PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
And between the two, Thomas Jefferson, and the Bible, we have democracy and equality.
1.When the king dies…..who becomes king?
The king dies, the prince become king. That’s the way it happened, universally. But wait….the well-read will probably call attention to Hamlet, who missed out on the throne when his dad was whacked by his uncle.
“How was it that King Hamlet's brother, Claudius, succeeded him to the throne when he died and not his son, Prince Hamlet?
In Shakespeare's time, the Danish monarch was elected by their Thing or parliament (it lasted about 500 years, finishing in 1660). In practice, the crown usually descended as it would have under British primogeniture rules, but it was perfectly plausible that a cunning usurper could have stepped into the gap left by the dead king's grieving, depressed son and, with the support of the queen, won the necessary votes.
There's a line where Hamlet alludes to this process in Act 5 Scene 2:
"He that hath killed my king and whored my mother, Popped in between th' election and my hopes, Thrown out his angle for my proper life …" Why didn't Hamlet become king?
OK….so, it’s not 100%....but throughout history, not only does the prince usually assume the throne, but in most cases that is the order of succession worldwide.
2. Except in the Bible.
In chapter 27 of Genesis, there is the story of Jacob and Esau, brothers, with Esau the elder by a heel. The twin’s mother distrusted Esau, and was willing to fool her husband, Isaac, to get the birthright that usually went to the elder, for her favorite, Jacob.
According to Dennis Prager, the commentary does not depict Esau as a bad person, but suggests only that he has other interests, and is unworthy of, and uninterested in, carrying on the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition. In fact, Isaac favored Esau, and liked that he was a hunter who brought home the bacon….well, meat. Actually the kosher rules didn’t apply at the time, so he could have brought bacon….but,
27.3 Take your gear, your quiver and bow, and go out into the open and hunt me some game.
So, Isaac liked Esau better because he set a better table. Prager notes: One might have expected more substance from a biblical patriarch. This, then, is yet another example of the Torah putting truth above hagiography in its portrayal of biblical heroes.
The message in this story is that human intercession may be necessary to bring about what God actually intends, and the boy’s mother tricks her husband in order to do so.
The details can be found in chapter 27, but the point here is that the elder did not assume the inheritance. And that simple fact has led to the expansion of prosperity and equality throughout our entire civilization.
Soooo……America could have continued as the sort of classed society with an aristocracy, as in our previous country, England, or, reorganized as a society where the eldest is not the mandated inheritor.
I'll show where Jefferson enters the picture.....and a very different picture it became.
1.When the king dies…..who becomes king?
The king dies, the prince become king. That’s the way it happened, universally. But wait….the well-read will probably call attention to Hamlet, who missed out on the throne when his dad was whacked by his uncle.
“How was it that King Hamlet's brother, Claudius, succeeded him to the throne when he died and not his son, Prince Hamlet?
In Shakespeare's time, the Danish monarch was elected by their Thing or parliament (it lasted about 500 years, finishing in 1660). In practice, the crown usually descended as it would have under British primogeniture rules, but it was perfectly plausible that a cunning usurper could have stepped into the gap left by the dead king's grieving, depressed son and, with the support of the queen, won the necessary votes.
There's a line where Hamlet alludes to this process in Act 5 Scene 2:
"He that hath killed my king and whored my mother, Popped in between th' election and my hopes, Thrown out his angle for my proper life …" Why didn't Hamlet become king?
OK….so, it’s not 100%....but throughout history, not only does the prince usually assume the throne, but in most cases that is the order of succession worldwide.
2. Except in the Bible.
In chapter 27 of Genesis, there is the story of Jacob and Esau, brothers, with Esau the elder by a heel. The twin’s mother distrusted Esau, and was willing to fool her husband, Isaac, to get the birthright that usually went to the elder, for her favorite, Jacob.
According to Dennis Prager, the commentary does not depict Esau as a bad person, but suggests only that he has other interests, and is unworthy of, and uninterested in, carrying on the Abrahamic monotheistic tradition. In fact, Isaac favored Esau, and liked that he was a hunter who brought home the bacon….well, meat. Actually the kosher rules didn’t apply at the time, so he could have brought bacon….but,
27.3 Take your gear, your quiver and bow, and go out into the open and hunt me some game.
So, Isaac liked Esau better because he set a better table. Prager notes: One might have expected more substance from a biblical patriarch. This, then, is yet another example of the Torah putting truth above hagiography in its portrayal of biblical heroes.
The message in this story is that human intercession may be necessary to bring about what God actually intends, and the boy’s mother tricks her husband in order to do so.
The details can be found in chapter 27, but the point here is that the elder did not assume the inheritance. And that simple fact has led to the expansion of prosperity and equality throughout our entire civilization.
Soooo……America could have continued as the sort of classed society with an aristocracy, as in our previous country, England, or, reorganized as a society where the eldest is not the mandated inheritor.
I'll show where Jefferson enters the picture.....and a very different picture it became.
