how did England delevop limits on absolutism?
548030
Magna Carta was by no means a democratic constitution proclaiming fundamental rights and liberties that were the common possession of all English subjects, rights and liberties that were to be guaranteed and equally applied to every subject. The document was crafted by a feudal nobility for a medieval society in which its members were legally and politically unequal, most members of the society were serfs without legally guaranteed and protected rights respecting their relations with government or with their respective feudal lords, and this general condition of legal and political inequality was accepted by virtually everyone as not only natural and normal but also right and just. Magna Carta, at the time of its adoption, was a feudal document designed to protect and promote the particular interests of the most powerful segment of the English population, namely, the barons and their vassals. While protection of the interests of free commoners (small landholders and burgesses) was included in the document, Magna Carta did not benefit the masses, since the vast majority of Englishmen in the thirteenth century were villeins -- i.e., serfs, or peasants, who were freemen in their legal relations with all persons except their feudal lord, to whom they were totally subject as slaves. Rather than being a democratic constitution specifying and guaranteeing to all citizens equal protection of the laws and the right to vote in elections for legislators and/or other government officers and to otherwise participate in the political process, Magna Carta was a feudal document intended to protect the specialized rights and privileges of particular social classes, to curb the trend toward royal absolutism, and to restore government according to established feudal customs and traditions. \nAlthough Magna Carta was almost forgotten during the century of absolutism or near-absolutism after 1485, the document was rediscovered and given new luster in the seventeenth century, during the "Era of the English Revolution" -- the period of constitutional crisis, rebellion, and civil war from 1603 to 1689. In opposition to the claims of the first two Stuart monarchs -- James I (1603-1625) and Charles I (l625-1649) -- to the right to govern as absolute monarchs, the defenders of the authority of Parliament brought out Magna Carta and gave it an interpretation that was much broader than what the document was intended to mean when, in 1215, it was drawn up and adopted. In interpreting the document as the palladium and principal bulwark of English liberties, Sir Edward Coke and other leading supporters of Parliament in the power struggle with the Stuart monarchs modernized Magna Carta, transforming it into a constitutional document that worked for the seventeenth-century "Parliamentarians," or "Whigs" -- the men who overthrew and executed one king (Charles I, in 1649) and deposed another (James II, in 1688), driving him out of the country, replacing him with a monarch of their own choice, and forcing the new monarch (William III, in 1689) to accept the Bill of Rights. Today, Magna Carta, like the Bill of Rights of 1689, is regarded as a major milestone in English constitutional history and development.
10183
When the US first separated from England after the Revolution, the people were wary of strong, centralized government (because of their experiences under the English king).\n\nThey first formed a loose fedaration of separately-governed states.  It proved too 'loose' to be effective, so the states re-organized under the current US constitution - which gave more power to the Federal government, but still left some control with states.\n\nSince then, balancing state & federal powers has been a near-constant issue.
723149
The UK does not have a written consitution like the USA does.\n\nOur constitution is based on three things; conventions, statutes and historical writings.\n\nSearching for 'The British/UK constitution' or any low level British politics website should give you lots more information.
89710
The most radical departure was the presidency, instead of a monarchy.  The British had the Magna Carta, and actually a pretty good judicial system (which we adopted to a great extent), and they had parliament which was not that different from congress.  But a monarchy that is inherited is vastly different from a presidency which is voted upon every four years.
498340
But I must give you a background information first. And therefore I am starting to talk about 1850s. We didnt have a standing federal army and we have never thought of having one bec. we thought that no one would attack so big a country like ours. But then things started to change. We feared from loosing our commercial interests all over the world to England which was the greatest threat for our well-being in the second half of the 19th century. So our standing army was established as a Navy to protect our commercial ships and interests overseas. We always tried to adjust our filos by comparing our power with that of England. We were very careful to maintain a few more and larger ships than those of England. Iam not sure if I have to relate everything in a more detailed way. Would you please clarify what exactly you want to know
707623
I think it would be good to split the union especially now since its the 300th anniversary in 2007. I dont want to start arguments about countries which would survive outside of it or which countries support others. It is a myth that England supports the neighbouring countries though. Sure; Scotland for example is given a hefty supplemet every year to look after itself but only from money the UK (NOT England - contrary to popular belief) has earned ie from oil (which is actually Scottish anyway)and tourism - which all nations in the kingdom earn. Please dont continue flaming or anything. I havent said anything to insult anyone and everything I have said is fact. btw Robespierre made the classic fault assuming Wales and Scotland were in England. They are not and never have been, I strongly suggest you don't say that when you are in one of those smaller UK nations. You may be risking your health ;)
1140170
This is an interesting question. But the answer to it, if given seriously, is not quite an easy and straight-forward one.\n\nThere are only two real nations within the modern day UK, and they are England and Scotland. Wales, once an independent principality of Celtic origin, was taken over by England a long time ago and is politically integrated, even though in recent years the Whitehall government has made certain consessions with regards to devolution. Nevertheless, all law passed by the House of Commons is usually "for England and Wales". \nAnd Northern Ireland is not a separate nation either. It is a relict of long-gone times when Ireland was completely under British rule. But now there remain only six Irish counties in the UK, known collectively as Northern Ireland. They are not a nation, and not even a country. They are just six counties under colonial rule, with a population of Irishmen of various heritage and political allegiance.\nWhich leaves us with England and Scotland, which were separate independent states for most of their history. The Union of both exists only since 1707 and is, despite all efforts from the various governments over three centuries, still quite fragile. The fact that English people refer to Scotland still as being "north of the border" speaks volumes. And there is little love in Scotland for the English, who oppressed and exploited the Highlands for centuries (and still do it in certain ways).\n\nScotland has already her own parliament again, and it will be only a question of time (and political mistakes made in London) how long it will take for Scotland to elect a majority of nationalists to this parliament. A simple referendum could then decide on the question of Scotland's independence.\nShould this happen, England would want to hold on to Wales and Northern Ireland with even more zest than they show now. But it would not be easy. The six counties of Northern Ireland will sooner or later join the Republic of Ireland anyway, and if only on economical and cultural grounds. British presence in Northern Ireland costs the UK taxpayer at present more than £ 16 billion per year (and rising) with nothing but troubles to show for in exchange. Sooner or later a British Prime Minister will find better things to do with that money and let the booming economy of the Irish Republic pay for those six counties no one really likes.\n\nThe future of Wales is the least certain of all. In case of Scotland going it alone, there would be a certain momentum in Wales to follow suit. However, it is questionable if there would be a large enough majority for an independent Wales, especially since it could not survive economically on its own. Options for Wales could be a continued union with England, but with better terms, a Celtic Confedaration together with Scotland and Ireland, a much less attractive federation with Scotland, or a tax haven like the Isle of Man, completely dependend on the world's super-rich.
482670
yes\n\nhttp://86net.info/England.html
991672
Instead of being like everyone else and grab a copy of a history book or look the answer up on the Internet and copying it word for word, let me sum it up for you in a way that if you are writing a report you can use in the info without the plagiarism.\nNow as to your question... The American Revolution was to escape  prosecution from "Mother England". Out forefathers wanted the right to have their own religious beliefs, be free from taxes from England and to create a country of our own with our own laws and government. To create a government for the people and to take power away from one person(a king) and give it to many people so that we wouldn't have to live under the beliefs of one person and one person alone.\nHope this helps
782514
The Catholic Church would not allow him to divroce and he needed a divorce because his wife was not giving him a male heir. So he created a "splinter group" from the Roman Catholic Church and called it the Church of England with himself as the head of the church.  To this day, the monarch is head of the Church of England.\n\nAnd yes, it was Henry VIII (8th) no VII (7th)\n\nHere's a link that will explain it all:\nhttp://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/ENGLAND.HTM
168970
It is one of those questions where books could be written.  That said, a case could be made that the British started it by going against their (and America’s) Common Law, by not applying all of those rights to those living in the Americas.  It was only a matter of time before there would be a response to such a policy.  Since the British Crown reject peaceful petitions to redress grievances, violence would follow.
659611
The root of limited government goes back before writing. Ancient Greek and Celtic societies used vearious levels of Democracy. Both Celt and Greek distrusted central governments. From conquering Celt and Greek peoples, especially the Greeks Roman's were influenced and at one point adopted limited Democracy themselves as well as practicing limits on government. Ceaser ended this and destoryed the reforms. However the seeds of Greek and Roman writers remained in the far reaches of the empire. When combined with Celtic philosophy it started to develop into what became English common law. \n\nThe English warlords and Feudal leaders had a contencious lot to rule. In general they found it best to just exert influence and allow the people to rule themselves. Robin Hood myth or real hero is an example of the  Celtic/English contempt for authority. Squeeze them too much and revolt is inevitable. This became tradition which became unwritten law which actually gained formal recognition. Even fuedal lords twoard the end were bound by common law when it came to certain aspects of life. Rouge lords were known to break with Common law and there was little authority to directly punnish them but the people were not without means of redress and would often use it against a cruel lord. \n\nEventually as writing spread from the clergy to common Englishman many of the principles of English Common law were transcribed. The nation itself was evolving into a more centralistic state and each decade reesembling more the rest of Europe. Common law persevered however. It also was the foundation from which many English political philosophers such as Thomas Paine used for inspiration. \n\nPaine was unusually influential on Jefferson and Franklin. As such some of Paine's ideas really stand out in the US constitution. Franklin and Jefferson both continued to expand on these ideas while others like Monroe opposed them. Eventually the cival war was born of these conflicting ideas in government. The more rural south distrusted and did not want a strong central government. Neither did the Western states. Support for the war was won by supplicating many diverse interests including industrialists and abolishionists. The end result was for Monroeism to triumpth.  \n\nSo the US constitution at this point is the ultimate design on limited government so far. It though is a creature of thousands of years of tested principles and countless contributions from individuals.
390445
In America the non-theist were happy to let the theist live seperate lives.  Then one day we woke up and their religion was plastered everywhere.  Now we are fight for our basic rights against an uncarring judicial system.\n\nIn England the non-theist have been seeking a ballance for a long time.  Basically they have worked hard to keep the religious from trampeling all over them.
309226
He could keep on tearing through countries, gaining land, power, and popularity and Britain would just sit there. France wouldn't act without the British, even though they wanted to.
667811
It has to do with Irish independence.  Those who want to be an independent country are usually Catholic.  Those who support the British monarchy are usually Protestant, following the Church of England.
1150709
The American system of separation of powers was meant to limit the power of any one branch of government (Executive, Judicial, Legislative). Checks and balances. I don't understand your point of meaningless in Britain, but I don't live there.
315608
When the framers decided to declare independence the only government that they had known was the oppressive monarchy of England.  When they set up the first government they wanted to get as far away from that structure as they could, which is why they created a very very weak central government, with most of the power vested in the states.  There was no central executive or judicial branches, and only a unicameral legislature, with essentially no power.  After they saw what a mess this created, with no regulation of commerce among the states; different currencies for different states; states discriminating against citizens of other states; and having nothing 'united' about the states at all; they realized that a change was necessary.  Experiencing these two extremes of the government, along with help from philosophers like Locke and Hobbes, showed them what a federal government had to have the power to do, but at the same time showed them what the federal government could not have the power to do.  It was the perfect 'happy medium' from the two far extreme possibilities.  There is no other way that the government could have remained essentially unchanged for the past 200+ years.