Monarchy: Past and Present

our topic tonight is monarchy past and present I've been thinking about this topic of monarchy because of the recent coronation that the United Kingdom held the very first one that occurred in 70 years so King Charles III and the queen consort Camilla were both crowned in this very ancient and also I guess a little bit updated but it didn't seem that updated anyway but also televised uh ceremony that is a little ways a little bit out of time in a way it's also pretty uh Alien to our current let's say post-tradition or post formal Society um when I was a kid older people still in English in the United States and uh which would call you know kids would call Elders Mr so and so Mr by the surname or Mrs so and so uh you know and so people would call my dad Mr Hamer and so on I'm not I'm not really in a place anywhere that's gone and so I'm very rarely called Mr Hamer um in you know these kind of formalisms that have been lost in our society even even little things like like that um minor titles and so forth and so in some ways these kinds of costumes that we see Charles and Camilla wearing are almost like Halloween dress up because we don't do costumes and dress up otherwise but the only exception to that is in fact actually it's not costume jewelry so this um crown that Charles is wearing is real so it's the Imperial State Crown of the United Kingdom and it all by itself because of all of the jewels and diamonds and Ruby and so forth that are all in it has an estimated value of somewhere where between four to six billion dollars so it's a quite a um expensive artifact that he's actually wearing okay so in some ways you know it makes me think as we're as this exists as is this so kind of a living institutional fossil some of the Traditions here are dating back a thousand years and the British Monarchy feels like something from a different era Charles is the 40th Monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey since William the first William the Conqueror back in 1066. and in the 21st century it does seem pretty odd for one of the world's leading democracies to have as its head of state A person who inherited that position as a lifelong office having inherited it from his mother um what's even more peculiar as someone who is a Canadian citizen it is can um it's even more strange to think that Charles is now king of Canada and king of 13 other Commonwealth realms so Antigua and Barbuda Australia the Bahamas Belize Granada Jamaica New Zealand Papua New Guinea Saint Kitts and Nevis censor Lucia St Vincent and the Grenadines the Solomon Islands and tuvalu so mostly a bunch of little countries Little Island countries but a couple couple big ones left like Australia and Canada um this is a map of thief current and former Commonwealth Realms so the ones that I just read off are in blue and you can kind of see that there are a whole bunch of other ones that were maybe more significant that have subsequently removed the British monarch as their head of state and have become republics so India and Pakistan and Bangladesh and South Africa and Nigeria Kenya Tanzania and so forth big some sort of quite big countries Ireland the Republic of Ireland the number of Commonwealth Realms and dominions uh has continued to be declining so as I say 19 former Realms have become republics and indeed since the Queen's death Queen the performer queen Queen Elizabeth um Jamaica the Bahamas Antigua and Barbuda among others have actually announced their intention of holding referenda in order to decide whether they are going to ditch the monarchy and just simply become republics the way the other former realm monarchy Commonwealth Realms have done and indeed even before the Queen's death Prince William and his wife had made kind of a that made a trip to Jamaica that ended up having a bunch of um I don't know I ended up having a bunch of protests here's a a strange situation where The Heirs to the throne of the head of state for you know the kingdom of Jamaica are the European former colonizers of a post-colonial people and so that isn't always sitting well with the local people the Jamaicans you know so here's another example uh Prince William and Princess Catherine in 2021 uh they're visiting the Solomon Islands and they're in for in a ceremony that I think that the people of the Solomon Islands um maybe came up with themselves and so forth but nevertheless the uh the Optics of it the imagery of them being carried on the backs of the post-colonial people um isn't the best and so in any event the um the I retaining a monarchy even a totally symbolic monarchy like the British Monarchy for um post-colonial peoples has even additional complexities um then say it has in pluralistic societies like Canada and Australia so for the scope of the presentation that we have today tonight I want to look at so what is monarchy and what are the different types of monarchy I want to also look at okay well what's the difference between a monarchy and a republic because it's not as straightforward as you might think because obviously some monarchies are democracies like Canada and the UK and Japan whereas some republics are autocracies uh like mainland China and and Russia for example so how do monarchs differ from dictators and other heads of state and I also want to take a kind of a little bit of a deep dive into how the British monarchs evolved how did over time from they were once you know the actual rulers the heads of the government of Britain or England and Scotland separately from each other how did they then become entirely ceremonial heads of state so where we are now in the 21st century there are multiple different kinds of monarchies that are pretty different from one another we've already talked about uh here in green or light green uh the British Monarchy and all the Commonwealth Realms like Canada and Australia and so forth um that's a constitutional monarchy there are here in this map in dark green a bunch of other monarchies that are constitutional monarchies and Scandinavia and Spain and Japan and Southeast Asia and so forth then there are monarchies that are kind of called semi-constitutional monarchies so these are monarchies where people the Monarch still retains a bunch of governmental Authority but is ruling let's say in conjunction with some kind of democratically elected Parliament or Council or something like that that the Monarch that has some Powers over but has given or has devolved some powers to that um democratically elected Council than we have in red on here absolute monarchies so moderate where the Monarch is just has absolute authority over the realm and does not have any um at least uh de jure legal checks or balances there may be some de facto traditional checks and balances and so forth there almost always are in human societies but in terms of the legal philosophy uh the absolute monarchies have all power and then in pink we're also listing here on this map what are called sub-national monarchies and so this is occasions or places where um there's a traditional Monarch somebody who will have been a prince or king or something like that of a place that or people and that people are a nationality that doesn't have a full country so in other words they are one of the tribal peoples living within South Africa South Africa being a much bigger country and so therefore they're not the king of all of South Africa but are simply claiming to be the king of a people with Ian who live within South Africa and who are citizens of South Africa for example so constitutional monarchies these are also what I was just calling like ceremonial monarchies Monarch where the Monarch has no power is simply a ceremonial position so although the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lacks a written Constitution its monarchy is called constitutional because nearly every last iota of its power has passed from the king who remains the ceremonial head of state to the Parliament and its prime minister who forms the head of government and so we see here King Charles III meeting with Rishi sunak who is the current prime minister of the United Kingdom and so famously even in down to um if you've been watching the crown uh TV TV show about uh Queen Elizabeth and her Reign British monarchs are really supposed to avoid if expressing any kind of political sentiments at all because their their role as Sovereign is to rise above partisan political divisions and so if um you know if on the TV show The Crown she's having a a fight with Margaret Thatcher over um whether or not to uh condemn the apartheid government in in South Africa or something like that this is not something she's supposed to be doing in public that's a that would be a scandal for it to happen in public because that's the prerogative not the prerogative of the Monarch to express a political uh sentiment like that there are a bunch of other constitutional monarchies as we mentioned outside of Britain and the Commonwealth Realms so this is again where the Monarch has limited or holy ceremonial roles so another examples I'm sorry other examples include Japan um and this is a picture here of narhitu the current emperor of Japan with his wife the empress masako Thailand Cambodia Bhutan Spain Belgium the Netherlands uh Norway Sweden Denmark and Andorra those are all uh constitutional monarchies and Dora is a little micro uh state that exists between Spain and France and Andorra has the the weird constitutional Quirk that it's Monarch it's Prince it actually has a set of co-princes and they are the people on either side of the border so the bishop of ergle in Spain is one of the co-princes and so whoever the current Bishop is that's one of the co-princes of Andorra and then it had been the a local count on the French side but it became the French King and now that France is a republic it's now the the president of France and so uh Emmanuel macron is the other co-prince of Andorra as an elected president is uh Prince of it that very quirky principality so like the British Monarchy most constitutional monarchies have evolved out of earlier systems where the Monarch exercised actual power in the state so at different times in in uh in Japanese history the emperor actually was the head of government although the role became more religious and more ceremonial and exercise and so for example power went into the hands of Warlords including for example like the Shogun in the um the Shogun era uh and that Emperor had different levels of power for example as recently as as World War II uh more more power than has now and uh but but still was not in charge uh at that time so for example um though in the most recent example of this it's only since 2005 that Bhutan which is a kind of a Himalayan State that's which between uh China and Tibetan uh and India has transitioned from being an absolute monarchy to a semi-constitutional monarchy an almost moving towards an entirely constitutional monarchy so the previous King introduced a Constitution that limited his own powers and then he retired he abdicated in favor of his son who became the new king and the new king is now more of a constitutional Monarch and this is a picture of the current king of Bhutan so historically monarchies have been extremely personal institutions whose power can Wax and Wane with the incumbent Monarch and so it's kind of very frequent that if a king king May well be very very powerful he might have a son who is less suited to that who takes over for him and spends most of his time hunting or in the Harem or something like that so in other words that he is not actually leading the troops and things like that what can then happen is a a major official his vizier his warlord a Shogun the um the major Domo the mayor of the palace somebody like that can start to take over and start exercising all of the Power and the monarchy itself can become more more or less ceremonial even without a democracy forming in other words that the power can pass to some other official and so an example of this is after um founding the medieval Frankish Kingdom the mayor of Indian Dynasty the the original Kings of the Franks um they ended up um had a bunch of succession issues where they would divide the monarchy up and they would have rival kings that would fight Wars with each other that led to there being a succession of let's say boy Kings Kings that were crowned or inherited the throne as you know very young children and then often didn't know didn't make it too much into adulthood they'll have another child and then there will be a succession then of uh Kings who are miners you know who are not adults who were able to exercise full control during that time then the royal power almost all of the prerogatives of the king including leading the Army and so forth began collected began to be collected by their it was actually what called Latin major Domo which means mayor of the palace and these are effectively um like your chief minister and then that Royal or I'm sorry that's a Noble House the Carol engines took all the power and then ultimately when the history essentially deprived the the kings of any power um that carolingian he's not a king but the carolingian mayor of the palace wrote to the pope and asked well uh your Holiness isn't it true that the person with the power should also wear the crown and the pope uh who needed an ally and wanted to have uh support Army uh Military Support of the Frankish Kingdom knew knew better than to say no to that and so he writes and says yes absolutely and so um uh the last mayor of engine King you know had his hair cut off and he was put into a monastery you know made a tantra and put into a monastery and the mayor of the palace then took the crown and the carolingians family the family of Charlemagne became the kings of the Franks and that that alliance with the popes actually went on and so the uh a later popes actually revived the West Roman Empire and crowned Charlemagne Emperor we have a whole lecture on Charlemagne and the Western Empire another example of this are actually both sets of caliphs both the both the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad and also the Fatimid caliphs of Egypt they experienced a similar loss of power the fatimids take took place later so that's their their loss takes place in the 12th century again succession of boy caliphs the viziers in this case their chief uh the chief officer started to go over all government control and began ruling as Sultans you know the Pentagon head of the military head of government leaving the caliph as sort of like a religious leader so it somebody who had been sort of a kind of King emperor becomes a sort of a figurehead Pope kind of guy without any power until ultimately deprived of any power actually in 1171 a sultan the famous Saladin actually abolished the Fatima Dynasty altogether and simply established his own uh you know Dynasty as a sultanate in Egypt um this is another example the collapse of the authority of the Holy Roman emperors in the later Middle Ages led to the total balkanization of Italy and Germany in the early modern period so you can have it can happen that nobody takes power and instead the realm kind of divides itself into chaos and so that kind of a thing and and little independent uh Realms emerge uh like the disunified states of Italy and Germany in the early modern era so several um one of the kinds of monarchies that is occurred in the 21st century are the semi-constitutional monarchies so several in several cases the Monarch has given up um fewer Powers than the king of Bhutan gave up and so that has put them in sort of the semi-constitutional status so for example in 2011 uh in the wake of the whole Arab Spring where there was a kind of clamor across the Arab world for uh the different either absolute monarchies or military dictatorships and so forth that existed to um to have some kind of democratic input on part of the peoples of those Arab Nations the king of Morocco allowed the creation of a constitution that includes having an elected Parliament but he himself though retained control of the art forces the Judiciary appointments to make judges and so forth the right to appoint and dismiss Prime Ministers from the largest elected parley party to Parliament so in other words it's it's still a monarchy is there some constitutional elements here but the Monarch is still in a lot of charge and so therefore it's semi-constitutional right other examples of semi-constitutional monarchies include the European microstates of Liechtenstein and Monaco so while Liechtenstein has an elected legislature its Prince retains the right to V2 veto legislation that it passes and also to dissolve the parliament so to you know get rid of the legislature and make it haven't call new elections the Prince of Monaco also has veto power over legislation and is also in charge of appointing the Judiciary in Monaco so in other words it's a little bit strange because we think of Western Europe in general as being you know pretty much all democracies but in these two little microstates there's actually still a hereditary monarchs that retain a bunch of power and there's a handful of monarchies in the 21st century that are absolute monarchies this is places where all of the states de jure power all the legal power is in the hands of the Monarch so in these systems there may be some checks on them Monarch's power but these are largely informal or customary or de facto so in other words it may be that um if you know King Salman of Saudi Arabia who has uh by law absolute power within his realm nevertheless if he does certain things then all of the rest of the royal family the rest of the Saudi royal family may protest and and and cause a bunch of problems and so in other words there are certain things that he maybe won't do even though he technically could do anything um uh because of that in other words there's an informal checks there's another absolute monarchies include Brunei as swatini in Africa and South Africa Oman Saudi Arabia the individual Emirates of the United Arab Emirates and then most kind of interestingly or surprisingly the microstate in Italy of in Rome of Vatican City so um just uh on the board here that we've already had looked before at uh the Commonwealth Realms this is kind of just showing the other constitutional monarchies the areas where there are semi-constitutional monarchies absolute monarchies and then like we mentioned sub-national monarchies so in some cases there's a traditional monarchy that continues to operate like I say in a territory that is not an independent state and so in other words the Monarch only claims some level of leadership over a portion of the people or territory within the state so we have uh uh uh the second is the current king of one of the mossy peoples in the country of Burkina Faso but certainly not intending he's the ruler of the of wogodogo I guess which is one of the mossy kingdoms so it's not all of Burkina Faso but just a little portion of it and so forth so he has a um a respected role among his people but uh it's not a monarch of a state uh in terms of sub-national monarchies is a really interesting and weird system in Malaysia so nine of the states that make up Malaysia are headed by traditional melee rulers excuse me most of these monarchs have the title Sultan although there's a couple have local titles as well and so they're in kind of all sub-national monarchs in other words they're monarch of their little state only or their sultanate only however every five years these nine rulers convene a conference of rulers to elect from among themselves the Yang the perturian I can't pronounce Malaysian in other words the Paramount ruler of the Malaysian Federation who is then the overall constitutional monarch of Malaysia and so um so even though each of these Sultans or other princes are uh are not the monarch of all of Malaysia and they can be you know if they amongst themselves are elected to be the the Paramount ruler okay so just that's a summary of you know the different kinds of monarchies in the 21st century and what we really see about that is that it's really not about power because there's a bunch of the monarchies like we see with King Charles III in the United Kingdom there's no powers in other words he has a strictly ceremonial role you know and on the other end of that there are people like uh Sultan hytham of Oman and otherwise a person who has uh absolute monarchy and has all the power constitutionally of the state you know it's in charge of and can do anything the law flows from him and so forth he's in charge of every component of it and then in between there are these semi-constitutional monarchies in other words where where the Monarch retains some governing role and we saw that for example Prince Albert the second of Monaco is one of those uh who is somewhere in between on that Spectrum and if we just compare then monarchs to other heads of states in Republics that is also can be the case so um for example on the one end of this in Germany Germany has is a democracy and in Germany's a Republic and the Germans uh elect a um a legislature of which the head of the legislature the chancellor is also essentially the head of the government and is in charge of all those kind of things but there is also a president of Germany that is an entirely ceremonial role a person that hasn't have any power at all and so they fulfill essentially the role that the king of England has but it is simply again a ceremonial role as president of Germany you know at the other end of it um People's Republic of China Xi Jinping is a has increasingly there was used to be more checks on his power in terms of the Communist Party apparatus but he's increasingly removed all those and has gathered all power to himself and so he's become essentially the president of a republic a person that has essentially absolute power absolute control there are some again checks and balances on him but not it's pretty little at this point whereas in between there would be um someone like Emmanuel macron the president of France um there's some you know as countries that have a a presidential system like the United States or turkey or France where um there is a parliament and a prime minister that has a lot of control or congress you know that has a lot of control of the legislature and so forth but then there's a an independently exec elected executive which has control of some things like maybe foreign policy and um uh military and so forth and so some and so in that sense the head of states in republics can also be on this power Spectrum so it's really not about in either one of these cases uh you know whether you have absolute power or not so if the difference between monarchs and other heads of states is not about power since monarchs exist everywhere on the power Spectrum from absolute power to no power and likewise we've pointed out here that the difference between Monarch cities and republics is unrelated to democracy since many monarchies like Denmark here are fully Democratic states while many republics are complete autocracies where there is no um input of the people in terms of the into the government the government is totally uh self-contained and so forth so just trying to detach here you know like what's the what's the distinction here between both of those and so in some sense it's not about power and it's not about uh democracy is it about um heredity so in uh Monty Python on the Holy Grail there's a funny scene where King Arthur uh comes and meets a couple peasants uh and and one of the peasants uh asked well wait how did you become king then I didn't vote for you and artha says you don't vote for Kings he said the Lady of the Lake her arm clad and the purest shimmering shame I held Aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying that by Divine Providence that I Arthur was to carry Excalibur the sword and that is why I am your king and then the peasant replied here look listen strange women lying in ponds Distributing swords as no basis for a system of government supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses not from some farcical aquatic ceremony which Arthur then proceeds to anyway you know not like this kind of pushback so so here is a case where you know monarchy here is um essentially uh deriving from tradition custom Divine Providence these kind of arguments as opposed to um in this case a mandate you know just to say popular popular support from the the citizenry nevertheless um although maybe familiarity with the British Monarchy that we have in North America since we pay attention to um even the people in the United States pay a lot of attention to the British royal family and the Canadians of course the British royal family is their monarchy so there is a familiarity with that which maybe leads to the popular impression that monarchs are monarchies are naturally hereditary in other words and that they always pass by primogenesure so in other words Queen Elizabeth's first born son is Charles he's now the King Charles is firstborn son uh and it doesn't have to be sun anymore in the British Monarchy it's a firstborn child uh William is now the heir and he will eventually become king when Charles dies and so forth nevertheless even though um hereditary monarchies you know that's one of the principles of some monarchies there are a number of monarchies that actually have been elective traditionally so for example the popes who are the Bishops of Rome but also the um Chief patriarch or head of the uh the Catholic Church The Universal Church they are also absolute monarchs of a internationally recognized microstate the Vatican Vatican City and to get that position they don't inherit it by um you know being the son of the previous Pope you know there's some examples of that kind of thing happening in the Middle Ages and so forth but they're not supposed to be having sons and anything like that they're celibate uh priests and so forth and so they are actually achieve their position by election so they are elected by the College of cardinals the senior ecclesiastical uh magnets of their monarchy of the Vatican the monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire was also elective and it passed actually between royal houses uh before ultimately the habsburgs largely succeeded in monopolizing uh the crown at the end of the Middle Ages and then the early modern period similarly the French Crown was originally elective until the house of Cape succeeded in making it hereditary and making it hereditary via primogeniture so we mentioned in France the Franks that the Carol engines were able to displace the previous Dynasty the mayor of engines as the Royal House of France of the Franks West frankia became France and at a certain point the Carol engines started losing elections among the magnets and they got replaced by what as a family originally called the Robert teens but it's the same family the capricians and it started alternating between um Carol engine and capiche and monarchs until Hugh Cape was able to uh solidly um you know entrench his line and he did that by always having always producing a son that's a lucky lucky thing you need to do it as a as a king if you're trying to have a primagenitor or hereditary monarchy anyway so always producing an air and in the case of the French tradition crowning um your kid while you're still alive so in other words you don't get to have wait until the King dies and then you have some election and and you don't know what's going to happen instead you make your son Junior King while you're still alive and then when you die he's already King so there you don't have to so therefore that you preempt any any other kind of election happening the danger of that is the kid could always rebel against you and put you you know kill you or put you away in in a in a prison or something like that so it isn't it is a a strong um strategy for having your line continue but it has its own uh dangers as well um we mentioned here in terms of the election we before we already talked about the Paramount ruler of Malaysia so that's an election so that's elective monarchy where the each of this hereditary sub-national rulers elect one of their number to every four five-year term to be the Paramount ruler um oh and I I've already told the story without a slide but essentially what I was saying is that like in uh West Francia France uh the capitians you can pay here they did a very good job of producing one error and usually not not two because the a spare has the possibility of dividing The Inheritance so usually sometimes that's second but usually only had one and then again crowned that error during the lifetime of the father so so monarchy therefore is also not necessarily about heredity so some of the monarchies including the papacy are elective and so the difference between monarchs and other heads of state is not necessarily about inheritance and I wanted to just make a side note here about English because I think this is an interesting aside the the word prince and princess have evolved in English to mean the Son and the daughter of the king but originally the word is Prince is simply a synonym for Monarch in other words it's not a king's child wouldn't be called a prince King's child would just be the son of the king they don't necessarily be a word for that the word Prince would have been applied to the Sovereign of a principality in the same way the king is The Sovereign of a kingdom and so Wales is a principality and so its leader is a prince and so in the English case we have this tradition of calling the children Prince based on this this reality of whales where did the word Prince come from so ancient Rome had a really proud Civic tradition so Roman the Rome was originally a republic I had a monarchical period in Legendary Times They overthrew the monarchs they consider them to be tyrants they established a republic that's ruled by a senate and other elected assemblies we actually have a whole lecture on the the Roman Republic the Roman Constitution uh and and from that uh they shared power especially as an oligarchy the nobility as members of the Senate um the Roman Constitution did include an office called dictator which is where we get our word dictator in which was the temporary absolute ruler uh and so the idea of this uh and the and the most legendary uh kind of the legendary uh case that proves the rule or what everybody was supposed to do is there was a a great leader named Cincinnatus and he's retired from public life there's an emergency the the Galls or the Germans or somebody's invading something's happening and they go to Cincinnatus he's off in at his farm he's plowing a field they say the Senate has has voted you to be dictator you're now in charge he comes back to Rome he leads the troops he defeats the enemy uh and as soon as that's on he resigns his position as dictator and he goes back to his field and he goes uh to the plow and so he some other words that's how a dictator is supposed to be it's just a temporary emergency Rule and then the goal is for the guy to then give the power back up uh and and so indeed the the city Cincinnati Ohio is named after Cincinnatus because um George Washington was trying to sorry instill that model in the kind of the hearts of the young American Republic when the U.S was venturing into this very untested Waters at the time anyway in the late uh 1700s early 1800s of having a large State be a republic there had been little city-states in Italy and so that have been republics but generally speaking Europeans powers for most of History had been monarchies at that point and so he wanted to himself demonstrate that he wasn't going to keep power forever he was going to retire go back to Mount Vernon and same thing then the order of Cincinnatus uh and for which Cincinnati is named uh isn't trying to teach that lesson so however you know after a bunch of the conflict in the in within uh different Nobles competing for power in the Republic after Julius Caesar won a Civil War the Senate voted that he could be named dictator for life um and so that already is kind of becoming you know Monarch right uh but there were fears that that wasn't enough for Caesar and that he was intending to maybe take the title Rex to take the title King uh and because of that kind of fear of him overturning the Republic um that led conspirators to assassinate him which caused another round of the Civil War and so when Caesar's nephew Octavian and the other cesarean leaders of the Syrian party when Octavian um uh actually won the end of all the rest of the Civil Wars against the conspirators and against his own former partners Marc Anthony and so forth he became the absolute dictator or the absolute monarch of Rome but he specifically retained the pretense of their public so he wanted to disguise the fact that he held absolute power and so his name he changed his name to imperator Caesar Augustus and the title he took is simply print caps so he doesn't want to be called Rex he doesn't want to be called King he just wants to be called print caps which is to say he's just the first it just means first he's first among equals in the Senate they're all the other senators are still um it's still a republican so forth and he just has the honor of being the first one of ugly equals um however even though that's a a pretense and that mollified everybody and you I guess was able to have a good long Reign and establish peace in Rome and so forth over time that title that he and his successors had print caps that evolved into our word Prince which means essentially Monarch and other titles like he had imperator that just meant General that evolved into our word emperor um so when he's calling himself Emperor he wasn't that it didn't have the meaning that it has now it only grew over time and even his names he has like Augustus and Caesar those evolved into titles so over time you know the names for Kaiser the German Kaiser or the Russian Czar those are just durations of the family name Caesar so in other words um despite the fact that Augustus tried to dis to to uh pretend like he didn't have all power over time all of the the names that he had to disguise power over time since it was very clear that the emperor the Caesar the Augustus the the uh all had all the prince had all this power um all of those words were became imbued with that meaning and still have that meaning today so for example Machiavelli is the prince is therefore not about the son of a king it's another word for a monarch he is writing to um monarchs princes of city-states in Italy usually that's what kind of this intended audience and he's um explaining to them how to be successful uh rulers using potentially using Machiavellian philosophy we have a whole lecture on that is Machiavelli actually Machiavellian and so forth so so initially the sons of the Kings of England were not called princes so in the Anglo-Saxon times there was a an Anglo-Saxon word called Ethylene and usually that was applied to Anglo-Saxon Kings so Ethylene local Welsh rulers however were called princes at the time Wales was fully conquered by King Edward and Edward invested his son Edward who later became Edward II but initially as the first English prince of Wales and so it whales then becomes what's called an apanage of the English crown so it's ruled by the British monarch or the English Monarch in this case um but the title um for it is uh is essentially the the ruled by the the heir to the throne and so the son of the king is always called The Prince of Wales and that's how the word Prince then gets applied to Children of Kings there's a similar even if more we're weirdly peculiar linguistic tradition for the traditional apanage of The Heirs to the French throne so um the rulers of villanue which is a large County in southeast France they had on their shields on their coats of arms they had had a dolphin and they began to use the word as their title so they were called the daifan the dolphins of V NY as opposed to being calling the count and so when the last of Vian what when he didn't have any more Sons they left their County to the French crown on the condition that that they keep Vienna separate and it becomes the um appanage of the heir to the French throne and so thereafter the son of the king of France is always called you know the delfon that's why he's always called that the dolphin which is a very strange thing so if if history had been different and you know we were Disney had come from France and France wanted a republican things like that then all of these Disney Princesses might not have been named princesses because of their association with whales and wow Welsh and they might have been called athlings you know because of their relationship to Anglo-Saxon name for Prince or the dolphin s's you know of uh Disney dolphinesses anyway they're just bring up the strange linguistic Quirk there okay so the British throne currently passes by absolute primogeniture that means the air is the firstborn child of the monarch and it previously passed by what's called agnatic primogeniture in other words that's a kind of primagenitor where suns are preferred over daughters so essentially the way it had always worked in the past Henry VIII has two daughters Mary and Elizabeth but then he has a son Edward and so even though Edward is the youngest of the three the girls were skipped the women are skipped and it goes to Edward but then when Edward died then it rather than going to like one of Henry's brothers or a male cousin by a line it goes to Henry's daughters so Mary becomes The Sovereign she becomes the queen of regnant and then when she died without any Offspring it went to Elizabeth who become became the queen regnant and then when she died without any offspring then it did have to go you know find a line and get all the way across to um a cousin who's uh James Stewart the the King of Scotland who then became king of England so many monarchs many monarchies operate not though by primogenesure but instead on a principle of what's called agnatic seniority and so what this does is actually prefers younger brothers of the king in the line of succession against the king's own sons and that kind of thing had been happening early on in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and it actually was also happening a little bit in um in the early anjavin or plantagenet England so for example Alfred the Great one of the um you know the greatest English kings had been the king of Wessex became one of the first people to be called king of all of the Anglo-Saxons so nevertheless he was uh one of the youngest sons of his father and he only became king after three of his older brothers uh served as king before him so in other words the uh his father died his elder brother became king that guy died it doesn't go to his young Sons it goes instead to a younger brother that guy dies the next one came and then finally Alfred and so Alfred succeeded despite the fact that his older brothers had Sons so um there are some advantages and some different disadvantages of succession by agnatic seniority so generally speaking monarchies are absolutely at their weakest moment is at succession so we mentioned how the capisians solve this by um by the the king crowning his son as king while the Old King is still alive and they spend a bunch of time being King together until the Old King dies on the then the Junior King becomes senior King when when the dad dies and so forth then that way they that would strengthened the Dynasty and the monarchy because you don't have the succession moment when uh which is very fragile um and it's especially dangerous for a dynasty and for a monarchy in general when the successor is a minor child and so if you do something by premageniture when you're always going father to son to you know to son and so forth the chances of you know people died a lot earlier in the Middle Ages in Antiquity and so the chances of getting you know the the new king to be like even a baby or a little kid uh you know was fairly frequent and so when that happens um you know you would have to have an infant King who isn't really able to perform the job and then their mother or a great Noble or one of the king's old brothers or someone would have to act as a regent for a child King so if you don't have that if instead the the successor can be the king's adult brother that can avoid having that kind of a Regency of a child monarch and so this happened for example I mentioned the um is happening in the early uh angevan or plantagenet uh era of the English Monarchy when um King John's father Henry II died the crown passed first to um Henry's oldest oldest still living son Richard the lionhearted and then uh next there was a brother named Arthur Duke of Brittany who had a son uh sorry it was not Arthur Jeffrey Duke of Brittany who had a son named Arthur and so by Richard didn't have any kids but but there's another brother who was older than John who had a son and so so Arthur by primagenitor should have now been the next ruler instead the crown passed to Richard's Brother John and it's probably a shame that it did because John was pretty much the worst King England ever had that in any of it that's uh that's how they did it at the time to prevent the succession of a little boy King which Arthur would have been at the time um nevertheless if all the king's Brothers also have the potential to be king that can also lead to a lot more Civil Wars and so forth and we saw that happening for example with the mayor of engines where they were all fighting each other because any one of them could be king so one of the most famously fratricidal monarchies were the ottoman sultanments so the the rulers of turkey historians have called the ottoman succession practice survival of the fittest not the eldest so ottoman Sultans um practice polygamy and they then generated large royal families the same way the Saudis have generated this large royal family but upon the death of any particular reigning sultan what would then end up happening is all of the Suns would fight among themselves for the succession until one emerged as triumphant so whoever got to Constantinople and was able to be declared Sultan and so forth they will then take the precaution or there was a tradition that they would have all of their brothers or half-brothers strangled so that there would be no Rivals to the throne okay so that's kind of my survey of the different kinds of monarchies you know both from totally ceremonial to Absolute that exist and then also how um succession happens from being completely elective to having premagenitor to having uh agnatic seniority as the as the means of succession and so I also said what I wanted to do today and this uh is just kind of briefly trace the evolution of how did the British Monarchy in particular go from being an actual monarchy where the king actually was a leader of the government the military and so forth how did they get to this with King Charles the Third totally powerless entirely symbolic monarch so the British Monarchy goes back before 1066 and so part of the the earliest successors are essentially uh founded in the collapse of Roman Authority in Britain when Germanic tribes the anglos the Saxons the angles the Saxons and the jutes settled what became England and also the Scottish lowlands and at the same kind of time uh Scots which was the word at the time for Irish people Irish people were moving from Ireland uh to what is now Scotland uh what was then picked land uh in order to and they started anyway settling that way and so the native British people uh were pushed out or displaced or anglo-saxonized in some cases or or scottishized but in some cases they remained and specifically in places like like Wales which uh continue to be a British Speaking place so the Anglo-Saxons initially they're just kind of led by by Warlords and they might have been mercenary groups and so forth but they established for themselves little tiny kingdoms we call Petty kingdoms like Kent and East Anglia and Wessex and Murcia and northumbria essentially they're said to be about seven of these and so it was called it's called traditionally called the heptarchy which just means the rule of seven different Petty Kings as Britain is divided in amongst them actually in this case the Anglo-Saxon Realms are divided into seven rulers there's a great um there's a great myth from this time where Pope Gregory the Great actually before he's a pope he encounters um these Anglo-Saxon boys these golden-haired boys in Rome's slave market and he asks you know where where are these boys come from these are these are amazing where are these kids from and somebody says well they're they're angles and he says um known angli they're not angles said Angeli in Latin which means to say they're not angles they're angels and so um it caught his eye apparently or whatever and so then the idea of it is is that considering the medieval papacy at this point is at a pretty low ebb and doesn't have a lot of resources he really goes all out and sends a very significant Mission uh to Kent to to convert one of the Anglo-Saxon Kings and the reason that um that the head of the church in England continues to be the capital of Kent Canterbury Canterbury is because um this is this Mission happens where Gregory the Great um sends uh Augustine of Canterbury to there and successfully converts the kentish kingdom so um the uh the English accents had been pagans they convert through this means and actually more more so by the activities of of Irish uh um missionaries and so forth but in part from Rome um and and beginning as little Warlords there was actually a little dip very little difference between let's say the the Pagan king of Kent and his other Warriors they're they're also powerful warriors and and there really isn't anything necessarily separating him as the warlord or as the king from them but the church had a real tradition of allying with Kings and they also routinely helped build up monarchies by setting Kings apart by doing Special ceremonies by giving um their reign Divine legitimacy by um trying to by frankly trying to like support stability within a realm and centralizing it and so forth so actually one of the reasons why Pagan Warlords converted was because they actually got a whole state building up apparatus in the um in the church that came along with uh conversion so um because of the way things worked out as Vikings uh started raiding the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms the Raiders destroyed a lot of the Rival kingdoms like East Anglia and Mercia so that left one of the kingdoms Wessex without Rivals and as the Danes were eventually kind of defeated the kings of Wessex as we mentioned like with Alfred the Great became the kings of all England and that gave them significant customary Powers including the right to Levy taxes in war and so because of this big threat of the Danes and because they had to either pay tribute in terms of by taxing all the people to get a Dane gelled money to pay the Danes to make them not attack you or money to pay troops in order to fight the Danes that gave the Anglo-Saxon Kings a a significant capacity to tax their people in the north the Kings lives the Scots were also able to diversify unify a diverse group of petty kingdoms into what became known as Scotland and that included um bernesia which is the northern part of the kingdom of northumbria which is to say not all of the people in Scotland were originally or ever ever really did speak um Scott's Gaelic which is to say the Irish language that came with the Scots from Ireland some of them had originally spoken pictish and British languages like was spoken in in strathclyde and so forth and some of them were speaking English to begin with her Anglo-Saxon because they are from their northumbrians and so forth so it was always a diverse Kingdom Scotland so monarchy like I said it's a deeply personal institution operating within the bounds of tradition and custom a strong King can establish new powers that become Customs but a we King can see existing Powers atrophy through disuse so even though a strong Kingdom of the Anglo-Saxons of England emerged once you get to kind of a bad King like Ethel red the second a guy who is known as Ethel red the unready because of um what a bad King he was unready doesn't mean he wasn't prepared what it actually means is um he person who hasn't who has been miscounsel or in other words a guy with who doesn't have any good good counsel so his um uh his his name in Anglo-Saxon means the person who um has wise counsel but he's called Ethel red anyway the uh that with the uncounseled um Ethel red used his taxation power to pay tribute to the Danish Kings in order to avoid war but he ultimately had to fight those Wars and lost the war to the Danish King who successfully replaced him as king he died and etheroid came back but then at the red lost again and the Danes took the throne so um during that rule by Danish Kings the power of Earls increased and it became concentrated in the hands of the nobility in this case the hands of the god when godwinson Clan so monarchy necessarily operates in partnership with other stakeholders and that's usually it includes the church you know we've mentioned how they can the church can help out but also the great Nobles are usually also the central partners with the crown and so um while the Danes who are kind of foreigners who have to go back to Denmark every once in a while and so forth are ruling England um the great Nobles the Earls start to become super powerful and meanwhile also um the earldoms become hereditary within certain leading noble families especially the godwinson family and so when the Danish kind of Dynasty dies out and Ethel Reds young exiled son Edward is brought back to England becomes uh King it becomes king Edward the Confessor the guy who is King up until 1066 and the and and the pers amazing events that are going to happen in 1066. he nevertheless has very little power because so much power has now come into the hands of the Earls and especially the godwinson family and indeed Edward has to marry um uh one of the godlinson daughters as his Queen and she also um it's very holy and so she doesn't believe she believes in abstinence and so they don't actually have kids and so that also weakens the monarchy again against the uh against the Nobles so when Edward died childless the English witton the council chose not as a a cousin or a member of the House of Ethics a young man named Edgar Edgar atheling that's what we're talking about which meant the early word for Anglo-Saxon Prince right it's an athling and instead chose the king's brother-in-law you know the Queen's brother Harold godwinson as his successor so Harold becomes Harold II King of England and he rules during 1066. but because Harold isn't part of the traditional royal family he's not from the house of Wessex he's just from a noble family that has now been you know made King his position is relatively weak and he has to fight off two foreign claimants who are trying to seize the throne so there's King Harold hardrada of Norway who is basing his claim on being related to the old Danish Dynasty that uh that has a claim to the throne and Duke William of Normandy who is he's also inter by by marriage related to the old house of Wessex but it's not actually a descendant of them anyway Harold successfully fought off King Harold hardrata but then when William of Normandy at the Battle of Hastings defeated him and he died in that battle Harold died um uh Williams became the Conqueror so this allowed for kind of a monarchy reset in England so the Norman Conquest um uh changed everything initially much of the Anglo-Saxon nobility and clergy remained in place in other words they accepted uh uh William the first as their King but then later there were rebellions and risings where many of the Anglo-Saxon Lords and so forth turned on William and were mostly all exterminated and replaced and at that point and also over time the the clergy the Anglo-Saxon clergyman also you know began to die out you know for their roles in as a bishops and and the Normans brought people from France from Normandy in order to um to restock the bishopric and so forth so because of this change unlike in France the nobility in England who were Normans who were transplanted there they lacked autonomous thiefs so whereas if you were the count of bluewa in um France you'd own the area the county of boa and you'd have castles there and the King of France can't even actually enter into your lands because it's kind of a very autonomous Thief whereas in England at this point if you were made Earl of Suffolk you might have like one Central Castle or something Manor or something like that in Suffolk but your lands would be spread all around England and so it's not easy for you to Simply barricade yourself behind your castles and have a rebellion because anytime you join a rebellion your lands could be seized because you're not don't have one like central place where you're fighting to control them and so forth so it's it gives the Kings a lot of power in vis-a-vis the nobility after the conquest so nevertheless uh it does you know it requires having an actual errors in order to make things happen and so William the first William the Conqueror passed his crown first to his son William II William Rufus and then later when William Rufus died childless the crown passed to his younger brother Henry the first Henry the first had a son named William and he's called William Adeline which is actually the Norman version of that um uh old Anglo-Saxon word for Prince athling or prince in the sense of son of the king so William Adeline but in a terrible disaster both William and all of the other young Nobles of the realm uh they were on a ship they were trying to cross between England and Normandy the ship uh they got drunk and so forth the ship uh crashed into Iraq and uh everybody drowned and so that ended Henry's all his plans for the future and so forth he had no more he had an heir the only air that he has left the only child that he has left is his daughter a person Matilda she's known as the empress Matilda because she had previously been married to a Holy Roman Emperor but uh that Emperor had died while she was still quite Young she subsequently married a powerful French count account of Anjou um Henry uh called upon all his Nobles to acknowledge Matilda as Heir and so if you've been watching the new House of dragon the new Game of Thrones story this is actually based on the empress Matilda story um and it doesn't go well in the actual history so anyway what ends up happening is when Henry dies his nephew Stephen who is also a descendant of William the Conqueror usurps the throne and that leads to a 15-year Civil War in England called the Anarchy between the supporters of Stephen and the supporters of Matilda so um that's the kind of thing that can cause uh Royal authority to collapse or evaporate so in other words because the king is unable to maintain peace and there's a rival King for everyone to rebel against the king and turn to that could ultimately lead to all of the local earldoms or whatever in England becoming semi-autonomous or independent something that had previously happened in France um which had led to kind of the collapse of Royal Authority in France at this contemporary time but in order to end the Civil War King Stephen um after his eldest son died he disinherited his younger son and instead named Matilda's son Henry as his Heir and so that kind of healed the Civil War and when Stephen died a couple years later Henry just succeeded and that's um and that ended the whole crisis so Henry came to the throne in 1154 as a young and vigorous King and he immediately said about restoring Royal Authority and he was doing it according to the Customs that had been current in his grandfather's day so everything was to be done as it was in the days of old good King Henry as he would as he would have said so as Henry II so how does this work then Henry then went about systemizing past customs and in doing that he actually led to the development of English common law so he made reforms where they got going where English Justice started working on legal precedence and so forth in other words were they recorded customs and uh and started basing new future judgments on Customs that ended up creating kind of the legal the English system of Commonwealth um he tried to do a similar thing with uh Church customs but his attempts to kind of write down Royal prerogatives over the church his ability to appoint Bishops and so forth that led him into conflict um with his former Friend Thomas Beckett a guy who had been his his chancellor who he actually named to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury they'd gotten into a huge fight and um at the end of which uh Beckett is actually murdered by Henry's Barons uh in Canterbury which caused you know a huge Scandal and Beckett ultimately is canonized as a saint and so forth and it took a lot for Henry to kind of recover from the uh uh anyway from this kind of a low point in his uh public relations and so forth so as Bishops were important Royal officials Kings often claimed to the right to nominate candidates and at this kind of period of time the church is trying to free itself from from Royal control and so this is part of the overall fight that's happening so we have this system where Henry for example who had inherited vast lands in France so by his father he's already count of Anjou to Iran and Maine by his mother he is Duke of Normandy and King of England and by his wife he inherits this vast territory almost all of Southern France called the duchy of Aquitaine including the county of watu and the uh the Desi of Bordeaux and so forth and so um as a result of that Henry and his sons and successors Richard the lionhearted and John they actually they own richer lands lands with more people in them in France than they had in England and so although they were technically vassals of the capetian kings of France they actually had way more power and wealth than the kings of France who were pretty much restricted to the area around Paris uh Orleans and so forth in other words there's a much smaller kind of domain that they were having so it had this situation of an absentee monarchy continued it's very possible that Royal Authority in England could have passed to local officials since the kings are not really spending much time there however there's one big battle in 1214 a battle of bouvines which actually sets all the different monarchies of Europe in different directions and and uh and changed everything in history if it had gone a different way it might have everything might have been different so the king of France Philip II called Philip Augustus and his ally um I'm sorry and he is on the one side as King Philip defrance on the other side is the um the Guelph or previously Pope papal Holy Roman Emperor Otto IV Ally of King John as on the other side and they fight a battle uh in which Philip actually wins which like I say kind of sets the course of history for the monarchies of France England Germany and Italy and even though this is a real big battle between Philip and John John actually fails to even show up for the battle and so he loses the battle without actually even arriving so the emperor Otto is there but again it loses to the French King so as a result of that Philip was able to seize almost all of John's land in France everything except for parts of the Aquitaine inheritance and the French monarchy became rich and was able to centralize Royal Authority and so as a result of that France got put on a path of power continually being concentrated into the Monarch's hands until we get to the early modern era when the Sun King Louis XIV successfully implements a regime of absolute monarchy and so sort of famously having done that Louie's successor Louis XV is sort of famous as saying you know in other words after us the flood can happen it doesn't really matter and although that's taken out of context it's hard to repeat that because obviously when um his successor Louis XVI is executed uh in 1793 in the French Revolution so in other words France centralizes becomes a nation-state um the Monarch becomes an absolute monarch and then uh in Revolution the monarchies gets wiped out um of course of course of history also changes uh for the empire in other words the monarchy of Germany and Italy so the emperor ought to the fourth was from the house of wealth which is one of the competing Imperial families it's the only one actually to be crowned from the house of wealth and so that is called Guelph in Italian and Italians which are part of the Empire part of the Kingdom so Otto is king of Germany of burgundy and of Italy um in in Italy that families called Guelph and the Rival party in Italy the Imperial party that's the papal party the Imperial party is called gibbling and that is from uh the houses of hohenstaufen and so even though um Otto was from the Guelph party or the wealth party he had actually broken with Pope Innocent III in a sense um is probably the most powerful Pope in history he's at the Pinnacle of power of the medieval papacy um innocent was very haughty innocent had claimed all power to himself and it was very difficult to be Emperor and not uh to be continually humiliated and have to serve innocent who felt that the papacy was over top of secular rulers so when Otto broke with innocent innocent responded by replacing him with his Ward the young young king Frederick II of Sicily who was the Howard staff and Prince this ends up being a terrible strategic move by by the pope but he does it at the time because he wants to spite Otto anyway after Otto's defeat at the Battle of bouvine Frederick is able to pretty much um seize control of the throne in Germany Otto has to kind of slowly retire to his own castles and ultimately kind of die you know deposed and Powerless so this ends up setting the popes and the Emperors on a path of mutual destruction so in innocent the third here expands the authority of the papal monarchy to include successfully deposing Emperors and appointing new people to be emperor in in their stay so that's very very much setting himself up to essentially be Paramount Monarch over all the kings of Europe um he successfully deposed the emperor and replaced him however it proved very short-sighted in effect so the person that he replaced Otto with Frederick II of hohenstaufman was already king of of Sicily which included all southern Italy so very rich now he becomes king of burgundy and Germany and Italy and so he now um from a very strong position starts to try to really revive Imperial or Royal control of Northern Italy which caused the purposely to be entirely surrounded and so um later popes declared Crusade declared holy war against Frederick and they ultimately succeeded in Exterminating his house the house house of hoes dolphins and over time the papacy actually successfully destroyed the power of the Roman emperors the West Roman emperors the Holy Roman emperors and so um the result is this so we've had like the map of you know like the this is like you know the Empire and it was a big monarchy and so forth um with the collapse of Royal Authority everything balkanizes into these little microstates and so forth which are all semi-autonomous so while the papacy successfully exterminates the Hoenn stefans um they they contribute to the complete breakdown of Royal Authority in Germany and Italy and as that kind of happens papal power also over time ebbed away and so far from being Paramount rulers you know like an innocent the third the later popes in the early modern era their power declined against the much more powerful emerging nation-states of Europe so Spain and France and England and so forth okay so that's what happened in France and what happened in Germany and Italy meanwhile this battle of movies the response in England so having lost all of his lands uh saved part of his mother's lands in aquitain King John retreated to England and he proceeded to be a terrible King there too and so he offends and he quarrels with all of his Barons all the nobility in England and so between 12 14 and 12 16 many of his Barons were in active revolt and in the middle of that in 1215 John was forced to sign a great Charter of Liberties the Magna Carta that guaranteed the rights of the nobility it's not really about the people of England but the Nobles against arbitrary exercise of authority by the king and so this becomes a big turning point in the relationship between monarchy and Nobles John of course as a liar he always says he repudiated Magna Carta and the war continued but he was near and he was nearly deposed before he died but rather than you know since he did die instead of he didn't have to be deposed and so when his son who's only nine years old Henry III comes to the throne the Regents for him so in other words he's too young to be in charge of the government itself the Regents agree to reissue versions of the charter edited down a little bit versions of Magna Carta and then that became a practice just a regular practice when you come to the throne so reissuing the new king will reissue Magna Carta and so forth so that becomes part of the medieval contract between the Kings and the Nobles so thereafter Magna Carta had a legal significance throughout the medieval period as nobles were able to bring cases against Royal officials not the king himself but essentially all the officials that the king acted through when when the king essentially was breaching the charter Magna Carta so from that kind of basis now the kings of just England over the course of the next centuries War became increasingly expensive and this was also a time period when England and France fought a very expensive conflict known as the Hundred Years War the war took place between 1337 and 1453 so it actually lasted longer than 100 years and so to pay for the war English kings increasingly relied on Gatherings called Parliament as a vehicle to legitimize special taxation so parliaments began as meetings of the king and its Chief ministers members of the council plus ecclesiastical magnets so the Bishops archbishops and abbots and also lay magnets so the Earls and uh the Lords and so forth so Knights and townsmen representing the Civic communes uh the commons as it was called were regularly included after the 1290s although they were definitely initially a much um subordinate part of the of the parliament from the Lords which are the lay and church magnets by Edward III's era so um John's son is Henry and Henry has a son Edward who has a son Edward who has a son Edward Edward III um uh consent of both the Lords and Commons was necessary for the king to Levy any new tax they could also put laws through through the Parliament that the king retained to write to veto and so forth but you weren't able to make taxes independent of the Lords and Commons so um English kings who needed money often found Parliament to be a very convenient institution when the commons could be called in to vote to give taxes to pay for their expensive Wards however those same Kings found Parliament to be much less convenient when members of that Parliament complained to him for example of the heavy taxation or when they demanded an accounting of Royal expenditure what did you do with all the last money we gave you or when they took it upon themselves to impeach the king's ministers for mismanagement of Royal government and so forth and so in other words there is a you know Parliament giveth and Parliament taketh away us you know on these things in other words the king is getting something for it but it's also costing uh some of his authority so Parliament then becomes a power check in an era that is becoming more philosophically promoting of of absolutism and absolute monarchies so as for example we're moving in France towards that era of of Louis XIV and as the absolute ruler of France um there's still this very significant check that's preventing that from happening as much in England so when the king in Parliament were aligned the body could enact laws that increased Royal Authority so for example um you know under Henry VIII the act of the supremacy made the Monarch the Supreme head of the Church of England and separated the English church from uh the papacy and the bishop of Rome um however when the Monarch and the parliament disagree um the only thing that Kings could more or less do is uh absolve you know dissolve parliament dismiss Parliament and then attempt and fail to live on their own Royal revenues in other words they couldn't enact any new taxes and so they had to make do with the way the other traditional ways that Kings got money so for example they were major landowners and they were living off the agricultural produce of their own Estates they also had certain traditional like rights and duties import tariffs export tariffs and so forth they had money and revenues from from court fees Justice fees and so forth they would could sell offices they could um uh it's but you know like certain kinds of um you know revenues that they could make from minting coinage or debasing coinage and so forth but at a certain point um you know you have to um you you also need taxes so um when Queen Elizabeth the first died without a direct air her cousin King James VI of Scotland was crowned as James the first of England James Sun Charles the first living a generation before Louis XIV but you know again as these ideas of absolutism are all around he was very attracted to the philosophical ideas about you know divine right of kings and um absolute monarchy so in other words that he shouldn't have to be bound by um lesser people in terms of all of his um judgments and so at a certain point he designed after conflict and arguing with the parliament he decides to dissolve parliament and tries to rule without it uh for 11 years in other words making up revenues through those kind of traditional ways that I was talking about without having to ask for special taxes however that ultimately he does have some Wars or is there too expensive to pay for out of ordinary revenue and that bank swaps Charles forced to call recall parliament in order to enact new taxes Parliament is not in a good mood having been dismissed for 11 years and so relations between both the king and the Parliament deteriorate both the king and the Parliament raise armies which begin fighting each other the Parliamentary forces end up defeating the royalists in the ensuing English Civil War and once Charles is executed he is eventually oh I'm sorry once he's captured he's also eventually executed in 1649 and so that led to the brief and only period of time when Britain operates as a republic and during that time it becomes kind of a military dictatorship where the chief of the army Oliver Cromwell has made the Lord protector of the Commonwealth of England Scotland and Ireland and he ultimately also is tries to rule without Parliament I just anyway I put this light in because they've just whenever I think of the the execution of the king I think of regicide and there's this wonderful um uh crime Hotline in Springfield that Bart calls and it has all the um if uh to choose from Melissa felonies press two you know and so forth you have selected regicide if you know the name of the king or queen being murdered press one anyway so this is a funny Ranch aside all right regicide is more funny hundreds of years after the fact that it was at the time I'm sure so after the collapse of the military protectorate Parliament was recalled and Parliament ultimately voted to restore the monarchy and invited Charles the first exiled son who's living off in France to return to England to be crowned as King King Charles II so while Charles II was able to reclaim a bunch of royal prerogatives the real aftermath of the Civil War where you know the England had gone ahead and ex you know committed regiside and had had a republic era pretty much kind of permanently shifted Dynamics in the power dynamics in favor of Parliament so Parliament um uh was also and the main English political leaders are also very nervous about maintaining anglicanism as separate from Catholicism and unfortunately for Parliament lots of members of the royal family had Catholic leanings including Charles's brother James so they've been living all these years in Exile in France France is a is a Catholic country and so forth so they've adopted or re-adopted Catholicism Parliament tries unsuccessfully to exclude James from the succession so he does become king when Charles dies but Parliament sort of kind of is feeling like or the Protestant leaders in England are sort of feeling like well it's not going to last too long he'll eventually die and his daughter Mary um who is a Protestant and is married to a Protestant leader from the Netherlands will be his heir however um kind of unexpectedly James who is married to a new Catholic wife get hurt she gives birth to a son which displaces Mary in the primogeniture right so son Trump's daughters in this kind of era and so that raises the Specter that there's going to be that the stewards are going to maintain that became a completely Catholic Dynasty ruling England so as a result of this kind of the political leaders in England kind of leaders of parliament invite Mary and her husband William of Orange to invade and as they do and as they throw England open to her James decides uh to flee to France so James and his family leave and Parliament then convenes and declares that he's forfeited the throne and they Acclaim William and Mary as joint monarchs so this leads to the the kind of the the pathway now to the atrophy of royal power so from the Reigns of Mary II and William the second Parliament assumes control of the succession and they exclude all kinds of Catholic claimants from the line so after um Williams uh death and and uh Mary's relative Anne dies um they have to go to kind of a very different distant German cousin uh the elector of Hanover George the first who became king in 1714 um people often are talking about George that that you know he didn't even know English and so but he and so he was therefore alienated from his government actually um pretty much everybody in the government could speak French he could speak French over time he eventually learned English probably but the um the issue still was that royal power atrophied under him as he was not part of uh you know born to the system and he was still interested in ruling his own lands back in Germany and so forth and so as a result power really began under him to pass to Britain's first de facto prime minister uh Robert Walpole so over time that just kind of continued that tradition so George the first grandson George III um suffered from porphyria probably we think um which is to say which is understood at the time to be fits of insanity that rendered him unable to rule and so uh his son William was made Regent and during that Regency period and then later when William became king as William IV Royal uh the Royal ability to influence Parliament declined further so for example in 1834 William decided to dismiss his prime minister who was from the Whig party and he replaced him with somebody he liked better from the Tory party but then when their elections were held uh you know the Tories lost the elections and so the king really had no choice in if he wanted to have Parliament do anything but to recall the weak prime minister that he'd fired so in other words the um the king is no longer able to have his choice as who the Prime Minister was going to be the final transition to constitutional monarchy um you know from an entirely constitutional ceremonial role occurred during the 63-year long reign of Victoria who is a granddaughter of George III so after all of her many of her uncles all died without producing heirs um male heires Victoria assumed the throne she also had little little control at this point even at the beginning but after the death of her really beloved husband Prince Albert she went into kind of a a very serious mourning and retreated from public life for decades and so her almost entirely ceremonial role became entirely ceremonial which really set the Precedence for much of the modern British Monarchy as it exists today so um then at that point the most strange thing you know once the British Monarchy doesn't have any power at all was simply not not getting eliminated right and so so Britain the monarchy actually survived revolutions that other much seemingly stronger or more powerful monarchs in Europe did not survive so George the fifth of Great Britain is pictured here on the right he's with his first cousin is our Nicholas II of Russia they also at the same time don't have a picture of all three of them together but anyway they were also first cousins of the German Kaiser Phil helm II um so in contrast uh to George you know who had very little Powers an entirely ceremonial role a constitutional Monarch um Tsar Nicholas and Kaiser Wilhelm actually they wielded a lot of power they were sort of running their own um uh Nations but both were overthrown after the serious military losses that the Russian Empire and then the German Empire both experienced in in World War one which eliminated uh those two monarchies so that kind of brings us you know to the collusion of that and so I just want to conclude by just kind of thinking about here well what quality then makes monarchy distinct so given that the quality that separates monarchs from other heads of States not power we've seen that they can have all power or none nor is it whether the state is a democracy or an autocracy and to have a monarchy as we've seen with the subnational monarchs it's not even necessary for people to have a recognized state norid is a question about election or inheritance and some monarchs are elected so what does what is the essential distinction um so I think that the answer is is almost just a sense or a feeling that people have within a realm that the monarchy has some kind of legitimacy so in the you know British case and also even in the Commonwealth Realms Elizabeth II was Queen for so long um the overwhelming majority of all of her subjects had never experienced anyone else in that role you know she provided kind of a long very steady presence and I think that was coupled with a general sense that she was continual continually fulfilling duties you know this is a ceremonial role but she's always doing that and I think that uh you know especially when I talk to older generation of Canadians um you know that endowed her with a kind of a well of Goodwill um you know that really I don't think that Charles you know enjoys at all because nobody has that sense he's you know it's weird and new that this particular guy is is there right so monarchies you know in terms of legitimacy how do you get legitimacy monarchies accrue legitimacy by longevity so we've we've seen the British Monarchy as a thousand years old and include precursors that go back centuries more the papacy is nearly 2 000 years old the Japanese monarchy claims to be older still so most monarchic Traditions are also intertwined with religion like we've seen the British mon to the British coronation that was just held is essentially an Anglican Church mass and it was effectively like kind of like the sacrament of stalling the new head of the Church of England so um you know for this reason because of the legitimacy Gap um autocrats rarely uh Crown themselves so dictators frequently seize absolute power in States and they can they start living in palaces they may create personality Cults they'll put their picture on money and on posters and walls and everything like that and they promote themselves and their praise and so forth through state-controlled media nevertheless it seems like it's nearly impossible for a new man somebody who had originally been a regular commoner or bureaucrat or military person or something to kind of rise up assume power and successfully name themselves King they may be king and all but name but that name remains elusive you know I'm Putin has a lot of trappings but is not he's not able to be named Tsar right even if he'd like to be or hasn't anyway so far tried you know the one exception that kind of proves that rule is perhaps Napoleon so um his foray into this was potentially like one of the most one of the greatest military commanders in history and so having like a unprecedented military success in terms of conquering most of Europe he took the title Emperor and then um successfully intermarried all the members of his family into all the traditional Royal houses of Europe which kind of caused a legitimacy there by by marriage so by military prowess is a form and then also intermarriage with the legitimate or let's say historic traditional monarchs um but uh and in part that's because I think traditional associ there's a traditional association between monarchs and the military and so success on the battlefield is a source of legitimacy nevertheless um Napoleon also proves uh you know with Waterloo that if you you know live by the sword that you can also Die By The Sword and so you could lose that same legitimacy through loss um so Charles like I say lacks the reservoir of Goodwill that his mother had amassed over the decades the British Monarchy continues to possess antiquity but some of these other sources of legitimacy seem to be running dry so in general class distinction based on inheritance has become deeply in popular in the west um that's true in England too where even though there has always been a more formal class system that that is also been being challenged anyway in in Britain certainly um meant to be challenged in like the American Mythos nor is religion the help it once was so for example in a 2018 survey only 14 of the people in the United Kingdom identify as Anglican Christian although it depends on the survey methodology sometimes a lot more of them will call themselves anglicans even if they have no they don't go to church or anything like that nevertheless there's some cautionary tales about you know when you just decide well let's get rid of monarchy so in crafting the US Constitution in 1787 the founders founding fathers of the United States they rejected monarchy nevertheless for the American people they imbued some of the feeling associated with the Monarch in this office this new office they created of presidency and so because the the president is on the one hand both head of government in a way and the head of state um there are problems you know when a society like the us today becomes hyper polarized and so um people in the one partisan side and the other partisan side Doom cannot view the president from the opposite party as being their president essentially and so um that's an issue too I recently gave an a whole paper on this idea of monarchy and as in in terms of looking at the leadership of the church my church that I'm a part of Community of Christ and the Latter-Day Saint tradition that it forms a part of and so we have had a tradition in Community of Christ where the leadership the presidency of the church has actually been within a particular family up until the 1990s and so Joseph Smith who was the original founder of the church went to his son and then three of his sons so the grandsons of the founder until the great grandson of the founder uh when he retired and became Emeritus president and prophet of the church in 1996 he appointed somebody outside of the family as the new president and so that was the first time that um we moved away from this traditional uh family Smith Dynasty or whatever even in the leadership of that and so um we are considering that now after the um the second non-smith president of our church has announced his retirement which will take place in two years and so we are looking to how um how are we going to be a people that is kind of maybe more constitutional or have more of a constitutional monarchy or maybe more more of a republic with our World Conference here which is the elected Council or the leadership of the church the parliament um maybe it is The Sovereign as opposed to the presidency so it's something that I've been thinking about so this is my thoughts anyway on monarchy past and present you know and just as a final reflection here again in Canada the system of having a British monarch is the head of state of One's Own very non-british country is increasingly becoming it seems a bizarre tradition um and so it's one that you know I'm still thinking about I had become you know I watched the Queen's speech as part of the Christmas Day tradition and things like that it was really strange to have it be uh Charles who gave the speech this last year and also to have the little kids choir singing God Save the King since I was in again like I said used to um Elizabeth II and I haven't been used to him yet so those are my thoughts on monarchy past and present sorry we were not able to get this uh lecture last week but hopefully um it was worth the wait um I'm gonna see here if uh Leandro has given me some of your questions and comments and so rain says um I'd say North Korea is a nascent dictatorial monarchy what do you think yeah so that's a really North Korea is such an interesting position I was saying how it's really difficult for let's say a new man you in a republic you know somebody who rises from the ranks uh is and becomes absolute leader or dictator or something like that the way um uh the first of the Kims did in North Korea and so he was the head of you know a you know a nominally socialist State a communist state but they have successfully created a dynasty so his son took over and then his son took over and now um as you say we really are getting to a place where there is a dynasty you have a still a nominal Republic and a nominal communist social estate which is really a um but it was just really become almost like you say a monarchy even though it doesn't have that it isn't claiming that name and so it's but it's functionally become one I think so yes it's very interesting um talking study yes my question is is the pope a monarchy so the pope is a monarch the papacy is a monarchy and so yes um the people I mean it's definitely a kind of Monarch so he is has a he's the head of a state so the Vatican Vatican City even though it's very tiny is is recognized internationally as an independent country the Vatican is a is a is a successor state to a much larger papal state which the popes ruled from around the 9th century onward until the 20th century they lost it in the unification of Italy but we're still claiming to own it until until they're able to make a treaty finally with Mussolini that recognized their little state within Rome as the successor to that in other words they gave up claims to the rest of the city of Rome and the rest of the the lands in central Italy that had been part of their state but the popes have been recognized as a territorial Prince since at least like the 9th century or so the 10th century and so as a result of that um yeah they're a monarchy and Inter the the country is a monarchy and the Popes are a monarch a type of Monarch um the same very same way when you know someone Islam expanded the leader of the Islamic lands was the cow leaf and so it's called the caliphate and so and so that person was both the kind of the Monarch it's like the emperor and also kind of like the Pope I mean it's like both combined together but then it's like I say slowly over time their their actual power over things atrophied and So Cal leaves became more and more like just the religious leader and then they had um you know their their General the head of the bureaucracy and also of the of the armies and things like that The Sultans ended up taking um you know becoming the kind of the more secular King underneath the religious leader but that's and that's happened too with the like to say the Japanese empire right where the where the the emperor is sort of like the religious leader um and the uh you know and then the government has been ruled by let's say the military leaders like Shoguns and more recently obviously the secular democracy um rain asks why did the Romans have such a fear of Kings um after the fabled Rex Romanian how did the Republican period Inspire revolutionary reforms in Europe so yeah so there was a big um so there was part I think central to the um the Roman foundational myth um the the right the the Royal period is mostly Mythic there there is some some historical evidence for some of the Kings and so forth but um but essentially the Roman foundational myth was that they overthrew Kings and kings were tyranny and they had to and and instead had um developed you know their their their system of of having a a race public a public thing um that was was uh Central to what it meant to be Roman and so I think that the idea certainly what the other um the other Senators who were the people who were really expressing the fear of a monarchy I don't know the popular the the common people may not have cared about too much if it was a bunch of senators who were ruling them or one king I don't know that they they did care necessarily the Common People the the other senators were were very um uh very much disliked the idea of having one senator be in charge instead of all of them kind of sharing power and so they were I think afraid of it out of also out of self-interest uh that they wanted to have that um how did the Republican period Inspire future revolutionary forms in Europe so the um so so there had been Prime primarily from the Antiquity in the Middle Ages onward most um uh most all of the greater States bigger States in Europe were monarchies right so they're almost all kingdoms or or Empires or principalities or something like that um but the exceptions were there were there were city-state rep size kind of republics in um in Italy and other places like that and so they were they were smaller and but they were more attuned also you know so they like in the Renaissance and so forth they're they're looking back at the Roman models and so they are are looking into classical forums and so they um they're aware of some of the you know the ancient like like Cicero's discussion of a republic and so forth and so they are directly inspired in that way by the classical forms um you know in that kind of time period um rain would Harry Prince Harry and Megan's markle's children still qualify as heirs to the British throne if their parents give up their British citizenship and immigrant um yeah I think so I don't think that I mean I think that the way it works is um so the succession isn't really Harry or Megan or their children's under their power Parliament is in charge and so Parliament has an act that regulates the succession that works by um uh you know absolute primogenitor and so um the the way that the only way that those guys would get taken out of the succession is by an act of Parliament and so and so it doesn't really matter if they I don't think it would matter if I think I mean I think if they did renounce their citizenship and so forth uh then maybe Parliament would say well but you can't be a king and they might they might make an act but it would be Parliament that does it not them because the parliament's in charge Miguel Angelo says um is from Henry II in terms of the in the back at Affair is that is that where we get the phrase where will no one rid me of this turbulent priest of this Troublesome priest yes so that's the famous line that's attributed to Henry II and so Henry has had this this horrible knock down drag out fight with Beckett um and it's been a big thorn in his side Beckett has spent most of his time as Archbishop of Canterbury in Exile and so forth and so Henry's not able to get all kinds of work done he's not able to have I mean the Archbishop of Canterbury speaking of monarchy in the church that the traditional the traditional um prerogative of crowning the king of England is supposed to fall to the Archbishop of Canterbury and so usually if the person is going to be crowned like Charles III was you want the Archbishop of Canterbury to do it well Beckett is in Exile and he's an enemy of Henry Henry is looking over at the capetions and seeing how strong that monarchy is because uh your they crown their son in the lifetime so Henry takes his son who we call we call the young King Henry and he has him crowned but he can't he's wanting to get back you know Beckett or whatever he can't do it so he he has the Archbishop of York crown him instead which is a problem in terms of the his son's legitimacy that young we call him young King Henry because he actually dies before Henry II and so he doesn't ever become he's not Henry III he doesn't get a number because he's never adult King he was but he was crowned in Henry II's Lifetime and so yes at the end of this whole time period Henry is supposed to have said will no one rid me of this Troublesome priest in other words just kind of throwing that out in the air as opposed to like saying you guys you go kill him but rather just saying an active Despair and then the and then the Barons put it two and two together and they decided to go do it and so it is a little bit of plausible deniability on Henry's Bart or whatever but um but he's still got in trouble for the assassination rain asks how do Western monarchies compare to South and Central American God Emperors like maktazuba or uh Queen uh Liu Kalani of Hawaii um so I I am I would have to research more about the um Aztec Emperors and so forth I know the um so there would have been a big um again I know that there is a big you know religious component to there and same thing with the um the Mayan rulers so there's a king of every one of the Mayan city-states and they would been ruling in concert with their their local priests and something like that in in those cases so in in those monarchies are are have similarities uh between the Western monarchies in the sense that um the the King has uh a lot of divine right and that's like you say completely associated with that and with the priesthood and also um I think similarities are you know you know a military function in that same way um in terms of Hawaii um the Hawaiian um monarchy by the time it got gets to the last queen um is that has actually been in a lot of contact with Western monarchies and also with the Japanese monarchy and so um uh the king and queen of Hawaii traveled to England at one point and so I think that um uh so that at a certain point the monarchy becomes very influenced by um European and some to some extent maybe Japanese monarchy too and so and so it evolved very rapidly from from first Contact to the to the end of the of the Hawaiian monarchy um so Daryl Scott says it seems like the idea of Divine Right was a very big deal in the past what role does the Divine Right play in monarchies today so so yeah absolutely um it it wasn't always because like I say um in kind of like the pre-pre-monarchies the Pagan monarchies um uh WarChiefs and things like that probably relied Less on Divine Right but it's an idea that's evolved in the Middle Ages and became really important and it actually even becomes even more important in early modern times when um uh Divine Right is sort of becomes tied up with the idea that um in the early modern era there becomes this idea that everything is about voluntism that God God's will is the most important thing and the Monarch is kind of seen as an Earthly analogy event you know and so even um kind of secular philosophers like the Leviathan is talking about a political Theory where all kind of Law and Authority has to emerge from from the monarch um uh I think it's I think that the idea of Divine Right is has died down you know I mean it's still there present in lots of the monarchies and um I mean the king of England is still the head of the church and obviously the paper the pope is is um you know the head of a religion and um there's an association too with the Japanese emperor and the religion the king of Thailand and the the religion there so so they're definitely still intertwined but I think that um that there is also now um you know like Dennis uh The Peasant says in in uh in Monty Python that Supreme executive Authority really has to rely on a mandate from the masses so in other words that the real legitimacy is not that that somewhere some some there's some sign that God has called this King to be the king but rather that their hat that their Authority really has to come from the consent of the people um I think and so that has undercut um the old-fashioned more old-fashioned Divine um uh Right theory uh Raymond Ortiz says was Jesus descended from royalty so the evangelists the authors of Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus is descended from the the Judean Royal House the House of David there is no historical evidence for that those genealogy lists are the inventions of the evangelists and so there is a religious claim that Jesus has descended from royalty but there is no historical basis for that Robert Garrison says is there any chance that Community of Christ could pick another descendant of Joseph Smith to be the new president there is a chance I mean we we have lots of um lots of descendants of Joseph Smith who are members of the church and leaders of the church so for example a good friend of mine Loch Makai is a direct descendant of Joseph and Emma Smith he is one of the church's 12 Apostles right now he would perfectly be perfectly qualified to be a president of the church in the future and so that could happen and there are many other and women and men who were descended from Joseph Smith who were members of the church it's not though it's not likely to be done as a qualification though in other words it would be that they're they're going to be picked anyway and they just happen to be a Smith is what I would say it would happen um gray cycle says does the U.S have an oligarchy now because of unlimited bribery yeah so um yeah part of the issue with the there's a huge um income inequality and because of the amazing power of the unelected U.S Supreme Court uh the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that uh that money is speech and so people can more or less you know just use a money in unlimited ways that mean that the upcoming presidential election on both sides the candidates are each gonna have to raise and spend two billion dollars each it's just an insane amount of waste of of money but that's how it has to happen because of this um this ruling that money is speech and that can't nothing can be regulated and everything like that uh Michelangelo says uh why wasn't it common for monarchs to just name worthy successors outside of their family why do people consider that their children of Kings who would become good Kings yeah so um so in fact the um so in the case of the Roman Empire there never was one succession thing that worked they would occasionally become dynasties but the dynasty doesn't always happen didn't always maintain itself and so it was always possible for let's say a general on the edge of the Empire to be declared Emperor and to march to Roman and or Constantinople later to become emperor and so one of the best um periods of time like the reign of the good Emperors um is so-called because there was a succession of Emperors who did just what you're talking about so they found the most let's say the best potential candidate in their opinion of somebody who's most qualified to be Emperor they adopted the guy they brought him you know as kind of a kind of a assistant assistant Emperor and then they either I think that they I don't think that they abdicated but I think that they would when they died then that person became the emperor and so they had that really good run going by doing just that um you know why why do people think that the killed children of Kings will make good Kings um so I think that on the one hand it's not necessarily that people think that the children of the kings are going to be a good King but that it's um a king often thinks of their kids themselves as living on in their kids I think a lot of people um have children and they sort of think of themselves in their children and they think and they think of themselves as having a legacy through biological children and so in the same way that you know like a person who starts a family company often wants to pass that company down in the family there's could be a family tradition or any number of family things that is also part of a part of a tradition in monarchy right and in terms of and in terms of the um legitimacy a lot of times you know for like the let's say that Divine Right Stuff or the thinking that the person is elevated and different from the rest of us is if they are born in the purple if they are um you know born to this August Dynasty you can maybe believe that they are you know they're King by the grace of God or something like that and so I think that that's been part of it um Donnie Lynn Gringo asked can a minority movement uh he's using the Maga movement in the USA as an example could that be put in place a new permanent presidency of a new man does history suggest that might happen in a republic or a democracy so um so I think that that it would be hard to have a permanent presidency in the U.S so the U.S has as a bunch of different legal constitutional checks and balances and even though there have been like a crazy amount of abrogation of all kinds of norms and the rule of law and everything like that it's still surprising how um remarkably resilient the U.S legal system is so we probably won't get you know by the time the this year is over uh you know Donald Trump is probably going to be indicted um you know on several more serious charges so in Georgia and also federal charges and he's also will have faced let's say a Civil Trial that will potentially wipe out his company and so forth I mean so there have been major consequences even though it takes a long time for these legal consequences to happen I don't think it would be very possible to just simply just declare we're now having a permanent presidency because it doesn't operate that way I think there's all these Norms that um I think would be very difficult to see that happen but we'll see um Andrew uh surely says given um how so many legal institutions in the UK are tied to the actual person of the Monarch at least in principle how hard do you think it would be for them to transition if they ever abolish the monarchy I think it would be really difficult um um I think it's actually it's actually still really would be pretty difficult to transition away from the monarchy here in Canada it actually would be a very complicated um set of constitutional Hoops to try to try to make that happen so I think that that would be be a big deal I think it would be a way bigger deal in England and it would be very difficult and I don't know that there is a huge huge appetite for it so in other words there's a big bunch of inertia too because like you say so much is kind of taken up in it I think that what could happen is that there will be a bunch of additional reforms people might have to um you know they might have to disclose how much uh like the the private expenditures all the kinds of money that is tied up in the monarchy right now so um it's not entirely clear how much and how much money King Charles has and so forth because a lot of it is all tied up in private things that are not um accessible and so forth so I think that there could be all kinds of reforms which are which would be uh which would have effects that would be well shy of of eliminating the monarchy um I want to thank uh Michelangelo Daryl Scott and Andrew cirelli for supporting the channel thanks so much Andrew uh uh cirelli uh so reality it says on the subject of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the divine right of monarchy do you think the recent GAF con Global Fellowship of confessing Anglican split in the Anglican communion will have the effect and effect on the perceived legitimacy of the British Monarchy yeah so um so yeah it is complicated I think that the um you know the Anglican um communion you know is having this um the split where in the developing worlds there's way more conservativism on um on some social issues inclusion and so forth uh and then that has finding reactionary um conservative supporters in some of the in places like Canada and the US and England and so forth and so that is causing um a Schism um like there is with in lots of the Protestant denominations um and so yeah I think that it is complicated because how do you um you know there are specific Canterbury in a way is simply first among equals among the Anglican commune but um but but yeah if you were if you're split and very divided on on Central issues it's more difficult for the king to be the head of the whole thing so it may well be that the the Anglican commune ultimately divides and is not in any kind of communion with with its itself in the same way that for example um you know Russian Orthodoxy has been increasingly estranged from the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy right now um rain asks as opposed to the kingdom of God why is Satan often identified as Prince of air or Prince of Darkness is Satan's depiction as a wicked King biblically based so yeah that's interesting um so they're in you know there really is no um Satan as the cosmic we have a whole lecture on the on Satan and the origin of Satan there's there's really not present Satan is not really present in the Old Testament um there are later it's a later idea a cosmic principle of evil that is read into the Old Testament there are references um to some of the titles then that get appropriated by Satan in the Old Testament and some of those are referring to um actual monarchs so like the um the prince of of Babylon or something like that and so in that sense maybe that's where where some of that is coming from you know as the as the idea gets developed later on um Satan is usually understood to be a you know a fallen angel who has uh excuse me has usurped uh trying to usurp the kingdom of God and so maybe the idea of it is is that you know he's he's actually Prince of the king you know the of of a negative principality of evil and so um it's a if his his title would only be you know one of a usurper or having created a a false Kingdom that's in Rebellion against God or something like that all right well so that's all the questions that we're going to have time for I'm going to invite you uh once again if you were interested in supporting these lectures you can go to centerplace.ca donate um we are going to have the new lectures coming up so remember into not next week but two weeks from now we're going to have a lecture on the first two books of Maccabees the apocryphal books of Maccabees and then the week after that we're going to talk about second Enoch so a pseudopigraphal Book of Enoch sometimes called the secrets of Enoch again thank you for your support thanks uh to greyce cycle for your support um and I'm going to uh say goodnight

Channel: Centre Place

Views: 5,597

Keywords: community of christ, christianity lecture, christian education, biblicar scholar, judaism, christianity, history of israel, history of judaism, ancient history, history of christianity, early christianity, lost books, scripture, forbidden books, new testament, british monarchy, house of windsor, prince diana, prince harry, medieval history, medieval england, kings of england

Id: Zttm-HeQrbk

Length: 130min 42sec (7842 seconds)

Published: Wed May 17 2023