The supremacy of royal power continues to work hard, unfortunately, no

A or B chose A because Hammurabi said in his code that it was the power granted to him by the sun god. B was chosen because the code defended the interests of the ruling class and the slave-owning class.

Therefore, in ancient dynasties, it was also generally agreed that the people were precious, the society was secondary, and the monarch was the light on the ruling concept, and for the people, obeying the supremacy of the royal power, and for the king, implementing the people-oriented approach can play a role in maintaining the stability and harmony of the ruling class and society, in fact, it is the same today, for the citizens, adhere to the party's leadership, for the party, adhere to the people-oriented governance, this seemingly opposite, but in fact, coexists with the ideology, is the only choice for maintaining social stability.

No, because the king of England at that time was the head of state and the head of the church.

The pope relied on the king to spread and rule the doctrine, and the king had to be recognized by the pope to rule the country, and they had mutual interests.

Some royal families in the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia generally wield real power.

For example, Morocco, Lesotho, Eswatini, Saudi Arabia, Jordan. The political system of these countries has absorbed and borrowed a small number of Western democratic frameworks, but it is still feudal in its bones. Its military and political power was entirely in the hands of members of the royal family.

There are also many East Asian royal families with real power, such as Brunei and Nepal. The king can appoint and remove the prime minister at any time, and even monopolize power.

There are also chiefs (or kings) in Africa and Asia who are nominally lower than heads of state, but who speak out in their own domains. For example, the sheikhs of the UAE, the tribal chiefs or kings of Africa, the sheikhs of Malaysia, etc.

Most of the royal families in Europe and Asia have implemented constitutional monarchies, that is, the parliament or cabinet replaces the king as the highest organ of state power. But there are also differences between East and West. In general, the royal family in Europe has less power, or even merely a symbol of the state.

Asian royal families, such as Thailand and Japan, have relatively much influence.

In a country where royal power is supreme, although the power of the royal family is also limited, they cannot act as recklessly as they did in ancient times. But the important wealth of the country remained in the possession of the royal family. For example, oil and gas in Saudi Arabia and Brunei.

In a constitutional monarchy, in addition to their own hereditary immovable property, members of the royal family can usually receive special services subsidized by the state, such as guards, special cars, special planes, etc. His royal property, such as estates and treasures, is still counted as his private property.

What does it mean to have a constitutional monarchy, or does it mean that the king actually rules?

Dualist monarchy.

Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Nepal, Morocco.

North Korea, Great Britain, India, China.

Add a little upstairs Nepal is now a republic.

Answer C This question is a memorization question that examines the basic principles of the British constitutional monarchy. The "Glorious Revolution" established two basic principles of a constitutional monarchy: the limitation of royal power and the supremacy of parliamentary power.

To limit the power of the king is to divide and empty the power of the monarch through the method of separation of powers in parliament, so that the king is limited by law and parliament. The supremacy of parliamentary power means that the parliament becomes a permanent supreme legislative body, which holds the most important state powers, such as legislative, financial, judicial, and military.