Introduction of 'a treatise on the astrolabe' (adaption)

Geoffrey Chaucer, 1391

My son, I’ve perceived your great ability to learn science, so consider yourself gifted now for I will teach you of that what is within the numbers and proportions. Consider I pray for you, alone then and afterwards in your special way, as having learnt these certain special evidences of the treaties of the astrolabe. 

As a philosopher once said "he wraps him up in his friendship, with that but which condescends to the rightful praise of his friend”, therefore in as much as I know the latitude of oxford, upon which, by meditation on a technique told now, I propose to teach you a certain number of conclusions (appertaining to the same instrument). 

I myself see for certain in this, these causes for a conclusions foremost. The first cause is to trust well that all the conclusions that are discovered, or else possibly might be, in so noble an instrument as is this astrolabe, are unknown in part to any mortal man in this region, as how so I do suppose of the same such conclusions. Another cause is that even a soothing grace said by anyone will be for some a conclusion that by all things performed at her behest, is something about them that’s too hard to conceive.

By this treaties, divided in 5 parts, I will show what is known in the full light and rules of naked English words, which in Latin you cannot know fully, my son. Never the less suffice to say that these true conclusions in english as well sufficed for reason with the noble clerks of the Greeks. These very same conclusions were said in greek mind you, and to Arabians in arabic, and to Jews in hebrew, and to the latin folk of Italy. Which Latin folk had first said thereof, out of all the other diverse languages, and written of them in their own tongue, that is also said alike in Latin, I don’t know. God would that in all these languages and in many more ways than these, know that we do conclude to sufficiently learn and teach by diverse rules, and as rightly diverse as paths that lead diverse folk the right way to Rom. 

Now will I pray concretely that every person that reads or hears this will discretely excuse my rude editing, and superfluous use of words. The reason being for any heavy sentences (and lack of structural form), is only for a standard of a curious child in learning, and lest he forget it all at once.

Lo behold to show more than this in the light of day, that is which my english says true in conclusion on these mater, and not only but to serve as truth in future with as many a subtile conclusions as forthrightly possible. So will been shown either in latin or in any further communication of this treaties of the astrolabe, I can say thankfully. For I pray so that God saves the King, who is lord of this language, and that in all that his faith bears in obedience, in every degree more and less. So consider well that I am no  compiler of the labour of old astrologies, mere set to usurp the labours, as have worked hard to translate a lot into english for this doctrine, and like a sword only more shall I shear ones envies.

Prima pars.  The first part of this treaties shall state the figures and the members of the astrolabe. With this alone you shall have greater knowing of the instrument.

Secunda pars. The second part shall teach the practical workings of the aforesaid conclusions about this small and portable instrument called the astrolabe, as far fetched and narrow as they may be. For well does every astrologer know that the smallest fractions can be shown in this instrument, as are needed in the most subtle tables calculated for any cause.

Tertia pars. -The third part shall contend diverse tables of longitudes and latitudes of stars fixed for the astrolabe, tables of the declination's of the sun, tables of longitudes of cites and towns, and tables as well for the governance of a clock. All as so to find the altitude of a meridian and many other notable conclusion known by the calendar after the revered efforts of clerks, Friar J. Somes and Friar N. Lenne.

Quarta pars. -The fourth part shall describe in theory a declaration of the causal motion of the celestial bodies. The fourth part will show a table of the motion of the moon from hour to hour every day and in every sign too, called the almanac. This table follows with a law sufficient to teach you as well the manor of the operation of this all, so in conclusion as to know yourself in detail how the astrolabe shows the moon arising on the horizon by the set latitudes, and by its degree of the zodiac, and more so the arising of any of the planets on the elliptical line.

Quinta pars. -The fifth part shall be an introduction, after the statutes of medicine, for which thou must learn a great part of the general rules of theory in astrology. In which fifth part shalt thou find tables of equations of houses after the latitude of Oxford, and tables of dignities of planets, and other interesting things, that by God we would vouch safely by and to say for your maiden mother too, I behest.

(work in progress...)

Adaption of 'the true law of free monarchies'

On the Reciprocal and mutual duty of a free King and unto his natural Subjects.

As there is not any other thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next to the knowledge of their God; as is the right knowledge of their allegiance, and according to the form of government established among them. Especially so in a Monarchy by which form of government, as resembling the Divinity, approaches nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon (unity being the perfection of all things). So hath the ignorants, and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude blinded by them, who think themselves able to teach and instruct in ignorance; procured painful rebellion within our good Commonwealth, and heaped heavy calamities upon the parts while threatening any other with utter destruction.

In good fortune unlawful rebellions have often times failed against royalty long gone and as such endowing the misery, and iniquities of the time. Naught hath by way of practice those strengthened many in their error. Albeit there cannot be a more deceivable argument, then to judge ay the justness of the cause by the event thereof; as hereafter shall be proved more at length.

Among others, no Commonwealth that ever hath been since the beginning, hath had greater need of the true knowledge of this ground, then this our so long disordered, and distracted Commonwealth hath. The misunderstanding hereof being the only spring, from whence have flowed so many endless calamities, miseries, and confusions, as is better felt by many, then the cause thereof well known, and deeply considered. The natural zeal therefore, that I bear to this my native country, with the great pity I have to see the so-long disturbance thereof for lack of the true knowledge of this ground (as I have said before) hath compelled me at last to break silence, and to discharge my conscience to you my dear country men herein, that knowing the ground from whence these your many endless troubles have proceeded, as well as you have already too-long tasted the bitter fruits thereof, you may by knowledge, and eschewing of the cause escape, and divert the lamentable effects that ever necessarily follow there upon.


I have chosen only to set down in this short treatise, the true grounds of the mutual duty, and allegiance between a free and absolute Monarch, and his people; not to trouble your patience with answering the contrary propositions, which some have not been ashamed to set down in writ (to the poisoning of infinite number of simple souls, and their own perpetual, and well deserved infamy). Nay for by the answering of them truly, I so could not have eschewed whiles to pick, and bite well salty their persons; which would rather have born contentiousness then sound instruction of the truth. That all said is which I protest to Him that is the searcher of all hearts, and is the only mark that arch-angel Michael may strike at herein.


First then, I will set down the true grounds, Of which I’ve constructed from the Scriptures (since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity). From next is drawn of the fundamental laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest to our hearts must concern us truly. Thirdly from the law of Nature, by any similitudes drawn out of the same natural truth told virtues. So I will conclude thus after in answering to the most weighty objection that can be imagined.
The Princes duty to his subjects is so clearly set down in many places of the Scriptures, and so openly confessed by all the good Princes, according to their oath in their Coronation, as not requiring recollection of term in perspective, so I shall quickly recount of how Kings are called Gods.
The prophetical King David, the bible states, sat upon Gods throne on the earth, and we have the administration of such to accredit unto him and the Hebrews of Canaan. Their office was to administer justice and judgement to the people, and such King David is told therein of saying ‘To advance the good, and punish the evil’ as he likewise did.
As also known he said ‘To establish good Laws to his people, and procure obedience to the same as any good Kings of Judah’, ‘To procure the peace of the people’, ‘To decide all controversies that can arise among them”, even as Solomon so infamously did. 
‘To be the Minister of God for the wealth of them that do good’, and ‘As the minister of God, to take vengeance upon them that do evil’, and finally ‘As a good Pastor, to go out and in before his people, that the peoples peace may be procured’.

Therefore so such as is said by the coronation of our own Kings, as well as of every Christian Monarch, they give their Oath to:
▴ Maintain the religion presently professed within their country, according to their laws, whereby it is established, and to punish all those that should press to alter, or disturb the profession thereof.

▴ Maintain all the allowable and good Laws made by their predecessors. To see them put in execution, and the breakers and violators thereof, to be punished, according to the tenor of the same.

▴ Maintain the whole country, and every state therein, in all their ancient privileges and liberties, as well against all foreign enemies, as among themselves.


So shortly to procure the wealth and flourishing of his people, not only in maintaining and putting to execution the old loveable laws of the country, and by establishing of new (as necessity and evil manors will require) but by all other means possible to foresee and prevent all dangers, that are likely to fall upon them. So then to maintain concord, wealth, and civility among them, just as a loving Father, and careful watchman, caring for them more then for himself. He is knowing himself to be ordained for them, while they not for him and therefore countable alone to that great God, who made him powerful. Even upon the peril of his soul to procure the wealth of both souls and bodies, as far as in him lie, of all them that are committed to his command and charge, he will act. This oath in as much ceremonially bonded by coronation, is the clearest, most civil, and fundamental law, whereby the Kings office is properly defined as a Order by the Divine Right.

By the law of nature the King becomes a natural Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation. As the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and virtuous government of his children, even so is the King bound to care for all his subjects. As all the toil and pain that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profit and wealth; so ought the Prince to do towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconvenience and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his own person press to prevent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction upon any of his children that offends, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pity, as long as there is any hope of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend in that measure. Shortly said, as the Fathers chief joy ought to be in procuring his children's welfare, rejoicing at their wealth, sorrowing and pitying at their evil, to hazard for their safety, travel for their rest, wake for their sleep, and in a word, to think that his earthly felicity and life stands and lives more in them, nor in himself; so ought a good Prince think of his people.

As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and allegiance that the Lieges owe to their King. The ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandment to hear the peoples voice in choosing and anointing them a King. Because that place of Scriptures being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have inserted herein the very words of the text.


9 Now therefore hearken to their voice: howbeit yet testify unto them, and show them the manor of the King, that shall reign over them.
10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of a King and of him.
11 So he said, this shall be the manor of the King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons, and appoint them to his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall rule before their chariot.
12 Also, he will make of them his captains over thousands, and alike captains over fifties. Then to work his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war and the things that serve for chariots.
13 He will also take your daughters, and make them apothecaries, and cooks, and bakers.
14 He will take from your fields, and your vineyards, and of your olives, and give them to his servants.
15 He will take a tenth of your seed, and of your Vineyards grapes, and give these to his Eunuchs, and to his servants as well.
16 He will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the chief of your young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work.
17 He will take a tenth of your sheep which shall be his.
18 You shall cry out at that day, because of your King, whom ye have chosen, and the Lord God will not hear you that day.
19 Lo the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, but did say alas Nay, but there shall be a King for us.
20 We also will be like all other Nations, and our King shall judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.


That these words, and discourses of Samuel were dited by Gods Spirit, it needs no further probation, but that it is a place of Scripture; since the whole Scripture is dited by that inspiration, as Paul said, which ground no good Christian will, or dare deny. Whereupon it must necessarily follow, that these speeches proceeded not from any ambition in Samuel, as one loath to quite the reins that he so long had ruled, and therefore desirous, by making odious the government of a King, to dissuade the people from their farther importunate craving of one. For, as the text proves it plainly, he then convened them to give them a resolute grant of their demand, as God by his own mouth commanded him, saying: Hearken to the voice of the people, and to press to dissuade them from that, which he then came to grant unto them, were a thing very impertinent in a wise man; much more in the Prophet of the most high God. Likewise, it well appeared in all the course of his life after, that his so long refusing of their suite before came not of any ambition in him: which he well proud in praying, and as it were importuning God for the wealth of Saul. Yea, after God had declared his reprobation unto him, yet he desisted not, while God himself was wrath at his praying, and discharged his fathers suit in that errand. And that these words of Samuel were not uttered as a prophecy of Saul their first Kings defection, it well appears, as well because we hear no mention made in the Scripture of his tyrannical oppression, (which, if it had been, would not have been left unpainted out therein, as well as his other faults were, as in a true mirror of all the Kings behaviors, whom it describes) as likewise in respect that Saul was chosen by God for his virtue, and meet qualities to govern his people: whereas his defection sprung after-hand from the corruption of his own nature, and not through any default in God, whom they that think so, would make as a step-father to his people, in making willfully a chaise of the unmeetest for governing them, since the election of that King lay absolutely and immediately in Gods hand.
By the contrary it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intolerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as ye have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hasty seeking of a King; so beware ye fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be. For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may you no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. Therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and you only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshow you, as with the finger of God, which lie not in you to take off.
So will you consider the very words of the text in order, as they are set down, it shall plainly declare the obedience that the people owe to their King in all respects; First, God commands Samuel to do two things, the one, to grant the people their suit in giving them a king. The other, to forewarn them, what some kings will do unto them, that they may not thereafter in their grudging and murmuring say, when they shall feel the snares here fore-spoken. We would never have had a king of God, in case when we craved him, that he had let us know how we would have been used by him, as so now we find but over-late. This is meant more by these words; Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit yet testify unto them, and show them the manor of the King that shall rule over them. Next, would Samuel do in execution of this commandment of God, so he likewise does two things.
First, he declares unto them, what points of justice and equity their king will break in his behavior unto them. Then next he extinguishes their hope, that weary as they will, they shall not have leave to shake off that yoke, which God through their importunity hath laid upon to them. The points of equity that the King shall enforce in them, are expressed in these words:


11 He will take your sons, and appoint them to his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariot. 12 Also he will make them his captains over thousands, and captains over fillies, and to care his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war, and the things that serve for his chariots.
13 He will also take your daughters, and make them Apothecaries, and Cooks, and Bakers.
The points of Justice, that he shall break unto them, are expressed in these words:
14 He will take of your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Olive, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give it to his Eunuchs and to his servants, and also the tenth of your sheep.

As if he would say; The best and noblest of your blood shall be compelled in slavish and servile offices to serve him. Not content of his own patrimony, will make up a rent to his own use out of your best lands, vineyards, orchards, and store of cattle. So as inverting the Law of nature, and office of a King, your persons and the persons of your posterity, together with your lands, and all that you possess shall serve his private uses, and inordinate appetite.
As unto the next point (which is his fore-warning them, that, weary as they will, they shall not have leave to shake off the yoke, which God thoroughly in their importunity hath laid upon them) it is expressed in these words:

18 And you shall cry out at that day, because of your King whom you have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you at that day.

As he would say; When you shall find these things in proof that now I fore-warn you of, although you shall grudge and murmur, yet it shall not be lawful to you to cast it off, in respect it is not only the ordinance of God, but also your selves that have chosen him unto you, thereby renouncing for ever all privileges, by your willing consent out of your hands, whereby in any time hereafter you would claim, and call back unto your selves again that power, which God shall not permit you to do. For further taking away of all excuse, and retraction of this their contract, after their consent to under-lie this yoke with all the burthens that he hath declared unto them, he cranes their answer, and in consent to his proposition (which appears by their answer) as it is expressed in these words:

19 Nay, but there shall be a King over us.
20 And we also will be like all other nations, and our king shall judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.


As if they would have said; All your speeches and hard conditions shall not scare us but we will take the good and evil of it upon us and we will be content to bear whatsoever burthen it shall please our King to lay upon us as well as other nations do. For the good we will get of him in fighting our battles, we will more patiently bear any burden that shall please him to lay on us.
Now then, since the erection of this Kingdom and Monarchy among the Jews, and the law thereof may, and ought to be a pattern to all Christian and well founded Monarchies, as being founded by God himself, who by his oracle, and out of his own mouth gave the law thereof; What liberty can broiling spirits, and rebellious minds claim justly to against any Christian Monarch? Since they can claim to no greater liberty on their part, nor the people of God might have done, and no greater tyranny was ever executed by any Prince or tyrant, whom they can object, nor was here fore-warned to the people of God, (and yet all rebellion countermanded unto them) if tyrannizing over men's persons, sons, daughters and servants; redacting noble houses, and men, and women of noble blood, to slavish and servile offices; and extortion, and spoil of their lands and goods to the princes own private use and commodity, and of his courtiers, and servants, may it be called a tyranny?


[James continues to argue from scripture that God forbids rebellion against a lawful king, no matter how evil or tyrannical he may be.]


[James next discusses the historical origins of the Scottish monarchy. Here he argues that monarchy preceded the establishment of the legislature. He also argues a King is above the law—that a lawful monarch may make laws for his subjects, but that his subjects cannot make laws binding on a King.]


And the agreement of the Law of nature in this our ground with the Laws and constitutions of God, and man, already alleged, will by two similitudes easily appear. The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diners members. For as fathers, the good Princes, and Magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselves to their subjects. And for all other well ruled Commonwealths, the stile of Pater patriae was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. The proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all members thereof. For from the head, being the seat of Judgement, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body, so does the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head, and the execution according "hereunto belongs to the rest of the members, every one according to their office: so is it betwixt a wise Prince, and his people. As the lodgement coming from the head may not only employ the members, every one in their own office as long as they are able for it; but likewise in case any of them be affected with any infirmity must care and provide for their remedy, in-case it be curable, and if otherwise, gar cut them off for fear of infecting of the rest: even so is it betwixt the Prince, and his people. As there is ever hope of curing any diseased member by the direction of the head, as long as it is whole; but by the contrary, if it be troubled, all the members are partakers of that Paine, so is it betwixt the Prince and his people. Now first for the fathers part (whose natural love to his children I described in the first part of this my discourse, speaking of the duty that Kings owe to their Subjects) consider, I pray you what duty his children owe to him, and whether upon any pretext whatsoever, it will not be thought monstrous and unnatural to his sons, to rise up against him, to control him at their appetite, and when they think good to slay him, or cut him off, and adopt to themselves any other they please in his room. Or can any presence of wickedness or rigour on his part be a just excuse for his children to put hand into him? Although we see by the course of nature, that love used to descend more then to ascend, in case it were true, that the father hated and wronged the children never so much, will any man, endued with the least spoke of reason, think it lawful for them to meet him with the line? Yea, suppose the father were furiously following his sons with a drawn sword, as if it lawful for them to turn and strike again, or make any resistance but by flight.
I think surely, if there were no more but the example of brute beasts and unreasonable creatures, it may serve well enough to qualify and prove this my argument. We read often the pity that the Storks have to their old and decayed parents: And generally wee know, that there are many sorts of beasts and fowls, that with violence and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their young ones from them, how soon they perceive them to be able to fend themselves; but wee never read or heard of any resistance on their part, except among the vipers; which proves such persons, as ought to be reasonable creatures, and yet unnaturally follow this example, to be endued with their viperous nature.
So for the similitude of the head and the body, it may very well fall out that the head will be forced to cut off some rotten member (as I have already said) to keep the rest of the body in integrity. Though what state the body can be in, if the head, for any infirmity that can fall to it, be cut off, I leave it to the readers judgement.

So as (to conclude this part) if the children may upon any pretext that can be imagined, lawfully rise up against their Father, cut him off, and choose any other whom they please in his room; and if the body for the wealth of it, may for any infirmities that can be in the head, strike it off, then I cannot deny that the people may rebel, control, and displace, or cut off their king at their own pleasure, and upon respects moving them. Whether these similitudes represent better the office of a King, or the offices of Masters or Deacons of crafts, or Doctors in Physics (which jolly comparisons are used by such writers as maintain the contrary proposition) I leave it also to the discretion.
In case any doubts might arise in any part of this treatise, I will (according to my promise) with the solution of four principal and most weighty doubts, that the adversaries may object, conclude this discourse. First it is cast up by diners, that employ their pennies upon apologies for rebellions and treasons, that every man is borne to carry such a natural zeal and duty to his commonwealth, as to his mother; that seeing it so rent and deadly wounded, as whiles it will be by wicked and tyrannous Kings, good Citizens will be forced, for the natural zeal and duty they owe to their own native country, to put their hand to work for freeing their commonwealth from such a pest.
Whereunto I give two answers: First, it is a sure Axiom in Theology, that evil should not be done, that good may come of it: The wickedness therefore of the King can never make them that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his Judges. If it be not lawful to a private man to revenge his private injury upon his private adversary (since God hath only given the sword to the Magistrate) how much less is it lawful to the people, or any part of them (who all are but private men, the authority being always with the Magistrate, as I have already proud) to take upon them the use of the sword, whom to it belongs not, against the public Magistrate, whom to only it belongs.

Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and color) they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for. For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous, but the commonwealth will be kept in better order, notwithstanding thereof, by him, then it can be by his way-taking. For first, all sudden mutations are perilous in commonwealths, hope being thereby given to all bare men to set up themselves and fly with other men's feathers, the reins being loosed to all the insolences that disordered people can commit by hope of impunity, because of the looseness of all things.
And next, it is certain that a king can never be so monstrously vicious, but he will generally favor justice, and maintain some order, except in the particulars, wherein his inordinate lusts and passions carry him away; where by the contrary, no King being, nothing is unlawful to none. As so the old opinion of the Philosophers proves true, that better it is to line in a Commonwealth, where nothing is lawful, then where all things are lawful to all men; the Commonwealth at that time resembling an undanted young horse that hath casten his rider: For as the divine Poet Dv BARTAS saith, Better it were to stiffer some disorder in the estate, arid some spots in the Commonwealth, then in pretending to reform, utterly to overthrow the Republic.

The second objection they ground upon the curse that hangs over the common-wealth, where a wicked king reign: and, say they, there cannot be a more acceptable deed in the sight of God, nor more dutiful to their commonwealth, then to free the country of such a curse, and vindicate to them their liberty, which is natural to all creatures to crave.

Whereunto for answer, I grant indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people, and a plague for their sins: but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny, and may so do justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly fore-spoken and threatened unto them in the prophecy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian Church in his time? And yet Jeremy and Paul (as you have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them, but heartily to pray for their welfare. It is certain then (as I have already by the Law of God sufficiently proved) that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lines, are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of that heavy curse. As for vindicating to themselves their own liberty, what lawful power have they to revoke to themselves again those privileges, which by their own consent before were so fully put out of their hands? For if a Prince cannot justly bring back again to himself the privileges once bestowed by him or his predecessors upon any state or rank of his subjects; how much less may the subjects reave out of the princes hand that superiority, which he and his Predecessors have so long brooked over them?

The unhappy iniquities of the time, which hath oft times given over good success to their treasonable attempts, furnish them the ground of their third objection: For, say they, the fortunate success that God hath so oft given to such enterprises, proves plainly by the practice, that God favored the justness of their quarrel.
To the which I answer, that it is true indeed, that all the success of battles, as well as other worldly things, lie only in Gods hand: And therefore it is that in the Scripture he takes to himself the style of God of Hosts. But upon that general to conclude, that he ever gives victory to the just quarrel, would prove the Philistines, and common other neighbor enemies of the people of God to have often times had the just quarrel against the people of God, in respect of the many victories they obtained against them. And by that same argument they had also just quarrel against the Ark of God: For they want it in the field, and kept it long prisoner in their country. As likewise by all good Writers, as well Theologies, as other, the Duels and singular combats are disallowed; which are only made upon presence, that GOD will kith thereby the justice of the quarrel: For we must consider that the innocent party is not innocent before God: And therefore God will make oft times them that have the wrong side revenged justly his quarrel; and when he hath done, cast his scourge in the fire; as he oft times did to his own people, stirring up and strengthening their enemies, while they were humbled in his sight, and then delivered them in their hands. So God, as the great Judge may justly punish his Deputy, and for his rebellion against him, stir up his rebels to meet him with the like: And when it is done, the part of the instrument is no better then the devils part is in tempting and torturing such as God commit to him as his hangman to do: Therefore, as I said in the beginning, it is oft times a very deceivable argument, to judge of the cause by the event.
And the last objection is grounded upon the mutual pact and ad-stipulation (as they call it) between the King and his people, at the time of his coronation: For there, say they, there is a mutual pact, and contract bound up, and sworn between the king, and the people: Whereupon it follows, that if the one part of the contract or the Indent be broken upon the Kings side, the people are no longer bound to keep their part of it, but are thereby freed of their oath: For (say they) a contract between two parties, of all Law frees the one party, if the other break unto him.

As to this contract allege made at the coronation of a King, although I deny any such contract to be made then, especially containing such a clause irritant as they allege; yet I confess, that a king at his coronation, or at the entry to his kingdom, willingly promise to his people, to discharge honorably and truly the office given him by God over them. Presuming that thereafter he break his promise unto them never so inexcusable; the question is, who should be judge of the break, giving unto them, this contract were made unto them never so sicker, according to their allegiance. I think no man that hath but the smallest entrance into the civil Law, will doubt that of all Law, either civil or municipal of any nation, a contract cannot be thought broken by the one party, and so the other likewise to be freed thereof, except that first a lawful trial and cognition be had by the ordinary Judge of the breakers thereof. Or else every man may be both party and Judge in his own cause; which is absurd once to be thought. Now in this contract (I say) between the King and his people, God is doubtless the only Judge, both because to him only the king must make count of his administration (as is oft said before) as likewise by the oath in the coronation, God is made judge and revenger of the breakers. For in his presence, as only judge of oaths, all oaths ought to be made. Then since God is the only judge between the two parties contractors, the cognition and revenge must only appertain to him. It follows therefore of necessity, that God must first give sentence upon the King that break, before the people can think themselves freed of their oath. What justice then is it, that the party shall be both judge and party, usurping upon himself the office of God, may by this argument easily appear. So shall it lie in the hands of headless multitude, when they please to weary off subjection, to cast off the yoke of government that God oath laid upon them, to judge and punish him, whom-by they should be judged and punished; and in that case, wherein by their violence they kythe themselves to be most passionate parties, to use the office of an ungracious Judge or Arbiter? Nay, to speak truly of that case, as it stands between the King and his people, none of them ought to judge of the others break.
Considering rightly the two parties at the time of their mutual promise, the King is the one party, and the whole people in one body are the other party. And therefore since it is certain, that a king, in case so it should fall out, that his people in one body had rebelled against him, he should not in that case, as thinking himself free of his promise and oath, become an utter enemy, and practice the wreak of his whole people and native country: although he ought justly to punish the principal authors and bellows of that universal rebellion. How much less then ought the people (that are always subject unto him, and naked of all authority on their part) press to judge and overthrow him? Otherwise the people, as the one party contractors, shall no sooner challenge the king as breaker, but he as soon shall judge them as breakers: so as the victors making the tyners the traitors (as our proverb is) the party shall aye become both judge and party in his own particular, as I have already said.

And it is here likewise to be noted, that the duty and allegiance, which the people swears to their prince, is not only bound to themselves, but likewise to their lawful heirs and posterity, the lineal succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, and happily continued in diners Christian common-wealth's: So as no objection either of heresy, or whatsoever private statute or law may free the people from their oath-gluing to their King, and his succession, established by the old fundamental laws of the Kingdom: For, as he is their heritable over-lord, and so by birth; not by any right in the coronation, comes to his crown; it is a like unlawful (the crown ever standing full) to displace him that succeed thereto, as to elect the former: For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heir entreaty in his place: And so to refuse him, or intrude another, is not to horde out uncoming in, but to expel and put out their righteous King. And I trust at this time whole France acknowledge the superstitious rebellion of the liguers, who upon presence of heresy, by force of arms held so long out, to the great desolation of their whole country, their native and righteous King from possessing of his own crown and natural Kingdom.
Not that by all this former discourse of mine, and apology for Kings, I mean that whatsoever errors and intolerable abominations a sovereign prince commit, he ought to escape all punishment, as if thereby the world were only ordained for Kings, and they without control to turn it upside down at their pleasure: but by the contrary, by remitting them to God (who is their only ordinary Judge) I remit them to the sorest and sharpest school master that can be devised for them: for the further a King is preferred by God above all other ranks and degrees of men, and the higher that his seat is about theirs, the greater is his obligation to his maker. Therefore in case he forgets himself (his unthankfulness being in the same measure of height) the sadder and sharper will his correction be; and according to the greatness of the height he is in, the weight of his fall will recompense the same. For the further that any person is obliged to God, his offence becomes and grows so much the greater, then it would be in any other. Joves thunder-claps light often and sorer upon the high & stately cakes, then on the low and supple willow his: and the highest bench is sliddriest to sit upon. Neither is it ever heard that any king forgets himself towards God, or in his vocation; but God with the greatness of the plague revenges the greatness of his ingratitude: Neither think I by the force and argument of this my discourse so to persuade the people, that none will hereafter be raised up, and rebel against wicked Princes. But remitting to the justice and providence of God to stir up such scourges as pleases him, for punishment of wicked Kings (who made the very vermin and filthy dust of the earth to bridle the insolence of proud Pharaoh) my only purpose and intention in this treatise is to persuade, as far as lie in me, by these sure and infallible grounds, all such good Christian readers, as bear not only the naked name of a Christian, but kith the fruits thereof in their daily form of life, to keep their hearts and hands free from such monstrous and unnatural rebellions, whensoever the wickedness of a Prince shall procure the same at Gods hands: that, when it shall please God to cast such scourges of princes, and instruments of his fury in the fire, you may stand up with clean hands, and unspotted consciences, having proved your selves in all your actions true Christians toward God, and dutiful subjects towards your King, having remitted the judgement and punishment of all his wrongs to him, whom to only of right it appertain.
But craving at God, and hoping that God shall continue his blessing with us in not sending such fearful desolation, I heartily wish our Kings behavior so to be, and continue among us, as our God in earth, and loving Father, endued with such properties as I described a King in the first part of this Treatise. And that ye (my dear countrymen, and charitable readers) may press by all means to procure the prosperity and welfare of your King; that as he must on the one part thine all his earthly felicity and happiness grounded upon your wealth, caring more for himself for your sake then for his own, thinking himself only ordained for your wealth; such holy and happy emulation may arise between him and you, as his care for your quietness, and your care for his honor and preservation, may in all your actions daily strive together, that the Land may think themselves blessed with such a King, and the King may think himself most happy in ruling over so loving and obedient subjects.

- King James I of England, King of England, Ireland, Scotland & France

India & the Greek Hellenisation

India's long history of warfare has a important series of colonisations recently with the Portuguese (1505–1961) and Britain (1612–1947). European occupation started with the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great however in 327–326 BC, with which he assimilated a part temporarily within the satrapies of his Maced-Persian Empire (begun under Cyrus the Great, 530 BCE). Seeking to reach the "ends of the world and the Great Outer Sea” Alexanders army was trumped by the Nanda empire and returned west only for Alex to die suspiciously in Babylon in 323 BC on return. Initially having proposed a march further east to conquer the old empire of Magadha and Gangaridai, which would have brought him to the doorstep of Burma and Thailand; however though across the Ganga the Kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting his army with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants. General Coenus masterminded the retreat, with further victories on return, but affixing Alexanders duty mostly in placating the Persian leaders with the Macedonian veterans.

As far as historical records tell this, its unknown, though of oral traditions, however dramatised, Indias mighty history of warfare stems with closely assimilated trading and inter-cultural traditions from Burma and SE Asia all the way west to Persia. The Indian history is the most long and complex of any in the world starting before 3102 BCE with Arjuna and the Pandavas. Most likely mythic Arjuna was a confluence of the first military general, and a mixing of personas from a historical Arjuna. Probably he was the most gallant suitor of a young lady ever remembered, and capture of her priest-King father. Arjuna is the shining one or famous like silver, born into the royal family of Hastinapura. He was acknowledged as a son of Pandu by his first wife Kunti, Arjuna was the third son, after Yudhishthira and Bhima. Younger to him were the twin sons. Receiving tutelage from Drona, in homage Arjuna and his brothers, attacked Panchal and captured King Drupada, who was so impressed by Arjuna he bid he marry his daughter, Draupadi (beginning the epic of the Mahabharata). Likely in fact just a trick knowing Arjunas' real fondness; after courtship of Draupadi he went off for a twelve year pilgrimage. Having met his cousin Krishna then, Arjuna and Subhadra would elope, Subhadra giving birth to a son: Abhimanyu. Perhaps by another account (and into the epic of Bhagavad Gita), Arjuna was actually sent into exile (perhaps both happened consequentially). Later Arjuna, considered powerful enough to be an emperor; subjugated the kingdoms of Indraprastha in the Kurukshetra war.

Called "the jewel in the British crown” Britain claimed a significant fortune from the Spice and Gem rich subcontinent out of Bombay, and alongside the Portuguese based in Goa. Riches in spice trade between India and Europe was the main inspiration for the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus in 1492 in fact. Portuguese sailor Vasco da Gama became the first European to re-establish direct trade links with India since Roman times by being the first to arrive by circumnavigating Africa (1497–1499). Having arrived in Calicut, which by then was one of the major trading ports of the eastern world, he obtained permission to trade in the city from Saamoothiri Rajah. Roman and Greek traders frequented the ancient Tamil country (present day Southern India and Sri Lanka) securing trade with the seafaring Tamil states of the Pandyan, Chola and Chera dynasties, and establishing trading settlements which secured trade with South Asia by the Greco-Roman world, lost since the time of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Ptolemy, one of the six somatophylakes (bodyguards) who served as Alexander the Great's generals and deputies, was appointed satrap of Egypt after Alexander's death in 323 BC. In 305 BC, he declared himself King Ptolemy I, later known as "Soter" (saviour). The Egyptians soon accepted the Ptolemies as the successors to the pharaohs of independent Egypt. Ptolemy's family ruled Egypt until the Roman conquest of 30 BC. All the male rulers of the dynasty took the name Ptolemy. Ptolemaic queens, some of whom were the sisters of their husbands, were usually called Cleopatra, Arsinoe or Berenice. Cleopatra VII co ruled with her son by Julius Ceasar; Ptolemy Caesar who only had rulership for 11 days before he was executed by Octavian, brought an end to Ptolemaic rule of Egypt.

The lands Alexander had subjugated became the Seleucid empire thereafter and though there are four ancient sources that describe the Partition of Babylon, the only complete account is Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca historica; the first to be written, c. 40 BC. The Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Medes, Assyrians, Jews and Indians were privileged with Hellenization which was a term for the historical spread of ancient Greek culture and, to a lesser extent, language, over foreign peoples conquered by Greece or brought into its sphere of influence. Attributed to the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) in the 7th century (Hellenization can also refer to the medieval Byzantine Empire and Constantine's founding of Constantinople - Eastern Roman Empire that was Hellenized), the practice didn’t become commonplace until the fusion of Platonic and Aristotelian theology with Christianity.

Artwork by Midjourney

The Kingdom of Israel and the Hebrew name of God

When the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Lloyd George, wished to knock the Ottoman Empire out of the war in 1918 a conquest of Palastine commenced, albeit a crusade. By the end of 1917 all the objectives of the campaign to capture Jerusalem had been achieved but not until May 14, 1948, did David Ben-Gurion proclaim the establishment of the State of Israel, once again. The united Kingdom of Israel is said to have existed from about 1030 to about 930 BCE. It was a union of all the twelve Israelite tribes living in the area that presently approximates modern Israel and the Palestinian territories. Last beginning with the House of Saul, the first king of a united Kingdom of Israel and Judah would have lived circa 1082 BC–1010 BC. Proposed in the bible to be anointed by the prophet Samuel. Saul fell on his sword to avoid capture in the battle against the Philistines at Mount Gilboa, during which three of his sons were also killed. The succession to his throne was contested by Ish-bosheth, his only surviving son, and his son-in-law David, who eventually prevailed.
Following the second King of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah c. 1040–970 BC, (reign over Judah c. 1010–1002 BC), King David had reign in the years 1002–970 BC. The Judean royal dynasty called the House of David, commenced in succession with King Solomon son of David. The ten northern tribes of the Kingdom of Israel rejected this Davidic line soon enough however, refusing to accept Rehoboam son of Solomon, and instead chose as King; Jeroboam. Dividing Israel, by forming the northern Kingdom of Israel, these Kingdoms were eventually conquered by Assyria.
A 2nd-century work by Seder Olam Rabbah, places construction of the First Temple Solomon's Temple in 832 BCE and destruction in 422 BCE. The holy temple was plundered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar when the Babylonians attacked Jerusalem during the brief reign of Jehoiachin c. 598 (2 Kings 24:13) In turn the Dome of the rock was constructed, remaining till modern day.
The Kodesh Hakodashim, or Holy of Holies, (1 Kings 6:19; 8:6), also called in the Bible the "Inner House" (6:27), (Heb. 9:3) was 20 cubits in length, breadth, and height. The usual explanation for the discrepancy between its height and the 30-cubit height of the temple is that its floor was elevated, like the cella of other ancient temples. It was floored and wainscotted with cedar of Lebanon (1 Kings 6:16), and its walls and floor were overlaid with gold (6:20, 21, 30). It contained two cherubim of olive-wood, each 10 cubits high (1 Kings 6:16, 20, 21, 23–28) and each having outspread wings of 10 cubits span, so that, since they stood side by side, the wings touched the wall on either side and met in the centre of the room. There was a two-leaved door between it and the Holy Place overlaid with gold (2 Chr. 4:22); also a veil of tekhelet (blue), purple, and crimson and fine linen (2 Chr. 3:14; compare Exodus 26:33). It had no windows (1 Kings 8:12) and was considered the dwelling-place of the "name" of God.

Israelites and their ancestors (Caanites) language was not referred to by the name Hebrew in the Tanakh (or Miqra, the canon of the Hebrew Bible). The earliest examples of written Paleo-Hebrew date from the 10th century BCE, said to have been fixed in tradition by the Hasmonean dynasty. As Rabbinic Judaism suffered after the destruction of the First Temple in 587 BCE, Hebrew was only revived nationally in the new Israel by Ben Yehuda. In Paris he met a Jew from Jerusalem, who spoke Hebrew with him. It was this use of Hebrew in a spoken form that convinced him that the revival of Hebrew as the language of a nation was feasible. In 1881 Ben-Yehuda (1858 – 16 Dec 1922) immigrated to Palestine (then ruled by the Ottoman Empire), and settled in Jerusalem. He found a job teaching at the Alliance Israelite Universelle school. Motivated by the surrounding ideals of renovation and rejection of the diaspora lifestyle, Ben Yehuda set out to develop a new language that could replace Yiddish and other regional dialects as a means of everyday communication between Jews in a new country of Israel (with the recall of 3 million Jews from over 90 countries, most returning from Russia). Opposition was staunch firstly from Jerusalem's ultra-Orthodox community, who treasured liturgical use alone. With fierce objection to use of lingua franco Hebrew (bridge language, trade language, or vehicular language), known also as the 'holy tongue', the conversion for everyday conversation was accomplished in turn.

981 different texts discovered between 1946 and 1956, proposed to be originated at the library of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem; include the second oldest known surviving manuscripts of works later included in the Hebrew Bible informance, along with deuterocanonical and extra-biblical manuscripts which preserve evidence of the diversity of religious thought in late Second Temple Judaism. There are only two silver scrolls which contain biblical text and are older than the Dead Sea Scrolls; they have been excavated in Jerusalem at Ketef Hinnom and are dating from around 600 BCE.
Accordingly the descendants of King David, the ancient peoples of C.700 B.C. left record etched on silver; of their common prayer. It relays a idealisation of tribute and request to God, regarding the will to be happy, appear beautifully and to keep accounting in order for financial success. The canonical language contains infamously a word for (the name of) God which cannot be pronounced today, but is spelt in english as YHWH. That a four letter word means God and how so is not understood but the likelihood of translation in todays language from Hebrew is a best fit scenario.
Hebrew was known to contain a unique dichotomy where in its structure | signifies motion from heaven to earth or vis-a-versa, and __ is the earthly, and ¯¯¯ is the heavenly increment (being horizontal upper & lower bars). The name of God contains three shafts between heaven and earth, one in each of the final 3 of 4 letters. The first doesn’t relay the direct initiation of Heaven & Earth (representable with a ‘ | ‘ - or shaft) rather a rite as the first letter with a fixed Heaven opposite the fixed Earth and a primary Heavens cord to a final Earth accord (backward in English still in this form it’s very significant and opposite if read backwards).
The horizontal bars following the ‘rite’ letter (which is regularly ‘sleep’ in modern short repeated, or meaning to dream or make understanding of a dream being the last letter) conveys following to the second letter, the duty of farming by a tree with a symbolic temporal accord by the elevated and separate spur (curve). Containing emphatic determination of the working day with superiority within the natural world, a followed coupling or ‘pair’ lettering, mostly ensues in signifying animal companions, human companionship, and betrothal, succeeding with children in family.
The reasons are so; these two letters are a second half of the full word, its firstly diminutive to the first, relaying after the worldly superiority, and composite capacity; the necessity to work for good life. Yet not only, also for life itself in strength and defence, so typicality of bonding is contained, that appropriated by animal domestication, and restricted therein. The benefits of such law are hence ‘in supply’ and granting the luxury of a good life, hence the Heaven and Earth twin accordance. Following in reason by the dual elevation and supple-like form in the succeeded appropriation of a new generation ‘closer to God’ in good wealth & beauty “May his face shine upon you, with graciousness and countenance”.

Implicitly the human nature is of benefit with communal appreciation though this is implicit, its relation is direct in finalisation by the dot ‘.‘ (also critical in grammar commonly today). By the stars through the night, after the day, life magnifies their dutiful will to God too repeated in goodness, and by integrity they keep unwanted ‘halves’ at bay. The raising of the matters of accordance contain complex insinuations and the structure of this half upper last half, with woven cross motion from and to the Kingdom of God, contains the benediction of suffering, by and by to the rulership of the alternative kingdoms of God. For those not in command ‘of the one (true God)’ they are ordered to pass over, whether with this life in its path or as friend.
'The star of tonight becomes tomorrows sun', and the cycle repeats, where the third letter has no connection between the earth-heaven with the Heaven, whilst the fourth does, and in reverse. This interpretative analysis is typical of the meaning for the name of God (hermeneutics) as synonymous with the lifestyle of God's chosen people.

Catholicism: Anglo-Spanish & the New World

When the Holy Roman Empire was a fragmented collection of largely independent states, titular Holy Roman Emperors from the House of Habsburg directly ruled large portions of Imperial territory, one dynasty ending with Elizabeth I of England. The House of Habsburg, also ruled Spain, including the Spanish Netherlands, southern Italy, the Philippines, and most of the Americas.

In the Cologne War 1583–88 amid a Protestant Reformation in Germany and its subsequent Counter-Reformation, (and concurrently with the Dutch Revolt and the French Wars of Religion), when Catholics sought peace, Spanish troops acted by expelling a Prince Archbishop and replacing him with a Roman Catholic. After this success, the principle of cuius regio, eius religio began to be exerted strictly forcing Protestant-Lutheran residents to choose between conversion or exile (Martin Luther's initial agenda called for the reform of the Church's doctrines and practices, but invoked his excommunication from the Church).
Much to the consternation of their Spanish ruling cousins, the Habsburg emperors who followed Charles V (especially Ferdinand I and Maximilian II, but also Rudolf II, and his successor Matthias) were content to allow the princes of the empire to choose their own religious policies. These rulers avoided religious wars within the empire by allowing the different Christian faiths to spread without coercion. This however angered those who sought religious uniformity such as the Protestant Union or the Catholic League, who together were merely sympathetic of the increasingly intolerant behavior towards others personal religious/political beliefs.

The ports of modern day Belgium, were notorious Privateer bases, plaguing the English fleets, and a Anglo-Spanish War had commenced in 1585 with England joining the Eighty Years' War on the side of the Dutch Protestant United Provinces, who had declared their independence from Spain. Sparing the long sown religious disturbances to Protestantism by Catholic Spain, Sir Frances Drake sailed for the West Indies to sack Santo Domingo, and additionally capture Cartagena de Indias, and St. Augustine in Florida.
As relations with Elizabeth I of England had begun to deteriorate prior, particularly after a restoration of Royal supremacy over the Church of England through the Act of Supremacy in 1559 (the Act was considered by Catholics as an usurpation of Papal authority and some English Protestants championed the Dutch Protestant ‘rebels’ directly against Spain); Sir John Hawkins, (who gained accreditation from Elizabeth I while the Spanish government complained that Hawkins' trade with their colonies in the West Indies constituted smuggling) fought the Spanish in September 1568, at the Battle of San Juan de Ulúa near Veracruz Mexico. Occurring when a slaving expedition led by Sir Francis Drake and Sir Hawkins met a surprise attacked by the Spanish, and several ships were captured or sunk. The battle soured Anglo-Spanish relations badly and in the following year the English detained several treasure ships sent by the Spanish to supply their army in the Netherlands. Drakes (and Hawkins) intensified ‘privateering’ continued as a way to break the Spanish monopoly on Atlantic trade.
The English hit back in Galicia (north of Portugal) and sacked Vigo and Baiona, when Philip II planned a full invasion in retaliation. In the same year, the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots had outraged Catholics in Europe, and her claim on the English throne passed over (by her own deed of will) to Philip. Philip II obtained Papal authority to overthrow Elizabeth hence, who was excommunicated by Pope Pius V, and he was granted power to place whomever he chose on the throne of England. Mary who was raised in France and bore James I, had been found guilty of plotting to kill Elizabeth.
Philip assembled a fleet of about 130 ships, containing 8,000 soldiers and 18,000 sailors. To finance this endeavor, Pope Sixtus V had permitted Philip to collect crusade taxes for their holy cause, and promised a further subsidy too should they actually reach England. On 28 May 1588, the Armada set sail for the Netherlands, where it was to pick up additional troops for the invasion of England. However, the English navy inflicted a defeat on the Armada in the Battle of Gravelines before this could be accomplished, and forced the Armada to sail far northward where it was ruined by weather.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic both Drake and Hawkins would die of disease during the disastrous 1595–96 expedition against Puerto Rico, Panama, and other targets in the Spanish Main. Continuing conflicts occurred in 1595, when a Spanish force, under Don Carlos de Amesquita raided Penzance and several surrounding villages. Then in 1596 an Anglo-Dutch expedition under Elizabeth's earl of Essex, sacked Cadiz, causing significant loss to the Spanish fleet, leaving the city in ruins. Despite English failure to capture a treasure fleet, the sack of Cadiz was celebrated as a national triumph comparable to an absolute victory.
James I would declare war on Spain likewise and with the support of the House of Commons, attempt to cripple Spanish investiture by obtaining the sizeable seizures from the Inca, and Aztecan civilisation's (attributions of the Papacies missions with indigenous were scantly welcomed such as Father Ximénezs contributions of the Chilam Balam and Popul Vuh)
With the signing of the Triple Alliance in 1596 between France, England and the Dutch, Elizabeth sent a further 2,000 troops into France after the Spanish invaded Calais in support. For another two years the battles continued until Henry IV's conversion to Catholicism had won him widespread French support and the French civil war turned against the hardliners of the Catholic League. With France and Spain's signing of the Peace of Vervins, the War of Religions particular factional disputes between the aristocratic houses, such as the House of Bourbon and House of Guise (Lorraine) ceased.

The War of the Spanish Succession would see the end of the Habsburg Kings of Spain 1516–1700. The conflict was triggered by the death in 1700 of the Spanish King (childless) Charles II, resulting in the Spanish empires partitioning between major and minor powers. The Austrians received most of Spain's former European realms, but peninsular Spain and Spanish America were retained for the Duke of Anjou when, after renouncing his claim to the French succession, he reigned as King Philip V. Charles II had had neither a pleasant life nor a successful reign. He was physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured, impotent, and he died senile and wracked by epileptic seizures, a fitting end only to a line with 16 generations of inbreeding. The Spanish Habsburg dynasty had started with the marriage between Philip I, also known as Philip the Fair, and Joanna I, also known as Joanna the Mad.

Protestant Britain; the Parliaments majòr

After the British Civil war and attempted republican reformation by a Parliamentarian dictator, when the Monarchy was established and Charles II was invited back to England; after nine years in France a cultured and learned King took power. Charles II, was a patron of the arts and sciences, who founded the Royal Observatory and supported the Royal Society. In Paris Charles had been reliant upon a pension granted by the government of France and surrounded by a group of quarrelsome advisers of his. The Royalist court-in-exile split into three main factions: the "Louvre" party, which revolved around Henrietta Maria and her close confidante Lord Jermyn; the "Old Royalist" faction, led by conservatives like Sir Edward Hyde, Sir Edward Nicholas and Lord Hopton; and the "Swordsmen" who looked to Prince Rupert for leadership.
The Louvre group was willing to seek alliances with foreign powers or to make concessions to the Presbyterians and other parliamentary factions in order to restore the monarchy at the earliest opportunity during the Civil War; whereas Hyde and his followers argued that it was better to rely exclusively upon old Royalists whose loyalty was assured and to wait for opinion in England to swing over to the King rather than to make conflict abound compromise for immediate gain. Prince Ruperts Swordsmen had no coherent policies though and were largely motivated by vendetta. By 1654, Cromwell was negotiating with Cardinal Mazarin of France for an alliance against Spain. Thus for French-British allegiance Charles and his entourage were obliged to leave Paris and they rebased in Bruges (the Spanish Netherlands) while the Anglo-Spanish War broke out between Spain and the English Protectorate in alliance with France. Charles' representatives negotiated with Spain thus for help in regaining the throne of England and the exiled Royalists raised an army of 3,000 English, Scottish and Irish soldiers commanded by Charles' brother James, Duke of York (later James II), to help the Spanish defend Flanders against Marshal Turenne's Anglo-French army.
During Charles' exile, there were three serious attempts to incite Royalist uprisings in Britain: Glencairn's Uprising in Scotland during 1653-4, Penruddock's Uprising in the West Country of 1655 and Booth's Uprising in Cheshire of 1659. All three were easily suppressed through superior military strength of the Parliamentarians and, in the case of the English uprisings, an efficient intelligence network that infiltrated Royalist conspiracies and allowed the Protectorate government to stay one step ahead of its enemies.

Charles would later reign England for twenty-five years. Despite his considerable political skills, the power of Parliament steadily increased during this time. Thus towards the end of his reign, an embryonic political party system commenced. The Whig and Tory parties emerged when Charles' Roman Catholic sympathies brought him into conflict with Parliament again and since Charles' marriage to the Portuguese princess Catherine of Braganza produced no legitimate heir, succession was of issue. The Whigs in Parliament deliberately tried to exclude Charles' brother, James, Duke of York, from the succession specifically because he was an avowed Roman Catholic. In response to this (Exclusion Crisis), Charles dissolved Parliament in 1681 and took reigns as an absolute monarch for four years. He died suspiciously in 1685 professing that he was a Catholic on his deathbed and received his last rites. James II became King thence and during his very brief three-year reign, the monarchy fought from the very beginning. Ultimately gauging the last political battle ever between Catholicism and Protestantism (and between the Divine Right of Kings and the political rights of the Parliament of England). King James II was left alienated from both parties in the start, while as of Charles II’s illegitimate heirs, the eldest, the Duke of Monmouth, led a rebellion against James II to take power from the outset. He was defeated at the Battle of Sedgemoor on 6 July 1685, and captured and executed for the effort; a sturdy victory for the new monarch.
James hoped at first that in forming a 'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, he’d rally support for policy in religious toleration. He issued the Declaration of Indulgence thus; whence the majority of the Irish backed him and for his promise to the Irish Parliament of a greater future autonomy. By allying himself with the Catholics, Dissenters, and Nonconformists together, James tried to build a coalition that would advance Catholic emancipation and formally abandon the Tories in the process. A gallant attempt which only spelled doom for sovereign rulership (absolute monarchs) in England.

The next revolution commenced thus peaking in 1688, with the birth of the King's son, James Francis Edward Stuart, on 10 June (Julian calendar). Changing the existing line of succession in displacing the heir presumptive, his daughter Mary, a Protestant and the wife of William of Orange. The establishment of a Roman Catholic dynasty in the Kingdom was set. The nobles and gentry had lined up practically to desert the King in pledge for revolution inviting William of Orange to England to challenge James. William thus crossed the North Sea and English Channel with a large invasion fleet in November 1688, landing at Torbay. After only two minor clashes between the two opposing armies in England, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns, James' regime collapsed, largely because of his lack of resolve. However, this was followed by the protracted Williamite War in Ireland and Dundee's rising in Scotland. Also in New England the revolution led to the collapse of the Dominion and a overthrow of the Province of Maryland.
A Protestant, now King, William III would embark on several wars against the powerful Catholic King of France, Louis XIV, in coalition with Protestant powers in Europe, and fermenting his place. Many Protestants heralded him as a champion of their faith but his loyalty to Parliamentarians was stout. His Declaration of Rights, established restrictions on his own and future Royal prerogative, duly by popular creed since Charles' uncouth dissolutions had set precedent for another Republican revolution and decidedly the dual party oligarchy, according the undivided standards of the British gentry. Williams Declaration of Rights provided for, amongst other things; that the Sovereign could not suspend laws passed by Parliament, levy taxes without parliamentary consent, infringe the right to petition, raise a standing army during peacetime without parliamentary consent, deny the right to bear arms to Protestant subjects, unduly interfere with parliamentary elections, punish members of either House of Parliament for anything said during debates, or require excessive bail or inflict cruel and unusual punishments.

Francia: the Royal Merovingians & Carolingians

Metz was a central holding to British and European Royal families, and has a recorded history dating back over 3,000 years; preceding rulership of the modern Royal family of England. Before the conquest of Gaul by Julius Caesar in 52 BC, Metz was the oppidum of the Celtic Mediomatrici tribe. Whence integrated into the Roman Empire, Metz became a principal town of Gaul until the barbarian depredations and its transfer to the Franks about the end of the 5th century. Between the 6th and 8th centuries, the city was the residence of the Merovingian kings of Austrasia. After the Treaty of Verdun in 843, Metz became the capital of the kingdom of Lotharingia and was ultimately integrated into the Holy Roman Empire, being granted semi-independent status. During the 12th century, Metz rose to the status of Republic and the Republic of Metz ruled until the 15th century. With the signature of the Treaty of Chambord in 1552, Metz was passed to the hands of the Kings of France.

In medieval times and according to Roman historians, the Salian Franks once dwelled by the Merwede (or "Merwe" in Middle Dutch) which was the name of a continuous stretch of river. The Merwede is part of the main shipping route between Rotterdam and Germany and technically the wider region of the river capable of handling significant traffic. Allegedly this was the origin of the legendary founder of the Merovingians; Merovech. Sourced to the Sicambrian ‘Fisher Kings’ the Salian Franks, meaning ‘salty’ were the Franks distinguished by their habitat, and tradition in fishing, dating back to Trojans, along with the worship of Poseidon. Records conflict on the origins but are consolidated with rulership of King Antenor. Some indications were that he initiated a dominion under a warrior code, after extensive missions within the Asian heartland. Others maintain he as the wisest Troyan elder took responsibility for rebuilding the city after Agamemnon's lengthy siege and the trick of the Trojan horse (some further dispute he actually ushered in the Greek coalition through the gate of Troy). Some state in 1183 BC that he and the surviving Trojans with Paphlagonian allies, the Eneti or Veneti, who also lost king Pylaemenes; settled the Euganean plain in Italy. Merovingian accounts detail however that this 'tribe' also migrated further west, in migration particularly discerned by commander Marcomrius' death. The Trojans, as said hence settled at the delta of Pannonia, where these; “The Sicambrian Franks, from whose female line the Merovingians emerged [sic]". The refugees or settlers "were associated with Grecian Arcadia before migrating to the Rhineland... they called themselves the Newmage - People of the New Covenant’...". The 'fish' so symbolically define this Merovingian dynasty, aligned with the Arcadian legacy who identify with the sea beast — the Bistea Neptunis —, King Pallas, and the Gods of old Arcadia. (See: Laurence Gardner, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, pp. 166, 175)

The Pagan Barbarians, as they were commonly termed, ruled the northern surrounds of the Roman empire, distinct to the Vikings. Only later were these officially (safely) taken to Kingship titles within the protection of the Romans (Catholics), all post-standard establishments in trading dynasties empowered in transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. The nomadic tribes of Germanic peoples that were referred to collectively as the Goths, had since flourished during the late Roman Empire in Late Antiquity, or the Migration Period. The Visigoths emerged from earlier Gothic groups (possibly the Thervingi), and were infamously anti-semites, and were typically persecuted by the Romans. The Visigoths would invade the Roman Empire beginning with a rebellion in 376, then defeating the Romans at the Battle of Adrianople in 378 before Alaric I sacked Rome in 410.

It’s alleged that around 457 and after the death of his father Childeric I (son of Merovech), Clovis I was by popular creed (leader) in control of the lands he had received as a foederatus of the Romans. (officially the Frankish kingdom was attributable to Rome but only termed so, just as any outlying nations to which ancient Rome provided benefits in exchange for military assistance. The term was also used, especially under the Roman Empire for groups of "barbarian" mercenaries of various sizes, who were typically allowed to settle within the Empire).

Of the numerous small Frankish Kingdoms during the 5th century, the Salian Franks were one of two primary Frankish tribes. Their power base was in the Tournai region, between France and Belgium. In 463 as per the unofficial treaty of the foederatus, Childeric had fought along with the Roman Aegidius, the magister militum of northern Gaul, successfully against the Visigoths in Orléans, and killing commander Federico, the brother of Theodoric II. The Visigoths weren’t easily routed however, returning the Roman provocation at the Battle of Déols where a Romano-British invasion-army under Riothamus was defeated by the Visigoths from 470-71.

Clovis like Childeric was thought to have similarly become commander of the Roman military in the Province of Belgica Secunda under General Aegidius. By the time Clovis had matured however, circumstances with the Rump-Roman assemblage had changed and Clovis pre-empted the imminent collapse of the Western Roman Empire between 476 and 480 by betraying the son of Aegidus, General Syagrius, in the Battle of Soissons 486. Consequently attaining land and almost doubling the regional power of the Franks. Frankish territory was bordered on the Loire adjacent to the realm of the Visigoths, until succeeding to rout the Visigoths at the Battle of Vouillé in 507, forcing retreat beyond the Pyrenées. As Clovis gained the significant holding of Aquitane, the modern state boundary of France became defined. In due course Clovis had marched against Chararic, captured and executed him and his sons. He had killed Ragnachar, the Frankish king of Cambrai, along with his brothers. He secured an alliance with the Ostrogoths through the marriage of his sister Audofleda to their King, Theodoric the Great. Also with the help of the other Frankish sub-kings, he defeated the Alamanni in the Battle of Tolbiac.

Whence making Paris his capital, Holy King Clovis established an abbey dedicated to Saints Peter and Paul on the south bank of the Seine, and; converting to Catholicism. Clovis called a synod of Gallic bishops to meet in Orléans to reform the Church in 511 and created a strong link between the Crown and the Catholic episcopate. This was the First Council of Orléans when Thirty-three bishops assisted and passed 31 decrees on the duties and obligations of individuals, the right of sanctuary, and ecclesiastical discipline. These decrees, equally applicable to Franks and Romans, first established equality between conquerors and conquered.

Of his four sons, Childebert son of Saint Clotilda, was to take the holding of Paris and Brittany. The battles with the Visigoths continued of course as the four sons of Clovis all fought the Burgundian kings Sigismund and Godomar. Clothier (Chlothar) succeeded similarly as his father Clovis had done in uniting the Frankish kingdoms and likewise passed a four fold division of it onto his four sons. They however collapsed into a civil war, with Siegbert succeeding in passing on the Kingship to Childebert II (570–95) before his assassination; who was smuggled to Metz at five years of age. Childebert II survived many attempts at his life and eventually annexed the Kingdom of Burgundy.

Arnulf of Metz or Arnold in English, was a Frankish bishop of Metz (582–640) and advisor to the Merovingian court of Austrasia who had recognised Childebert's sovereign claim even at five years of age, and eventually serviced his son Theudebert II in council at Metz. Arnulf distinguished himself both as a military commander and in the civil administration, and at one time he had under his care six distinct provinces. Arnulf married Doda in 596, originating the Arnulfing line as sourced back to Zerah, King David, and Joseph of Arimathea, and a partisan of the Carolingians, they would take power over the Merovingians in time in trend with Clovis, companion to the Popes Roman Catholics, and an alternative Merovingian line sourced to Chlodio.

Theudebert II, and his younger brother Theuderic II were Childebert II sons who fought against each other for the Kingdoms and against their cousin Clothar II, who defeated both and achieved another total unification of the Franks. In 614, Chlothar II promulgated the Edict of Paris, and In 623, he gave the Kingdom of Austrasia to his young son Dagobert I largely in repayment for the support given by the Bishop Arnulf of Metz and Pepin I to Childebert, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, the two leading Austrasian nobles, who were effectively granted semi-autonomy.

Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia under the Merovingian king Dagobert I from 623 to 629, also Mayor for Sigebert III from 639 until his own death; Pippin of Landen (also called the Elder) was lord of a great part of Brabant. He became the governor of Austrasia too when Theodebert II was defeated by Theodoric II. When Pippin of Landen became Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia, serving King Dagobert I after Clothier II; through the marriage of his daughter Begga to Ansegisel in 613, he secured the clans of the Pippinid's and the Arnulfing's central to Carolingian power.

In 632, the nobles of Austrasia revolted and King Dagobert appeased the rebellious nobles by installing a new ruler, his three-year-old son, Sigebert III who would control Austrasia somewhat independently. The complacency of the titles of Kings continued somewhat, with boy-kings, nobility feuds, and domicile religious control, until the Merovingian line had acceded its Frankish titled ownership to the Carolingian's. Not until Charles Martel were the Frankish statesman and military leaders who, titled Dukes and Princes of the Franks or Mayor of the Palace; actual de facto Rulers of Francia. Military campaigns were re-establishing the Franks as the undisputed masters of all Gaul and controlled by the Mayors instead of the Kings. Martel had continued to install several of the Merovingians, a practice ending with Childeric III (c. 717 – c. 754) when Martels son Pepin officially took over in 751.

Pepin the Short (714–768) having resolved to take the Royal title for himself after Carloman retired to a monastery in 747, sent letters to Pope Zachary asking whether the title of King belonged to the one who had exercised power or the one with the Royal lineage. The Pope responded that the real power should have the royal title as well. In early March 751 Childeric was dethroned by Pope Zachary and tonsured. His long hair was the symbol of his dynasty and thus the Royal rights or magical powers was cut, so divesting him of all Royal prerogatives. Once desposed, he and his son Theuderic were taken to the monastery of Saint-Bertin or he in Saint-Omer and Theuderic in Saint-Wandrille. King Pepin (the Short) reformed the legislation of the Franks and continued a ecclesiastical reformation, creating the legal basis for the Papal States of the Middle Ages.

King Charles' Commonwealth; the Duke of Buckingham & the English Civil Wars

In 1627 British Parliament opened impeachment proceedings against George Villiers, the Duke of Buckingham, to which the King, Charles I, responded in turn by dissolving his Parliament. As Charles and George had travelled together and incognito to Spain in February 1623, to try to reach agreement on the long-pending Spanish match; they were long since friends, and Charles had just placed him in command of the English forces for a French relief task force mission at the siege of La Rochelle. In fact Charles and the Duke of Buckingham had assumed together de facto control of the Kingdom by 1624 when King James I was growing ill. In May 1626 more so, Charles had nominated his friend and ally the Duke of Buckingham as Chancellor of Cambridge University, appeasing his disastrous military advances made against Spain (where classically actions in plotting to seize the main Spanish port at Cádiz and burn the fleet in its harbor, panned out with the militia calling off the attack themselves, camping down in the harbor's warehouse district, and getting drunk instead).
When two members of parliament Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot, who had spoken against the Duke of Buckingham were arrested for the condemnation, the Commons became outraged, and on 12 June 1626, the Commons launched a direct protestation, stating; "We protest before your Majesty and the whole world that until this great person be removed from intermeddling with the great affairs of state, we are out of hope of any good success; and do fear that any money we shall or can give will, through his misemployment, be turned rather to the hurt and prejudice of this your kingdom than otherwise, as by lamentable experience we have found those large supplies formerly and lately given." Without parliament Charles had left himself unable to raise any money. Charles thus assembled a puppet parliament in 1628 drawing up the Petition of Right, and on referral from the Magna Carta. In his "personal rule of Charles I", or the "Eleven Years' Tyranny” ruling the English nation from his coffers; Charles made peace with France and Spain, effectively ending England's involvement in the Thirty Years' War (to salvage finances). He introduced a monetary tax additionally, exploiting a naval war-scare in 1635 to gain funding (in which many prominent British businessmen were fined for refusing to pay).
These measures were followed with proper religious reformation which would though tip the balance unfavorably. Charles believed in High Anglicanism, a sacramental version of the Church of England, theologically based upon Arminianism, a creed shared with his main political advisor, Archbishop William Laud. In 1633, firstly Charles appointed Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury, of which the Puritans claimed was a attempt towards Catholicism (and a return). While vying for a uniform Church throughout Britain and Scotland in fact, this was non-gratis and a riot broke out in Edinburgh following, after he introduced a High Anglican version of the English Book of Common Prayer in mid-1637. The mainstream response to the objections formed into Royal policy in the National Covenant which rejected all innovations not first having been tested by free parliaments and general assemblies of the church.
The militant responses increased until King Charles I was defeated losing Newcastle to the Scots, after which he absconded the English religious pressure on Scotland and paid the Scots' war-expenses for good return. Short lived however, Charles' hand had been forced and to break the Scottish rebelliousness, and the treaty he attacked them forthrightly in Berwick. In turn the Scots invaded England, occupying Northumberland and Durham.
Meanwhile, Charles' chief advisor Thomas Wentworth, 1st Viscount Wentworth, had risen to the role of Lord Deputy of Ireland in 1632 and brought in much-needed revenue for Charles by persuading the Irish Catholic gentry to pay new taxes in return for promised religious concessions (who he made the Earl of Strafford duly). However when Charles tried again to reform parliament, granting a new autonomy in the process, the nobles agenda provided contrary to Charles' military circumstance. They firstly condemned Wentworth, the accomplished financer to Charles, to death, who was executed; a order which Charles himself signed out of fear for his wellbeing. As the parliamentarians continued to suspect Charles of wanting to impose episcopalianism and unfettered Royal rule by military force the situation turned grim. The Irish Catholics, fearing a resurgence from the Protestants, rebelled and rumor's that the King supported the Irish, and was sympathetic to Catholic rule (Spanish), led to a irreparable rift. Charles was unofficially denounced by the Parliamentarians but labelled in kind as their servant.
Charles departed London in January 1642 and by 22 August had raised the Royal standard at Nottingham and followed into the first pitched battle, fought at Edgehill on 23 October 1642. He was imprisoned, subsequently at Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle; where in January 1649, the Rump House of Commons indicted him. The Parliamentarian and Royalist 'Civil War' would continue after Charles was executed, in the initiated era of the 'old' English Commonwealth. He was succeeded by Charles II who returned from exile (after defeat by Oliver Cromwell at Worcester, and failure of his Republican model) on 23 May 1660, and was crowned in the ceremonial restoration of the monarchy on 23 April 1661; amending the gap left by Cromwell (Lord Protector and effective military dictator for near twenty years) and the 190,000 British killed in his war.