Thursday, April 28, 2022

The Theory Of Kings

Remember what we saw in the book-length compound posting "America And The Modern World Explained By Way Of Paris" December 2015. In sections 8-10. I want to add more to it today. This is very important in understanding international relations and is something that I cannot see anywhere else.

The modern political era began with the French Revolution. This brings about what I refer to as "The King Factor" that explains so much about relations between nations. The French Revolution resulted in the overthrow and execution of the French king and queen and the rise of Napoleon, who was the prototype military dictator. Napoleon didn't initiate the revolution but he was what ultimately arose out of it.

There is the King Question. The question is: "Is there a king, or has the king been overthrown and, if so, has the king been replaced by a military leader"?

That question reveals so much about international relations today.

What happens in the world is that there are kings, and there are those who have overthrown the kings, and each side tends to stick together with it's own kind. This simple principle has an amazing ability to predict international relations.

America is actually split between the two sides. It broke away from a king but the king and queen of France, the same ones that were shortly thereafter overthrown and executed in the French Revolution, were America's first allies and the ones that helped it to gain independence. As explained in detail in that compound posting, America's Republicans are the continuation of the French royal Bourbon Dynasty while it's Democrats represent the post-royal side after the revolution.

This puts Donald Trump, and Republicans in general, on the king side.

The Russian Revolution of 1917, which overthrew the royal tsars, is very much like a replay of the French Revolution. The Romanov Dynasty of the tsars were replaced by the Communists, but now the Communists are gone and the Romanov flag again flies over Russia. This puts Vladimir Putin in the king category, alongside Donald Trump. Putin is explained near the end of section 10 in the compound posting.

I consider this simple principle as one of the most important things that I have ever written on this blog. It explains so much about international relations.

Why are Saudi-Iranian relations so sour when they have so much in common, even though one is Sunni and the other Shiite? It is because the Saudis are ruled by a king and the Iranians by those who overthrew the king (The Shah). The two are on opposite sides of the French Revolution.

France was where Iranian dissidents often sought refuge in exile. But when the Shah, a king, was overthrown his first stop was Egypt and he never went to France. Of course not. Why would the king who had been overthrown want to go to the place that set the precedent for overthrowing the king? Instead he went to the land of the pharaohs, who are the ultimate kings.

When Ayatollah Khomeini was in exile his case was the opposite, he was trying to overthrow the Shah. Khomeini was in exile in Turkey, then Iraq, and finally France. All of these nations were on the same side as him in that they had overthrown their kings.

Saddam Hussein surprised the world by invading neighboring Kuwait in 1990. But Saddam had replaced the overthrown king of Iraq. As a military dictator Saddam was very much in the mode of Napoleon. But Kuwait was ruled by a king, the Emir. This put the two countries on diametrically opposite sides of "The King Question". After the invasion Saddam subconsciously reminded America's Republican president of the Napoleon that had replaced the guillotined king and queen that had been America's first allies. America, closely allied with the Saudi king, went in to save the Kuwaiti king.

A "king" in this scenario doesn't necessarily have to be an actual crowned king, as in the case of Saudi Arabia. But a leader who isn't technically a king may be a "king-in-fact". When a society has been religious for a long period of time, but then becomes more secular, the patterns of the religion will tend to remain. In a similar way the nations of the world operated as monarchies and empires for centuries, since ancient times, just because they have relatively recently become republics shouldn't we expect the long-established royal patterns to continue?

When it is an actual crowned king that is the king here it will probably always be a "real" king, rather than a constitutional monarch. There are a number of monarchies in Europe today but all are constitutional monarchies, where the constitution is above the king or queen.

Let's make a list of the "kings" in the world today. Remember that kings tend to stick together, often mystifying the rest of the world as to why. A major factor in relations between nations today, that I have never seen pointed out, is where each stands relative to the French Revolution. Basically the question is: "Is there a king or has the king been overthrown and, if so, has he been replaced by a military leader"?

VLADIMIR PUTIN

Vladimir Putin is a post-Communist leader of Russia. He has been effectively in power for more than twenty years. That, in itself, makes him like a king. Putin is from St. Petersburg, the former capital city of the Romanov Dynasty, and the Romanov flag has been restored as the national flag. This makes Putin a tsar in the continuation of the Romanov Dynasty and you can be sure that a tsar doesn't need the approval of outside powers to invade a neighboring country that was once part of the Romanov Empire.

MARINE LEPEN

What is going on in France? How can Marine LePen, a well-to-the-right candidate who has visited Vladimir Putin, be getting so much of the vote? The rest of Europe is mystified. France is the country where the modern political era was opened by the overthrow and execution of the Bourbon king and queen. Napoleon, the prototype of the modern dictator especially one wearing a uniform, didn't start the French Revolution but is what eventually emerged from it. But the Bourbons managed a comeback after the time of Napoleon, eventually being replaced by the House of Orleans until the French Monarchy was eliminated for good by the revolutions that swept Europe in 1848. The monarchy might have been eliminated, at least officially, but a country that had been a monarchy for so long cannot just eliminate it by drafting a constitution. Marine LePen is nothing less than the new French Queen. It doesn't matter at all whether she ever holds the presidency as well, or whether she is formally crowned. The political party founded by her father is now the French royal family.

VIKTOR ORBAN

Viktor Orban is Hungary's king, no matter what his official title. Like the other kings here his views are well-to-the-right and he is an admirer of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Orban's Christian values are the legacy of St. Stephen, the first king of the country who Christianized Hungary a thousand years ago. Hungary is also significant with regard to kings because the Holy Crown of Hungary, on prominent display in the parliament building, is possibly the single most valuable object in the world.

RICHARD NIXON

What wasn't understood about Richard Nixon was that he was a king. It was thought that the world was past the age of monarchies but this couldn't be more wrong. The ironically-named "Republican Party" is actually the continuation of the French Bourbon Dynasty, which helped America gain independence and was it's first ally. Why should a king like Richard Nixon have to be bound by some silly constitution? Neither should a real king be bound by this democratic process. Each voter gives a candidate their checkmark and whoever has the most checkmarks gets to be the new leader. To a king like Nixon it must have sounded like a children's game.

DONALD TRUMP

Donald Trump was the classic modern king-in-fact. A king doesn't have to be bothered with silly rules that are for ordinary mortals to obey. Donald Trump is from America's Republican Party which, we have seen, is the descendant of the French Bourbon Monarchy. Donald Trump has mystified many people by praising Vladimir Putin, but the reason is that they are both kings and kings tend to stick together.

MBS

Mohammed Bin Salman, usually referred to simply as MBS, is the crown prince or heir apparent of Saudi Arabia, which means that he is next in line for the throne. At the time of this writing his aged father is still king but, according to many observers, MBS is effectively running the country. Thus far MBS has acted like a king of old. The Saudi royals are the only ones listed here that are technically kings. Since the son of Ibn Saud inherited the crown from his father, royal transitions in Saudi Arabia have been from brother to brother. MBS will be the first of the next generation when he inherits the throne.

XI JINPING

China has been ruled by emperors for five thousand years. Xi Jinping has been consolidating authority to make him the most powerful leader of China since Chairman Mao. Regardless of his political title, Xi Jinping is an emperor. An emperor is actually higher than a king because a king can sometimes be ruled over by another king but no one ever rules over an emperor. This is why China's government hasn't condemned Putin's invasion of Ukraine, because kings tend to stick together.

RECEP ERDOGAN

By title Recep Erdogan is the President of Turkey. By reality he is the king-in-fact of the new Ottoman Empire. He is moving away from the secularism and democracy of the Turkish Republic, back toward the style of an Ottoman Emperor. The July 2016 coup, by a faction of the military, was an unsuccessful attempt to remove Erdogan by force, but it only ended up strengthening his position. He has built the largest presidential compound in the world, which is effectively a vast palace for a great emperor. This is why Erdogan is still on good terms with Putin, even though Turkish-made drones are important to Ukraine's military effort.

THE PEACE OF THE KINGS

Here is one that is really interesting. Israel has made peace with several Arab countries. At the time Israel was led by Benjamin Netanyahu, who was of the country's rightward Likud Party. The peace agreements were brokered by Donald Trump, who we saw above as a king. Trump and Netanyahu were very close allies when they were both in office, and that is because they were both kings. Israel may be officially a republic today but it has a long history of famous kings, from Saul, David and, Solomon to all the Kings of both Judah and ancient Israel described in the two Books of Kings in the Old Testament. 

The countries that Israel signed peace treaties with are Bahrain, Morocco and, the United Arab Emirates. Should it come as a surprise that all of these countries are ruled by kings? This was truly the Peace Of The Kings. Saudi Arabia, effectively ruled by MBS as described above, has not yet signed an official peace treaty with Israel but the two countries are in much closer cooperation.

THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR

The Spanish Civil War of the 1930s is an interesting case. Adolf Hitler helped Francisco Franco to win the civil war but then he never turned into the ally that Hitler had hoped for. Franco was a king-in-fact, his politics were rightward and he certainly governed like a king. The Spanish Monarchy had been abolished but Franco brought it back, decided who would be king and then named the king as his successor.

Hitler, meanwhile, was not a king. He ignored the request of the old Kaiser Wilhelm II to restore the German monarchy. Hitler typically wore a military uniform and was in the mold of Napoleon, he made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb. Hitler emerged from the German revolution that ended the rule of the kaisers, which was first followed by the Weimar Republic, in the same way that Napoleon is what ultimately emerged from the French Revolution. This put Hitler and Franco on opposite sides of "The King Question" and is the underlying reason why Franco never turned into the ally that Hitler hoped for.


Notice how all of these leaders, except Richard Nixon and Francisco Franco who are past, usually support each other, or at least rarely criticize each other, often to the surprise of the rest of the world. That is because kings tend to stick together. A "real" king would usually be a king-in-fact according to our scenario here, although a constitutional monarch would likely not be. 

The opposite of a king is a military leader that has overthrown a king, in the mold of Napoleon. Those may tend to stick together also, although not usually to the extent that kings do. But this king factor is absolutely necessary to understand international relations in the world today.

THE VALUE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

A so-called "constitutional monarchy" is a nation that has a royal family, but the monarch is under the rule of the constitution. This means that the king or queen does not have unlimited power and may, in fact, have a mostly-ceremonial role with no legal power at all. Europe has a number of constitutional monarchies, Britain, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and, the Scandinavian countries. Other well-known constitutional monarchies are Japan and Thailand.

In contrast to constitutional monarchies are "real" monarchies, where the king theoretically has to answer to no one. The best- known "real" monarchy is Saudi Arabia. This doesn't mean the king has absolute authority, as the monarchy still requires the support of the people.

Democracies that have no connection to royalty are known as republics. The word "republic" means that the people do not decide on everything directly but elect worthy and qualified people to represent the public. "Republic" is a contraction of "represent" and "public".

More than a quarter of the nations of the world are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, the descendant of the British Empire. But only a portion of those nations list Queen Elizabeth as their head of state. The rest are republics. Even when listed as head of state it doesn't mean that the queen has any real authority in the country. Notice that Canada has Queen Elizabeth on it's currency, but the queen does not wear a crown.

Many people wonder what the point is to maintaining a constitutional monarchy, other than as a tourist attraction and for ceremonial purposes. At the time of this writing there are active discussions in Canada, Australia, and especially Jamaica about removing Queen Elizabeth as head of state, although this doesn't necessarily mean leaving the Commonwealth.

What I would like to do today is explain how a constitutional monarch actually does have power, and how that power is beneficial, even if some of the royals may have behavioral issues.

Monarchy has something in common with religion. When a nation has been religious for a long period of time, but then becomes more secular, the patterns of religion will remain and old religious conflicts will tend to get acted out in modern secular form. We cannot just get rid of religion.

The present east-west confrontation and the Cold War before it, along with Napoleon's invasion of Russia and the eastern fronts of both world wars, are all secular manifestations of the east-west split in religion that began as the Eastern Orthodox Church split away from the Catholic Church in the Great Schism of the year 1054. The Yugoslav conflicts of the 1990s were not overtly about religion, but 100% followed the traditional boundaries of Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and, Moslems in the country. 

It is just as easy to see how the political and economic structures of recent history are a secular reflection of earlier religious structures. The organization of Soviet Communism was a reflection of the organization of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The dictators that came to power in historically Catholic countries were secular reflections of the pope. The free enterprise concept of anyone being able to start their own business enterprise is a reflection of the Protestant ideal of anyone being able to start their own church.

Neither can we just get rid of monarchy. Nations have been ruled by powerful kings and emperors since the beginning of civilization. History is a powerful force. We tend to repeat it, often without realizing it, and our long history of being ruled over by kings and queens is not going to just go away by drafting a constitution.

What happens is that, if we eliminate kings and queens, we will tend to end up being ruled by a demagogue who acts like a king, regardless of what his actual title may be.

It was the French Revolution that opened the modern political era. The French king and queen were guillotined and France became a republic. But what happened? France ended up being ruled by Napoleon, who certainly acted more like a king than any of the kings that came before. When the pope came to Notre Dame to crown Napoleon he snatched the crown from the pope and put it on himself, making it clear that he was above the pope and didn't need the pope.

Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III, later became president of France. When his term was over he simply declared democracy over, and the country as an empire, with himself as emperor. The king was gone, but was just replaced by leaders who act like kings.

Mexico initially became a monarchy after independence from Spain. That didn't last but it later became a monarchy again, supported by Napoleon's nephew Napoleon III. The monarchy was removed but the country ended up being ruled by Porfirio Diaz.

The Russians put their royal family in front of a firing squad, but ended up being ruled by Stalin.

Germany ended it's royal family, the Kaisers, but ended up being ruled by Hitler.

Spain ended it's royal family in 1931 but ended up being ruled by Francisco Franco, who restored the royal family and named the king as his successor.

The power of monarchies was in decline throughout the Twentieth Century. But the century became known as the "Century of Dictatorship". Kings and queens had simply been replaced by dictators. If we don't have kings we will just end up with leaders that act like kings. Monarchy is just too deeply rooted in the world's history.

But we want to be free. We do not want to be ruled by either kings or leaders who act like kings, who are usually worse than the actual kings. Fortunately there is a common sense solution that works.

We cannot just do away with royalty because it is far too deeply rooted in human history. What we can do is have a limited monarch that is bound by a constitution, a so-called "constitutional monarchy". A constitutional monarchy fulfills the need for a king or queen, because it is so deeply rooted in human history, but allows us to be much more free than we would be if ruled by a non-constitutional monarch by keeping the king or queen to a mostly ceremonial role.

The presence of the constitutional monarch acts as a psychological counterbalance against demagogues who act like kings. Any nation can eliminate a monarch as head of state if that is what they think best, but kings are just too deeply rooted in human history and that nation would greatly increase it's chances of falling under a leader who acts like a king.

VARIOUS EXAMPLES OF THE KING FACTOR

Democrat U.S. presidents helped France in both world wars. In the U.S. the Republican side represents the continuation of the French Bourbon Monarchy, which was overthrown in the French Revolution, while the Democrats are the post-revolution side. Notice how America's "Republican Heartland" is the land that was acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, which was named for the French king Louis. France is now in the post-revolution republic stage. So when France is at war doesn't it make sense that it is Democrat U.S. presidents that are likely to help it, Woodrow Wilson in the First World War and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Second World War?

Paris has no streets named for Republican U.S. presidents. Paris has several streets named for U.S. presidents, but none for Republican presidents. But should this be surprising since France is in the post-revolution stage and it is the Democrats who represent the post-revolution stage in America.

Poor relations between the Nazis and the Kaisers. The Kaisers, the German royal family, ruled Germany in the First World War and the Nazis in the Second World War. But there were never good relations between the two, and not just because the Nazis blamed the Kaisers for losing the First World War. By the time the Nazis were in power the old Kaiser Wilhelm II was still alive, in exile in the occupied Netherlands. His request to Hitler to reinstate the German royal family was ignored, and Hitler showed no signs of wanting any contact with him. The Kaisers actually had a place in Nazi ideology, being the "Second Reich" while the Nazis called themselves the "Third Reich" with the Holy Roman Empire being the "First Reich". The reason for the poor relations was that the Kaisers were kings while Hitler eventually emerged from the revolution, at the end of the First World War, that overthrew the Kaisers. This put Hitler very much in the mode of Napoleon, he made a point of visiting Napoleon's tomb and his field of conquest was very similar to that of Napoleon. This also put the Nazis and the Kaisers on diametrically opposite sides of the King Question and this is the reason for the poor relations between them.

Poor relations between Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. Relations between wartime Germany and Italy were usually not as good as they might have been, especially after the war turned against the two Axis powers, although this isn't necessarily true of Hitler and Mussolini themselves. The reason was that the two were on opposite sides of the King Question, Hitler was very much in the mode of Napoleon while Mussolini styled himself as a Roman emperor. One thing that I think weakened Mussolini's power over Italy is the fact that it already had a king, although the monarchy would be removed by a postwar referendum.

Poor relations between the wartime Axis powers. The relationship between the Nazis and Imperial Japan was affected by the same factor as between the Nazis and Italy. There were photo ops during submarine visits between the allies on the opposite side of the world but, other than that, there was very little coordination or cooperation between them. Emperor Hirohito was royalty while Hitler was very much in the mode of Napoleon, this put the two on opposite sides of the King Question.

Manchukuo in the war between Japan and China. China had it's version of the French Revolution in the Xinhai Revolution of 1911. This is regarded as the end of Imperial China. The final emperor of the Qing Dynasty was a child when he was overthrown. The Qing Dynasty had been based in Manchuria, which is in northeastern China. By the time of the Second World War, which brought war between China and Japan, the former emperor was an adult. Imperial Japan set up a state in occupied Manchuria, called Manchukuo, and set up the former emperor of China as the emperor of it. This was in resonance with Japan, which was ruled by an emperor and thus on the opposite side of the King Question from China. The hope was that many of the Chinese people would follow their former emperor against the government of Chiang Kai-Shek, who was in the mode of Napoleon as having replaced the Chinese royal family.

Hitler's relationship with Stalin but with the factor of the Holy Roman Empire. Hitler and Stalin would seem to be made to be allies, and for a while they were. Both were in the mode of Napoleon, dictators who wore military uniforms and had replaced a royal family that had been overthrown. But there was another royal factor involved, and that factor was the Holy Roman Empire. Hitler was actually complicated, he was very much in the mode of Napoleon and had made a point of visiting Napoleon's Tomb. But Hitler also had his royal side in that he considered the Nazis as the "Third Reich" with the Holy Roman Empire as the first and the time of the Kaisers the second, both of which were royal. Hitler saw himself as picking up where Napoleon left off, but also as the new Charlemagne who had been the first Holy Roman Emperor. Ironically it was Napoleon's conquests that ended the thousand-year-old Holy Roman Empire. This royal side put Hitler at odds with Stalin, who was not royal. The very purpose of the Holy Roman Empire was to rein in the eastern Christians who were questioning the authority of the pope. Hitler's invasion of Stalin was to complete this purpose, albeit in modern secular form. Napoleon, Hitler's military model, had also invaded Russia when it had been ruled by the royal family that Stalin had replaced.

John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro. The Cuban Communist revolutionary, Fidel Castro who came to power in 1959, was initially popular as he toured the U.S. It was president John F. Kennedy who demonized him. Castro was very much in the mode of Napoleon, a revolutionary leader who wore a military uniform. Castro hadn't overthrown a king himself but was an ally of the Soviet Communists who had overthrown and executed the Romanovs. We usually associate royal behavior in America with the Republican Party and Kennedy was a Democrat. But while Kennedy's policies generally favored the common people and he wasn't known to "act like a king", Kennedy had as much an aura of royalty about him as any Republican president. The Kennedy family was known as America's unofficial royal family. Kennedy's "court" was known as "Camelot", which was the name of the royal court of the fictitious King Arthur. This unmistakable aura of royalty put Kennedy on the opposite side of the King Factor from Fidel Castro. This is why Kennedy had to demonize Castro, even though Kennedy was a Democrat.

Richard Nixon, who Kennedy had won the presidential election against, later became U.S. President. Nixon was a Republican who "acted like a king" in that he thought rules didn't apply to him. This put Nixon on the opposite side of the King Factor from Fidel Castro. The Watergate Scandal, which ultimately brought down Nixon's presidency, began with a burglary, at the Watergate Buildings, in an effort to find evidence that Nixon's Democrat opponents were getting support from Castro's Cuba.

Republicans wanted to allow the exiled Iranian Shah into the U.S. while the Democrats wanted to keep him out. Democrat U.S. President Jimmy Carter is the one that ultimately paid for allowing the Shah into the U.S. But it was actually the Republicans who pressed to allow him in, for cancer treatment, against the objections of the Democrats. The underlying reason is simple. The Republicans are America's "royal" party, a continuation of the French Bourbon Dynasty that helped America gain independence. The Shah was an overthrown king, sharing the fate of the Bourbon monarchs, except that he died of cancer rather than being executed.

Ronald Reagan selling weapons to Iran to use against Iraq. While the staff of the U.S. Embassy in Iran was being held hostage, in demand for the return of the exiled Shah to face trial, war began between Iran and neighboring Iraq. It was this war that really got the U.S. hostages released because, with Iran actually being invaded, the hostages were no longer needed as a rallying point for the revolution and those guarding the hostages were needed at the battlefront. Can you believe that new president Ronald Reagan began secretly selling weapons to Iran, to use in the war against Iraq? In my youth this just mystified me, shouldn't it be the other way around? But now I understand the King Question. Both Iran's revolutionary government and the party of Iraq's Saddam Hussein had overthrown kings. Ronald Reagan was a Republican, which was America's "royal" party. But the two countries took different routes after overthrowing their kings. The Iranian revolutionaries were religious clerics while Iraq's Saddam Hussein was much more in the mode of Napoleon, a dictator who wore a military uniform. This is why Reagan sold weapons to Iran, to use against Iraq, because Napoleon was what ultimately emerged from the French Revolution, which overthrew and guillotined America's close allies, which had helped it gain independence.

Poor relations during 1980s between Moammar Gaddafi and Ayatollah Khomeini. During the 1980s the Libya of Moammar Gaddafi and the Iran of Ayatollah Khomeini had many enemies in common. It would make sense that there would be a close alliance between them, being both Moslem countries, but there wasn't. Part of the divide is certainly that between Sunni and Shiite Moslems. The rest is, as with Iraq, both Iran and Libya had overthrown kings but the revolutions had gone in different directions from there. Ayatollah Khomeini was a religious cleric while Moammar Gaddafi was more in the mode of Napoleon, a dictator wearing a military uniform.

The Kroner and Euro and Brexit. This is something interesting. Of the four Scandinavian countries, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and, Finland, the only one without a constitutional monarchy is Finland. The only one that uses the Euro as their currency is also Finland, even though all except Norway are in the European Union. The three countries that don't use the Euro call their currency "Kroner" or "Krone", which means "crown". This shows that monarchy weakens a country's connection to the European Union, or precludes it altogether. When we come to Britain this explains it's former relationship with the European Union. It was a latecomer to the union, joining in 1973, it never adapted the Euro, and finally left the union altogether. We can see by the examples of Scandinavia above that the underlying reason is Britain being a constitutional monarchy. Notice that several leaders listed above as kings or queens, Donald Trump, Marine LePen and, Viktor Orban, are skeptical of the European Union.

Why Boris Johnson struggles. For the same reason that Benito Mussolini did. Boris Johnson, a conservative, is actually a would-be king, Britain's version of Donald Trump. The thing that hinders him from acting like a king is, as we saw above in "The Value Of Constitutional Monarchy" is that Britain already has a monarch, even if it is a constitutional monarch. This blocks Boris Johnson from getting away with things that Donald Trump might have gotten away with while President of the U.S.

America and the Metric System. Why was America the last major country to convert to the Metric System? It is actually very simple. America's first allies, and the ones that helped it to gain independence, were the Bourbon monarchs of France. Not too long after America's independence they were overthrown and guillotined in the French Revolution. The French revolutionaries were obsessed with the number ten. They initiated a day with ten hours, a week with ten days, and a year with ten months. None of that lasted but the revolutionaries did contribute one thing that has swept the world, a measurement system based on tens that we call the Metric System. The real reason America has been so slow to accept it is that it was created by those who overthrew and guillotined it's close friends.

THE UPSIDE AND DOWNSIDE OF MONARCHY

THE MONARCHY AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

Why would the Industrial Revolution begin in Britain? Could it have to do with the monarchy?

The world was enthralled by the pageantry involved in the recent funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Very long lines of people waiting to pay their last respect. The orderly procession of the casket, with every move being made in harmony with long tradition. The vast number of people that had to be managed at the final funeral service, which had a precise way that the ceremony had to be done. The extensive rehearsals that must have been done to prepare everyone involved. The tremendous logistics involved must have approached that of holding the Olympics.

Except for the passing out of one of the Yeoman Warders everything ran like clockwork.

Now consider the running of a factory. The building has to set up just right to make the manufacturing process as efficient as possible. Raw materials have to brought in in the right amounts, to the right place in the factory, at the right time. Workers must have the required skills and training. The developing product must be moved along at just the right time in the manufacturing process. If machines are being manufactured the moving parts must work together just like the processes in the factory that produces it. The finished product must be packaged and taken to the markets. Careful consideration must go into the pricing of the product, to exceed the cost of manufacturing it but not high enough to reduce sales.

Just like all the pageantry associated with royalty it all had to work like clockwork. In fact, in terms of the patterns involved, there is a lot of similarity between royal pageantry and the industrial processes in factories. I am just using the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II as one example. Considering what we saw above in how the patterns in life and society are transmitted by art, music and, sports doesn't it seem like the patterns in royal pageantry are a major reason why the Industrial Revolution began in England?

THE MONARCHY AND OVER-CENTRALIZATION

Overall I think the monarchy is a good thing. But there is one downside to the psychology of it that I cannot see has been documented anywhere.

The idea of society revolving around a monarchy promotes over-centralization. Two examples in England are the city of London and Oxford University.

One issue with the economy in England is how London overshadows everything else. No other city comes remotely close to London, and maybe this isn't healthy. The last I read the economic output of Liverpool, Manchester and, Birmingham combined is maybe 25% that of London.

No other of the larger European countries is centered around one city like England is centered around London. France, which overthrew and guillotined it's own monarchy in the revolution of 1789, is set up to be centered around Paris. But there are other cities that provide significant counterbalance and Marseilles is another power center in the south. Despite the history of Rome the economic center of Italy is Milan. Spain has a monarchy too, although not as visible as that of Britain, and Spain is somewhat centered around Madrid, although not as much as England is centered around London, and Barcelona in particular is a counterbalance power center.

On the other side of the world Japan is a highly visible monarchy also. Indeed we see that Tokyo dominates the economy of Japan much as London dominates England. Japan is an ancient country but Tokyo, by comparison, is not a really old city. But the reason Tokyo is there is because the Emperor moved from the much-older Kyoto to where the Shogun had been based, and it has since grown to economically dominate the country.

Just as London and Tokyo are the "palaces" of cities in their respective countries, Oxford is the "palace" of universities in England. For decades, Gordon Brown is the only prime minister that I can think of who didn't attend Oxford. I believe that this is due to the influence of having the monarchy, although overall it is beneficial.

THE MONARCHY AND MILITARY COUPS

The recent death of former Pakistani President and General Pervez Musharraf brought something to my attention that I cannot see has been pointed out.

A coup is an attempt to overthrow a government from within the country, as opposed to a foreign invasion. Across the world coup attempts happen all the time. Most are unsuccessful.

As we might expect, coups often involve the military since the military has weapons. A number of countries in the world are led by military governments. Such governments are generally disapproved of by democracies, since a military government hardly ever comes to power by way of a free election. Military governments almost always gain political power by seizing it forcefully, in other words a coup.

It is not uncommon, considering the entire world, for a country to have been ruled by it's military for a period of time, with power eventually returning to civilian control. Many countries have been through one or two military coups in their history. 

But there are a few countries where the military operates almost like part of the government. When the military leadership feels that the civilian government isn't working as it should it seizes power, usually bloodlessly, but ultimately returns power to a civilian government.

Several countries fall into this category of having had more than one military coup in the modern era. But the coups seem almost like part of the system. The coups are always successful, bloodless or nearly bloodless, and control is eventually returned to a civilian government, almost always after elections have been held.

The first two countries that come to mind are Pakistan and Nigeria. Egypt has had a president from the military since the last king was overthrown. The exception was that Muhammad Morsi was allowed to win election after the Arab Spring but the military staged a coup and removed him. 

Myanmar's military seized power and then another military government seized power from the first one. The democratic rule of Aung San Suu Kyi represented a much-awaited return to civilian control. But the military took advantage of an election that the rest of the world believes that she won and they lost to seize power again.

What I cannot help noticing is that the countries where occasional military coups seem like a regular part of the political system is those that were under British influence during the imperial era. In Britain it seems as if the monarch does not have any actual power. But the king or queen is the one to break a deadlock in government, if it should ever be necessary.

What happens in countries like Pakistan and Nigeria is that the lead general takes on the role of the monarch, outside the government but ready to step in when necessary, until it is decided that the country is ready to move forward with new elections.

Northern England

The general definition of northern England is everything between The Midlands, to the south, and Scotland, to the north. We have already visited "Liverpool" and "Manchester". For our visit today, let's have a look at the rest of northern England, and what it has contributed to the world.

At the mention of the city of Sheffield, the first thing that comes to mind is steel. It could best be described as England's version of Pittsburgh or Hamilton. Before the invention of modern steel-making processes, the city had long been known for the production of cutlery.

Older guns used to be muskets, which could fire only one shot at a time before being reloaded. The development of modern rapid-fire guns was challenging for steel-makers. The properties of steel can be varied by the amount of carbon that is added to the raw iron. More carbon makes a steel harder, but also more brittle. Steels can also be alloyed with other metals.

A native of Sheffield named Harry Brearley had the idea of alloying chromium with steel. The result was the very widely-used "stainless steel", which also doesn't rust.

Here is a look at Sheffield.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3833002,-1.4658946,3a,75y,237.65h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sRICF_3mAZocBxEjL_izbBQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRICF_3mAZocBxEjL_izbBQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D223.27948%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

The largest city of northern England, other than Liverpool and Manchester, is Leeds. It has a diverse economy, not revolving around any one industry, and is the financial center of northern England.

In the days of sailing ships, it was a simple matter to take a reading of the ship's latitude. All that was necessary was the measure the angular distance of the north star above a flat horizon. The earth is a 360 degree sphere and latitude is the angular distance north or south of the equator, with the equator being 0 degrees, the north pole being 90 degrees north (the north star would be directly overhead at the north pole or at 90 degrees), and the south pole being 90 degrees south. Lines of latitude thus run parallel to the equator.

But measuring the ship's longitude was more difficult. The solution came when John Harrison, from the Leeds area, invented a very accurate clock that did not rely on the motion of a pendulum. A pendulum-based clock was considered as unreliable at sea because the pitching and rolling of the ship in rough water might affect the timing of the pendulum.

The ship's clock could be set to what became known as Greenwich Mean Time, GMT or the time at 0 degrees longitude which was designated as the Prime Meridian. Local solar time could be determined on ship by devices such as a sundial, and this revealed the location of the ship relative to the Prime Meridian. Each hour ahead of GMT represented 15 degrees latitude east, and each hour behind GMT represented 15 degrees west. 360 degrees in a circle divided by 24 hours in a day equals 15 degrees.

These views of Leeds begin in Millennium Square.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.8011738,-1.548474,3a,75y,130.88h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgRyFCGVIHmbxuuTPhVxeWg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DgRyFCGVIHmbxuuTPhVxeWg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D145.69458%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Bradford grew into a city around the Industrial Revolution, and was especially known for the production of textiles, wool and, silk.

After the development of radio Sir Edward Appleton, a native of the city of Bradford, began to wonder about something. Radio waves were known to travel in straight lines, in the same way as light. But sometimes, radio signals could be received far away from the transmitter. This should not be possible, due to the curvature of the earth.

To deepen the mystery, the reception of distant radio waves changed between day and night. Some distant radio signals could be received at night, but not during the day, or vice-versa.

The wavelength of the radio waves was also a factor. Some distant waves of long wavelength could almost always be received. Shorter wavelengths could be received at some times, but not at others, and still shorter wavelengths could not be received at a distance at all.

What had been discovered, of course, was the ionosphere. This is the upper layer of the earth's atmosphere where atoms are ionized by solar radiation, either gaining or losing an electron. This reflects radio waves, at least those of certain wavelengths. But since it involves the sun, it changes from day to night.

You may notice that you can receive radio stations from far away in short wave radio, but the frequencies at which they can be received changes from day to night. This is because the waves reflect off the ionosphere to get around the curvature of the earth. If the wavelength is long enough, the ionosphere effectively acts as a wave guide, and the signals can be received most anytime. But waves of shorter wavelength pass right through the ionosphere and are not reflected at all.

In North America, distant AM (Amplitude Modulation) radio stations may be able to be received at night, but not during the day. While the much shorter-wavelength FM (Frequency Modulation) stations cannot be received at a distance at all.

The trouble is that longer wavelengths, which means lower frequencies of the wave, cannot carry as much information as shorter wavelengths. The long wavelengths that are reflected by the ionosphere could not, for example, carry television signals because they contain too much information. The longest wavelengths were useful for signalling with Morse Code. Since the shortest wavelengths, which can carry the most information, pass right through the ionosphere, we use satellites in orbit as a kind of artificial ionosphere to get around the curvature of the earth.

This is the city of Bradford, just west of Leeds.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.7952317,-1.7475071,3a,75y,111.53h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sUAhJF9Opk7-758Ax56dS2A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUAhJF9Opk7-758Ax56dS2A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D123.74598%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

The amazing thing about the city of York is how widely it has spread it's name. New York City and state. Toronto was originally called York, and there is the fort by that name. Yorkshire is the geographically largest county in Britain.

Here is the original city of York. It is known for it's numerous old alleys called "Snickelways". The ruins of the Catholic abbey that was abandoned after the Reformation is St. Mary's Abbey. Clifford's Tower is the keep of the original castle. York Minster is the famous cathedral. A minster is a cathedral or church that was used to train missionaries.

Have you ever wondered where perhaps the most popular of all candy bars, Kit Kat, came from? Here is York.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.9599362,-1.0810321,3a,75y,301.08h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1s4K0b-n7x1jjwGG6OY4nIgg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D4K0b-n7x1jjwGG6OY4nIgg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D315.6962%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Scarborough is a seaside resort on the east coast of northern England. There really was a "Scarborough Fair", the subject of the song by Simon and Garfunkel, but it was in the Middle Ages. Scarborough has given it's name to a number of places, including the eastern part of Toronto.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.2839593,-0.4004424,3a,75y,60h,100t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMv9iyxd48KGViqP17Ap9TxiQl7PLgsvPqBGoYI!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMv9iyxd48KGViqP17Ap9TxiQl7PLgsvPqBGoYI%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-10-ya169.52379-ro-0-fo100!7i12014!8i6007

As we might expect by the name, the city of Newcastle has a castle. It is not new today but was new when it was first built, nearly a thousand years ago. The city was known for shipbuilding and the ship on which I came across the ocean as a young boy, the Empress of England, was built at Newcastle, although we left from Liverpool. The name is an anachronism since England has never been ruled by anyone with the title of Empress or Emperor.

Newcastle honored Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his civil rights work in the U.S., and he visited in the year before his assassination.

One invention that most people do not pay much attention to is the steam turbine. It converts the energy in steam into rotary motion. A large ship has boilers which must build up steam before the ship can move. But how do you suppose the steam is converted into the rotary motion to drive the ship's propellers?

A lot of electricity is generated by nuclear power. But after the reactor generates heat, it still must be turned into the rotary energy that turns a generator. It requires a steam turbine. All that nuclear power really is amounts to just another way of boiling water.

Our world would be very different without steam turbines, which was invented at Newcastle by Sir Charles Parsons.

This is Newcastle, starting at the castle.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9702367,-1.6116167,3a,75y,304.57h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPK77E4GQIQSSrcqB1BXGxqgiWaHAyt5KJtU5yE!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPK77E4GQIQSSrcqB1BXGxqgiWaHAyt5KJtU5yE%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya320.20148-ro-0-fo100!7i5376!8i2688

Middlesbrough is another "steel town". Captain James Cook was a native of Middlesbrough. His Pacific voyages probably contributed more than anything else in bringing about accurate maps of the entire world, and is why there is a British flag on the state flag of Hawaii.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5762784,-1.2345225,3a,75y,186.67h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smNwNfSbNYwzhHbmHUN_SzA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DmNwNfSbNYwzhHbmHUN_SzA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D183.877%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

This is a residential area of Middlesbrough that it fairly typical of postwar developments in Britain that were built to accommodate the Baby Boom. Much of the similar housing of that era were "council houses", public housing built by the government and rented to residents. There were various efforts, most notably by Margaret Thatcher, to get more of those living in council houses to own the homes. New housing developments today tend to be really nice homes.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.5563683,-1.2061144,3a,75y,95.59h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sBNArvqlxSeKZ0V1NZ8IIvA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DBNArvqlxSeKZ0V1NZ8IIvA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D99.57265%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Just as Scarborough is the old seaside resort of northern England on the east coast, facing the North Sea, Blackpool is the seaside resort on the west coast, facing the Irish Sea. Both have, of course, declined somewhat as modern air travel has made sunnier places to vacation more accessible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.8170127,-3.0520097,3a,75y,101.39h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP1d0gLg8h0oN9H3_vgr3yHMYelqjM5kUmWhSKz!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP1d0gLg8h0oN9H3_vgr3yHMYelqjM5kUmWhSKz%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya217.84134-ro0-fo100!7i10000!8i5000

In the far north of England, not far from Scotland, is the city of Carlisle. It is one of the relatively few places with both a historic castle and a cathedral. It also has the more-recent citadel, with the cylindrical fortified buildings. The following scenes begin at Carlisle Cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.8946893,-2.9383744,2a,75y,191.72h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-rpAwa6dmZbjfquTwDzvqQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-rpAwa6dmZbjfquTwDzvqQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D186.80237%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

The traditional northern limit of England is Hadrian's Wall, although it does not form the border with Scotland. This is actually the most extensive Roman artifact in the world.

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.9886228,-2.6022469,3a,75y,240h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPzu0KiNOsY6yjsv8sxyod2nLzFJzty41a89GAr!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPzu0KiNOsY6yjsv8sxyod2nLzFJzty41a89GAr%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya35.000008-ro-0-fo100!7i9728!8i4860

The Far-Reaching Story Of Guy Fawkes

On the subject of northern England let's have a look at this.

England, starting with King Henry VIII (the eighth), went to the Protestant side during the Reformation, which began in 1517. But that choice was not unanimous throughout the country and a significant Catholic presence remained.

Henry's daughter, Queen Elizabeth I, would ultimately form the Anglican Church, also known as the Church of England, as an attempt at compromise between Calvinistic Puritans, on one side, and remaining Catholics, on the other side. Even today, the Anglican Church is said to have a "High Church" side, closer to the liturgy of Catholicism, and a "Low Church" side, closer to the Puritan liturgy.

Northern England was the region that had the strongest Catholic sympathies. There were several unsuccessful rebellions against the new Protestant order. Liverpool, in the north, is today considered as England's most Catholic city.

The new Anglican Church continued the Catholic pattern of having two archbishops in England. The senior of the two is at Canterbury, in the south of England. The junior archbishop is in the north, at the city of York. Both are automatically members of the House of Lords, the upper house of parliament.

Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and founder of the Anglican Church, was followed by the beginning of a new royal house. James I was the first king of the House of Stuart. Elizabeth I had been the last of the House of Tudor, as she had died childless.

James I was king of England and Scotland at the same time. The two were still separate countries at the time but this was the beginning of the eventual unity of the two, in 1707, to form Britain, as both England and Scotland had landed on the same side of the Reformation.

Elizabeth I had been preceded as queen by her half-sister Mary I, also daughter of Henry VIII. Unlike Elizabeth I, Mary I had been a devout Catholic, and had tried to bring England back to Catholicism by force. Although the attempt had not been successful, it got her a mixed drink named for her, the "Bloody Mary".

But the Catholic hope of getting England back wasn't quite finished yet. A native of York, the northern city where the Catholic archbishop was now the Anglican archbishop, became involved in a plot. Guy Fawkes was still a devout Catholic. The new king, James I, had disappointed Catholics by reaffirming Protestantism for England. A plan was developed to destroy the parliament, when James I and members of his Protestant government were in the building, by detonating a massive amount of gunpowder.

Gunpowder was used in guns at the time but this was before the invention of high explosives, like dynamite.

Guy Fawkes did not originate the assassination plot but became the one associated with it. Someone, it is still not known who, wrote a letter as a warning not to be in parliament on that day, apparently mistakenly thinking that the recipient of the letter was a Catholic sympathizer of the plot. The authorities were informed and the parliament building searched.

This was not the same parliament buildings of today, which were built in the Nineteenth Century. Apparently there was some excess space in the building where people could rent rooms. The search found that a room had been rented to store a large amount of firewood.

A man was guarding the firewood. But why would anyone rent a room in the parliament building to store firewood, and why would anyone be needed to guard the firewood?

The guard gave his name as the suspiciously generic "John Johnson". It turned out that the firewood had been stacked to conceal many barrels of gunpowder, which would have resulted in a catastrophic explosion if detonated. The real name of the guard was Guy Fawkes.

This episode is known as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. It's failure hardened anti-Catholic sentiment and was thus a great triumph for Protestants in England. This was the end of any serious attempt to bring England back to Catholicism.

November 5 became a national holiday, which was celebrated with bonfires or fireworks, and known as "Bonfire Night" or "Guy Fawkes Night". I suppose that the bonfire represents the firewood and the fireworks represents the gunpowder that never exploded. The holiday was made official by an act of Parliament known as the "Thanksgiving Act".

James I was the king who began English settlement of North America and for whom Jamestown, in Virginia, is named. Jamestown is considered as the beginnings of the United States and history would have been very different if this Gunpowder Plot had succeeded.

November 5 is at about the same time as autumn harvest, and festivals to celebrate a good harvest. America's first Thanksgiving holiday is believed to have been celebrated in 1619, fourteen years after the failure of the Gunpowder Plot was deemed a national holiday by the "Thanksgiving Act". This is where the name of the Thanksgiving holiday almost certainly comes from.

Fireworks were used as a celebration of the holiday because the gunpowder that was to destroy the parliament, and kill King James I, didn't explode. How much of a coincidence is it that America also uses fireworks to celebrate it's Independence Day, representing the rockets from British ships that were used to bombard Fort McHenry during the War of 1812, but failed to bring down the large U.S. flag that was flying over the fort, and this became the basis for America's national anthem? ( Although this actually took place in the War of 1812, which was a generation after America had already become independent).

What would our language be like today if this Gunpowder Plot had succeeded? The single greatest influence on the English language is considered by many to be the King James Bible of 1611. We saw this in the posting on this blog, "Hampton Court Palace And The King James Bible". There is a long list of King James Idioms that entered the language through this Bible, that was commissioned by King James I and published in 1611.

But celebrations of the event have not been entirely against Guy Fawkes. His likeness, in the form of a mask, became the general symbol of protest against the establishment, for anything from poverty to global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_mask#/media/File:Protest_ACTA_2012-02-11_-_Toulouse_-_05_-_Anonymous_guy_with_a_scarf.jpg

Does this seem familiar? What about Che Guevara? Isn't Che Guevara a modern, global version of Guy Fawkes, who traveled the world promoting revolution against an unjust establishment? Except that his establishment was Capitalist rather than Protestant. Perhaps the most familiar image in the world is that of Che Guevara, which borrows the legacy of the likeness of Guy Fawkes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara#/media/File:4CheFaces.jpg

What about his first name? After the plot, a "guy" was a male that was plotting something or was up to no good. But now it has come into use as a general term for any male.

Finally, we come to something that I have never seen referred to about the bombing campaign of the Irish Republican Army in the late Twentieth Century. Remember that Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who was attempting to use a bomb against what he saw as an overarching and unwanted Protestant establishment. The Irish Republican Army was simply picking up where Guy Fawkes had left off.

But the ultimate modern incarnation of Guy Fawkes is Timothy McVeigh. Instead of barrels of gunpowder, McVeigh used drums of fertilizer mixed with racing fuel, although both were to be detonated by a fuse. Instead of being detonated in a rented room in parliament, they would be detonated in a rented moving truck. Instead of striking at the overreaching Protestant establishment, McVeigh was striking at the overreaching federal establishment.

Remembering Sarah Siddons

Before there was Adele or Dolly Parton or Taylor Swift there was Sarah Siddons. As a stage actress in the late Eighteenth Century many regard Sarah Siddons as having started global celebrity culture for people in the entertainment industry.

Just down the road from where I was born the Seventeenth Century house still stands where Sarah Siddons grew up. She was born in Wales but Lydbrook is where she grew up.

Image From Google Street View

The green of this blog represents the green fields around where I was born, and also the "rainbow that looks like an emerald", in Chapter 4 of the Book of Revelation.

Image From Google Street View

This used to be Hubert Evans' barber shop.

Image From Google Street View

I think I was baptized in this former church. It looks like it's now a day care.

Image From Google Street View

Russian State Television Announcement

This week commentators on Russian state television reassured viewers that nuclear war is nothing to fear because "we are going to die anyway" and also that "we will go to Heaven but they will just croak". 

Does this sound like something from the early days of the Iranian Revolution? Remember what we saw in the posting, "The Great Revolution Of Our Time" January 2017. What has happened is that the Iranian Revolution has arrived in Russia.

The Simple Solution To Global Warming

When using a lawnmower remember that you are holding the solution to global warming. What if we could take billions of tons of grass clippings and do something with them so that they wouldn't decay? 

While growing grass absorbs carbon from the air. Plants use the energy in sunlight to split molecules of carbon dioxide. The oxygen in the molecule is released back into the air while the carbon in the molecule goes to build the structure of the plant. When the grass or other plant dies and decays the carbon then goes back into the air.

If we could make something useful out of grass clippings, or at least stop them from decaying, this would be taking carbon, which causes global warming, out of the air.

Tar and asphalt, used in paving, is based on the carbon which is in oil, and which originally came from plants. There must be a way to make a suitable paving material directly from grass clippings. The company that could find a way to do that would be heroic, because that would be our solution to global warming. It would be like a thermostat, we could make the earth as warm or as cool as we wanted.

Here is a link to the original posting about this:

www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/2009/06/solving-global-warming.html?m=0 

Here is an explanation of global warming:

www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-discussion-of-global-warming.html?m=0 

But even if we can solve global warming we have seen that we are still permanently creating water, at the expense of oxygen, whenever we burn fossil fuels:

www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/2009/06/hydrogen-peril.html?m=0

Thursday, April 21, 2022

A Journey Through The Midlands

St. George's Day, April 23, is England's national day. Our visit today is to England's Midlands. The majority of immigrants to Britain settle in London. But after a while many, sometimes the second generation, discover the more relaxed pace and more reasonable prices of the Midlands, while still being close enough to visit friends or family in London.

The major city of the Midlands is Birmingham. It is not a very old city. As a town, Birmingham was on the Puritan side in England's Civil War. What is so important about Birmingham is that it was where the steam engine was invented, and this is the invention that started the Industrial Revolution. Birmingham was the home of Alexander Parkes, who created the first plastic.

London had too many important buildings, and didn't want it's sky smudged with the smoke from the factories. So the Industrial Revolution began further north. Britain is not really rich in resources but it had the coal and iron ore that it took for the first phase of the Industrial Revolution.

While radar was being developed at Birmingham, a wonderful discovery was made. The electromagnetic waves that were being generated could also be used to cook food. A microwave oven works by putting a metal plate with an electric charge on each side of the food. As the wave is passed through the charge on each of the plates switches back and forth, from negative to positive, according to the frequency of the wave. Since water molecules are polar, one side being more positively-charged while the other is more neagatively-charged, they too switch back and forth every time the charges on the two plates switches, since opposite charges attract and like charges repel. This incessant motion of the water molecules produces heat which cooks the food from within.

It is probably no accident that a microwave oven resembles a radar console.

The predecessor of the Manhattan Project was actually the Tube Alloys Program, at Birmingham. It was later agreed to move the project to the U.S. so that it would be out of range of enemy aircraft. It was actually two physicists at Birmingham who had left the Nazis who first thought that nuclear fission could be turned into a weapon.

On thing that does not often get written about England is how many canals there is. There is a diagonal line across Britain, from southwest to northeast, dividing what we could call "highland" Britain from "lowland" Britain. The lowlands are to the south and east of the line and include the Midlands. Wales and Scotland and northern England are "highland" Britain. The best-known canal is the Grand Union but canals are found across much of lowland Britain.

One concern about the economics of England is how London overshadows the rest of the country. The economic output of Birmingham, Liverpool and, Manchester combined is probably not 25 percent that of London. But that doesn't apply to quality of life.

But whenever you use a microwave oven, let's remember Birmingham. The following scenes of Birmingham begin in Victoria Square.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow, ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >, After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4798272,-1.9028475,3a,75y,126.69h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swivEyYpepmDF1FKnFopO4w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwivEyYpepmDF1FKnFopO4w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D140.74167%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

Coventry is the center of England's auto industry. It is much older, as a major city, than Birmingham. Coventry is known for cars but Frank Whittle, the inventor of the jet engine, was a native of the city. Birmingham is today the largest city of the Midlands, and it grew around the Industrial Revolution. The older cities adapted to industrialization, although they had already been there.

This is inside the old Coventry Cathedral that has been left as a war memorial. There are those black and white half-timbered buildings in this area. Just a reminder about words. "To Let" means "to rent or to lease" and "crisps" are potato chips.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4079336,-1.5074036,3a,75y,319.49h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPOedOHEdHuq50WrYk60qcQaFpUJg59S94SRv6G!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPOedOHEdHuq50WrYk60qcQaFpUJg59S94SRv6G%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya343.47543-ro-0-fo100!7i4352!8i1789

The name of Wolverhampton is a clue to it's traditional role, which is the processing of wool. This is an old city that today is known for it's Sikh community.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.5837283,-2.1284383,3a,75y,85.52h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sNkYJGvy0XMQaj_NX1FySeg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DNkYJGvy0XMQaj_NX1FySeg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D82.65782%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

If the name of Rugby sounds familiar that is because the sport originated there and was named for it. Supposedly, a ball game was going on at Rugby School when a student picked up the ball and ran with it. Although that was not part of the game, his opponents responded by trying to tackle him. The result was the birth of a new sport.

The story has a lot in common with that of Sir Isaac Newton being awakened to the existence of gravity while sitting under an apple tree and an apple fell on his head, in that we cannot be sure how much of a legend it is. But anyway, the following scenes begin at Rugby School.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3698712,-1.2617019,3a,75y,4.74h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sMzvTzgliNh_ZbHj8sT9skw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DMzvTzgliNh_ZbHj8sT9skw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D2.9001305%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Rugby is not only known for it's namesake sport, it is also where the jet engine was invented. Although it's inventor was from Coventry. Sir Isaac Newton worked at Cambridge, which isn't part of the Midlands, but the jet engine was an ideal application of his principle that "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Rugby is an old town but this is a newer residential area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3937557,-1.2417896,3a,75y,271.39h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sJFPpOeZueJSy4vil2p1Wlg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJFPpOeZueJSy4vil2p1Wlg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D272.279%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Nottingham is the home of the legend of Robin Hood. It was later to adapt to the Industrial Revolution by establishing itself as the center of textile manufacture. I had always thought that the very definition of a city in England is that it has a cathedral, which must be an Anglican cathedral. Gloucester is a city but nearby Cheltenham, although with a similar population, is a town, rather than a city, because it doesn't have a cathedral. But somehow Nottingham has gotten itself registered as a city, even though it doesn't have a cathedral.

Has anyone ever thought about how ironic it is that the new, and far more complex, economics of industrialized society would begin to be worked out in the land of Robin Hood, who stole from the rich to give to the poor?

This is Old Market Square in Nottingham.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9533289,-1.1493891,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWyAf8N1LNSHiEVifDZ1fRA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWyAf8N1LNSHiEVifDZ1fRA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D52.12619%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

We have already seen "Gloucestershire And Herefordshire" in the posting on this blog by that name. I am a native of Gloucestershire, more specifically of the place in the posting on this blog, "Placid Britain". Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire together are known as the "Three Counties". The Severn River that flows through the city of Worcester is the same one that flows downstream to Gloucester.

Worcestershire is, of course, where the name of the sauce comes from. Counties in Britain are called "shires" because that was the original name. "County", which is used in Ireland, is a Norman word that came later.

The cities of Gloucester and Worcester both played important roles in England's Civil War of the Seventeenth Century. Early in the war, the tide turned in favor of the Parliamentarians ( Puritans or Roundheads ), who generally controlled the cities, when the Royalists ( Anglicans or Cavaliers ) who generally controlled the countryside tried, and failed, to capture the city of Gloucester.

The final battle of the war was at Worcester. The defeated Charles II, who would later come back as king, escaped capture by hiding in an oak tree.

In England, the name of a city indicates it's origin, although this may not be a strict rule.
Names ending in -caster -cester or, -chester indicate an origin in Roman times.
Names ending in -by indicate Danish origin.
Names ending in -ham or -ton indicate Anglo-Saxon origin.

This is Worcester Cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1887087,-2.2209204,3a,75y,114.6h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipMmH9HUESo5MbPt7WPlbRVIoqZGca8FDVznjM0L!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMmH9HUESo5MbPt7WPlbRVIoqZGca8FDVznjM0L%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-2.8771622-ya306.7588-ro-1.3459893-fo100!7i5376!8i2688

Derby is an ancient city that, unlike Birmingham, was there long before the Industrial Revolution. When it industrialized it became known for one thing, and that was the production of silk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.9224494,-1.4770081,3a,75y,109.55h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sgCO3QkveUqI5VINE9gNJhA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DgCO3QkveUqI5VINE9gNJhA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D120.50255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

Northampton is another ancient city, there is a Norman castle there, that joined the Industrial Revolution by becoming the center of shoe production.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.2370634,-0.8943874,3a,75y,93.65h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suoZ9TfPKlaGbulrbKEWHwQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DuoZ9TfPKlaGbulrbKEWHwQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D95.94249%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Leicester is yet another ancient city, as you can tell by it's name indicating an origin in Roman times, that joined the Industrial Revolution as a major producer of clothing and shoes. The Jewry Wall is Roman ruins, but the name isn't associated with Judaism or a Jewish community.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.6344639,-1.1340244,3a,75y,85.89h,90t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1saccI9enG3Yr_Snd1gkHRaQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DaccI9enG3Yr_Snd1gkHRaQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D83.24846%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100

The Midlands is not all cities. Here is a semi-rural area.

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4528963,-1.3603936,3a,75y,336.37h,90.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syqJB_H7Sl7Z9wL94u55CWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Operation Mincemeat

A movie titled "Operation Mincemeat" is soon to be released in the U.S. This is the secret operation in the Second World War that deceived the Nazis about where the first Allied landing in continental Europe would be, following the end of combat in North Africa.

The landing was planned for Sicily but Operation Mincemeat deceived the Nazis into believing that there would be landings in Greece and Sardinia, both of which were occupied by the Nazis. Part of the plan was to make the Nazis expect that there would be a diversion landing in Sicily but that they should keep the bulk of their defensive forces in Greece and Sardinia because that was where the real landings would be.

As a result the Allies had more time to offload soldiers and supplies and to secure their position in Sicily before having to deal with a major counterattack. The Allied battle for Sicily was thus easier than it would have been otherwise.

But this verifies the scenario verifies what we saw in the section 4) QUESTIONS ABOUT D-DAY in the compound posting, "Investigations" December 2018.

Operation Mincemeat and the landing in Sicily took place in 1943. The following year would be D-Day, the landing in Normandy. While preparing for D-Day the Allies succeeded at pulling off a very similar deception. They convinced Erwin Rommel, the Nazi general charged with the defense of northern France, that the D-Day landing would come at Calais, although it would be preceded by a diversionary landing in Normandy.

If the historical account is to be believed the Nazis fell for just about exactly the same deception that they had the year before. By the time Rommel realized that there would be no landing at Calais, that Normandy was the real landing, the Allies had had the maximum amount of time to offload supplies and secure their position before facing a major counterattack.

To top it off on the day that the Allies landed, June 6, 1944, Rommel himself was away at his wife's birthday party and many of his officers were away at war games.

I find that this is simply not believable. The Allies had some kind of secret or implicit communication with Rommel, who it turns out was involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. I am sure that Rommel was doing what he could to actually make D-Day a success, possibly in return for having the Allies make him leader of postwar Germany. But when the assassination plot failed, and Rommel was dead, there was no reason to make it public. 

I find that it strains the bounds of credibility to believe that the Nazis fell for this deception twice in a row.

Thursday, April 14, 2022

Finland And Sweden

Finland and Sweden are known as the lands of fitness fanatics. There are four Scandinavian languages in northern Europe, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and, Finnish. The first three are so similar as to have a high degree of mutual intelligibility. But the Finnish language is so different from any other language that there are widespread disagreements as to how it originated. Some believe it to be distantly related to Hungarian, which is another language not like any other, or maybe the language of the Basques in Spain and France.

Finland today is a leader in information technology, the land of Linux and Nokia. The very widely used Linux is a kind of open-source operating system and is what I see as an ideal example of the ultimate fulfillment of Marxist theory through modern information technology.

Much of the land area of Finland is actually occupied by small lakes, carved by the movement of ice age glaciers. Finland is between Sweden, to the west, and Russia, to the east. It has belonged to both, from Swedish to Russian control in 1809, and then becoming independent of Tsarist Russia upon the October Revolution of 1917. The Swedish language is still widely spoken in Finland.

Turku is Finland's original city. Upon gaining control of Finland from Sweden, Russia moved the capital to the present capital city of Helsinki. The cathedral and castle of Turku are both from the 13th Century. The following scenes begin at Turku Castle.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.4357705,22.2287053,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3Igoevsa50d8SNWxUedmGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here is the area around Turku Cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.45245,22.2775846,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8OmbmiWx95NCeT0pPIW9IQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Helsinki, from the Sixteenth Century, is the present capital of Finland  When Finland was part of Sweden, and the Romanov Dynasty of nearby Russia built St. Petersburg as their capital, with the naval base at Kronstadt, Sweden responded by building a coastal fortress at Helsinki called, it's Finnish name, Suomenlinna. This is a look at it.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.1451634,24.9875289,2a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sd7hOnuEqoS-ue4Z9I-h_7w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Helsinki Cathedral is on Senate Square.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.1698294,24.9523075,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9xXK6RGEocRfP_o9NFuE5A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Near Helsinki is the city of Espoo.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.2065159,24.6614533,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGx5wmd7xQx7Qr9qwrUbqyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Both countries are known for their very high quality of life. But the "Swedish Model" of moderate socialism is admired across the world. Stockholm, built on an archipelago of islands, is Sweden's capital today. But the country seems to have really begun in Uppsala. A town called Sigtuna may also have been an early Swedish capital. The cathedral at Uppsala was Sweden's primary cathedral. The following scenes are at 16th Century Uppsala Castle.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.8536181,17.6345373,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBDUIWlrWw2UhI0SZbheSuw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The oldest part of the present capital city of Stockholm is called Gamla Stan. It is on an island called Stadsholmen. Here is the main square called Stortorget, next to which are the Royal Palace and Stockholm Cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3251238,18.0708379,3a,75y,218.61h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipM54s56EGhrGPSRDdpkx97SINHBSazkKn5sNkYG!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipM54s56EGhrGPSRDdpkx97SINHBSazkKn5sNkYG%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya300.1686-ro-0-fo100!7i11264!8i3600

Here is the modern buildings of Stockholm.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3348411,18.064346,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOOyzd7n3rFtuiPVZf7pCug!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Sweden's residence today is Drottningholm.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.3222428,17.8866166,3a,75y,222.93h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNeTjdylzEmREz0HUL5uqTVEC1N88oDpQKmGYsr!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNeTjdylzEmREz0HUL5uqTVEC1N88oDpQKmGYsr%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya52.389187-ro-0-fo100!7i8704!8i4352

Gothenburg is Sweden's major coastal city that faces westward, toward Denmark. This is the home of Volvo, the safety-conscious carmaker that does not enforce it's patents on safety features, allowing other manufacturers to use Volvo developments to make their cars safer.

https://www.google.com/maps/@57.7033836,11.9613334,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbKsPWaJu2lJq3lbx3IcCKA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Malmo is another coastal city that faces west toward Denmark, which was once an enemy and which owned Malmo. But Malmo is from the Thirteenth Century. The following scenes begin in Malmo Castle, which is a Danish fortress from the Sixteenth Century.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6047153,12.9874246,3a,75y,81.56h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipPG6PV0WEaxqLsXANiMYlovRAEtl12yRovKKGcM!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipPG6PV0WEaxqLsXANiMYlovRAEtl12yRovKKGcM%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya74.20669-ro-0-fo100!7i10000!8i5000

The Decade Of The Drone

There have been two significant conflicts thus far in the 2020s, that in Ukraine and the one between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In both conflicts drones, specifically Turkish-made drones, related to tanks in the same way that aircraft carriers once related to battleships. History is repeating itself.

From the development of mass-produced steel the seas were ruled by massive battleships with powerful guns. It took a while for it to be realized but the aircraft would change the dynamic at sea. In the First World War battleships still ruled the sea as aircraft in reconnaissance and combat roles were still being perfected on land.

By the Second World War it was starting to be realized that, if aircraft could take off from ships and then land back on the ships after completing their missions, the aircraft would have a much greater range than the guns of a battleship. In combat the aircraft carrier could simply send it's planes to attack the battleship with bombs and torpedoes, while staying out of range of the battleship's guns.

In the Second World War aircraft carriers triumphed over battleships repeatedly. Now history is repeating itself on land. Drones are doing to tanks what the planes from aircraft carriers once did to battleships.

In terms of warfare the 2020s are thus far the "Decade of the Drone".

The Global Decline Of Democracy

While the removal of Imran Khan by a parliamentary no confidence vote was democracy at work, democracy in the world as a whole has been really slipping over the past few years. The great triumph of the Cold War was the bringing of Russia to democracy, but you can see that is now gone.

We saw that the fourth and final section of the compound posting, "The Meaning Of Freedom" is " 4) THE FATE OF DEMOCRACY".

Here is a link to it:

.

Thursday, April 7, 2022

The Lands Of Bluetooth

King Harald, known as "Bluetooth", united and brought Christianity to what is now Denmark a little more than a thousand years ago. He also ruled Norway for some time.

Scandinavia today seems to be the world's ultimate in peace, prosperity and, quality of life. But that was not always the case. There has been conflicts in the past between Sweden, Norway and, Denmark, and Finland was for a long time part of Sweden.

There has also been unity between Sweden, Norway and, Denmark. The so-called Kalmar Union, in the Fifteenth Century, lasted over a hundred years. There has also been personal unions between the three, meaning that more than one country was ruled by the same king. Although this does not mean that the countries were completely united. Other personal unions in Europe have been the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

During childhood, I spent quite a bit of time with Lego building blocks which originated in Denmark. Haagen-Dasz Ice Cream is meant to evoke Denmark, although it isn't actually Danish.

Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark today, but the story of the country actually begins in Aarhus. Denmark's geography consists of a peninsula, Jutland, and a number of islands. Aarhus is on Jutland and Copenhagen is on the island of Zealand.

Aarhus is a medieval city of Viking origin that is built around a natural harbor. Some of the hills in the city are actually earthwork fortifications left by the Vikings. Aarhus Cathedral is from the Fourteenth Century. The following look at Aarhus begins outside the cathedral.

There are multiple scenes following. To see the scenes, after the first one, you must first click the up arrow ^, before you can move on to the next scene by clicking the right or forward arrow, >. After clicking the up arrow, you can then hide the previews of successive scenes, if you wish.

https://www.google.com/maps/@56.1568333,10.2097013,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sK4DS4JAqbFeJotCNiSmnVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Like Aarhus, the capital city of Copenhagen is of Viking origin. The oldest part of the city is known as Gammel Strand. Christiansborg Palace, from the Eighteenth Century, is where all three branches of the government reside. Frederik's Church has a dome like St. Peter's Basilica.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6756735,12.5802967,2a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3yVup8zwokvE0urU-Z88Wg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

One of the things that Copenhagen is best-known for is the colorful waterfront entertainment district of Nyhavn, which dates from the Seventeenth Century.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.6801134,12.5902281,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srxulavC_xHMmrzyc7hMNoQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This is a more everyday part of Copenhagen.

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.7347316,12.5749218,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEej3wSSjiLVUB9AUOPqqgA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Have you ever thought about moving to Greenland? The capital of the colony of Denmark and then autonomous region is Nuuk, which is a native name, formerly known as Godthab. Of course, the environment of Greenland is very challenging but Nuuk is not just a set of prefab huts, assembled in the Arctic, it is a real city with an art museum and a golf course.

https://www.google.com/maps/@64.1755279,-51.7356702,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGpONHj10nKsSraGXjSqDIQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Like neighboring Denmark, Norway really began in a city other than the one that is the present capital. Trondheim was founded in the year 997 and was the capital of Norway until 1217. It was known as Nidaros and the cathedral is still called Nidaros Cathedral. The following scenes of Trondheim begin in it's central square.

https://www.google.com/maps/@63.4304219,10.3943485,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHoAu3-1CttKvvPTBRrLItw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Bergen is a city in Norway that is about a thousand years old. These views of Bergen begin at the Twelfth-Century cathedral.

https://www.google.com/maps/@60.3940298,5.3301585,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVn-W4NOm8AUYVkNyGlEJfw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

The capital city of Norway today is Oslo. It was formerly known as Christiania, but that was a Danish name from the time of union between the two countries. The famous Hippie community in Copenhagen is called Christiania. Oslo is about a thousand years old. The following scenes begin at the Thirteenth-Century Akershus Fortress.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.9081506,10.7383233,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW5vGHoDlPnkUvB6xNaAqQg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

You may notice here that the Scandinavian countries are not fond of skyscrapers. They are not in on the mad race to boast the tallest building in the world. But what they do have is a towering quality of life among the world's nations. But here are the modern "barcode" buildings of Oslo.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.9080294,10.7601814,3a,75y,344.7h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipP-AS32WHxKT7O_sQ5x0IJZ2bKoWppDl4mWdj-U!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipP-AS32WHxKT7O_sQ5x0IJZ2bKoWppDl4mWdj-U%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi0-ya352.18814-ro-0-fo100!7i7200!8i3600

This is Norway's Royal Palace. The Scandinavian countries are actually monarchies but with royal families that are of much lower key than that of Britain. The building with the cylindrical front is the foreign ministry.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.9169633,10.7281467,3a,75y,115.07h,90t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sAF1QipNE9INtgkReYVv3gDKYjjJu4uuKoWKXUxT2tJ1F!2e10!3e11!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipNE9INtgkReYVv3gDKYjjJu4uuKoWKXUxT2tJ1F%3Dw203-h100-k-no-pi-0-ya133.01715-ro-0-fo100!7i5376!8i2688

Here is a residential area of Oslo away from the central city.

https://www.google.com/maps/@59.9431624,10.7366733,3a,60y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDi9Odpc2BdWahJwnhNebGQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Could King Harald, known as Bluetooth, have imagined that, while he was uniting the islands of Denmark to the mainland peninsula and also ruling Norway, a thousand years in the future there would be devices called computers? The computer would have various peripheral devices and a convenient wireless way would be developed to link the peripherals to the main computer that would be named for him in the same way that he had united Denmark.