the end of the dark ages

 the end of the dark ages.

when was the end of the dark ages? 

my interpretation of history extends the dark ages until 1688 in london.

the cure finally came after much suffering.

when we look at briton's history from the roman era, the romans INVADED briton and ruled from far. from year 43 the roman empire ruled until they left in year 410. soon after that in year 450, more invaders called anglo-saxons came from the baltic coast.  the invaders establishd kingdoms by force. in 516 "britons" won a battle.

later in 867, after many battles against viking, the viking invaders establish a capital. until then saxon kings ruled... claiming "inheritance of a throne" from the first anglo-saxon king who ruled by force and lackd any privilige to rule... holding a throne lacking privilige and not holding any privilige for any son to inherit. yet they ruled by force and the viking invader ruled by force too.

in 1066 new invaders came from normandy=coast of france. william the norman took control and  all future kings claimd "inheritance" from this family of invaders who lacked any real privilige to rule and only by force the norman king from normandy took control. he defeated the king who the council of nobles had chosen to be king. 

briefly: the stuarts ruled from 1603. the first stuart king named james, was not only chosen by the previous "king/queen" but was from the royal family, henry 7 who ruled claiming the throne from the royal family of edward 3 who... 

ruled in 1327 from the family of king john who...

ruled in 1199 from the family of henry 2 son of william's granddaughter. when w1's  son took his place on the throne he probably claimed inheritance "pa ruled and i inherit" yet truly his pa invaded and had not inherited any privilige and since pa william did not hold any privilige to rule therefore his son inherited the same lack and only ruled by force due to the surrender. this is evil.

the kings, after william, all claimed to be heirs of the one who ruled, william 1, and his family, as above and as i will detail. obviously the family had many children and cousins so which one should rule? they often fought about this.

christians who know the bible culd use the bible solution to define inheritence, and avoid war, but if someone wants to be king he will use force anyway, and also consider as above the invader and the kings did not yet hold any real privilige for legacy. the son inherited his fathers lack of privilige to rule.

w1 was born in france and invaded briton as above. the kings who ruled after him claimed to be from the family of william the first.

his family ruled until 1154. i add the detail that considering the kings started by force, whether roman or english anglo or viking or norman from normandy that is considered the age of evil and darkness. would change ever occur? i found a change after many centuries.

meanwhile, in 1154 king stephen of w1's family died. the next king to rule was not even born in briton.

he was born in france and claimed the throne as an heir of w1, his ma was a granddaughter of w1 the invader from normandy. his family ruled for several generations.

which of his children should take his place? this argument often led to battles. the royal family ruled for centuries. from the norman invasion, in 1066 until 1399 over 300 years.

in 1377 king edward 3 died. he was from the family of king john as above. later kings claimed to be from this edward.

 despite many children and cousins... someone took the throne and for me most notably they inherited the title "invader thief" from the first norman invader.

did this ever change?

yes... but  not in 1399.

the first lancaster king claimed the throne from the family of edward 3.  his family ruled around 60 years. 

in 1461 the next king from another family claimd that he was the heir of that edward 3.

similarly the tudors, despite born in briton, in wales, claimed to inherit from the same edward 3 as above. this family ruled until the sisters mary and elizabeth. el' chose james 6 to lead after her. he became james 1 of england. he claimed the throne as above from the family henry the 7 that i traced already.

the stuarts ruled until the catholic violence in year 1685. even the short time of republic was not a cure, when the king fout parliament and lost, the result after that was the renewal of the kingdom by the same royal family.

james 2 persecuted non-catholics to pressure them to follow the pope. a revolt removed him in 1688 so he dweld in france.

finally the change occurd. parliament chose the next king despite he was not the son of james 2... he was chosen by the representatives of the people. his wife was from the royal family but the parliament selected which person in the royal family... the husband of the daughter of the king.

the interference intensified when the parliament selected from the heirs which one matched the interests of the people... they made a law to select the protestant relative of the royal family skipping over catholics which showed in action the representation of the desires of the citizens. when the first application of the law occurd moving the throne to the relative who was born in germany and was protestant... as the citizens desired... that was the cure.

yet even before this aplication which skipd some of the family of james 2 to a cousin in hanover, already the the dark ages ended in 1688.

the revolt removed james 2. parliament chose the next king selecting the husband of the daughter of the royal family to be king. this interference represented the citizens and obeyd the purpose of representatives to select the desired one from the royal family so for me this ended the dark ages and started the era of the cure.

this wiliam held a privilige to rule granted by the voters to the parliament who chose him.

sadly for me, this william had no live children. his royal wife mary died in 1694. assuming she inherited from her pa james 2 he inherited his throne... which was truly no privilege. thsi william held "both" the imaginary throne from his wife and the privilege  that parliament granted. when his wife ded he continued to rule... after 1694 until he died in 1702... but now who should inherit? his family? no. the nearest protestant relative. the law in 1701 to skip cathlic heirs, and select the protestant who was the nearest heir to the throne. in 1702 that was anne. daughter of james 2 the catholic. she too was part of the cure because her rule was not only by the authority of the parliament but more importantly representing the desire of the citizens and their will to select the protestant heir. she had the privilege that the ccitizens granted via parliament. ijn 1702 after this law anne ruled for a decade from 1702 until 1714. when she died without children the throne skipd the family of james 2 and went to a cousin. this was the true privilige when those who must submit to the king give the privilege in selecting which heir will be the next king. that was a privilege that the family could inherit as a legacy.

eventualy the parliament took even more authority and the royal family was only a symbol of the past... yet already in 1688 the cure had come.

 fro me the first real king of england was william 3 husband of mary, son in law of illegitamate james 2. when he died his sister in law ruled, as daughter of james 2 and applying the recent law of 1701. so for me the first two legitimate kings, one was granted the privilege as husband to the royal wife and the second was the daughter of james 2. parliament had selected which f the royal family matched the will of the citizens ending the dark ages of evil.

more cure would come later freeing colonies... some consider the freeing of slaves as benefit but assuming God is real... god never forbade slavery... he specified that buying and selling slaves was possible... see for yourself exodus chapter 21... still the other cure was as above.

in terms of inheritance whoever inherited from king george one who held the privelege truly inherited a privelege. that family was called hanover which ruled until 1901.

the end.