the son of the king's sister took over the throne
To limit the power of the king and give more power to the people. This is the 'text' book answer. In fact, it was clear that by setting up a place for the general population to decide on their own 'government' would actually consolidate the power of the king and the nobles what year did this occur.
An autocracy is a government in which one person has uncontrolled or unlimited authority over others; the government or power of an absolute monarch.
The colonists felt that the King of England (George 3) had too much control over them and was abusing that power
The founding fathers made sure that power was divided among the three branches so any power is shared. They wanted to make sure that a dictator or king wouldn't take over because of the need for checks and balances between branches.
The nobility and the king had power, but over them was the Catholic Church. The church was the ultimate power over everyone.
John Wycliffe was a prominent and important dissident in the Roman Catholic Church. He opposed papal authority over nonreligious power.
King Henry II wanted power over the Church to assert his authority and control over the religious institutions in his kingdom. By having influence over the Church, he could strengthen his political power and ensure loyalty from church officials. Additionally, controlling the Church's affairs allowed him to shape religious policies to align with his own interests and objectives.
JKNKJN
To become King Of England x
The Papal States were territories in central Italy that the Catholic Church had control over. The control of this land kept the popes involved in political matters, which was often at the expense of their spiritual obligations.
By moving the Papal States to Rome, it consolidated the temporal power of the Pope, increasing centralization and control. This move may have strained the relationship between the church and other secular powers, as it solidified the Pope's authority over a significant territory. It also signaled the Pope's desire for independence from external political influences.
The fact that the doctrine of papal infallibilty only became official church teaching in 1870 after much heated debate and at a time when papal power and authority over the Church was at its height speaks for itself. There are also those who say it is a logical impossibilty for how does the pope know when he is infallible and when he is not. Since papal infalliblity is of such recent origin it is also obvious that the pope does not need to be infallible to carry out his mandate as it is promulgated in Scripture. (See question "What is the pope's role?) It would also appear that Scripture in the New Covenant contradicts the necessity for papal infallibily because the New Covenant specifically says that God (alone) puts His law within us and writes it on our hearts. So we have no need for an intermediary in this regard.
The Holy Roman Empire was ruled by the Habsburg dynasty. The Habsburgs had a vast amount of power and wealth and were devout Catholics. The Habsburgs were the Vatican's main backing and helped the Papacy control the surrounding European monarchies.
Three actions King Henry VIII did that demonstrated absolute power included complete control over political and economic decisions in the country. He also left the Catholic Church and became the head of his own church which gave him complete religious power.
Pope Clement V moved the papal over losses during the Crusades.
A Lord was a "Landlord" and he had power over his manor/estates, but owed his power to the king. The king had the ultimate power.