Was the principle of mixed gov adopted by the British during the 18th century?
611057
No, seventeenth century.
291714
Scotland is, 400 years after "unification" still solidly independent.  Federalizing the British state strengthens it by making it a voluntary union, rather than a remnant of empire (my ancestors were organizers of the '45 rebellion.  *I* haven't forgotten how the UK was formed, which means that others haven't also).
862595
I think it is true that the US was founded on the written word, so we like to have things spelled out clearly.  I don't see how the unwritten "constitution" of the British could serve the same purpose as a written one.   The idea is that we are ruled by laws not aristocrats.\nHowever, another reason Fundamentalism developed more in the US is the fact that so many religious nonconformists had migrated to the US due to intolerance in their homelands.  These already individualistic tendencies had a chance to develop and diversify in the US.  European countries, even Protestant countries, had strong religious traditional influences, while Fundamentalism mostly rejects tradition and relies on the individual's reading of the Bible.  This approach flourished and still flourishes in a country where individualism is valued and the government stays out of religious matters.
879293
To long! :o) No it was 60 years. 1760 to 1820 when George IV became King. George IV - acted as Prince Regent from 1811 until 1820 because George III was absolutely and permanently deranged by then.
305915
C.Widely by the English during the 1700s
417500
This is actually from the Declaration of Independence...\n"...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it, had not quite determined whether or not the colonists had a natural right to property. But he did have great conviction that the British, or any government for that matter, could not impede their God-given right to live out their lives without tyrannical, micromanaging elitists controling every aspect of life.
24090
It is true that in Britain  the King was supreme sovereign from 1066 until Magna Carta (The Great Charter) . William’s conquering of England in 1066 established a feudalistic structure in which the single sovereign was the King with no responsibility to anyone.   However, prior to 1066 it was a different form of King which was responsible to the council and with real responsibility to those under him.  Old English Common Law ruled and its evolution clearly was rooted in Saxon Village law and prior to that going back at least into 1,000 BCE of Celtic culture.\n\nMagna Carta was a formal reinstitution of basic Common Law demonstrating that the cultural foundation from whence Common Law arose survived the 149 years between invasion and Magna Carta.\n\nThat Common Law continued to evolve resulting in multiple commitments of future Kings to subsequent documents similar to Magna Carta and others such as, The Petition of Right (1628), An Agreement of the Free People of England (1649), The Bill of Rights (1689).  Eventually this resulted in an ever evolving Parliamentarian system of government with an ever weakening Royal family.  However, as with the United States, it never became a democracy.
1096171
I seem to remember reading that the early American colonists didn't much like the principle of taxation without representation. \n\nThe US role as "the world police" is purely self appointed and purely in the interests of protecting the American Empire, which has at it's heart the protection of the American economy and globalisation.\n\nIf you bother reading a slight amount of world history, you will see that the US used to complain about us Brits doing exactly the thing.
851926
Leaders yes, but technically they were not Presidents. They led under the Articles of Confederation when America operated more as independent nation-states than they did as a single unified state.\n\nBy the way, for the answer below mine, the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 - the Revolutionary war was not over (and the US cannot be said to have won) until the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783.
843018
In 1603 James VI of Scotland became King of England too on the death of Elizabeth I.  He became known as James I of England.  From that point on the King of Scotland and King of England became the same person.  The two kingdoms stayed separate with separate Parliaments until 1707 when the Acts of Union were passed.  This created the Kingdom of Great Britain with a single Parliament in London.\n\nIn the time of Marie-Antoinette and Louis XVI the relationship would have been with Great Britain.  George III was on the throne.  \n\nAfter Britain lost the American colonies, France was the first country to sign a treaty with the United States so I think we can take it that the relationship between France and Britain was anything but good.\n\nLess than a decade after Marie Antoinette's execution the Napoleonic Wars broke out.
68553
Prior to U.S. colonial times, the custom in England was to eat with the fork in the right hand, then transfer it to the left hand and use a knife in the right hand when needed, then set down the knife and continue using the fork back in the right hand.  The key characteristic of such a method is that the knife is out of the hand entirely most of the time.  A knife held in the right hand could quickly be used as a weapon, so this method removed that risk and was a goodwill gesture to show that the meal could continue in peace.  It is probably of similar origin to the right-handed handshake, which was also used to show that neither party was carrying a weapon.\n\nWhen America was a British colony, this method became generally accepted practice in America, as well.\n\nSome time after U.S. independence, King George III had remarked on the barbaric origins of the custom, and decreed that at his state dinners there was no danger, so everybody should use knife and fork in a sensible way, namely keeping the knife ready in the right hand when needed, and keeping the fork in the left hand.  Over time, it became the custom throughout the U.K. to eat in this manner.  The additional feature of keeping the fork tines turned down was probably a florish added to emphasize the delicacy of the cuisine.\n\nIn the newly independent U.S., people were not eager to adopt customs from the U.K., so Americans continued to use the older method, and that has persisted to this day.  However, either the U.K. or U.S. style is considered proper etiquette.
221966
cabinet\ncabinet, group of advisers to the head of the state who themselves are usually the heads of the administrative government departments. The nature of the cabinet differs widely in various countries. In Great Britain, where the cabinet system originated, it was at first a committee of the privy council and rose to its modern status only after the sovereignty of Parliament had been established by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the gradual emergence of party government in the 18th cent. The British cabinet is a body of ministers drawn from the party that possesses a majority in the House of Commons; it is responsible to the Commons for the conduct of the administration. The cabinet is chosen by the prime minister, who is guided by the necessity of choosing a group that will represent the disparate elements in his party. The defeat in the Commons of an important ministerial measure or a general election adverse to the government results in the fall of the cabinet. In continental European countries, where the two-party system is not the rule, the coalition cabinet is more common. Cabinet members need not be selected from the majority party nor necessarily from the legislature, and they may speak in either house of the legislature.\n\nThe U.S. cabinet was not specifically established by the Constitution; it evolved through custom and is now defined by statute law. The members of the cabinet are not members of either house of Congress and are responsible, individually and not as a body, to the president, who appoints them with the approval of the Senate and may remove them at will. The cabinet member may not address Congress but may be called as a witness before congressional committees. As an advisory body, the U.S. cabinet is generally a weak institution and is often overshadowed by a strong president and his staff. The first cabinet appointments (1789) were the secretaries of State, the Treasury, and War. Since then the size and composition of the cabinet has varied considerably. Presently the 15 executive departments whose heads sit in the cabinet are the departments of State; the Treasury; Defense; Justice; the Interior; Agriculture; Commerce; Labor; Health and Human Services; Housing and Urban Development; Transportation; Energy; Education; Veterans Affairs; and Homeland Security.
681748
Well, I think for the most part there was not local administrators.  There are probably a few exceptions to this.  There was some form of local administration with the original colonies,  so that is the eastern most states, and Florida.  Also, Texas was an independent nation before joining the Union, so I believe it had some local forms of government.  Hawaii had a monarchy system, and is relatively Small, so I do not think it.  As for the vast majority that went the route of territory to state, for the most part they were administered as an entire territory under a civilian organization directly under Congress.  I do not believe there was any sort of county governments.  There were town councils and sheriffs, but nothing on a more organized level.
587238
Well it would depend on the Constitution of the particular country.  But as an example the United States and Great Britain both have bi-cameral legistative systems.
694516
The Cousins Wars, by Kevin Phillips. \nCovers the English Civil War, the Stuarts, the Glorious Revolution\nand on into the Revolutionary, War of 1812 American Civil War. \n\nPart of the reason why we HAD a separation between church and state has to do with the aversion many of the English colonists had with any kind of state sponsored religion and especially so if it is paired with a monarchy - in in particular a European monarchy.
504970
The English system of government is quite similar to yours, simply because your system of government was based on theirs.\n\nOriginally, the Monarch had divine power over all subjects in the United Kingdom. Due to abuse of this power, the Barons got together and defeated the Monarch in Runnymede in 1766. The Monarch was forced to sign the Magna Carter, which gave these Barons (among other things) an undefeatable right to levy taxes and control appropriations.\n\nAs the Barons became more powerful, they set up the House of Lords (which is basically your Senate), which assisted them in administrative matters. Every Baron and Count was entitled to take a position in the House of Lords (this right still remains today). Eventually a lower house was created, the House of Commons (similar to your House of Representatives).\n\nAs it stands today, both Houses are allowed to introduce Bills, but they must be approved by both Houses, and receive Royal Assent from the Monarch. The Monarch still has veto power over both Houses, but this is entirely ceremonial, and is rarely ever enacted. In fact, the only recent enactment of this Ceremonial power was in Australia in 1976 when the Governor-General (Queen's Representative) dismissed the Whitlam Government.\n\nSo to recap:\n\nThere are two Houses which make up Parliament; an upper House entitled the House of Lords, and the lower House, the House of Commons. People are elected to the House of Commons and to the House of Lords, but blood-relatives of Barons and Counts have the right to be a member in the House of Lords.\n\nBoth Houses have the right to introduce bills, but both Houses must approve each bill, and it must receive Royal Assent for it to be enacted.
659611
The root of limited government goes back before writing. Ancient Greek and Celtic societies used vearious levels of Democracy. Both Celt and Greek distrusted central governments. From conquering Celt and Greek peoples, especially the Greeks Roman's were influenced and at one point adopted limited Democracy themselves as well as practicing limits on government. Ceaser ended this and destoryed the reforms. However the seeds of Greek and Roman writers remained in the far reaches of the empire. When combined with Celtic philosophy it started to develop into what became English common law. \n\nThe English warlords and Feudal leaders had a contencious lot to rule. In general they found it best to just exert influence and allow the people to rule themselves. Robin Hood myth or real hero is an example of the  Celtic/English contempt for authority. Squeeze them too much and revolt is inevitable. This became tradition which became unwritten law which actually gained formal recognition. Even fuedal lords twoard the end were bound by common law when it came to certain aspects of life. Rouge lords were known to break with Common law and there was little authority to directly punnish them but the people were not without means of redress and would often use it against a cruel lord. \n\nEventually as writing spread from the clergy to common Englishman many of the principles of English Common law were transcribed. The nation itself was evolving into a more centralistic state and each decade reesembling more the rest of Europe. Common law persevered however. It also was the foundation from which many English political philosophers such as Thomas Paine used for inspiration. \n\nPaine was unusually influential on Jefferson and Franklin. As such some of Paine's ideas really stand out in the US constitution. Franklin and Jefferson both continued to expand on these ideas while others like Monroe opposed them. Eventually the cival war was born of these conflicting ideas in government. The more rural south distrusted and did not want a strong central government. Neither did the Western states. Support for the war was won by supplicating many diverse interests including industrialists and abolishionists. The end result was for Monroeism to triumpth.  \n\nSo the US constitution at this point is the ultimate design on limited government so far. It though is a creature of thousands of years of tested principles and countless contributions from individuals.