The Age of democracy is a response or answer to the Age of Absolutism by the new ideas that spread throughout the world. Although democracy and absolutism had advantages and disadvantages, democracy was a more effective type of government for it limited royal power and protected the rights of the people socially, politically, and economically. Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, tension arose between the two different types of governments, the democracy and absolute monarchs. During the Age of Absolutism there were many different views on how to run a monarchy. There were so many different monarchs at the time; they all had different ways of running their perspective courts.
The Constitutional Reform Act was intended to represent a separation from the traditional “fusion” model of the UK Constitution and towards a “more explicit separation of powers”, The Relations between the executive and judiciary would therefore be governed by the Act itself. Traditionally, the judiciary’s overall task was administration. However, it has developed which entailed a minority of the judiciary having political importance. One of the most significant developments which have been made is the introduction of the Human Rights Act which came into force in 2000. It also incorporated The European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.
Political Systems and Citizenship Political systems are instrumental in shaping the development of individual nations. These systems determine the policies that are to be followed by the government and the governed and aim to establish political stability. Their success at this, as well as their other policies, not only affect the strength of a nation, but societal contentment. The values each system embodies both reflect and influence the values of the nation where they exist. In Russia, communism has had a tremendous impact on the history of the country, while constitutional monarchy has been key to shaping the development of Great Britain.
b) Using your own knowledge as well as the extract, explain why recent reforms can be said to have made the House of Lords more legitimate. Recent reforms have made the House of Lords more legitimate, the 2001 reforms made by Blair’s government meant that that most hereditary peers were no longer part of the Lords – this meant that the people in the Lords were not their because of their blood but because of their expertise and interest in subjects relating to discussing inside the chamber. Blair, by removing hereditary peers made the Lords more accountable and more professional. The Lords become a real discussion based chamber with key figures from around the country invited to discuss and debate topics which meant something to them. However, the Lords have always had a strong hold on the Commons, overriding them more times than the government’s own backbenchers.
Explain why the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1543 were passed? There were many things that led to the passing of the Acts of Union. The acts were passed in order to restore Law and Order in a lawless Wales because English criminals were escaping over the border into the marchlands of Wales through crossings like the River Severn, they were able to escape untraced into the protection of the marcher Lords. The Lords had become too powerful as they retained their men and didn’t enforce the kings laws upon their common people instead they imposed their own rules and regulations. Furthermore the Lords began overusing the courts as a method of increasing their wealth this meant that the people became increasingly frustrated and because the Lords had the respect of the King the commoners could have rebelled against the English monarchy.
This is an example of how important Kenilworth Castle was at this time and also how far the De Clintons went to maintain their power. This also shows that Kenilworth was not a typical castle because there were other castles shaped from it and the De Clintons had used other designs to create one of their forts. Geoffrey probably built an earth and timber castle to start off the castle buildings. He then built a Stone Keep which was made out of soft local sandstone to replace the timber one that was probably there before. This would have created much better defence from attack than a wooden fort.
Since 1997 there have been many constitutional reforms from the Labour Government to the recent coalition government, these reforms have changed the UK political system quite dramatically; these reforms may have increased our democracy but have also created new problems which have to resolved through Parliamentary debate. The main Constitutional reform which has been ongoing through the Labour and Coalition government, however the Coalition seem less keen, is the reform on devolution of Powers to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland were granted with Primary powers of legislation meaning they can create legislation on a variety of different matters such as Health and Social services and Law and Order, this gave Scotland and Northern Ireland much more independence and power to run their own nations, Wales was only granted secondary powers meaning they can alter legislation but not create. This devolution was in response to referendums held in the Scotland, Wales and NI and there have also been calls to have complete independence from the UK however the referendum held on this matter returned a NO vote. This devolution however has raised some issues which seem hard to solve for example the West Lothian Question creates a problem n which Scottish MP’s can vote on English Laws but English MP’s cannot vote on Scottish Laws.
This is to say that England was among the first European countries to arrive at a system of government in which the powers of a monarch were increasingly being limited by a parliamentary structure of representative government. This claim is based to a large extent on the success of the English Civil Wars of the seventeenth century (both those of the 1640s and 1688) in challenging the divine authority of the crown and in giving voice to a broader range of society than had a voice in other European societies. The historian Derek Jarrett writes, Although most of those who have studied the English revolutions of the seventeenth century would doubt that the constitutions which emerged from those upheavals did much to guarantee the liberties of ordinary men or to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth. . .
Khang Nguyen Period 5 14/10/12 The Results of Different Rulers Although these two countries are in the same continent, their government is very distinct from each other. In France, absolutism gradually developed into a strong idea and soon became the political stance of the monarchy. However, England’s monarchy is parliamentary and the power of the monarch is limited unlike France. During the 16th and 17th centuries, the heightened in power for absolute monarch in France was resulted from strong, capable rulers and religious conformity; likewise, the parliamentary in England sharpened as the Parliament gains more influences and unpopular rulers in England being overthrown by the people. France had many tenacious and wise rulers that
Britain was leading the world in industry and commerce, so, it was felt, education must somehow be taking care of itself. Today, however, education is one of the most frequent subjects for public debate in the country. Schools and other educational institutions (such as universities) existed in Britain long before the government began to take an interest in education. When it finally did, it did not sweep these institutions away, nor did it always take them over. In typically British fashion, it sometimes incorporated them into the system and sometimes left them outside it.