English and French Kingdoms had both similarities and differences, during the late 1600's.
Both had a monarchical system, with a king ruling the country.
However, France had been under the rule of Louis XIV for over 60 years by the end of the 17th century, thus, he had consolidated his power, and the crown's power above everything. He eliminated the remnants of feudalism still left across France and imposed a rule of absolute monarchy.
In contrast to the English kingdom, where the parliament was powerful enough to denounce King James II for abuse of power through the use of the Bill of Rights, and was a solid institution with the authority to depose the king if needed. The English kingdom had clear limits on the Crown's power and authority, and several tax and civil right laws could not be emitted without the Parliaments permission.
<span>The soil was poor and farming was difficult so people were willing to leave farms and work elsewhere. There were lots of streams and rivers that could provide waterpower, so lots of factories were built.</span>
Answer:
1 only P
Explanation:
Considering the available options, the limitations that historians do face while referring to the literary sources belonging to the medieval period is "There are chances of human errors since they are handwritten."
Hence, the correct answer to this question is "1 only P"
The other limitations the historians do face concerning the literary sources belonging to the medieval period is "there are various writers, that write their historical accounts just to please or gratify the kings or rulers such that not all facts were revealed or recorded."
Answer:
Heheheh này là gì Thật buồn cười
B Asia, its actually Northeast Asia but..
