you can find the anser here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England... and nah she didnt like Privy counsel..she actually reduced the number of Privy Counsellors from thirty-nine to nineteen, and later to fourteen.
2006-07-20 20:44:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by ebaz1358 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes the ideal government style is a democratic socialist system. Currently in the US, we have a capitalist plutocracy. For those who do not know, a plutocracy is a government in which the wealthy rule. While this is not a direct function of the U.S. government. We are in a plutocracy due to corporate bribes of politicians to carry out tax cuts for the rich. The system is rigged by the wealthy in the sense that the public's opinions are manipulated by exposure to corporate goods instead of an interest in politics. In order for our Republic to function, people need to be aware of what is occurring in our government. Instead people are too focused on social media, instead of world events. Not to mention that people don't want to stand up for their rights out of fear of the police force. Americans have such audacity to say we're a government for the people, yet a CEO's dollar has more say than the proletariat does. I feel the only way we can fix our nation is with democratic socialism. Not to go as far as communism, but a mixture of capitalist economics (competitive economy) and a socialized tax system to allow free public services, and an increase in spending on more important things like education and infrastructure.
2016-03-27 01:38:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Having a monarchy is not a good form of government. History has proved that. It separates working and living classes of people which in the long run is non productive. The history of the Spanish and British Empires are two excellent examples.
2006-07-23 14:49:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by The Mick "7" 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
It worked for them.Under Good Queen Bess,England prospered,
There was a spirit of religious tolerance,tho the papists did conspire against her.England became"larger"and more powerful as a nation.She lived frugally and was the first monarch to
realize the people weren`t there to serve her,she was there to serve the people.
2006-07-23 05:29:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rich B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
She was the first monarch to initiate parliamentary coexistence. However, she did not let Parliament have more power than herself. She often used it to her advantage, and after Elizabeth's rule, Parliament wanted more of a place in the government, as they had a taste of it during her reign. She also had a privy council, headed by William Ceil, one of her most trusted advisors.
2006-07-21 02:32:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anne 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tyranny; it meant she could eliminate anyone who displeased her, even her most loyal subjects such as Sir Walter Raleigh.
In many ways she was the english version of Saddam Hussein, nobody was safe.
She was responsible for the deaths of many people in Great Britain and Ireland, and made huge profits from piracy and people trafficing from Africa to America.
Rich B your history is crap.
2006-07-22 22:40:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by brainstorm 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
don`t know try looking at a royal.com
2006-07-23 14:45:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by leo4U 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
privvy council
2006-07-20 18:45:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by madge 51 6
·
0⤊
0⤋