C. <span>. They were determined to have a limited monarchy, and James II would not agree.
The context for this bit of history is something that became known as The Glorious Revolution. James II espoused Catholicism, which made him unpopular with Parliament. But more than that, the English leaders were upset with how James tried to assert greater power and control for himself as king, infringing on their rights. In June of 1688, seven highly-placed Englishmen sent a letter of invitation to William of Orange (who was husband to James II's daughter Mary), inviting him to come to England and be supported by them and the people as king.
A portion of their letter to William read as follows: <em>"T</em></span><span><em>he people are so generally dissatisfied with the present conduct of the government in relation to their religion, liberties and properties (all which have been greatly invaded), and they are in such expectation of their prospects being daily worse, that Your Highness may be assured there are nineteen parts of twenty of the people throughout the kingdom who are desirous of a change."</em></span><span>
The right answer for the question that is being asked and shown above is that: "<span>C. They were determined to have a limited monarchy, and James II would not agree. " the </span>members of Parliament send this letter is that <span>C. They were determined to have a limited monarchy, and James II would not agree. </span>
<h2>Important differences - Unlike the other two, Charles I was not associated with any political Party, and had not "risen through the ranks" to become Leader. As a King, he achieved his position by heredity, and since no-one can choose their parents, this was used to justify the doctrine of "Divine Right" - God dedcides that a child shall be born into a Royal succession, and it is blasphemy to make any attempt to change this. Similarly, it was therefore the "will of God" that he should be succeeded by one of his children - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish tradition. In England, there was also the unusual situation that, as well as being Head of State, the King was also Head of a particular religious organization - the "Church of England" - which meant that he could not be expected to recognise any other form of Christianity. It was his enforcement of this which aroused resistance by such men as Cromwell, who was against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of conscience". (This was why Cromwell subsequently also opposed Parliament when it attempted to enforce Presbyterianism,) There is perhaps case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, since "Marxist/Leninist Communism" was in fact a "religion", even though a godless one. There are virtually no comparisons with Hitler.</h2>
In the United States and in many other countries, citizens have to register to vote "To <span>make sure people vote only once," since otherwise it would be very hard to track who has already voted. </span>
They Would Have To Pay Taxs For The War And Families Would Loose People That They Loved During The War.The Prices On Things Would Go Up And It Could Be Possible That There Could Be A Draft If They Loose To Many People.They Would Loose Land From The War And The Diffrent Countries Would Fight Over Land And Try To Conquer Land.
