what is the importance of Charles V?
481577
His gift to medicine by his support of it.
291306
Prince Charles - fluently
5333
prince charles and he's also england's future king.
733948
sounds like the american Revolution?  \n\nYou need to find out all the things that are good about England and being part of british empire.   Talk about loyalty to king....talk ahat bout how the "patriots" are traitors that will be hung for their treason.  (you have to embrace and see it from the perspective of the loyalists)
1051803
first by believing GOD gave the DOMINION to the QUEEN and not the KING.  If GOD gave the DOMINION to the KING who and what does HIS body look like?  and his picture should be on the money.  all others are conterfeet junk bond type material.  like USA dollars
966594
1380-1422 Charles VI, the Fool \n1422-1461 Charles VII, the Victorious \n1461-1483 Louis XI, the Spider \n1483-1498 Charles VIII \n1498-1515 Louis XII, Father of his People \n\nCapetian Dynasty, House of Valois (1328-1589)\n\nThen\n\nValois-Orléans Branch (1498-1515)\n\nhttp://europeanhistory.about.com/library/readyref/blFranceRulers.htm\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_France
869265
Basically, its about Great Britain. At least that's what this site says......\n\n"AN ACT for the better securing the dependency of his Majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain......"\n\nHope this helps. Good luck with the project!
535958
742: Charles the Great is born on April 2, traditionally in this year, but possibly as late as 747\n\n\n751: Charlemagne's father Pippin is declared king, beginning what would later be called the Carolingian dynasty\n\n\n768: Upon the death of Pippin, the kingdom of Francia is divided between Charles and his brother Carloman\n\n\n771: Carloman dies; Charles becomes sole ruler \n\n772: Charlemagne makes his first raid on the Saxons, which is a success; but this was just the beginning of an extended struggle against the decentralized pagan tribes\n\n\n774: Charlemagne conquers Lombardy and becomes King of the Lombards\n\n\n778: An unsuccessful siege of Saragossa, Spain, is followed by an ambush of Charlemagne's retreating army by the Basques at Roncesvalles \n\n781: Charles makes a pilgrimage to Rome and has his son Pippin proclaimed King of Italy; here he meets Alcuin, who agrees to come to Charlemagne's court\n\n\n782: In response to recent attacks by Saxon leader Widukind, Charlemagne reportedly has 4,500 Saxon prisoners executed en masse\n\n\n787: Charles launches his educational plan by ordering bishops and abbots to open schools near their churches and monasteries \n\n788: Charlemagne takes control of Bavaria, bringing all the territory of the Germanic tribes into one political unit\n\n\n791-796: Charles conducts a series of campaigns against the Avars in present-day Austria and Hungary. The Avars are eventually destroyed as a cultural entity\n\n\n799: Pope Leo III is attacked in the streets of Rome and flees to Charlemagne for protection. The king has him conducted safely back to Rome\n\n\n800: Charlemagne comes to Rome to oversee a synod where Leo clears himself of the charges laid on him by his enemies. At Christmas mass, Leo crowns Charlemagne Emperor\n\n\n804: The Saxon wars finally come to an end \n\n812: Byzantine emperor Michael I acknowledges Charlemagne as emperor, though not as "Roman" emperor, providing official power to the power Charles already wielded in fact\n\n\n813: Charles delegates imperial power to Louis, his last surviving legitimate son\n\n\n814: Charlemagne dies in Aachen
218347
my guju friend, the queens were important because they were the rulers of the castle when their husbands( the kings) left for wars. The queens sometimes had to defend the castles all by them selves. They had to be strong or else they could loose the whole land to the enemy. Some when the kings died the queens took over the thrown, best example Queen of England. There were no heir to the thrown, the princess had to take over and become the ruler of the land. \n\nhope this helps you.
769854
Hi captain, I have got some thing for you which goes down to early history.\n\n" Charles only spared the lives of those Saracens[Muslims] who consented to be baptised, the rest he put to the sword."--[History of Charles the Great and Orlando, by Turpin, Vol-I, ch-ii, pg-5]\n\n"....460 years later, when the Holy land reverted to the Christian rule of crusading knight of Europe, the oriental Christians regretted the tolerating Govt. of the Arabian Khalifs."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....A bloody sacrifies was offered by mistaken votaries to the God of the Christian resistance might provoke, but neither sage nor sex could mollify, thier implacable rage, they indulged themselves 3 days in a promisenous massacre. After 70,000 muslims had been put to the sword and the harmless JEWS had been burned in thier Synogogue, they could still reserve a multitude of captives whom interest or lassitude persauded them to spare."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\nThe critical Gibbon coclusively proves that, "...to his Christian subjects, Mohammad readily granted security of thier persons, the freedom of thier trade, the property of thier goods and the toleration of thier worship. This profitable principle of toleration was observed with more or less strictness, not only by all the immediate successors of the Prophet, but over the whole period of Arabic ascendency."--[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON] \n\nOn the other hand..........\n\n"....when Jerusalem capitulated to Khalif Omer, the inhabitants of the vanquished city were left in possesion of thier worldly goods, and allowed the freedom of worship. A special quarter of the city was allotted for the residence of Christian population with thier Patriarch and his clergy."--\n[Rise and Fall of Roman Empire- GIBBON]\n\n"....And Islam was tolerant not simply to the Jews but also to the Christians. The Christian church in muslim Spain was given large lands and considerable revenues, christian envoys were recieved with courtesy and allowed to take away relics of christian saints and martyrs from the muslim territory. GIBBON says in his Decline and Fall [of Roman Empire], that muslim rulers even transcribed an Arabic version of the canons of the councils of Spain for the use of BISHOPS in the Moorish kingdom. Haroon al-Rashid, the hero of the "Arabian Nights", planted in his kingdom a large number of schools, the head of these schools, his Director of Education, was a chritian named John."--[ The Spirit and Struggle of Islam by Prof. T.L.Vaswani, Ganesh & Co., Madras-1921]\n\nYou can judge it yourself as to whether muslims inflicted more violence or the Christians ? \n\nAnd you know about modern history and who is responsible for killing lacs of people in Hiroshoma and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan..
535361
King. Before the Magna Carta screwed it all up. :)
781509
None.  It was enacted as a response to the searches carried out by England which were the primary reason for the revolutionary wat.  England was issuing "writs of assistance" to customs officers to combat the growing problem of smuggling to avoid taxes paid to England.
527080
The British Commonwealth
180438
it is important.  But what about it?
575875
He was a Puritan, which basically means anti-Catholic.  Charles I was being manipulated by his blatantly Catholic wife to tolerate Catholicism in England and he also adopted a type of "High Anglicanism", refering to the Anglican (English National) Church becoming increasingly catholic (involving elaborate ceremonies, gold, latin, etc.), and the Puritans believed in living a simple life.  \n\nBasically, it was a religious War
206346
Consider who was most important in society in the Restoration, and what was starting to happen to them as you got closer to Romanticism.  If you need an audio-visual hint, compare music from both eras and paintings from both eras.  How are they different?  What does that tell you about how how society was changing?
445325
I'm the American son of a British father, so I hold dual national status and carry both US and UK passports. I am thus able to view this from both perspectives, I think, so I'll toss in my two cents/pence.\n\nThe Royals are indeed pointless in terms of actual power and general usefulness (the Queen is only the titular head of state and wields no real power that I can see -- and quite right too!) and they cost the British taxpayer an absolute fortune to house, clothe, feed and protect in the almost obscene luxury and style to which they are accustomed. \n\nThat said, they also bring in mega tourist dollars/pounds/euros and all the media attention associated with prestige, pomp and circumstance. I sometimes wonder if they are more beloved in the former British colonies than at home. Odd, that. Still, there are very clearly many Britons who remain loyal and supportive of the titular monarchy, even as there are many who would love nothing better than to see them deposed and made to work for a living. It is quite a conundrum, isn't it?\n\nAs to your query about why they interest people so much, your guess is as good as mine. I expect it's because we live in such a celebrity culture (on both sides of the pond and in most other modern, westernized nations, as well) and people just can't get enough of this sort of thing. It goes without saying that I am made nauseous by this fact, but I am hardly representative of either my fellow countrymen or those in the land of my forebears. \n\nFor what it's worth, I think the much-maligned Prince Charles is actually an intelligent and generally decent man with sound ideas regarding the environment, architecture, etc. His father is a complete jackanapes who puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. The Queen herself is okay with me, albeit as pompous and dowdy as a modern monarch could even dream of being. I always liked the late Princess Diana and was sorry for her tragic loss. I like Fergie, as well. Prince William seems a decent and responsible sort but Harry is trouble and will doubtless remain so, his training at Sandhurst notwithstanding.\n\nI'll not bother with the rest of the Royals and I expect you have your own well-formed views in any case. I think the best and fairest thing to do would be for the British people to hold a referendum on the desirability of the monarchy, literally a popular vote with an up or down verdict. I confess I would be very intrigued to see the end result. Please keep me posted, ok?