I'm John Batchew with my good colleague Gregory Copley of Defense and Foreign Affairs,

who indulges me to educate me on the crown that once upon a time America was part of.

And then some rough conversations, some events, the end of the 18th century, and here we are.

Cut off from Mother Britain.

But I learned from a new biography of James I, James I, the 6th of Scotland, with a Scottish brogue, that is a steward,

that his imagination included the divine right of kings. And he derived his power from God Almighty.

He was a Protestant, not a Catholic, and he was quite inventive. He was a philologist. He invented

words. He watched Shakespeare's plays, especially King Lear, very carefully. He had an imagination, and he wrote very well.

He wrote so well that it upset his subjects because they didn't know whether the king should

be so ordinary of a penmaster, but he was. His son, Charles I, however, fell a foul of parliament.

And herein is the tension that I'm discovering the U.S. comes out of.

Does the king's power derive from God and then flows to Parliament, or does the

king's power derive from the Parliament?

And the men of the Parliament are all of different origins,

but collectively they speak for the people.

Gregory, it wasn't settled by cutting off Charles' first head.

Has it been settled today?

Does the power of the king flow from God, the divine right,

to Charles and therefore to the Parliament?

Or does Parliament empower the king?

Is that a debate anywhere?

It is a debate, but it's much more brutal at one end and nuanced at the other.

...