John Zmirak Reflects on the Significance of the British Monarchy


To John S mirak. Oh my goodness. John, this weekend. King Charles the third was officially crowned all very ritualistic. I spoke at length to Naomi wolf about it in our one. Do you have any observations on that event? Yeah, I'm really, really glad the British monarchy survives. Even though it doesn't wield any power, even though I'm a half Irish. And I'm almost genetic, you know, my genes scream at the British monarchy, the way yours do at the Ottoman Empire, Eric. Being Greek. But as an American, I need to recognize that our freedoms are ordered liberty, come from no place else, but England. That the peculiar history of the English monarchy, and its relationship to the English parliament and the English people. The back and forth battle for power between the king, the parliament and the people, has produced the freest society in the history of the world. And it's interesting that our independence was a rebellion against Great Britain. Great Britain was the freest society on earth at the time. We wanted more. But the point is we weren't rebelling against the Ottoman Empire or the Mongol conic cons. We were rebelling against a pretty darn good monarchy that for hundreds of years had been subjecting the king's powers to the power of parliament. Starting in the 1300s with the Magna Carta, the English monarchs had century John. I'm sorry. Thank you. 13th century. With the Magna Carta, the English monarchs had to ask the parliament for taxes. The power of the purse was in the hands of the nobility and then of the common people.

Coming up next