The main flaw with the constitution of the United Kingdom is that it allows the government of the day too easily to remould constitutional issues in ways which suit their own interests. Critically discuss. This essay aims to critically analyse arguments concerning whether the constitution of the United Kingdom can be altered by the government of today, in modes which suit their best interests. In relation to the statement above, a conclusion will be deduced after looking into the functions of the constitution, the theories of Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Separation of Powers, alongside means by which the government has sustained power. Professor KC Wheare defines the constitution of a state as: “… the whole system of government of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate or govern the government.” The evolving nature of the UK constitution implies that it is somewhat straightforward for the government to alter the constitution and adapt it to ever changing times.
Is Richard II about Bolingbroke’s ambition or Richard’s incompetency? At the core of William Shakespeare’s allegorical play Richard II, the disparities between the abilities of Bolingbroke’s ambitions and Richard incompetence are explored in depth. Shakespeare’s prime impetus was to investigate a warning and voice concerns to the reigning monarch Queen Elizabeth I, that there could be catastrophic consequences if the Great Chain of Being was disrupted. Shakespeare projects Richard as a conniving and calculating character who overestimates his authority to such an extent that he fails to fulfil the duties of kingship. Richard shows a dangerous capacity for poor judgment and fascination with luxury, which deviate from the expectations of royalty.
“A man for all seasons” Robert Bolt’s ‘A man for all seasons” is a historical play unfolding a riveting dramatic representation of Sir Thomas More and the events leading to his downfall pending the reign of King Henry VIII. Bolt’s style of writing encompassed the experiences of characters whose beliefs were at odds with governing societal demeanours. At the time of impetuous social and cultural unravelling, personal integrity and existential attitudes were tested when faced with the struggles of conformity. Sir Thomas More is the epitome of a man’s integrity to his morals and spirited faith that is tested relentlessly as others conspired against him. The play’s central conflict ascends with More’s negation to conform to the King’s wishes.
For such an organisation to have made a generous offer to the King previously shows a dichotomy between conservatism and radicalism. Cromwell embodied this dichotomy, first favouring the retention of the monarchy under Prince Henry,[3] later rejecting the chance to wear the crown himself, feeling that God had condemned monarchy. This is important because it shows a significant proportion of those that supported parliament were not opposed to monarchy, but rather wished to secure the rights of parliament. As
The online transcript of Mitt Romney’s 2012 acceptance speech, with a section open for comments, represents conflicting perspectives through internal contradictions inherent to the political speech form and the medium of production - an internet site with a comments section. The speech also reveals how the manipulation of language can represent a single perspective, countering any conflict. In this case, the singular perspective is that Romney is the candidate. The public and private persona a leader possesses is often in conflict, with the public curious to know both in order to accurately assess the character’s ability to lead. The dramatic form through which Shakespeare represents Caesar allows both the public and private representations of Caesar to be evaluated by the audience.
He describes government in such a way that nearly, but not entirely, advocates anarchy. Paine calls government, “even in its best state [a] necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one;” (6). He attempts to predispose the reader’s mind to new ideas of government, namely one that involves American independence from England. Paine accomplishes this through an ideal definition and concept of government. He describes the purposes of government such as protection of property and citizens.
To what extent is the character of Malvolio used by Shakespeare to challenge societal expectations? Malvolio is perceived as a character that seems to not challenge societal expectations in the play due to his hesitance in transcending his role as proclaiming himself as “count malvolio”. The idea of being a protestant and having aspirations to not have moderation in what he wishes, this is something that is forbidden as a protestant and therefore challenges societal expectations. However, although he wants to transcend his role into count malvolio, his aspiration goes against protestant views and so his plans do not go into fruition. However, malvolio dresses up in act 3 scene 4 in vibrant clothes which subvert against the protestant views as they would normally dress in plain black clothing.
I have no name, no title. No, not that name was given me at the font”. We see in this Richard is not only searching for a name to call himself but a sense of self which depicts Richard as comparing his self identity to his title as king. The symbolic use of the words 'mirror' in the quote “Let it command a mirror hither straight, That it may show me what face I have, Since it is bankrupt of his majesty.” Instantly portrays the thematic concerns of self identity through the persona richard. Being soon after he hands over the crown, Richard is curious
Niccolò Machiavelli’s ‘The Prince’ is an explanation to rulers on how to take power over other lands and how to control them, often at times advocating a disregard for all moral and ethical rules. It was this work that gave rise to the term ‘Machiavellian’, for in it he describes the sly and sometimes brutal maneuverings necessary for political success . In this essay I will examine whether Machiavelli truly promotes ‘immoral’ means in politics and war, determine if there is actually an amoral or even moral approach present in ‘The Prince’, and contrast Machiavelli’s moral and political understandings against earlier European views. In ‘The Discourses’ when speaking of the clashes between the Roman aristocracy and the plebeians Machiavelli’s sympathies are evidently on the side of the common people. He continually defends the people against the accusations of fickleness and unpredictability; stating that the custodianship of public freedom is safer in the hands of the plebeians than that of the upper class.
When Europe finally emerged out of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, Europeans despised everything about the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, queens and kings were decided by “divine power” which opposes the notion of rulership in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Erasmus, another key player in the Renaissance, once stated, “Men are made, not born” which totally contradicts the idea of divine power. Another new idea Machiavelli developed in The Prince that goes against Middle age thought was to use soldiers that one possesses in their state, instead of using mercenaries or auxiliary soldiers. In the Renaissance, the humility of the Middle Ages was completely thrown out, only to be replaced with people wearing extravagant clothing and consuming themselves in their image.