https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=zcvWv7GblzA

And why is it the Glorious Revolution? Because after that, you have basically, Parliament passes an act declaring no Catholic, or rather, the monarch, the ruling monarch of Great Britain. It’s not Great Britain at this point, but the ruling monarch of England has to be a Protestant. And so this is when the usurpation really comes into full effect. Because the king is away. That’s happened before with Charles II. But now, Parliament passes a law to change the succession, which never happened before, not even once. Did anything like that even approach? And that’s when you have the change over to parliamentary supremacy. Well, and you have this weird dichotomy. On the one hand, the Whigs seem to be all about egalitarianism and whoever’s most successful monetarily. All right, everyone. Welcome. What we’re doing today is we have Adam back. Of course, we love Adam. We haven’t done enough with Adam. But he’s very busy. He’s doing this thing called work. I don’t recommend it myself, but it happens, I guess. And so we haven’t been able to get together. And we’ve both been busy doing research on this particular topic, because it’s hard. So we talked about the French Revolution. We talked about the misunderstanding of the so-called American Revolution, which I call the rebellion. And then we jumped ahead. But actually, what we wanted to do was go back to the source of all this, at least in proximal time, which is the English rebellion, the English Revolution. What’s going on there? Because that’s where the whole tradition sort of starts. It’s where the whole cycle is broken. And so Adam, why don’t you say a few introductory words, and then you can segue us right in wherever you think it’s appropriate to start, since you’re the big historian here. Hello, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. So why are we even approaching the topic of the English Civil War, or a better title might be the War of the Three Kingdoms? Because that really is, in the context of where it’s happening, that’s really what’s happening there. We have this idea of the UK, the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland presently. But once upon the time, that was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, I believe. How do you even get this entity? Because this is why it might be actually useful to say English Civil War, which makes sense, but also the War of the Three Kingdoms. And how that later affects the American rebellion, because these are men who view themselves as Englishmen. But also, they come out of that world. They come out of the world that we’re about to discuss. And let’s start actually, even before the Civil War, far before the Civil War almost, about 100 years before, almost exactly, when Henry and the Tudors, they break with Rome. Because something big here happens. You have this, among the many things that happened during that period, is there’s a dissolution, what’s called the dissolution of the monasteries. And this accrues a large amount of wealth to the crown. And while you’ll hear people talk about the great power of the English king at the time of the Tudors, and Henry VIII did have quite a bit of influence on everything going on in the realm, once he died, there was a massive amount of wealth in the royal coffers. But when he died, what happens? Well, his son, his very, very young son at the time, Edward, succeeds to the throne. And he is basically at the head of these families, these noble families, who are largely, let’s say, Protestant leaning. And the reason why is connected to the dissolution of the monasteries, because somebody had to go raiding those monasteries. They were the, like the rest of the European continent, almost the treasury. They had all of the wealth, gold, jewels, fine stonework, and architecture, and lead even. Many of the monastery roofs, I believe, did have lead, which was very hard to come by at the time. But again, you spend money on what you value. This massive influx of wealth to the crown coffers once the monasteries were dissolved, which is a whole topic you could spend a long time even talking about that, because the effect that that had on England, I mean, you can even see it later in Shakespeare’s writings. So what happens when Henry VIII dies? The crown for almost a century afterwards, after his death, is in the hands not of the person who nominally wears the crown, because his son, his young son, was very easily influenced. He was, I think, maybe eight years old when he ascended the throne, incredibly young. I don’t know if it was exactly eight, but he was a very young child. He died in his teen years, I believe. And then after him was his sister Mary. This is the whole so-called Bloody Mary who comes back and tries to bring England back to the Roman Catholicism. It was very short-lived, maybe about five years. But again, this is a queen. So this is, in terms of the nature of the headship of the country, in terms of who sits on the throne, if you can imagine a whole country run by the great men of state, not many of them are going to be, let’s say, as willing to listen to a queen. And a Catholic queen at that, a queen who is, let’s say, of a different, so far as these men are concerned, worshipping a different god, is basically an idolater. But Mary’s reign is short. After Mary comes Elizabeth, the Elizabeth who gives her name to the Elizabethan age. And that is a very long reign. That is, I believe, 40 years, 50 years, maybe. Extremely long reign for the time. And why should we care about all of this lead-up? Well, because during all of that time, these great men of state, these magnates, who all were major families, the Cecils, the Cromwells, let’s not forget that Oliver Cromwell, who we might know as a figure from the English Civil War, was a descendant of that same Cromwell who was Henry VIII’s minister. Yes, so he’s a great, great, great, great, great-grandson, I believe. And these are all noble families. And many of them, many of them gained their status after the dissolution of the monasteries, because, of course, Henry wants to promote, he all of a sudden no longer has, let’s say, Catholic clergy. Now he has a sort of union of crown and church. And so, you know, you have all these families come in to fill in these positions. I mean, you have to fill in for something like the role of a monk, perhaps, in terms of his function, at least to the degree that you can. Anyways, after all of that, yeah, I mean, after all of that, yeah, go ahead. I want to slow you down a bit and also sort of emphasise, because the name of the channel is still navigating patterns. So, you know, you introduced me to the series Monarchy with David Starkey. And I couldn’t just watch the episodes you wanted. I tried, but it wasn’t possible. So I watched the whole thing. It was quite good. It was quite good. And in this, and you sort of alluded to this, and I like, look, I don’t want to go too far back, but also there is a pattern here from Rome. And there’s another pattern that Starkey points to. Whether or not this is from Rome, we could have endless debates. I don’t think the information could ever be made available. Right. So it’s all speculation inference. But there’s this Anglo-Saxon ethos that gets mentioned. And that is a different attitude towards having rulers than, we’ll say, the French or the continental model, actually. Yeah. Right. It’s different from the Norse model. It’s actually different because it’s a blending. And it is unique to that region. It is not anywhere else. It is only in England, basically, or in England and Scotland, or England and Scotland and Ireland, you know, something like that. It’s very nebulous because there’s all these invasions and invaders. But the way that the kingship develops over time is very significant. And what you’re pointing to here, I think, is the splitting up of the interface between, we’ll say, the church and value. And now value has been reduced to money because that’s what monarchs use. And ever since then, the ruling family in England has been the wealthiest people. That was not always the case. And you can argue, yeah, well, and then there were problems. Yes. And there were problems because of the wealth disparity, because the king couldn’t just raise money and couldn’t raise private armies. And some of the, you know, some of his subjects, basically, who had castles, could. And so there was a great deal going on there. But you notice this pattern of this change in rulership. And, you know, I think you’re dead on to point to Henry and the Tudors as the change. The last, we’ll say the last gas catalyst before the whole thing breaks. And it breaks because they are removing the monasteries, which are the store of community wealth that is properly because there was an improperly properly distributed throughout the country. And now that wealth has become centralized within the country. Right. And these are sort of modern themes. That’s why I’m that’s why I think this is important. So now you have this decentralization of the wealth as the result of Henry VIII. He no longer has to go to his cousins across the pond, right, or across the channel or whatever. He can just appeal to the wealth he has at hand. He doesn’t need anyone else’s authority. And that that also emboldens him. Right. Like it’s it’s it’s a double edged sword in some sense, except it cuts his way both sides because he removes himself from Rome, but also takes the wealth so that he doesn’t need the people beholden to Rome to loan him money to go to war anymore, which was always the custom. Nobody, no king in Europe ever went to war without their cousins or, you know, at least one other place sending troops or or money or whatever. That never happened. And that actually continued right up into the American rebellion. Interestingly enough, where there was still calls for foreign troops, Germans in particular, right. And we’ll get there. But you can see this pattern unfolding where before things were done a certain way. And now there’s a break in that pattern. Things aren’t done that way. So, yeah, I just wanted to kind of point that out. That’s really important contextually to see that what we’re trying to point to is this pattern that happened historically and how that leads. And the reason why you went back there is very important, because that leads up to the the the second break. Right. And the second break is almost 100 years later. So please pick it right back up where you left off, sir. Well, I’ll just cap it off and then and then I’ll we’ll have some sort of we’ll just stay there for a minute. So what I’ll say is you have a long period of time when when when the person who is who is sitting on the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland is and let’s say it does not command a presence with with which he can basically seize what is what is his own. Because, you know, Henry VIII is a Renaissance man king. He is strong. He is a young when he’s young, he’s very handsome and he’s warlike. Right. And he’s a man who can handle other men and many other men because he is the king and he will he will find his way. When you have a young boy, for instance, Henry’s son dependent on his advisors and a woman who is of a different faith, ostensibly to the to the new new regime. And then, of course, you have Elizabeth, who is a virgin queen, has most importantly, right, so is supposed to be a unmarried. So she is a woman ruling alone at that time. And so the question is, who is controlling the purse strings, the newly enlarged purse strings? And so this is where we get to to to Charles. And it’s and it’s important to note as well, why am I dwelling on this idea of wealth and where the where the money is going? But because. You know, there’s this idea of that happens in the American rebellion of no taxation without representation. But this idea of taxation, as we know it, and is is rather new and it occurs at the beginning of it occurs. And, you know, during this English civil war and before then, the crown up until that point when it wanted money, generally it funded itself. And so what getting getting money from the monasteries was helpful because it means the king didn’t have to bother his subjects, which is the way it would have been sort of framed, bother his subjects with the expense of a war. He would finance it himself. And there were circumstances very limited under which he would ask for money off his own subjects as well. So he would ask for money off the church. He would ask for money off of parliament. And so this is where this is these are the parliaments of old, otherwise known as I need money. I need an extraordinary amount of money right now. And I’m sorry, but this has to be done. It was it was an it was an extreme measure. It wasn’t something that was part of the governing of the country as such. For that, you had ministers like Cromwell, Oliver Cromwell’s great, great, great grandfather. I don’t know how many times great. And so there’s a change when you change religion. But when Henry breaks from Rome, there’s a change in relationship. But then there’s also this change in the way that people are seeing government, how they’re relating to to something that’s the next layer above them, let’s say. And that’s that’s significant. Let’s say the English Civil War, you could almost couch it in those terms. It is the changing of the government of England from this old Anglo-Saxon model. But that really does go back to William the Conqueror. But even then, and there are but even before William, you have King Alfred and the idea of the sheriff, right, which is another interesting one, because where do you get the word sheriff from? It’s it comes from Shire Shire Reeve. And he would be he was a king’s man. He was directly employed by the king. He only had to answer to the king. And he and I believe he collected taxes at the time. Again, not taxes as such like it would have been. He would have called the parliament, I think. Right. So that’s that’s kind of where I’m where I’m pointing to. And so, yeah, I’m thinking, yeah. So I want to I want to ask two questions because my you know, and this is just my understanding, right, which, you know, I don’t know where my understanding come from all the time, because there’s a bunch of books I know I read that I don’t know, a little fuzzy on. But my understanding is twofold. One is that a parliament was something that was called an extraordinary circumstances, which is not to say it wouldn’t have been called regularly, but like once a quarter sort of a thing at most. Yes. Right. And and and then when the king needed money, he would call a parliament. But the other one is that the way taxation work was very hierarchical. So the king did not tax you. What happened is the king tax the nobles. And the nobles may or may not tax the people based on a number of factors. And each one had his own decision about how he wanted to handle his particular population, because he could get, you know, a revolt on his hand that had nothing to do with the king. We’re fine with you, King, but this guy, this middle level manager, which is the right way to think of these things. He’s got to go. And some and there’s plenty of instances in history, although it’s not talked about that much. Everybody sort of it’s odd. They all love bottom up until it’s history. They never talk about the bottom up revolutions against the noblemen where the king had to step in and then because it’s always viewed as well. The king king saw his opportunity and came in against the noble. No, the king wouldn’t do that normally because that’s a pain in the ass. You know, it’s like a bank owning a house. Banks hate to own houses. They don’t like to foreclose because they can’t sell them because they’re not set up to do that. The king is not set up to war with his his nobles. He’s just not. He doesn’t like to do it. The king usually doesn’t have the best army. And if you look at monarchy, the king wins 50 percent of the time or something. Yeah, the reigning king wins 50 percent of the time. The reigning king wins 50 percent of the time. This is not a good strategy for him to stay in power. It’s not top down power from above. And so when the and when the parliament meets, it’s sort of this middling thing, right, because it’s not the noblemen, right. It’s not just the noblemen. It’s also one rank down from them. And they and it’s not. We’re going to get together and figure out how we’re going to tax people. It’s we’re going to get together and first figure out the king is right. And we agree that that something needs to be done. And then we’re going to figure out how much money needs to go to that. And then we’re going to figure out how to raise that money. Because the parliament was the distributed cognition about how to get the money. The king didn’t just go to parliament and say, I need this much money. Go get it for me. Right. The king goes to parliament, says, I need to do this. They work together to figure out approximately how much that’s going to. You know, I’m not saying the king can come with a number. Right. I mean, if you go into a negotiation with another number, you’re a recharge. You know, you’re just you’re dumb. Don’t do that. Right. But. The odds of him getting that number are probably zero. You might get more. That’s always because somebody might say, listen, King, I don’t think you’re going to be able to raise the Navy. You need you’re going to need at least four more ships. We’re going to need to give you more money. And the king would probably be like, oh, I don’t think so. But, you know, maybe. OK. It’s very much that. And I don’t think we have a sense for that. So I just wanted to check with you. Is that is my understanding correct? Parliament is not a permanent thing. The only permanent thing was the court. Yeah. Whatever court that was. Right. And so like the the king’s court’s open 24 seven. The nobles courts are also open 24 seven. If you want to think about it, sort of these recent times, term terminology, like it’s like a 7-Eleven. Right. It’s you know, 24 or something. Right. It’s always open. Exactly. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. The baron, you know, the local baron or whatever is open 24 seven. Three hundred sixty five days of the year, maybe minus the feast days when when England is Catholic and full and full service. Yes. And also feast days. Who hosts the feasts? Well, the wealthy people host the feast for the poor people. Right. Like there’s all this going on, but they’re open 24. And if something can’t be adjudicated right then, then they spend the night in the castle, you know, like or the fortress or whatever the heck it is. It doesn’t even matter. Right. And so there’s very much this idea. So Parliament is not something that is open 24 seven. Parliament is reserved for extraordinary circumstances. It’s an irregular body. Right. Right. It’s it’s it right. And so I just wanted to make that clear because we look at it through the frame of what we see today. We go, well, Congress is in session for whatever. Or, you know, the English parliament is that’s not the way it was. This is very, very recent stuff. Well, Parliament, even at that time, it wouldn’t it wouldn’t even be every quarter. It would be every couple of years, because that would be the sort of timescale that’s happening on, because otherwise the king is and this is an important. This is another important part with the with the it matters. And who’s in control of the government coffers, but also then who’s in control or who’s influencing who’s getting titles and land? Because when Henry dies, he is very wealthy and he has a lot of land. So he can and he can, let’s say, execute the the the the office of king, you know, well, he can rule well because he doesn’t have to ask people for money, mainly because he raided the monasteries. But even before then, you’re right. Kings went to war off of their own coffers and only in very exceptional circumstances did they actually ask for money off of their subjects, a loan of money, basically, off off off of their subjects. In the form of a borrow it, they’d borrow it from their cousins across across the way. Yeah. Like that was a very common practice. Yeah. Right. Right. Well, and also I think it’s worth talking about. Yeah, you might get land from the king or whatever. But when it came tax time, guess who’s paying most of that tax to that? The taxes were not like we think of taxes as in, well, everybody pays, let’s say, 30 percent of the United States. But first of all, the United States is one of the most graduated tax systems in the world, incidentally. Everyone whines about it. But no, actually, we do pretty well with the graduated tax system. But but they didn’t even have a graduated tax system. The whole purpose of parliament was to argue about who is going to pay most of this bill. And the person who paid was usually the guy with the most land because he had the most ability to pay and sure, he didn’t necessarily want to. Although more often than not, he’d be like, yeah, fair enough. I’ve got the land and I’ve been using it free for 10 years. And now I got to pay up. OK. Like that seems fair. Like people are not these tyrannical, mechanical, especially not back then. Like they still had these ideas of duties and values, even though they had destroyed the value by spreading out. We’ll say the monetary representation of value. See, see my videos on money. The monetary representations of value had been separated from the spiritual representation of value in the monasteries. That was a big mistake. Notice they’re called monasteries, too. I’m just saying anyway. Yes. Yeah. Well, and so it’s interesting. It’s interesting to consider it in that in that light, because when parliament is this extraordinary thing that really doesn’t happen all that often by the other end of the English Civil War, certainly by 1688, which is a long way off where we’re at at the moment. You have this idea that somehow parliament needs to be there, needs always to basically be. And this is the thing now. And now it’s going to be advising the king. So there’s a lot that’s actually happening in in England at the time of Charles I, who is the monarch who is the king, right, of England, Scotland and Ireland at the time the English Civil War breaks out. And there is there is another kind of let’s say I mean, there’s a lot going on. So let’s let’s kind of get into. What what what sort of character Charles Stewart was the king at the time and and what’s going on in this world, a hundred years, roughly speaking, after the death of Henry VIII. So you have a hundred years of this kind of predominance of of the great men of state essentially having free reign. And so long as they, you know, they’re defending, they’re defending England, let’s say, from the Spanish armada. Right. But they essentially have free reign to do as they wish and are handing out titles and land as they see fit with basically the king or the queen or the queens, largely at this stage, the queen’s approval. But then you get a change to the stewards. Charles’s father, James, was came down from Scotland and he was the next in line for the throne. Now, it should be noted here that when it comes to succession, there was never a question about who was going to be on the throne because it had to follow the lines of feudal succession and the particular law of England. And so James I was the son, I believe, of our grandson of Mary, Queen of Scots. A cousin to Elizabeth. James is rightfully succeeding to the throne. And this was something that just happened. You didn’t need any external confirmation of it in the sense that people knew how it was going to go. And so James exceeds the throne and everyone claims him king. And he he does he does some interesting stuff, actually. He tries to he proposes a union between the kingdoms of Scotland and England. So it’s a kind of proto United Kingdom. But again, this is under the initiative of the king. And interestingly enough, his English subjects don’t like the idea of that. So so that doesn’t really come to pass. And it’s like, OK, well, fair enough. But Charles, who is the son of James Charles actually was never meant to be on the throne. He had an older brother who died when he was. Oh, I think 20. Yeah, yeah. And he was a he was a, let’s say, a staunch Scottish Protestant, sort of genuine Calvinist was Charles’s older brother. But Charles, on the other hand, who was never being groomed to be king, eventually had to take the throne. During his father’s reign, there was tension between the crown and the great men of state for obvious reasons of the fact that James wanted to do things. And he was willing to, let’s say, push and negotiate and with his subjects for what he wanted. And he was using every means at his disposal to do that. So, you know, he might call parliaments because the crown might have been a little bit impoverished after the death of Elizabeth, considering, again, there was a kind of waning of crown lands. And so Charles is born into a world, firstly, of massively changed religious kind of framework. So at this point, the Reformation had come in and there was a massive change in the way people worshiped and the way that their lives were organized. And they had to all sort of get. Comfortable with this, with this, with this new kind of, let’s say, religious settlement. And so that’s the world in which the English Civil War happens. What’s happening in the colonies of time? This is important as well. This is the colonies are set up, right? You have you have some of the first colonies being kind of getting off the ground in the in the in the early 1600s, I believe. And this is an important background because the colonies are largely kind of crown affairs, right? This is this is this is an it’s an initiative by the crown to to go out and settle these lands. And so any administration of the colonies would have been done through basically the king’s representative, whatever that might have been. I don’t know the office exactly, but I suspect it would have been something like a a sheriff or something. Well, you’d leave it to the colonies, like you would leave it to the small towns of England. Well, and and it’s worth talking about where these colonies come from. Right. Yes. And so they are getting petitions from the king to occupy the lands. And there are multiple reasons for this. And a lot of people get confused and look, it’s fair to say that religious persecution is a factor and that a religious reason is enough of a reason, single reason for anything to happen. That is totally fair. I completely a billion percent agree. However. In this particular case. Protestants of different ilks remained in England and supported the colonies that were in alignment with their Protestant beliefs. Right. There was still and still are Quakers in England. They did not round up the Quakers and kick them out. However, they did round up the troublemakers and kick them out. And a lot of them happened to not have, we’ll say, the religious affiliation of the Church of England, right, whatever state that was in at the time. And it’s worth also noting it takes. Well, for the first generation, after they switch over away from papal, you know, power, right. Nothing changes in the Church of England. No one notices and nothing. There’s no material change in worship or anything. Just nothing. It’s still said in Latin. That’s right. How no change happens. And it’s still the Roman mass. Like it’s not they didn’t invent a new liturgy. None of that happened. And it started to change. But, you know, I don’t I don’t know this, but I have it on good authority that that the Anglicans and the Catholics, it’s so close. Even now, after they’ve been apart for a long time, that it is pretty close. You know, it’s it’s not you wouldn’t so much recognize the difference, unlike some of the other pros and denominations. But the split takes a couple of generations to really happen. Like the changes actually take that time to happen. So what’s happening is these people leave. They don’t go to the colonies. It isn’t what happened. And it’s very this is super important, super important. So there were two, two or three attempted colonies, right? They get slaughtered by the natives. You know, the kind of peaceful natives everybody talks about, the ones that never existed on this continent, on the North American continent. Those. Yeah, that didn’t happen. Just so you know, didn’t happen. Yeah. So the first successful colony, right, in Plymouth, Massachusetts, not too far from where I grew up. Same state, small state, tiny state, one of the little baby states. This is like a it’s like a European country size thing. It’s tiny little states up there in New England. So. Those guys are welcomed in by the natives, right, even after they burn and steal their way through Cape Cod. Nobody ever talks about that they’re forgiven and and they’re put up in Plymouth and they’re put in Plymouth because the natives want people there because they’ve been wiped out by disease. Yes, the disease likely came from the New World. The disease did not come from the settlers. Let’s be a billion percent clear about that. The disease predates all the settlements, all the settlements. Some of it might have come from the Spanish or that crazy Italian guy. No, don’t care. I think and there’s a great deal of evidence for this that it came from the Scots because the Scots already knew about New England and were already trading there, and that’s actually where Columbus got the idea from. And there’s a great deal of evidence for that, by the way. So smallpox probably came that way in like the 1400s, like the mid 1400s, because again, Columbus gets the idea from the Scots that there might be something over there. And that’s part of his covert. And it was hidden, like they did actually cover up the fact that he was in Scotland talking to the merchants who were trading, most likely, most likely trading with with North America already. So the route they could have taken up north the same way that the Norsemen ages back. We know the Vikings made it. And we actually had much bigger ships in Scotland at the time. So why not? Yeah, it makes total sense. The Scots had great, great, great sailing vessels and great navigation back then, only a few of them. And and they were very secretive. This is where the secret societies come from. The idea of secret societies come from the fact that they were real and that people who had trades or had trade secrets or trade route secrets or trading secrets kept them secret on purpose. Right. Like that actually happened. It happened in all kinds of ways. It happened with stonemasons, for sure. If you want to go down that route, it happened with the with the craftsmen for the Gothic cathedrals. That’s why we don’t have cathedral plans. It’s not that they didn’t draw plans. It’s that they didn’t draw them permanently because they didn’t want anybody to know how to do this stuff. Right. Like this is very deliberate. And this is very medieval. That’s how the medieval world worked. It operated on clandestine secret societies by our standards, not by theirs. By theirs is perfectly normal. Stay in your lane. Know your role. Don’t try to be an expert at too many things. All this sounds like awful, interesting recent advice. I wonder if there’s a connection. But more importantly, what you see is these people who settled from England didn’t go from England. They were in the Netherlands. Yes. They went to the Netherlands. They were kicked out of England. They were thrown out. OK. And then you’ll notice there were all of these places along the eastern seaboard in particular. So down the street from Columbia, South Carolina, one of the cities on the coast is called Charleston. Yeah, Boston across the river from Boston to the northwest is called Charlestown. Are you seeing a similar and this is all over the place, right? There’s Charlestons everywhere around here, at least on the coast. These are charters from the king. So in Charleston, South Carolina. That the reason why they did that is because they landed there first. They knew they weren’t supposed to be there. So they said, we’re going to name it after the king, get in his good graces. And then they got the charter granted afterwards. Of course, little things happen, right? And so you can see the corruption that we might point to today has always been around in some way or another in history. We tend to compress all that. But the pilgrims, in particular, the Puritans that came over, they got kicked out. They were already thrown out for religious prosecution. But that’s not the only reason. They were also monarchists. And the idea of monarchy is changing and becoming very, very unpopular in England, which is why they get thrown out. And it’s also why the colonies are a project of the king, to your point. And I think that’s extraordinarily important. And anybody who fails to mention that is doing you a historical disservice and probably being intellectually honest, because it’s super important that they were the king’s man. Yeah, well, and it’s important at this stage to understand that most of the upper rungs of English society, at that by the time of Charles’s accession to the throne, are Protestant, because Protestantism in England was largely pushed by these squires and great men of the realm. And again, they were just they were being true to what got them many, what got many of them there in the first place, what just kept some of them there and enriched them in other cases. And which was, you know, OK, well, if you separate yourself from papal authority, then you don’t have to deal with the monasteries. And so to some degree, it kind of simplify things. But then the king then who becomes the supreme head of the church when it comes to headship, right, in this religious context, right? Before it was the pope. And then now it becomes the king. So the king, the act of supremacy all the way back in Henry’s time. You know, Charles is is the supreme head of the Church of England. And so one of actually one of the major things that that causes a conflict between him and the great men of state who fill parliament again, up until this point, is still just this extraordinary body, which is there to loan the king money and very occasionally. They well, Charles wants to change the way worship is done a little bit. Now, it should be mentioned at this point. Initially, at Henry VIII, nothing changes. The mass is still set in Latin. Then his son comes into power. Things do change. Thomas Cranmer changes the language of worship to from from Latin to English. But I think it’s largely, largely similar. Mary, Bloody Mary comes in, she’s Catholic. She tries to bring England back, so tries to roll it back. It doesn’t last long. Five years. Elizabeth comes in and tries to what’s called steer a middle path, probably just letting people do kind of what they want to do in their local area. But because she’s not really at the head of everything at that time, the great men of state probably prevail. That’s why you still have by the time of Charles, you have, you know, the liturgy being said in the mass, let’s say, if you want to term it that, being said in English. And so there’s a kind of. But when you and the English Civil War, in some sense, it’s going to be all about the question of. Of, let’s say, headship, but then also how that reflects itself and worship is also also shows itself. Yeah. And so the guys, it’s important to note as well, if these guys can afford to go to the Netherlands, it tells you something about their means, you know, that the English peasantry aren’t going anywhere, they’re in it for the long haul, at least initially anyways. Right. Right. Well, and that’s good noting, too, because one of the pressures and this is something I got out of Colin Woodard’s excellent book, American Nations, you haven’t read that. You got to read that. You don’t understand anything about America. And you read that book, literally not might as well know nothing about the history of America without that book. It just makes everything make sense. The people that are getting are leaving are beholden to the monarch, particularly because England, Newslash, the UK is a set of islands. So there is a limited amount of land. OK, so all these noble class that have children, how dare they? Where they knew the kids, they can’t keep dividing the land. Oh, well, there’s all this land to be granted. And so that’s the problem. And so they’re not going to be able to keep that land over there all of a sudden. For whatever reason, like it doesn’t it doesn’t like I don’t want to get into the vagaries of how the colonies came to be and all that. But it’s available over there. And so, yeah, men of means who are ostracized to some extent, not just because of the religious differences, because maybe they thought, oh, Mary was right. Religious tolerance came under Elizabeth and maybe that middle path was right. And so that’s the problem. And so it’s like, yeah, they don’t have enough land to keep the country in control. And so now they’re actually in control. Who’s who’s not Elizabeth are actually like, get out of here. Like, yeah, I understand. You’re the son of who, Sue and so and so. But now you don’t have enough land. You’re not going to make it into the Parliament anyway, because, you know, you’re just you’re a small third son of whomever. Well, now these people have a place to go. Now they’re all well educated, too. No difference. It’s not to say you can’t be educated without money, but it is to say everybody with money gets a certain style of education for sure. Yes, it had become it had become increasingly so by that point, because to to to that to that end, somebody like Henry in Henry VIII time, right, Thomas Cromwell, his adviser was the son of a butcher where and his cardinal Cardinal Wolsey. And it came from similarly modest upbringing. But as time goes on, when you have the magnates, they’ll they’ll kind of cut off this kind of idea of people coming up from the bottom. And part of that is they’re looking after their own. And so you see this increasing kind of if you want to put it termed it this way, it kind of increasing aristocratic tendency that’s coming in, because when you don’t have a king who can who can say, I want the best men at my side, I want the best men to be brought through and who could just raise, you know, he can raise a commoner, let’s say who he likes to being a landed part of the land of gentry. And they don’t have that. It’s all education and wealth. And this is this becomes more important as time goes on. In fact, Oliver Cromwell, who features in the English Civil War, was thinking of leaving for the colonies because he was a he was a squire. He was a country squire of of comparatively modest means to, let’s say, somebody like the king or a duke. Right. But actually rather wealthy for his for his area. You know, and so this is so when it comes to the English Civil War, well, what what kicks it off? Well, it all comes around parliament. And this is you’ll see you’ll this is what you’ll hear people talk about. And the reason why this becomes a problem is because the king has no money and the king has no money because the king largely doesn’t have all that much land. And so he has to ask money from parliament and he calls parliament. And because he’s trying to do these religious changes, parliament starts to try and push back and say, no, you need to stop with all of these religious changes. You have a kind of slow radicalization of that body because the king. And is basically trying to trying to recover the state of the crown as it as it as it once was. So how does that happen? Well, he is and this is how this is how you’ll hear it in any sort of recounting of it. There are two men, two basically men of the court, if you want to put it that way. One, he makes Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. And then there was another man as well. But these were these were guys who were executing the will of the king. Basically, they were they were going and doing their job. And Parliament, the great men of the land, wanted their heads because, and well, I suppose they were trying to. Yeah, they didn’t like they didn’t like this. This I’m sure what they viewed as an encroachment to what their families were had been long used to, which was basically they could do what they wanted and they would get no resistance. And the king or the monarch, right, not the king, because the monarch of the time would basically not along. Because they couldn’t really say anything to the contrary. So they take they they execute the archbishop of Canterbury. And I cannot I can’t remember his name, but he was basically another great officer of state. And that sours relations between the king and Parliament. And then the king Charles starts to and well, he’s trying to push these religious reforms, which is basically at the time you basically the liturgy is done in English. But you have this kind of. Whitewashed appearance to many of the churches. And Charles basically wants to introduce a little a little bit of gold back into the the churches. And this is viewed by many of the Puritans, let’s say that what would later become known as the Puritans, basically Calvinists of various varieties as idolatry. Why is this important? Because these are the men who are sitting in Parliament. These are that these are the men. Many of these men are sitting in Parliament. There are more moderate factions who are willing to go along with what the king wants to do. But that’s that that’s a major tension point. But the king also wants money. And he dug up this old precedence of called ship money, which basically allowed him to levy taxes directly. I say levy taxes. He the idea would be basically the king needed money for ships as it as it turned out. And he could he could, you know, this was something that was taken open again at the time of when it was needed. And that would be a source of revenue to build ships. That would be the idea. Well, Charles decided to use that as a source of income for the crown. Because he couldn’t get it from Parliament. Parliament wouldn’t vote him money. And this there are other episodes of this sort of tension showing. But there is I mean, that’s a that’s a lot of animosity. If you have men of the court who are being who can be executed even. Right. Right. And to the king’s meant to be executed by these these aristocrats. And there’s something’s going on there that that that state of affairs can’t last forever when you have a king who wants to be a king. Yeah, that’s that’s that’s shots fired for sure. Yeah. And that’s and OK. There were leaders to these factions, right? There were there were there were five. One notable figure is Henry Ayrton. Another one is William Pym. And there are others, but these are basically, you know. Squires, they’re actually rather rather well off men. And basically what they’re trying to do is just kind of secure their own financial interests and say to the king, no, no, thank you. We’re not going to have any of your. Let’s say agenda being kind of followed through with. And so. And. Charles is getting a bit tired of these men, these these these men who are what happens, and it’s actually. It’s it’s an unlikely thing to happen, but basically, parliament stalls to a point where and the parliament, by the way, one of them is called the long parliament. And it lasts like years, years upon years. So this is this is very, very extraordinary behavior from an already extraordinary sort of body within within the state. And so you have this faction. And I think it’s William Pym who basically starts to argue that the the king is is is imposing his will and he’s a tyrant and so on and so forth. And the king eventually, I would not say that Charles was an exceptionally great politician, but I think to the to to a large degree, he didn’t have to be. He was he was the king. Right. Well, and and I want to just because what I recall is that the long parliament happened because parliament basically refused to disband after they were told to do so. Yes. Yes. That’s right. That’s right. So so so they’ve killed a couple of guys who are the king’s men who are off limit. They can’t kill the king’s men. That’s killing the sheriff. The king’s will. Right. They don’t arrest them. They don’t like they kill them. That’s a little over the top. And then the king says, all right, we got to call power. What the hell’s going on? Because that’s what the king does. Yeah. Parliament doesn’t call itself like that’s not right. So then the king says, all right, parliament, you guys aren’t getting anywhere. I want to dissolve the parliament and we’ll we’ll pick it up again later. Right. Well, yes. Right. And they refuse. Yeah. So this is a major transgressions. Yeah, that’s and so that that’s right. So so basically, the parliament almost is trying to to show itself to be. No, we’re we’re in charge here. We’re not leaving. And they’ve already usurped the authority of the monarch. Yes, because that’s in two ways. OK. Yeah. And that’s called even to this day, that’s called the prerogative. That is called the prerogative of the monarch to dissolve parliament. This is still this is even still nominally, of course, within the powers of the present occupant of the throne. Allegedly available. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And this this is the first time where something like this really like, you know, the parliament doesn’t want to dissolve itself. And it’s quite strange because why wouldn’t this body want to just let’s go home? You know, so you have this agitation. And so what does the king do? He he he looks at where the leaders are. He picks them out, the major the major ring leaders, and he says, OK, I’m arresting you. He sends he walks he himself walks into parliament and demands shows that says, I I’ve signed the warrants for the arrests of these men. And all of those men happen to get word ahead of the king arriving into parliament and to to get out of there. And so once that happens, it’s like that’s the start of the English civil war. And you might say, well, some people might say, well, that wasn’t exactly it. It was when Charles left and raised his banner at Nottingham. Yeah. Well, that’s because Charles understood what what had just happened there. He didn’t get the men who wanted who just usurped his authority. So now what do you do? And so he goes all the way to Nottingham, which is no, a little bit far out from from London, which is where he would have started off. And he yeah, he was called raised his banner. He called all of his men to him and said, like, look, this is this can’t go on. This is he was assorting his authority as king, saying, no, I am the king. Well, he was only trying to arrest traitors who refused to disband the part, the illegal parliament. Yeah. That didn’t resolve the issue of killing his men. Yeah. It seems like there’s a massive imbalance in the parliamentarians have no argument for existing at this point. But they have the means by which to prosecute a war on account of the fact that the past many years apart from Charles’s father, who I think reigned for maybe maybe a decade in England, not very long. And it wasn’t very happy, not very happy relations with Parliament either. And he, you know, he he was basically trying to write things, bring things closer to when they were, let’s say under the under Henry Tudor, but even really harkening back to the state of affairs under the previous English kings, that the that the king could sustain himself off his own income. And prosecute wars and basically rule the realm without interference. But this is where you have this weird interference from the bottom. And that’s because they think, you know, they can get away with it because because, well, as it turns out, many of them are quite wealthy and they do also take up arms against the king. And and that’s the beginning of the English Civil War. And initially, and the king had some decent advantage, but I think it lasted about four or five years in the first two years. The king had it had a large advantage. He had the most advantage in the country, in the cities. He had the least advantage because that’s where you had all the rather wealthy merchants who happened, who generally tended to be of a of a, let’s say, Puritan. But it’s not strictly Puritan. You know, there there is there are many different things that happen during the English Civil War, many different religious minorities. It’s kind of if you want. Showing showing kind of all the length and breadth of of of the Protestant kind of thing that was going on at that time. So you have guys who are the moderate Anglicans, who are basically like we we support the king as head of the Church of England. You have, let’s say, Puritans who are more like, well, we don’t we don’t really want to have much to do with with the supreme head of the church. We don’t even think there should be bishops at all. And then you have some really radical factions which show forth in the English Civil War. Like the levelers, right, the levelers who who who didn’t even like distinctions of hierarchy within society. So they would never like they they didn’t recognize that. They took great pleasure in not deferring or not deferring, but, you know, not taking off their their cap to write and a lord or bowing to him or something like that. So this is an early attempt at equality for all. Yes. Which seems to be born out of the Protestant rebellion, which is never going to stop by definition, by their own admission. Right. And it doesn’t work. Didn’t work for the levelers. It didn’t work for the parliament, as we’ll see. It didn’t work for the king. Everyone’s worse off for it. And we’re kind of living in the result of that now. I think is going to be the argument that we’re going to get to eventually. Yeah. So, yeah, I just wanted to make that clear. Like this idea of equality for everyone. Yeah, it’s been tried many times throughout history. There’s a clear example of the last time you can point at something that was actually labeled that in what we’d call modern enough parlance that you can understand it. The levelers were all about full equality for everybody. Where are they now? Hmm. And it gets worse, but it gets worse as the civil war goes on. And you have to make a bit of a spoiler of it. By the end of it, you have the soldiers basically who want it’s not just like a republic. They want to flatten all the hierarchy. And it’s at that point that Cromwell becomes almost like a kind of let’s not go that far. Let’s kind of rein it in. But let’s I’m kind of jumping the gun here. And I want I want to sort of cast our minds back to the French Revolution and this similar pattern that happens where you have an initial sort of and you have an initial sort of. Break or something like that, there needs to be that there’s a kind of coming to coming together of the head and the body, and then some some great amount of discord happens and and and let’s say redress is attempted to be made. But what happens in the end is that you basically have kind of an increasing entropy that just happens to kind of slide into chaos. And you just get these kind of massive extremities showing themselves as as as time goes on. And by the end of it, you have a kind of you have. A beheading of the head. And to cut a long story short, Charles, who the king who had so much support at the countryside of the small folk of England lost the Civil War. And part of the reason he lost is well, the Scottish got involved. So the Scottish didn’t didn’t didn’t like what what Charles was doing. And so they they basically helped out for a bit. And Charles Charles basically loses. He’s taken captive by Parliament. And it’s interesting as well. He’s not it’s not like they go straight for beheading him. They try to negotiate with him, but they can’t. The reason why? Well, because he so far as Charles is concerned, he’s the king. And they want to say, well, we want to have a kind of what’s, you know, this is jumping the gun again. Constitutional monarchy, whatever that is. They basically want to have have it recognized that Parliament is is sovereign with rather than the king. They want him to transfer his power. But I think also it’s worth maybe I misremembered this, you’ll correct me. Right. The only reason why the Scots do what they do when they are called to support their their king, because it really direct line. This is actually your guy. He’s a steward. Right. He’s he’s he’s right. So he is he’s comes from Scotland. Right. But but is because that same pattern that caused this parliamentary problem is causing the exact same problem in Scotland, but not with Parliament, with their succession. Yeah. The succession of well, yeah, he’s a steward, but actually my guy should be king or or if the stewards aren’t king. Right. Because because right now it’s one it’s one thing. Right. This already happened. It was already merged. Right. Then then our king would be king and we’d be king of the great that it would be Scotland first in England and England second because they’re in chaos and they’ll come running back to us from the monarchy because everybody knows you can’t do anything without a mark. Come on. The options. There are no other options. You have to have a king. Everybody knows that. Right. This is how they’re thinking. Yes. Right. Because they’re seeing the chaos in the Civil War. Because that’s the other thing. Quite a bit of chaos going on. There was a horrible war. Well, they’re not. It was pretty bad. They’re not prosecuting a war on one side against the other. No, there’s there’s there’s the king’s men and they’re united. And there’s all these other factions and they’re actually fighting amongst each other. They’re just fighting with the king more. Yes. Or less, as the case may be. Right. An example of that. There’s an example of that in Ireland as well. Like the there were there was stuff happening with basically because the king was was the head of the supreme head of the Church of England. He was trying to basically evict the local Catholic gentry. And so that caused tension. But eventually, the eventually everyone in Ireland gets around the table and declares themselves to be basically for the king. You know, that that doesn’t play out to their advantage later on. But that’s by the way, it’s important to note that, though, this is the war of the three kingdoms. The English Civil War is not it’s it’s, you know, don’t be tempted to kind of even say it’s like the kind of in some sense, the American Civil War, where you have kind of pretty much you’ve got you’ve got kind of two sides that are that are kind of coalescing against one another, if I can be so bold as to as to go that far. But yeah, it’s it’s everyone’s killing each other. And it’s it’s important to note this is happening at the exact same time that the 30 years war is happening on the continent. And that was one of the most bloody wars on the European continent by percentage of population. There were entire villages in Germany laid bare. And that was the equivalent of that was basically seen in England. Right. And it never fully, let’s say, recovered from that. Well, well, and that’s what prevents the king from being able to get help from the continent. Yes. Yeah. So there’s all of these facts. So so what’s really happening is they’re seeing a weak king is backed into a corner and first the Irish and then the Scottish both go. Wait a minute. There’s a window here. We could do something. Right. And so really, there’s all these forces at play. And so it’s really not because it’s not top down power from above. I know everybody’s been taught that their whole life. Nothing like that has ever happened in history with with a few notable exceptions. But we call them tyrants. We don’t we don’t call them kings. And and that’s the issue. And I’ll have a video coming out about that, by the way, leadership versus tyranny. And that’s the issue is that there’s a big difference between these two things. But what’s actually happening? There is a power vacuum because we’re caught. Not we y’all over there across the pond are cut off from from Europe all of a sudden because of this other conflict. And then the forces in what we would now call the British Isles are like jockeying for, well, how’s this going to end? You know, what are we going to do? Right. Because they see opportunity rather than understanding the danger that they’re about to fall into as the result of taking the leader and then having to decide what to do with him. Yes. Well, and what this is, this is this is a this is it’s perfect for a movie. You could almost see it. But basically, Parliament has the gall to put the king on trial. And, you know, I think I should I should preface that all the you know, like the sheriff is the king’s man, all the judges of the land are the king’s men. And why do they have to be the king’s men? Because they are the the they are the executors of the king’s justice, let’s say. They are entrusted to, you know, a good example of this was St. Thomas More and Henry the Eighth. He was a lawyer. He was in and a judge. So so he was he was dispensing the king’s justice in the king’s debt. And so then they’re they’re going to put the king. And this is what they decide to do, because Charles is not willing to budge. He’s saying, no, I’m not. He’s actually being very recalcitrant. In fact, so much so that he invites the Scottish who were were against him on that first phase of the Civil War. He invites them down to fight for him now. And they do, but they lose. And that’s when they decide, OK, we’re going to put the king on trial. And the king, what does he do? He walks into the courtroom and he just sits down. He doesn’t take off his hat, which is which is important at the time, because he’s basically saying, I don’t recognize the headship of anyone here and over me. And so he sits down and they try and say, you know, Charles Stewart, you are guilty of the you are accused of the crimes of such and such. They’re trying to put him on trial like he’s like he’s a subject. Like this subject. This is the parliamentarians. Yes, the parliament will have never enacted justice in their lives. Not one. And it’s a it’s a specific faction as well, because as the Civil War has gone on, as the Civil War has gone on and the kind of moderate demands, and let’s say of the comparatively moderate demands of what parliament was basically looking for, they did want to usurp the power, but they weren’t couching in such strong terms. Now they want now they basically want to usurp the king’s power. His authority. They not not not even everyone in the courtroom is OK with putting the king on trial. There are there are men who are sitting beside the presiding judge, so called. Who basically deny that the king should be put on trial at all or that he should be guilty of treason, because, of course, if he’s found guilty of treason, how do you how is it that a king can can be treasonous against himself? And, you know. If he’s found guilty, they can kill him. Right. So but the problem is, is that you have this entire disconnect. They it’s so it’s so unique in time that they’ve kind of turned in on themselves so much nobody knows what to do. And so it’s basically they declare that, no, no, we have the authority because we have the authority. Whereas Charles, what does Charles do? By what authority do you bring me here? By what authority do you bring me here? That’s all he says. Why am I being brought here? By what authority? Right. Well, I think you highlight a few important factors that I just want to go over again. Right. The first one is this is not a case where the king is being held to a standard of justice in a set of courts that everybody else would be subject to. That didn’t happen here. We tend to think, well, that must be what happened. They took him to a court. No, they held court. Right. And normally the holding of court, by the way, was previously reserved for the king, the only or a noble. The only people who could hold court were were were courtly gentlemen. Right. Were were were courtly figures, which is the noble class and the king. OK. You know, who could never hold a court is parliament. Yeah. Because they were beholden to the court to be called. Click. They were fully underneath, way underneath. Parliament is technically underneath a duke. Technically. Yeah. Right. Even though it’s consistent of dukes and right. But it’s technically beholden to that. And and now you are taking the symbol of the country and accusing it of not being the country, because that’s what treason is. Right. To your point that this is very like the it’s we cannot grasp how unusual this is and how bizarre and strange. It’s a bit like the president of the United States. Right. Or the or or maybe the head of parliament over there over there in England. Yeah. Says, all right. Well, I am going to set up a special court. Over which I preside with my fellow parliamentary members or in the case of the US executive branch members, probably right. The people I’ve appointed and we are going to hold court and decide things about. Members of Congress or other members of parliament or, you know, members in the government or whatever. This is totally like nobody would think that was OK. That’s what’s going on here. Nobody thinks this is OK. Like zero people think that this is OK because we’re playing at a level that is non material. We’re screwing around with the symbol of what a country is and what it means to be a country. And now we’re taking the head of the country and we’re changing the relationship of the body. Right. Which the head is responsible for the leader in this case. Right. To that body. We’re changing that relationship. And so, yeah, nobody knows what’s going on because what does this even mean? Can the body rebelling? Can your can your arms and your legs rebel against your head? And if they do and they win, say, with treason, what the hell happens? It’s a good question. I know what happens to a physical body when you do that. So what what do you what happens, Adam? What happens when they do this? Well, what ends up happening is. Well, it’s interesting during during that trial, the people, the onlookers, the crowd chanted when the king walked in first, they all bowed to him when he walked in. They all screamed, God save the king, God save the king. You know, the soldiers and the parliamentarians that were on the similar side were saying eventually they said justice, justice. That’s what they were crying as they were as they were putting the head on trial as though that were something that could actually be done. And so it takes the trial takes three days. But basically, by the end of it, they get him out of court. And they they they hold trial basically with him in absentia. So they Charles is not there. Yeah. And they they they accuse him of treason. And then they they pass the death penalty. And another thing to show, which is how strange this time was. There’s something there’s something of an heir to it, I would say, of if you’ve ever watched like or heard the proceedings of a show trial, this is this is a kind of equivalent. Something’s not right. Everyone knows this is wrong. And there’s kind of a nobody knows what to do. They signed the death warrant to the king, but nobody wanted to sign it. So Oliver Cromwell had to look over it, had to basically force some of the guys to sign. So some of the judges to sign the death warrant of the king. Right. Well, well, and I think I think it’s worth pausing here, too, because there’s a few things going on. One of them is that why is Oliver Cromwell there? Well, because he happens to be, from my understanding, the most successful commander in the team. That’s right. He is. And so basically the most successful. And he holds he holds the opinion, the highest opinion of the soldiers as well. The soldiers are like this man. He’s our guy. Right. Right. So the soldiers only have two appeals, the king or this guy Cromwell, who has treated them well in a bad situation from their perspective, because they’re they’re rebelling against the king. Right. And so it’s hard on them. Right. So that’s where so this guy comes out of nowhere and is granted authority from below. Fair enough. It’s very powerful. And then he’s all of a sudden calling shots in Parliament, which he’s never been a part of before. Yeah. Right. He was always a lackey to Parliament’s will. Yeah. The whole time. And then suddenly the small guy. Right. And then suddenly Parliament has to rely on his judgment out of nowhere. OK, what do we do? And Cromwell’s like, I’m a man of action, obviously, because he’s the one winning all the battles. I’m telling you, you have to do this now. Also notice. In a normal situation, let’s just suppose this weren’t the king. Right. The king would go, yeah, it’s treason, but we’re not going to follow the usual rules for treason. We’re just going to suspend those because I’m the king. And this is what I’m for. All purpose of the king, all purpose of a judge in a court. The normal rules dictate this. And the judge determines we’re going to follow the normal rules. We’re going to extend the normal rules or we’re going to do away with the normal rules or somewhere anywhere in that spectrum. Don’t argue with me about this. I’ve been in court many times. I’ve been to many courts many times. I’ve been part of I’ve been an expert witness. This happens in court all the time. The judges don’t just look at a table and go, you get six years or you get six thousand dollar fines. It’s not how that happens. Right. And so you you don’t have anybody because all you have is this mechanical body of parliament. This is very much what it is. It’s a mechanized system. Right. This is this is post enlightenment stuff here. Right. We’re right in the middle of this enlightenment stuff. Right. Yeah. Where it’s like, oh, yeah, there’s this mechanical way of dealing with the world. Right. We can go ahead and we can just figure out what to do by the rules. Yeah. But but the rules are contradictory and don’t make any sense at all in this context, because again, you can’t the king cannot be found to be treasonous because he is the leader and head of the country. And so he can’t be against the country because he is the thing that says where the country is. And so you have all these problems and you have this degradation of the symbolic way of relating to the world. Right. One might one might call it the poetic information in the world. If one were a true true believer in the channel here and watch my knowledge engine video, that they’re very much doing the iconoclast thing. And it’s interesting that you mentioned this is all over to some extent, putting gold in the churches and beautifying the churches again. Right. Yeah. So you see, it’s very much a rebellion against at least the beautiful. And also, I would say the true, because the true would dictate none of this can happen. That’s why the king goes in and says, by what authority? And then also violates all of the principles that any enlightenment sort of ensconced person would have. Right. Like, what do you mean you’re being tried in absentia? That’s insane. The only time you get tried in absentia in medieval times is if you’re unavailable, but it can’t be done by a court. It has to be done by the court, which is a different reference in medieval times, which means the monarch, the local the local monarch, the local duke or lord or whatever is going to make a determination. And those determinations were typically subject to being overturned either by a higher authority or by that authority. In other words, if you showed up later and said, no, no, no, I’m not really a murderer. You know, I know I ran, but I ran for that would often get overturned. So you have to understand all that nuance because it’s anachronistic. Think of it in terms of, say, the modern US or UK legal system, because that didn’t exist. Right. And the legal the way legal things were settled, the very, very different affair. And it was much less formal. This, in some ways, is the formalization of that system. And you can see it fails right right out of the gate. It’s why you have to have a military man basically telling Parliament what to do, which is super like this cannot be overemphasized. The military, the successful military commander is basically holding Parliament’s feet to the fire and saying you have to do this. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and that’s what that’s what happens. And so, you know, it’s it’s it’s I believe it’s the 31st of 30th of January at 1649. And this is, I believe, about yeah, almost 100 years, a little over 100 years to the day and that Henry VIII dies. So this is this is a century on and King Charles is let off, let out onto the scaffold. And quietly, it’s all dead silent. And to a scaffolding at Whitehall, which is basically right by the palace, I believe. And that’s it. I mean, he has his final words. One of the one of the things he does is he gives he has a medal from one of the knightly orders that he is, you know, head of, let’s say. And he gives it to the priest who’s with him, the the the the Anglican priest. And he says to him to give it to his son, Charles II, says to him, gives it to him and says, tell my son, remember. And then just left it at that. Yeah. And he’s also he’s also known to have said on that day at that very time, I go from a corruptible to to an incorruptible crown. So he’s he’s Charles I is as, you know, playing that playing the role of head very well, because he’s he’s he’s just he’s got like, OK, this is this is the way things are going to go. And he, you know, he’s he’s gone. The king is beheaded in front of all the people. And that’s it. Like that’s what happens now. And of course, what happens is that parliament tries to rule for a bit, finds out they can’t really do it. And Cromwell comes in, dissolves parliament. And I should say Charles I dissolved parliament. And that, you know, that that created the English Civil War. But that’s by the by. And Cromwell then dissolves parliament and puts in his own men. He actually purged what’s called it’s called Pride’s Purge. A colonel in the army came in and basically refused certain members of the parliament entry into the parliament so that he was basically selecting the men that Cromwell wanted. Right. So they took they took over by physical force. Yeah, like, like, like if this happened here, I wouldn’t be like so like. Hot on it all. I’d be like, right. I mean, we’re not going to talk about that because it’s just make us look good. Now, does it? Because we’re basically ruling by force. And there’s something to ruling by force. Right. However, under these circumstances, it doesn’t seem like the right thing to do. And so I want to point out the pattern here. So this is the first instance we’ll say in recent times that understandable times with with sort of a similar enough language where you see this pattern that we pointed out in the French Revolution. Yeah, nobody wants to touch the third rail of rule. Nobody wants that responsibility. It’s it’s it’s not so much that parliament physically can’t because eventually, of course, they will. Right. It’s just you have to have Cromwell’s men do it. Why? Because they’re the sorts of bastards that will just make decisions. Right. But you see that in the French Revolution. Right. Where nobody wants to touch that third rail. You know where you don’t see that, Adam? Do you want to guess where you don’t see that in the American rebellion? You never see that. Never happens. These guys step in before the war begins to get everything organized and running, partly because it already was because England never had control of the colonies. And that was their own doing and their own fault and their own choice. Yeah. Right. And so it was very, very natural in the US for them to just keep doing what they were doing because they weren’t being ruled from London. Right. Already, London wasn’t taking the responsibility of running the colonies. And so you see this cycle. But again, the cycle happens at the first instance and it happens in the French Revolution. It will call it the last instance to some extent, although you can argue whether or not the Russian Revolution was of a similar ill. But it doesn’t happen in the middle. It doesn’t happen in the colonies at all. Nothing like that happens in the colonies, which I find utterly fascinating. It’s totally understandable when you get enough historical context. But it’s fascinating that, say, Napoleon or Robespierre or whoever missed that. They really misread it. Yeah. Yeah. I think. I think it’s really important as well to say that we were these sorts of stories, that this sort of story that we’re talking about loomed so large in the consciousness of every single founding father in the US. They would have known this history very well because they needed to understand it, because that’s the world out of which they came. They would have known that the king was beheaded and they would have known by whom and they would have known all of that story. And so, you know, moving on from that, what happens with Cromwell? Cromwell is also a figure they would have known very well. What happens with Cromwell? Well, Parliament tries to rule for a bit. They’re ineffective. Cromwell takes over and he basically has declared what’s called Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland. Right. So basically, and you’ll hear, you’ll hear there’s going to be kind of a reference by many historians of this was England’s Republican period. But he had all the regalia of the king. He even had the crown and scepter. And that’s what Cromwell was buried with. And so in some sense, no, that there was no there was no republic as such. I mean, I think it was if if what a republic is, is merely merely the absence of somebody with the title of king. Well, maybe, but I don’t think that is is even close to what a republic is. I mean, our talk on Greece and Rome probably would have elucidated that somewhat. Right. Well, and also it’s worth pointing out from from from what I learned from from your excellent references, by the way, that the idea of a protectorate makes in in in one sense, no sense without a king. Yes. Right. It’s for the app, temporary absence of a king. Yeah. And by absence, it can be look. The eight year old can’t rule. We need a protectorate. Right. But someday and the protect part of the protector’s job is to make the the young ruler of the other the other time you have protected and the king goes away. Yeah, that’s right. Those are the two points. Right. So it would have been usually it would have been a noble. Right. Right. Somebody who is used to ruling. Right. Yeah. But now you have a protectorate who comes out of literally nowhere with no reason to be there other than, well, he’s wealthier than the rest of the people in the village. Yeah. Right. Roughly speaking. And he’s a successful military commander. And he uses that to take the powers of the king using a title that only a king can bestow. Right. To effectively do what a king would do. And so you’re right. Calling that a republic is a bit of a stretch. Yeah. Yeah. So and so what’s what happens during all of this period? I think it’s easy to roll at the tropes of they banned Christmas. They did ban Christmas, I think. And but it doesn’t last long. So Oliver Cromwell basically is Lord Protector for maybe five years. So just to put it in perspective of the whole monarchial thing, he isn’t even really all that much ruling for all that much time as Mary, Bloody Mary, so-called Mary, Mary Tudor. And. But, you know, he has some some impact in the sense that, you know, he’s he’s remembered for what he for what he did. I mean, he’s the man who beheaded the king. Once once you once you cross that boundary, it’s it’s very hard to come back from that to where to where you started off. He had the king and took his duties. Yes. Didn’t just behead the king, behead the king and took his duties. That’s correct. He did. And he and his crown and his scepter, which is even worse. Like, wow, dude, like that’s bold. Right. And denied that he was a king all at the same time, which is it’s a weird move. Like when you look into Cromwell, you’re like, man, this is just weird. Like none of this makes any sense by any possible reasonable, logical, rational way of understanding anything. Like, it’s just bizarre. But because he’s the whole time he’s he’s playing humble. Oh, I’m not really a king. Aren’t you the guy that had the last king killed? And aren’t you declaring yourself protector? And and doesn’t protector imply that you have all of the duties and powers of a king? And what do you mean you’re not the king? Like, I don’t. He’s not coming back. Like, you’re not going to stick his head back together. What are you talking about? And so in that, you know, and in that sort of world, there was there was that kind of interim period. And then it briefly briefly passes to his son after Cromwell dies. And and then what happens? Well, Charles, the second Charles, our beheaded king’s son, who is in exile in France with his cousin, Louis the 14th, the son king. Right. This is where this is where Charles and James basically, this is the only place they could go at that at that point. And it’s notable as well, I’ll just say that that France is a Catholic nation at this at this point. And, you know, when your king is over there, like he’s, you know, he’s he’s living it up or whatever, he’s going to be seeing a lot of stuff that’s kind of, let’s say, new to him. And he’s also got his father’s medal, you know, from the day he was executed by the people, by his own subjects, which, you know, which he gave the priest expressed express, you know, instructions to to pass on the message. Just one word. Remember. And so what happens directly after this kind of collapse of this so-called Commonwealth? Well, basically another general who is up in Scotland, his name is George Monk. He was formerly a royalist, but then he was captured and changed sides. And and he was up in Scotland. He had most of the men or a large portion of the army. He walks, you know, marches his men down south and basically decides to to invite the king back. I mean, he gets parliament to come along and say, you know, maybe we should have the king back. I think at that point, most people would have agreed that the country was was less well off on account of a lack of kingship. Because what do you do when Cromwell dies? What’s the succession law? You know, well, I guess it passes to his son and his son. Well, his son was OK, but not great. And it’s hard to keep all of these different people in line, like the old magnates and nobility, the army who are running around with these kind of radically egalitarian notions. I mean, how do you split the difference between them? You don’t. And so you bring back the king. And so this is what’s called the restoration. Charles II comes back and he assumes the crown again. And, you know, all the regalia, you know, are brought out. New new regalia are made in the manner that Charles I had had. And there’s great celebration because there’s there’s a sort of there’s a recognition of a return to some sort of stability. There’s a you know, the king is coming back. The king is returning after so long away. I mean, from the execution of Charles in 1649 Charles I in 1649 to when Charles II descends the throne and that’s about. That’s right. Yeah, that’s. But 20 years, 15 years, 15 years. So there’s there’s a whole span of time in which no no royal power. And this is where things start to get interesting, even more interesting, let’s say the king’s been beheaded. But but you’ve invited them back now. And so how does the landscape look? How is it that a king that a son of a father is going to deal with them with with men who who were complicit in his father’s execution? Well. I think. Well, I think I think I think I’ll leave it there and connect it to the to the colonies now at that point, because the English Civil War, there was some there was some overlap in the cut in in in the colonies, but not really. When the king comes back, you basically have two factions that show themselves. You have the guys who are very much in support of the king and don’t want to go back to the Civil War. Well, everyone doesn’t want to go back to the Civil War, but the guys who support the king, everyone basically supports the king when he gets back. But then as time goes on, that conflict hasn’t actually been resolved. Who who who is sovereign, who gets to make the decisions? Is it the king or is it parliament? And soon as Charles gets back within 25 years of him coming back and being crowned in Westminster, I believe it is. That question is resolved, but it’s resolved in favor of parliament. Ultimately. And. I don’t know, do you like? This is a kind of midpoint, so what what what do we want to do here? Because I think we can we can jump into how everything changes in terms of like we can just describe wigs and tories. What do you think, Mark? Yeah, this is a tough, tough way to go, because there’s so many perspectives that are super important. Like there’s so much richness to understand how this. Affects because what we’re really trying to do is we’re trying to contrast ancient Greek and ancient Roman ways of rule, right, with the ways of rule that came before, right, which will say the Christian separation of of of money, king, rulership and religion, right, or belief. Maybe is a better way to say it, right. With the misapprehension of, we’ll say the French and later the Germans, right, of what what what countries are, what what leadership is, what rule means, what constitutes an empire. Right. All of these misunderstandings are arising right at this point. This is the point. Right. So the reason why the colonies are unique is because they’re established under the kingship. Yeah. During the tumultuous time, for sure. Right. But they’re established under the kingship and they are expecting to be continued under that same sovereign rule, literal sovereign rule. And the the the the fight, the rebellion is over the lack of the sovereign’s ability to rule them. Unequivocally, even the rest of history got that right. Although they got a bunch of other stuff completely wrong. Yes. But they did get that right. They are expecting the sovereign to rule them. And that is actually why they escape the cycle of revolution. That’s why I don’t think they’re a revolution at all. I think they’re a rebellion against the part of parliament and and and something larger, which is which is the largest corporate entity in the world, or at least was at one time. Maybe it’s not by this period, but. Like, yeah, this stuff, this stuff we whine about now actually happened to a degree we can’t even imagine at this time. And so you have all these forces at work. And again, it’s people seeing the weakness of the monarchy, of the idea of not just the monarchy as a manifestation, the idea of monarchy. Yeah, that’s what’s unraveling. And that unraveling is causing all these other unraveling. And then you can’t get the colonies back. Right. So, yeah, I mean, I think it’s worth talking about. At that point. What manifests in terms of what the apparently the English are still calling the republic, even though I’m like, where are you getting this idea of republic from, because this has nothing to do with the Greek or the Roman idea of republic whatsoever, as near as I can tell. There’s just no literally no overlap. I think you’re just grabbing a word and misusing it at that point, really abusing the word republic. So I want can we focus on that? And maybe we can maybe we can round it out that way. Yes, yes. And I think something there should be something to be said for what is what what what the Constitution is at this point. This is a word that begins to be used in relation to Great Britain around this time. And part of the reason why is because when you have the king come back, you you have this question unresolved, but it’s unresolved in a way that the king is still there and the parliament is there. And it’s in it is it’s there in a different way. Now it’s meeting more regularly. Right. So so you have this kind of state of affairs where you have this unresolved headship this period of 20 years. It’s called it’s called the restoration. And this is where you have Charles the second and Charles the second has has a major influence in America. So at this point, you can say. Any sort of idea of republicanism or rule without a king is is is going by the wayside in the sense of, you know, everyone’s very happy the king is back. And when the king comes back, he is he is allowed to make a lot of decisions because people don’t want to go back to the Civil War. They don’t they they’d rather, you know, play along and see how things play out. But we can imagine that the the problems that were leading to the king and parliament being at odds were only worsened by the Civil War. If the king had little land at the start of the Civil War, he basically had no land when he when he got back during the restoration. But what he did do in relation to the colonies was start funding many of them. He he founded the he gave the charter Charles the second. This is this is Charles, the first son, the charter for Pennsylvania. And he was trying to organize the colonies in such a way that yeah, it was basically paving the way for future future growth. So that’s why Pennsylvania, it’s at the it’s at the mouth of the Hudson Valley. It’s at the mouth of the Hudson Valley, right? And. It’s well, it’s it’s it’s not one of the rivers. Yeah, but yeah, it is it is down there. It’s on the yeah, so it’s it’s it’s it’s the point being is part of part of a lot of what a lot of a lot of Charles does is he has the vision to kind of prepare the colonies for expansion. So he places and he places Penn, William Penn and all of us guys or he allows them to settle the entrance basically into the Ohio Valley. Yes. And so that’s important. The gateway westward, basically. Yeah. And that’s important because I don’t think you’d ever get a parliament to do that. Charles is a man who can look at look at the way things are and say, OK, we’ve got a guy here who wants to go out and do his own thing. I’ll give him a charter for this land that we have. Right. It’s a vision. And he’s going with the vision. And yeah, the one thing that parliaments and congresses and things lack in most cases is vision. Yeah. And so. How how does how does this how does this all play out in in in terms of how things are going with their with their in England, the relationship of the colonies and this and this republic thing? Well, as as time goes on, there is this tension that builds and this tension can’t last for long because parliament is still there. And actually, within his reign, Charles does dissolve parliament. And it’s over the question of the succession because Charles has no legitimate children. He has children. It just doesn’t have legitimate children. He is also like his father before him, the supreme head of the Church of England. And so there there there lies a problem because his brother, James, who does have children, is a Catholic. And why is this a problem? Well, it actually isn’t a problem in the former scheme of things, because it could be the case that the king could be a Catholic. And, you know, he’s still the supreme head, supreme head of the Church of England. Like these are these are these there’s no necessary competition between the two. And in the sense that, you know, he can still govern the Church of England, just not subscribe to what’s what’s, you know, their beliefs are specifically, let’s say. But this is a problem for parliament. So far as parliament is concerned, because of all of these religious the particular religious inclinations of people in parliament, they don’t want any association with Roman Catholicism. In fact, what you find is that retroactively, they’ll call somebody like Charles the first, basically, he’s like a Roman Catholic. In fact, he isn’t he was married to a Roman Catholic, but. And he permitted his wife to have a Roman Catholic chaplain with with her so she could practice her her her religion, you know, but he was still so far as he was concerned, he was an Anglican. And but Charles II, Charles, the first son, and. He’s in a bind because parliament doesn’t doesn’t want to accept his own heir by all the laws of the land. And so he dissolves parliament. And well, Charles serves his time as king. And he actually, you know, he dies. There is there is talk that before he died, he can he converted to Catholicism as well, because he had he had he had been with his brother all that time. And, you know, when when when their father was after their father had been killed, they were both in France. So it’s possible, but that’s kind of by the by. Charles’s successor, James, does succeed to the throne. But as the problem of who’s who gets to make the decisions, the problem of and that the supreme head of the Church of England being, let’s say, an Anglican and is becoming more and more of a problem for these magnates. And that’s when that’s that’s when you get the major disconnect. This is up until this point. And let me just say. During all of this period, you have this this this creation or not this creation, but this this distinction between what’s called Whigs and Tories, which are basically the Tories are the Kingsmen, and they want to support him in basically calling all the shots. They want the king to be basically returned to being the king. And they would rather and I suppose maybe they’d rather him be an Anglican. But that’s kind of by the by. That’s the Tories. The Whigs basically are largely standing for parliamentary sovereignty. They really do. While they’re happy the king is back, they don’t really want to let him have the run of things. They don’t want the role to remain intact. Yeah. And so they’re the Republicans, the ones that are for Republicans. Yeah. Or Republicanism. In the English sense of basically having basically not having a king, even though we have all the kingly garb, let’s say. And that’s and that’s where that’s that’s where things are at. And it’s important to note that this is this is much closer to modern parlance. We know that there is something called a Tory party in the UK now. That’s the same. Their roots are in this in this period. And it’s also important to note that with basically no exceptions, what happens is the Whigs win with this aristocracy, part of the aristocracy, which which end up being called Whigs, basically dominate the parliament of it in England for the hundred years after this point. So for basic it’s continuous agreement on how things are going to be pursued. And that’s also, funnily enough as well, the kind of that’s that’s how the British Empire kind of really forms and grows. It’s under it’s under those guys watch. And I think it’s it’s important. If you don’t mind, I’ll read just a small excerpt or two from this from this book, because it’s describing what Whigism is and its particularity for England and how it comes out of the English Civil War. This is all happening during Charles II reign. This is all happening during the Restoration. And this is this is this is from an author who’s writing in the 1940s. And so he has a kind of a pretty good perspective on the past and 200 years or so, or even 300 years of English history up until that point. And so he says something like this. So the two print things are all that is meant by liberal theory of state, freedom of the individual, an inviolate rule of law secure from personal interference, the equality of all citizens before the law, a necessary patriotism with no with which no abstract principles could preserve the state. And with this patriotism, a strong conviction that the nation, thus loved and served, is in every respect superior and necessarily superior to all others. The second is something quite other and nearly contradictory. It is the conception that the wealthy are the natural leaders of the community. On this account, their wealth should be as permanent and stable as possible. On this account, they must be dignified by sundry titles, often high sounding. It is inconceivable to the spirit of Whigism that men not enjoying the best advantages of wealth should preponderate in the Commonwealth. So there’s a connection here with trade as well, this faction that comes about. And James is deposed by these guys. So these magnates who basically want the supremacy of Parliament, these Whigs, they get rid of the king around 1688 and they replace him. Now they replace him with ostensibly his daughter, right, who is married to the Dutch William. William of Orange is the name of this guy. And he’s presently at war with France, which is an interesting one. So what happens is that James has his two daughters who are both Protestants, Anglicans. And then he has a son. And when he has a son, there’s a rumor spread that actually it’s not a son at all. It’s the son of a chambermaid who was smuggled in after his wife gave birth. And so this is basically what happens is that Parliament decide, okay, we can decide who the king is again. They invite William and Mary over. And James actually does try to put up a fight. But he loses his nerve basically. And he retreats. Yeah, he has a nosebleed or something. And one of the other things he did when he became king is he tried to make a bunch of Catholics officers because, of course, we’re still in this kind of interim period. He’s trying to kind of promote some sort of tolerance and harmony between people. And again, this promotion of Catholic officers, you could say, is him exercising his rights as king. He’s trying to promote competent men through the ranks who otherwise might not have been able to do so. And so that’s what happens. He loses out. The army basically goes over to William’s side. William has a pretty good army anyways. The Dutch are pretty good fighters at this point. And that’s kind of it. Once that happens, you have two successive Stuart queens, ostensibly, but William basically rules. It’s a Dutch coup basically what happens in 1688. And you know what they call it. It’s called the Glorious Revolution. And why is it the Glorious Revolution? Because after that, you have basically Parliament passes an act declaring no Catholic, or rather the monarch, the ruling monarch of Great Britain. It’s not Great Britain at this point, but the ruling monarch of England has to be a Protestant. And so this is when the usurpation really comes into full effect because the king is away. That’s happened before with Charles II. But now Parliament passes a law to change the succession, which never happened before. Not even once did anything like that even approach. And that’s when you have the change over to parliamentary supremacy. Right. Well, and you have this weird dichotomy. On the one hand, the Whigs seem to be all about egalitarianism. And whoever’s most successful monetarily should be okay. And then they usurp all of that. They say, nah, you know what? When it’s the king picking the winners, we’re a no. We’re just going to know that whole thing. And then we’re going to determine succession, but not by any reasonable means. We’re just going to pick basically someone we think is on our side that we can get away with. Right. And that’s what happens. So immediately, and William basically comes along and then involves England in the wars on the continent. And it’s interesting as well because it’s a complete flip. A couple of years prior, the English were at war with the Dutch. Now, because William of Orange, this Dutch prince is now basically king of England with his wife. Again, you need to return to rule by women in some sense. Although you could say, well, William’s a guy. Yeah, but he’s a guy, but he’s not of the royal house. He is his own sort of thing coming in. And so he drags England into war with France. And this is an interesting one. This is the same war in which a particular family who was very well off at the time, one of the favorites, I think, of the king up until that point, the Churchills, John Churchill, the Duke of Marlborough, he distinguishes himself in that war against France. And yeah, so that’s a big thing. But that changes the playing field. However, when William and Mary die, the crown then passes on, let’s say, as it would normally. Right. So the succession law was actually subverted. And in a way that you could maybe say, well, we don’t want this king, but we’ll just move it down the rightful line of succession. They do also pass the whole Protestant thing, that the king has to be a Protestant thing. So it’s pretty well usurped at that point. But it has the appearance of following a kind of ordinary way of doing things. James is still alive. In fact, his son and his grandson still have claims on the throne long afterwards. And that’s where you get the Jacobites in England. But once William and Mary die, then it passes on to Anne. Anne, this is where you get Great Britain, by the way. This is where you get the Union. It’s interesting that 100 years before, James I, King of England and Scotland, tried to make a union between them. But he couldn’t do it because the subjects didn’t want it. Now, under Queen Anne, she’s not the initiator of the Union. And it comes together basically by mutual agreement between England and Scotland, because Scotland’s in a bit of a bind financially. And England has this kind of nascent empire in the colonies. And they can sustain it. So that’s how, and that’s 1707. So Charles I dies in 1649. We have Cromwell ruling for maybe five or six years. And then you have the Restoration in 1660. 20 years, pretty much stable, return of the king rule. And then? The Glorious Revolution. The Glorious Revolution, 1688. Which is merely a temporary break in succession, right? Where they’re restoring it right out. We’ll be back right after this break. Are we going to break it? And then we’re going to put it right back where it was. Like nothing ever, but we didn’t do that. No one was in us. Right. And the sly move was the Act of Parliament, which says that only a Protestant can succeed to the throne. That’s it. Once Parliament did that, they usurped the authority of the king. And so what happens when Anne dies? Anne dies childless. So, and James had no other daughters. So what happens? This is where you get the dynasty that the present monarchy of the United Kingdom is descended from. And how they get to that, this is called the House of Hanover. This is where you get George I. George I was a distant cousin of Anne, and they skipped over 40 nearest relatives according to that law, because they were all Catholics. For the succession to the throne. So now that the succession of the throne is basically in the hands of Parliament and these aristocrats in particular now at this point, the Whigs, now it’s not just, you know, we’ll bring the king’s daughter over from abroad with her eccentric Dutch husband. Now it’s we’re going to import this king from Germany who doesn’t even speak our language. He didn’t even speak English. Wow. And he rides in on a boat and that’s it. There’s your new king. And this, at this point, you could safely say Parliament is sovereign. Parliament is making all the rules. And now it’s quite resolved how things are being ruled from, let’s say, let me find out the, yeah, how things are ruled in England from 1714 and onwards is by the Parliament. It’s by these magnates. It’s by these men who are the descendants of men who are basically looking to enrich themselves and were willing to usurp the authority of the king to do it. And I would also note the birth date of one George Washington is 1732. Just as a reference. So the kind of generation that would then come to fruition in the US was born a little bit after the time when this happened. So they would have known the story up until this point very well. And then they would have lived through the rest of it from afar, of course, because they’re in the colonies. But nevertheless, they would have lived through it. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. Wow. And that’s the transition. So that’s the transition that you have. That’s the change that once you hit George I, it’s quite kind of solidly, things are quite solidly within the bounds of Parliament. And the king and when people reference the constitution of Great Britain, they always invariably refer to 1688, they refer to that law that Parliament passed, the Succession Act, such and such that Protestant can only inherit. OK, so I assume there’s more to that law. But where is this mysterious constitution and what else does it say? That would be the question of the day. But you only get mention of a British or an English constitution in reference to that, because you then need it. You need new rules by which to run things, basically. Because what happens after that is, once you hit 1688, you’re basically saying that the Parliament is basically calling the shots. And they need to then justify why they’re calling the shots. And it’s a catch-22. It’s like when Parliament was putting on trial Charles I. And Charles I, all he had to ask was, by what authority do you bring me here? And there’s basically, one of the responses they give is, because you are treasonous against the English people. Because that’s how they justify it. They justify it from the bottom sort of thing, saying, we’re representing the English people. And that starts off in a kind of nascent way in the English Civil War. But once you hit the reign of Charles II, you have a lot more people saying, no, no, it’s all part of the, you know, we are representing the English people. Right. So there’s no official constitution, as you would conceive of it, say, in the United States. No, not even close. There’s no document. So when they say that there’s a constitutional monarchy, which is very much what the rest of history had to say about, and I was like, I’ve never even heard of this constitutional monarchy. Both, I mean, I’ve heard the term, but not used in the way they were using it. They’re not referring to an actual constitutional document. They’re not even referring to a set of principles. What they seem to be referring to is, yeah, the king just doesn’t have that power anymore because Parliament kind of said so. And we’ve just been going along with that arbitrarily for no good reason. Yes. Yeah. I have another extract here commenting on Whigery, but like the Whigs are basically this faction from the English Civil War. Right. And this is from the same historian. I’ll quote selectively. When I say that Whigery made modern England, I must modify that statement by one obvious exception. The great European nations have none of them been made by any one spirit to be discovered in them during modern times. They all proceed from a common foundation of Greek and Latin culture, and of that Christendom into which the ancient pagan civilization was baptized. There is moreover in every great European nation, a mass of qualities, especially to itself, which are superior to and broader than the political forces which may have formed them in their social or constitutional structure. And then it goes into there’s a point to kind of distinguishing between Whigs and Tories, which is not really what we’re looking at here. However, now Whigery in its very considerable achievement used two main forces. This is in its achievement of political supremacy. It wrote modern English history and it established a religion of what it called quote the British Constitution, to which by ceaseless iteration, it pledged the political mind of the whole country. As to how it wrote English history, everyone has read that that history in any textbook of the last 200 years and more may understand. So you have this kind of making up of this concept of the Constitution, because basically you need to justify what happened. And here’s another thing about the English people. And this is by the way somebody who’s writing in the 1940s. So he’s writing kind of peak British Empire. You know, he’s relaying basically an education of the time as well. The Revolution of 1688 is acclaimed as the action of the English people. The Second Dutch War, because it is fought in alliance with Louis XIV, is repulsive to the English people. Although not 10 years before, the whole mass of England was in a fever of hostility to the Dutch and their commercial power. It is Whig history, which has represented the English House of Commons as being primarily a mirror of this same English people, though it took away their land, forbade their association to combine against the evils of nascent capitalism. He’s showing that he’s writing in the 1940s here, right? But and maintained the grossest iniquities in popular suffrage and the grossest corruption in administration. So basically he’s pointing to, there’s all of this pointing to the English people by these Whigs. But in some sense, it really is just a kind of, it’s a cover for their usurpation of the King’s authority. Because they aren’t even the King’s men anymore, by what authority are they governing? And taxation grows during this time. Of course, because parliament is a body that was made, let’s say, to raise money. That’s right. That was their original purpose, right, was to raise money. And now no one’s steering the ship anymore. They have to, because they’ve taken that power away. So there’s really no such thing as constitutional monarchy, right? It’s just rule by parliament instead of rule by sovereign. Yes. Yes. Yeah. And they will say, and the move that will be made will be said, well, this was the English people. But it’s very hard to kind of pull that because much of anything of what we’ve discussed from the religious change of Henry Tudor to the initiation of the English Civil War was all the product of, or was all the, at the instigation of the magnates, the great men of England, who for a long time enjoyed the absence, the essential absence of a strong sovereign who could say no to them taking money from the royal coffers, could say no to them bestowing titles upon themselves and giving themselves land. Yeah. And so that’s, and every time they say, every time you see the return of the king as such, let’s say you’re like Henry Tudor or any of the previous kings of England, you see massive conflict between the great men of the land, but not really, there’s no real kind of appreciation for what’s going on with, let’s say, the English people or the small people of the countryside. Right. And so one way to look at this, which I think is helpful, which is, let’s say a pattern, is this triangular pattern with people at the bottom, and the nobility and tradespeople in the middle. And that’s what happened, is we used to have a four stratum system and now we have a three stratum system, and the king at the top. The difference is the king is closer to the idea, which is why the king is crowned, as we discussed in the French Revolution one, the king has to be crowned by somebody authoritative in the church, because it’s coming down, emanating down from above. This is vitally important. And as this stops happening through whatever mechanism, everything in the world has gotten worse. Now, one of the side effects of this, and this is where it comes in, right, is that, and I just quickly, because I hadn’t done it before for whatever stupid reason, I just quickly scanned over the timeline for my favorite instance in history of corporation, which is the East India Company. So what is going on with the East India Company, the first and largest monopoly in the world? Well, it is effectively becoming a monopoly in the mid 1700s, for real, right? And the way it’s becoming this monopoly is through parliament. Yes, this is all new. Parliament didn’t deal with business charters. No charters of all nature were granted by that king. That’s right. The oldest corporation in the United States, or what is now the United States, it wasn’t United States then, is the Massachusetts Charm Pike, which is a conglomeration of farmers basically get together to build a road. And this is all related. I mentioned this before, right? Roads were illegal in the colonies. They were not to be built, partly because they had to be built by charter, but also because of the rising power of the East India Company. All trade was managed by England. This kept the colonies apart so they couldn’t get together and rebel. Fair enough. And the colonies didn’t care. They didn’t care, okay? Until parliament, which is now consistent of a bunch of people whose entire wealth and therefore power is contingent upon the East India Trading Company doing well. Yeah. Right? And so this is where the corruption comes in, is that the middle is corrupt. The head has been lopped off. Nothing is raining the ideals down and listening to the people. The people that say, we represent the English people to your point, don’t represent the English people, aren’t among the English people, don’t care about the English people, aren’t polling the English people, aren’t paying attention to the English people, don’t know any English people, right? They’re just saying, no, no, no, we’re the English people because we have all the money and we have parliamentary power, right? And then they’re appealing to this mystical constitutional monarchy, right? By saying, we’re part of a constitutional monarchy. There’s no constitution and there’s no monarch effectively. So it’s a lie. It’s not not a lie because everything about it is actually an illusion, a false projection of something that didn’t happen. There is no constitution. It’s not there. That’s why I didn’t know about it because in fact you go looking for it and it vanishes. Weird, just like the purple talking unicorn in my head. Every time somebody else goes to see it, it’s not there. It’s kind of weird, unless of course it was never real. And so they’re appealing to this idea, but it’s just an idea in their heads designed to move the suspicion away from them. And the big push, the actual big push, it causes the tea to get dumped in the harbor, which sets on a path. The rest of history has this right. It’s not that incident. That’s the incident that sets us on a path. That is all predicated on propping up the East India Tea Company’s monopoly. And in that series on the American Revolution, they completely mischaracterize and misstate both this idea of constitutional monarchy and the East India Tea Company as a monopoly as established long before this, years and years before this happens. It’s already a monopoly by that point. And what they’re doing is they’re trying to fund the war by basically propping it, propping up the East India Tea Company and cutting out the middlemen. Who are the middlemen? Well, the middlemen aren’t English. They’re colonists. I mean, the colonists consider themselves English. So it’s Englishmen versus Englishmen. And they are cutting out the ability of the colonists to make money on tea at all. And so now, because it is a monopoly, they’re effectively trying to remove all of the competition by getting rid of the illegal, illegal, unlawful, smuggled tea from the Netherlands. Why is it smuggled? The only way it could be smuggled is if the monopoly were intact and they weren’t supposed to have it. So now they’re trying to get rid of the smuggled tea because the smuggled tea is cheaper by dropping the price. And the way they drop the price is by cutting out the colonists from making any money at all on tea. Of course, this has the opposite effect because now the only way you can make money selling tea is by using smuggled tea. It’s paradoxical. Really, and the rest of history is a little fair on this. Parliament does it to themselves. They’re the ones that cause the rebellion. They’re the ones that cause the loss of the colonies. The only person holding the colonies together, and this is very paradoxical in their series, is on the one hand, they’re saying, well, the king couldn’t have done anything on behalf of the colonies, even though, to your point, it was kings that established those things. It may not have been that king, but it was the kingship, the idea of sovereign that established the colonies and put them in a position to grow and supported them throughout. Now all of a sudden the king can’t do anything because some mystical constitutional monarchy rules have to be followed. But then it turns around in the next episode and they’re like, but it’s the king that insists on trying to keep the colonies despite parliament saying, ah, screw it, we don’t need them. Well, that’s a little weird. You’re kind of trying to play both sides there. You’re saying, oh, he doesn’t have the power to save the colonies, but he has the power to keep the colonies? What? That doesn’t make any, through force? That doesn’t make any sense at all. This is purely a modern construction of a postmodern power from above narrative. It’s not real. It’s just not the way it was. And so to the extent that parliament’s a bunch of bastards and they caused this problem and they couldn’t fix it, absolutely. And they were preventing the sovereign from fixing it. Absolutely. Absolutely. The sovereign did not want the colonies to go away. And so it begs the question, well, why would he resort to war when he didn’t have to? He could have, or force, right, when he didn’t have to. He could have just given them one of the things they wanted and never run into this problem. So something’s going on. Something’s going on. And why, if he doesn’t have the power to get rid of or redress their complaints, does he then have the power to use force to try and keep them in the empire? This makes zero sense. There’s something funny going on here, right? It should, all the bells should be going off in your head, right? He couldn’t. He couldn’t, though. Here’s the thing. The 1689 Bill of Rights, one of the first things that’s, and this is a document of the Glorious Revolution, right? The pretended power of suspending laws and dispensing with laws by regal authority without consent of parliament is illegal. The king could never, George III could never have ever granted the petitions of his subjects in the colonies because they weren’t his subjects. They were the subjects of parliament. And so this kind of pretended idea that there was a king involved. You can think of it sort of like, you know, during the restoration, the question of who had the authority, who was making the decisions was still up in the air for the sake of, you know, trying to return to something like some semblance of stability. And so the king and the parliament kind of, let’s say, had to work things out, but actually the king wanted to, you know, become the king again. And so he was actually pushing for that to be the case. So he dissolved parliament, you know, and he made sure that the laws of succession were followed. You can think of the kind of what happened afterwards after the Glorious Revolution is basically prolonging that state of affairs and, you know, parliament has won out, but we still have the king there. So we can still blame him if something goes wrong. Right. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that’s the illusion that parliament’s trying to present of not being in charge, but actually preventing anybody else from being in charge. That is really what’s key to this whole thing. And it is that corruption because they’ve cut off the head and they never tried to stitch it back on. They just kind of took over. So the middle tier of this three tier society has taken over for the top tier. And, you know, I would argue that, yeah, these things take decades or hundreds of years to unfold, granted, but also look what’s going on. Like, how did we get here? I don’t know, but there was this revolution and now we don’t have sovereignty anymore. You know, we don’t have a sovereign over us anymore. And we’re having all these problems and legalism isn’t going to save you because parliament is the law. Yes. Oh, you know, the Congress isn’t going to save you in the U.S. because they make the law. It’s not like the judiciary is independent from that. Right. They’re independent in a way, but they’re still beholden. Right. And that’s where the issue comes in. Yeah. And what was happening seems to me in the colonies was basically an attempted return to the state of affairs before, maybe even not necessarily before the Glorious Revolution, but basically trying to maintain their self-government in light of the fact that they basically have no head anymore. In some sense, people say, you know, it’s an American revolution, not really American rebellion. In some sense, yeah, it’s a rebellion against parliament. But America, in some sense, the king, their king had already been taken away from them because of that, because of those acts which were passed by parliament, which I mean, did anyone in the colonies ever ascend to those acts directly? No, they didn’t. And how could they? Right. And they did have supporters in parliament, but the fundamental problem was, like they make ridiculous arguments and the rest of history, the taxes on the colonists were one-fifth what they were on their… That’s nonsense. That’s just either bad math or people not understanding how math works. Right. It also might be indicative of the great strain under which the small people of England were basically laboring under after the Glorious Revolution and after the succession of these men who basically wanted to fill their pockets more. Right. And they are, they’re using the East India Trading Company, which is the largest company ever to exist on the planet and in history, still to this day, several times larger than any company today. I think it’s something like larger than any and then 10 largest companies today or something stupid. It’s huge. It’s absolutely, it’s unimaginably large. And part of the reason is because it’s run by… In some ways, everything that’s wrong today can be seen in this time period. And one of the ways it can be seen is through the East India Trading Company, because it’s some ridiculously small number of people running what we would today call consultancies. And so they have a private army. Their private army is the largest private army on the planet, and it’s larger than the army of Great Britain. I think it’s actually larger. They have an army larger than almost any country on the planet at the time. Right. But the way they do that, the way they do that is through contractors, what we would call contractors or consultants. So basically, it’s like a 35 person company or something stupid, and they’re the only shareholders, and nobody else has any vested interest. Everybody else is a paid contractor. And that’s how the company is so big. Now, this is also an, it’s unimaginable the amount of money they’re funneling. I mean, it really is. Actually, you and I cannot imagine this. We can talk about John Rockefeller, nothing, nothing. He’s here, nothing. He’s a 10th of what these guys are pulling in. Right. Or maybe not a 10th, maybe a fifth. But he’s pretty big too. But he’s nowhere near what these guys are pulling in. And they’re just funneling this money partially into parliament. And they’re running into problems because you do. Right. Well, first of all, you’ve got contractors. You don’t have people invested in your company. So there’s a great deal of fraud going on. Right. You would say you could see that in the large consultancy agencies in the US today, like Deloitte. Not that I’m calling out Deloitte. Oh, yes, I am. Nevermind. I’ve worked with them. Sorry. I’ve worked with all of them. None of them are any better. Let me put it that way. And there’s some good people there for sure. But like by and large, I mean, these guys, they got problems. They got big problems. They’re charging lots of money and not delivering. Right. And you can’t imagine back then when this is new what people are doing. Right. Because there’s very little supervision. Communication takes forever. Right. And you have to trust good men. And those good men have to be incorruptible in the moment. Because it’s one thing to be incorruptible at home. It’s another to be incorruptible when you’ve been at sea for a month or two. And then you’ve had to go over land for a month or two. And then you hang out for three months. It’s kind of like, I’m kind of tired. And oh, look at all this. And then it’s easy to bribe people like that. It’s harder to bribe them when they’re in their office going, nah, nah, nah, I might, I might get caught. You’re not going to get caught after a five, six month, two year journey or whatever. That’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get caught in India. That’s a big place. And by the time you get caught, the odds you’ll be either near death or dead are pretty high, actually. Yeah. No one’s going to find out what you did five years ago on your two year journey. It’s never going to happen. It just takes too long. Right. So the massive corruption that’s going on and you’re not like, whatever, this is where people, this happens, right? Yeah. Is a strain on the company and the company is relying very much on parliament to bail them out. And the company has a monopoly on the trade in the colonies. So the colonies are largely self governed. And this is a side effect. It’s a second order effect of them keeping the colony separate through controlling the trade. In other words, controlling the trade keeps the colonies separate. It says many advantages, but the big disadvantage is the colonies learn to govern and defend themselves. Yeah. Right. And so by the time and the rest of history is almost fair on this issue, although I’d say they don’t go far enough, by the time this whole rebellion rolls around, they don’t need England to defend them. And you can argue that point. And they kind of did, except we kind of won guys. Obviously, if you were good at defending us, how did we win? Yeah. I didn’t make any sense at that point. You’re like, oh, well, and it’s not about superior forces because it doesn’t need to be superior. It just needs to be good enough to repel borders. Well, we repelled borders from people who were already there. That’s like a big deal. You know, we dislodged invaders after the fact, which shows that we had the military acumen and might and the strength of government to get away with it because that also, you can’t just have a big military. You also need the apparatus behind it, the planning, right? The resources to stock the army and all that stuff. You need all that. Yeah. Like it’s not optional. George Washington doesn’t come out of nowhere, right? Like you need that guy and he’s arranging things with all kinds of corruption there too. Oh, it’s just terrible what they did to Benedict Arnold. Holy macaroni, right? Just terrible. So you have this monopoly underneath parliament pulling strings very much. There’s a ton of parliamentary members that are beholden to the East India Company for their income. And so there’s all this corruption built in because you locked off the head and you didn’t even sew it back. And it is the loss of monarch, the total loss of this connection with the emanation coming down from above through the ideals, right? Through the Eidos, right? The realm of true patterns of the universe, right? The photonic forms, but the Eidos is a better word, right? And then that is not there anymore. So the people in parliament have no reason not to use the East India Company as a way to raise money for parliamentary operations, for wars, for whatever they want. And besides, we benefit too, right? So they benefit directly and their political agenda also benefits. The two are now tied together with the king that wouldn’t happen. Different things would have happened. I get that. Sure. But they’re different things. Yeah. Well, and the difference is with the king, you’d be able to deal with one person directly and he’d be able to grant what you want or not. And you need that for something like the colonies because of the disconnecting communication. You know, if the king says yes, you can be sure that the yes will actually be followed through on as opposed to, you know, in reality what happened was that even if the king did say yes, he couldn’t action that because he would have to go through parliament all the time. Well, and this is why I pointed it out earlier. You also have a loss of a system of checks and balances. Yeah. They didn’t make that up in the United States, guys. I hate to break it to you. But as we pointed out in the beginning, right, when the king needed to raise money, even though he was the king, he could only do that from his own funds. And if those funds weren’t sufficient and he couldn’t borrow from his cousins, which happened from time to time, then he had to call parliament to do it for him. That is a system of checks and balances. That system of checks and balances was removed entirely. The colonies are rebelling against parliament being a non-checked and balanced system, being able to levy taxes. It couldn’t get any clearer by reading the actual historical documents that that is what happened. That is exactly what happened. There’s no checks and balances in England anymore against taxation. The checks and balances against taxation in England consisted of the king and parliament. And now you don’t have the king in the picture anymore. And now that parliament is levying taxes, the royalists, because they were royalists, not just Protestants that were of unpopular denominations, are trying to pretend as though that still exists because they believe that it does. Because, you know, parliament is not, nobody understands at the time the implications of what parliament has done. They see king and they think, all right, well, we still get a king. They don’t realize the king’s power has been eroded, you know, because now it’s a constitutional monarchy, which doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy, a fiction. You go to look for the constitution, it’s not there. Right. And so they think they have a thing and it’s been gone for a while. Now the colonists are figuring this out because they’re like, look, this taxation is ridiculous. There’s no reason for this. We’re going to go to the guy who founded our colonies and say, dude, help us out. Right. And it’s not the guy, right. But it’s the body or the head of the body. Right. Yeah. The monarch who is responsible for the colonies by virtue of the line of succession, right, across the generations. And they don’t understand, A, that line’s been broken and reset and B, the power has been taken away. Yeah. Yeah. And once you have that disconnect, there’s no sort of redress that can really happen there. I mean, you know, people like George Washington would have understood that the king couldn’t give as much as maybe he had expected. But this is the thing, the parliament wanted their taxes and they were levying massive taxes on the small folk of England. I think you could probably say that the situation in the colonies was actually much closer to what the situation might have been for the small folk of England, maybe circa the early 1600s or even further back. When you have that moneyed interest, things get disturbed. And I would say that this has colored English history all after that as well, even post the American rebellion because, well, nothing really changed. The Tories, as I said, who were supposed to be the so-called opposition party, of course, this left-right political framing only comes into the French Revolution. But this Whigs and Tories thing, the Tories lost. Once James II was off the throne, the Tories had lost. And nominally, you know, there are people 100 years after the Whigs had been ruling for 100 years who called themselves Tories. But really, they were just a form of Whig who, let’s say, maybe supported the king more than their present contemporaries, you know, something like that. But largely, you know, if you look at the present UK today, the Tories, the Whigs, whatever, they’re all they’re all coming from that same common vantage point of, oh, of course, Parliament is sovereign, yes. And Parliament makes the laws and that’s it. And it’s like, yeah, okay, well, that is actually part of a breaking with, in some sense, English tradition. So, yeah, or at least the tradition of the crown. Right. And so you can see where this is easily even today by the people of the rest of history who, you know, apparently don’t do their research very thoroughly, or have ridiculous levels of bias. I don’t know which it is. Right. Or in contemporary times by the colonists themselves who consider themselves subject of the sovereign. Right. Or by somebody a little bit later, like Napoleon. Right. Yeah. We’ve already talked about that disaster of his total misread of what happened over, you know, in the colonies. He just doesn’t understand what happened. And these people don’t understand these enlightenment values. And there’s a fair argument to be made, maybe, maybe we’ll even make it someday, that the experiment that is the United States of America cannot succeed because it doesn’t have a sovereign. Right. Or the sovereign isn’t embodied in the material. And that may be what we’re seeing. I don’t think so. But I don’t know. Right. I don’t know. Can you can you replace the king with a document? Because that’s effectively what we’ve done. And that’s what England says they did, but clearly did not. Right. They replaced the king with a set of ideals. Right. And then we saw during a recent fake news virus pandemic that, in fact, you kind of need the Magna Carta. Otherwise, there’s nothing to appeal to. Right. You’re just appealing to these. Well, you know, I feel unfairly blah, because I deal this. It’s like, oh, well, that ideal, where is it? But in the United States, that was a very successful strategy. Right. With people going, nah, nah, the governor signed an executive order, but we think it’s unconstitutional. So we’re not going to do it. Yeah. And that’s other sections of the government telling the sections that are, quote, above them, which they most certainly are not to go to hell. And we’re not doing it. And then it’s not going to happen. And so you can sign all the executive orders you want at the state level or even the federal level. And we’re just going to ignore them. And we’re going to use the authority of this document to do it. And there’s nothing you can do about it. And in fact, that’s what happened over here. And it didn’t happen in England. So you kind of see there is a fundamental difference. And like I said, a lively debate about whether or not that’s sustainable. But you can see the misread by everybody else. Right. It’s like, well, what exactly is going on here? Right. Including maybe the Russians, because they have a revolution too. That’s right. That’s right. And they do end up killing their sovereign as well. Well, going to the French as well, there is the French were looking at this while it was happening. And it was a big thing for them at the time. And so the misread of the French of the American revolution or the American rebellion, it overlaps with their read of what was happening in England at the time. At the time of Charles, Charles I, they cut off the king’s head. And then they sort of seem to transfer transition to this kind of rule by aristocrats. Okay. All right. And in some sense, it seems to me that the part of the French kind of misread on the English and what happened in England is they kind of bought the bravado of the whole, oh, we’re representing the English people, we’re the mirror of the English people. And they said, well, why do we need a mirror? Why not just go straight to the people? Right. Well, and they find out real quick that, in fact, the English are lying. At least the English aristocrats are lying. They don’t represent the English people at all. And if you try to do that, the people eat you. They literally, they eat you. They actually eat you. Right. You create these machines of destruction. We’ll just call them guillotines. And the guillotines only stop killing when they kill the people that sort of put them to use. That sort of gave them the force, the power, the agency, the authority to kill. That doesn’t stop until the people that gave them that are killed by them. Which, like these patterns are there, man. Like, I’m not making this stuff up. It’s right in the history book. You’ve got to read the history and look for the pattern, and you’ll see that pattern. And they totally ignore the fact that, yeah, the English tried this, but they actually ended up with a protectorate, which is basically just a king without a king. But it’s a king without kingly authority being conveyed from above. Because there was nothing above Tromwell. And even that doesn’t work. When you try to fix it one layer down with parliament or whatever, it doesn’t work. Parliament can’t rule by themselves, which is how you got the protectorate to begin with. Well, they totally miss all that message-wise. Fair enough. This stuff is complicated. I don’t, you know, you have these smart people who are just smart enough to see things, but not smart enough to see enough things. And then they do things with these assumptions, and their assumptions are wrong, and everything doesn’t work out. Yeah. Yeah. And the point in France is that it seems that they went all the way down to the, they’d flattened it out just to one layer. It’s just the people. And that’s where you get the horrible atrocities and the idea that, for instance, you get conscription, right? That’s where conscription comes from. So at least in the sense of the idea of you get your ticket and you’ve got to walk off and you’re going to die for your country, you know? And that’s just it. Right. Right. All right, Adam, what do we think? Are we wrapping it up here? I think so. Yeah. So I think that what we went over with going from Henry VIII all the way up until basically you get the Hanoverians, which is really the kind of cornerstone of you need that final bit of, okay, we’re getting rid of the king and parliament has usurped the authority. You need that to connect it to what happens in the colonies. And I think we’ve done a good job of connecting how big of a disconnect there was between the colonies and England at the time and how the English Civil War played into that, especially regarding the place of the king. I think there’s something to be cleaned from that anyways. Oh, good. Yeah. Well, and I think, too, this idea that in a weird way, it’s a timing issue. Right? Yeah. We got lucky. If I can invoke my people here. We got lucky because we got established under the old system. And we got fed and nurtured under the old system. Right. And then when the system changed, we just floated away because we could. And the thing that forced us to be able to do that, put us in the position that we had to do that, was the force that had beheaded the king. In other words, parliament did it to themselves. They did it to themselves. And it is the misunderstanding of that because people basically weren’t looking up high enough, understanding the importance of monarchical power being conveyed from above, emanating down from a non-material place. If you want to put it in such banal terms. I just don’t know how to talk about it too much better. Right? The Eidos, the Platonic realm of quote forms, right? The Platonic realm of the Eidos, the patterns of reality, that’s what’s broken. We don’t have connection to that anymore. And that seems to be causing all the problems. And I can point to this fractally all over the place. I can just point all day long. In fact, I do it all the time on this channel. It’s actually all over the place. It’s in my last live stream. I’m basically on value. Yeah. That monologue is apparently pretty good, although I haven’t gotten my full reports yet. The value is important. And when you’re not looking at the value and you’re just taking, we’ll say the enlightenment or we’ll say the materialistic view of the enlightenment statements, right? You’re removing the enlightenment from the framing that it’s in, right? And sort of pretending like they’re apart from the world, right? That’s the objective material reality view, right? And then you’re saying, all right, this is how the world works. It’s like, well, that’s not what they would have said. None of those thinkers would have thought that way, right? And then therefore we can do what Napoleon does and declare empire. And then it doesn’t work out that way because you can’t do that. And before him, right, we can just take over as a parliament with no king, which is, even England couldn’t do that. What pattern are you following? Right? They’ll follow the pattern in their head, right? Yeah. And they go for empire as well. That’s the thing, right? They’re following, they say parliament is sovereign. And then what happens is that you have the British Empire, which is coming out of the East India Company, not just the East India Company, but you have that expansion to kind of just blow over every nook and cranny of the earth. Right. And they’re casting us as an empire. Yeah. And we’re casting ourselves as an empire too, which I found fascinating. I didn’t really get the significance of that at first because I didn’t have this wonderful framing that I have now. So yeah, I think that’s good. I think that wraps up. Do you think we can do more of these in the future or do you have topic ideas or anything that you want to throw out there? Well, I’d like to do more in future. I mean, even the stuff that we went over the day, we could go into a lot of the specifics of the Tudor period, right? There’s a lot going on there. You can go into just the reign of Elizabeth. I mean, who knows? I think there’s definitely a lot to go over as well with the connections with the American rebellion and what’s going on there. But no, I have none off the top of my head at the moment anyways. So. All right. Well, look, I think this was great. I think we did a pretty good job of sort of tying together these threads. We’ve got the Roman and the Greek stuff, right? We’ve got the French Revolution stuff. We’ve got the frontier of ideas, which is what comes later, right? And now we’ve got this piece, which is really sort of the beginning of this revolutionary cycle, right? And the misunderstandings because it’s the American rebellion for sure, right? And it is a rebellion against parliament. It’s ostensibly a rebellion against a weak king, but it’s actually rebellion explicitly against parliament because had parliament actually acquiesced and given us representation, things would have gone drastically differently. Even if the same laws had been put in place, but we had representation, that might have changed everything. Maybe none of that happens. And yeah, the fact that it’s part of the larger war plays very heavily into it. Rest in history does a good job of that, at least so far. They’ve done a good job of that piece, but a horrible job of understanding the role of the weakening of the king in this ridiculous constitutional monarchy idea. So thank you, Adam. If you guys want to see more of Adam and you get topics, then you know what to do. There’s comments down here. Do likes, do subscribes, do all that stuff. Tell your friends, tell your family, for strangers at gunpoint to subscribe to Navigating Patterns, whatever it takes. So yeah, thank you very much everybody. And I hope you enjoyed this and we’ll do it again next time.