The other European models of the state<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Germany as the current geographic area and the then as the Eastern Kingdom\nof the Franks was fragmented into small states feuds-principalities. These\nprincipalities, except for a few exceptions, used to replicate the state\ninstitutions of other states rather than to pioneer in the creation of new\ninstitutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Italy and especially the 13\u03bf<\/sup> century onwards had its own\ncity-states with a more powerful and characteristic example of the Republic of\nVenice (Serenissima Republican Veneta). The great commercial Mediterranean\nPower of the time, where its wealth influenced the political and economic\nevents in the Mediterranean Sea. The term West for the first time historically\nappeared, including the Republic of Venice, France and the Feudal lords of\nCatalonia. Despite the great opponents that the Republic of Venice faced, both\nthis and the rest of Italy’s cities developed institutions that could not be\ncopied from the great Kingdoms of Europe because of their large sizes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Spain, and the Spanish kingdoms, interested more on how to conquer and\nassimilate the Mauritanian territories within them, neglecting the development\nof the state’s institutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that England and France were able to develop their own models of\nState which were later adopted by the rest of the world is due to the political\nideas and political institutions that serve freedom in a free society. These\npolitical institutions and ideas respectively were adopted or imitated by the\nother countries. The crucial period for England and France in terms of building\ntheir own model of state is the period 1100-1400 A.D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n England and the Anglo-Saxon model of state<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that England has succeeded more easily in shaping its own state than in France is due to some historical advantages. More specifically,<\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.<\/strong> England was originally a small kingdom in terms of its geographic size, much smaller than the kingdom of the Western Franks. Most Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the 10\u03bf<\/sup> Century were destroyed by the raids of the Danes. The only surviving kingdom was the Kingdom of Wessex which then managed to dominate and control most of England. The fact that originally England was small in its geographic size gave the opportunity to its King to be able to often and densely be in the entire geographical range of his kingdom (direct control by the ruler). <\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> The process of recovering the sovereignty of central and northern England from the Kings of Wessex has taken place in a long time. The then prevailing traditions and customs that appear in places throughout Britain and because of the lack of other competing kings made it much easier to create permanent institutions on the already existing local manners\/traditions and customs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.<\/strong> The institutions that were created as we saw in the previous analysis-Part II, were based on the system of courts where they headed the King. The court system created uniform institutions throughout the territory. The system of the courts of England was based in the municipal court, in the provincial court, in the county court and this institution was the same everywhere. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Local Rulers (Aldermen & Reeves) represented the King’s interests\nand less cared for local communities. They Knew that if they went against the\nKing’s interests, the King’s army would capture them, and the King would\nreplace them by taking their property. The local official to acquire a local\noffice had to possess land in the county that ruled, otherwise he could not\nacquire any local office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n William (1082-1087), in order to drastically limit the powers and rights of\nlocal rulers, applied a clever system, dividing the scattered small lands and\nnot solid territorial units (the system of divide and conquer). As a result,\nthe local rulers (Comites, Barons) cannot implement a stable administrative\nmechanism that could lead them to independence. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The First State institutions<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0391<\/strong>.<\/strong> The King’s\nrepresentatives were entrusted with the management of his property and the<\/p>\n\n\n\n collection of his annuities throughout the kingdom. This alone created the need to organize and coordinate\nall its representatives who should be commanded by a central agency that would\nbe under the supervision of the King. This centrally administered financial\nservice was named Ministry of Finance\/Revenue-the so-called English Treasury\n(12\u03bf<\/sup> century).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main function of the English Treasury was to control the actual evidence submitted by the King’s representatives from all parts of the realm. The main axis of his organization was the list of rules faithfully followed-as gospel-by the servants of the Treasury. The first accounting systems began to develop in this while high-education people were working on it. The supervision and the action of the Treasury were on the entire territory of the realm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0392<\/strong>.<\/strong> The Supreme Royal\nCourt, due to the high burden of affairs, was forced to create and develop\nfixed rules and standing procedures to deal with its work. Its effectiveness\nincreased by making it popular. The Supreme Royal Court became the central\ncourt that was necessary for the rule of the realm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Within the framework of its operation was to send to the various regions\ntouring judges-representatives of the central court-who had new\nresponsibilities, applied effective procedures and their decisions were better\nand more acceptable than the entire population in relation to the inefficient\nlocal courts controlled by the local rulers (1215, year syntax of Magna Carta). <\/p>\n\n\n\n The effectiveness of the English Royal Courts was based on: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.<\/strong> The drastic reduction in the time of litigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> The speedy and short-term adoption of the decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.<\/strong> The easy implementation and enforcement of court rulings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.<\/strong> In the process they followed. More specifically, all their efforts focused on any complex questions and issues under consideration that could be answered by people who possessed the minimum knowledge of law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.<\/strong> These simple questions should then be answered by people living in the local area where the problem of the conflict occurred, e.g. by a group of neighbors, or by a representative group of law-abiding people. According to this procedure, this group of people, and always based on their own observations and knowledge on the subject under consideration, was obliged at the end of the case to give a joint collective response to the court. No witnesses or developed legal arguments were called in the court. This process was called a trial using a jury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6.<\/strong> For the trial of criminal offences, a jury was used and an examination of witnesses against a single (France’s justice system was based on the examination of the witness).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7.<\/strong> The use of jury forces allowed judges to hear many cases in a single day. In this way they could successfully carry out all their cases independently of the volume of their workload. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 8.<\/strong> As the jury was chosen by the entire community and resulted in a collective verdict decision, it was much more difficult to accept pressure than the various witnesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n 9.<\/strong> The ordinary people, the low-income farmers\/landowners, the ordinary free people, the Knights etc. considered that this system implemented by the Royal Courts with the use of a jury was better protected against the powerful of the then society. For this reason, they resorted only to the courts of the King, ignoring most of the times the courts of the local rulers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 10.<\/strong> The genius of the whole operation of this system implemented by the Royal courts of England lies in the fact that for the administration of justice they managed in one way or another to involve the entire population of the country\/kingdom in the work of Courts, either as parties or as jurors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n C.<\/strong> The Chancellery or\nthe Ministry of the Presidency was the third basic State institution and its\nrole was highly supportive to the\nother State institutions of the Supreme Royal Court and the Ministry of\nFinance\/Treasury. <\/p>\n\n\n\n An example of the operation of the Chancellery is the issuing of a warrant\nwhich clearly identified both the subject matter of the case in question and\nthe procedure to be followed. At the same time, the Chancellery kept records of\nthe letters that were sent. The fact that, for every written presumption were\nissued by the Chancellery, there was a copy recorded in a file, it enabled the\nState institutions to develop rapidly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The record-keeping process enabled officials and practitioners in the\nChancellery to save time in their duties as there was a standard report for\nevery occasion. In this way they were succeeded to deal more with assumptions\nthat somehow appear first time. Where there were issues similar to other\ndecisions taken in the past, the actions of the State were consistent and predictable,\nwith no surprises for the employees involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main institutions of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom are defined as the following: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.<\/strong> The Supreme Royal Court,<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> The Treasury\/Ministry of Finance,<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.<\/strong> The Chancellery or Ministry of the Presidency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1200, England had permanent institutions full staffed with educated\nofficials working with full-time status for this purpose. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The domination of the Englishman King and the\nInstitutions that enshrined his sovereignty<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The entire land and property rights held by the owners of the kingdom\nbelonged to the King. Based on this fact,<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Supreme Royal Court ruled a rule-law where any type of court case\nrelating to the land could not take place without prior a warrant issued by the\nSupreme Royal Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Ministry of Finance-Treasury based also on the above-stated assumption\ndefined a rule-law where the King had the right to request financial assistance\nfrom his citizens, in case of need. Examples of this type of need were the\nfinancing of war operations such as the C Crusade, the long war against France\netc. From this rule-law arose the measure of imposing direct taxation on the\nwhole Kingdom (general tax). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Through these two rules-laws the English King fully controlled both the\nissues of the administration of justice and the size of the taxation of\ncitizens by making him the Overlord and at the same time sovereign of his\nkingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Essentially the decisions of the King and his Council were binding as laws\nand could not be challenged, since the King had the ultimate and highest\nauthority on matters that were occupied by his Council and concerned the\nsecular life of Kingdom. Since this principle of the King was accepted by all\nhis subjects, the King could, with the consent of his people, impose taxation\non both the people and the clergy without the Pope’s consent and permission in\nthe second case. The result of the exercise of this Royal right and applied\npolicy was to make a seamless collection of taxes without some type of protest\nfrom the people. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For the empowerment of this consensus of the people in the above King’s\ndecisions and the complete and undeniable acceptance of its judgments by the\npeople, the English King created Parliament (1256 A.D.) in which Parliament\nsubstantially transferred the meeting of the Council of the King and the\nmeeting Supreme Royal Court respectively. At the beginning the English\nParliament functioned as a place of assembly and decisions of the King’s\nCouncil and then this Council began to expand to members due to the participation\nof representatives from the municipalities, and the elected knights from the\ndifferent counties of the realm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What has been achieved with the creation of the institution of Parliament\nis that Parliament, in its decisions, has been delivering not only the popular\nconsensus but also a complementary, necessary authority to the existing highest\nauthority from which the decisions of the King who had the sovereign power were\ncharacterized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the establishment and effective functioning of the above-described\ninstitutions, the evolution of the Anglo-Saxon model of state led to the moral\nand mental anchoring of all citizens with their King and with the state in\nwhich their King was dominant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n All the social groups up to then, such as the family, the Church, the\ncommunity continued to exist and have an important role in the social\norganization but were now operating within the framework defined by the State,\nbut having acquired from primary until then a role in human affairs secondary\nand subordinate role in relation to the role that the state possessed in the\nfunctioning of human society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, the preservation and prosperity of the State had been fully\naccepted by its citizens by accepting the institution of the state as a basic\npillar of protection and development of the objective of social welfare, which\nis socially well-being in turn suffused to all citizens. By accepting this fact and believing in it, the citizens\nhave highest the duty of their lives to protect their King and his state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, any social ranks of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom because in\ntheir entirety they accepted the undisputed existence of the state, when they\nbelieved they were wronged they did not take the weapons to make war with the\nneighboring rulers or revolution in order to acquire any power, but they have\ntried in every acceptable social way to gain political power in order to\ninfluence the decisions of the institutions described above for their benefit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n By gaining strong political power, these social groups, uniting their\nforces in professional guilds and political parties, managed in a direct and\nindirect way to influence any decisions were issued by these institutions. A direct result of this was to evolve a political culture\nand emulation respectively but also to strengthen over time the political\nidentity of the citizens of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom whose morals and customs\nwere almost everywhere the same (outside certain exceptions as of peoples that lived in geographical area of\nWales and of Ireland respectively).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The results from the strong homogeneous and political\nidentity of the citizens of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n These results led in a homogeneous and uniform structure of the institutions of the English state within a relatively short period of time. This means that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n 1.<\/strong> The Judicial and tax systems respectively could operate uniformly throughout the entire territory of the Kingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2.<\/strong> The imposition of a measure, for example a new tax, was applied without complications and negotiations with local rulers and nationals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3.<\/strong> This fact has given a great deal of efficiency to any central government in the realm in the implementation of any policy in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4.<\/strong> A relatively small number of officials and state officials were required to issue decisions and irrespective of where they were located.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5.<\/strong> There was no need to create a labyrinthine system, e.g. courts for the administration of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6.<\/strong> All the nationals accepted the procedure for the administration of justice because of the indirect participation of the population in it (jury).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7.<\/strong> The people accepted that the institution of Parliament fully represented him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8.<\/strong> Uniformity of institutions and laws found resistance among the peoples living in the geographical area of Wales and Ireland respectively. In many cases in these areas, the King’s army intervened to restore and enforce the laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The overall result and conclusion extracted from this way of administration and management was that a small number of salaried bureaucrats and state officials were required to implement the central government-authority policy. This was achieved by the fact that the English central government made use of unpaid local rulers and officials equally for the implementation and handling of a large amount of work on local government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In general, it can be said that the superiority of the English model of\nState and administration respectively succeeded the most effective management\nof human and physical\/material resources of the Kingdom than any other model of\nstate. This had resulted in many times that England, for example held the 25%\nof France’s wealth and population, was capable of being at war on equal terms\nwith much stronger states like France. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This Anglo-Saxon model of state and administration in the abutment of its\nfunction and over time created the British Empire in which the sun never set.\nIt is this model of state and administration that adopted and next adjusted to\nits own particularities the USA (e.g. federal system) and made it today a\nglobal empire and generally the states that have adopted the Anglo-Saxon model\nsucceed to manage efficiently their human and natural resources. <\/p>\n\n\n\n France and the French model of state<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Unlike England, France in terms of its territorial size was enormous. It\nhad many provinces where each of them already had its own local institutions\nand manners and customs which in general differed with the counterparts that\nhad other provinces. This was a more general feature that prevailed throughout\nthe provinces of the rest of mainland Europe. These independent province-feuds\nhad a very high degree of independence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This makes the French achievement even more important, given that the\nFrench were the first to learn how to create a single State based on the\nindependent provinces-feuds, although the nationality characterized the\ninhabitants of these feudal provinces was the same for most of them (Franks).\nThat is why the French model of state dominated the whole of the European\ncontinent, adopting it and the rest of the countries of Europe after the Middle\nages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The development of the French State model<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Both the French and the English for the development of their state were\nbased on the same two main and fundamental institutions. Justice and taxation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference is that the French King and his respective institutions\n(Chancellery, Supreme Royal Court\/System of Courts, Treasury) were extremely\neffective only in the territories that he controlled, because of the ownership\nof them by the King. In contrast to the English King, the French King had no\nincome coming from the provinces-feuds territories controlled by the local\nrulers (Duke, Earl, etc.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the Supreme Royal Court of France and at the beginning of its\noperation were not often used by disgruntled claimants from the decisions of\nthe local courts, but this over time had changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Essentially, the local ruler-feudal lord was the one who possessed the\nultimate and highest authority and not the King of France. Since France\nconsisted of large-scale feuds-principalities, it is immediately understood\nthat the ultimate authority in most of the country did not have it by the\nFrench King. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Moreover, the expertise in the procedures and phraseology and consistency\nfollowed by both the English Chancellery and the English Treasury were not\npresented by the respective institutions of France. While the legal codes\ndeveloped by the Supreme Court of England were pioneering there was nothing similar\nin France at the same time. <\/p>\n\n\n\n But the French King was strong enough financially and militarily to defeat\nEngland and annex most of the West of France. From 1200 A.D. onwards, a gradual\nannexation of soils started to take place, which continued until 1300 A.D. The\nmain instrument for the annexation of all these lands were the wars and\nmarriages between the members of the French Royal family with the members of\nthe families of the local rulers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The achievement of the French King’s administration was that he managed to\nimmediately identify the problem and adapt to it rather than try to change the\ndata up to that moment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n More specifically, the French King saw that the effectiveness and magnitude\nof his own institutions was enough for his own and only controlled royal lands\nand was inadequate for the entire country that had now been formed by the new\nterritorial attachments. At the same time, the French King acknowledged the\nsuperiority of the institutions prevailing in some of the annexed\nfeuds-provinces in relation to the existing institutions and laws and the\ndiversity of the provinces’ institutions, for example, there were different\nlaws and customs in Normandy from the counterparts of the\nMediterranean-southern provinces. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That is why the French King has neither dared to change nor to limit in all\nthese institutions that prevailed in the annexed provinces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The French Administrative Model<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The “political conquest” of these provinces was achieved thanks to the ingenious strategy of the French King Philip II of August (1180-1223), which essentially established the French state. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This strategy boils down to the fact that it neither changed nor curtailed\nthe local institutions but sent its own people-officials and occupied all the\nimportant provincial offices. In this way, the political and judicial system of\nNormandy has not changed, continuing to apply the prevailing law of Normandy\nuntil then, but the presidents and members of the courts were composed of\nofficials of the French King coming from the His Royal Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In this way the King was fully controlling his annexed provinces-feuds and\nthe local rulers continued to “appear” that they are launching\ndevelopments in their provinces. In Fact, the King’s administrators were the\nlink between the new provinces-feuds and the French kingdom and not the\ninstitutions that prevailed locally. Contrary to what was happening with\nEngland, where the institutions and laws were uniform throughout the territory.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n This strategy functioned for many centuries preserving the territorial integrity of the French state. However, in this\nstrategy the disadvantage was the suspicion and generally the antipathy that\nprevailed among the local rulers who for their subjects were the successors of\nlocal customs, institutions and privileges respectively and the servants of the\nCentral the French King’s government. This undermining rivalry severely undermined the operation and\neffectiveness of local government and the implementation of central\nadministration policies at local level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unlike England, the French King had defined as a rule that anyone who take\nan office in an area could not possess real estate in that region. While no one could take office in the area from which he\noriginated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Given these rules-laws, the administrative disadvantages as well as the\nrivalry among the administrative servants of the King and the local rulers, the\nKing of France was forced to create and implement a labyrinthine administrative\nstructure with various levels of power, which was based to a corresponding\nmuch-flat bureaucracy for the effective administration of the provinces-feuds\nand the implementation of central government policy throughout the realm of the\nkingdom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Disadvantages of this administration model<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The various levels of power started from the lowest level that was the local administration and then gradually increased hierarchically for better control and reached the highest administrative level of authority that was the royal services of the Supreme Royal Court of Justice, Treasury and Chancellery, respectively, based in Paris. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the mayor was controlled by the province governor, the province governor was controlled by the prefect, the prefect was controlled by councils and so on, that were based in the Chancellery in Paris. A similar administrative stratification was followed by the Court system where the board of the Supreme Royal Court was based in Paris. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The flow of orders and information from central authority to local\nauthority and the flow of complaints, explanations and information from local\nauthorities to central authority was complicated and ineffective making regime\nthe mismanagement of human and physical\/material resources of the Kingdom. But\nwith the above described conditions it was the only system that could function\nadequately. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The downside of bureaucracy was that it needed a huge number of employees. The shared responsibility for the same issue by different\nagencies made it difficult to blame the real responsible when something was\nwrong. In this case a whole chain of officials had to move from its positions\nand replace them something that was not always easy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, the system of government was hiding behind bureaucracy and it\noften seemed that nothing was moving (such administrative problems are faced by\nmany European States today who have adopted the French model of state and\nmanagement equally).<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, the French model of state was a unified one consisting of\nprovinces with divergent characteristics. Most European states that emerged in\n18\u03bf<\/sup> and 19\u03bf<\/sup> century consisted of similar provinces\nannexed by France to its central administration. Mosaic states, such as France\nthen, for this was a one-way street for them to adopt the French model of State\nand administration respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Institutions of the French State model<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these problems, the French King was the supreme secular ruler, he\nwas the supreme arbiter of all the cases and the opposing parties in a local\ncourt if they believed that they were wronged could apply the appeal procedure\nand then the their cases could be avenged in the Royal Court. A tactic that\nover time was increasingly being applied. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Over time, the application of the measure of taxation by the King became\nincreasingly acceptable based on the argument that the King knows and has the\nright to issue decrees and to impose taxation to defend the “common\ngood”. Gradually the system of appeals and litigation in the Royal Court\nin conjunction with the French model of state began to bind morally and\nmentally the citizens-its nationals to their state and the King of France who\nwas the sovereign of the State.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This process was accelerated by the fact that the King’s favored\ndignitaries began to idealize the state and its importance. They transmitted to\nthe French people worship towards the King\u2019s face as the sole successor of\nCharlemagne, brought from the Heavens. The worship of France was great considering that the French were the chosen\npeople where three virtues, theoseveia, justice and knowledge, bloom in their\nsociety. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, the motto prevailing in French society was that\nprotecting France meant serving God. This moral anchoring of the French people\nto their state was strongly demonstrated in the crisis that erupted between the\nKing and the Pope, where the whole of the people sided to the King’s side. <\/p>\n\n\n\n references: <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n J.R. Strayer, The Administration of Normandy under St.Luis,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Holdsworth, History of English Law I, <\/p>\n\n\n\n T.F. Plucknett, A Concise History of the Common Law,<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thanos S. Chonthorgiannis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The law of\nIntellectual Property is Prohibited in any way unlawful use\/appropriation of\nthis article, with heavy civil and criminal penalties for the infringer.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In our previous analysis, we presented some basic structures and elements that both their appearance and their implementation in society gradually created the first…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":673,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[988,7],"tags":[631,484,474,644,638,645,639,640,642,641,598,646,643],"class_list":["post-692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political-science","category-research","tag-chancellery","tag-england","tag-france","tag-italy","tag-other-european-state-models","tag-supreme-royal-courts","tag-the-anglo-saxon-state-model","tag-the-first-institutions-of-english-state","tag-the-french-administration-model","tag-the-french-state-model","tag-the-state-evolution-in-europe-its-institutions-and-eu","tag-treasury","tag-venice"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=692"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":695,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/692\/revisions\/695"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/673"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/299px-A_Chronicle_of_England_-_Page_226_-_John_Signs_the_Great_Charter.jpg\")
Artist: James William Edmund Doyle (1822-1892), licensed public domain
Source: Doyle, James William Edmund (1864) “John” in A Chronicle of England BC 55-AD.1485, London: Longman Green, Longman, Roberts & Green, pp.p.226
https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-sa\/3.0\/
https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/magna_carta<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.liberalglobe.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/04\/Philippe-IIaugustosGrances.gif\")
Author: Unknown, licensed public domain
Source: http:\/\/www.istockphoto.com\/stock-photo-4783365-phillipe-auguste.php<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n