[ichabod1]

The stronger the monarch, the weaker the count. If the monarch is weak, the count is much more like a king in his own county. Earlier, it is my understanding that England had essentially regional and countywide kingdoms, and endless wars of succession.

[Vigilanteman]

Basically correct. However, England's most enlightened monarchs were those who inspired genuine respect and loyalty in their subjects, rather than ruling them by fear. This generally meant the local areas were ruled by barons and counts who did the same.

The best example is the legendary King Arthur (4th century), but Henry IV, Elizabeth I and Edward III all inspired genuine affection from the people whom they ruled. As pointed out in my previous post in the pre-Elizabethan Tudor's clan loss of territories, powerful rulers often translated into weakened countries.

Hmmmmm, we have more than a few modern examples of the same, don't we?