“I conceive it to be the duty of every educated person closely to watch and study the time in which he lives, and as far as in him lies, to add his mite of individual exertion to further the accomplishment of what he believes Providence to have ordained. Nobody, however, who has paid any attention to the peculiar features of our present era, will doubt for a moment that we are living at a period of most wonderful transition, which tends rapidly to accomplish that great end, to which, indeed, all history points — the realisation of the unity of mankind."
Reads like some Terence McKenna source material right?
I understand that 300 years passed between these two men, and the institutions of the monarchy and government and the society of the countries evolved tremendously over that time, so I am not pointing out an inconsistency here but rather asking about the specific changes that gave us this result. Generally, was it more to do with how the deciders looked at the state of affairs OR more to do with the different state of affairs themselves? Specifically, I'm fascinated by royal politics so bring on the details as well.
If you care to answer a hypothetical question, in your speculative opinion would the 16th century deciders have named Philip Consort or Jure Uxoris King/would the 19th century deciders have named Albert Consort or Jure Uxoris King? Or if that's a silly question, I hope it at least informs you of the angle that I'm looking at this from.
edit: Upon further reading, why wasn't Albert named plain old Prince, like the current Prince Philip? And how in the world did Jure Uxoris King Philip ever get that title, as the more I read it's looking like that's the far stranger aberration.
Like most other monarchies
