Podcasts about Privy council

Last time we spoke about the ending of the Second Battle of Changsha. In late September and early October 1941, Chinese commander Chen Cheng planned an operation to retake Yichang, a strategic Yangtze River city whose control was essential for protecting the approach to Chongqing. Japanese forces were pulling back from Changsha, weakened by supply problems and casualties, which created an opportunity for Chen to intensify his campaign. Yichang had been captured by Japan in 1940, a defeat that Chen carried as a personal and political burden. He therefore moved to encircle the Japanese 13th Division inside Yichang and drive it to collapse. Although the Chinese held a clear manpower advantage—fourteen divisions against the encircled Japanese—progress was slowed by stubborn fighting from prepared, entrenched positions. The battle inside the city produced desperate close-quarters combat and heavy casualties, showing how the fate of Yichang and the wider defense of Chongqing were tightly linked.    #214 War hits the Pacific Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War.   The guns fell silent on October 9, 1941, as the Ninth War Zone's forces restored their pre-battle positions, marking the end of the Second Battle of Changsha. The balance sheet was grim on both sides, but it was China that bore the heavier cost. The Ninth Military Front suffered 70,672 killed, wounded, or missing. The concurrent Yichang offensive added a further 21,368 casualties to the Sixth Military Front, a force that outnumbered its Japanese opponents ten to one yet still failed to retake the city. By the time the dust settled, the Chinese army had lost nearly 100,000 men across both theatres. The Chinese command was frank, at least in private, about what had gone wrong. The Japanese had moved with a speed that recalled Blitzkrieg, advancing 130 kilometres in eleven days and withdrawing at twelve kilometres a day, catching the defenders perpetually off-balance. The 26th, 37th, 10th, and 74th Corps had been picked apart piecemeal rather than fighting in concert, the original plan to destroy the Japanese south of the Miluo River coming to nothing. Elite formations had paid a disproportionate price: the 74th Corps suffered 14,521 casualties, the 37th Corps 14,015, and the 58th Division alone lost 6,192 of its 11,907 men, nearly its entire fighting strength.   Yet none of this was the story the public would hear. On October 10th, China's National Day, radio stations announced the "Second Great Victory in Northern Hunan", the annihilation of over 40,000 enemy troops. Newspapers rushed out special editions. Congratulatory telegrams flooded in from government ministries and civic organizations. Senior officials seized on the moment: Sun Ke, Premier of the Executive Yuan, declared that the victory "laid the foundation for the counter-offensive and the recapture of Hankou and Guangzhou," while General Bai Chongxi called it "the pivotal moment for us to turn defeat into victory." Chiang Kai-shek, reading through the pages of triumphant commentary produced overnight by his propagandists, was reportedly impressed by their industry, if not convinced by their content. He had not wanted to call it a victory at all, but the political calculus was unavoidable: after four years of war, an exhausted nation needed the psychological sustenance that only "victory" could provide.   The gap between public performance and private reality was nowhere more visible than in the arrival of a twenty-two-member international press delegation on October 13th. Journalists from Britain, the United States, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Hong Kong, and major Chinese newspapers were flown to Changsha and carefully guided through selected battlefields, where they inspected mountains of war trophies and heard testimony from soldiers and civilians. They left satisfied, presenting their war souvenirs—swords, binoculars, Japanese military flags—to their audiences back home as proof of Chinese heroism and Japanese defeat. Both China and Japan were claiming victory simultaneously. The only conclusion the foreign press could draw was that one side was lying, and it was not the side that had shown them the evidence.   Chiang Kai-shek's real verdict came at the Third Nanyue Military Conference, held from October 16 to 21. His anger was withering. He condemned his generals for their obsession with defending sprawling outer perimeter lines while leaving city centres barely fortified, a mentality so rigid, he said, that the Japanese could announce the exact time of their advance and withdrawal in advance and still execute it on schedule without interference. "Generals, what a disgrace this is!" On the failure to capture prisoners, only 263 prisoners were claimed across the entire front, of whom only 16 names were actually published, he was almost incredulous: "We can definitely defeat the enemy, capture many enemy prisoners, and seize countless enemy weapons! Even if we cannot capture ten thousand prisoners, we should at least capture a thousand! If not a thousand, then at least a hundred! But now, you don't even have ten!" The conference handed down punishments to match the rhetoric. Liao Lingqi, commander of the shattered 58th Division, was sentenced to death for desertion and shot on October 22nd. His men were so outraged that three regimental commanders resigned in protest; the division was pulled from the order of battle entirely and given three months to rebuild. Li Yutang, commander of the 10th Corps, was dismissed—though the Third Battle of Changsha would begin before his replacement could take post, and he would be reinstated to play a key role in the city's defence.   On the Japanese side, the 11th Army acknowledged 1,670 killed, 5,184 wounded, and 14 missing, far fewer than Chinese claims, though post-war regimental histories suggest the true figure was higher. Lieutenant General Anami, who had championed the operation, found himself stung by the charge that the battle had served mainly as material for Chinese propaganda. On November 23rd, he reportedly reacted with visible displeasure when someone in his headquarters said as much aloud.  Anami's annoyance was easy enough to understand, but the accusation carried a troubling degree of accuracy. The Second Battle of Changsha had yielded no decisive strategic gain and no substantial alteration in the military balance. What it did generate, rather effectively, was a story and by the autumn of 1941, stories were one of the few things China still had in plentiful supply. The most consequential struggles were taking place not along the Miluo River, but in foreign ministries and embassies, in Washington and Moscow, in the messages passing between Chongqing and London, and in the increasingly strained calculations of statesmen trying to determine, amid rapidly changing circumstances, whom to support and for how long.   For Chiang Kai-shek, the challenge was never merely military. It was structural, and had been so from the outset. He had always seen clearly, precisely because he understood China's weakness, that Japan could not be defeated by China alone. The country lacked the industrial base, the logistical reach, and after four years of relentless attrition more and more the manpower needed to force a decisive result on the battlefield. China's survival depended on making its war inseparable from the wars of other powers. Since 1937, Chiang's diplomacy had pursued that single objective: convincing enough great powers that their interests were aligned with China's, and holding that coalition together long enough for Japan to be subdued. That effort turned out to be vastly more difficult than it ought to have been.   The problem started with the international order in which the war emerged. Chiang had hoped to assemble a concert of allies willing to help defend China against Japanese aggression. He was blocked not just by the reluctance of neutral states to aid China, but by the speed with which alliances shifted in the opening years of the Second World War. He had never welcomed the prospect of a general European conflict, correctly fearing that it would push China even further to the margins of world attention. Even so, he recognized that once the lines had hardened between the imperial democracies and fascism, new alignments might become possible. From his perspective, the growing amity between Berlin and Moscow was therefore disastrous. He had been eager to draw the USSR into war against Japan. Instead, the Soviets were now effectively aligned with the Nazis, who were themselves allied with Tokyo.   The world created after Versailles had already enraged many Chinese. After all, the May Fourth demonstrations of 1919 had arisen directly from the settlement reached at the Paris Peace Conference. Yet that older order had at least possessed recognizable anchors, especially the dominance of the two great European empires and the United States. Now those empires were weakening, and no one could say with confidence what the new geopolitical order would be. For all Chiang knew, Germany might emerge as Europe's new dominant power. The early years of the European war produced a bewildering spectacle of diplomatic realignment.   The Nationalist government had previously enjoyed a short-lived flirtation with Nazi Germany. In fact, Hitler's regime continued supplying Chiang with munitions in the first months of China's war against Japan. The Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 had theoretically joined Germany, Italy, and Japan into the Axis, but mutual distrust prevented them from forming anything like a fully coherent alliance. Chiang found it useful to imply to Western powers that he might be pushed into closer alignment with Germany, a particularly disturbing possibility for the USSR, which faced enemies in both Europe and Asia. But eventually the contradictions in German policy toward East Asia became too severe. In April 1938, Germany yielded to Japanese pressure and ended its support for China.   Britain offered little meaningful help. Neville Chamberlain became prime minister in May 1937 at the head of a Conservative-led National Government, and was quickly overwhelmed by the deteriorating European situation. If Czechoslovakia was for him a "far-off country of which we know nothing," China's fate was even more distant and obscure to many,  perhaps most  policymakers in London. The Nationalists had more success in cultivating the United States. At the Nine-Power Conference in Brussels in November 1937, the Chinese delegation failed to persuade Washington to impose sanctions on Japan and confront it directly. By the middle of 1938, however, American views were beginning to shift. As Japan pushed deeper into southern China, it became increasingly obvious that the occupied territory would be closed to foreign trade. In December 1938, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau arranged a private American loan of $25 million to China, to be repaid through shipments of tung oil, a varnish product whose real importance lay not in itself, but in what the arrangement signified: a quiet American expression of faith that Chongqing would survive. Chiang also held on to the hope of an even less likely partnership. He had become fiercely anti-Communist during the 1920s, yet in the early years of the anti-Japanese war his greatest hope still rested on Soviet entry into the conflict. Soviet advisers and pilots had aided China from 1937 to 1939, but the USSR never formally declared war on Japan. Still, as Japanese aggression in northern Asia intensified, it remained possible that the Soviets would eventually be drawn in.   Then, as so often happened whenever Chiang tried to impose some control over the course of the war, events beyond China's borders altered the struggle in fundamental ways. While Western attention remained fixed on Europe's darkening horizon, a battle with major consequences for East Asia unfolded on the frontiers of Outer Mongolia, Manchukuo, and the eastern Soviet Union. Throughout much of 1938 and early 1939, one faction within the Japanese Imperial Army sought to pressure the Soviets along their eastern frontier. The USSR appeared vulnerable; Stalin's paranoid purges had executed or exiled many of the Red Army's best officers. In May 1939, fighting broke out near Nomonhan between forces from Soviet-backed Mongolia and Japanese troops from Manchukuo. Within days, both sides had reinforced heavily, until nearly 60,000 Soviet troops faced about 40,000 soldiers from the Kwantung Army. Over the next four months, until mid-September, they fought a major battle ending in a decisive Japanese defeat and establishing the reputation of General Georgi Zhukov, who would later become one of Stalin's most celebrated wartime commanders. The much-derided Soviet Army had fought with formidable effectiveness, and the result was not only a ceasefire but also a nonaggression pact between the two sides, extinguishing, in one stroke, Chiang's hopes for a Chinese-Soviet military alliance. The final blow came after developments in northern Europe. In the Winter War of 1939–1940, the Soviet invasion of Finland led Britain and France to back a motion expelling the USSR from the League of Nations. China, then a member of the League Council, declined to use its veto to block the resolution. Stalin was enraged by Chiang's failure to prevent Soviet expulsion, and mutual suspicion thereafter poisoned relations between the two leaders for the rest of the war against Japan. China would now have to continue without further major Soviet backing.   By the spring of 1940, China's position had become deeply precarious. In March, senior Japanese negotiators sought an agreement with Chiang in Chongqing, while Wang Jingwei was trying to formalize his rival Nationalist government in Nanjing. This effort, known in Chinese as the Tong Operation, and in Japanese as Operation Kiri, led to talks in Hong Kong from March 7 to 10, 1940. Militarily, the Nationalists were in grave danger: the United States remained neutral, and Europe was in chaos. Indeed, that same spring, with France seemingly near collapse, the British government also sent out discreet feelers to explore the possibility of a negotiated peace with Germany. For China, Western assistance was nowhere in sight. The Japanese judged the moment favorable for pressing Chiang toward concessions. Faced with serious danger to his regime, Chiang allowed the door to negotiation to open just slightly.   As a consequence, the Japanese delayed full recognition of Wang Jingwei's new government. Through the summer and autumn of 1940, Tokyo remained uncertain about the defector. Prominent Japanese figures such as Count Arima Yoriyasu of the Privy Council said Wang's conduct demonstrated his untrustworthiness, and Foreign Minister Matsuoka Yōsuke continued to express interest in an agreement with Chongqing. Zhou Fohai captured the defectors' frustration, men who believed they had made the highest patriotic sacrifice when he wrote: "Chongqing sees us as collaborators, we see ourselves as heroes. We think only peace can save the country — that's why we think of ourselves as heroes. If we end up classed as heroes, then China and Japan will be at peace. If we end up classed as collaborators, then China and Japan will never be at peace."That formulation conveyed something genuine about the moral dizziness of the period. Most of the defectors were not men devoid of principles; they were men whose principles had carried them to a place that history would find exceptionally hard to pardon.   The "New Fourth Army Incident" brought to a close one of the most consequential years in modern Chinese political history. The battle of ideas unfolding in 1940 was already visible to informed contemporaries. Early in 1941, US Ambassador Nelson Johnson sent Washington a detailed assessment of the Chinese political situation in reply to another report passed along by Major Evans Carlson, an American officer who had made an extensive journey through the Chinese interior. The contrast between the two documents revealed a widening split in American views of China. Carlson, together with his travelling companion, the New Zealander Rewi Alley, had become increasingly sympathetic to the Communists after visiting their territories in 1938 and admiring their discipline. Carlson described the Nationalists as moving toward "fascism," and argued that American aid should be conditioned on Chiang's government being compelled to adopt more "democratic" institutions.   Johnson strongly disagreed. It was "only normal and natural," he wrote, that the Nationalists wanted to retain power, but during the war they had established the National Political Consultative Council, in which multiple parties, including the Communists, were represented. He also noted that the CCP could publish its own newspaper in Chongqing in a way that would have been impossible before the war. One might have expected the Nationalists to use the war as a justification "to extinguish . . . all political opposition," yet instead they had chosen to "muddle along." Johnson further thought that the influence of competing cliques inside the Nationalist Party had been overstated. Chiang Kai-shek, by contrast, had "grown in stature, as he has come to be recognized as the symbol of united resistance to Japanese encroachment"; ultimately, "it is he who makes the final decisions." Johnson did agree with Carlson that Chiang's regime was hesitant to encourage a broad-based popular movement animated by anything beyond anti-Japanese feeling, though he also pointed to Nationalist cooperative programs and county-level reforms. But he rejected the idea that American support should depend on sweeping political transformation. Chiang was committed to continuing the war against Japan, and Washington should back him in that effort. In a notably farsighted passage, Johnson wrote: "It is my view that since the fall of the Manchu dynasty and the collapse of the traditional Chinese concept of government the Chinese people have been feeling their way along toward a new evolving form of government. A definitive form of government has not yet been established and may not be established for decades; it may or may not be in the form of a democracy, but it will be a type of government that will be adapted to the needs of China and its people." The tension between these two American interpretations,  Carlson's idealized belief in the Communists and Johnson's pragmatic support for Chiang was more than a minor bureaucratic dispute. It foreshadowed a debate that would dominate American foreign policy for the next decade, and would still echo when the People's Republic was proclaimed in 1949.   The disastrous experience of 1940 seemed to cast doubt on whether any future for China existed outside the Japanese Empire. As 1941 wore on, another dreadful event shook the exhausted wartime capital. On June 5, Chongqing endured roughly five hours of bombing, driving the population into air-raid shelters. In one tunnel in the Shibati district, the conditions were even worse than usual. The large shelter was supposed to have lights and electric fans, but the generators had never been connected. Inside, the air was dark, hot, and suffocating. Around ten that evening, people began emerging from the tunnel when rumors spread that the Japanese were returning with poison-gas bombs. Air-raid wardens forced people back inside, even as others were still trying to come out. Bodies toppled over one another, and panic spread as people realized they could not breathe. Over the next few hours, hundreds died underground in the darkness. The exact number was never definitively established: the official figure was 461, though a contemporary police report placed it far higher, at 1,527. What rescuers remembered most vividly were the tortured expressions of the dead, people tangled together in each other's arms as they lost consciousness, clothing ripped to shreds by desperate hands clawing at one another, and bodies so drenched in sweat that they looked as though they had been soaked in water. One survivor, Tang Zhengchang, remembered a hand reaching out from a pile of corpses and pleading, "Sir, please help me . . ." The grip on Tang's shorts was so tight that it pulled them off; he escaped the tunnel naked from the waist down. Official descriptions of the disaster were softened. Even so, the tragedy deepened the city's gloom and in a place already saturated with grief, an added layer of darkness mattered a great deal.   Yet events elsewhere would soon offer the National Government a narrow margin of hope. Late in 1940, Franklin D. Roosevelt won re-election as president of the United States. "I am not going to send your boys into any foreign wars," he had proclaimed during the campaign against Wendell Willkie. But Roosevelt and Secretary of State Cordell Hull both understood that Nazi domination of Europe posed a grave challenge to American influence there. And with China's "Open Door" to trade effectively shut by Japanese occupation, it was becoming increasingly clear that strict neutrality might not remain viable. In a 1941 report on China's domestic and foreign situation, Ambassador Johnson noted that during Germany's sweeping victories across Europe in mid-1940, the Chinese had become anxious about whether the Allies would remain committed to their cause. Britain's refusal to surrender, however, together with continuing Soviet goodwill, lifted public morale in China. People now looked toward the United States and Britain for support and felt that "victory" was "virtually theirs."   Then, on June 22, 1941, the world awoke to news that roughly three million German soldiers were advancing into the Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of the USSR, dramatically overturned the nonaggression that had governed relations between the two major European dictatorships for the previous two years. It transformed the war in Europe entirely. Less obviously, it also transformed the war in Asia. Thanks to intelligence leaks, Chiang Kai-shek had already realized that war between Germany and the USSR was likely. After the neutrality treaty between the USSR and Japan was signed on April 13, 1941, Chiang predicted that the United States would be drawn into the Asian war, and even that Japan might eventually reverse course and strike the Soviet Union. If that happened, China would become the critical Asian ally of both Washington and Moscow. Stalin had been caught off guard by the German assault — largely because he ignored increasingly urgent warnings from senior colleagues receiving intelligence from well-placed spies in Germany and the Comintern, eager to preserve its alliances, now pressed the Chinese Communists to cooperate more closely with the Nationalists. On June 23, 1941, the CCP Central Committee responded with a declaration that it would "persevere in the Anti-Japanese United Front, persevere in Nationalist-Communist cooperation," and would align itself with the British, the Americans, and others resisting the "fascist rulers" of the Axis.   In Chongqing and Yan'an, the German attack on the Soviet Union was interpreted as a hopeful sign that Japan's fortunes might be beginning to turn. In Nanjing, the reaction was different. On June 22, Zhou Fohai recorded in his diary that, although the outcome "cannot be predicted," members of the Nanjing regime "all believe Germany will win and will take Moscow within two months." Zhou speculated that Japan could not easily reconcile its neutrality treaty with the USSR and its membership in the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was supposed to unite the Axis against Soviet expansionism. Still, because Germany had struck first, Japan was under no formal obligation to help. Zhou also continued to view events through a lens he had never abandoned: that of Chinese nationalism. "If Chongqing joins the Allies and they win," he wrote, "then this is good for China." If they lost, it would be disastrous for Chiang Kai-shek; but because Wang Jingwei had established a government in Nanjing under Japanese sponsorship, China now had "a foot in both boats." It was a ruthless calculation, but not a wholly dishonorable one. Zhou was not merely advancing Japanese interests. He was hedging, wagering on multiple futures in the name of a China he believed would endure beyond whatever constellation of powers happened to dominate at the moment. Whether posterity would judge that conduct prudent or collaborative was a question he could neither settle nor live to see resolved to his satisfaction.   The summer of 1941 marked a major geopolitical turning point in the war. Until then, the conflicts in China and Europe had remained separate, if desperate, struggles on the Eurasian continent. Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union now forced Japan to decide whether it too would enter war against the USSR. Debate in Tokyo was brief. Although some officials, including Foreign Minister Matsuoka, favored striking north before moving south, both the Kwantung Army and the Navy advised against helping Germany at least until Germany had succeeded in drawing substantial Soviet forces away from Siberia and into Europe. Konoye, once again prime minister, agreed. With the northern option set aside, Japanese leaders turned toward another great power instead: the United States. Japan's failure to gain further decisive momentum in China had fueled demands for broader regional expansion, especially into Southeast Asia, with its abundant oil, rubber, and other strategic resources. From 1940 onward, measures such as the pressure to close the Burma Road made it increasingly obvious that Tokyo had adopted a more aggressive posture in Asia. Unable to subdue China, Japanese policymakers chose instead to escalate the conflict still further.   Japanese political life had become ever more dominated by the unresolved war in China. As early as 1938, military expenditures consumed about 70 percent of the national budget, and that same year a National Mobilization Bill granted the government "total war control" over the zaibatsu, Japan's major industrial conglomerates. By 1940, the New Order was making itself felt throughout everyday life, with campaigns against luxury and extravagant consumption taking on new prominence. In February 1940, a parliamentarian was expelled from the Diet simply for daring to criticize the "holy war" in China. In such an atmosphere, retreat from imperial ambitions became increasingly unthinkable. That figure, 70 percent of the national budget devoted to the military is worth dwelling on, because it reveals something essential about the trap in which Japanese strategists had placed themselves. The war in China had not been won, yet abandoning it would have meant admitting a failure so severe that it would have shaken the ideological and institutional foundations of military supremacy in Japanese politics. The only apparent ways out required pushing further in: more conquest, more extraction, more expansion. The logic was brutally clear, and profoundly destructive.   The Roosevelt administration watched these developments with growing alarm. Though still formally neutral, the United States was already using Lend-Lease to provide major assistance to Britain and the Soviet Union in their struggles against Germany. It now expanded aid to China as well. On February 10, Roosevelt's representative Lauchlin Currie visited Chongqing to inform Chiang Kai-shek that the United States would soon provide $45 million in military equipment. General John Magruder, head of the small AMMISCA mission,  the American Military Mission in China had been sent to Chongqing in September 1941, as part of quiet preparation for possible Chinese entry into an alliance against Japan. The China branch of the OSS, precursor to the CIA, was led by General William "Wild Bill" Donovan, whom Roosevelt had dispatched to China in early 1941.   The Americans repeatedly tried to discourage Japan from moving south into Southeast Asia, but relations only grew more confrontational. Japan occupied the southern part of French Indochina, and in response the United States imposed an oil embargo in July 1941. The consequences were immense. Japan imported around 80 percent of its oil from the United States. Without that supply, its navy, the essential instrument for southern expansion  had reserves for perhaps eighteen months. The real question facing Tokyo, then, was not whether it must act, but how soon. Unable any longer to resist mounting military pressure for war, Konoye resigned on October 16 and was replaced as premier by General Tōjō Hideki. Tokyo accelerated its preparations for conflict with the Western powers. Planned targets included Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and the Philippines. I should note, if you want to learn about all of this history in more detail, you can go check out the pacific war channel on youtube. I have a chronological series that is just now talking about events like the Japanese invasion of french indochina and the road to pearl harbor.   Throughout the autumn of 1941, increasingly desperate negotiations took place between Japan and the United States. Washington insisted that Japan withdraw from China; Tokyo was equally firm that it would do no such thing. From the Japanese point of view, the demand to leave China was not a serious negotiating position but a demand for national humiliation a call to repudiate four years of war, vast casualties, and the ideological basis of Japanese militarism in a single diplomatic act. In the end, the gulf between the two positions could not be bridged.   While civilian and military leaders in Tokyo argued over the pace at which they should move toward war, few among Japan's rulers doubted that war was coming. At the imperial conference of November 5, it was formally agreed that if no satisfactory diplomatic solution had been reached by December 1, war would follow soon after. Talks in Washington between Ambassador Nomura Kichisaburō, diplomat Kurusu Saburō, and Secretary of State Cordell Hull led nowhere. On November 26, Hull delivered a note repeating the American position that Japan must withdraw from both China and Indochina. On December 1, the imperial conference resolved to go to war; the following day, the date of attack was fixed as December 8, December 7 by American time. In one sense, this was the culmination toward which the entire previous decade had been moving. The war in China had started as a localized conflict, then expanded into a continental one, and was now about to become something larger still: a truly global war, stretching from the North Atlantic to the western Pacific. China's long, lonely resistance would suddenly gain new dimensions and new allies,  though not the ones Chiang had spent four years trying to cultivate, and not under circumstances he would have chosen.   In the early morning of December 7, 1941, the US Pacific Fleet lay anchored at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, its sailors and officers still largely asleep as dawn crept across the Pacific. The attack did not come without warning signs,  American and Japanese diplomats had been locked in increasingly desperate negotiations throughout the autumn, each side hardening its position until no room remained to maneuver. Washington had demanded that Japan withdraw from China, a condition Tokyo viewed not as a serious opening offer but as a demand for national humiliation: a call to repudiate four years of brutal war, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the entire ideological foundation upon which Japanese militarism rested. No agreement was possible on those terms, and both sides privately knew it.   The strike force assembled in secret was formidable. Six aircraft carriers,  the Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku had sailed under strict radio silence across the North Pacific, launching their aircraft in two successive waves before the American base had any meaningful chance to respond. The first wave of approximately 183 planes swept in just before 8 a.m., targeting the rows of battleships moored along Battleship Row and the military airfields at Wheeler, Hickam, and Ford Island simultaneously, ensuring that American aircraft could not scramble in time to mount an effective defense. A second wave of roughly 170 planes followed less than an hour later, pressing the attack on damaged ships and harbor installations.   The destruction was staggering. The battleship Arizona suffered a catastrophic magazine explosion after a armor-piercing bomb penetrated her forward decks, killing nearly 1,177 of her crew in minutes, almost half of the total American dead from the entire attack. The Oklahoma capsized after being struck by multiple torpedoes. The West Virginia and California sank at their moorings. In total, seventeen vessels were damaged or destroyed, and the vast majority of military aircraft at the nearby airfields were caught on the ground and obliterated before they could take flight. Around 2,400 Americans were killed and another 1,100 wounded, making it the deadliest single attack on American soil or territory in the nation's history to that point.   Yet the attack was not a complete strategic success for Japan. The US Pacific Fleet's aircraft carriers, the vessels that would ultimately decide the naval war in the Pacific happened to be at sea that morning and escaped unharmed. The harbor's fuel storage and repair facilities were also left largely intact, allowing the fleet to reconstitute faster than Japanese planners had anticipated. What Japan achieved in tactical devastation, it partly squandered in strategic miscalculation. The attack ended American neutrality instantly and irrevocably. The following day, President Roosevelt addressed Congress, calling December 7 "a date which will live in infamy," and within hours the United States declared war on Japan. For China, after more than four years of fighting alone, the blow that devastated Pearl Harbor paradoxically carried a thread of desperate hope at last, the great power Chiang Kai-shek had spent years trying to draw into the conflict had arrived, not under circumstances he would have chosen, but arrived nonetheless. I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. After years of fighting, China's situation darkened in 1941 with intense bombing of Chongqing and fears of poison-gas attacks. Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union in June shifted alliances and pressured Japan toward wider war. Japan escalated plans for Southeast Asia, suffered an oil embargo, and negotiations with the United States broke down over withdrawing from China and Indochina. Then the Pearl Harbor attack began the Pacific War.

In 1513, Charles Brandon knelt in front of Margaret of Austria, regent of the Netherlands, and lifted the ring right off her finger. Twice. The gossip reached all the way to her father, the Holy Roman Emperor, and for a minute, Henry VIII was actually pushing for his best friend to marry one of the most powerful women in Europe.It never happened. But what if it had? In this episode I dig into the real story behind the ring, why the marriage was never actually going to happen, and what it would have meant for England, the Habsburgs, and the entire Tudor succession, including a very direct line to Lady Jane Grey never existing at all. Join us for TudorCon 2026, October 23-25 in Richmond, VA. About 20 in-person tickets remain: tudorcon.englandcast.com Can't make it in person? Join us for TudorCon From Home, and for a limited time get early bird pricing on the Privy Council tier (ends September 15): tudorcon.englandcast.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood was born in New York in 1966 to British parents and holds dual British-American nationality. He was schooled in Bonn and Vienna before Loughborough University. He commissioned into the Royal Green Jackets, reached the rank of captain, and still serves as an Army reservist, now a lieutenant colonel and County Colonel for Dorset.He was Conservative MP for Bournemouth East from 2005 to 2024. In government he served as a Foreign Office minister covering the Middle East and Africa, then as Defence Minister for Veterans, Reserves and Personnel. He chaired the House of Commons Defence Select Committee from 2020 to 2023, which put him at the centre of British thinking on Ukraine, NATO and the Middle East.Two moments shaped the man behind the politician. His brother Jonathan was killed in the 2002 Bali bombing. Then in March 2017, during the Westminster terror attack, Tobias Ellwood knelt over PC Keith Palmer and gave him CPR as the officer lay dying, ignoring the risk that the attacker might have left a second device. He was later appointed to the Privy Council, which gave him the "Right Honourable" prefix. He lost his seat in 2024 and now works as a consultant and commentator on defence and geopolitics.The book: a two-line synopsisTen Steps to Prevent World War Three argues that the rules-based order has come apart, and that the next global conflict will not be fought on one front but across many at once: Russia and Ukraine, Iran and the United States, Israel and Palestine, and a new cold war between America and China forught with information, influence and ideology. Tobias Ellwood then sets out a practical plan to step back from the brink: rebuild hard power, restore soft power, strengthen alliances, and build the off-ramps that let adversaries de-escalate without losing face.It has landed well. William Hague calls it crucial reading on how the global order came apart, and it carries endorsements from Peter Frankopan, John Kerry, Rory Stewart and General Jim Mattis.Website: https://jonathanperks.com/podcasts/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The UK's famously unwritten constitution means the country is effectively governed by the Privy Council and its executive committee in the Cabinet, composed of what John Mclean called 'The Old Gang' in his open letter to Lenin in 1921. Its longevity is testament to the continuities of class rule in this country.

pWotD Episode 3356: Ann Widdecombe Welcome to popular Wiki of the Day, spotlighting Wikipedia's most visited pages, giving you a peek into what the world is curious about today.With 1,272,087 views on Friday, 10 July 2026 our article of the day is Ann Widdecombe.Ann Noreen Widdecombe (4 October 1947 – c. 9 July 2026) was a British politician and television personality. As a member of the Conservative Party, she was Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidstone and The Weald and the former Maidstone constituency from 1987 to 2010. She was a member of the Brexit Party from 2019 and served as the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South West England from 2019 to 2020. She joined Reform UK in 2023 and served as the party's Immigration and Justice spokesperson from 2023 until her death in 2026.Born in Bath, Somerset, Widdecombe read Latin at the University of Birmingham, then PPE at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. She was a religious convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism and was a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. She served as Minister of State for Employment from 1994 to 1995 and Minister of State for Prisons from 1995 to 1997. She later served in the Shadow Cabinet of William Hague as Shadow Secretary of State for Health from 1998 to 1999 and Shadow Home Secretary from 1999 to 2001. She was appointed to the Privy Council in 1997.Widdecombe stood down from the House of Commons at the 2010 general election. From 2002 she made numerous television and radio appearances, including as a television presenter. She was a contestant on the eighth series of Strictly Come Dancing in 2010, and was runner-up of the twenty-first series of Celebrity Big Brother in 2018. A prominent Eurosceptic, in 2016 she supported the Vote Leave campaign to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union (EU). Widdecombe returned to politics as the lead candidate for the Brexit Party in South West England at the 2019 European Parliament election; she won the seat in line with results nationally and served until the country left the EU on 31 January 2020. In the general election of December 2019, she fought Plymouth Sutton and Devonport for the Brexit Party, where she came third but retained her deposit.Ideologically, Widdecombe identified herself as a social conservative and stressed the importance of traditional values and conservatism. As a member of the House of Commons, she opposed the legality of abortion, opposed granting LGBT people legal rights such as the same age of consent as heterosexuals, and opposed the repeal of Section 28. She supported the reintroduction of the death penalty for murder. She was opposed to all forms of assisted dying. She had a history of supporting rigorous laws on animal protection and was opposed to fox hunting.Widdecombe was found dead at her home on Dartmoor, Devon, on 9 July 2026, aged 78. The following day, police arrested a man on suspicion of murder.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 04:06 UTC on Saturday, 11 July 2026.For the full current version of the article, see Ann Widdecombe on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm generative Matthew.

Season 10 of Disruptors asked one question, in a lot of different ways: does Canada have what it takes—the tools, the ambition and the will—to  compete in the economy being built right now? For the season finale, John Stackhouse took that question to the RBC and Eurasia Group US-Canada Summit, where 500 leaders spent a day debating the most important economic relationship in the world. He came back with two conversations that, together, amount to an answer. Colonel Jeremy Hansen, the first Canadian to travel into deep space, talks about what you see from the Moon, what it taught him about collaboration and self-reliance, and why the Canada-U.S. relationship is worth fighting for. Michael Sabia, Clerk of the Privy Council, discusses the hand Canada holds right now and why this is a moment for ambition, not anxiety. Recorded live. A fitting close to a season built around urgency. For more RBC Thought Leadership on Canada's economy and competitiveness, visit rbc.com/thoughtleadership   KEYWORDS Jeremy Hansen, Artemis II, Canadian astronaut, Moon mission, deep space, Michael Sabia, Clerk of the Privy Council, Canada-US relationship, US-Canada Summit, Eurasia Group, RBC, John Stackhouse, Disruptors podcast, Season 10, Canadian economy, bilateral trade, Canada competitiveness, critical minerals, Canadian energy, AI sovereignty, Canada confidence, collaboration, ambition Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Prior to the enactment of the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK), some Queensland court matters were appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for final determination. What were hearings like in this forum before this avenue of appeal was abolished?In this lecture, Sandy Thompson KC will share his experiences appearing as counsel in 1985 and 1986, the latter (Coast Securities No. 9 Pty Ltd v Bondoukou Pty Ltd) being the last Queensland appeal to Her Majesty in Council. He will also trace the legislative history of appeals to the Privy Council and their eventual abolition in 1986. About the speakerGavin Alexander (Sandy) Thompson KC is a commercial barrister who practices in Queensland and interstate. He is a former president of the Bar Association of Queensland and a former Solicitor-General for the State of Queensland.Sandy was called to the Bar in 1983 and took silk in 1998. He appeared as junior counsel in two appeals to the Privy Council.Chair: The Hon Justice Susan (Sue) BrownSupport the show

How did Sir Christopher Hatton became one of Elizabeth I's favourites?  How true were the rumours that they were lovers?After catching the Queen's eye in 1561, Hatton was quickly promoted to the Privy Council, making a significant impact on Elizabeth's complex religious policy. Yet he has often been overshadowed by her other favourites like Dudley, Cecil and Walsingham.In the final episode of our series on Royal Favourites, Professor Suzannah Lipscomb finds out more about Hatton's rise from minor gentry to Elizabeth I's closest aide from Dr. Neil Younger.MOREYoung Elizabeth IListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPlots against Elizabeth IListen on AppleListen on SpotifyPresented by Professor Suzannah Lipscomb. 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 ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Populism has been winning big in recent years. It is the wave that has buoyed Donald Trump's second term in office, Marine Le Pen's popularity in France, and Reform UK's recent leaps and bounds in British polling. Across the West, authoritarian populists now govern one-quarter of the world's democracies. But what explains the surge of populism across the democratic world - and can it be reversed? In this episode, economist and commentator Will Hutton speaks with Labour MP Liam Byrne about his new book Why Populists Are Winning: And How to Beat Them. Drawing on original polling, international reporting and interviews with leading thinkers, Byrne narrows down the meaning of populism, interrogates the funding, media ecosystems and language deployed by populist leaders, and the psyches of those who are persuaded to vote for them. Byrne explains how populist leaders mobilise what he calls five distinct ‘tribes' of voters, and which of these can be appealed to. He sets out his argument for rebuilding what he calls the ‘radical centre' of Western politics, and why confronting populism requires more than simply condemning it. Liam Byrne is a Labour MP, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council and the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Select Committee. He served in Gordon Brown's Cabinet, in No. 10 Downing Street and HM Treasury, and chaired the Global Parliamentary Network on the World Bank and IMF 2019-2025. He is the author of more than twenty publications on economics, foreign policy and public service reform including The Inequality of Wealth. His latest is Why Populists Are Winning: and How to Beat Them, which is available now online and in bookstores. Will Hutton is the former Editor-in-Chief of the Observer. He is a commentator, columnist, and author of books including The State We're In, How Good We Can Be, and This Time No Mistakes: How to Remake Britain. If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Le syndicaliste et militant des droits humains poursuit son combat judiciaire autour du réenregistrement des cartes SIM imposé en 2024. Après le rejet de sa plainte par la Cour suprême le 6 mars dernier, il a déposé ce jeudi un affidavit en vue d'obtenir l'autorisation de faire appel devant le Privy Council. Selon lui, cette démarche vise à obtenir un jugement de principe qui réaffirme le respect de la hiérarchie des normes à Maurice. Le négociateur syndical soutient qu'un tel jugement est essentiel pour garantir que les décisions futures des autorités ne portent pas atteinte aux libertés fondamentales. Il insiste sur la nécessité d'un cadre juridique clair afin d'éviter toute dérive dans l'exercice du pouvoir. L'affaire sera appelée le 4 mai prochain, une étape décisive dans ce litige qui soulève des enjeux majeurs liés aux droits constitutionnels et à l'État de droit.

It's all too easy, when reading history, to see the world through the eyes of the coloniser rather than the colonised. The mandate system—the League of Nations framework through which Britain and France claimed legitimacy for their post-war territorial grabs—is often presented as a progressive innovation: a move from old-fashioned colonialism to enlightened trusteeship. But what did it look like from the perspective of those who suddenly found themselves under new rulers?Drawing on Susan Pedersen's extraordinary book *The Guardians*, we explore how the mandate system was intended to serve multiple, often contradictory purposes. For the victorious imperial powers, it was a tool to legitimate the territorial settlement agreed at Paris in 1919. For internationalists and League officials, it was a mechanism for spreading norms about trusteeship and the open door. For the people of Cameroon, Togo, Samoa, South West Africa, and the Arab provinces of the former Ottoman Empire, it was something simpler: a shameless betrayal of the promises of self-determination made when the Allies had their backs to the wall.We examine the petition process that emerged despite the explicit intentions of the mandate's architects. Neither the Covenant nor the mandate texts made any provision for petitioning; when the Milner Commission drafted the texts in 1919, all members save the American George Louis Beer agreed that allowing inhabitants to appeal to an international body would make "all administration impossible." Yet a petition process arose anyway—the achievement of thousands of men and women who, often at considerable risk, raised their voices against the new dispensation.We trace the path of those petitions: from West Africa, where Douala elites protested the transfer of their territories from British to French control; to Geneva, where William Rappard of the League Secretariat found himself sympathising with exiled Arab nationalists; to the corridors of power where Sir Eric Drummond, the League's Secretary-General, did everything possible to suppress these inconvenient voices.And we meet the figures who made the system work despite itself: J.H. Harris of the Anti-Slavery Society, who used his platform in *The Times* and *The Manchester Guardian* to amplify African grievances; Ormsby Gore, who argued that if a resident of a British colony could appeal to the Privy Council, surely an inhabitant of a mandated territory should be able to appeal to the League; and Rappard, who quietly circumvented his obstructive chief to raise the matter of petitions at the Permanent Mandates Commission's very first session.The story is one of imperial hubris, international idealism, and the unplanned emergence of a mechanism through which colonised peoples learned to claim that they too were nations deserving to be heard. It is also a story that challenges our conventional understanding of when and how the League of Nations failed.Topics covered:- The mandate system as imperial legitimation- Wilsonian internationalism vs. Anglo-French imperialism- The promise of self-determination and its betrayal- The petition process and its unplanned origins- West African resistance to partition- The Syrio-Palestinian Congress and Arab nationalist mobilisation- William Rappard and the conscience of the League- Sir Eric Drummond's obstructionism- The Permanent Mandates Commission's first session- Rethinking the failure of the League of Nations from a colonised perspective---Susan Pedersen's The Guardians is the best book on the mandate system I have ever read—a work of extraordinary scholarship that recovers the voices of those too often silenced in the archives.If you enjoy the podcast, please consider supporting us. We're migrating from Patreon to Substack—more details soon.Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I recently watched Louis Theroux' documentary "Inside the Manosphere", in which he interviewed several members of the online Manosphere, a community of influencers promoting controversial views of women.  And I couldn't stop thinking about Tudor England, because as I listened to these modern influencers, their ideas about women - what they expect, how they judge, and how they define women's roles - felt strangely familiar. It connected directly with something I've been exploring recently: how women like Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth Woodville have been labelled as the seductress and the witch, and how history is full of women branded as she-wolves, unnatural, or dangerous.   In this video, I explore: How Manosphere views on women compare to attitudes in the medieval and Tudor periods The historical roots of double standards around sex, power, and control Whether these modern ideas are echoes of the past, or something even more extreme And I ask: Are these attitudes really new, or have we heard them all before?  And why are some voices trying to turn back the clock? A big thank you to my Privy Council channel members for their insights during our recent Zoom discussion, some of which helped shape this video.   Sources:  Louis Theroux: Inside The Manosphere, Netflix Adultery in the Middle Ages by Jo Geisen - https://sites.up.edu/earlybritishsurvey/adultery-in-the-middle-ages/  Women in Early Modern England by Sara Mendelson and Patricia Crawford

Mark Carney's lies and contradictions are becoming harder to ignore as his conflicting answers and statements pile up across foreign policy, national defence, and even basic economic facts. Take the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global oil chokepoint now at the centre of rising tensions with Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump has called on allies to help patrol and secure the region. But Canada's response under Mark Carney has been anything but clear. At various points, the government has signalled support, then hesitation, then a desire for “diplomatic solutions” and even calls for a ceasefire — despite the fact that Iran is the aggressor and the United States is doing the overwhelming majority of the fighting. Defence Minister Anita Anand ultimately suggested Canada might help, but only within vague “legal and policy frameworks.” So is that a yes or a no? More fundamentally — with what capability would Canada even contribute? Experts acknowledge that Canada's navy lacks the modern air defence systems needed to operate safely in such a hostile environment. In other words, any Canadian ship deployed would likely require protection from allies — particularly the United States — rather than providing protection itself. That same reliance on the U.S. shows up elsewhere, even when it's downplayed. A recent CTV report described Canadian CF-18 jets escorting a civilian aircraft after a mid-flight disturbance. But the full story is more revealing: the operation was conducted under NORAD — meaning the United States was involved — including advanced American F-35 jets. That key detail was largely glossed over. So which is it? Does Canada want American protection or not? And if so, why not say so plainly? The contradictions don't stop there. When Mark Carney visited China, he claimed to have raised human rights concerns directly with Communist Party officials, presenting himself as a principled advocate for democratic values. But official records tell a different story. According to documents from the Privy Council — effectively the administrative arm of the Prime Minister's Office — Carney did not proactively raise issues of human rights or foreign interference during those meetings. “Topics of human rights and foreign interference were not brought up proactively by the Canadian prime minister,” the records state. That's not a minor discrepancy. That's a direct contradiction of what Carney told the public — and one documented by his own government. Then there's the issue of Canada's so-called oil reserves. Amid rising global oil prices, Carney suggested Canada could help stabilize markets by releasing millions of barrels from reserves. But Canada doesn't actually maintain strategic oil reserves in the way importing countries do — because it is itself a major oil exporter. In other words, there are no reserves to release. Yet the claim was made confidently, without qualification — despite being fundamentally inaccurate. And the pattern extends beyond Carney himself. In the aftermath of an Iranian strike on a base housing Canadian personnel, Defence Minister Bill Blair initially claimed he only learned of the incident through media reports. He later revised that statement, saying he had in fact been informed immediately. So which version is true? These are not isolated gaffes or slips of the tongue. They point to a broader pattern: saying one thing, then another — sometimes both — without accountability. Even compared to Justin Trudeau, whose approach often relied on evasions, vague talking points, or rhetorical fog, Mark Carney appears different. He doesn't simply dodge questions — he answers them directly, but with claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. Whether it's Canada's role in global conflicts, its military capabilities, its relationship with China, or even basic facts about energy policy, the contradictions are mounting. At some point, Canadians are left with a stark question: Are these just shifting narratives — or something more deliberate?

The Blackstone Commercial Breakfast Briefing returns for its first outing of 2026.In this episode, Luka Krsljanin first takes an in-depth look at recent developments in primary, vicarious and accessory liability in the context of fraud claims. Keeping him company over the croissants, Antonia Eklund highlights the recent landmark decision in Municipo de Mariana v BHP & ors. (the Brazilian Dam case) whilst Grant Kynaston examines the significance of the Privy Council's decision concerning the need for subjective awareness of representations in the tort of deceit - Credit Suisse Life (Bermuda) v Ivanishvili & ors. Andrew George KC polices proceedings from the Chair.

2. Joseph Ellis, *The Cause: The American Revolution and Its Discontents, 1773 to 1783*. King George III exerted unprecedented power by using £800,000 from the royal treasury to essentially purchase the interests of roughly 30% of Parliament. This financial influence allowed him to control Britishpolicy as a monarchical act, even while claiming to defend parliamentary authority. Benjamin Franklin initially sought to bridge the gap between the empire and the colonies by proposing a British Commonwealth model. However, after being publicly humiliated by the Privy Council, Franklin was radicalized, becoming an incalculable asset for the American cause as a wise and patient diplomatic negotiator. (2)

Peter Mazereeuw speaks with Jocelyne Bourgon, a former clerk of the Privy Council who served as Jean Chrétien's right hand. They discuss Canada's move away from the United States, national unity, public service cuts, and Bourgon's new book, A Public Servant's Voice: Through the Words of the First Woman Clerk of the Privy Council of Canada.

On this episode of #TheGlobalExchange, Colin Robertson sits down with The Honourable Kevin Lynch and Jim Mitchell about their book A New Blueprint for Government: Reshaping Power, the PMO and the Public Service. // Participants' bios: - The Honourable Kevin Lynch served as Deputy Minister of Industry, Deputy Minister of Finance, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to Cabinet, later as vice chair of BMO Financial Group. - Jim Mitchell served as Assistant Secretary to the cabinet responsible for the machinery of government before founding the policy consulting firm Sussex Circle. // Host bio: Colin Robertson is a former diplomat and Senior Advisor to the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. // Reading Recommendations: - "A New Blueprint for Government: Reshaping Power, the PMO and the Public Service" by The Honourable Kevin Lynch and Jim Mitchell. - "The Dollar a Year Men" by Allan Levine - "The Daily" Podcast by The New York Times - "The Curse of Politics" Podcast  - "Slow Horses" by Mick Herron // Music Credit: Drew Phillips | Producer: Jordyn Carroll // Recording Date: January 20, 2026 Release date: February 9, 2026

Another impressive PMQs from Kemi Badenoch – but she had plenty of ammunition to deploy after the Peter Mandelson scandal took a bleaker turn this week.The Prime Minister clearly wanted to make a strong statement in his first answer to Kemi Badenoch, saying that ‘Mandelson betrayed our country, our parliament and my party'. He added: ‘He lied repeatedly to my team when asked about his relationship with Epstein before and during his tenure as ambassador. I regret appointing him.' He then listed the actions he had taken to strip Mandelson of his title, remove him from the Privy Council, and refer material to the Metropolitan Police.The whole thing exposed Starmer's biggest weaknesses: his over-reliance on process and his inability to consider how the public see him. There is a lot of support for a full public inquiry, which seems more fitting to the magnitude of this scandal. As the evidence piles in and the scandal rumbles on, is this the beginning of the end for the prime minister – or are we even further along than that?James Heale speaks to Tim Shipman and Isabel Hardman.Produced by Oscar Edmondson and Megan McElroy.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the 35th episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts. In this episode we discuss some recent developments on litigation funding, opt-opt competition class actions and jurisdiction clauses, an important Privy Council decision on the "awareness requirement" in the tort of deceit, and the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's draft legal statement on liability for harm resulting from AI. This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by John Corrie, a banking litigation partner, and Camilla Macpherson, a knowledge lawyer in our disputes team. Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast. • Public access to court documents: Commercial Court pilot https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-11/public-access-to-court-documents-commercial-court-pilot • Government to legislate for enforceability of litigation funding agreements based on a share of damages https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-12/government-to-legislate-for-enforceability-of-litigation-funding-agreements-based-on-a-share-of-damages • Supreme Court reshapes UK competition class actions landscape https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-12/supreme-court-reshapes-uk-competition-class-actions-landscape • Commercial Court dismisses application for stay on basis of English jurisdiction clause and forum non conveniens waiver clause https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-01/commercial-court-dismisses-application-for-stay-on-basis-of-english-jurisdiction-clause-and-forum-non-conveniens-waiver-clause • Privy Council holds that there is no legal requirement in the tort of deceit to show that a claimant was consciously aware of the representation made https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-11/court-of-appeal-overturns-high-courts-interpretation-of-deferred-consideration-clause/privy-council-holds-no-requirement-in-deceit-claimant-consciously-aware-representation • UK Jurisdiction Taskforce consults on draft legal statement on liability for AI harms https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2026-01/uk-jurisdiction-taskforce-consults-on-draft-legal-statement-on-liability-for-ai-harms See podcast episode transcript here: https://marketing.hsfkramer.com/20/36058/landing-pages/commercial-litigation-podcast-ep35-transcript-branded.pdf

Andre Meloche joins us to talk about Canadian energy and politics, Alberta v Quebec separation, writing and philosophy, revolt and revolution and where his journey is leading him to.   We talk about Quebec and energy infrastructure in the different provinces, gas v electricity, what is actually green and clean - if anything, seeing the change of UN2030, the lockdowns and curfews splitting up the province, equalization payments, cultural and financial sovereignty, abiotic oil, natural gas generators and the end of the climate hoax.   In the second half we get deeper into the debate between fossil fuels and abiotic fuel, IPCC, space mining, going West is not just a song or a meme, the Indian Act and the chiefs, civil war, the clarity act, the Privy Council, the motto of communism, the Quiet Revolution, the book of The White Guard, and the amazing time we are in where everything is moving so fast.   Writer and "Philosopher". My personal interest, which is entirely my own, can be summed up in this sentence: to debunk the untruths that abound in our time.   Sites Internet - Website : https://andremeloche.wordpress.com/ https://substack.com/@lepoeterusse https://x.com/LePoeteRusse?s=20 Animateur du podcast « La Philosophie de l'Information » : https://www.youtube.com/@AndreiMedvedev-m7c   Coanimateur du podcast « Cerberus At The Gate » en compagnie de Timothy William  Knight (@twilliamknight) et de Peyman Askari (@PeymanAskari451)   To gain access to the second half of show and our Plus feed for audio and podcast please clink the link http://www.grimericaoutlawed.ca/support.   For second half of video (when applicable and audio) go to our Substack and Subscribe. https://grimericaoutlawed.substack.com/ or to our Locals  https://grimericaoutlawed.locals.com/ or Rokfin www.Rokfin.com/Grimerica Patreon https://www.patreon.com/grimericaoutlawed   Support the show directly: https://open.spotify.com/show/2punSyd9Cw76ZtvHxMKenI?si=ImKxfMHgQZ-oshl499O4dQ&nd=1&dlsi=4c25fa9c78674de3 Watch or Listen on Spotify https://grimericacbd.com/ CBD / THC Tinctures and Gummies https://grimerica.ca/support-2/ Our Adultbrain Audiobook Podcast and Website: www.adultbrain.ca Our Audiobook Youtube Channel:  https://www.youtube.com/@adultbrainaudiobookpublishing/videos Check out our next trip/conference/meetup - Contact at the Cabin www.contactatthecabin.com Other affiliated shows: www.grimerica.ca The OG Grimerica Show Join the chat / hangout with a bunch of fellow Grimericans  Https://t.me.grimerica grimerica.ca/chats   Discord Chats Darren's book www.acanadianshame.ca Eh-List Podcast and site: https://eh-list.ca/ Eh-List YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheEh-List www.Rokfin.com/Grimerica Our channel on free speech Rokfin Leave a review on iTunes and/or Stitcher: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/grimerica-outlawed http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/grimerica-outlawed Sign up for our newsletter http://www.grimerica.ca/news SPAM Graham = and send him your synchronicities, feedback, strange experiences and psychedelic trip reports!! graham@grimerica.com InstaGRAM https://www.instagram.com/the_grimerica_show_podcast/  Purchase swag, with partial proceeds donated to the show www.grimerica.ca/swag Send us a postcard or letter http://www.grimerica.ca/contact/ ART - Napolean Duheme's site http://www.lostbreadcomic.com/  MUSIC Tru Northperception, Felix's Site sirfelix.bandcamp.com 

You're gonna get a rare opportunity to break out your cold weather gear this weekend; the former Chief Justice is in London, visiting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for a week of hearing cases; and this year's Cayman Instyle fashion week puts the spotlight on sustainability.

2025 was the easy part for Reform. If they win the election, however, how do they actually govern? In The Spectator this week, Tim Shipman writes about the party's plans to tackle Whitehall bloat, bypass the Lords and restore the authority of the Prime Minister over the various institutions of state. The man tasked with working this out is Danny Kruger, who is working up plans to push change through using Orders in Council – a device in the Privy Council – as well as statutory instruments and ministerial guidance to avoid the need for primary legislation. But the party is only in the foothills, and one source warns that ‘Nigel doesn't trust other politicians': can he build a winning team? Who has his ear? And does he actually want to be Prime Minister?Oscar Edmondson speaks to Tim Shipman and James Heale.Produced by Oscar Edmondson.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To start the New Year, Ken Macdonald KC and Tim Owen KC are joined once again by the UK's leading legal journalist and author of the daily blog, A Lawyer Writes, Joshua Rozenberg, to review some key issues in UK law and politics during 2025 and to look forward to likely developments in 2026.   Against the background of a polarised, often ill-informed, debate around migration, asylum and Article 8 of the ECHR, where does the embarrassing case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah fit in this confused, fevered political landscape?    2025 saw persistent populist attacks on the judiciary, with Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick the most persistent offender, and the trio debate whether judicial independence is under greater threat now than ever before.     With every corner of our criminal justice system in a state of apparently permanent decline, what do the cases of Andrew Malkinson, Tom Hayes, Carlo Palombo and Lucy Letby tell us about the ability of the system to prevent and ultimately reverse miscarriages of justice?   Looking forward to 2026, Ken, Tim and Joshua cover the prospects for effective regulation of the internet and the potential for conflict between the EU approach and that of the Trump regime.  They also debate the ability of the Government to secure Parliamentary approval for the plan radically to limit the right to jury trial and the chaotic way in which the proposals were leaked.     Finally, they consider whether the Sentencing Bill, once in force, can really be the magic bullet that will finally achieve the goal of reducing our dependence on imprisonment as the only acceptable form of punishment and lead to a lasting reduction in the prison population. For listeners to the special episode on the Pitcairn Island sexual abuse  case interested in reading the Privy Council judgment, click here - https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/d171ca10-d5ed-4106-a229-e9993bd9867a/content --   Covering the critical intersections of politics and law in the UK with expert commentary on high-profile legal cases, political controversies, prisons and sentencing, human rights law, current political events and the shifting landscape of justice and democracy. With in-depth discussions and influential guests, Double Jeopardy is the podcast that uncovers the forces shaping Britain's legal and political future.     What happens when politics and law collide? How do politics shape the law - and when does the law push back? What happens when judicial independence is tested, human rights come under attack, or freedom of expression is challenged? And who really holds power in Britain's legal and political system?  Get answers to questions like these weekly on Wednesdays.    Double Jeopardy is presented by Ken Macdonald KC, former Director of Public Prosecutions, and Tim Owen KC, as they break down the legal and political issues in Britain. From high-profile legal cases to the evolving state of British democracy, Double Jeopardy offers expert legal commentary on the most pressing topics in UK law, politics, and human rights.     Ken Macdonald KC served as Director of Public Prosecutions from 2003-2008, shaping modern prosecutorial policy and advocating for the rule of law. He is a former Warden of Wadham College, Oxford, a crossbench member of the House of Lords, and a leading writer, commentator and broadcaster on politics and the rule of law.  Tim Owen KC has been involved in many of the most significant public, criminal and human rights law cases over the past four decades.  Both bring unparalleled experience from the frontline of Britain's legal and political landscape.  If you like The Rest Is Politics, Talking Politics, Law Pod UK and Today in Focus, you'll love Double Jeopardy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cedric Ellis has been sentenced to 12 years in prison for the rape of a 12 year old girl.Appleby's Cayman law team is welcoming a new Privy Council ruling that backs its client and reins in how far Cayman fund managers can rely on so called iron clad partnership agreements. #rcnews #radiocayman #caymannews

It is possible that Charles and his Privy Council didn't necessarily want war - certainly Clarendon did not; but they were prepared to rattle the sabre and man the brink to try and force trade consessions which some unprovoked acts of agression.But they allowed themselves to be diplomatically isolated, and Johan de Witt was not scared - he had the world's most powerful navy, pots of money, and a French alliance. And so the Second Anglo Dutch war was joined. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2016, 77-year-old pensioner Brian Hilton was found on the floor of his Ōpōtiki home — brutally beaten, barely conscious, and covered in blood. He died five days later. Police launched a major homicide investigation, first zeroing in on one local man before turning their attention to another: Harry Matchitt. A beer bottle found in Hilton’s lounge carried Matchitt’s DNA, and after a series of police interviews, the lifelong Mongrel Mob member made a hazy admission — saying he was “pissed” and may have “pushed and kicked” the elderly man. In 2021, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter. But two years later, the Court of Appeal ruled his conviction unsafe. The judges found his statements to police likely inadmissible, meaning a miscarriage of justice had occurred. The conviction was quashed — and Matchitt walked free. In this episode of A Moment in Crime, senior journalists Anna Leask and Jared Savage revisit the violent death of Brian Hilton, the conviction that fell apart, and what became of Matchitt after the case collapsed. Savage also reflects on two decades covering crime and justice, and his work investigating New Zealand’s gang world. A Moment In Crime is written and hosted by Leask — who specialises in crime and justice reporting. She joined the Herald in 2008 and has worked as a journalist for 20 years. This episode was produced by Leask and NZME audio engineer Alastair Boyes. If you have a crime or case you would like to hear more about, email anna.leask@nzme.co.nz Since 2019, A Moment in Crime has produced over 55 episodes and has been downloaded over 1 million times, with listeners in over 170 countries. It was nominated for Best True Crime Podcast at the 2024 Radio and Podcast Awards. READ MORE: Harry Matchitt’s conviction for manslaughter of Brian Hilton in Ōpōtiki cold case quashed, case thrown out after ‘false confession’ to police Justice after 21 years in jail: Teina Pora 'set up for new life' after Privy Council quashes convictions for Susan Burdett murder Rex Haig dies before second bid for compensation made Real Life: Jared Savage on how gangs, crime and drug activity in NZ are evolvingSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this FESTIVE SPECIAL edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guests Sarah Penfold, Charlotte Benton, Alexander Gridasov, Tom Wyer, Nic Patmore, Scott Warin and Tim Kyriakou. You can find links to our blog posts on the case covered in this podcast below: • High Court finds default interest clause in loan agreement is not an unenforceable penalty https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/high-court-finds-default-interest-clause-in-loan-agreement-is-not-an-unenforceable-penalty • County Court rejects discrimination claim on procedural grounds but finds refusal of financial services because a company is Russian owned would amount to direct discrimination https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/county-court-rejects-discrimination-claim-on-procedural-grounds • Privy Council holds that there is no legal requirement in the tort of deceit to show that a claimant was consciously aware of the representation made https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/privy-council-holds-that-there-is-no-legal-requirement-in-the-tort-of-deceit-to-show-that-a-claimant-was-consciously-aware-of-the-representation-made • High Court dismisses judicial review challenge of FCA's Naming Announcement https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/high-court-dismisses-judical-review-challenge-of-fcas-naming-announcement • High Court confirms that non-authorised fee earners cannot conduct litigation https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-10/what-can-a-non-admitted-fee-earner-do-when-working-on-litigated-matters • Commercial Court pilot will mean many more court documents publicly available by default from 1 January 2026 https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-09/commercial-court-pilot-will-mean-many-more-court-documents-publicly-available-by-default-from-1-january-2026 • 2025 Global Bank Review - Innovating amid turbulence https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-11/2025-global-bank-review-innovating-amid-turbulence Don't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog https://hsfnotes.com/bankinglitigation/subscribe/

Today we're looking at the Privy Council and the work it handled behind the scenes in Tudor England. This small group managed intelligence, arrests, foreign diplomacy, religious enforcement, and the constant flow of problems from every corner of the kingdom. It's a closer look at how the Tudors actually governed. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we're looking at what a “passport” meant in Tudor England. There were no little booklets, but anyone leaving the kingdom needed royal permission in the form of licences and safe-conducts. Let's do a quick dive into how these documents worked and why the Privy Council watched foreign travel so closely. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Australia's strata system was once a clever solution to urban living — a way to share land, lift homeownership, and build communities in growing cities. But decades later, that same framework is struggling to keep up with modern life.What once worked for small, low-rise communities now governs the high-density towers that house millions of Australians. The result? Costs have climbed, decision-making has grown more complex, and owners often find themselves footing bills for problems they didn't createIn this episode, Prof. Cathy Sherry — Professor at Macquarie Law School and Executive Member of Smart Green Cities — explains how Australia's outdated strata laws are now out of step with the country's housing and sustainability goals. A leading international expert in land law and high-density development, Prof. Sherry unpacks how laws written in the 1960s for small walk-ups can't handle the complexity of modern cities, locking owners into costly contracts, rising levies, and embedded energy networks that limit both choice and progress.From the hidden costs buried in off-the-plan sales to the barriers stopping apartments from going solar, Cathy reveals how a system designed to help Australians share space has instead made it harder to live well, live green, and live fairly.Listen now to learn why reforming strata isn't just a legal fix — it's key to building a fairer, more sustainable housing future for everyone.Episode Highlights00:00 – Introduction01:16 — Meet Prof. Cathy Sherry: Australia's Leading Expert on Strata Law01:50 — How Shared Living Became Complex: The Challenge of Strata Ownership03:15 — Strata Levies, Legal Layers, and Why Collective Ownership Is Tricky06:37 — The Hidden Dangers of Buying Off-the-Plan Apartments in Australia11:09 — Embedded Networks Explained: The Hidden Costs of Strata Energy Deals20:18 — Can the Law Catch Up? Why Strata Reform Is Urgent for Modern Cities26:00 — Stratum Lots and Mixed-Use Buildings: Understanding Shared Land Titles26:48 — What Strata Management Statements Mean for Building Governance27:32 — Why Prof. Cathy Sherry Advocates for Fairer and Smarter Housing Laws28:54 — High-Density Housing Challenges: When Bigger Doesn't Mean Better30:11 — Why Home Ownership Still Matters for Stability and Social Equality31:51 — Where Strata Schemes Fail: Issues With Governance and Accountability35:23 — How Investor Incentives Have Shaped Australia's Housing Market43:27 — Smart Green Cities: Connecting Strata Reform to Sustainability Goals44:42 — Property Dumbo: A Real-World Example of Strata Mismanagement46:20 — Final Reflections and Where to Learn More From Prof. Cathy SherryLinksArticle: Embedded networks in high-density and master-planned housingAbout the GuestCathy Sherry is a Professor in Macquarie Law School and Executive Member of Smart Green Cities. She is a leading international expert in land law, with a particular focus on high density development. Her book Strata Title Property Rights: Private governance of multi-owned properties (Routledge, 2017) is the first academic monograph on Australian strata title. It has been cited by the Privy Council and the New South Wales Court of Appeal. Professor Sherry's research focuses on the complex legal, economic and social relationships created by collectively owned land. Professor Sherry regularly advises governments, domestically and internationally, on the laws governing multi-owned properties. She was a member of the United Kingdom Law Commission Technical Committee for the...

Sir Bartle Frere had sailed into South Africa in March 1877 - lauded as a great British administrator in India. He arrived just in time to witness Sir Theophilus Shepstone seize, sorry, annex the Transvaal under the noses of the incredulous and in equal amounts, contemptuous Boers. Frere was another of Carnarvon's boys, determined to enforce confederation onto south Africa. He was regarded as one of the most effective English civil servants in India, keeping the vital province of Sind quiet during the recent Indian Mutiny, and as Governor of Bombay, now Mumbai, he had been instrumental in upgrading the vast city's infrastructure. He was by accounts, a man of integrity and quiet, diffident even as Frank Walsh puts it. The British Royal Family were friends, he was a member of the Privy Council and was showered with honours. India was compared to South Africa, it was diverse, more populous yes, but in India he dealt with sophisticated Indian Rulers and merchants. Carnarvon regarded Sir Bartle Frere as the ideal man to settle the quarrelsome and individualistic South African communities. But he was Indian in his experience, and not African. By contrast to the sophisticated Indian Rulers, South Africans were and are uncomplicated and pugnacious. All its people were the same then as we are now. Whatever our backgrounds, we remain pugnacious Africans, English, Afrikaners, Blacks, Coloureds, Indians and tick whatever box suits you on form XYZ. It would take only a few years trying to govern the ungovernable before he disintegrated in delusion, self-deception, irrationality and apparent senility. Frere had barely settled into his governor's armchair to read Shepstone's report into the latest challenges in the Transvaal — when the Ninth Frontier War burst into flame in the Eastern Cape.The amaMfengu had taken rapidly to the opportunities afforded by being part of the Cape Colony, and were also taking to urban trade in a revolutionary way. The Gcaleka resented the success of the amaMfengu, as well as their relationship with settlers. The Gcaleka were suffering the effects of the last war, the longest Frontier War and also the most vicious. Across the Kei, alcoholism was spreading, and poverty seeped through every household — made far worse by the actions of Nongqawuse's cattle killing episode. What pushed everyone over the edge was mother nature, a series of devastating droughts across the Transkei destabilised the situation further. As Historian De Kiewiet says, in South Africa the heat of drought easily becomes the fever of war. What was supposed to be a wedding celebration in September 1877 turned into a bar fight when the tensions emerged after Gcaleka harassed the amMfengu in attendance. Things got a lot worse later that day when some Gcaleka men attacked a Cape Colony police outpost manned by amaMfengu in the main. Just a bit of trival violence said local officials, moving along, let the local police handle the matter. But back in Cape Town, Sir Bartle Frere sensed his moment partly because of his belief that Great Britain was spreading civilisation and eradicating barbarians, extending black rule over blacks, you know old chap, guiding them up the ladder of evolution and improving their standards of living through good administration and economic prosperity. Chief Mgolombane Sarhili kaHintsa of the amaGcaleka royal line was summoned by Frere but he had seen his ancestors summoned only to be thrown onto Robin Island. He ignored the summons so Sir Bartle promptly declared war on the amaXhosa. This was totally against the advice of the locals. All that Frere's warning did is prompt the warriors among his people to gather and mobilise. Cape Prime Minister, John Molteno refused to sanction any invasion of the Transkei when he heard that Frere had declared war on Sarhili. At a meeting between Molteno and Frere, the British Governor promised that imperial troops would stay put and not cross into Gcalekaland.

How Edward Seymour Went from Power to the Scaffold   On this day in Tudor history, 8 October 1549, England's most powerful man became its newest traitor. Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset and uncle to the boy-king Edward VI, had ruled England as Lord Protector since 1547.    He pushed bold reforms (the Act of Uniformity and the Book of Common Prayer) but rebellion, rivalry, and ambition brought him down. When unrest broke out in 1549 - the Prayer Book Rebellion and Kett's Rebellion - Somerset's authority crumbled. He panicked, calling men to arms and taking the young king to Windsor. His enemies, led by John Dudley, Earl of Warwick, moved fast. On 8 October 1549, the Privy Council branded Somerset a traitor. By the 11th, he had surrendered. Within days, he was in the Tower; his protectorate abolished.   But this is Tudor England… and there's always a twist. Somerset returned to power briefly, only to be accused of plotting against Northumberland and executed in January 1552.   Join me, historian and author Claire Ridgway, as we explore how ambition, politics, and faith brought down the “Good Duke".   Was Somerset a reformer out of his depth, or a ruthless operator undone by his own hand? Tell me in the comments!   Don't forget to like, subscribe, and ring the bell for daily Tudor history deep dives.   #OnThisDay #TudorHistory #EdwardVI #DukeOfSomerset #EdwardSeymour #Reformation #KettsRebellion #PrayerBookRebellion #JohnDudley #TudorPolitics #TowerOfLondon #TudorTok #HistoryTok #ClaireRidgway #BritishHistory

A spring morning in 1573. A respected London merchant leaves a friend's house near Woolwich… and ends up dead by Shooter's Hill. The killer, Captain George Brown, is caught within days. But the real shock wasn't the killer's identity, it was the letter that told him exactly where to strike… and who wanted George Saunders gone. I'm Claire Ridgway, historian and author. In this Tudor true-crime deep dive, we follow the manhunt, the Privy Council's rapid crackdown, and the chain of clues later dramatised in "A Warning for Fair Women", from “a white doublet and blue breeches” to blood on a suspect's hose and a waterman's damning testimony. What unfolds reaches far beyond a highway ambush, right into Saunders's inner circle. In this episode you'll hear about: The ambush near Shooter's Hill and John Beane's miraculous survival How the Council moved: arrest at Rochester, Tower examinations, and swift justice at Smithfield The mysterious letter and the go-between who carried messages Why the case obsessed Elizabethan England: status, scandal, and a rich paper trail (pamphlets, ballad, Privy Council orders, and a stage play) The final twist that stunned London If you love Tudor true crime, hit like, subscribe, and ring the bell.   #truecrime #tudortruecrime #tudorhistory #tudormurder #georgesaunders #elizabethandrama

In this edition of our banking litigation podcast, we consider some recent cases that will be most relevant to in-house lawyers at banks and financial institutions. This episode is hosted by John Corrie, a partner in our banking litigation team, who is joined by Ceri Morgan and special guest Nic Patmore. You can find links to our blog posts on the case covered in this podcast below: • Supreme Court decision in Hopcraft motor finance commission appeal – key implications for financial services firms https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-08/supreme-court-decision-in-hopcraft-motor-finance-commission-appeal • Banking Litigation Podcast Episode 54: Hopcraft Special Edition https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-08/banking-litigation-podcast-episode-54-hopcraft-special-edition • English High Court decides in favour of banks in EuroChem bond claim, confirming payment under on-demand bonds prohibited due to Russian sanctions https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-08/english-high-court-decides-in-favour-of-banks-in-eurochem-bond-claim • High Court grants bank stakeholder relief under CPR Part 86 in USD 11 million deposit dispute involving competing claims https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-08/high-court-grants-bank-stakeholder-relief-under-cpr-part-86 • High Court permits documents obtained via Norwich Pharmacal Order to be used against disclosing bank in related APP fraud claim https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-08/high-court-permits-documents-obtained-via-norwich-pharmacal-order • Financial List finds claim for declaratory relief brought by ultimate beneficial owners of loan notes against issuer is arguable https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-04/financial-list-finds-claim-for-declaratory-relief • Privy Council abrogates so-called "Shareholder Rule" under English law: companies can assert privilege against their shareholders https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-04/privy-council-abrogates-so-called-shareholder-rule-under-english-law-companies-can-assert-privilege-against-their-shareholders • Hague 2019 Judgments Convention comes into force in UK https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/hague-2019-judgments-convention-comes-into-force-in-uk • Civil Justice Council's final report on litigation funding recommends "light touch" statutory regulation https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/bankinglitigation/2025-04/civil-justice-councils-final-report-on-litigation-funding-recommends-light-touch-statutory-regulation Don't forget to subscribe to the banking litigation blog https://hsfnotes.com/bankinglitigation/subscribe/

Grandson of Mary Boleyn. Cousin to Elizabeth I. Patron to Shakespeare's company. On 8 September 1603, George Carey, 2nd Baron Hunsdon, died, leaving a legacy that runs from court politics to the playhouse. Some even whispered he was Henry VIII's grandson. Rumour or not, Carey stood right behind the stage that gave us Hamlet, Henry V and more. I'm historian and author Claire Ridgway. In today's “On This Day,” meet the steady court insider who helped shape the English Renaissance, from border forts and the Isle of Wight to the Lord Chamberlain's Men. What you'll learn: Carey's Boleyn roots & royal connections Missions to Scotland and a knighthood at Berwick (1570) Roles that kept him close to Elizabeth I (Marshal of the Household, JP, Constable of Bamburgh, Captain of the Isle of Wight) How he supported the fleet during the Spanish Armada Why becoming Lord Chamberlain (1596) mattered to Shakespeare's troupe Honours (KG, Privy Council) and his late-life legacy under James I The enduring rumour about Tudor blood in the Carey line If you enjoyed this, please like, subscribe, and ring the bell for daily Tudor stories. Tell me in the comments: Do you think the Carey–Tudor blood rumour holds water? #TudorHistory #AnneBoleyn #ElizabethI #Shakespeare #LordChamberlainsMen #OnThisDay

Professor Ian Holloway joins Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate to discuss the legal, historical, and economic connections between Canada and the United States—and why civility still matters in the pursuit of justice. Highlights include: Why U.S. and Canadian legal systems feel so familiar—and where they diverge. Stories from the War of 1812, WWII, and modern trade alliances. Canada's unique role as Georgia's #1 trading partner. Ian's definition of justice as a shared duty.   Guest Bio Ian Holloway was the Dean of Law at the University of Calgary from 2011 to 2024.   Prior to this, Ian served as dean at another Canadian law school (Western Ontario?), and as associate dean at the Australian National University. Over the years, he has also held appointments at Cambridge and the National University of Singapore. He is a graduate of Dalhousie University, the University of California at Berkeley and the Australian National University. He is also an alumnus of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is widely-published, both in Canada and around the world. In addition, he has published a book on naval history as well as many essays or other pieces in various legal and non-legal periodicals. He has been a regular columnist for Canadian Lawyer Magazine for a number of years.   Before beginning his academic career, Ian spent a number of years in private practice in Halifax with the Atlantic Canadian law firm of McInnes Cooper, where he focused on labour and employment law. He also served as the law clerk to the chief justice of the Federal Court of Appeal. In 2003, Ian was elected to membership in the American Law Institute, a distinction that is held by only a handful of Canadians. In 2004, he was appointed Queen's Counsel. In 2007, he chaired the review of legal education in Oman. In 2013-14, Ian served as the legal education and  raining team leader for the Canadian Bar Association's Futures project. In 2018, he was elected a Fellow of the  College of Law Practice Management, the first Canadian legal academic to be so honoured.   Ian is a member of the Nova Scotia Barristers'  Society, the Law Society of Ontario, the Law Society of Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association. He is currently a Trustee of the NALP Foundation, and formerly served for eight years as a Trustee of the Law School Admission Council. He served as a Governor of the Southern Alberta Division of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. He was a member of the Advisory Council to the Minister of Heritage on the Commemoration of the War of 1812, and he served as a member of the vice-regal selection committee for the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. In 2015, he was appointed to the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, and made a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada.   Beyond the legal sphere, Ian spent a total of twenty-five years serving in the Royal Canadian and Royal Australian Navies. Ian has received numerous awards in his career, including Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in 2013, the Commemorative Medal for the 125th Anniversary of Canadian Confederation in 1992, the Canadian Forces Decoration in 1989, and the Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Medal (Alberta) in 2022. Links: Ian Holloway | UCalgary Profiles | University of Calgary Lester Tate: http://www.akintate.com/ Robin Frazer Clark: https://www.gatriallawyers.net/ See You In Court (seeyouincourtpodcast.org) To learn more about the Georgia Civil Justice Foundation, visit fairplay.org

fWotD Episode 3023: Mandell Creighton Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day, your daily dose of knowledge from Wikipedia's finest articles.The featured article for Thursday, 14 August 2025, is Mandell Creighton.Mandell Creighton (; 5 July 1843 – 14 January 1901) was a British historian, Anglican priest and bishop. The son of a successful carpenter in north-west England, Creighton studied at the University of Oxford, focusing his scholarship on the Renaissance Papacy, and then became a don in 1866. He was appointed the first occupant of the Dixie Chair of Ecclesiastical History at the University of Cambridge in 1884. The following year, he also was engaged as the founding editor of the English Historical Review, the first English-language academic journal in its field. In these posts, he helped to establish history as an independent academic discipline in England.In addition to his work as a historian, Creighton had a career in the clergy of the Church of England from the mid-1870s until his death. He served as a parish priest in Embleton, Northumberland, and later, successively, as a canon residentiary of Worcester Cathedral (1885), Bishop of Peterborough (1891) and Bishop of London (1897). His moderation and practicality drew praise from Queen Victoria and won notice from politicians. In later years, he was appointed to various positions of trust, including the Privy Council, and it was widely thought that he would have become Archbishop of Canterbury had his death, at the age of 57, not supervened.As a historian, Creighton's magnum opus was A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, published in five volumes between 1882 and 1894. His historical work received mixed reviews. He was praised for scrupulous even-handedness, but criticised for not taking a stand against historical excesses. He was firm in asserting that public figures should be judged for their public acts, not private ones. He believed that the Church of England was uniquely shaped by its particular English circumstances, and he saw it as the soul of the nation.Creighton was married to the author and future women's suffrage activist Louise Creighton, and the couple had seven children.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 00:59 UTC on Thursday, 14 August 2025.For the full current version of the article, see Mandell Creighton on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm neural Emma.

hey sailed to France as children with Mary, Queen of Scots, four noble girls, all named Mary.Mary Beaton, Seton, Fleming, and Livingston became her closest companions, and they stayed with her through marriages, murders, imprisonment, and rebellion.This is the story of the Four Marys, the women behind the Queen.Englandcast.com/TudorconFromHome for your Tudorcon From Home tickets, and to join the Privy Council! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today we're looking at a royal scandal you've probably never heard of: in 1419, Joan of Navarre - the Dowager Queen and stepmother to Henry V - was arrested for witchcraft. Not because she was guilty, but because the king needed cash. In this video, we dug into why Henry turned on her, what the accusation actually meant, and how Joan ended up imprisoned in luxury… with silk gowns and nineteen grooms.Remember Tudorcon from Home tickets - get yours early and join the Privy Council! https://www.englandcast.com/TudorconFromHome for all the details. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is the 32nd episode of our series of commercial litigation update podcasts. In this episode we discuss recent judgments on privilege, litigation funding agreements, security for costs, the impact of sanctions on court orders and a couple of interesting contract law decisions, on good faith and contractual certainty, and an upcoming pilot on public access to court documents. This episode is hosted by Maura McIntosh, a knowledge counsel in our commercial litigation team, who is joined by James Baily, a disputes partner, and Jay Tampi, a senior associate in our disputes team. Below you can find links to our blog posts on the developments and cases covered in this podcast. • Privy Council abrogates so-called "Shareholder Rule" under English law: companies can assert privilege against their shareholders https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/privy-council-abrogates-so-called-shareholder-rule-under-english-law-companies-can-assert-privilege-against-their-shareholders • Court of Appeal confirms litigation funding agreements are not DBAs if based on a multiple of funding rather than a percentage of damages https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/court-of-appeal-confirms-litigation-funding-agreements-are-not-dbas-if-based-on-a-multiple-of-funding-rather-than-a-percentage-of-damages • High Court finds there is no discretion to order security for costs in favour of an interested party https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-06/high-court-finds-there-is-no-discretion-to-order-security-for-costs-in-favour-of-an-interested-party • High Court declines to vary interim payment order despite sanctions concerns https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/high-court-declines-to-vary-interim-payment-order-despite-sanctions-concerns • High Court finds breach of express obligations of good faith but no loss https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/high-court-finds-breach-of-express-obligations-of-good-faith-but-no-loss • Agreements to agree: Court of Appeal finds supply contract enforceable despite leaving price to be fixed https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/litigation/2025-07/agreements-to-agree-court-of-appeal-finds-supply-contract-enforceable-despite-leaving-price-to-be-fixed See podcast episode transcript here: https://marketing.hsfkramer.com/20/33497/landing-pages/commercial-litigation-podcast-ep32-transcript.pdf

Once again, U.S. President Donald Trump is threatening to slap more tariffs on Canada — and Pierre Poilievre has thoughts. The Conservative leader speaks with Catherine Cullen in his first national English interview with CBC since becoming party leader to discuss how he'd tackle the Canada-U.S. trade war differently and why he thinks he deserves a second shot at holding a seat in the House of Commons.Then, national security expert Wesley Wark explains why Trump's latest move should elicit a bigger response from north of the border.Plus, the new head of the Royal Canadian Air Force, Lt.-Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, tells The House her priorities for the new role in a “volatile and uncertain” time.Finally, as Prime Minister Mark Carney's chief of staff and the new Clerk of the Privy Council officially take the reins of the federal government, Janice Charette, a former clerk who assisted with the Carney transition, and Ian Brodie, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, lift the curtain on the high-pressure roles and examine the challenges of executing the prime minister's ambitious agenda.This episode features the voices of:Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party of CanadaWesley Wark, senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance InnovationLt.-Gen. Jamie Speiser-Blanchet, commander of the Royal Canadian Air ForceJanice Charette, former Clerk of the Privy CouncilIan Brodie, former chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Liberty Dispatch ~ July 11, 2025 In this episode of Liberty Dispatch, hosts Andrew DeBartolo and Matthew Hallick cover a series of news stories that reveal the heart of the world-and-life view of Canada's public institutions. It's woke, it's totalitarian, it's evil all the way down. For full access to all our content, become a paid subscriber at: https://ldcanada.substack.com Segment 1 - CBC in Hot Water:"CBC host resigns amid censorship concerns: ‘I can no longer remain silent'" | National Post: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-host-resigns-travis-dhanraj; "Read Travis Dhanraj's full resignation letter from CBC" | Toronto Sun: https://torontosun.com/news/national/read-travis-dhanrajs-full-resignation-letter-from-cbc; Segment 2 - Looming Censorship:"Liberals taking fresh look at Online Harms Bill, says Justice Minister Sean Fraser" | CBC News: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-taking-fresh-look-at-online-harms-bill-says-justice-minister-sean-fraser-1.7573791; "TDF expresses concern about possible new censorship bill" | The Democracy Fund: https://www.thedemocracyfund.ca/tdf_expresses_concern_about_possible_new_censorship_bill; "Privy Council polled Canadians on fears surrounding censorship and trust in government" | Blacklock's Reporter: https://www.blacklocks.ca/privy-council-polled-on-fears; "Travis Dhanraj resignation sparks national debate on CBC bias" | X (Twitter): https://x.com/mbrant75/status/1942720723362914642; Segment 3 - Canada's Medical Dystopia: "Canada's euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled—It's about to get worse" | LifeSiteNews: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/canadas-euthanasia-regime-is-already-killing-the-disabled-its-about-to-get-worse; "Exclusive: Nova Scotia confirms it funds and facilitates euthanasia for non-terminal patients" | Juno News: Juno News EXCLUSIVE: Nova Scotia confirms it funds and performs genital surgeries for teens Read more 4 days ago · 75 likes · 44 comments · Melanie Bennet, True North. SHOW SPONSORS: New Sponsor! Bitcoin Mentor: https://bitcoinmentor.io/aff/liberty Invest with Rocklinc: info@rocklinc.com or call them at 905-631-546; Diversify Your Money with Bull Bitcoin: https://mission.bullbitcoin.com/dispatch; BarterPay: https://barterpay.ca/; Barter It: https://www.barterit.ca/; Get freedom from Censorious CRMS by signing up for SalesNexus: https://www.salesnexus.com/; SUBSCRIBE TO OUR SHOWS/CHANNELS:LIBERTY DISPATCH PODCAST: https://libertydispatch.podbean.com; https://rumble.com/LDshow; CONTACT US: libertydispatch@pm.me STAY UP-TO-DATE ON ALL THINGS LD:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liberty_dispatch/; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LibertyDispatchCanada; X: @LDCanada - https://x.com/_LDCanada; Rumble: https://rumble.com/LDshow; YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@libertydispatch Please LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, RATE, & REVIEW, and SHARE it with others!

Fifth episode in a special series of the Make it Plain podcast, ‘What Would Malcolm Say?' where Kehinde Andrews explains what Malcolm's body of work tells us about what is going on in the present. Each episode will also feature a full interview with someone featured in the documentary 'Nobody Can Give You Freedom', which was independently made by Make it Plain. You can watch the entire documentary for free at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZBZyaruoGo&t=136s Film was made by @MichaelEllisFilms  With Jamaica calling on King Charles to support reparations, Kehinde explains what Malcolm would say about the reparatory justice movement today. From the Caribbean Community to the American Descendants of Slavery, reparations are on the agenda, but lacking the radical roots from Malcolm's time. Malcolm famously explained that 'if you stick a knife in my back nine inches, and pull it out 6 inches that is not progress...you have to heal the wound'. Using that yardstick we must understand that the West can never repay the debt, that reparations are revolution. Plus we share the full interview with Dr Olivia Rutazibwa from the Nobody Can Give You Freedom film Find out more about Dr Rutazibwa at https://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/people/academic-staff/olivia-umurerwa-rutazibwa Find out who sists on the judicial committee on the Privy Council https://jcpc.uk/  Get your copy of Kehinde's book Nobody Can Give You Freedom. Out now in the UK at https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/460078/nobody-can-give-you-freedom-by-andrews-kehinde/9780241681176 Out in the US on 9th September https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/kehinde-andrews/nobody-can-give-you-freedom/9781645030706/?lens=bold-type-books Support Make it Plain: https://make-it-plain.org/support-us/ Join Harambee OBU https://www.blackunity.org.uk/ Find out about the Convention for Afrikan People: https://make-it-plain.org/convention-of-afrikan-people/ Written and hosted by Kehinde Andrews Produced by Kadiri Andrews Artwork by Assata Andrews

In the news, police continue to investigate the second murder of 2025. The Privy Council issues its ruling in the Britannia Case. And, we learn whats on the agenda for the next CPA meeting.

Who will make it through to the Grand Final? Twelve will go down to four with today's results episode as we reveal the results of the four semi-finals as well as the Privy Council bonus play-offs for the Nearly Rexy consorts. Listen in or watch us reveal the results below: https://youtu.be/G8Q8RNWIO6M Sign up for lots of bonus content, including play-off extras such as a prize draw for a Zoom chat with Ali and Graham, a mini-play-off for the consorts who nearly got the Rex Factor, and to vote for what we do in series 4. All that and more here: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/rexfactor Come and see us live in Ludlow on Friday 15 August 19:30: https://ludlowassemblyrooms.co.uk/event/rex-factor-battle-of-the-champions/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In Episode 94 of Breaking History, Matt Ehret and Ghost peel back the curtain on a sprawling geopolitical landscape shaped by finance, covert operations, and imperial legacy. Kicking off with a deep dive into the rise of Mark Carney as Canada's new globalist puppet, Matt exposes Carney's roots in Brookfield Asset Management, his ties to the World Economic Forum, BlackRock, the Bronfman crime dynasty, and even Ghislaine Maxwell. They explain how Canada's technocratic system is run through the British Crown's Privy Council and unpack why Trump's call to make Canada the 51st state may be a calculated narrative demonstration rather than a serious policy goal. The hosts then shift to the volatile India-Pakistan conflict, highlighting the role of British and U.S. intelligence in fostering jihadist networks and weaponizing historic grievances like Kashmir and Khalistan. From Pakistan's Defense Minister openly blaming the West for radicalization, to India's aggressive water shutoff, they warn of a potential flashpoint designed to fracture the BRICS alliance. Finally, they explore the strategic importance of Iran's Bandar Abbas port explosion along the International North-South Transport Corridor, a vital trade route linking Russia, Iran, and India. With energy, alliances, and multipolarity on the line, this episode is a masterclass in deciphering the engineered chaos of empire.

MONOLOGUE Trump's Tariff Trident: Why Canada Must Ditch the Derangement and Join the Zero-Tariff Revolution NEWSMAKER Canadians should expect to become poorer over the next five years, says a Privy Council report https://www.blacklocks.ca/predict-middle-class-doomed/   Tesla vehicles remain eligible for federal rebates despite Transport Minister Chrystia Freeland's claim that she froze payments to punish America https://www.blacklocks.ca/govt-faked-tesla-suspension/   Tom Korski, Managing Editor of Blacklock's Reporter www.blacklocks.ca THE SMART MONEY Markets tumble as three-day selloff wipes out US$9.5 trillion https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tariffs/2025/04/07/global-market-meltdown-deepens-as-tariff-turmoil-spreads/ Chances of U.S. recession rise to 60%, likely dragging Canada along https://financialpost.com/news/why-canada-headed-for-recession   Jonathan Wellum, President/CEO of Rocklinc Investment Partners 905-631-5462 info@rocklinc.com MONOLOGUE Carney's Soviet Dream: How Globalist Migration and Red Tape Are Turning Canada Into a Backyard-less Gulag NEWSMAKER China using WeChat to help get Carney elected https://www.westernstandard.news/news/information-operation-china-using-wechat-to-help-get-carney-elected/63810   Jen Hodgson is a reporter with The Western Standard www.westernstandard.news OPEN LINES THE MORNING GUY Feds admit China trying to help Carney get elected through WeChat information operation https://www.westernstandard.news/news/information-operation-china-using-wechat-to-help-get-carney-elected/63810   Marc Patrone is the host of “The Marck Patrone Morning Show” heard weekday mornings 7-9am on SAUGA 960AM Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Before we get started on the Play-Offs, we respond to your messages about the play-off draw - your thoughts on the process, who you are predicting/wanting to win, and what should win the vote for series 4. The first play-off episode (Group A) will be out next Friday. Sign up to join the Privy Council at https://www.patreon.com/rexfactor to get the podcast ad-free, as well as over 350 bonus podcasts and lots of extras during the play-offs, including voting for Series 4, a Privy Council-only play-offs between the consorts who nearly got the Rex Factor, and prize draws to chat with us! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Before we get on to the play-offs in the new year, we read some of your messages relating to all aspects of the podcast (both recent and long ago) and share some previews of our bonus content on Patreon. If you would like to join the Privy Council and access the over 350 episodes of bonus content (plus ad-free versions of the main podcast) you can sign up here: https://www.patreon.com/rexfactor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Before we get started on the Windsor consorts, we read through various listener correspondence as well as sharing previews of our bonus content, including our new special episode on Geoffrey Chaucer. You can sign up to join the Privy Council and gain access to all our bonus content here: https://www.patreon.com/rexfactor And you can purchase the Geoffrey Chaucer special episode (as well as all our other specials) here: https://payhip.com/RexFactorPodcast  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices