Oh, I love that show!
French’s character is the proper icon of The Church of England that turned over England to immigrants – and her admonishment carries all the moral authority of that Church!
Yes, true, true—but she IS funny!
Precisely. The Church of England is should be ridiculed into non-existence for what they’ve done.
What’s funny is, England HAS an “established church” and the monarch is head of the church as well as head of state. And NOBODY cares! Whereas in the U.S., we tie ourselves in knots over the specter of any ,”establishment of religion”,any “ entanglement”. Too funny. Anybody who has ever represented a municipality or a school board has seen them thrown into dithering panic if some kid wants to use their meeting rooms for a Christian club—and yet, when the Constitution was being drafted, the federal buildings were routinely used for church services. 
That’s decreasingly false but it is still false. Symbols of a people take a while to destroy completely even after they’ve been turned into a symbol of the destruction of that people.
Imagine, if you will, the reaction if the King were to take up his Constitutional responsibility and declare war on the traitors occupying virtually every office in the public and private sectors.
The fact that this guy attends regular “Jewish” services and can, with a straight face, drone on and on about the lawlessness of rioters after decades of Muslim invasion and abuse of the British, is one reason I’ve called “Jewish virulence” an “expendable bioweapon” wielded against individualistic peoples by “deeper cultures”. Non-virulent Jews really need to get out in front of this and clean house since the rest of us are morally hamstrung – by Jews – from defending ourselves against these bioweapons.
Yes, may be —is—false in practice; I think Charles changed his title from “defender of the faith” to “defender of faith”, didn’t he? Still it is true according to the still-extant institutional forms.
Well of course he has to be! After all, it was King Henry VIII’s inability to sire an heir with his then-wife – and the Pope’s refusal to grant a divorce – that led to the King declaring himself the Head of the Church and arranging his own divorce. No religious Reformation involved! Although reportedly Henry did decide to relieve the Catholic monasteries of their wealth while he was at it. Might as well go to Hell for a sheep as a lamb, as he could have put it.
The interesting thing is that English people in the subsequent centuries invested major sums in building wonderful churches, which now mostly stand empty or have been converted into restaurants. Nowadays, English people instead build wind mills … and solar panels. Is that an improvement?
People don’t realize what a huge upheaval the “English Reformation” of Henry VIII was. The monasteries employed thousands of people, lay brothers and other workers, who were all affected. There was a special court to determine parcelling out of the church’s property to the King’s favorites—hence “Downton Abbey”, etc. it was as big, maybe proportionately bigger than, the anti-clericism of the French Revolution over two centuries later.
I wonder why we don’t know more about that period, or rather, hear more about it. Received popular history jumps right from Henry VIII’s six wives to Elizabeth I’s Merrie England.
Henry VIII’s father, Henry VII, in effect, went after the baronage via a tax on assets beyond their homestead in the form of a tax on retainers. This was around the time of Columbus’s New World voyages. Then Henry VIII with the assistance of Thomas Cromwell, a relative of Oliver Cromwell, killed his father’s tax collectors and likely garnered favor with the barons. That process led eventually to Oliver Cromwell’s participation in the dispossession of the Border Scots from their traditional status as the equivalent of yeoman farmers called upon for military duty. Taxes on the homesteads of the Border Scots led to a lot of suffering and strife. They ultimately fled to the New World of the US to escape taxes on their homesteads by those that demanded military service from them. Of course, this all got thrown down the toilet by the Federalists when they decided to back coastal merchants who were using the courts and sheriffs to evict Revolutionary War vets from their homesteads – vets that had run up debts while fighting and that had not been paid for their military service.
The US is still hemorrhaging from that betrayal. It does appear to go back to Henry VIII – or rather whoever was responsible for raising him (because he didn’t appear to take after his father).
That is interesting. I always thought it was James I, king of both countries, who broke the power of the border clans. (Steeleye Span has a great song about the period: :”Peace on the border”). And many of them were exiled to Holland and Ireland. What are you saying: that their descendants fought in our revolution, then (like the Scottish crofters) were driven into the sea by our early government?
In 1776, of course, the Scots, firmly in the Union, were enthusiastic enforcers of the British Empire. Visiting Edinburgh Castle you see cells where captured American revolutionary soldiers were held. I always thought some of them woulda been Scotsmen exiled to the American penal colony after Culloden. Back home in the end after all!
A while back, I mentioned an apparently highly accurate novelized treatment of that period by historian Ms. H. F. M. Prescott in her book “The Man on a Donkey” (1952).
At a time when religion was a much larger element in people’s lives, some punter in far-off London told the peons they were no longer Catholic, and now had to be part of this newly-invented somewhat-rapacious “Church of England” headed by the King instead of the Pope. It seems that the southern English generally shrugged and did what they were told, while the northern English took umbrage. It very nearly became yet another English civil war.
Fortunately for King Henry VIII, the de facto leader of the northerners was Robert Aske, who used all his influence to tamp down on violence & open revolution and instead sought to negotiate with the King. The King double-crossed Aske, who ended up wrapped in iron chains and hung outside the wall of a castle in York for days until he died. Following his tortured death, the northerners knuckled under to the King’s rule.
Yes, the English Ruling Class earned the title “Perfidious Albion” fair & square.
Feudalism arises from JudeoChristanity’s prohibition of a “commoner” challenging a “noble” to single combat to the death – the ancient appeal of last resort in dispute processing going back 600 million years to the inception of masculine aggression’s Cambrian explosion. This is because, in so doing, it ensures a perpetual state of war preparedness: individual masculine aggression is abjured to the noble so that war mobilization may commence at a moment’s notice. Initially, this takes the form of clan warfare with clan chiefs acting as nobles: Feuds. Then as “civilization” develops, it increasingly becomes an organic relationship between nobles and commoners in which the commoners are entitled to their homesteads – with the Malthusian rents extracted in group rather than individual combat, ie: war.
A problem arises when you get intermediates between the sovereign and the commoners – who I’ve called “mesopredators” – who don’t have the ultimate responsibility for maintaining the war-making machine in good order. They begin to feed on the foundation of the machine at the expense of the Sovereign – the locus of masculine agency that supplants individual sovereignty of 600M years. That’s when you get a conflict between the barons of Henry VII’s era and the Sovereign and that’s when the Sovereign must become the Apex Predator eating the substance of the mere mesopredators. The problem, then, is how the Apex Predator deals with the base of the food chain. In natural systems, this is of no concern to the Apex Predator but in artificial selection regimes that aspire to the war-making readiness of the hive, it is what distinguishes an “Arthur” from a tyrant.
In militia.money, this is solved by a fiat money backed by “property rights” held by mesopredators aka barons. The mesopredators pay the rents from those “property rights” to “The Sovereign” but rather than going into the hands of one individual sovereign (and his “managerial class”), they go as “retainers” to the “commoners” who then give up any notion of one man one vote and, instead, vote with their retainer fees in the capitalist market.
This, of course, pisses off Mammon Worshipers including not just the mesopredators, but the preachers of just about every “church” (including media and academia) who, ultimately, serve not God but the mesopredators that donate or “patronize” them.
This is the critical failure of those who identify as “libertarians” with their ersatz “individual sovereignty” – as is most egregiously on display in the network effect monopolies that have become the instrument of tyranny.
With this background of the “feu” in mind, here’s the critical passage from Leyburn’s “The Scotch Irish: A Social History”:
Yes the “pilgrimage of Grace”, right?
Thanks for that, very interesting.