007.
A study of Canadian flyers' contribution to Britain's victory over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper recounts the role that Canadian pilots played in the Battle of Britain, helping the Royal Air Force achieve victory over the Luftwaffe. The paper praises their accomplishments and bravery. It illustrates how the Canadians were a major factor in Britain's victory. Canadians provided the machines, training, and pilots that won the battle for the airspace over Britain. The paper concludes that Canada gave a huge commitment to the Battle of Britain, and that without Canadian warplanes, training, and pilots, the Battle of Britain would not have turned out as an allied victory.
From the Paper
"As part of the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, there was an all-Canadian squadron in the Royal Air Force with a Canadian commanding officer. The squadron had to be made up of only new recruits because none of the other commanders wanted to part with their Canadian fliers. One hundred Canadian pilots fought in the Battle of Britain. They accounted for 130 shot down, 30 planes that were probably shot down, but never confirmed and over 70 enemy aircraft damaged. This a high score for men that were not fighting over their own country, and were kept on constant alert for 5 months.The destruction and damage to the German aircraft kept countless bombs from falling as panicking aircrews dropped their bombs early to lighten their planes escape back over the English Channel. Johnny Kent's spectacular forty-on-one dogfight best demonstrates the bravery of the Canadian pilots. He managed to dodge the attackers and shoot down one fighter before returning to a safe hanger."
| |
|
British and Spanish Monarchies, 1999.
Compares the monarchies' powers, political and social roles, histories, criticism and reform.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 8 sources, £ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The monarchy in Britain has a long history, unbroken since the Restoration in the seventeenth century. The monarchy in Spain was only recently restored after the Franco era from 1936 into the 1970s.
From the Paper
"The monarchy in Britain has a long history, unbroken since the Restoration in the seventeenth century. The monarchy in Spain was only recently restored after the Franco era from 1936 into the 1970s. The role of the monarch is similar in each country in that each nation today is a constitutional monarchy, with an elected official as head of the government, while the monarch fulfills the ceremonial role of head of state. Americans are unaccustomed to this distinction because the President fulfills both roles and so makes the two roles seem to be one, when in many systems they are separated as they are in the United Kingdom and in Spain.
In the United Kingdom, the constitutional monarchy operates without a written constitution on the basis of long-standing but flexible traditions. What is viewed as the British constitution ..."
| |
|
Religious Freedom in Britain and America, 2002.
A comparison between America and Britain, where freedom of religion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, while Britain has no written constitution and yet maintains freedom of religion in a number of ways.
1,467 words (approx. 5.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, £ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer looks at the levels of religious tolerance by the British government and subsequent formation of America's standard. The paper explains that while both the United States and Britain have long traditions of religious freedom, Britain had more bloody confrontations over religion in her history than America has had. The writer provides background information on religion in Britain and provides relative information for America.
From the Paper
"Religious freedom in Britain was achieved gradually from the 17th century to the present. Laws that discriminated against minority religious groups were gradually administered less harshly and then finally repealed, and heresy ceased to be a legal offense with the passage of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act of 1677. The Toleration Act of 1688 granted freedom of worship to Protestant minority groups. The Test and Corporation Act was repealed in 1828 to give nonconformists full political rights, after which it was possible for them to be appointed to public office. Roman Catholics gained political rights with the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829."
| |
|
Britain, Europe and America, 2005.
A discussion on whether Britain's future lies with Europe or America.
2,482 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 12 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In an era of rising globalisation and in a divided world under a war against terrorism, to which side of the Atlantic Britain's economic and political future is likely to tend? This paper argues that Britain is likely to remain tied up with America and will rely essentially on the latter to determine its international position, especially if the U.K. does not manage to rehabilitate its credibility in continental Europe as a reliable partner and supporter of close co-operation.
Outline:
Britain's Constant Efforts to Privilege Its "Special Relationship" With the U.S.
The U.K.'s Historical Distinctiveness From the Continent
Political Pragmatism as a Constant in British Politics
The Emphasis on the 'Special Relationship' as the Pillar of U.K.-U.S. Military and Security Cooperation
Britain Facing European Issues of the Euro and the European Treaty: Britain At Crossroads With Europe
Britain's Political Class's Inability to Overcome Schisms on the Question of Europe
Britain Out of "Euro-Land"
The European Treaty and Britain's Vital Choice
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Nevertheless, within the process of decolonisation, the UK was faced with the dismantling of its colonial empire. The association of former dominions within the Commonwealth did not manage to make Britain's trade with former colonies flourish. Moreover, in the context of the Cold War, Britain had to realise its incapacities to intervene militarily in the world without the support and assent of the U.S.: this was the case when the Anglo-French expedition in Suez failed in 1956, making the 'special relationship' with the U.S. more unbalanced. Finally, facing the importance of its relative economic decline, the UK had to take into account the fact that most of its international trade was alimented by and with Europe. Indeed, Jones and Kavanagh recall that already in 1875, the UK's trade with Europe constituted 51% of the national GDP (JONES & KAVANAGH, 1998: 226). "
| |
|
Britain and the European Union, 2006.
A discussion of the hypothesis that Britain does not want to be at the heart of the European Union.
6,068 words (approx. 24.3 pages), 36 sources, MLA, £ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Britain first joined the European Union (E.U.) in 1973, with the support of the majority of the British public. However, since then the public has become increasingly sceptical towards the E.U. This paper assesses Britain's relationship with the E.U., both past and present and attempts to account for the reasons behind the relationship and attitudes towards the E.U. (both from a political and social view). It looks at the extent to which the policies of the three main UK political parties and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) indicate that they want Britain to be at the heart of the E.U. It also discusses the views of the British public towards issues such as the E.U. Constitution and the Euro.
Outline:
Introduction
Britain Does Not Want to be at the Heart of the EU
Conclusion
Justification of Research Methods
From the Paper
"Compared to other member states, there is a very low level of support for the EU in Britain. The 2002 survey by Eurobarometer survey found that 32% of the British public supported EU membership, while 27% of the population was against it. The level of support is much lower than in countries such as Luxembourg - where 81% of the population supports EU membership and only 3% opposes it - and Germany, where 52% support membership of the EU, while only 9% of the population is opposed to membership. The level of support in Britain is also much lower than the EU average; 53% of people in the 15 member states support their countries' membership of the EU and only 11% are opposed to it . "
|
|
|
