Compared to other monarchs in europe, kings and queens in england before 1600 were
a. more powerful
b. less powerful
c. more democratic
d. less interested in ruling

The correct answer is B.

Most European countries, before the Enlightment era and the revolutions derived from it, were ruled by absolute monarchs. The whole power of the nation was concentrated on a single person, and nobody dared to defy this status quo as it was believed that kings were directly appointed by God.

Monarchy in England was always slightly different. Although the English system in 1600 had nothing to do with current parliamentary monarchies where king are just symbolic institutions, in England in 1600 there was already a parliament where national issues were discussed and decisions were taken, so the king in England did not monopolize the whole national power like in other countries.

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!