5 Good Emperors

[Traitorfish]

parliament didn't have much power pre Magna Carta.

And what it gained after was not a product of the document as such- which, remember, was still in effect at the height of Stewart proto-absolutism- but of the shift in the political relationship between king and barons; the Magna Carta served to lay out the terms of this relationship rather than to establish any meaningful parliamentary or popular sovereignty. You'll find that the documents of the 17th century particularly the Petition of Right (1628), the Habeas Corpus Act (1679) and the Bill of Rights (1689) are all far more important documents in establishing the modern form of British constitutional law, emerging, as they did, when parliament was developing into a modern legislature, rather than merely being an aristocratic grand council.

Still yes I am wrong on Wilhelm the second.

Fair dos.

Titles are used to mask power I guess. In Uganda,Idi amin took the title of president, but was in fact a brutal dictator. Mubarak, President of Egypt ruled as a dictator for 30 yrs. the thing I'm trying to explain is no matter what "title" you have, it's the power you wield that counts

Then you accept that "dictator" and "emperor" are not meaningfully interchangeable terms?

 

[Fife]

Yes....I do now...

 

[Arakhor]

Handy hint - just write "II" instead of "the second". It's faster and more accurate.

 

[Mosher]

I believe Emperor Norton deserves mention.

OT: Dictator and emperor CAN be interchangable, depending on the government and how much individual power the ruler of the nation has.

 

[Fife]

Handy hint - just write "II" instead of "the second". It's faster and more accurate.

I guess I was just too lazy to do that even though it's easier.

 

[sophie]

Why am I always so late to these arguments?

I would also like to note that Henry VIII declared himself an emperor...it had absolutely no effect on the control (or rather, lack thereof) of his domains.

 

[Lord Baal]

Why am I always so late to these arguments?

I would also like to note that Henry VIII declared himself an emperor...it had absolutely no effect on the control (or rather, lack thereof) of his domains.

I don't recall ever hearing that. Praytell me, when, of what, and why?

 

[sophie]

I don't recall ever hearing that. Praytell me, when, of what, and why?

Caught me at the wrong time, as I have to run to work and I don't have the time to dig through my notes from my Tudor class, but I'll get it to you as soon as I get back.

Ok, I didn't get it quite right. He never declared himself emperor, per se, but he did proclaim his realms to be an empire.

"this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same.

As for the when and wherefore, it's within the Act in Restraint of Appeals in 1533, and was one of the church severing acts passed by Cromwell to separate England's churches from the Pope.

 

[Lord Baal]

Interesting. Was this the origin of the term 'British Empire' or is that simply a result of the British building themselves an Empire?

 

[ParkCungHee]

This is Henry the VIII, plus his language would make it an "English Empire".

 

[Arakhor]

George I declined to be named Emperor of Great Britain in 1714, despite our colonial holdings at the time. It was down to Queen Victoria to be named Empress of India, given that her daughter was marrying the German or Austrian Emperor and she wasn't going to be outranked by her children.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I think much of Marcus Aurelius, as his Meditations have been a continuing source of strength and inspiration for me, and the reason I began studying Stoicism. It's too bad he had to deal with plague, famine, Persians, and Germans all at the same time -- and a pity that he had a living biological son to succeed him, unlike the previous four who adopted young men of caliber.