Argumentative Essay On The Prince

The Prince by Machiavelli is essentially a field guide for aspiring princes. Within its chapters are several guidelines on how to control and govern any foreign land a prince might conquer. It seems as though many Western governmental powers take cues from Machiavelli’s novel, for the actions suggested in it can be translated in the actions taken by Western nations today. That being said, many things have changed since the time The Prince was published so many aspects can be discredited. At first glance, it becomes apparent that Machiavelli believes that it is much easier to govern an established state than recently acquired territory. This is assuming that both kingdoms are under the rule of principality, otherwise known as a state under a monarchy. That being the case, for this portion it is best to look mainly towards Europe and its many kingdoms governed by royalty.
Machiavelli states that “there are fewer difficulties in holding hereditary states, and those long accustomed to the family of their prince, than new ones” (Machiavelli, 2), which more than suggests the latter statement. The

Predisposition to the queen could be considered to exist as neither her, nor her father were expected to rule. It is only because her Grandfather’s eldest son, King Edward VIII, denied the throne to marry the one he loves, that Queen Elizabeth’s father was ever granted kingship. Regardless of circumstance, the people of England welcomed Queen Elizabeth’s father, and Elizabeth herself, with open arms. In Denmark, the house of Oldenborg inherited the throne since 1448, when elective monarchy was replaced with inherited monarchy, until the last male member died 1853. It was then turned over to the house of Glucksborg, to Prince Christian, who happened to be a direct descendant of the