This is the official term for the widow of a king and essentially means that Camilla would still enjoy the fancy vibes and importance of her former title without actually being Queen Consort anymore, due to another monarch and their spouse – in this case, Prince William and Kate Middleton ...

This is what'll happen to Camilla's title should King Charles pass away

Palm Springs’ first affordable housing community in 14 years is now open. City and county leaders gathered Thursday at the Monarch Apartments for an opening ceremony. News Channel 3&#x27;s Bianca Ventura spoke with some residents who are now occupying the apartments.

Palm Springs opens the Monarch Apartments, the city's new affordable housing community - KESQ

On Wednesday afternoon, King Charles had his first in-person audience with U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak since the monarch revealed that he had been diagnosed with cancer. Despite the diagnosis, which was detected when he was being treated for a benign enlarged prostate, the sovereign has ...

Queen Camilla Steps Out with Lesser-Known Working Royal amid King Charles' Cancer Diagnosis

King Charles has had a hectic start to 2024 following the monarch&#x27;s cancer diagnosis on 5 February. On 21 February, the King resumed in-person meetings as he met with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for their weekly audience.

King Charles III throughout the years | HELLO!

The monarch met with Rishi Sunak on Wednesday for the first private audience with the King since it was revealed he had been diagnosed with cancer earlier this month. The 75-year-old is undergoing treatment for the illness which was discovered while he underwent surgery on an enlarged prostate.

King Charles LIVE: His Majesty 'still in charge' as he carries on with royal duties - Mirror Online

Prince Harry was reportedly stopped from joining dad King Charles at Sandringham during his visit to the UK, while sources close to Prince William suggest he is against his brother returning for royal duties

King Charles LIVE: Monarch to miss close friend's memorial service amid cancer treatment

The outpouring of support for King Charles III during his ongoing cancer battle has not been lost on the monarch. &quot;I&#x27;ve had so many wonderful messages and cards,” Charles, 75, told U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak on Wednesday, February 21, during the king’s first public appearance since ...

King Charles III Says the Public’s Support During His Cancer Battle Has ‘Reduced Me to Tears’

An annual survey of monarch butterflies overwintering in central Mexico found the second-lowest number on record.

Monarch population dwindling with second lowest numbers on record - WPR

The British monarch started outpatient treatment for an undisclosed form of cancer just over two weeks ago

King Charles says messages and cards of support have left him in tears | King Charles III | The Guardian

The monarch, 75, met Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at Buckingham Palace yesterday as he made his first public remarks since his cancer diagnosis and showed he was &#x27;leading&#x27;, communication expert Judi James has said.

King Charles 'shows he is still in charge' after Prince William's shock statement over Gaza conflict: Body language expert says the monarch 'led' in his first face-to-face meeting with Rishi Sunak since his cancer diagnosis | Daily Mail Online

Monarch

monarch

A Short History of the World, by H. G. Wells, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE RESTORATION OF MONARCHY IN FRANCE THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE RESTORATION OF MONARCHY IN FRANCE Britain had hardly lost the Thirteen Colonies in America before a profound social and political convulsion at the very heart of Grand Monarchy was to remind Europe still more vividly of the essentially temporary nature of the political arrangements of the world. We have said that the French monarchy was the most successful of the personal monarchies in Europe. It was the envy and model of a multitude of competing and minor courts. But it flourished on a basis of injustice that led to its dramatic collapse. It was brilliant and aggressive, but it was wasteful of the life and substance of its common people. The clergy and nobility were protected from taxation by a system of exemption that threw the whole burden of the state upon the middle and lower classes. The peasants were ground down by taxation; the middle classes were dominated and humiliated by the nobility. In 1787 this French monarchy found itself bankrupt and obliged to call representatives of the different classes of the realm into consultation upon the perplexities of defective income and excessive expenditure. In 1789 the States General, a gathering of the nobles, clergy and commons, roughly equivalent to the earlier form of the British Parliament, was called together at Versailles. It had not assembled since 1610. For all that time France had been an absolute monarchy. Now the people found a means of expressing their long fermenting discontent. Disputes immediately broke out between the three estates, due to the resolve of the Third Estate, the Commons, to control the Assembly. The Commons got the better of these disputes and the States General became a National Assembly, clearly resolved to keep the crown in order, as the British Parliament kept the British crown in order. The king (Louis XVI) prepared for a struggle and brought up troops from the provinces. Whereupon Paris and France revolted. The collapse of the absolute monarchy was very swift. The grim-looking prison of the Bastille was stormed by the people of Paris, and the insurrection spread rapidly throughout France. In the east and north-west provinces many chateaux belonging to the nobility were burnt by the peasants, their title-deeds carefully destroyed, and the owners murdered or driven away. In a month the ancient and decayed system of the aristocratic order had collapsed. Many of the leading princes and courtiers of the queen’s party fled abroad. A provisional city government was set up in Paris and in most of the other large cities, and a new armed force, the National Guard, a force designed primarily and plainly to resist the forces of the crown, was brought into existence by these municipal bodies. The National Assembly found itself called upon to create a new political and social system for a new age. It was a task that tried the powers of that gathering to the utmost. It made a great sweep of the chief injustices of the absolutist regime; it abolished tax exemptions, serfdom, aristocratic titles and privileges and sought to establish a constitutional monarchy in Paris. The king abandoned Versailles and its splendours and kept a diminished state in the palace of the Tuileries in Paris. For two years it seemed that the National Assembly might struggle through to an effective modernized government. Much of its work was sound and still endures, if much was experimental and had to be undone. Much was ineffective. There was a clearing up of the penal code; torture, arbitrary imprisonment and persecutions for heresy were abolished. The ancient provinces of France, Normandy, Burgundy and the like gave place to eighty departments. Promotion to the highest ranks in the army was laid open to men of every class. An excellent and simple system of law courts was set up, but its value was much vitiated by having the judges appointed by popular election for short periods of time. This made the crowd a sort of final court of appeal, and the judges, like the members of the Assembly, were forced to play to the gallery. And the whole vast property of the church was seized and administered by the state; religious establishments not engaged in education or works of charity were broken up, and the salaries of the clergy made a charge upon the nation. This in itself was not a bad thing for the lower clergy in France, who were often scandalously underpaid in comparison with the richer dignitaries. But in addition the choice of priests and bishops was made elective, which struck at the very root idea of the Roman Church, which centred everything upon the Pope, and in which all authority is from above downward. Practically the National Assembly wanted at one blow to make the church in France Protestant, in organization if not in doctrine. Everywhere there were disputes and conflicts between the state priests created by the National Assembly and the recalcitrant (non-juring) priests who were loyal to Rome. In 1791 the experiment of Constitutional monarchy in France was brought to an abrupt end by the action of the king and queen, working in concert with their aristocratic and monarchist friends abroad. Foreign armies gathered on the Eastern frontier and one night in June the king and queen and their children slipped away from the Tuileries and fled to join the foreigners and the aristocratic exiles. They were caught at Varennes and brought back to Paris, and an France flamed up into a passion of patriotic republicanism. A Republic was proclaimed, open war with Austria and Prussia ensued, and the king was tried and executed (January, 1793) on the model already set by England, for treason to his people. And now followed a strange phase in the history of the French people. There arose a great flame of enthusiasm for France and the Republic. There was to be an end to compromise at home and abroad; at home royalists and every form of disloyalty were to be stamped out; abroad France was to be the protector and helper of all revolutionaries. All Europe, all the world, was to become Republican. The youth of France poured into the Republican armies; a new and wonderful song spread through the land, a song that still warms the blood like wine, the Marseillaise. Before that chant and the leaping columns of French bayonets and their enthusiastically served guns the foreign armies rolled back; before the end of 1792 the French armies had gone far beyond the utmost achievements of Louis XIV; everywhere they stood on foreign soil. They were in Brussels, they had overrun Savoy, they had raided to Mayence; they had seized the Scheldt from Holland. Then the French Government did an unwise thing. It had been exasperated by the expulsion of its representative from England upon the execution of Louis, and it declared war against England. It was an unwise thing to do, because the revolution which had given France a new enthusiastic infantry and a brilliant artillery released from its aristocratic officers and many cramping conditions had destroyed the discipline of the navy, and the English were supreme upon the sea. And this provocation united all England against France, whereas there had been at first a very considerable liberal movement in Great Britain in sympathy with the revolution. THE TRIAL OF LOUIS XVI (From a print in the British Museum) Of the fight that France made in the next few years against a European coalition we cannot tell in any detail. She drove the Austrians for ever out of Belgium, and made Holland a republic. The Dutch fleet, frozen in the Texel, surrendered to a handful of cavalry without firing its guns. For some time the French thrust towards Italy was hung up, and it was only in 1796 that a new general, Napoleon Bonaparte, led the ragged and hungry republican armies in triumph across Piedmont to Mantua and Verona. Says C. F. Atkinson, [ ] “What astonished the Allies most of all was the number and the velocity of the Republicans. These improvised armies had in fact nothing to delay them. Tents were unprocurable for want of money, untransportable for want of the enormous number of wagons that would have been required, and also unnecessary, for the discomfort that would have caused wholesale desertion in professional armies was cheerfully borne by the men of 1793- 94. Supplies for armies of then unheard-of size could not be carried in convoys, and the French soon became familiar with ‘living on the country.’ Thus 1793 saw the birth of the modern system of war—rapidity of movement, full development of national strength, bivouacs, requisitions and force as against cautious manœuvring, small professional armies, tents and full rations, and chicane. The first represented the decision-compelling spirit, the second the spirit of risking little to gain a little ... .” 1 And while these ragged hosts of enthusiasts were chanting the Marseillaise and fighting for la France, manifestly never quite clear in their minds whether they were looting or liberating the countries into which they poured, the republican enthusiasm in Paris was spending itself in a far less glorious fashion. The revolution was now under the sway of a fanatical leader, Robespierre. This man is difficult to judge; he was a man of poor physique, naturally timid, and a prig. But he had that most necessary gift for power, faith. He set himself to save the Republic as he conceived it, and he imagined it could be saved by no other man than he. So that to keep in power was to save the Republic. The living spirit of the Republic, it seemed, had sprung from a slaughter of royalists and the execution of the king. There were insurrections; one in the west, in the district of La Vendée, where the people rose against the conscription and against the dispossession of the orthodox clergy, and were led by noblemen and priests; one in the south, where Lyons and Marseilles had risen and the royalists of Toulon had admitted an English and Spanish garrison. To which there seemed no more effectual reply than to go on killing royalists. The Revolutionary Tribunal went to work, and a steady slaughtering began. The invention of the guillotine was opportune to this mood. The queen was guillotined, most of Robespierre’s antagonists were guillotined, atheists who argued that there was no Supreme Being were guillotined; day by day, week by week, this infernal new machine chopped off heads and more heads and more. The reign of Robespierre lived, it seemed, on blood; and needed more and more, as an opium-taker needs more and more opium. THE EXECUTION OF MARIE ANTOINETTE, QUEEN OF FRANCE, OCTOBER 16, 1793 (From a print in the British Museum) Finally in the summer of 1794 Robespierre himself was overthrown and guillotined. He was succeeded by a Directory of five men which carried on the war of defence abroad and held France together at home for five years. Their reign formed a curious interlude in this history of violent changes. They took things as they found them. The propagandist zeal of the revolution carried the French armies into Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, south Germany and north Italy. Everywhere kings were expelled and republics set up. But such propagandist zeal as animated the Directorate did not prevent the looting of the treasures of the liberated peoples to relieve the financial embarrassment of the French Government. Their wars became less and less the holy wars of freedom, and more and more like the aggressive wars of the ancient regime. The last feature of Grand Monarchy that France was disposed to discard was her tradition of foreign policy. One discovers it still as vigorous under the Directorate as if there had been no revolution. Unhappily for France and the world a man arose who embodied in its intensest form this national egotism of the French. He gave that country ten years of glory and the humiliation of a final defeat. This was that same Napoleon Bonaparte who had led the armies of the Directory to victory in Italy. Throughout the five years of the Directorate he had been scheming and working for self-advancement. Gradually he clambered to supreme power. He was a man of severely limited understanding but of ruthless directness and great energy. He had begun life as an extremist of the school of Robespierre; he owed his first promotion to that side; but he had no real grasp of the new forces that were working in Europe. His utmost political imagination carried him to a belated and tawdry attempt to restore the Western Empire. He tried to destroy the remains of the old Holy Roman Empire, intending to replace it by a new one centring upon Paris. The Emperor in Vienna ceased to be the Holy Roman Emperor and became simply Emperor of Austria. Napoleon divorced his French wife in order to marry an Austrian princess. He became practically monarch of France as First Consul in 1799, and he made himself Emperor of France in 1804 in direct imitation of Charlemagne. He was crowned by the Pope in Paris, taking the crown from the Pope and putting it upon his own head himself as Charlemagne had directed. His son was crowned King of Rome. For some years Napoleon’s reign was a career of victory. He conquered most of Italy and Spain, defeated Prussia and Austria, and dominated all Europe west of Russia. But he never won the command of the sea from the British and his fleets sustained a conclusive defeat inflicted by the British Admiral Nelson at Trafalgar (1805). Spain rose against him in 1808 and a British army under Wellington thrust the French armies slowly northward out of the peninsula. In 1811 Napoleon came into conflict with the Tsar Alexander I, and in 1812 he invaded Russia with a great conglomerate army of 600,000 men, that was defeated and largely destroyed by the Russians and the Russian winter. Germany rose against him, Sweden turned against him. The French armies were beaten back and at Fontainebleau Napoleon abdicated (1814). He was exiled to Elba, returned to France for one last effort in 1815 and was defeated by the allied British, Belgians and Prussians at Waterloo. He died a British prisoner at St. Helena in 1821. The forces released by the French revolution were wasted and finished. A great Congress of the victorious allies met at Vienna to restore as far as possible the state of affairs that the great storm had rent to pieces. For nearly forty years a sort of peace, a peace of exhausted effort, was maintained in Europe. [ ] In his article, “French Revolutionary Wars,” in the Encyclopædia Britannica 1 About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. H. G. Wells (2011). A Short History of the World. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/11870/11870-h/11870-h.htm This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html .

THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND THE RESTORATION OF MONARCHY IN FRANCE

THE AGE OF POLITICAL EXPERIMENTS; OF GRAND MONARCHY AND PARLIAMENTS AND REPUBLICANISM IN EUROPE

In the Fourth Year: Anticipations of a World Peace by H. G. Wells, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY VII. — THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY From the very outset of this war it was manifest to the clear-headed observer that only the complete victory of German imperialism could save the dynastic system in Europe from the fate that it had challenged. That curious system had been the natural and unplanned development of the political complications of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Two systems of monarchies, the Bourbon system and the German, then ruled Europe between them. With the latter was associated the tradition of the European unity under the Roman empire; all the Germanic monarchs had an itch to be called Caesar. The Kaiser of the Austro-Hungarian empire and the Czar had, so to speak, the prior claim to the title. The Prussian king set up as a Caesar in 1871; Queen Victoria became the Caesar of India (Kaisir-i-Hind) under the auspices of Lord Beaconsfield, and last and least, that most detestable of all Coburgers, Ferdinand of Bulgaria, gave Kaiserism a touch of quaint absurdity by setting up as Czar of Bulgaria. The weakening of the Bourbon system by the French revolution and the Napoleonic adventure cleared the way for the complete ascendancy of the Germanic monarchies in spite of the breaking away of the United States from that system. After 1871, a constellation of quasi-divine Teutonic monarchs, of which the German Emperor, the German Queen Victoria, the German Czar, were the greatest stars, formed a caste apart, intermarried only among themselves, dominated the world and was regarded with a mystical awe by the ignorant and foolish in most European countries. The marriages, the funerals, the coronations, the obstetrics of this amazing breed of idols were matters of almost universal worship. The Czar and Queen Victoria professed also to be the heads of religion upon earth. The court-centered diplomacies of the more firmly rooted monarchies steered all the great liberating movements of the nineteenth century into monarchical channels. Italy was made a monarchy; Greece, the motherland of republics, was handed over to a needy scion of the Danish royal family; the sturdy peasants of Bulgaria suffered from a kindred imposition. Even Norway was saddled with as much of a king as it would stand, as a condition of its independence. At the dawn of the twentieth century republican freedom seemed a remote dream beyond the confines of Switzerland and France—and it had no very secure air in France. Reactionary scheming has been an intermittent fever in the French republic for six and forty years. The French foreign office is still undemocratic in tradition and temper. But for the restless disloyalty of the Hohenzollerns this German kingly caste might be dominating the world to this day. Of course the stability of this Teutonic dynastic system in Europe—which will presently seem to the student of history so curious a halting-place upon the way to human unity—rested very largely upon the maintenance of peace. It was the failure to understand this on the part of the German and Bulgarian rulers in particular that has now brought all monarchy to the question. The implicit theory that supported the intermarrying German royal families in Europe was that their inter-relationship and their aloofness from their subjects was a mitigation of national and racial animosities. In the days when Queen Victoria was the grandmother of Europe this was a plausible argument. King, Czar and Emperor, or Emperor and Emperor would meet, and it was understood that these meetings were the lubrication of European affairs. The monarchs married largely, conspicuously, and very expensively for our good. Royal funerals, marriages, christenings, coronations, and jubilees interrupted traffic and stimulated trade everywhere. They seemed to give a raison d'jtre for mankind. It is the Emperor William and the Czar Ferdinand who have betrayed not only humanity but their own strange caste by shattering all these pleasant illusions. The wisdom of Kant is justified, and we know now that kings cause wars. It needed the shock of the great war to bring home the wisdom of that old Scotchman of Kvnigsberg to the mind of the ordinary man. Moreover in support of the dynastic system was the fact that it did exist as the system in possession, and all prosperous and intelligent people are chary of disturbing existing things. Life is full of vestigial structures, and it is a long way to logical perfection. Let us keep on, they would argue, with what we have. And another idea which, rightly or wrongly, made men patient with the emperors and kings was an exaggerated idea of the insecurity of republican institutions. You can still hear very old dull men say gravely that “kings are better than pronunciamentos”; there was an article upon Greece to this effect quite recently in that uncertain paper The New Statesman. Then a kind of illustrative gesture would be made to the South American republics, although the internal disturbances of the South American republics have diminished to very small dimensions in the last three decades and although pronunciamentos rarely disturb the traffic in Switzerland, the United States, or France. But there can be no doubt that the influence of the Germanic monarchy up to the death of Queen Victoria upon British thought was in the direction of estrangement from the two great modern republics and in the direction of assistance and propitiation to Germany. We surrendered Heligoland, we made great concessions to German colonial ambitions, we allowed ourselves to be jockeyed into a phase of dangerous hostility to France. A practice of sneering at things American has died only very recently out of English journalism and literature, as any one who cares to consult the bound magazines of the ‘seventies and eighties may soon see for himself. It is well too in these days not to forget Colonel Marchand, if only to remember that such a clash must never recur. But in justice to our monarchy we must remember that after the death of Queen Victoria, the spirit, if not the forms, of British kingship was greatly modified by the exceptional character and ability of King Edward VII. He was curiously anti-German in spirit; he had essentially democratic instincts; in a few precious years he restored good will between France and Great Britain. It is no slight upon his successor to doubt whether any one could have handled the present opportunities and risks of monarchy in Great Britain as Edward could have handled them. Because no doubt if monarchy is to survive in the British Empire it must speedily undergo the profoundest modification. The old state of affairs cannot continue. The European dynastic system, based upon the intermarriage of a group of mainly German royal families, is dead to-day; it is freshly dead, but it is as dead as the rule of the Incas. It is idle to close our eyes to this fact. The revolution in Russia, the setting up of a republic in China, demonstrating the ripeness of the East for free institutions, the entry of the American republics into world politics—these things slam the door on any idea of working back to the old nineteenth-century system. People calls to people. “No peace with the Hohenzollerns” is a cry that carries with it the final repudiation of emperors and kings. The man in the street will assure you he wants no diplomatic peace. Beyond the unstable shapes of the present the political forms of the future rise now so clearly that they are the common talk of men. Kant’s lucid thought told us long ago that the peace of the world demanded a world union of republics. That is a commonplace remark now in every civilized community. The stars in their courses, the logic of circumstances, the everyday needs and everyday intelligence of men, all these things march irresistibly towards a permanent world peace based on democratic republicanism. The question of the future of monarchy is not whether it will be able to resist and overcome that trend; it has as little chance of doing that as the Lama of Thibet has of becoming Emperor of the Earth. It is whether it will resist openly, become the centre and symbol of a reactionary resistance, and have to be abolished and swept away altogether everywhere, as the Romanoffs have already been swept away in Russia, or whether it will be able in this country and that to adapt itself to the necessities of the great age that dawns upon mankind, to take a generous and helpful attitude towards its own modification, and so survive, for a time at any rate, in that larger air. It is the fashion for the apologists of monarchy in the British Empire to speak of the British system as a crowned republic. That is an attractive phrase to people of republican sentiments. It is quite conceivable that the British Empire may be able to make that phrase a reality and that the royal line may continue, a line of hereditary presidents, with some of the ancient trappings and something of the picturesque prestige that, as the oldest monarchy in Europe, it has to-day. Two kings in Europe have already gone far towards realizing this conception of a life president; both the King of Italy and the King of Norway live as simply as if they were in the White House and are far more accessible. Along that line the British monarchy must go if it is not to go altogether. Will it go along those lines? There are many reasons for hoping that it will do so. The Times has styled the crown the “golden link” of the empire. Australians and Canadians, it was argued, had little love for the motherland but the greatest devotion to the sovereign, and still truer was this of Indians, Egyptians, and the like. It might be easy to press this theory of devotion too far, but there can be little doubt that the British Crown does at present stand as a symbol of unity over diversity such as no other crown, unless it be that of Austria-Hungary, can be said to do. The British crown is not like other crowns; it may conceivably take a line of its own and emerge—possibly a little more like a hat and a little less like a crown—from trials that may destroy every other monarchial system in the world. Now many things are going on behind the scenes, many little indications peep out upon the speculative watcher and vanish again; but there is very little that is definite to go upon at the present time to determine how far the monarchy will rise to the needs of this great occasion. Certain acts and changes, the initiative to which would come most gracefully from royalty itself, could be done at this present time. They may be done quite soon. Upon the doing of them wait great masses of public opinion. The first of these things is for the British monarchy to sever itself definitely from the German dynastic system, with which it is so fatally entangled by marriage and descent, and to make its intention of becoming henceforth more and more British in blood as well as spirit, unmistakably plain. This idea has been put forth quite prominently in the Times. The king has been asked to give his countenance to the sweeping away of all those restrictions first set up by George the Third, upon the marriage of the Royal Princes with British, French and American subjects. The British Empire is very near the limit of its endurance of a kingly caste of Germans. The choice of British royalty between its peoples and its cousins cannot be indefinitely delayed. Were it made now publicly and boldly, there can be no doubt that the decision would mean a renascence of monarchy, a considerable outbreak of royalist enthusiasm in the Empire. There are times when a king or queen must need be dramatic and must a little anticipate occasions. It is not seemly to make concessions perforce; kings may not make obviously unwilling surrenders; it is the indecisive kings who lose their crowns. No doubt the Anglicization of the royal family by national marriages would gradually merge that family into the general body of the British peerage. Its consequent loss of distinction might be accompanied by an associated fading out of function, until the King became at last hardly more functional than was the late Duke of Norfolk as premier peer. Possibly that is the most desirable course from many points of view. It must be admitted that the abandonment of marriages within the royal caste and a bold attempt to introduce a strain of British blood in the royal family does not in itself fulfil all that is needed if the British king is indeed to become the crowned president of his people and the nominal and accepted leader of the movement towards republican institutions. A thing that is productive of an enormous amount of republican talk in Great Britain is the suspicion—I believe an ill-founded suspicion—that there are influences at work at court antagonistic to republican institutions in friendly states and that there is a disposition even to sacrifice the interests of the liberal allies to dynastic sympathies. These things are not to be believed, but it would be a feat of vast impressiveness if there were something like a royal and public repudiation of the weaknesses of cousinship. The behaviour of the Allies towards that great Balkan statesman Venizelos, the sacrificing of the friendly Greek republicans in favour of the manifestly treacherous King of Greece, has produced the deepest shame and disgust in many quarters that are altogether friendly, that are even warmly “loyal” to the British monarchy. And in a phase of tottering thrones it is very undesirable that the British habit of asylum should be abused. We have already in England the dethroned monarch of a friendly republic; he is no doubt duly looked after. In the future there may be a shaking of the autumnal boughs and a shower of emperors and kings. We do not want Great Britain to become a hotbed of reactionary plotting and the starting-point of restoration raids into the territories of emancipated peoples. This is particularly desirable if presently, after the Kaiser’s death—which by all the statistics of Hohenzollern mortality cannot be delayed now for many years—the present Crown Prince goes a-wandering. We do not want any German ex-monarchs; Sweden is always open to them and friendly, and to Sweden they ought to go; and particularly do British people dread an irruption of Hohenzollerns or Coburgers. Almost as undesirable would be the arrival of the Czar and Czarina. It is supremely important that no wind of suspicion should blow between us and the freedom of Russia. After the war even more than during the war will the enemy be anxious to sow discord between the great Russian-speaking and English-speaking democracies. Quite apart from the scandal of their inelegant domesticities, the establishment of the Czar and Czarina in England with frequent and easy access to our royal family may be extraordinarily unfortunate for the British monarchy. I will confess a certain sympathy for the Czar myself. He is not an evil figure, he is not a strong figure, but he has that sort of weakness, that failure in decision, which trails revolution in its wake. He has ended one dynasty already. The British royal family owes it to itself, that he bring not the infection of his misfortunes to Windsor. The security of the British monarchy lies in such a courageous severance of its destinies from the Teutonic dynastic system. Will it make that severance? There I share an almost universal ignorance. The loyalty of the British is not to what kings are too prone to call “my person,” not to a chosen and admired family, but to a renascent mankind. We have fought in this war for Belgium, for France, for general freedom, for civilization and the whole future of mankind, far more than for ourselves. We have not fought for a king. We are discovering in that spirit of human unity that lies below the idea of a League of Free Nations the real invisible king of our heart and race. But we will very gladly go on with our task under a nominal king unless he hampers us in the task that grows ever more plainly before us. ... That, I think, is a fair statement of British public opinion on this question. But every day when I am in London I walk past Buckingham Palace to lunch at my club, and I look at that not very expressive fagade and wonder—and we all wonder—what thoughts are going on behind it and what acts are being conceived there. Out of it there might yet come some gesture of acceptance magnificent enough to set beside President Wilson’s magnificent declaration of war. ... These are things in the scales of fate. I will not pretend to be able to guess even which way the scales will swing. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. H. G. Wells (1918). In The Fourth Year. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022, from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10291/10291-h/10291-h.htm This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html.

THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY

Picture this: you go to a protest these days, and you find a lot of people wearing white, bearded masks. Maybe the hacktivist group Anonymous comes to your mind. Maybe V for Vendetta. Maybe even the historical root, Guy Fawkes —a man who died over 400 years ago in old England. But do you know why are they all connected as a symbol of rebellion or even anarchism? Should you wear your own mask too? Well. Let’s explore this story in chronological order, shall we? If you must know it now, it includes a murder attempt plot, explosives, a dystopian world, and somehow ends up with modern online anarchism and protests worldwide. Cryptos have been in the mix too since they appeared in 2009. Old Historical Facts “Remember, remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, treason and plot.” This is an English folk rhyme that dates back to the 17th century and has firmly stayed in popular imagery ever since. You see, that century wasn’t catholic-friendly at all in England. In case you didn’t know, there was a thing called European Wars of Religion that went on for centuries. That was a complex historical event in which numerous realms and parties participated, so we’ll sum it up by saying that the English high powers preferred The Church of England (Anglicanism), a form of Christian Protestantism that was against the Church of Rome and the figure of the Pope. Instead, the English monarch became the Supreme Governor of the church instead of the Pope, and, eventually, they sought to erase Catholicism from England. As a consequence, harsh religious persecution was put in place. Catholics faced heavy restrictions on practicing their faith, prohibitions against holding public office, fines for not attending Anglican services, and occasional imprisonment or execution for those deemed traitors due to their loyalty to the Pope over the English monarch. In other words, that was the perfect recipe for a group of Catholic revolutionaries to design a plot to kill and replace the Protestant king and his court. The 5th of November A group of conspirators, led by Robert Catesby, sought to assassinate King James I and his government officials in a dramatic explosion by November 5, 1605. They rented a cellar beneath the parliament building and stocked it with 36 barrels of gunpowder, enough to cause massive destruction. The plan unraveled, however, when an anonymous letter, sent days before the event, warned a Catholic member of parliament to stay away from the building.This prompted a search, and just hours before the planned explosion, authorities found Guy Fawkes, one of Catesby’s associates, guarding the gunpowder and ready to light the wicks. Fawkes was arrested, tortured, and eventually executed, while most of the other conspirators were also caught and met similar fates. The event is known now as the Gunpowder Plot. Today, November 5th is celebrated as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night in the UK. People light bonfires, set off fireworks, and sometimes burn effigies of Guy Fawkes or other hated characters to commemorate the failure of the plot and the survival of King James I —who most English people actually liked back then, despite his anti-Catholic posture. Fictional Facts So, a little bit disappointing up until now? Let’s fast forward to the 19th century when fiction starts to meddle with the facts. The writer William Harrison Ainsworth published a three-volume romance novel called ‘Guy Fawkes’. This story, published between 1840 and 1841, described a made-up romance between Fawkes and Viviana Radcliffe, a new character, and narrated the journey of the Gunpowder Plot from the summer of 1605 to its tragic end. All while picturing Fawkes as a sort of anti-hero. It wouldn’t be the last time. That novel was popular in its time, but what would really hit our century would be the comic ‘V for Vendetta’ by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, first published in 1980. Lloyd, indeed, is the author of the Guy Fawkes mask design as we know it. You may also be familiar with the homonymous movie from 2006. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSA7mAHolAw&embedable=true They tell us a dystopian story set in a future Britain under a totalitarian regime. The story follows V, a mysterious vigilante who wears a Guy Fawkes mask and uses his skills to fight against the oppressive government. V’s ultimate goal is to awaken the people to the regime’s injustices and inspire them to reclaim their freedom, using acts of rebellion and symbolism to make his point. He ends up fulfilling the original Fawkes’ goal and blows up the parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask is central to V’s identity (always hidden otherwise) and symbolizes resistance against tyranny. Just as Fawkes once tried to overthrow a powerful government, V becomes a modern symbol of defiance, using the mask to rally people against oppression while protecting their identities. This symbolism has since been embraced worldwide by activists and movements advocating for freedom and justice. New Historical Facts The Guy Fawkes mask became a symbol of protest and defiance in the early 2000s, thanks largely to the online activist group Anonymous. Starting around 2008, members of Anonymous wore the mask during a series of global protests against the Church of Scientology, which they opposed due to its practices and aggressive control of information. The mask allowed activists to protect their identities while presenting a united front against what they saw as corruption and censorship. https://youtu.be/_ZgJ2bkyiTw?embedable=true In 2011, the mask gained even more visibility with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which protested economic inequality and corporate influence. The Occupy movement spread globally, with protesters in places like New York, London, and Tokyo donning the mask as a statement against social injustice. Julian Assange, a renowned cypherpunk and founder of WikiLeaks, also wore the mask publicly, aligning with the movement and its ideals of transparency and accountability. Since then, the Guy Fawkes mask has appeared in a range of protests worldwide, from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations to anti-austerity marches across Europe. In addition, we must say that a wide lot of these protesters have learned to use cryptocurrencies to protect their funds and data. Today, the mask remains a powerful, recognizable symbol for those fighting for freedom and against government or corporate control, transcending borders and causes. A Mask Isn’t Enough Since the early days of protests by Anonymous and movements like Occupy Wall Street, the Guy Fawkes mask has allowed people to show solidarity while protecting their identities. However, in the current era of advanced surveillance and censorship, simply wearing a mask is no longer enough. According to Freedom House, “Global Internet freedom declined for the 14th consecutive year,” and “Free expression online was imperiled by severe prison terms and escalating violence.” Financial censorship is also a growing concern. In some countries, governments and institutions limit or freeze funds to silence dissent or restrict people’s access to their money. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized networks offer a way to push back. Due to their peer-to-peer nature, cryptocurrencies allow people to control their own funds and data without relying on central authorities. This means they can be used as tools for those fighting against inequality or authoritarianism, helping people keep their assets secure and enabling transactions even in restricted environments. Not all decentralized networks, however, are equally resistant to censorship. Blockchains can be censored and manipulated. Most of them still rely on “validators” or miners, leaving room for censorship and centralization. Obyte stands out as a powerful alternative: its Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure is truly decentralized, free from miners, “validators”, or any other middlemen, making it especially resistant to censorship and a good option for people seeking true autonomy. Featured Image by Ahmed Zayan / Unsplash Picture this: you go to a protest these days, and you find a lot of people wearing white, bearded masks. Maybe the hacktivist group Anonymous comes to your mind. Maybe V for Vendetta. Maybe even the historical root, Guy Fawkes —a man who died over 400 years ago in old England. But do you know why are they all connected as a symbol of rebellion or even anarchism? Should you wear your own mask too? Well. Let’s explore this story in chronological order, shall we? If you must know it now, it includes a murder attempt plot, explosives, a dystopian world, and somehow ends up with modern online anarchism and protests worldwide. Cryptos have been in the mix too since they appeared in 2009. Old Historical Facts “Remember, remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, treason and plot.” This is an English folk rhyme that dates back to the 17th century and has firmly stayed in popular imagery ever since. You see, that century wasn’t catholic-friendly at all in England. In case you didn’t know, there was a thing called European Wars of Religion that went on for centuries. “Remember, remember, the 5th of November, Gunpowder, treason and plot.” folk rhyme folk rhyme That was a complex historical event in which numerous realms and parties participated, so we’ll sum it up by saying that the English high powers preferred The Church of England (Anglicanism), a form of Christian Protestantism that was against the Church of Rome and the figure of the Pope. Instead, the English monarch became the Supreme Governor of the church instead of the Pope, and, eventually, they sought to erase Catholicism from England. As a consequence, harsh religious persecution was put in place. Catholics faced heavy restrictions on practicing their faith, prohibitions against holding public office, fines for not attending Anglican services, and occasional imprisonment or execution for those deemed traitors due to their loyalty to the Pope over the English monarch. As a consequence, harsh religious persecution was put in place. In other words, that was the perfect recipe for a group of Catholic revolutionaries to design a plot to kill and replace the Protestant king and his court. The 5th of November A group of conspirators, led by Robert Catesby, sought to assassinate King James I and his government officials in a dramatic explosion by November 5, 1605. They rented a cellar beneath the parliament building and stocked it with 36 barrels of gunpowder, enough to cause massive destruction. The plan unraveled, however, when an anonymous letter, sent days before the event, warned a Catholic member of parliament to stay away from the building. This prompted a search, and just hours before the planned explosion, authorities found Guy Fawkes, one of Catesby’s associates, guarding the gunpowder and ready to light the wicks. Fawkes was arrested, tortured, and eventually executed, while most of the other conspirators were also caught and met similar fates. The event is known now as the Gunpowder Plot. Today, November 5th is celebrated as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night in the UK. People light bonfires, set off fireworks, and sometimes burn effigies of Guy Fawkes or other hated characters to commemorate the failure of the plot and the survival of King James I —who most English people actually liked back then, despite his anti-Catholic posture. Today, November 5th is celebrated as Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night in the UK. Fictional Facts So, a little bit disappointing up until now? Let’s fast forward to the 19th century when fiction starts to meddle with the facts. The writer William Harrison Ainsworth published a three-volume romance novel called ‘Guy Fawkes’. This story, published between 1840 and 1841, described a made-up romance between Fawkes and Viviana Radcliffe, a new character, and narrated the journey of the Gunpowder Plot from the summer of 1605 to its tragic end. All while picturing Fawkes as a sort of anti-hero. published published It wouldn’t be the last time. That novel was popular in its time, but what would really hit our century would be the comic ‘V for Vendetta’ by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, first published in 1980 . Lloyd, indeed, is the author of the Guy Fawkes mask design as we know it. You may also be familiar with the homonymous movie from 2006. but what would really hit our century would be the comic ‘ V for Vendetta ’ by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, first published in 1980 ‘ V for Vendetta V for Vendetta ’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSA7mAHolAw&embedable=true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSA7mAHolAw&embedable=true They tell us a dystopian story set in a future Britain under a totalitarian regime. The story follows V, a mysterious vigilante who wears a Guy Fawkes mask and uses his skills to fight against the oppressive government. V’s ultimate goal is to awaken the people to the regime’s injustices and inspire them to reclaim their freedom, using acts of rebellion and symbolism to make his point. He ends up fulfilling the original Fawkes’ goal and blows up the parliament. The Guy Fawkes mask is central to V’s identity (always hidden otherwise) and symbolizes resistance against tyranny. Just as Fawkes once tried to overthrow a powerful government, V becomes a modern symbol of defiance, using the mask to rally people against oppression while protecting their identities. This symbolism has since been embraced worldwide by activists and movements advocating for freedom and justice. The Guy Fawkes mask is central to V’s identity (always hidden otherwise) and symbolizes resistance against tyranny. New Historical Facts The Guy Fawkes mask became a symbol of protest and defiance in the early 2000s, thanks largely to the online activist group Anonymous. Starting around 2008, members of Anonymous wore the mask during a series of global protests against the Church of Scientology, which they opposed due to its practices and aggressive control of information. The mask allowed activists to protect their identities while presenting a united front against what they saw as corruption and censorship. https://youtu.be/_ZgJ2bkyiTw?embedable=true https://youtu.be/_ZgJ2bkyiTw?embedable=true In 2011, the mask gained even more visibility with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which protested economic inequality and corporate influence. The Occupy movement spread globally, with protesters in places like New York, London, and Tokyo donning the mask as a statement against social injustice. Julian Assange , a renowned cypherpunk and founder of WikiLeaks, also wore the mask publicly, aligning with the movement and its ideals of transparency and accountability. In 2011, the mask gained even more visibility with the Occupy Wall Street movement, which protested economic inequality and corporate influence. Julian Assange Julian Assange wore the mask wore the mask Since then, the Guy Fawkes mask has appeared in a range of protests worldwide, from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy demonstrations to anti-austerity marches across Europe. In addition, we must say that a wide lot of these protesters have learned to use cryptocurrencies to protect their funds and data. Today, the mask remains a powerful, recognizable symbol for those fighting for freedom and against government or corporate control, transcending borders and causes. A Mask Isn’t Enough Since the early days of protests by Anonymous and movements like Occupy Wall Street, the Guy Fawkes mask has allowed people to show solidarity while protecting their identities. However, in the current era of advanced surveillance and censorship, simply wearing a mask is no longer enough. According to Freedom House , “Global Internet freedom declined for the 14th consecutive year,” and “Free expression online was imperiled by severe prison terms and escalating violence.” Freedom House Freedom House “Global Internet freedom declined for the 14th consecutive year,” and “Free expression online was imperiled by severe prison terms and escalating violence.” Financial censorship is also a growing concern. In some countries, governments and institutions limit or freeze funds to silence dissent or restrict people’s access to their money. Cryptocurrencies and decentralized networks offer a way to push back. Due to their peer-to-peer nature, cryptocurrencies allow people to control their own funds and data without relying on central authorities. Financial censorship Financial censorship This means they can be used as tools for those fighting against inequality or authoritarianism, helping people keep their assets secure and enabling transactions even in restricted environments. Not all decentralized networks, however, are equally resistant to censorship. Blockchains can be censored and manipulated . Most of them still rely on “validators” or miners, leaving room for censorship and centralization. Obyte stands out as a powerful alternative: its Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure is truly decentralized, free from miners, “validators”, or any other middlemen, making it especially resistant to censorship and a good option for people seeking true autonomy. Blockchains can be censored and manipulated Blockchains can be censored and manipulated Obyte Obyte Featured Image by Ahmed Zayan / Unsplash Featured Image by Ahmed Zayan / Unsplash Unsplash Unsplash

From Guy Fawkes to Resistance and Cryptos: A Fight for Freedom

Van Guy Fawkes tot Weerstand en Cryptos: A Fight for Freedom

De Guy Fawkes a la Resistencia y las Criptomonedas: Una Lucha por la Libertad

מגאי פוקס ועד התנגדות וקריפטוס: מאבק לחופש

ガイ・フォークスからレジスタンス、そして暗号通貨まで：自由のための戦い

ពី Guy Fawkes ទៅ Resistance និង Cryptos: ការប្រយុទ្ធដើម្បីសេរីភាព

Гай Фоукстон Каршылык көрсөтүүгө жана Криптолорго: Эркиндик үчүн күрөш

Avy amin'i Guy Fawkes mankany amin'ny fanoherana sy ny Cryptos: Ady ho an'ny fahafahana

Гай Фоуксаас Эсэргүүцэл ба Крипт: Эрх чөлөөний төлөөх тэмцэл

Od Guya Fawkesa do ruchu oporu i kryptowalut: walka o wolność

De Guy Fawkes à Resistência e Criptomoedas: Uma Luta pela Liberdade

Od Guya Fawkesa k Resistance a kryptomenám: Boj za slobodu

Од Гаја Фокса до отпора и криптоса: борба за слободу

The Best User Agent for Web Scraping

Най-добрият потребителски агент за уеб скрапинг

Den bedste brugeragent til web-skrabning

El mejor agente de usuario para el web scraping

O mellor axente de usuario para o rascado web

Ajan itilizatè a pi bon pou grate entènèt

סוכן המשתמש הטוב ביותר לגרידת אינטרנט

Webスクレイピングに最適なユーザーエージェント

Cel mai bun agent de utilizator pentru Web Scraping

Web Scraping සඳහා හොඳම පරිශීලක නියෝජිතයා

The Best User Agent yeWeb Scraping

Wakala Bora wa Mtumiaji wa Kuchakachua Wavuti

I-ejenti Yomsebenzisi Engcono Kakhulu Ye-Web Scraping

Manufacturing, Engineering - October 10, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Manufacturing startup ecosystem. The list, compiled by the HackerNoon team, showcases 30 startups making significant contributions and driving innovation in the manufacturing industry. https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here. The Startups in the Manufacturing industry nominated for Startups of The Year 2024 include: SpySkyTech Inc.
Bidmex
Earable Neuroscience
VALENTIS HOME
Guardianmade (Vietnam) CO., LTD
Monarch Auto
HealingHand Tech
CHIP WEB TECHNOLOGIES INDIA
Midwest Composites
AMRobotics LLC
Wayfield Ag
Aircraft Leasing Ireland
DRONEQUBE
Satellite Augmentation, LLC
Greenhood Singapore
Aebocode Technologies
Pickler
MedGos
VxV Solutions Inc.
seeng LTD
PT Seaweedtama Biopac Indonesia
Vas MedTech
HTGmedical
CO7 Technologies
ESS Detailing Services LLP
ArcX Technology
Linecare.tech
Rucha Yantra Pvt. Ltd.
CENmat
VitruvianMD “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Manufacturing industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” Why It Pays Off to Be Nominated Startups of The Year 2024 is a 100% community-driven voting event recognizing startups transforming technology and the world for the better. Starting October 1st, 2024, the internet can nominate and vote for the best ventures in their city and industry. People can nominate their favorite startups until October 31st, and vote once per day per award for who they think should be Startup of The Year up to March 31st, 2025. Winners will be announced in April 2025, after a comprehensive evaluation by the HackerNoon team. Apart from validation from the world's greenest tech publication, all nominees get free interviews relevant to their region and industry. They will also receive curated startup-friendly packages and a free version of their very own Evergreen Tech Company News Page on HackerNoon. In sum, being nominated gives you major credibility as one of the top startups globally and an expert in your industry, meaning even without winning, you still gain tons of exposure. Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here. About HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year Startups of The Year 2024 is HackerNoon’s flagship community-driven event celebrating startups, technology, and the spirit of innovation. Currently in its third iteration, the prestigious Internet award recognizes and celebrates tech startups of all shapes and sizes. This year, over 150,000 entities across 4200+ cities, 6 continents, and 100+ industries will participate in a bid to be crowned the best startup of the year! Millions of votes have been cast over the past few years, and many stories have been written about these daring and rising startups. The winners will get a free interview on HackerNoon and an Evergreen Tech Company News page. Visit our FAQ page to learn more. Download our design assets here. Check out the Startups of The Year Merch Shop here. HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year is a branding opportunity unlike any other. Whether your goal is brand awareness or lead generation, HackerNoon has curated startup-friendly packages to solve your marketing challenges. Meet our sponsors: Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community. At Wellfound, we're not just a job board—we're the place where top startup talent and the world's most exciting companies connect to build the future. Notion: Notion is trusted and loved by thousands of startups as their connected workspace—from building product roadmaps to tracking fundraising. Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months, to build and scale your company with one powerful tool. Get your offer now! Hubspot: If you’re looking for a smart CRM platform that meets the needs of small businesses, look no further than HubSpot. Seamlessly connect your data, teams and customers in one easy-to-use scalable platform that grows with your business. Get started for free. Bright Data: Startups that leverage public web data can make faster, data-driven decisions, giving them a competitive edge. With Bright Data’s scalable web data collection, businesses can grow from a small operation to an enterprise by harnessing insights at every stage. Algolia: Algolia NeuralSearch is the world's only AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform combining powerful keyword and natural language processing in a single API. Manufacturing, Engineering - October 10, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Manufacturing startup ecosystem. Manufacturing, Engineering - October 10, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “Startups of The Year” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Manufacturing startup ecosystem. Manufacturing, Engineering - October 10, 2024 Manufacturing, Engineering - October 10, 2024 - HackerNoon, the independent technology publishing platform, is pleased to announce the nominees for its annual “ Startups of The Year ” award, featuring the most promising and innovative companies in the Manufacturing startup ecosystem. Startups of The Year The list, compiled by the HackerNoon team, showcases 30 startups making significant contributions and driving innovation in the manufacturing industry. https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true https://youtu.be/XOpG6B4AKPU?embedable=true Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here. Nominations are open - learn more here . You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here . here Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here The Startups in the Manufacturing industry nominated for Startups of The Year 2024 include: Startups in the Manufacturing industry nominated Startups in the Manufacturing industry Startups in the Manufacturing industry SpySkyTech Inc. Bidmex Earable Neuroscience VALENTIS HOME Guardianmade (Vietnam) CO., LTD Monarch Auto HealingHand Tech CHIP WEB TECHNOLOGIES INDIA Midwest Composites AMRobotics LLC Wayfield Ag Aircraft Leasing Ireland DRONEQUBE Satellite Augmentation, LLC Greenhood Singapore Aebocode Technologies Pickler MedGos VxV Solutions Inc. seeng LTD PT Seaweedtama Biopac Indonesia Vas MedTech HTGmedical CO7 Technologies ESS Detailing Services LLP ArcX Technology Linecare.tech Rucha Yantra Pvt. Ltd. CENmat VitruvianMD SpySkyTech Inc. Bidmex Earable Neuroscience VALENTIS HOME Guardianmade (Vietnam) CO., LTD Monarch Auto HealingHand Tech CHIP WEB TECHNOLOGIES INDIA Midwest Composites AMRobotics LLC Wayfield Ag Aircraft Leasing Ireland DRONEQUBE Satellite Augmentation, LLC Greenhood Singapore Aebocode Technologies Pickler MedGos VxV Solutions Inc. seeng LTD PT Seaweedtama Biopac Indonesia Vas MedTech HTGmedical CO7 Technologies ESS Detailing Services LLP ArcX Technology Linecare.tech Rucha Yantra Pvt. Ltd. CENmat VitruvianMD “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Manufacturing industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Manufacturing industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO. “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” “We are thrilled to recognize the top startups in the Manufacturing industry and celebrate their achievements,” said David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO . “Starting and sustaining a company is difficult. We’re honored to showcase their work and impact.” David Smooke, HackerNoon Founder & CEO Why It Pays Off to Be Nominated Startups of The Year 2024 is a 100% community-driven voting event recognizing startups transforming technology and the world for the better. Starting October 1st, 2024, the internet can nominate and vote for the best ventures in their city and industry. People can nominate their favorite startups until October 31st , and vote once per day per award for who they think should be Startup of The Year up to March 31st, 2025. Winners will be announced in April 2025, after a comprehensive evaluation by the HackerNoon team. Startups of The Year 2024 nominate their favorite startups until October 31st nominate their favorite startups Apart from validation from the world's greenest tech publication, all nominees get free interviews relevant to their region and industry. They will also receive curated startup-friendly packages and a free version of their very own Evergreen Tech Company News Page on HackerNoon. get free interviews startup-friendly packages startup-friendly packages Evergreen Tech Company News Evergreen Tech Company News In sum, being nominated gives you major credibility as one of the top startups globally and an expert in your industry, meaning even without winning, you still gain tons of exposure. Nominations are open - learn more here. You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here. Nominations are open - learn more here . You can nominate your company as the Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here . here Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here Startup of The Year in the Manufacturing industry here About HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year Startups of The Year 2024 is HackerNoon’s flagship community-driven event celebrating startups, technology, and the spirit of innovation. Currently in its third iteration, the prestigious Internet award recognizes and celebrates tech startups of all shapes and sizes. This year, over 150,000 entities across 4200+ cities, 6 continents, and 100+ industries will participate in a bid to be crowned the best startup of the year! Millions of votes have been cast over the past few years, and many stories have been written about these daring and rising startups. Startups of The Year 2024 Startups of The Year 2024 many stories many stories The winners will get a free interview on HackerNoon and an Evergreen Tech Company News page. free interview on HackerNoon Evergreen Tech Company News Evergreen Tech Company News Visit our FAQ page to learn more. FAQ FAQ Download our design assets here . here here Check out the Startups of The Year Merch Shop here . here here HackerNoon’s Startups of The Year is a branding opportunity unlike any other. Whether your goal is brand awareness or lead generation, HackerNoon has curated startup-friendly packages to solve your marketing challenges. startup-friendly packages startup-friendly packages Meet our sponsors: Meet our sponsors: Meet our sponsors: Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community . At Wellfound, we're not just a job board—we're the place where top startup talent and the world's most exciting companies connect to build the future. Wellfound: Join the #1 global, startup-focused community Join the #1 global, startup-focused community Notion: Notion is trusted and loved by thousands of startups as their connected workspace—from building product roadmaps to tracking fundraising. Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months , to build and scale your company with one powerful tool. Get your offer now ! Notion: Try Notion with unlimited AI, FREE for up to 6 months Get your offer now ! Hubspot: If you’re looking for a smart CRM platform that meets the needs of small businesses, look no further than HubSpot. Seamlessly connect your data, teams and customers in one easy-to-use scalable platform that grows with your business. Get started for free . Hubspot: Get started for free Get started for free Bright Data: Startups that leverage public web data can make faster, data-driven decisions, giving them a competitive edge. With Bright Data’s scalable web data collection , businesses can grow from a small operation to an enterprise by harnessing insights at every stage. Bright Data: Bright Data’s scalable web data collection Bright Data’s scalable web data collection Algolia: Algolia NeuralSearch is the world's only AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform combining powerful keyword and natural language processing in a single API. Algolia: AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform AI end-to-end Search and Discovery Platform

Startups of The Year 2024: 9,686 Startups Nominated in the Manufacturing Industry

2024 maran qalltawinaka: 9.686 Qalltawinakaw Industria Manufacturera ukan sutinchata

Startups des Jahres 2024: 9.686 Startups in der Fertigungsindustrie nominiert

Startups of the Year 2024: 9.686 νεοσύστατες επιχειρήσεις υποψηφιότητες στον κατασκευαστικό κλάδο

Startups del año 2024: 9.686 startups nominadas en la industria manufacturera

Startups pou ane 2024 la: 9,686 startups nominasyon nan endistri fabrikasyon an

Az év startupjai 2024: 9686 startup jelölt a feldolgozóiparban

2024年のスタートアップ：製造業で9,686社のスタートアップがノミネート

2024 жылдың стартаптары: өңдеуші өнеркәсіпте 9 686 стартап ұсынылды

Startups ya Mobu 2024: 9.686 Startups Nominé na Industrie ya fabrication

2024 වසරේ ආරම්භක: 9,686 නිෂ්පාදන කර්මාන්තයේ නම් කරන ලදී

Стартапҳои сол 2024: 9,686 стартапҳо дар саноати истеҳсолӣ пешбарӣ шудаанд

سال 2024 کے اسٹارٹ اپس: مینوفیکچرنگ انڈسٹری میں 9,686 اسٹارٹ اپ نامزد

Solving the Paradox of Decentralized Coordination

Decentralized Micro-Governance Model for the Kingdom of Tonga Based on Proof-of-Work Consensus

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 21. I The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General— is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”[1] The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.). The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 421 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 271 (T. Cooley ed. 1871) (“[A]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). That ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the King’s ability to amass too much power”; the King could both create a multitude of offices and then fill them with his supporters. J. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 492 (2018) (Mascott); see also G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth-century despotism”); T. Paine, Common Sense (1776), reprinted in The Great Works of Thomas Paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King “ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Declaration of Independence ¶12. The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king.” The Federalist No. 69, at 421. The Founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. They did so by “imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by Law’ rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.” Mascott 492–493 (footnote omitted); see also 1 Annals of Cong. 581–582 (1789) (“The powers relative to offices are partly Legislative and partly Executive. The Legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation”); see also ibid. (describing the power to “designat[e] the man to fill the office” as “of an Executive nature”). The Constitution thus “giv[es] Congress broad authority to establish and organize the Executive Branch.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 266 (2020) (KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist. Longstanding practice from the founding to today comports with this original understanding that Congress must create offices by law. The First Congress, for instance, routinely and explicitly created offices by statute. See, e.g., §35, 1 Stat. 92–93 (creating the offices of Attorney General and U. S. Attorney for each district); see also §§1–2, id., at 50 (creating offices of Secretary of War and his Chief Clerk); ch. 12, §1, id., at 65 (creating offices within the Department of Treasury for Secretary of the Treasury, a Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Register, and Assistant to the Secretary). Still today, Congress creates the offices that the Executive Branch may fill. For example, Congress has created several offices within the Department of Justice, including the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Assistant Attorneys General. See 28 U. S. C. §§503–506. For some agencies, Congress has also granted the agency head the power to “appoint such officers and employees . . . as are necessary to execute the functions vested in him.” 7 U. S. C. §610(a) (Department of Agriculture); see also, e.g., 20 U. S. C. §3461 (Department of Education); 42 U. S. C. §913 (Department of Health and Human Services). In the past, Congress has at times expressly created offices similar to the position now occupied by the Special Counsel. Congress created an office for a “special counsel” to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal and pursue prosecutions. See ch. 16, 43 Stat. 6. And, a statute provided for “the appointment of an independent counsel” that we addressed in Morrison v. Olson. See 28 U. S. C. §592. That statute lapsed, and Congress has not since reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel. See §599.[2] We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be “established by Law.” As James Madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. [1] Although a Government official may also be a “nonofficer employe[e],” I set aside that category because it is difficult to see how an official exercising the Department of Justice’s duties to enforce the criminal law by leading a prosecution could be anything but an officer. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 253, n. 1 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see SW General, 580 U. S., at 314 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). If the Special Counsel were a nonofficer employee, the constitutional problems with this prosecution would only be more serious. For now, I assume without deciding that the Special Counsel is an officer. [2] To be sure, a few Presidents have appointed “special prosecutors” without pointing to any express statutory authorization. See generally T. Eastland, Ethics, Politics and the Independent Counsel 8–9 (1989) (describing past uses of special prosecutors). But, this Court had no occasion to review the constitutionality of those prosecutors’ authority. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 8 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here I The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General— is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”[1] The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.). The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 421 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 271 (T. Cooley ed. 1871) (“[A]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). That ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the King’s ability to amass too much power”; the King could both create a multitude of offices and then fill them with his supporters. J. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 492 (2018) (Mascott); see also G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth-century despotism”); T. Paine, Common Sense (1776), reprinted in The Great Works of Thomas Paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King “ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Declaration of Independence ¶12. The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king.” The Federalist No. 69, at 421. The Founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. They did so by “imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by Law’ rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.” Mascott 492–493 (footnote omitted); see also 1 Annals of Cong. 581–582 (1789) (“The powers relative to offices are partly Legislative and partly Executive. The Legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation”); see also ibid. (describing the power to “designat[e] the man to fill the office” as “of an Executive nature”). The Constitution thus “giv[es] Congress broad authority to establish and organize the Executive Branch.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 266 (2020) (KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist. Longstanding practice from the founding to today comports with this original understanding that Congress must create offices by law. The First Congress, for instance, routinely and explicitly created offices by statute. See, e.g., §35, 1 Stat. 92–93 (creating the offices of Attorney General and U. S. Attorney for each district); see also §§1–2, id., at 50 (creating offices of Secretary of War and his Chief Clerk); ch. 12, §1, id., at 65 (creating offices within the Department of Treasury for Secretary of the Treasury, a Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Register, and Assistant to the Secretary). Still today, Congress creates the offices that the Executive Branch may fill. For example, Congress has created several offices within the Department of Justice, including the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Assistant Attorneys General. See 28 U. S. C. §§503–506. For some agencies, Congress has also granted the agency head the power to “appoint such officers and employees . . . as are necessary to execute the functions vested in him.” 7 U. S. C. §610(a) (Department of Agriculture); see also, e.g., 20 U. S. C. §3461 (Department of Education); 42 U. S. C. §913 (Department of Health and Human Services). In the past, Congress has at times expressly created offices similar to the position now occupied by the Special Counsel. Congress created an office for a “special counsel” to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal and pursue prosecutions. See ch. 16, 43 Stat. 6. And, a statute provided for “the appointment of an independent counsel” that we addressed in Morrison v. Olson. See 28 U. S. C. §592. That statute lapsed, and Congress has not since reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel. See §599.[2] We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be “established by Law.” As James Madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov [1] Although a Government official may also be a “nonofficer employe[e],” I set aside that category because it is difficult to see how an official exercising the Department of Justice’s duties to enforce the criminal law by leading a prosecution could be anything but an officer. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 253, n. 1 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see SW General, 580 U. S., at 314 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). If the Special Counsel were a nonofficer employee, the constitutional problems with this prosecution would only be more serious. For now, I assume without deciding that the Special Counsel is an officer. [2] To be sure, a few Presidents have appointed “special prosecutors” without pointing to any express statutory authorization. See generally T. Eastland, Ethics, Politics and the Independent Counsel 8–9 (1989) (describing past uses of special prosecutors). But, this Court had no occasion to review the constitutionality of those prosecutors’ authority.

Stories, News & Mentions about MONARCH

Monarch’s Stories on HackerNoon

Monarch's News & Mentions