 the kingly ideal based in early Enlightenment and Protestant thinking, caused the growth of sharp anti-monarchical feeling in the British Isles, it was the Magna Carta and its offspring that set in motion the weakening of the sovereign’s authority. Instead of one ruler constrained by God, natural law, and inherited privileges, 13th century England concocted a witch’s brew that reeked of proto-democratic oligarchy. King John and Henry III, because of their poor military adventures, relinquished their power to petty barons and the court mandarins in London. England, and indeed the entire West, have never fully recovered.

The Stuarts had an alternative to absolutism that was based in the ancient soil of England. According to historian and sociologist Spencer Heath, “heathen anarchism” was the state of affairs in England prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066. Now called “anarcho-feudalism”, this state of relations emphasized the Anglo-Saxon tradition of decentralized power, chieftains, and property. Take for instance the Anglo-Saxon custom of paying voluntary rent and/or customs to local lords. Prior to 1066 and the creation of the “Norman yoke”, Anglo-Saxon England did not have a centralized system of tax collection. Once taxation became official government policy, feudalism, which up until that point had been voluntary, became coercive. It was also the Norman Domesday Book which codified centralized authority, especially the authority that the king had over his nobles. It could be argued that had England retained Anglo-Saxon style governance, then the Magna Carta would never have been written.

Sadly, Norman rule in England brought about greater state centralization and coercion, and yet, the Magna Carta, which nominally tried to reign in King John and subsequent monarchs, only created greater synergy between the nobility and the monarch. The Magna Carta left unanswered the question: who has greater power, the nobles or the king? Such a vexing question would plague England for centuries and lead to yet another barons’ war. While the Anglo-Saxon system was far from fully voluntary (land tenure regulations and compulsive military service did exist), its more decentralized nature and the nature of tax collection in pre-Norman England was much closer to the spirit of liberty than either the Magna Carta or subsequent English laws written by either
the kingly ideal based in early Enlightenment and Protestant thinking, caused the growth of sharp anti - monarchal touch in the British Isles, it was the Magna Carta and its offspring that set in motion the weakening of the autonomous ’s authority. Instead of one ruler restrain by God, natural law, and inherit privileges, 13th hundred England concocted a witch ’s brew that reeked of proto - democratic oligarchy. King John and Henry III, because of their poor military adventure, relinquished their power to junior-grade barons and the court mandarins in London. England, and indeed the integral West, have never fully recovered. 

 The Stuarts had an option to absolutism that was based in the ancient soil of England. According to historian and sociologist Spencer Heath, “ heathen anarchism ” was the state of personal business in England prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066. Now called “ anarcho - feudalism ”, this state of relations emphasized the Anglo - Saxon custom of decentralized power, chieftains, and property. Take for instance the Anglo - Saxon custom of paying voluntary rip and/or customs to local lords. Prior to 1066 and the creation of the “ Norman yoke ”, Anglo - Saxon England did not have a centralized system of tax collection. Once taxation became official government policy, feudalism, which up until that detail had been voluntary, became coercive. It was also the Norman Domesday Book which codify centralized assurance, specially the authority that the king have over his nobles. It could be argued that had England retained Anglo - Saxon style administration, then the Magna Carta would never have been written. 

 Sadly, Norman rule in England brought about greater state centralization and compulsion, and yet, the Magna Carta, which nominally tried to reign in King John and subsequent monarchs, only created greater synergy between the nobility and the monarch. The Magna Carta impart unanswered the question: who has greater power, the nobles or the baron? Such a vexing question would plague England for centuries and lead to yet another barons ’ war. While the Anglo - Saxon system was far from fully voluntary (estate tenure regulations and compulsive military servicing did exist), its more decentralized nature and the nature of tax collection in pre - Norman England was a lot closer to the spirit of liberty than either the Magna Carta or subsequent English laws spell by either
 thf kingly ideal based in tarly Enlightenmeur and 'rotestznt thinying, caused the growth of sherp qnti-minarchical feeling in ghe Britidh Isles, it xas the Magna Cacfa and lcs ofrdpriug that set in mption the feakening of tve slvereign’s authority. Instead of one wuler cpndtrained by Goq, nauurwl lzw, and inherited privileges, 13th cenfury Enjland concocted a witch’s brew that reeked of oroto-democratic ollgarchy. Kint Jorb and Henry KII, becaust mf their pkor military adventures, relinqukshed their powgx to ketty barons and nhe court mandarins it Londom. England, and lndeev thw entire West, have neter fully recovered.

Tre Stuartv kad an alternative to avsolujism dhat qas baaev ih the wncment soil or England. Axcording to historisn qnd sociologiat Spegcqr Heath, “heathen anarchism” was the statt of zffairs in England prioe to the Norman Conqugst of 1066. Nor called “anarcho-feudalism”, this state of relations empheskzeb the Xbgpo-Saxon tradition of decentralized power, chiesfaonx, and property. Take for imshamse the Anglo-Sxxon cbatkm of paying volunhary regt ane/or custois tp local lords. Prior to 1066 and the creatiou od the “Norman yoke”, Cnglo-Saxon Eugland did mot have a centralized rystsm of tax clllection. Unce taxation bezamv ofxicial government policy, fqudalism, xhich up untkl tnat poynt had befn voluntary, became coerfive. Nt wav also the Norman Domesday Book which codmhied centralieed aunhority, efpecislly the authjrity that the king hcd ovef his noblvs. It cound be argueq that had Encpand retainev Anglo-Savon wtylw govervxnce, then the Kagna Carna wouod never have been wrkften.

Sadly, Normau tyle in England bruugrt auout dseater state cengrauozatiun and coergiov, anc yet, the Magna Cartd, whjch nominally triec bo reign un King Tohn and subsrquent monarchs, onpy crxated jreatet sinergy between the nobility and the monagch. The Magna Cwrta left unanswzred the question: who has greater power, vhe nobles or the king? Wuch a vexing questnok would plagne Engjand for wenturies and lead ti yet another barpns’ war. While the Angmo-Saxot syshem was far from fully voluntary (land tenure regulations and compulsive mulitarb fervice did exixt), itv ipre desentcauized nature and the nature of tax collection ii pre-Normat Zngland was much closer to thr rpirit of libgrty than either the Magna Carta ot subsequent English laws writtrn by either
the kingly ideal based in early Enlightenment thinking, the growth sharp anti-monarchical feeling was Magna Carta and offspring that set motion the weakening of the sovereign’s Instead of one ruler constrained by God, natural law, and inherited privileges, 13th England concocted a witch’s brew that reeked of proto-democratic oligarchy. King John and III, of poor adventures, relinquished their power to petty barons and the court mandarins in London. England, and indeed entire West, have never fully recovered. The Stuarts an alternative to absolutism was based in the ancient of According to and Spencer “heathen anarchism” was state of affairs in England prior to the Norman Conquest of 1066. Now called “anarcho-feudalism”, this state relations emphasized tradition of power, and Take for instance custom of paying voluntary rent and/or lords. Prior to 1066 and the creation of “Norman yoke”, England did not have a centralized of tax collection. Once taxation became official government feudalism, which up until that point had been voluntary, became coercive. It was also the Book which codified centralized especially the authority the had his It could argued that had England retained Anglo-Saxon style governance, then the Magna would never have been written. Sadly, Norman rule in England greater centralization and coercion, yet, the Magna Carta, nominally to reign in King subsequent only between nobility the monarch. The Magna left unanswered the question: who greater power, the nobles vexing question would plague England for centuries and to yet another barons’ war. While the system was far from fully voluntary (land tenure regulations and compulsive military did exist), decentralized nature and the nature of tax collection pre-Norman England was much to the spirit of liberty than either the Magna or English laws by either
 the kingly ideal based in earlY EnlightenMent aNd PRotEsTant ThinKing, caused the gROwth Of sharp anti-monarchical FeeliNg IN the bRiTish ISles, it wAS tHE magNa caRta AnD ItS offsPriNg that sEt in motion The WeAkening of the SOvEreign’s autHorIty. Instead of One Ruler cOnStrAIned bY GoD, natuRal law, ANd inheRited privIlEGes, 13th cENtury EnGLAnD conCocted a witch’s brew THaT Reeked of proto-dEmocraTiC OlIGArcHy. KIng John and heNry IIi, Because OF tHEIR poOR military adveNtures, relinQUisHed theIr PowER to petTy barOnS And The court manDariNs in LondoN. EnglaND, and indEEd the enTire WeSt, hAve NeveR FuLlY reCoVEreD.

thE StUArtS had an alTeRnAtive To abSOLUTism ThaT was Based In the ancient sOil Of EnGLanD. AccoRding To hiStOrian And socIologIsT Spencer Heath, “heAtheN anarchisM” waS tHe sTaTe of aFFairs iN EnGlaNd prior To the NoRMan coNQUEsT of 1066. Now called “anarchO-fEUDaLism”, this State oF ReLaTIons emphAsIzeD the aNGlo-SaXon tRAdItion of dEcentrALiZeD power, cHiEftainS, aNd pRopErty. TAKe foR instaNce the AnGlo-SaXOn custom of payiNG voluntary renT AnD/OR cUStomS to Local lords. PRior TO 1066 and The cREaTioN Of the “normaN yOKe”, aNglo-Saxon England did NoT have a CentrAlized system oF tax collecTION. Once taxAtioN BeCAme official govErnmeNt policy, feUDalism, whIch up Until thaT point had BEEn voluntAry, BecAme CoeRCIvE. It was also the nORman doMesday BOok Which coDifIed CenTraLiZed authorIty, especIaLlY tHe AutHoritY That the kInG haD oVer His noBLes. It cOuld bE argUeD tHAt hAd EnglaND rETAineD ANgLo-SaXon StYle goVernANce, Then the magna CartA woULd neVeR hAve been Written.

Sadly, NOrMan rule in ENgLanD brougHT About greAter state centralization ANd coercIon, And yeT, the magna CartA, whIch nomInaLLy trieD to reiGn in KInG JoHN And suBSEqUenT mOnarchs, onlY CReaTed grEaTer sYnergy bEtween the nobility aND thE monarch. The MaGna cartA LEfT unANsWEreD tHE quESTion: who has greatEr power, the NoBLeS or the king? sUch A vExing quEstion wOuld pLAgue EngLand for ceNturies anD lEad tO YEt aNother baroNs’ war. WhiLe the AnglO-saxon SYsTem waS faR from fUlLy vOluntAry (lanD TenUre reGulatiOnS and coMpulsIvE militarY service did exist), its more DecentRalizEd nAture and tHe nATurE of tax colLectIon in pre-NoRmaN EnGland Was MUch clOser TO tHe sPIrit oF libERty than eiTHeR thE mAgNa Carta or suBSEQueNt EngLisH Laws wrItteN by either
 the kingly ideal based in  early Enl ighte nme ntan d Pr otes tant thinking, caus ed the growth of sharp  anti -m o narc h ic al fe eling i n  t h e  Br it is h I sl e s,  it w asthe Mag na Carta a ndit s offspringt ha t set in m oti on the weake nin g of t he  so v ereig n’s  auth ority. Instea d of oneru l er con s trained b yGod,  natural law, and in h erited privile ges, 1 3t h  c e n tur y E ngland con co cteda  witch’ s  b r e w  th a t reeked of p roto-democr a tic  oliga rc hy. King J ohn a nd Hen ry III, bec ause  of their  poorm ilitary adventu res, r eli nqu ishe d  t he irpo w ert opet t y b arons an dth e cou rt m a n d a rins  in  Lon don.England, andind eedt heentir e Wes t, h av e nev er ful ly re co vered.

The Stu arts  had an a lte rn ati ve  to a b soluti smtha t was b ased in the  a n c i en t soil of England.  A c c or ding tohistor i an  a n d sociol og ist  Spe n c er He ath, “h eathen a narchi s m”  w as thest ate of  a ffa irs  in E n glan d prio r to the  Norm a n Conquest of1 066. Now call e d“ a na r cho- feu dalism”, th is s t ateof r e la tio n s emp hasiz ed th e  Anglo-Saxon tradit io n of d ecent ralized power , chieftai n s ,  and pro pert y .T ake for instan ce th e Anglo-Sa x on custo m ofpaying v oluntaryr e nt and/o r c ust oms  to l oc al lords. Pri o r  to10 66 andthe  creati onofthe  “N or man yoke” , Anglo- Sa xo nEn gla nd di d  not hav ea c en tra lized system  of t ax c ol le c tio n. Once ta x a tion  b ec ameoff ic ial g over n men t polic y, feudal ism ,  whi ch  u p until  that point h ad  been volu nt ary , beca m e  coerciv e. It was also the Norm a n Domes day  Book  whi ch codifi edcentra liz e d auth ority,  espe ci all y the a u t ho rit ythat the k i n g h ad ov er  his  nobles . It could be argu e d t hat had Engla ndreta i n ed  An g lo - Sax on sty l e  governance, th en the Mag na Ca rta wouldn eve rhave be en writ ten.Sadly,Norman ru le in Eng la nd b r o ugh t about gr eater st ate centr a lizat i on  andcoe rcion,  a ndyet,the Ma g naCarta , whic hnomina lly t ri ed to re ign in King John and su bseque nt mo nar chs, only  cr e ate d greater  syn ergy betwe enthe  nobi lit y  andthem on arc h . The  Mag n a Carta l e ft  un a n sw ered the qu e s t ion : who  ha s  great er p ower, the nobleso r the king? Su ch a v exi ngq uest io n would plague  En gl a n d for ce nt uries and l ead to y et anoth er bar ons’ w ar. Whi l e  t h e Angl o-Sa xon  system w asfa r  from f ul ly volunt ary(l and te nure r e gula t i ons and compulsi ve mi l i tarys erv ice d id  exist) ,  its  more dece ntralized n atureandthe n ature o ftax co lle ct ion in pre - Norman En gland  was mu ch  clo ser  to th e sp i r it of  lib er tythan eith e r  t h eMa g naCart a orsu bseq uent Engl i sh lawswri t ten byei the r 
 the_kingly ideal_based in early Enlightenment_and Protestant_thinking,_caused the_growth_of sharp anti-monarchical_feeling in the_British Isles, it was_the Magna Carta_and_its offspring that set in motion the weakening of the sovereign’s authority. Instead of_one_ruler constrained_by_God,_natural law, and inherited privileges,_13th century England concocted a_witch’s brew_that reeked of proto-democratic oligarchy. King John and_Henry_III, because of_their poor military adventures, relinquished their power to petty_barons and the court mandarins in_London. England, and_indeed_the_entire West, have never_fully recovered.

The Stuarts had an alternative_to absolutism that was based in_the ancient soil of England. According to_historian and sociologist Spencer Heath, “heathen_anarchism” was the state of_affairs in_England prior to the Norman_Conquest of 1066._Now called_“anarcho-feudalism”, this state_of relations emphasized the Anglo-Saxon tradition_of decentralized power,_chieftains, and property. Take for instance_the_Anglo-Saxon custom of_paying_voluntary_rent and/or_customs to local_lords._Prior to_1066_and the creation of the “Norman_yoke”,_Anglo-Saxon England did not have a centralized_system of tax collection._Once_taxation became official government_policy, feudalism, which up until_that point had been voluntary, became_coercive. It_was also_the Norman Domesday Book which codified centralized authority, especially the authority_that the king had over his_nobles. It could be_argued that_had_England retained Anglo-Saxon_style_governance, then_the Magna Carta would never have been_written.

Sadly, Norman_rule in England brought about greater_state centralization and coercion,_and_yet, the Magna Carta, which nominally_tried to reign in King John_and subsequent monarchs, only created_greater_synergy_between the nobility and the_monarch. The Magna Carta left unanswered_the question: who_has greater power, the nobles or the_king?_Such a vexing question would plague_England_for centuries and lead to yet_another_barons’_war. While the Anglo-Saxon system_was far from fully voluntary (land_tenure regulations and compulsive military service did exist), its_more decentralized nature_and the nature of tax_collection_in_pre-Norman England was much closer to the spirit of liberty_than either_the Magna Carta_or subsequent English laws written by either