An interesting century, or so, of change, for England, largely due to accidents. Henry VIII was not raised or educated to rule yet was enthroned. His daughter, Elizabeth I was not raised for the throne but survived to take it. James had little reason to become king in England but was selected anyway and his chosen successor, trained to rule, died young and his second eldest son, like Henry VIII became king by default. So much change in England.... And the world.... Because all the careful planning was shredded and tossed to the winds leaving ruling to chance and fate.
Which raises the fascinating question of why inventors were so empowered to create institutions in this civilisation and not elsewhere. China, especially under the Sung, had an inventive culture but the Sung technological and commercial efflorescence was crippled by the dynasty’s military failure. And, of course, dynasty means something rather different in China than it does in England. The only change of English dynasty that remotely resembles a change of Chinese dynasty is the Norman Conquest, and that still evidenced far more institutional continuity than was normal in Chinese dynastic change, apart perhaps from the Qin-Han and Sui-Tang transitions.
Side note, re: “The patent [on alum]… was used to protect a substantial investment from London merchants”
I suppose there was no support in the law for something like mineral rights on land? Were letters patent required to protect such investments, in the absence of such property rights?
An interesting century, or so, of change, for England, largely due to accidents. Henry VIII was not raised or educated to rule yet was enthroned. His daughter, Elizabeth I was not raised for the throne but survived to take it. James had little reason to become king in England but was selected anyway and his chosen successor, trained to rule, died young and his second eldest son, like Henry VIII became king by default. So much change in England.... And the world.... Because all the careful planning was shredded and tossed to the winds leaving ruling to chance and fate.
Which raises the fascinating question of why inventors were so empowered to create institutions in this civilisation and not elsewhere. China, especially under the Sung, had an inventive culture but the Sung technological and commercial efflorescence was crippled by the dynasty’s military failure. And, of course, dynasty means something rather different in China than it does in England. The only change of English dynasty that remotely resembles a change of Chinese dynasty is the Norman Conquest, and that still evidenced far more institutional continuity than was normal in Chinese dynastic change, apart perhaps from the Qin-Han and Sui-Tang transitions.
I look forward to buying your book some day.
Side note, re: “The patent [on alum]… was used to protect a substantial investment from London merchants”
I suppose there was no support in the law for something like mineral rights on land? Were letters patent required to protect such investments, in the absence of such property rights?