Posted on 09/10/2022 8:16:51 AM PDT by SuzyQue
At the turn of the first millenium, one of the last Anglo-Saxon kings, Æthelred of the House of Wessex, reigned over England. He came to the throne as a smooth-cheeked boy. By all accounts a man of pleasing aspect and courteous disposition, he might otherwise have made a fine king, and indeed he showed promise of living up to the meaning of his name, ‘noble counsel’, when he introduced the custom of jury trial by decreeing that matters of guilt or innocence should be decided by conveying [...]12 thanes rather than relying on the decision of a single judge.
However, Æthelred had the poor fortune to preside during a time of renewed Danish raiding. To bring an end to the plunder and rape of the English countryside, he agreed to pay the Danegeld, handing over to the blonde beasts of Odin the sum of over ten thousand pounds of silver. This largess only encouraged them to return for more and larger bribes. Later, Æthelred foolishly undermined the tenuous and expensively leased peace by ordering the slaughter of a Danish settlement, thereby enraging the Danes. This led to renewed hostilities, which ultimately saw him chased from his lands by a Danish king, taking refuge in Normandy, and returning only after the Danish king had died, only to die himself shortly thereafter. His reign of 37 years was the longest reign of any Anglo-Saxon king, and the longest reign of any English king for some time thereafter.
History attached to Æthelred the moniker ‘the Unrede’, a play on his given name: ‘noble counsel, no counsel’, a dig at his series of disastrous diplomatic errors that [...] established the conditions for William’s conquest in 1066 and the end of the line of Anglo-Saxon kings. We know him [...] Æthelred the Unready.
(Excerpt) Read more at barsoom.substack.com ...
Too much information. Was Hirohito guilty of Japanese atrocities then the military got the upper hand?
I think Charles’ reign wound last 5 years. He will end up dying young or quitting after finding out his 73 years as a playboy and good life are over.
Long, but good read. He makes a lot of excellent points here.
The luxury the British have is the monarch can be great, mediocre or worthless and things will go on regardless. Charles has a soapbox yo spread his idiocy about the environment but I suspect only the already-convinced will listen.
Perfectly said.
I think so too.
I think this is advice for America. I think out republic is gone. I think Rule of Law is gone. America is an oligarchy, ruled over by powerful individuals in a Uniparty which does what it wants. The guilty are above the law, and the innocent are persecuted relentlessly.
Given that situation, if a decent man where to make it into the White House (I have someone in mind) I would support some very drastic measures. Our customs and traditions set limits on what can be done? I say throw them in the trash and clean house here in America. There is nothing to lose, because we've already lost it.
This writer’s predictions makes Edgar Rice Burroughs look like a writer of non-fiction.
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/why-america-cant-win-world-war-iii
Constitutional monarch is a better sounding title than puppet monarch, in much the same way that sales associate is more pleasing to the ears than sales clerk. But a well-liked puppet was all the late EIIR could aspire to be, and this goes back to the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, after which English monarchs ruled only in name. Britain is a de facto crowned republic. The monarch interferes only at the risk of turning crowned republic into de jure republic minus the crown. And there is no upside, no realistic prospect of the Crown regaining or wielding its ancient prerogative of absolute power, of rule by personal edict.
Three hundred years ago, the Crown had a firm grip on the puppet throne, which came with pecuniary benefits, because the powerholders in Parliament were either blue bloods themselves or aspired towards the peerage. Today, only the Tories are reliable supporters of the Crown as an institution. The day the Crown takes a strong stand on a controversial national issue is the day it begins to write itself out of the history books.
Queen Elizabeth used her influence to change Rhodesia into Zimbabwe, and again to foist majority rule on South Africa. Both countries are hellholes now. The rest of the time she sat benignly on the sidelines while the Church of England was largely subverted, and the Muslims have turned large sections of London into “no-go” areas for the descendants Alfred the Great and Edward the Third.
She had no real “power” but exerted great influence nonetheless.
She presided over the moral demise of her empire, which has made Queen Victoria roll over in her grave.
Spare me the sentiment: the House of Windsor is a total disaster.
“Elizabeth sat placidly by as, one by one, the ancient rights of Englishmen were stripped from them.”
Who else sat placidly by and let it happen? The British people themselves. Let it be a lesson to us Americans.
When the Queen showed up the room would always change!
The political comparisons between other British monarchs and Elizabeth II, or between Elizabeth the I and Elizabeth the II are just stupid, either by openly ignoring facts or sheer ignorance.
Elizabeth the I and her predecessor British monarchs actually ruled England/Britain. Elizabeth II did not, nor will her heirs. By the time of Elizabeth II parliament, not the monarch in title only, ruled Britain.
“He makes a lot of excellent points here.”
Which are???
The Brits love the fantasy. The Royal Family represents “Camelot”.
The monarch has only 1 official power of memory serves… they can approve or reject legislation… “Royal Assent”.
However the last time they rejected a piece of legislation passed by parliament was 1707.
So the nation doesn’t depend on the monarchy to operate.. they are figure heads and can do diplomatic duties… but in terms of functioning of the governance they are a rubber stamp
Exactly. See my other post.. Royal Assent is the only official power the current monarchs have…
They aren’t able to make law or polices directly…
Comparing the reigns of kings or queens back when they actually wielded serious power to today is just stupid.
Stupidly said.
The “instead” comment was like an American with no emotional attachment at all to the death of a great symbol of our foundations. The British monarchs today are such a symbol in Britain - a living symbol to its roots.
...interesting points....!!! BTW, the official Royal Cypher or whatever it is called is now CIIIR....?? this is a monumental situation because every incoming monarch takes a different crown than his/her predecessor, and that is reflected in their military cap badges, official documents, etc....will be interesting to watch....
So, that’s interesting.
What did you think of this article?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.