Podcasts about Monarchy

Henry VII rebuilt England with a ledger instead of a sword.The myth remembers him as a cautious survivor of the Wars of the Roses — a miser, a tax collector, the kind of king who was nervous about the battlefield. But that's the small version of the story. The real machine ran on parchment, bonds, wool customs, royal seals, and the rolls the sheriffs kept.Henry filled his government with "new men" — administrators he picked for their command of the law and for their loyalty. A body called the Council Learned in the Law took ordinary promises and turned them into debts you could actually enforce. Noble privilege started to become a liability. Loyalty turned into a bill with a seal on it.That was the Tudor revolution. It looked less like a new crown and more like a new collection system. The monarchy stopped waiting around for obedience and started pricing it.Everything Henry VIII did — the break with Rome, the dissolution of the monasteries — was only possible because his father had built a state powerful enough to do it. The founder of the durable political order is almost never the charismatic figure history remembers. It's the accountant.═══════════════════════════════

Two activists from the anti-monarchy group Republic entered Buckingham Palace during public visiting hours and staged a protest inside the Throne Room. After blending in with other tourists, they unveiled a large image of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with Jeffrey Epstein and displayed a banner asking, “What did you know?” The demonstration was designed to confront the monarchy over its handling of the Epstein scandal and to demand answers about what senior members of the royal family, including King Charles and Prince William, may have known about Andrew's relationship with Epstein.Republic argued that the royal household has relied on secrecy and institutional protection rather than providing a full account of Andrew's conduct and the extent of the palace's knowledge. The group's chief executive, Graham Smith, said it was implausible that senior royals and palace officials remained unaware of the controversy surrounding Andrew for so many years. The protest comes amid renewed scrutiny of Andrew following damaging disclosures about his communications with Epstein and continuing investigations into alleged misconduct. Buckingham Palace did not immediately comment on the demonstration.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Anti-monarchy protesters unfurl Andrew and Epstein banner in Buckingham Palace throne room | Daily Mail Online

Two activists from the anti-monarchy group Republic entered Buckingham Palace during public visiting hours and staged a protest inside the Throne Room. After blending in with other tourists, they unveiled a large image of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with Jeffrey Epstein and displayed a banner asking, “What did you know?” The demonstration was designed to confront the monarchy over its handling of the Epstein scandal and to demand answers about what senior members of the royal family, including King Charles and Prince William, may have known about Andrew's relationship with Epstein.Republic argued that the royal household has relied on secrecy and institutional protection rather than providing a full account of Andrew's conduct and the extent of the palace's knowledge. The group's chief executive, Graham Smith, said it was implausible that senior royals and palace officials remained unaware of the controversy surrounding Andrew for so many years. The protest comes amid renewed scrutiny of Andrew following damaging disclosures about his communications with Epstein and continuing investigations into alleged misconduct. Buckingham Palace did not immediately comment on the demonstration.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Anti-monarchy protesters unfurl Andrew and Epstein banner in Buckingham Palace throne room | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Two activists from the anti-monarchy group Republic entered Buckingham Palace during public visiting hours and staged a protest inside the Throne Room. After blending in with other tourists, they unveiled a large image of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor with Jeffrey Epstein and displayed a banner asking, “What did you know?” The demonstration was designed to confront the monarchy over its handling of the Epstein scandal and to demand answers about what senior members of the royal family, including King Charles and Prince William, may have known about Andrew's relationship with Epstein.Republic argued that the royal household has relied on secrecy and institutional protection rather than providing a full account of Andrew's conduct and the extent of the palace's knowledge. The group's chief executive, Graham Smith, said it was implausible that senior royals and palace officials remained unaware of the controversy surrounding Andrew for so many years. The protest comes amid renewed scrutiny of Andrew following damaging disclosures about his communications with Epstein and continuing investigations into alleged misconduct. Buckingham Palace did not immediately comment on the demonstration.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Anti-monarchy protesters unfurl Andrew and Epstein banner in Buckingham Palace throne room | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Was a London magistrate, found dead in a ditch in 1678, the victim of a Catholic conspiracy, political convenience, or secrets too dangerous to survive? Why did Edmund Berry Godfrey's murder send England into hysteria?Professor Suzannah Lipscomb is joined by Dr. Andrea McKenzie to reopen the case. Drawing on newly deciphered letters, secret correspondence and neglected archives, they uncover a murky world of espionage, faction, coded messages and lethal knowledge, where truth itself became dangerously unstable.MORECharles II: Restoration of the MonarchyListen on AppleListen on SpotifyTrue Crime: The Lynching of the "Duke's Devil"Listen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. The researcher is Max Wintle, edited and produced by Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Not Just the Tudors is a History Hit podcastSign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week PLUS early access, ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It appears that Christian America has absolutely lost its mind due to Israeli propaganda and personal biases otherwise. They are literally rewriting history in real time, even rewriting the present moment by moment. *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, subscribe below.

Not just Independence Day, but all month long, American citizens are celebrating our nation's semiquincentennial called “America 250.” Other fans from around the world are joining in! But some folks, of course, feel uncertain about such patriotism. Don't our countries have a lot of problems? Isn't our eternal citizenship in Heaven? Let's explore how Scripture endorses “the glory and honor of the nations.” And let's recall how fantastical stories illustrate this good love of our country.[1. Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash.] Episode sponsors Enclave Publishing: Worlds Collide by Clint Hall Above the Circle of Earth (softcover) by E. Stephen Burnett Iffy Eats Monsters for Breakfast by Bryan Timothy Mitchell Lorehaven Guild: July 2026 book quest for The Silver Chair Mission update New at Lorehaven: review of All That Glows Subscribe free to get updates and join the Lorehaven Guild 1. Why some struggle to love their homeland We'll disclaim illegitimate hatred or homeland, called oikophobia. Some prefer imaginary or opposite “homes” rather than real ones. Still others are rank traitors for bad reasons, and can be rejected. Yet more legitimately, “home” has a bad stigma for some people. We must not let “home was bad for me” turn into “it's bad for all.” Nor should we let this impulse turn into “the nation is bad for all.” Yes, a few countries are built on truly wicked foundations. But most are not—certainly not those with listeners to us now. Even if people do like America, however, they may feel guilty. A similar impulse occurs to Christians who like other earthly gifts. “Our treasure is in heaven, so nothing here on Earth matters.” Subtle gnosticism: if it all burns, why value these temporal places? 2. How stories remind us of good homelands Naturally we begin with the classics by authors who loved England. Lewis and Tolkien saw bad battles and offered critiques at home. But their stories remind us how good heroes fight for their peoples. Hobbits foresee the danger to the Shire and leave home to stop it. Aragorn loves his people and his country, despite their flaws. Faramir doesn't love weapons but “that [land] which they defend.” Narnia's kings and allies fight for her and for other good countries. The Horse and His Boy is about the good country of Archenland. Even harsh Calormenes, opposed to Narnia, have good qualities. Classic sci-fi by the French Jules Verne honors American spirit. Japanese stories adore American heroes, and we return the favor. On this side of the pond, stories show America's flaws and heroes. Independence Day (1996) shows a pulpified-U.S. fighting aliens. Transformers and Top Gun movies tend to follow that tradition. Overtly “patriotic” stories are more about flavor, not philosophy. Back in the UK, Stephen thinks Harry Potter shows this differently. Spoilers: Harry learns Prof. Dumbledore made a lot of mistakes. Yet the grown-up Harry chooses to stay on his mentor's side. And really, such open-eyed loyalty is the root of good patriotism. 3. And yes, good countries could last forever. These are good enough reasons to love even temporal gifts. But let's add more. I believe great nations are in fact eternal. Why? Because of direct promises about eternity in Scripture. By [the city's] light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. Revelation 21: 24-26 John could have said “earthly kingdoms get destroyed.” He didn't. He clearly means us to think that earthly authorities can continue. And he specifically says “the glory and the honor of the nations.” It would appear that nations (groups of people) are not sinful. New Earth is the fulfillment of God's original purpose for Earth. So why not New Israel? New India? New Britain? New America? Could the “glory and honor” include fireworks? Hot dogs? Ideas? Jesus is King of all eternity. Yet other “kings” will also be known. Other verses refer to saints having leadership in the New Earth. Could some lands try different models? Monarchy? Democracy? Perhaps in the New Earth, we'll see the best of all those systems. Voting could continue, in some ways, certainly at smaller scales. If this seems weird, recall that nations are just large people groups. No prophecy implies a removal of today's diversity of humans. Nor does it imply that everyone will love everyone else the same. New Earth will not sanctify “everyone belongs to everyone else.” Surely, after loving Jesus most, we'll also love others differently. You'll love your own family “more” than other people's families. And if you were married, you'll love him or her more than others. So it is with countries. It's okay, even good, to have preferences. We want people to like their own spouses/families/countries most. So if that impulse will be right forever, it can also be right today. For more, read this: Why I Look Forward to America 250,000. Com station Top question for listeners Have you ever struggled to love your homeland? Next on Fantastical Truth Lots of folks have said plenty about Christopher Nolan's controversial retelling of Homer's classic The Odyssey. We might see the movie. Or we might not. In either case, this book is an absolute cornerstone not just of human literature, but of fantastical fiction. How did this hero's journey change the course of all other heroic legends after him?

Orthodox Christianity The "secular" world never existed. Is the future a Christian Monarchy?   Fritz Berggren www.bloodandfaith.com  

America's founding came as a declaration from Britain's sovereignty to a place of freedom that would not be governed by monarchies or tyrannical government. Interests would keep our own sovereignty, but soon after would sell it to international interests. This lead us to globalism and eventually uniting in allegiences of foreign nations. Now Israel has a lobby to the United States that imply they have some say in our American policies. Some have dubbed us USReal to reflect that idea.

I november 1653 lägger sex engelska fartyg i Göteborgs hamn. Ombord finns ambassadör Bulstrode Whitelocke och ett rullande skådespel av vagnar, hästar, tjänare och ceremoniell prakt. Hans uppdrag var att få drottning Kristina att sluta avtal med en regim som just har avrättat sin egen kung och styrdes av Oliver Cromwell.Mötet med drottning Kristina blir en krock mellan två politiska världar. I Stockholm och Uppsala väntar en monark som både fascinerar och förbryllar sin samtid – lärd, teatralisk och redan på väg mot sin mest dramatiska handling: abdikationen 1654. Mitt i detta försöker Whitelocke säkra handel, sjöfart och vänskapspolitik i Östersjön, där Danmark och Nederländerna skuggar varje steg. Att han kunde dansa skulle visa sig avgörande.I detta avsnitt av podden Historia Nu Premium samtalar programledaren Urban Lindstedt med historikern Erik Petersson som bland annat skrivit Maktspelerskan: drottning Kristinas revolt. Detta är början på ett Historia Nu Premium-avsnitt. Vill du lyssna på hela avsnittet blir du medlem på www.historia.nu/premium. Det kostar 75 kr/mån och då får du två extra avsnitt samt alla vanliga avsnitt reklamfria.När Karl I halshöggs 1649 blev England ett diplomatiskt problem för Europas furstehus. Oliver Cromwells regim behövde visa att samväldet var en legitim stat, inte en tillfällig revolt. Historikern Edward Turnbull beskriver hur acceptans utomlands blev en del av överlevnadsprogrammet i London – och att Sverige, som protestantisk stormakt, framstod som en nyckelpartner.Samtidigt hade Sverige egna strategiska skäl att lyssna. Östersjön var 1600-talets ekonomiska pulsåder: där fanns hampa, tjära och timmer – material som Europas flottor bokstavligen byggdes av. Ett engelsk-svenskt närmande kunde också balansera rivaler i regionen. I efterhand brukar alliansens syfte sammanfattas som att väga upp Danmarks och Nederländernas ställning.Ambassadör Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605–1675) var ingen vanlig sändebudstyp. När England ville öppna en formell kanal till Sverige var han därför ett logiskt val. Han var jurist, politiker och van vid maktens innersta rum. I Turnbulls framställning framstår han dessutom som relativt motvillig: uppdraget var prestigefullt men också ett riskfyllt avståndstagande från Londons intriger under Protektoratets första år.Sverige var vid mitten av 1600-talet en stormakt i Östersjöområdet. För England handlade diplomatin inte bara om artighet, utan om strategi: sjöfart, tullar, tillgång till marina råvaror och ett maktbalansspel där allianser snabbt kunde skifta. Whitelockes mission siktade på ett avtal som knöt Sverige närmare England – och samtidigt visade att republiken i London var en aktör att räkna med även vid kungliga hov.Whitelockes dagbok – som publicerades i tryck långt senare – understryker hur själva resan och följet var en del av diplomatins språk. När han anländer till Göteborg i november 1653 har han ett stort sällskap med sig, “ståtliga vagnar och hästar”, och begär fler fordon för färden mot hovet. Det är inte bara bekvämlighet, utan ett sätt att signalera att England, trots sin republikanska form, fortfarande kan uppträda med statlig värdighet.Bild: Montage av drottning Kristina av Sverige (regerade 1632–1654), dotter till kung Gustav II Adolf. Porträtt av Sébastien Bourdon, Nationalmuseum. Källa: Nationalmuseum, Wikipedia, Public Domain. Samt Bulstrode Whitelocke (engelsk jurist, diplomat och politiker). Porträtt, oidentifierad målare, National Portrait Gallery, Wikipedia, Public Domain.Musik: Claudio Monteverdi-Quel Augelin Che Cantaav, The Tudor Consort, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia CommonsKällor: Fitzgibbons, J. (2022) ‘“To settle a governement without somthing of Monarchy in it”: Bulstrode Whitelocke's Memoirs and the Reinvention of the Interregnum', The English Historical Review, 137(586), s. 655–691. doi:10.1093/ehr/ceac126Petersson, Erik (2011). Maktspelerskan: drottning Kristinas revolt. Stockholm: Natur & kulturKlippare: Emanuel Lehtonen Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In light of this week's 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we interview Catholic scholar and historian Charles Coulombe. While he is a proud American patriot, he also argues that many elements of the American Founding were incompatible with Catholic teaching (including the justification for the Revolution itself). We consider some of these issues on this auspicious anniversary.As much as we got into in this interview, there are many more issues yet to explore on this topic. Stay tuned for future interviews.VISIT OUR WEBSITEhttps://eternalchristendom.com/BECOME A PATRON OF THE GREAT TRADITIONAs a non-profit, you can support our mission with a tax-deductible gift. Help us continue to dig into the Great Tradition; produce beautiful, substantive content; and gift these treasures to cultural orphans around the world for free: https://eternalchristendom.com/become-a-patron/CONNECT ON SOCIAL MEDIAX: https://twitter.com/JoshuaTCharlesFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/joshuatcharles/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/joshuatcharles/DIVE DEEPERCheck out our “Becoming Catholic” resources, where you'll find 1 million+ words of free content (bigger than the Bible!) in the form of Articles, Quote Archives, and Study Banks to help you become, remain, and deepen your life as a Catholic: https://eternalchristendom.com/becoming-catholic/SUBSTACKSubscribe to our Substack to get regular updates on our content, and other premium content: https://eternalchristendom.substack.com/EXCLUSIVE BOOKSTORE DISCOUNTShttps://eternalchristendom.com/bookstore/CHAPTERS00:00 - Intro: Charles Coulombe, America, Monarchy, and Patriotism02:20 - Welcome, Prayer, and Opening Setup07:48 - Demographics, Immigration, Abortion, and Paying the Price18:08 - From 1492 to Jamestown: Colonization and the Protestant Revolt24:41 - Stuarts, Cromwell, and the English Civil War in America36:17 - Glorious Revolution, Oligarchy, and Parliamentary Sovereignty59:03 - George III, World Wars, and the Road to Revolution1:27:04 - Quebec Act, Catholic Emancipation, and Colonial Grievances1:39:10 - Loyalists, Revolution, and the War for Independence1:53:35 - Was the American Revolution Just?2:14:56 - Patriotism, Civil Religion, and Loving America Honestly2:45:25 - Foreign Policy, Woke America, and Final Reflections on HopeThis podcast can also be heard on Apple, Spotify, and other podcast platforms.

On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it's worth asking: What was the American Revolution actually about? We all remember the broad strokes we learned in school: Independence from the British crown. Taxes on tea. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But on a deeper level, the American Revolution was—and is—a revolution in political theory, reimagining what a legitimate government is and what its relationship to its citizens should be. Washington's troops won the ground war 245 years ago at Yorktown, but the ideological battle continues against forces on both the left and the right who are pursuing a ruthless assault on America's core values. The American Revolution isn't over. Inscribed inside the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are the words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in an 1800 letter, but that feeling of hostility toward the tyranny of a distant monarch is what drove him and his fellow revolutionaries in 1776. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the Declaration's core ideas in an interview with Reason: "The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal. That each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government. And that we have the right to rule ourselves." That's why Jefferson declared that a legitimate government requires the "consent of the governed." Thomas Paine put it more scathingly in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing that "government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens." Monarchy was the Devil's most effective and enduring form of "idolatry." We don't fret over tyrannical kings in today's America. Only ceremonial vestiges of hereditary monarchy remain in the modern world. The Revolution achieved a complete victory in that sense. Yet a counterrevolution is underway, one that views the American Revolution and the republic it birthed as a failed liberal regime that has outlived its usefulness. And these counterrevolutionaries sit remarkably close to the levers of power. Self-Rule Under Threat Three years before he became vice president, J.D. Vance told podcaster Jack Murphy that America had reached a point of no return. "We are in the late republican period," he said. "If we're going to push back against it we have to get pretty wild and pretty far out there and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with. Indeed, among some of my circle the phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit." Vance regularly cites and associates with a group of so-called "postliberals." He appeared on a panel with one of this movement's leading intellectuals, Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political science professor and the author of Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in 2023. Deneen believes there is an unbridgeable divide between the "elite" and "ordinary" people. "What is needed," he writes in the book, "in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class," which will be replaced by a more virtuous one. He envisions the kind of aristocratic government favored by the ancients like Plato and Aristotle, endorsing "aristopopulism," where an elite class works to further the interests of the masses. "The replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people," Deneen said at the panel. He invokes a "premodern conception of liberty—expressed in the pages of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible," where institutions like the family, the church, and the state worked together to impose "guardrails" protecting individuals from becoming "slaves" to their own desires. My colleague Stephanie Slade writes about the postliberal right for Reason magazine. "He says people like [himself] should just be in charge of our government. That's what he means by regime change," Slade says. "[That] we should replace the current elites." She notes that postliberals are willing to frame the entire American Founding as a mistake: "They might say, yeah, America did have a liberal founding and that's why it was a mistake. Actually, this whole experiment was a mistake, and it maybe took a couple hundred years for that mistake to play out….We now can see that it doesn't lead to good conservative outcomes." In his book Common Good Constitutionalism, Adrian Vermeule, a postliberal Harvard Law professor and appointee to President Donald Trump's Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, wrote that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself." That's a rejection of the spirit of 1776. Paine saw the existence of government as a necessary evil because of "the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." A minimal state, in his view, should be restricted to supplying "freedom and security." As Gorsuch put it in the same Reason interview: "If you think of the Declaration as kind of our mission statement, our ideals, and the Constitution is the how-to manual—well, the Constitution is all about dividing power. Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again." The "regime change" Deneen and Vermeule call for isn't explicitly violent. Deneen describes "Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends." The strategy manifests as a steady expansion of presidential authority, as we've seen under Donald Trump's second term: the 143 executive orders he signed in just his first 100 days, more than any other president in history; his decision to send troops to American cities without permission from local authorities; his declaring of 21 national emergencies while in office; and his decision to send illegal immigrants to overseas prisons in defiance of the judicial branch. Incidentally, one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was King George III's penchant for shipping the accused "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Before he became vice president, Vance encouraged Trump to emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to try enforcing its rulings against him. "If I was giving him one piece of advice," Vance said, "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.'" "That's a really dangerous idea to be even casually trotting out there, let alone for somebody who is now the sitting vice president to be on the record," Slade says. "He said it a number of years ago when he was just a candidate for office, but I've never seen anything from him since he's been in office that makes me think that he doesn't ultimately believe in that sort of approach to politics." Some postliberals call for measures far more dramatic than the steady erosion of constitutional restraints currently underway. Michael Anton, who worked in Trump's State Department over two terms, wrote in his book The Stakes about the prospect of a "Red Caesar"—a right-wing dictator who would rise from the ashes of the fallen republic. "Caesar's word replaces constitutionalism and even, in the final analysis, law," he wrote. In a podcast conversation with pro-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, Anton discussed what that might look like. "Caesarism is a form of monarchy, but that follows a nonfunctioning republic, a republic that doesn't work anymore," Anton said. Yarvin proposed that the path to power would begin with declaring a state of emergency in an inaugural address, "taking direct control over all law enforcement authorities….Basically like Caesar, you're using all of the force available to you."  "There is just clearly much more of a sense that government power is meant to be used to advance our side in the face of our enemies," Slade says. "And the enemies are the left, the political left, and anyone on the right who isn't going to line up with [them]. [They believe] political power should be used to reward our friends and punish our enemies, and that to me is a clear violation of one of the core principles of rule of law, which is equal treatment for everyone under law." In the COVID era, President Joe Biden imposed national mandates by executive fiat, and his administration tried to suppress dissent by pressuring tech companies to censor critics. The Democratic Party has also flirted with the idea of packing the Supreme Court to get its way, which is not a new impulse for the party. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, it cost him the support of progressives who had previously backed the New Deal. FDR is revered by progressives and cited by Yarvin as a prototype for an American Caesar. "Was FDR a dictator? What does it mean to be a dictator? What does this pejorative word mean?" Yarvin asks. "A dictator is somebody who rules alone. And that, I think, is a beautiful thing." The Revolution was, first and foremost, about self-rule: We would no longer abide by a diktat from an overseas king. From the very beginning of the republic, power-seeking men have tried to undermine that vision. In its earliest days, there was a plot to install a Prussian prince as king of a new American monarchy. Jefferson accused John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of being monarchists, recounting in horror a dinner conversation in which Hamilton told him "the greatest man…that ever lived was Julius Caesar." But monarchy is seductive because strongmen promise order in chaotic times. In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a post-Revolution farmer's uprising, Jefferson worried the Constitution's drafters were overreacting by creating a powerful presidency that would devolve into a monarchy. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" he wrote. And then, famously: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Hopefully, patriots won't be shedding blood anytime soon. But Jefferson's point stands: Preserving the promises of the Revolution will always be an ongoing battle. Self-rule was one of those promises. Another was self-ownership, which includes the right to do what you want with your own property. The Rise of 'Right-Wing Progressivism' The Declaration accused the king of "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." The American colonies experienced unprecedented economic growth, a topic of keen interest to the laissez faire economist Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations also turns 250 this year. Smith was fascinated by the American colonies, observing that their "progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America. Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity." Other imperial powers, such as the Spanish and Portuguese, mandated that their colonists trade only through state-created monopolies. Smith pointed out that because American colonists could export lumber to the wider European market, they were incentivized to clear and improve land. Low taxes enabled them to reinvest their profits. Smith criticized England's Navigation Acts for prohibiting colonists from buying from other countries and for discouraging manufacturing to protect domestic competitors. Although England's "mercantile spirit" hampered the economy, Smith believed that in virtually every other respect the liberty of the English colonists "to manage their own affairs their own way is complete," concluding that both England and the colonies would be better off with an independent America that traded freely with England. Like the American revolutionaries, Smith described economic freedom as not just smart policy, but as a natural right. "To prohibit a great people…from making all that they can of every part of their own produce," he wrote, "is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." That revolutionary understanding is still under attack today from both the left and the right. Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani talk about individual profits as if they are the property of the collective. And Trump has the same mercantilist instincts toward trade that Smith argued against 250 years ago. "I love tariffs. Most beautiful word," Trump said in September 2025. "I said my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff."  The postliberal right argues that laissez faire economics has undermined the working class. "Conservatives have outsourced our economic and domestic policy thinking to libertarians," Vance said at a 2019 National Conservatism Conference. "Do we serve pure unfettered commercial freedom, do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good, or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?" "It is really important to recognize that what the postliberal right is pushing in terms of economics is progressivism," Slade says. "It's not conservatism." Tucker Carlson made the point in 2019 when he praised Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism" platform, noting it "sounds like Donald Trump at his best." What the so-called "economic patriots" of the left and right are converging on is a rejection of the spirit of 1776 and an embrace of monarchy. In the 18th century, many colonists could trade only through state-licensed monopolies. Warren has proposed remarrying corporations and the state through "stakeholder capitalism," in which political appointees sit on corporate boards to steer them in the right direction. Trump took a major step toward the corporatist approach in 2025 when directing the federal government to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. Before him, President Barack Obama took stakes in GM and Chrysler as part of a bailout package. "I don't think it's really a sustainable political equilibrium to have two parties that are both economically leftist," Slade says. "The American people are not on board with that. That is the horseshoe in action. And it's part of why I think there is an opportunity for old-school Reagan-style free-market conservatism to make a comeback." The slow abandonment of the revolutionary ideas of self-rule and private property that American patriots fought for in the late 18th century is downstream of a third, fundamental aspect of the American Revolution that is also under attack: freedom of conscience. Remarrying Church and State The postliberal right wants to tear down the wall between church and state. "They want to integrate church and state instead of separating them," Slade says. In some cases, it's Catholic integralists like Harvard's Vermeule, who has described a strategy of turning the government Catholic by "strategically locat[ing]" integralists "within liberal institutions…to undo the liberalism of the state from within." Deneen has suggested passing "blue laws" that would ban pornography, online gambling, and operating businesses on Sundays. A Protestant variety of Christian nationalism is embodied by pastor Doug Wilson—a spiritual mentor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who invited Wilson to lead a prayer at the Pentagon. In a recent interview, Wilson said the "governing authorities should recognize formally that Jesus rose from the dead" and that "the basis of law would have to be Christian, and I would want it to be Protestant." Most of the revolutionaries were Christian Protestants, but they insisted on separating church and state to avoid the horrific religious wars that had ravaged Europe. "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world" to end religious discord by establishing state churches, wrote James Madison in opposition to taxes that would have funded an official church of Virginia. An even deeper problem for these devout believers in divine providence was that marrying religion to the state removed the very freedom to choose faith that God desires. In his opposition to the Virginia law, Jefferson wrote that "Almighty God hath created the mind free" and that "all attempts" to force religious belief "are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion." Madison argued historically that Christianity reached its "greatest lustre" in the times before it incorporated with the state, and that religious laws would counterproductively discourage nonbelievers from entering a region he hoped would become a beacon of Christianity. "Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Slade draws on her own Catholic faith in making the case. "I am a libertarian because I'm a Catholic, because I believe that every person was created in the image of God," she says. "I just think it's morally wrong from a Catholic or Christian perspective to try to use the coercive, violent power of the state to make people live a certain way. Even if the way that these guys would like to make people live—going to church on Sunday, praying, investing in your community and your family, self-sacrifice—all these good Christian values. They're good Christian values, but they can't be coerced or imposed from the top down. It's wrong and morally offensive from a Christian perspective." Slade says she understands the despair postliberals feel about the collapse of faith and virtue in contemporary America and that they have a point about the progressive capture of institutions. "What they're channeling is a really influential belief, which isn't totally wrong, that the left made a very concerted effort to make what is often referred to as a 'long march through the institutions' and to capture so many of our elite institutions—both at the governmental level but also at the cultural level: higher education, Hollywood, the mainstream media." Critics of the progressive agenda—or "wokeness"—often describe it as its own kind of religion. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter has argued that it has "slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestant Christianity" among its adherents. Whether religious or not, progressives have imposed their social values on Americans through public school curricula, federal policy, and civil rights law. They have violated the freedom of conscience that Jefferson and Madison wrote about in a way very similar to how mandating religion would. Postliberalism is part of the political backlash. A poll conducted in early 2021 of people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn't find agreement on nationalist economic policies—tariffs, industrial policy, any of that—but found near-universal agreement on a sense of cultural siege. About 90 percent agreed with statements like "the mainstream media has become just an arm of the Democratic Party" or "Christianity is under attack today." "This sense that the culture has been captured by people who are hostile to people like me and who hate me and want to drive me out of the public square has created so much resentment and so much of a backlash that's driving this postliberal right-wing politics," Slade says. "I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on on the right without looking at what's been going on on the left, definitely ramping up during the period referred to as the great awakening." Slade's new book argues that the remedy to this postliberal moment is a rediscovery of "fusionism"—the reintegration of liberty and virtue. "A good society needs to be both free and virtuous. And the Founders certainly believed this," she says. John Adams wrote just 13 days before the signing of the Declaration that "the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." "What he's saying is, we can have a limited government in a free society, but if the people aren't naturally virtuous, if they don't trust each other, if they aren't good to each other—that [the Republic] is going to end up succumbing to tyranny and to a strongman government," Slade says. His fellow revolutionary and intellectual adversary Jefferson flipped the equation by writing that liberty "is the great parent…of virtue." Balancing liberty and virtue means reconstructing some of the civic "guardrails" that Deneen laments having lost in modernity—but not handing the power to regulate our conscience to the government. "What we're seeing a lot is people who are focused either on liberty but don't spend a lot of time thinking about how do we cultivate virtue, or who say, forget your liberty, we want virtue at the point of a gun," Slade says. "Government's job is to protect our basic rights and liberties. It should be prioritizing the protection of liberty." "That doesn't mean that virtue isn't important. In fact, it's the highest, most important thing in life—to pursue a virtuous life," Slade continues. "But it's not OK to expect government to do that for us. Government protects our freedom and we use that freedom to pursue virtue." The solution, Slade argues, has to be ground-up. She invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed when he came to America in the 1830s that Americans excel at coming together and creating voluntary community solutions to social problems. "We should have some muscle memory here. We should be able to get back to that idea of thinking of ourselves as being on the front lines of solving problems, building new civil society institutions, nongovernmental institutions that can try to solve the problems we see in our society," Slade says. "Good policy can make this easier. And bad policy can crowd it out and make it a lot harder." The Declaration of Independence is 250 years old, but the Revolution it started is as vital as ever. During the final days of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of government they were in the process of designing. "A Republic," he said, "if you can keep it." Photo Credits: Horst Galuschka/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom/ Dennis Flaherty / Jaynes Gallery / DanitaDelimont.com / Danita Delimont/ Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ TIA DUFOUR/UPI/Newscom/Antonio Perez/TNS/Newscom/ Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom/ Ron Adar / SOPA/ Images/Sipa USA/Newscom/ JT Vintage/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/ AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/ Hugh Rooney / Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom/ Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/AdMedia/Newscom/ Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom/ Polaris/Newscom; Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Department of Defense The post The American Revolution Isn't Over appeared first on Reason.com.

Tony Jay is here to help Cam and Medusa crack open some vampire skulls and win the day, and the babes. Our Flipped Script: What if the script was written like a classic action movie? Intermission: 1:11: - 1:23: Suggested Topics: Tony Jay, Now We Have a Story, Set Aside Homework and Play This Game, Shakespearean Eloquence, Wang Out for Sure, Smash Has Been Poisoned by the Monarchy, Lucas Isn't as Butch as Ness, Sometimes the Things Our Mom's Like Are Bad

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is reportedly furious with King Charles and blames his older brother for his collapse inside the royal family, according to claims attributed to unnamed sources and repeated by Sky News Australia. The claims portray Andrew as “hellbent on revenge,” angry over being pushed out of royal life, removed from Royal Lodge, and increasingly isolated from the institution he once represented. The central allegation is that Andrew believes Charles is deliberately trying to erase him and the York branch of the family, including Sarah Ferguson, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie.The piece frames Andrew as a growing headache for the monarchy because, in this telling, he refuses to accept responsibility for the scandals that destroyed his public role and instead sees himself as the victim of palace politics. It also claims Andrew wants more financial support from Charles and may be willing to make trouble if he feels his family is being cut off or humiliated further. The broader point is that Andrew, already disgraced by his Epstein ties and stripped of most public royal standing, is now being depicted as someone with little left to lose — which makes him a dangerous internal problem for a royal family trying to contain the damage and move on.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Nothing much left to lose': Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor 'hellbent on revenge' as he blames one key royal for his downfall | Sky News Australia

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is reportedly furious with King Charles and blames his older brother for his collapse inside the royal family, according to claims attributed to unnamed sources and repeated by Sky News Australia. The claims portray Andrew as “hellbent on revenge,” angry over being pushed out of royal life, removed from Royal Lodge, and increasingly isolated from the institution he once represented. The central allegation is that Andrew believes Charles is deliberately trying to erase him and the York branch of the family, including Sarah Ferguson, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie.The piece frames Andrew as a growing headache for the monarchy because, in this telling, he refuses to accept responsibility for the scandals that destroyed his public role and instead sees himself as the victim of palace politics. It also claims Andrew wants more financial support from Charles and may be willing to make trouble if he feels his family is being cut off or humiliated further. The broader point is that Andrew, already disgraced by his Epstein ties and stripped of most public royal standing, is now being depicted as someone with little left to lose — which makes him a dangerous internal problem for a royal family trying to contain the damage and move on.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Nothing much left to lose': Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor 'hellbent on revenge' as he blames one key royal for his downfall | Sky News AustraliaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

King Charles has become the first monarch in modern times to reveal how much tax he pays on his private income: £24.6m over the last two years. The move comes after years of calls for the monarch to be more open with the public about the royal finances. Some are heralding this as a new era of transparency – but just how open has the revelation been? Lucy Hough speaks to our European financial affairs editor, Juliette Garside – watch on YouTube. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is reportedly furious with King Charles and blames his older brother for his collapse inside the royal family, according to claims attributed to unnamed sources and repeated by Sky News Australia. The claims portray Andrew as “hellbent on revenge,” angry over being pushed out of royal life, removed from Royal Lodge, and increasingly isolated from the institution he once represented. The central allegation is that Andrew believes Charles is deliberately trying to erase him and the York branch of the family, including Sarah Ferguson, Princess Beatrice, and Princess Eugenie.The piece frames Andrew as a growing headache for the monarchy because, in this telling, he refuses to accept responsibility for the scandals that destroyed his public role and instead sees himself as the victim of palace politics. It also claims Andrew wants more financial support from Charles and may be willing to make trouble if he feels his family is being cut off or humiliated further. The broader point is that Andrew, already disgraced by his Epstein ties and stripped of most public royal standing, is now being depicted as someone with little left to lose — which makes him a dangerous internal problem for a royal family trying to contain the damage and move on.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:'Nothing much left to lose': Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor 'hellbent on revenge' as he blames one key royal for his downfall | Sky News AustraliaBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

King Charles and Prince William have revealed their personal tax bills for the first time, in a historic moment for royal financial transparency. But the disclosures come as the Sovereign Grant rises to £132.1 million, with core royal household funding set to double in the next three years.This week on The Royals, Kate Mansey is joined by Katie Tarrant, Whitehall correspondent for The Sunday Times, to unpack the Sovereign Grant report. They discuss why the King and Queen will not move back into Buckingham Palace after its £369 million reservicing programme, how William is responding to scrutiny over Dartmoor Prison rental income, and what the accounts reveal about Duchy wealth, public funding and value for money. Is the Palace's new transparency push enough to answer critics – or does it simply open the door to more questions about royal money?Is this a new era of royal transparency? Get in touch: theroyals@thetimes.co.ukImage: GettyProducer: Robert WallaceExecutive Producer: Priyanka DeladiaRead more: King Charles and Prince William pay more than £50m in tax Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Fresh questions are being raised about Meghan Markle's business ventures after reports claimed she may be earning commissions from fashion purchases linked to outfits worn at Invictus Games events. Critics are asking whether commercial activity and charitable causes are becoming too closely intertwined, while sources suggest Prince Harry is uncomfortable with the attention.Meanwhile, new reports claim Harry and Meghan are frustrated by the growing relationship between Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, and Prince William. Is it family loyalty, future planning, or simply palace reality?We also examine what appears to be a changing role for the York sisters. After missing several high-profile royal events, questions are growing about where Beatrice and Eugenie fit into William's vision for a slimmer monarchy. Plus, a new Ipsos poll shows support for the monarchy at its lowest level in more than thirty years, especially among younger Britons. William's quiet Duchy visits reveal how he is preparing for the future, while a surprising new debate asks whether Harriet Phillips is becoming the next royal fashion influence—and whether some believe she is borrowing a page from Catherine's style book.Palace Intrigue is a daily British royal family podcast covering King Charles, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Kate Middleton and the House of Windsor. New episodes every day. Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Part of the Caloroga Shark Media network.

Han hyllades för att ha räddat Spanien från fascismen. Efter decennier på tronen förvandlades den älskade monarken till en kung som tvingas till exil. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. Under nästan 40 år har han varit Spaniens monark. Han hjälpte Spanien att gå från ett slutet land som höll sig utanför de europeiska konflikterna till ett modernt Spanien som lämnade fascismens skugga bakom sig. Men med åren förändrades bilden av honom. Från hjälte till en förlegad kung som inte spelade efter samma regler som spanjorerna själva. Otrohetsaffärer, hemliga miljoner och anklagelser om korruption. Hur går man från att vara älskad att sitt folk till att i praktiken tvingas i exil från landet man har gett allt för? I P3 ID om Juan Carlos I hör du om hur han ledde den Spanska transitionen från diktatur till demokrati, och om en man som aldrig behövde följa samma regler och lagar som befolkningen han styrde över. I programmet medverkar statsvetaren Jakob Lewander och hovexperten Jenny Alexandersson. Programledare och producent: Vendela LundbergAvsnittsförfattare och reporter: Pilar LeguisamoTekniker: Fredrik NilssonAvsnittet gjordes våren 2026 av produktionsbolaget DISTLjudklippen kommer från dokumentären Yo, Juan Carlos Rey de España, dokumentären Restoration of the Monarchy i Thames TV (youtube), dokumentären A year in Spain, RTVE, Televisión Española, Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Olympic channel (youtube), OK Diario, Ekot, Aftonbladet TV, Antena 3, euronews, casarealtv (youtube), laSexta.

Royal historians, biographers and former palace insiders examine Prince William's vision for the future of the monarchy. Will he slim down the institution? How will he handle Prince Andrew, Prince Harry and other royal controversies? And what kind of king will William become? Plus, former royal butler Paul Burrell reflects on Princess Diana, King Charles, Queen Camilla and the future of the House of Windsor. We also explore King Charles's newly redesigned Venus Garden at Windsor Castle and the environmental vision behind it.Of the four, the Harry explainer title is strongest for long-term search traffic. The William title for Sunday is probably second because "future King" and "change the monarchy" are exactly the kind of broad royal questions that AI search tools and Google tend to surface repeatedly.Palace Intrigue is a daily British royal family podcast covering King Charles, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Kate Middleton and the House of Windsor. New episodes every day. Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Part of the Caloroga Shark Media network.

The defeat of the U.S. and Israel in their unprovoked attack on Iran offers a time to consider the first imperialist adventure of the U.S. beyond its borders. We speak to Gerald Horne about his new book on the U.S.-backed coup of the monarchy in Hawaii. And DC walks in the footsteps of New York City and chooses a democratic socialist as the Democratic nominee for mayor. We hear from DC councilmember Janeese Lewis George. Plus headlines on Iran, FBI raid on voting advocates, Mississippi police kill one-year-old boy, Juneteenth, and more. The show is made possible only by our volunteer energy, our resolve to keep the people's voices on the air, and by support from our listeners. In this new era of fake corporate news, we have to be and support our own media! Please click here or click on the Support-Donate tab on this website to subscribe for as little as $3 a month. We are so grateful for this small but growing amount of monthly crowdsource funding on Patreon. PATREON NOW HAS A ONE-TIME, ANNUAL DONATION FUNCTION! You can also give a one-time or recurring donation on PayPal. Thank you! On the Ground: Voices of Resistance from the Nation’s Capital gives a voice to the voiceless 99 percent at the heart of American empire. The award-winning, weekly hour, produced and hosted by Esther Iverem, covers social justice activism about local, national and international issues, with a special emphasis on militarization and war, the police state, the corporate state, environmental justice and the left edge of culture and media. The show is heard on three dozen stations across the United States, on podcast, and is archived on the world wide web at https://onthegroundshow.org/ Please support us on Patreon or Paypal. Links for all ways to support are on our website or at Esther Iverem's Linktree: https://linktr.ee/esther_iverem 

MARIUS BORG HØIBY GUILTY OF RAPE — Four Years, the Skaugum Conviction, a Monarchy in Crisis.Marius Borg Høiby — son of Norway's Crown Princess Mette-Marit — has been found guilty on 34 of 39 charges and sentenced to four years in prison by the Oslo District Court. He was convicted on two of four rape counts, both involving incapacitated women, and acquitted on the other two; one conviction concerned a 2018 assault at the royal residence Skaugum. He was also convicted of domestic violence against former girlfriend Nora Haukland, serious bodily harm, threats, filming women without consent, and breaching restraining orders, and ordered to pay about 640,000 kroner ($61,000) to four women. Both sides may appeal within two weeks.Palace Intrigue is a daily British royal family podcast covering King Charles, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Kate Middleton and the House of Windsor. New episodes every day. Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Part of the Caloroga Shark Media network.

The first British monarch ever to travel by rail is hauled by a locomotive named after a flaming river in Hell.

Send us Fan MailHereditary monarchy seems like a ridiculous way to pick a leader, yet it dominates most of human political history. We argue the reason is transaction costs: succession systems survive when they settle “who rules next” cheaply enough to prevent recurring civil war. • Why hereditary monarchy is historically prevalent compared with democracy and universal suffrage • Why “divine right” stories often rationalize a choice people already find tolerable • Thomas Paine's critique of hereditary succession and what it misses • Hobbes on the state of nature as what happens when sovereignty is contested • Succession as the master coordination problem of political order • Transaction costs applied to elections, enforcement, legitimacy, and rent seeking • Why elective monarchy can become an armed auction for total power • Bright line rules versus discretionary selection and why speed can beat “better” • How constitutional design lowers the cost of leadership transition when it works • The legitimacy problem and why dynasties converge on endogamy • The genetic consequences of endogamy and the Habsburg cautionary tale • Twedges, book recommendation, and a listener letter on board game “math trades” LINKS:Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February 1776Michael Munger, The Ugly Pig, 20224A.P. Martinich, Thomas Hobbes:  A Biography, 1999.Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.Neal Schultz, Suicide Kings: Hereditary Monarchy, 2025Tbadel Barter AppCosmos Institute, Coasian Bargaining at Scale, 2025 UPDATE: An interesting, and more clearly articulated, application of the reasoning here.... https://aminga.substack.com/p/how-transaction-cost-economics-explainsIf you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com !You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz 

How did Taylor Swift become connected to the British Royal Family? In this special Palace Intrigue explainer, we trace the full story of Taylor Swift's relationship with Prince William and the Wales family. From the famous 2013 Kensington Palace charity gala where William joined Taylor Swift and Jon Bon Jovi on stage, to the viral Eras Tour backstage photo with Prince George and Princess Charlotte, we explore every major royal-Taylor Swift moment. We also examine why Princess Charlotte is one of Taylor's biggest royal fans, William's comments about a possible Taylor Swift wedding invitation, the cultural impact of the Eras Tour, and why the relationship between the world's biggest pop star and the future King of the United Kingdom continues to fascinate audiences around the world.Palace Intrigue is a daily British royal family podcast covering King Charles, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Kate Middleton and the House of Windsor. New episodes every day. Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Part of the Caloroga Shark Media network.

Royal biographer Hugo Vickers, author of over 20 books, joins Secrets of Statecraft for a fascinating conversation about Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III, and the hidden diplomatic power of monarchy. Drawing on decades of access, research, and personal experience, Vickers explains how Elizabeth II used restraint, duty, and quiet persuasion to help heal old wounds—from Germany and Ireland to the Commonwealth—while remaining above politics. Vickers also shares remarkable stories about Prince Philip, Diana, Harry and Meghan, Margaret Thatcher, and why the Netflix series The Crown is more fiction than fact. The conversation is a candid look at the personalities, crises, and statecraft that shaped the modern royal family.

Was Kaiser Wilhelm II a victim of circumstance or the author of his own ruin?

Elle and Christina are back (without Maddie once again

Women who say they have information about Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor are reportedly reluctant to speak with British police because they do not trust the UK authorities or the British press to treat them properly. Attorney Brad Edwards, who represents many Jeffrey Epstein survivors, told the BBC that multiple clients have information about the former prince but do not want to cooperate with UK investigators, citing two major concerns: the belief that authorities failed to act meaningfully while Epstein was alive, and fear that coming forward would expose them and their families to press harassment. One of Edwards's clients has alleged she was sent to the UK for a sexual encounter with Andrew at Royal Lodge in 2010, making her the second known woman to allege abuse connected to him in Britain after Virginia Giuffre.The situation also raises serious questions about the UK's handling of Epstein-related allegations over the years. Thames Valley Police said it had engaged with the woman's legal team, but her lawyer said she would not communicate with police because of privacy fears. The force has said it could investigate sexual misconduct allegations against Andrew as part of a broader inquiry into alleged misconduct in public office, reportedly linked to claims that he passed sensitive information to Epstein while serving as a UK trade envoy. Attorney Sigrid McCawley, who represented Virginia Giuffre, also told the BBC she did not believe she had received communication from the Metropolitan Police since the DOJ released Epstein files in January, despite representing survivors who may have been trafficked to the UK. Andrew has denied wrongdoing in the past, settled Giuffre's civil case in 2022 without admitting liability, and has not been charged in connection with these allegations.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Epstein survivors lack faith in UK police investigating Andrew, says lawyerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Drew and Lauren are back to it (Drew after a long wait) with The Monarchies of God! The Final Draft features a beer from Outer Range and an NA drink from Brez. IOL is sponsored by Bricks & Minifigs Centennial. Visit www.bamcentennial.com and use code INKINGOUTLOUD for 10% off your orders! Visit our website at www.iolpodcast.com and join the conversation on Twitter @IOLPodcast Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/inkingoutloud Send us a tip on Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/inkingoutloud Inking Out Loud is Drew McCaffrey and Rob Santos. Sound engineering by Drew McCaffrey. Artwork by Danielle "FelCandy" Prosperie. Intro/outro music: "Moonlight" by Jivemind.

Jimmy Savile fooled the United Kingdom by turning himself into a national institution before the country ever understood what he really was. He built a public image out of charity marathons, hospital visits, children's television, BBC fame, eccentric branding, and proximity to respectable institutions. That image became his shield. He was not merely hiding in the shadows; he was hiding in plain sight, protected by celebrity, deference, institutional cowardice, and the British habit of confusing access to power with moral legitimacy. Hospitals opened doors to him. Broadcasters promoted him. Politicians posed with him. The public saw the tracksuits, the cigar, the jewelry, the catchphrases, and the charity work, while behind that manufactured persona was a predator who exploited children, patients, vulnerable women, and institutional blind spots for decades. The horror of Savile is not just that he deceived people; it is that so many systems had chances to question him and chose comfort, reputation, and silence instead.Savile's closeness to the royal orbit made the deception even more grotesque. He developed a relationship with then-Prince Charles through charity work, visited royal residences, corresponded with him, and was reportedly consulted on media strategy and public relations matters, including how the royal household should respond to crises. That does not mean the royals knew what Savile was doing, but it does show how easily a predator could launder himself through elite proximity. That is where the echo with Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew becomes impossible to ignore. In both cases, a sexually abusive man gained credibility by orbiting powerful people, presenting himself as useful, charitable, connected, or socially valuable. Savile used hospitals, the BBC, charity, and royal access. Epstein used money, private planes, philanthropy, academia, finance, and aristocratic friendships. Andrew's relationship with Epstein later exposed the same rotten mechanism: elites mistaking proximity, usefulness, and social familiarity for innocence, while victims were left to fight against institutions that had already decided the powerful deserved the benefit of the doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jimmy Savile fooled the United Kingdom by turning himself into a national institution before the country ever understood what he really was. He built a public image out of charity marathons, hospital visits, children's television, BBC fame, eccentric branding, and proximity to respectable institutions. That image became his shield. He was not merely hiding in the shadows; he was hiding in plain sight, protected by celebrity, deference, institutional cowardice, and the British habit of confusing access to power with moral legitimacy. Hospitals opened doors to him. Broadcasters promoted him. Politicians posed with him. The public saw the tracksuits, the cigar, the jewelry, the catchphrases, and the charity work, while behind that manufactured persona was a predator who exploited children, patients, vulnerable women, and institutional blind spots for decades. The horror of Savile is not just that he deceived people; it is that so many systems had chances to question him and chose comfort, reputation, and silence instead.Savile's closeness to the royal orbit made the deception even more grotesque. He developed a relationship with then-Prince Charles through charity work, visited royal residences, corresponded with him, and was reportedly consulted on media strategy and public relations matters, including how the royal household should respond to crises. That does not mean the royals knew what Savile was doing, but it does show how easily a predator could launder himself through elite proximity. That is where the echo with Jeffrey Epstein and Prince Andrew becomes impossible to ignore. In both cases, a sexually abusive man gained credibility by orbiting powerful people, presenting himself as useful, charitable, connected, or socially valuable. Savile used hospitals, the BBC, charity, and royal access. Epstein used money, private planes, philanthropy, academia, finance, and aristocratic friendships. Andrew's relationship with Epstein later exposed the same rotten mechanism: elites mistaking proximity, usefulness, and social familiarity for innocence, while victims were left to fight against institutions that had already decided the powerful deserved the benefit of the doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Willy Willy, Harry......er.....no. This one doesn't fit into the rhyme, BUT, after lopping Charles I's head off, Oliver Cromwell abolished the Monarchy and led the country himself, so he's a worthy inclusion.In this episode Charlie Higson unpicks Cromwell's life and the reasons why we had 11 years without a King or Queen.His 'proper historian' is Dr Jonathan Healey, author of 'Blazing World - A New History of Revolutionary England'The book of this podcast, Willie Willie Harry Stee is out now, the perfect feast for your eyes as this podcast is a feast for your ears.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Willie-Harry-Stee-brand-new-hilarious/dp/0008741050 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Edward J. Larson explains that the formal signing of the Declaration of Independence marked a permanent break with monarchy. New state constitutions prioritized popular sovereignty, establishing the rule of law as the foundation of the Republic. (16/16)1789 TRENTON BRIDGE

Willy Willy Harry Stee, Harry Dick John Harry Three, One Two Three Neds, Richard Two, Henry's Four Five Six.........then who? Edward Four Five...Dick The Bad, Harry's Twain and Ned The Lad, Mary, Bessie, James The Vain, Charlie......Charles The 1st, a king so bad he got himself executed and almost finished the Monarchy off for good.But, of course, the story isn't that simple. Luckily for us, Charlie Higson unpicks his life with the help of Leanda De Lisle, historian and author of Henrietta Maria, Conspirator, Warrior, Phoenix Queen. Also don't forget that Charlie's book of this podcast, Willie Willie Harry Stee is out now, with illustrations by Jim Moir, or Vic Reeves as you may know him.https://www.amazon.co.uk/Willie-Harry-Stee-brand-new-hilarious/dp/0008741050 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How did three centuries fall apart in three years? The rise of Rasputin, plots in the military high command, riots in the cities, and a monarch's mental breakdown play out against the backdrop of one of the most brutal conflicts in human history.

The Kennedys are the first family that comes to mind when Americans consider homegrown, pseudo-royal dynasties. From Joe to John and Jackie, they have been elevated to a mythical cultural status. But is it possible that they share more in common with another prominent American family, the Kardashians? Today, Brittany is joined by MJ Corey, author of Dekonstructing the Kardashians: A New Media Manifesto, to find out how these two American 'royal' families share a cultural Krown.Want more about famous families and the narratives they spin? Check out these episodes:Inside the Michael Jackson legacy industrial complexMelania Trump's multi-million dollar “infomercial”Support Public Media. Join NPR Plus.Follow Brittany on Instagram: @bmluseFor handpicked podcast recommendations every week, subscribe to NPR's Pod Club newsletter at npr.org/podclub.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Declaration of Independence contained 28 grievances against King George III — not 27. The final grievance, the one Congress cut before signing, accused the British king of waging cruel war against human nature by trafficking enslaved Africans across the Atlantic, forcing slavery onto unwilling American colonists, and then inciting those same enslaved people to rise up and kill their enslavers. Did King George III and the British monarchy actually bear responsibility for slavery in the 13 colonies? Or was Jefferson's grievance a strategic sleight of hand — an attempt to pin a uniquely American system onto the crown he wanted to escape? Historian Brooke Newman, author of The Crown's Silence: The Hidden History of the British Monarchy and Slavery, joins us to find out. She traces the British monarchy's involvement in the transatlantic slave trade from Queen Elizabeth I through King George III, examines what Jefferson got right and what he got wrong, and delivers her verdict on one of the most explosive what-ifs in United States history. Brooke's Website | Book |Show Notes: https://www.benfranklinsworld.com/440 EPISODE OUTLINE00:00:00  Introduction00:01:24 Episode Welcome and Jefferson's Cut Grievance00:03:15 Guest Introduction: Brooke Newman00:04:58 Jefferson's Claim and Brooke's Research Origins00:09:28 Timeline of Monarchies and Terminology00:12:03 England Enters the Slave Trade under Elizabeth I00:17:41 Crown Investments and Royal African Company00:30:15 Colonies Structured for Slavery00:37:02 Logistics of the Slave Trade by Revolution00:47:01 King George III's Views on Slavery00:52:20 Virginia's 1772 Slave Trade Ban and Royal Veto00:57:35 Dunmore's Proclamation: Not a Royal Act01:01:17 Was George III to Blame? Jefferson's Strategy01:04:26 Time Warp: If George III Abolished Slavery01:10:56 ConclusionRECOMMENDED NEXT EPISODES

The dramatic early reign of Nicholas II and Russia's catastrophic entry into the First World War.

Colossians 1:9-14 (NKJV)Andrew, Isack, and Edwin discuss the kingdom into which God has transferred His people as the fulfillment of God's promise to the Messiah in Psalm 2.Read the written devo that goes along with this episode by clicking here.    Let us know what you are learning or any questions you have. Email us at TextTalk@ChristiansMeetHere.org.    Join the Facebook community and join the conversation by clicking here. We'd love to meet you. Be a guest among the Christians who meet on Livingston Avenue. Click here to find out more. Michael Eldridge sang all four parts of our theme song. Find more from him by clicking here.   Thanks for talking about the text with us today.________________________________________________If the hyperlinks do not work, copy the following addresses and paste them into the URL bar of your web browser: Daily Written Devo: https://readthebiblemakedisciples.wordpress.com/?p=25415The Christians Who Meet on Livingston Avenue: http://www.christiansmeethere.org/Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/TalkAboutTheTextFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/texttalkMichael Eldridge: https://acapeldridge.com/  

Trump meets King Charles and the internet jokes about “two kings”—but the moment exposes something deeper: we haven't outgrown authority, we've just forgotten what it's for.In this episode of The World View, we connect three major stories shaping the moment:– What monarchy was actually meant to be—and what modern leadership has lost– A viral congressional exchange that forces the life debate out of abstraction and into reality– Vivek Ramaswamy's comments on Jesus—and the line that still divides the world.This isn't just politics. It's about authority, truth, and the question underneath everything:Who is Jesus?Because the divide isn't left vs right, or nation vs nation.It's Christ.Watch all of our videos and subscribe to our channel for the latest content >HereHere

• Podmasters is 10 years old! Get an extra 10% off a year's Patreon backing. Applauded by Congress, lauded by Trump and working his way through a spring-herbed ravioli on a golden plate? It was a tough gig for Charles. The King may have charmed the President but will his visit rescue US/UK relations from the geopolitical toilet?  Plus, Starmer evades a Commons investigation into the Mandelson affair but is it really all over bar the shouting for the PM? Why a social media ban for under-16s might be based on dodgy science. And in the Extra Bit: If they can get away with a Michael Jackson movie in 2026, which political figures ought to get their own biopic?  • Questions for But Your Emails? Thoughts? Comments? Email us at ogwn@podmasters.co.uk.  ESCAPE ROUTES • Rachel has been bingeing Guy Ritchie's Young Sherlock on Amazon Prime.   • Jonn recommends Radio 4's How To Invent A Country on BBC Sounds.  • James recommends the relaxing game Nodes – play it here. • Andrew recommends Daredevil: Born Again on Disney+, inevitably  www.patreon.com/ohgodwhatnow Presented by Andrew Harrison with Rachel Cunliffe, Jonn Elledge and James Ball. Audio Production by Tom Taylor. Art direction: James Parrett. Theme tune by Tom Taylor and Simon Williams. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It was a historic day for King Charles as he became the first British monarch to address a joint session of Congress in 35 years, before enjoying a lavish dinner at the White House. There were jokes, subtle digs, and the supposedly apolitical monarch even appealed to Donald Trump on Nato and Ukraine – but how did the US president react? Helen Pidd speaks to the Guardian columnist and host of Politics Weekly America, Jonathan Freedland – watch on YouTube Listen to the latest episode of Politics Weekly America: ‘The Trump purge: is the FBI's Kash Patel next?'. Help support our independent journalism at theguardian.com/infocus

Love is in the air at A Right Royal! In this week's throwback episode, Andrea and Emmy are joined by royal experts Emily Nash, Kate Mansey, and legendary biographer Hugo Vickers to unpick the greatest love stories of the British Monarchy. From the "steely" determination of the Princess of Wales during that infamous 2012 photo scandal to the "Ying and Yang" connection between King Charles and Queen Camilla, we're lifting the lid on what life is really like behind palace doors. Plus, Hugo Vickers takes us back in time to explain the real reason the nation was so scandalized by Wallis Simpson, and we reveal the "Sloane Ranger" era that defined a generation of royal brides. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

4. Gregory Copley Headline: BritishPolitical Turmoil and the Monarchy's Role King Charles III plans to attend America's 250th anniversary despite potential diplomatic friction with President Trump. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces historic unpopularity and internal party dissent, though he remains difficult to remove. (4)1939 OKLAHOMA

SHOW SCHWDULE 3-19-20261939 OKLAHOMA OILFIELDS, ROUSTABOUT FAMILY HOUSING1. Gregory Copley Headline: The Strait of Hormuz and Global Energy Panic Copley analyzes the strategic fallout of Iranian attacks on Qatari gas fields, which have sent global markets reeling. He argues the Iranian Navy is finished, yet regional instability requires American leadership to ensure regime change. (1)2. Gregory Copley Headline: Russia's Energy Leverage and the Donbass Proposal Russia benefits significantly from rising oil prices and its desanctioned shadow fleet. Copley notes that some European nations are considering a "Donbass for energy" deal with Putin to stabilize their struggling economies. (2)3. Gregory Copley Headline: China's Economic Paralysis and Naval Limitations China faces deep internal trouble, with growth expectations falling and Xi Jinping struggling to trust his military commanders. Copley highlights that the PLA Navy remains significantly behind the United States in carrier operations. (3)4. Gregory Copley Headline: British Political Turmoil and the Monarchy's Role King Charles III plans to attend America's 250th anniversary despite potential diplomatic friction with President Trump. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces historic unpopularity and internal party dissent, though he remains difficult to remove. (4)5. Evan Ellis Headline: Cuba's Energy Crisis Amidst Cold War Echoes Cuba suffers from nationwide blackouts as Russian oil shipments attempt to bypass U.S. surveillance. Ellis explores the symbolic importance of the island and the complexities of U.S. negotiations with the Castro family. (5)6. Evan Ellis Headline: Venezuela's Oil Interests and Democratic Hopes While the Trump administration views Venezuela as a success, the Chvista regime remains entrenched through hardline appointments. Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado pushes for democratic stability to attract essential foreign investment into the oil sector. (6)7. Evan Ellis Headline: Crime and Political Instability in Latin America Violent spillover from drug trafficking affects the Colombia-Ecuador border, leading to significant casualties and military strikes. Ellis also discusses the arrest of a major gang leader and the ongoing cabinet instability in Peru. (7)8. Evan Ellis Headline: Chile's Security Reforms Under President Kast President Jose Antonio Kast has prioritized border security and tackling organized crime since his inauguration. His inclusive approach aims to stabilize the economy and address social frustrations lingering from the 2019 riots. (8)9. Edward J. Larson Headline: The Bombardment of Norfolk: A Revolutionary Turning Point In January 1776, the Royal Navy's attack on Norfolk, Virginia, destroyed civilian homes and convinced colonists that reconciliation with Britain was impossible. George Washington viewed this aggression as a decisive catalyst for independence. (9)10. Edward J. Larson Headline: Henry Knox's Heroic Artillery Mission Larson recounts the daring winter transport of heavy cannons from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston. This strategic feat allowed Washington to fortify Dorchester Heights, forcing British evacuation and marking his first major military victory. (10)11. Edward J. Larson Headline: Washington's Desperate Defense of New York Following the victory in Boston, Washington moved to defend New York against an overwhelming British force. Despite the Howe brothers' initial desire for negotiation, the conflict escalated as the colonies formally declared independence. (11)12. Edward J. Larson Headline: The Intellectual Shift Toward Republican Sovereignty Larson explores how 1776 transformed colonists into independent actors seeking republican governance over royal charters. Washington adopted a "Fabian" strategy, prioritizing army survival over holding territory after the defeat in Manhattan. (12)13. Anatol Lieven Headline: Seeking a Settlement in the Eurasia Crisis High energy prices are pressuring European nations like Belgium and Hungary to consider resuming trade with Russia. Lieven proposes a deal exchanging energy for compromises on the Donbass, though European leadership remains divided. (13)14. Anatol Lieven Headline: NATO Disunity and Eastern European Hardliners Lieven highlights internal friction within NATO regarding Donald Trump's isolationist rhetoric. While hardliners in Eastern Europe demand unity against Russia, countries like Poland remain primarily focused on their own national defense strategies. (14)15. Sadanand Dhume Headline: India's Strategic Neutrality in the BRICS Grouping Dhume analyzes India's unique position, balancing relationships with the U.S. and Israel against energy needs. He describes BRICS as an economically underperforming and politically fractured group with deep-seated internal rivalries. (15)16. Conrad Black Headline: Canada's Commitment to Arctic Defense Black praises Prime Minister Mark Carney for prioritizing Arctic defense and military modernization. He notes that while Canadians support pulling their weight in NATO, challenges persist regarding pipeline development and international participation. (16)

4. Joseph Ellis, *The Cause: The American Revolution and Its Discontents, 1773 to 1783*. Thomas Paine's *Common Sense* revolutionized the rebellion by using plain language to argue that an island could not rule a continent and that monarchies were inherently flawed. Paine shifted the movement's focus from the rights of Englishmen to the natural rights of all human beings, making American victory seem inevitable. However, the harsh reality of war was felt at Valley Forge, where George Washington's army faced starvation and exposure due to a lack of congressional support. During that brutal winter, approximately 1,200 soldiers died of malnutrition and exposure, testing the endurance of those who "stayed the course". (4)1865 PARIS

1. The Founding Mothers and Augustan Propaganda(1)Guest author Emma Southon notes that historians like Livy wrote during the reign of Augustus to reshape early Roman history to justify the return to monarchy. These writers aimed to portray Rome as the most virtuous and god-beloved nation. A primary narrative involves the Sabine women, who were kidnapped to populate the new city. Led by Hersilia, these women eventually intervened in a battle, acting as the "glue" that turned a war between enemies into a family conflict. Southon contrasts the virtuous Hersilia with Tarpeia, a "bad" woman who betrayed Rome for luxury. (2)

3. Wicked Queens and the Sacrifice of Vestals (5)Southon discusses Tullia, the "wicked" opposite of Lucretia, who murdered her family to seize power and defiled her father's body. Her ambition served as a warning that monarchy breeds tyranny. The focus then shifts to the Vestal Virgins, such as Oppia, who were tasked with maintaining Rome's eternal flame. If bad omens occurred, a Vestal might be accused of unchastity and buried alive as a human sacrifice to appease the gods. Often, there was no evidence of wrongdoing beyond "unchaste" behavior like telling jokes or wearing nice dresses. (6)