This is the Friends' Vistory Debating Society.

I am Gaius John Bachel, which is Germanicus, Mark of Laos.

We're in London, and we've been debating the heat of the 21st century.

We can see that far.

We now go to the equal bloody-mindedness of the 17th century in England.

Recently in a conversation with an author about the English revolutions,

I've learned that much of the language and the spirit and the genius

of the founders of the American Republic that is bogged down in Europe in the 21st century.

Is based on or should be based on or could be based on the successes and failures

and bloody-mindedness and horrors of the 17th century in England?

The scene is very easy to set.

Lisbeth dies having ruled over a nation of Protestants with Catholics remaining

from Henry VIII's conversion to what he called the English Church,

confiscating Catholic lands.

It is now 1603, 1604, 1605.

There's a new king because the Lisbeth died without heirs.

The king is James I of the combined kingdoms, James VI of Scotland.

He is in London, and he has a large family and a lot of debts.

He needs money.

Before that can happen, however, there are hapholic plotters who believe that

James, a good Scottish Presbyterian, members of Scott, in an alien land,

believe that removing James and naming his daughter, Elizabeth, who is nine years old,

...