While in the UK is proud to have a long monarchy, other countries have to be proud of living in true democracies. Henry viii was no better than todays worst dictators. Any opposition, you were dead. If you did'nt give your wife or daughter he would take your property. What Scum.
shareJudging history of 500 years ago with today's values is infantile.
Love is the law...
Sorry Miss un-bella donna. Did my opinion upset you?
Have you not adapted to modern behavior?
It's not offensive, it's just really stupid and pointless to compare actions from a society 500 years ago to today. Like, you must know no one would take you seriously.
-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
Films tend to concentrate on historic figures only.Yes it was normal to terrorise your subjects.I was referring to the wealth of the royal family and how they got it and hanged on to it. Because it was the norm then doesnt mean i cannot question it.
shareother countries have to be proud of living in true democracies
Henry viii[sic]...Any opposition, you were dead
If you did'nt[sic] give your wife or daughter he would take your property
Norway, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden are true democracies.
shareNorway, Denmark, Canada, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden...
[deleted]
Lol that you think those countries are more democratic than UK. In UK we are free to insult the royal family, if the dutch insult Hollands royal family they are arrested and sent to prison.
shareThe UK is very progressive, democratic and civilized compared to non-European countries that claim they are democracies. I think all Western European nations are equal in how liberal their social program policies evolve. Part of the reason is the power is no longer invested in monarchy, it's invested in the people.
share[deleted]
Switzerland is a direct democracy. So i[t] would be the closest thing to a true democracy
[deleted]
I'm well aware of the difference between them, and of the difference between either of them and "true" democracy.
sharePeople care more about democracies than monarchies. A democracy means freedom, independence, and humanism to people. Monarchy means corruption, fear and privilege. Switzerland is the closest thing to democracy partly because it has been ruled by its people since the 18th century.
When the French Revolution and American Revolution took place, there was already an exchange of political ideologies, goods and services taking place. The French wanted a democracy and so did the Colonialists. The House of Bourbon, while actually being less than an absolute monarchy, was considered a true absolute monarchy during the 18th century. The people attributed all of societal's problems to the ineffectiveness, greed and recklessness of the House of Bourbon. It was actually the King's privy council and the various governing bodies that wielded influence and power over the public. Eventually, he was executed along with his wife. So you see, no one really cared about the monarchy back then or even today. It's as useless as people correcting others on comments pertaining to royal history.
Elizabeth I was the last true absolute monarch. After that English society was becoming more independent from monarchy. Today, monarchy is merely a cultural and national symbol. If Queen Elizabeth II died, some people will grieve but the individual has no bearing on their life. People vote, make their own decisions, work and save money. They think for themselves and are protected from persecution for self-expression. In an absolute monarchy, subjects couldn't express their mind unless it was aligned with the monarch's. That's why people don't give two sh*ts about kings and queens ;-).
He or she doesn't accept the fact that people don't really care about monarchies unless they're history buffs or obsessed with extravagance. Monarchies are no longer functional governments in the western world or even in Asia. The Yamato Dynasty (Imperial House of Japan) is the only living imperial dynasty existing in the world! However, it is a pawn of the Diet which is the primary government in Japan. Everything the Imperial Family does is dictated by government policy. If the Japanese wanted the dynasty to end they can do it.
Monarchies today are no more significant in politics than disgruntled, unemployed bloggers. Real power has always existed in politics from the 17th century to the modern day (at least in the western world). King Charles I was executed because he attempted and failed to return the monarchy to its absolute form. There was a civil war in which the non-royalists won.
The Renaissance existed in all areas of English society from art to politics. Politics and the business class were expanding quickly. People found ways to create and maintain control over their lives. Thomas Cromwell is a good example. He was a layman yet he became the most important advisor to the King. Because society was heading in a less dependent direction, the House of Stuart lost the right to dictate its subjects. Can you imagine a whole modern society being completely controlled by just one person? Nobody thinks like that anymore...unless one is royalist.
He ws pretty ruthless, but so were most monarchies in his day. there weren't really many democracies around in that age. I can't think of many European countries that didn't have a monarch apart from Switzerland, and some of the Italian states, though they usually had a duke or someone who ws as powerful as a monrach. and henry didn't just go around 'taking' women - if he did, he would hardly have needed to go to such lengths to marry anne boleyn - he could just have taken her.
share