Joseph Fischer

Joseph Fischer

Joseph Fischer was born in Hungary in 1901. An architect he became involved in politics and joined the Social Democratic Party.

The Hungarian Uprising began on 23rd October by a peaceful manifestation of students in Budapest. The students demanded an end to Soviet occupation and the implementation of "true socialism". The following day commissioned officers and soldiers joined the students on the streets of Budapest. Stalin's statue was brought down and the protesters chanted "Russians go home", "Away with Gero" and "Long Live Nagy".

On 25th October Soviet tanks opened fire on protesters in Parliament Square. One journalist at the scene saw 12 dead bodies and estimated that 170 had been wounded. Shocked by these events the Central Committee of the Communist Party forced Erno Gero to resign from office and replaced him with Janos Kadar.

Imre Nagy now went on Radio Kossuth and promised the "the far-reaching democratization of Hungarian public life, the realisation of a Hungarian road to socialism in accord with our own national characteristics, and the realisation of our lofty national aim: the radical improvement of the workers' living conditions."

On 3rd November, Nagy announced details of his coalition government. It included Fischer, Janos Kadar, George Lukacs, Anna Kethly, Zolton Tildy, Bela Kovacs, Geza Lodonczy, Istvan Szabo, Gyula Keleman, Istvan Bibo and Ferenc Farkas. On 4th November 1956 Nikita Khrushchev sent the Red Army into Hungary and Nagy's government was overthrown.

Joseph Fischer moved to the United States where he died in 1995.


Fischer (company)

Fischer Sports is an Austrian sports equipment manufacturing company that produces goods for snow sports, more specifically Nordic skiing, Alpine skiing and ice hockey equipment. Winter sports equipment include skis, boots, bindings, and accessories (bags, backpacks). For ice hockey, Fischer produces sticks, skates, pucks, blades, jerseys, and protective gear (jockstraps, socks, gloves, and visors).

    • (2015–16) 145.0 million EUR
    • (2016–17) 138.8 million EUR
    • (2017–18) 164.4 million EUR
    • (2018–19) 182.5 million EUR
    • (2019–20) 187.7 million EUR

    Surviving the Depression

    1933 Despite many hardships, the meat market survived the great depression. A large contributor to the survival of the market was due to Fischer's reputation for German sausage spreading far beyond the small town of Muenster. Conditions soon improved and in 1933, Fischer's added groceries to the shelves. Soon after, beef sales continued to increase with the introduction of freezers. Now, families could buy meat in volumes.


    FISCHER Genealogy

    WikiTree is a community of genealogists growing an increasingly-accurate collaborative family tree that's 100% free for everyone forever. Please join us.

    Please join us in collaborating on FISCHER family trees. We need the help of good genealogists to grow a completely free shared family tree to connect us all.

    IMPORTANT PRIVACY NOTICE & DISCLAIMER: YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO USE CAUTION WHEN DISTRIBUTING PRIVATE INFORMATION. WIKITREE PROTECTS MOST SENSITIVE INFORMATION BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT STATED IN THE TERMS OF SERVICE AND PRIVACY POLICY.


    No instruments with photographs publicly available

    More related
    Carteggio features

    Sign up to receive Carteggio features directly

    Sign up to our newsletter


    IV. THE NORMANS.

    The invasion of William of Normandy led to results which have been represented by some writers as having been the most momentous in English history. I do not wish in any way to depreciate their views, but it seems to me not to have been so disastrous to existing institutions, as the Scandinavian invasion, which completely submerged all former usages. No trace of Roman occupation survived the advent of the ANGLO-SAXONs the population was reduced to and remained in the position of serfs, whereas the Norman invasion preserved the existing institutions of the nation, and subsequent changes were an outgrowth thereof.

    When Edward the Confessor, the last descendant of Cedric, was on his deathbed, he declared Harold to be his successor, but William of Normandy claimed the throne under a previous will of the same monarch. He asked for the assistance of his own nobles and people in the enterprise, but they refused at first, on the ground that their feudal compact only required them to join in the defence of their country, and did not coerce them into affording him aid in a completely new enterprise and it was only by promising to compensate them out of the spoils that he could secure their co-operation. A list of the number of ships supplied by each Norman chieftain appears in Lord Lyttleton's "History of Henry III." vol. i., appendix.

    I need hardly remind you that the settlers in Normandy were from Norway, or that they had been expelled from their native land in consequence of their efforts to subvert its institutions, and to make the descent of land hereditary, instead of being divisible among all the sons of the former owner. Nor need I relate how they won and held the fair provinces of northern France&mdashwhether as a fief of the French Crown or not, is an open question. But I should wish you to bear in mind their affinity to the ANGLO-SAXONs, to the Danes, and to the Norwegians, the family of Sea Robbers, whose ravages extended along the coasts of Europe as far south as Gibraltar, and, as some allege, along the Mediterranean. Some questions have been raised as to the means of transport of the Saxons, the Jutes, and the Angles, but they were fully as extensive as those by which Rollo invaded France or William invaded England.

    William strengthened his claim to the throne by his military success, and by a form of election, for which there were many previous precedents. Those who called upon him to ascend it alleged "that they had always been ruled by legal power, and desired to follow in that respect the example of their ancestors, and they knew of no one more worthy than himself to hold the reins of government."

    His alleged title to the crown, sanctioned by success and confirmed by election, enabled him, in conformity with existing institutions, to seize upon the lands of Harold and his adherents, and to grant them as rewards to his followers. Such confiscation and gifts were entirely in accord with existing usages, and the great alteration which took place in the principal fiefs was more a change of persons than of law. A large body of the aboriginal people had been, and continued to be, serfs or villeins while the mass of the FREEMEN (LIBERI HOMINES) remained in possession of their holdings.

    It may not be out of place here to say a few words about this important class, which is in reality the backbone of the British constitution it was the mainstay of the ANGLO-SAXON monarchy it lost its influence during the civil wars of the Plantagenets, but reasserted its power under Cromwell. Dr. Robertson thus draws the line between them and the vassals:

    "In the same manner Liber homo is commonly opposed to Vassus or Vassalus, the former denoting an allodial proprietor, the latter one who held of a superior. These FREEMEN were under an obligation to serve the state, and this duty was considered so sacred that FREEMEN were prohibited from entering into holy orders, unless they obtained the consent of the sovereign."

    De Lolme, chap. i., sec. 5, says:

    "The Liber homo, or FREEMAN, has existed in this country from the earliest periods, as well as of authentic as of traditionary history, entitled to that station in society as one of his constitutional rights, as being descended from free parents in contradistinction to 'villains,' which should be borne in remembrance, because the term 'FREEMAN' has been, in modern times, perverted from its constitutional signification without any statutable authority." The LIBERI HOMINES are so described in the Doomsday Book. They were the only men of honor, faith, trust, and reputation in the kingdom and from among such of these as were not barons, the knights did choose jurymen, served on juries themselves, bare offices, and dispatched country business. Many of the LIBERI HOMINES held of the king in capite, and several were freeholders of other persons in military service. Their rights were recognized and guarded by the 55th William I. [Footnote: "LV.&mdashDe Chartilari seu Feudorum jure et Ingenuorum immunitate. Volumus etiam ac firmiter praecipimus et concedimus ut omnes LIBERI HOMINES totius Monarchiae regni nostri praedicti habeant et teneant terras suas et possessiones suas bene et in pace, liberi ab omni, exactione iniusta et ab omni Tallagio: Ita quod nihil ab eis exigatur vel capiatur nisi servicium suum liberum quod de iure nobis facere debent et facere tenentur et prout statutum est eis et illis a nobis datum et concessum iure haereditario imperpetuum per commune consilium totius regni nostri praeicti."] it is entitled:

    "CONCERNING CHEUTILAR OR FEUDAL RIGHTS, AND THE IMMUNITY OF FREEMEN.

    "We will also, and strictly, enjoin and concede that all FREEMEN (LIBERI HOMINES) of our whole kingdom aforesaid, have and hold their land and possessions well and in peace, free from every unjust exaction and from Tallage, so that nothing be exacted or taken from them except their free service, which of right they ought to do to us and are bound to do, and according as it was appointed (statutum) to them, and given to them by us, and conceded by hereditary right for ever, by the common council (FOLC-GEMOT> of our whole realm aforesaid."

    These FREEMEN were not created by the Norman Conquest, they existed prior thereto and the laws, of which this is one, are declared to be the laws of Edward the Confessor, which William re-enacted. Selden, in "The Laws and Government of England," p. 34, speaks of this law as the first Magna Charta. He says:

    "Lastly, the one law of the kings, which may be called the first MAGNA CHARTA in the Norman times (55 William I.), by which the king reserved to himself, from the FREEMEN of this kingdom, nothing but their free service, in the conclusion saith that their lands were thus granted to them in inheritance of the king by the COMMON COUNCIL (FOLC-GEMOT) of the whole kingdom and so asserts, in one sentence, the liberty of the FREEMEN, and of the representative body of the kingdom."

    "The freedom of an ENGLISHMAN consisteth of three particulars: first, in OWNERSHIP second, in VOTING ANY LAW, whereby ownership is maintained and, thirdly, in having an influence upon the JUDICIARY POWER that must apply the law. Now the English, under the Normans, enjoyed all this freedom with each man's own particular, besides what they had in bodies aggregate. This was the meaning of the Normans, and they published the same to the world in a fundamental law, whereby is granted that all FREEMEN shall have and hold their lands and possessions in hereditary right for ever and by this they being secured from forfeiture, they are further saved from all wrong by the same law, which provideth that they shall hold them well or quietly, and in peace, free from all unjust tax, and from all Tallage, so as nothing shall be exacted nor taken but their free service, which, by right, they are bound to perform."

    This is expounded in the law of Henry I., cap. 4, to mean that no tribute or tax shall be taken but what was due in the Confessor's time, and Edward II. was sworn to observe the laws of the Confessor.

    The nation was not immediately settled. Rebellions arose either from the oppression of the invaders or the restlessness of the conquered and, as each outburst was put down by force, there were new lands to be distributed among the adherents of the monarch ultimately there were about 700 chief tenants holding IN CAPITE, but the nation was divided into 60,215 knights' fees, of which the Church held 28,115. The king retained in his own hands 1422 manors, besides a great number of forests, parks, chases, farms, and houses, in all parts of the kingdom and his followers received very large holdings.

    Among the Saxon families who retained their land was one named Shobington in Bucks. Hearing that the Norman lord was coming to whom the estate had been gifted by the king, the head of the house armed his servants and tenants, preparing to do battle for his rights he cast up works, which remain to this day in grassy mounds, marking the sward of the park, and established himself behind them to await the despoiler's onset. It was the period when hundreds of herds of wild cattle roamed the forest lands of Britain, and, failing horses, the Shobingtons collected a number of bulls, rode forth on them, and routed the Normans, unused to such cavalry. William heard of the defeat, and conceived a respect for the brave man who had caused it he sent a herald with a safe conduct to the chief, Shobington, desiring to speak with him. Not many days after, came to court eight stalwart men riding upon bulls, the father and seven sons. "If thou wilt leave me my lands, O king," said the old man, "I will serve thee faithfully as I did the dead Harold." Whereupon the Conqueror confirmed him in his ownership, and named the family Bullstrode, instead of Shobington.

    Sir Martin Wright, in his "Treatise on Tenures," published in 1730, p. 61, remarks:

    "Though it is true that the possessions of the Normans were of a sudden very great, and that they received most of them from the hands of William I., yet it does not follow that the king took all the lands of England out of the hands of their several owners, claiming them as his spoils of war, or as a parcel of a conquered country but, on the contrary, it appears pretty plain from the history of those times that the king either had or pretended title to the crown, and that his title, real or pretended, was established by the death of Harold, which amounted to an unquestionable judgment in his favor. He did not therefore treat his opposers as enemies, but as traitors, agreeably to the known laws of the kingdom which subjected traitors not only to the loss of life but of all their possessions."

    "As William I. did not claim to possess himself of the lands of England as the spoils of conquest, so neither did he tyrannically and arbitrarily subject them to feudal dependence but, as the fedual law was at that time the prevailing law of Europe, William I., who had always governed by this policy, might probably recommend it to our ancestors as the most obvious and ready way to put them upon a footing with their neighbors, and to secure the nation against any future attempts from them. We accordingly find among the laws of William I. a law enacting feudal law itself, not EO NOMINE, but in effect, inasmuch as it requires from all persons the same engagements to, and introduces the same dependence upon, the king as supreme lord of all the lands of England, as were supposed to be due to a supreme lord by the feudal law. The law I mean is the LII. law of William I."

    This view is adopted by Sir William Blackstone, who writes (vol. ii., p. 47):

    "From the prodicious slaughter of the English nobility at the battle of Hastings, and the fruitless insurrection of those who survived, such numerous forfeitures had accrued that he (William) was able to reward his Norman followers with very large and extensive possessions, which gave a handle to monkish historians, and such as have implicitly followed them to represent him as having by the right of the sword, seized upon all the lands of England, and dealt them out again to his own favorites&mdasha supposition grounded upon a mistaken sense of the word conquest, which in its feudal acceptation signifies no more than acquisition, and this has led many hasty writers into a strange historical mistake, and one which, upon the slightest examination, will be found to be most untrue.

    "We learn from a Saxon chronicle (A.D. 1085), that in the nineteenth year of King William's reign, an invasion was apprehended from Denmark and the military constitution of the Saxons being then laid aside, and no other introduced in its stead, the kingdom was wholly defenceless which occasioned the king to bring over a large army of Normans and Britons who were quartered upon, and greatly oppressed, the people. This apparent weakness, together with the grievances occasioned by a foreign force, might co-operate with the king's remonstrance, and better incline the nobility to listen to his proposals for putting them in a position of defence. For, as soon as the danger was over, the king held a great council to inquire into the state of the nation, the immediate consequence of which was the compiling of the great survey called the Doomsday Book, which was finished the next year and in the end of that very year (1086) the king was attended by all his nobility at Sarum, where the principal landholders submitted their lands to the yoke of military tenure, and became the king's vassals, and did homage and fealty to his person."

    "One innovation made by William upon the feudal law is very deserving of attention. By the leading principle of feuds, an oath of fealty was due from the vassal to the lord of whom he immediately held the land, and no other. The King of France long after this period had no feudal, and scarcely any royal, authority over the tenants of his own vassals but William received at Salisbury, in 1085, the fealty of all landholders in England, both those who held in chief and their tenants, thus breaking in upon the feudal compact in its most essential attribute&mdashthe exclusive dependence of a VASSAL upon his lord and this may be reckoned among the several causes which prevented the continental notions of independence upon the Crown from ever taking root among the English aristocracy."

    A more recent writer, Mr. FREEMAN ("History of the Norman Conquest," published in 1871, vol. iv., p. 695), repeats the same idea, though not exactly in the same words. After describing the assemblage which encamped in the plains around Salisbury, he says:

    "In this great meeting a decree was passed, which is one of the most memorable pieces of legislation in the whole history of England. In other lands where military tenure existed, it was beginning to be held that he who plighted his faith to a lord, who was the man of the king, was the man of that lord only, and did not become the man of the king himself. It was beginning to be held that if such a man followed his immediate lord to battle against the common sovereign, the lord might draw on himself the guilt of treason, but the men that followed him would be guiltless. William himself would have been amazed if any vassal of his had refused to draw his sword in a war with France on the score of duty toward an over-lord. But in England, at all events, William was determined to be full king over the whole land, to be immediate sovereign and immediate lord of every man. A statute was passed that every FREEMAN in the realm should take the oath of fealty to King William."

    Mr. FREEMAN quotes Stubbs's "Select Charters," p. 80, as his authority. Stubbs gives the text of that charter, with ten others. He says: "These charters are from 'Textus Roffensis,' a manuscript written during the reign of Henry I. it contains the sum and substance of all the legal enactments made by the Conqueror independent of his confirmation of the earlier laws." It is as follows: "Statuimus etiam ut OMNIS LIBER HOMO feodere et sacramento affirmet, quod intra et extra Angliam Willelmo regi fideles esse volunt, terras et honorem illius omni fidelitate cum eo servare et eum contra inimicos defendere."

    It will be perceived that Mr. Hallam reads LIBER HOMO as "vassal." Mr. FREEMAN reads them as "FREEMAN," while the older authority, Sir Martin Wright, says: "I have translated the words LIBERI HOMINES, 'owners of land,' because the sense agrees best with the tenor of the law."

    The views of writers of so much eminence as Sir Martin Wright, Sir William Blackstone, Mr. Henry Hallam, and Mr. FREEMAN, are entitled to the greatest respect and consideration, and it is with much diffidence I venture to differ from them. The three older writers appear to have had before them the LII of William I., the latter the alleged charter found in the "Textus Roffensis" but as they are almost identical in expression, I treat the latter as a copy of the former, and I do not think it bears out the interpretation sought to be put upon it&mdashthat it altered either the feudalism of England, or the relation of the vassal to his lord and it must be borne in mind that not only did William derive his title to the crown from Edward the Confessor, but he preserved the apparent continuity, and re-enacted the laws of his predecessor. Wilkins' "Laws of the ANGLO-SAXONs and Normans," republished in 1840 by the Record Commissioners, gives the following introduction:

    "Here begin the laws of Edward, the glorious king of England.

    "After the fourth year of the succession to the kingdom of William of this land, that is England, he ordered all the English noble and wise men and acquainted with the law, through the whole country, to be summoned before his council of barons, in order to be acquainted with their customs, Having therefore selected from all the counties twelve, they were sworn solemnly to proceed as diligently as they might to write their laws and customs, nothing omitting, nothing adding, and nothing changing."

    Then follow the laws, thirty-nine in number, thus showing the continuity of system, and proving that William imposed upon his Norman followers the laws of the ANGLO-SAXONs. They do not include the LII. William I., to which I shall refer hereafter. I may, however, observe that the demonstration at Salisbury was not of a legislative character and that it was held in conformity with ANGLO-SAXON usages. If, according to Stubbs, the ordinance was a charter, it would proceed from the king alone. The idea involved in the statements of Sir Martin Wright, Mr. Hallam, and Mr. FREEMAN, that the VASSAL OF A LORD was then called on to swear allegiance to the KING, and that it altered the feudal bond in England, is not supported by the oath of vassalage. In swearing fealty, the vassal knelt, placed his hands between those of his lord's, and swore:

    "I become your man from this day forward, of life and limb, and of earthly worship, and unto you shall be true and faithful, and bear you faith for the tenements at that I claim to hold of you, saving the faith that I owe unto our Sovereign Lord the King."

    This shows that it was unnecessary to call vassals to Salisbury to swear allegiance. The assemblage was of the same nature and character as previous meetings. It was composed of the LIBERI HOMINES, the FREEMEN, described by the learned John Selden (ante, p. 10), and by Dr. Robertson and De Lolme (ante, pp. 12, 13).

    But there is evidence of a much stronger character, which of itself refutes the views of these writers, and shows that the Norman system, at least during the reign of William I., was a continuation of that existing previous to his succession to the throne and that the meeting at Salisbury, so graphically portrayed, did not effect that radical change in the position of English landholders which has been stated. I refer to the works of EADMERUS he was a monk of Canterbury who was appointed Bishop of St. Andrews, and declined or resigned the appointment because the King of Scotland refused to allow his consecration by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His history includes the reigns of William I., William II., and Henry I., from 1066 to 1122, and he gives, at page 173, the laws of Edward the Confessor, which William I. gave to England they number seventy-one, including the LII. law quoted by Sir Martin Wright. The introduction to these laws is in Latin and Norman-French, and is as follows:

    "These are the laws and customs which King William granted to the whole people of England after he had conquered the land, and they are those which KING EDWARD HIS PREDECESSOR observed before him."

    This simple statement gets rid of the theory of Sir Martin Wright, of Sir William Blackstone, of Mr. Hallam, and of Mr. FREEMAN, that William introduced a new system, and that he did so either as a new feudal law or as an amendment upon the existing feudalism. The LII. law, quoted by Wright, is as follows:

    "We have decreed that all FREE MEN should affirm on oath, that both within and without the whole kingdom of England (which is called Britain) they desire to be faithful to William their lord, and everywhere preserve unto him his land and honors with fidelity, and defend them against all enemies and strangers."

    Eadmerus, who wrote in the reign of Henry I., gives the LII. William I. as a confirmatory law. The charter given by Stubbs is a contraction of the law given by Eadmerus. The former uses the words OMNES LIBERI HOMINES the latter, the words OMNIS LIBERI HOMO. Those interested can compare them, as I shall give the text of each side by side.

    Since the paper was read, I have met with the following passage in Stubbs's "Constitutional History of England," vol. i., p. 265:

    "It has been maintained that a formal and definitive act, forming the initial point of the feudalization of England, is to be found in a clause of the laws, as they are called, of the Conqueror, which directs that every FREEMAN shall affirm, by covenant and oath, that 'he will be faithful to King William within England and without, will join him in preserving his land with all fidelity, and defend him against his enemies.' But this injunction is little more than the demand of the oath of allegiance taken to the Anglo-Saxon kings, and is here required not of every feudal dependant of the king, but of every FREEMAN or freeholder whatsoever. In that famous Council of Salisbury, A. D, 1086, which was summoned immediately after the making of the Doomsday survey, we learn, from the 'Chronicle,' that there came to the king 'all his witan and all the landholders of substance in England, whose vassals soever they were, and they all submitted to him and became his men, and swore oaths of allegiance that they would be faithful to him against all others.' In the act has been seen the formal acceptance and date of the introduction of feudalism, but it has a very different meaning. The oath described is the oath of allegiance, combined with the act of homage, and obtained from all landowners whoever their feudal lord might be. It is a measure of precaution taken against the disintegrating power of feudalism, providing a direct tie between the sovereign and all freeholders which no inferior relations existing between them and the mesne lords would justify them in breaking."

    I have already quoted from another of Stubbs's works, "Select Charters," the charter which he appears to have discovered bearing upon this transaction, and now copy the note, giving the authorities quoted by Stubbs, with reference to the above passage. He appears to have overlooked the complete narration of the alleged laws of William I., given by Eadmerus, to which I have referred. The note is as follows:

    "Ll. William I., 2, below note see Hovenden, ii., pref. p. 5, seq., where I have attempted to prove the spuriousness of the document called the Charter of William I., printed in the ancient 'Laws' ed. Thorpe, p. 211. The way in which the regulation of the Conqueror here referred to has been misunderstood and misused is curious. Lambarde, in the 'Archaionomia,' p. 170, printed the false charter in which this genuine article is incorporated as an appendiz to the French version of the Conqueror's laws, numbering the clauses 51 to 67 from Lambarde, the whole thing was transferred by Wilkins into his collection of ANGLO-SAXON laws. Blackstone's 'Commentary,' ii. 49, suggested that perhaps the very law (which introduced feudal tenures) thus made at the Council of Salisbury is that which is still extant and couched in these remarkable words, i. e., the injunction in question referred to by Wilkins, p. 228 Ellis, in the introduction to 'Doomsday,' i. 16, quotes Blackstone, but adds a reference to Wilkins without verifying Blackstone's quotation from his collection of laws, substituting for that work the Concilia, in which the law does not occur. Many modern writers have followed him in referring the enactment of the article to the Council of Salisbury. It is well to give here the text of both passages that in the laws runs thus: 'Statuimus etiam ut omnis liber homo foedere et sacremento affirmet, quod intra et extra Angliam Willelmo regi fideles esse volunt, terras et honorem illius omni fidelitate eum eo servare et ante eum contra inimicos defendere' (Select Charters, p. 80). the homage done at Salisbury is described by Florence thus: 'Nec multo post mandavit ut Archiepiscopi episcopi, abbates, comitas et barones et vicecomitas cum suis militibus die Kalendarum Augustarem sibi occurent Saresberiae quo cum venissent milites eorem sibi fidelitatem contra omnes homines jurare coegit.' The 'Chronicle' is a little more full: 'Thaee him comon to his witan and ealle tha Landsittende men the ahtes waeron ofer eall Engleland waeron thaes mannes men the hi waeron and ealle hi bugon to him and waeron his men, and him hold athas sworon thaet he woldon ongean ealle other men him holde beon.'"

    Mr. Stubbs had, in degree, adopted the view at which I had arrived, that the law or charter of William I. was an injunction to enforce the oath of allegiance, previously ordered by the laws of Edward the Confessor, to be taken by all FREEMEN, and that it did not relate to vassals, or alter the existing feudalism.

    As the subject possesses considerable interest for the general reader as well as the learned historian, I think it well to place the two authorities side by side, that the text may be compared:

    LII. William I., as given by Eadments. "De fide et obsequio erga Regnum.

    "Statuimus etiam ut omnes LIBERI HOMINES foedere et sacramento affirment quod intra et extra univereum regnum Anglise (quod olim vocabatur regnum Britanniae) Wilhielmo suo domino fideles ease volunt, terras et honores ilius fidelitate ubique servare cum eo et contra inimicos et alienigenas defendere."

    Charter from Textus Roffensis, given by Mr. Stubbs.

    "Statuimus etiam ut omnis liber homo feodere et sacramento affirmet, quod intra et extra Angliam. Willelmo regi fideles ease volunt, terras et honorem illius omni fidelitate cum eo servare et ante eum contra inimicos defendere."

    I think the documents I have quoted show that Sir Martin Wright, Sir William Blackstone, and Messrs. Hallam and FREEMAN, labored under a mistake in supposing that William had introduced or imposed a new feudal law, or that the vassals of a lord swore allegiance to the king. The introduction to the laws of William I. shows that it was not a new enactment, or a Norman custom introduced into England, and the law itself proves that it relates to FREEMEN, and not to vassals.

    The misapprehension of these authors may have arisen in this way: William I. had two distinct sets of subjects. The NORMANS, who had taken the oath of allegiance on obtaining investiture, and whose retinue included vassals and the ANGLO-SAXONS, among whom vassalage was unknown, who were FREEMAN (LIBERI HOMINES) as distinguished from serfs. The former comprised those in possesion of Odhal (noble) land, whether held from the crown or its tenants. It was quite unnecessary to convoke the Normans and their vassals, while the assemblage of the Saxons&mdashOMNES LIBERI HOMINES&mdashwas not only to conformity with the laws of Edward the Confessor, but was specially needful when a foreigner had possesed himself of the throne.

    I have perhaps dwelt to long upon this point, but the error to which I have referred has been adopted as if it was an unquestioned fact, and has passed into our school-books and become part of the education given to the young, and therefore it required some examination.

    I believe that a very large portion of the land in England did not change hands at that period, nor was the position of either SERFS or VILLEINS changed. The great alteration lay in the increase in the quantity of BOC-LAND. Much of the FOLC-LAND was forfeited and seized upon, and as the king claimed the right to give it away, it was called TERRA REGIS. The charter granted by King William to Alan Fergent, Duke of Bretagne, of the lands and towns, and the rest of the inheritance of Edwin, Earl of Yorkshire, runs thus:

    "Ego Guilielmus cognomine Bastardus, Rex Anglise do et concede tibi nepoti meo Alano Brittanias Comiti et hseredibus tuis imperpetuum omnes villas et terras qua nuper fuerent Comitis Edwini in Eborashina cum feodis militise et aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus ita libere et honorifice sicut idem Edwinus eadem tenuit.

    "Data obsidione coram civitate Eboraci."

    This charter does not create a different title, but gives the lands as held by the former possessor. The monarch assumed the function of the fole-gemot, but the principle remained&mdashthe feudee only became tenant for life. Each estate reverted to the Crown on the death of him who held it but, previous to acquiring possession, the new tenant had to cease to be his own "man," and became the "man" of his superior. This act was called "homage," and was followed by "investiture." In A.D. 1175, Prince Henry refused to trust himself with his father till his homage had been renewed and accepted, for it bound the superior to protect the inferior. The process is thus described by De Lolme (chap, ii., sec. 1):

    "On the death of the ancestor, lands holden by 'knight's service' and by 'grand sergeantcy' were, upon inquisition finding the tenure and the death of the ancestor, seized into the king's hands. If the heir appeared by the inquisition to be within the age of twenty-one years, the King retained the lands till the heir attained the age of twenty-one, for his own profit, maintaining and educating the heir according to his rank. If the heir appeared by the inquisition to have attained twenty-one, he was entitled to demand livery of the lands by the king's officers on paying a relief and doing fealty and homage. The minor heir attaining twenty-one, and proving his age, was entitled to livery of his lands, on doing fealty and homage, without paying any relief."

    The idea involved is, that the lands Were HELD, and NOT OWNED, and that the proprietary right lay in the nation, as represented by the king. If we adopt the poetic idea of the Brehon code, that "land is perpetual man," then HOMAGE for land was not a degrading institution. But it is repugnant to our ideas to think that any man can, on any ground, or for any consideration, part with his manhood, and become by homage the "man" of another.

    The Norman chieftains claimed to be peers of the monarch, and to sit in the councils of the nation, as barons-by-tenure and not by patent. This was a decided innovation upon the usages of the Anglo-Saxons, and ultimately converted the Parliament, the FOLC-GEMOT, into two branches. Those who accompanied the king stood in the same position as the companions of Romulus, they were the PATRICIANS those subsequently called to the councils of the sovereign by patent corresponded with the Roman NOBILES. No such patents were issued by any of the Norman monarchs. But the insolence of the Norman nobles led to the attempt made by the successors of the Conqueror to revive the Saxon earldoms as a counterpoise. The weakness of Stephen enabled the greater fudges to fortify their castles, and they set up claims against the Crown, which aggravated the discord that arose in subsequent reigns.

    The "Saxon Chronicles," p. 238, thus describes the oppressions of the nobles, and the state of England in the reign of Stephen:

    "They grievously oppressed the poor people with building castles, and when they were built, filled them with wicked men, or rather devils, who seized both men and women who they imagined had any money, threw them into prison, and put them to more cruel tortures than the martyrs ever endured they suffocated some in mud, and suspended others by the feet, or the head, or the thumbs, kindling fires below them. They squeezed the heads of some with knotted cords till they pierced their brains, while they threw others into dungeons swarming with serpents, snakes, and toads."

    The nation was mapped out, and the owners' names inscribed in the Doomsday Book. There were no unoccupied lands, and had the possessors been loyal and prudent, the sovereign would have had no lands, save his own private domains, to give away, nor would the industrious have been able to become tenants-in-fee. The alterations which have taken place in the possession of land since the composition of the Book of Doom, have been owing to the disloyalty or extravagance of the descendants of those then found in possession.

    Notwithstanding the vast loss of life in the contests following upon the invasion, the population of England increased from 2,150,000 in 1066, when William landed, to 3,350,000 in 1152, when the great-grandson of the Conqueror ascended the throne, and the first of the Plantagenets ruled in England.


    Pawn Sacrifice (2015)

    The Pawn Sacrifice true story confirms that Fischer started playing chess at age six after his mother moved him and his sister Joan from Chicago to Brooklyn. Like in the movie, a pre-teen Bobby Fischer possessed great self-confidence when he faced and beat his adult challengers with ease, winning the U.S. Chess Championship at age 14 in 1958 (Biography.com). He then went on an exhibition tour of sorts from city to city, playing anywhere from 40 to 80 people at a time (Bobby Fischer Against the World). After taking the U.S. title, he quickly turned his attention toward the international and Russian titles.

    What is the most noticeable difference between Bobby Fischer and his onscreen counterpart, Tobey Maguire?

    Was Bobby Fischer's mother really a communist?

    Yes. Fischer had a fatherless childhood and was raised by his mother, Regina Fischer, a left-wing political activist/communist who filled her son's head with conspiracy theories (she had lived in pre-Stalinist Russia for many years). She feared their phone was tapped and that the suspicious car parked out front was a G-man there to watch them. Born in Switzerland and raised in St. Louis, his mother had a Russian-Jewish-Polish heritage.

    Who was Bobby Fischer's biological father?

    The Pawn Sacrifice true story reveals that Bobby Fischer's biological father is widely believed to have been Paul Felix Nemenyi, a Hungarian-born mathematician who Regina met while married to German biophysicist Hans Gerhardt Fischer. Regina met Nemenyi in 1942 while taking classes at the University of Denver. Despite Hans-Gerhardt Fischer's name appearing on Bobby's birth certificate, he had never lived with Regina in the U.S. and was banned by immigration authorities from entering the country. Regina divorced Hans-Gerhardt in 1945 since he wasn't providing for her and her two children, Bobby and Joan (pictured). -Chess.com

    Did Bobby Fischer really accuse the Russians of cheating?

    Yes. "One tournament I played in back in '62 . they prearranged a dozen games among themselves to eliminate me," Fischer explained on The Dick Cavett Show in 1971. "It's against the rules. Also, sometimes they would discuss the game among themselves while it's in progress, to get advice from each other. You know, little things like that. I complained a lot about it back then." The movie sums this up to one afternoon, which is not completely accurate time-wise, but it truthfully conveys the gist of what happened. It did prompt Fischer to make the decision to stop playing professional chess for a while.

    Did Bobby Fischer really walk out of a chess match because of the lighting?

    The first match that Bobby Fischer dropped out of was in 1961 against Samuel Reshevsky over a scheduling conflict with the match organizer. However, Fischer does allude to dropping out of another match in part because of the lighting. "First of all, I only dropped out of two matches in my whole life," Fischer told Dick Cavett in 1971. "I played in about 60 matches in my whole life, so it's been a little exaggerated. But I was complaining about the lights, spectators were bothering me, a lot of noise, using all kind of horrible lighting, chandelier-type lighting, when actually you need really soft lighting for this. This is a serious business, you know, five hours working with your eyes."

    Did the real Bobby Fischer feel that breaking his opponent's ego was the best part of chess?

    Yes. During Bobby Fischer's 1971 interview on The Dick Cavett Show, he was asked where the greatest moment of pleasure was for him in playing chess, which would correspond to hitting a home run in baseball. "Well, when you break his ego," answered Fischer, "which is where it's at. . When he sees it's comin' and breaks all up inside."

    Did Father Bill Lombardy really beat Boris Spassky years earlier?

    Did Bobby Fischer really tear apart his hotel rooms and phones looking for bugging devices?

    Yes. The true story behind Pawn Sacrifice confirms that as his fame grew in the 1970s, so did his paranoia (though it should be noted again that Fischer and his communist mother Regina were indeed eventually watched by the FBI). He would tear apart his hotel rooms searching for wiretaps or declare that his food had been poisoned. -LATimes.com

    Did Bobby Fischer really physically train for his matches?

    Yes. Bobby took fitness very seriously. "Mainly I just use it to keep in shape for the chess," he told Dick Cavett in 1971. "You're sitting there for five hours. . There's a reason that players fade out say in their forties or fifties, just 'cause about the fourth or fifth hour of play they lose ah, ya know, their concentration, their stamina is gone. You gotta have a lot of stamina."

    Did he really asked to have the TV removed because he feared the Russians were watching him through the screen?

    Yes. Bobby believed that his hotel rooms were bugged and that the Russians were attempting to poison his food. He even developed a fear of flying because he believed that the Russians might booby trap the airplane. -Pacific Standard

    Did Bobby Fischer really tell reporters that the government was monitoring him through his dental fillings?

    Yes. In researching the Pawn Sacrifice true story, we learned that Fischer indeed made this statement to the press. In real life, the paranoia got so bad that he had all of his dental fillings removed and was left with a mouthful of hollow teeth. -LATimes.com

    Did Bobby Fischer sprint out of the airport after being approached by a Daily News photographer?

    Yes. International chess master Dr. Anthony Saidy made it his personal mission to get Bobby to go to Iceland to play in the 1972 World Championship against Boris Spassky. Saidy, who was flying to New York to be with his dying father, convinced Bobby to go with him, figuring it would get Bobby one step closer to Iceland. While at Kennedy Airport in New York City to buy tickets to Iceland, a New York Daily News photographer spied Bobby, who in turn took off running at top speed out of the airport. He hurried into a curbside limousine and eventually ended up hiding out at Saidy's parents' house in Long Island. -Bobby Fischer Against the World

    Was Paul Marshall really a lawyer for British rock bands like the Rolling Stones?

    Did Henry Kissinger really call Bobby Fischer to try to convince him to go to Iceland?

    Yes. "Fischer was very reluctant to go," says Kissinger, former diplomat and Secretary of State, "and I placed a call to him and I said to him, 'Go.'" -Bobby Fischer Against the World

    Did Bobby Fischer really insist the match be moved because the cameras were too loud?

    Yes. Like in the movie, the real Bobby Fischer's demands included having at least five feet between himself and the audience. After the 1972 match began, he complained that the cameras were too loud and refused to play until they were removed. He forfeited the second game of the match when the organizers refused to give in to his demands. He agreed to continue the match only if it was moved to a ping-pong room in another section of the facility and broadcast to the audience via closed-circuit television. -Biography.com

    Is it possible that Bobby Fischer's paranoia was the result of a psychological illness?

    Yes, and experts have weighed in for years on Bobby Fischer's diagnosis, with some of the potential culprits being schizophrenia, paranoid personality disorder, and Asperger's syndrome (LATimes.com). However, it is certainly possible that Fischer wasn't suffering from a specific condition, other than an all-consuming obsession with the game of chess. "I give 98 percent of my mental energy to chess others give only two percent," Fischer once stated, emphasizing his extraordinary mental commitment, while at the same time revealing how little mental energy he devoted to the rest of his life.

    Turn-of-the-century writer G.K. Chesterton famously quipped, "poets do not go mad but chess players do." History confirms this with a string of players prior to Fischer who descended into madness, including Austrian World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, New Orleans native Paul Morphy (the United States' first chess champion), Russian champion Aron Nimzowitsch, Mexican chess hero Carlos Torre, Brooklyn born player turned killer Raymond Weinstein, and Russian mass-murderer Alexander Pichushkin (dubbed the Chessboard Killer) (BleekerStreetMedia). Fischer probably most resembles the American, Morphy, who at age 26 wandered the streets and muttered to himself and essentially became a paranoid schizophrenic. Both men gave up the game at the height of their success and then disappeared into a world of neurosis (Bobby Fischer Against the World).

    Was the final game in the movie just as remarkable in real life?

    Did Bobby Fischer's paranoia really rub off on Boris Spassky, leading the Russian to suspect his swivel chair had been tampered with?

    Yes. Fischer requested a certain expensive, black-leather, low-slung swivel chair for the world-famous August 31, 1972 showdown in Reykjavik, Iceland. When his opponent, Boris Spassky, saw the chair, he demanded the same Earnes Executive Chair too and another was quickly air-shipped to the event (EarnesOffice.com). Well into the match, Boris Spassky complained that his chair was vibrating and wanted it inspected. He also argued that the lights were buzzing too noticeably. -Biography.com

    Does the movie get the chess moves right?

    Mike Klein of Chess.com says that it appears that they used actual chess games from the 1972 match. After seeing the film, chess writer and grandmaster Andy Soltis told NPR, "The actual moves of that match are the moves that you'll see in the movie." Richard Bérubé of the Quebec Chess Federation (La Fédération Québecoise des Échecs) was the chess consultant on the film.

    Why did so many good chess players come out of Russia?

    Bobby Fischer answered this question on The Dick Cavett Show in 1971. "They're subsidized by the government," said Fischer, "and all their players are professionals. So they keep at it. We have a lot of talented players in this country, but for one reason or another they just kind of fade out. They lose interest because there's not that much incentive." The real Bobby Fischer learned to speak Russian so that he could read and analyze Soviet chess literature (TheGuardian.com).

    Did Boris Spassky really give up on move 40 of game 21?

    Was the 1972 match really as big a deal as the movie implies?

    Not quite, but the Fischer vs. Spassky match was a televised and much talked about event. It even sparked an upswing in chess clubs around the country. It indeed had some Cold War overtones, but not to the height implied in the Pawn Sacrifice movie. Chess writer and grandmaster Andy Soltis told NPR that one of the things that the movie gets wrong is that they try to portray Fischer as the "pawn," the "sacrifice," who is maneuvered by the United States government into a propaganda victory. In the least this is an exaggeration.

    Did Bobby Fischer focus on other areas of his life after winning the title?

    Not exactly. Immediately following the win, Bobby Fischer was asked by NBC News how it felt to be the world champion. "It feels pretty good," said Fischer. "My goal now is to play a lot more chess. I feel I haven't played enough chess." As conveyed in the movie, after devoting his entire life to chess, Fischer had trouble knowing how to do anything else. "I woke up the day after the thing was over and I just felt different, like something had been taken out of me," Fischer told Johnny Carson later that year.

    He began to obsess over politics and religion, often talking about nuclear disarmament and the Worldwide Church of God, a controversial religious group that often preached about an impending second coming of Christ. He eventually felt betrayed by the church when one of its prophecies didn't come to pass. He also became more paranoid that he was being spied upon by the Soviets, etc. He began reading the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which contained anti-Semitic rhetoric. -Bobby Fischer Against the World

    Was Bobby Fischer really forced into exile for replaying Spassky in a match that violated U.N. sanctions?

    Yes. Despite being born to a Jewish mother and growing up in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, Bobby Fischer became known in part for his anti-Semitic views and at times blamed his failures on a Jewish conspiracy. It is unclear if this, like his strong anti-communist views, stemmed from his dislike for his mother, a communist who was part Jewish. His anti-Semitism indeed became much more pronounced when he fell into a downward spiral after his 1972 victory. -LATimes.com

    Did Bobby Fischer describe the September 11th terrorist attacks as "wonderful news"?

    Yes. After being kicked out of the U.S. and becoming an ex-patriot, Bobby Fischer developed a hatred for the country that he once called home. Following the death of his mother in 1996 and his sister in 1998, Bobby hadn't been home in years and had few people left to turn to for support. After the events of September 11, 2001, Bobby was interviewed on Radio Bombo in the Philippines. "This is all wonderful news," he said. "It's time for the f***ing U.S. to get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the U.S. once and for all. This just shows you that what goes around comes around, even for the United States." He was eventually detained in Tokyo, Japan in 2004 until Iceland agreed to give him citizenship.

    Did Liev Schreiber know how to speak Russian before taking on the role of Spassky?

    No. Despite having to speak every word of his dialogue in Russian, Liev Schreiber didn't know the language at all before accepting the role of Boris Spassky. -Deadline.com

    Expand on your knowledge of the Pawn Sacrifice true story by watching the Dick Cavett Bobby Fischer interview below.


    Facebook

    Soviet-Icelandic Trampling of Free Press
    The Icelanders are taking all this fairly philosophically ([with their deeply-ingrained, Pro-Soviet seething hatred of Americans]). The president of the host federation, Gudmundur Thorarinsson, on being quoted a local proverb to the effect that after one or two waves there is always a third, replied: “Here in Iceland, we are used to the breaking of the great Atlantic ([Anti-American]) waves.” ([The same goes for your organized antisemitic, chauvinist, racist cover-ups.])
    One of the outstanding financial disputes appears now to have been settled satisfactorily. The Fischer camp had complained about the contract between the organizers and a U.S. Impresario ([Chester Fox, a Soviet liaison who sought to black-out coverage of Bobby Fischer opening a can of whoop*** on Soviet arrogance, by restricting coverage, bury the humiliating defeat of the Soviet Union's egotism, and placed noisy camera men throughout the hall, guaranteeing Bobby Fischer would shut them down = achieving Zero Cameras, just as the Soviets schemed!]) giving him ([Fox]) exclusive rights to move-by-move coverage of the match.
    ([Nothing can be reported without Soviet approval. So as you see dear friends and neighbors, it wasn't Bobby Fischer at all to blame as the Soviet saboteurs have tried to mislead through disinformation, to explain the absence of coverage, the trampling of Constitutional rights to free press. It was the result of Soviet meddling and manipulation. Fischer did not want this.])
    Iceland officials said one of Fischer's lawyers, Andrew Davies, had now signed a statement that he was agreeable to the arrangement. ([Through arm-twisting ultimatums, finicky demands and bullying by Soviet and Icelandic chess officials. WHAT… WILL OUR MAN, BOBBY DO NOW? Just sit back and allow the Soviet bullies to order a noisy camera man to cram a camera in Fischer's face, running roughshod over Fischer's concentration while wiping their Gestapo boots all over the concept of Democracy and a Constitutional right to a Free Press?])
    Spassky appears to be more relaxed now than a few days ago ([upset, because Moscow was breathing down his back, as Spassky reported in 1985]) — he had a salmon-fishing break at the weekend — but Fischer remains the favorite among the majority of chess experts here.

    CARSON: Now what about the cameras over there Bob? Now you hear about all this about you'd agreed they could film this, and then you kept changing the camera man was Vladivostok someplace, or …
    [laughter]
    What was the real story?

    FISCHER: I was more disappointed than anybody that this thing wasn't televised because, you know, there was a lot of publicity and a lot of money involved and I wanted the people to see me in action. Let's face it. But they had these characters there, who instead of having, some kind of video tape film that didn't make any noise, just, nobody around to operate them, just sort of stationless and they just had guys there with film cameras that were worrying, and they were all around me. Making a racket. A nuisance.


    Joseph Fischer, Pennsylvania police officer, arrested on federal charges for breaching U.S. Capitol

    Joseph Wayne Fischer, a police officer from Jonestown, Pennsylvania, was arrested Friday after the FBI said he posted online about being among the mobs that breached the U.S. Capitol last month.

    Mr. Fischer, a patrolman for the North Cornwall Township Police Department, allegedly made comments both publicly and privately on Facebook confirming he was inside the Capitol building on Jan. 6.

    In a court filing unsealed following his arrest, the FBI alleges Mr. Fischer told another Facebook user he was confronted about being inside the Capitol by his chief of police shortly afterward.

    “Well I may need a job … Word got out that I was at the rally ..lol,” Mr. Fischer allegedly said in a Facebook exchange on Jan. 7, an FBI special agent wrote in a filing entered in federal court.

    “FBI may arrest me ..lol,” Mr. Fischer allegedly messaged the other Facebook user.

    Later during the exchange, the FBI alleges that Mr. Fischer was asked by the other Facebook user about whether the police department had said anything to him yet about his participation.

    “Yep … chief did … I told him if that is the price I have to pay to voice my freedom and liberties which I was born with and thusly taken away then then [sic] must be the price,” Mr. Fischer allegedly replied, the agent said in a statement of facts. “I told him I have no regrets and give zero s–ts … Sometimes doing the right thing no matter how small is more important than ones [sic] own security.”

    The FBI agent said investigators began the probe that ultimately led to Mr. Fischer after receiving a tip on Jan. 10, four days after violent mobs stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress met inside.

    In the court filing, the FBI agent said it was notified that a Facebook user with the vanity name “SV Spindrift” had bragged online about storming the Capitol and shared a video from the scene.

    The FBI then served Facebook a subpoena for records about the account which resulted in agents connecting it to Mr. Fischer, the special agent explained in the newly unsealed statement of facts.

    In addition to photos, videos and comments made on Facebook confirming his involvement, the FBI said it found Mr. Fischer in surveillance video footage showing him inside the Capitol on Jan. 6.

    “[T]here was some minor destruction and a few things were stolen … but 98% peaceful,” Mr. Fischer allegedly said in a Facebook comment posted Jan. 7, the FBI special agent said in the court filing.

    “I was there..we pushed police back about 25 feet. Got pepper balled and OC sprayed, but entry into the Capital was needed to send a message that we the people hold the real power.”

    Mr. Fischer has been charged with federal counts of obstruction of law enforcement during a civil disorder knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds and obstruction of Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice announced on its website following his arrest. He was ordered detained pending a detention hearing scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, it said.

    North Cornwall Township is located in Lebanon County, about 30 miles east of Harrisburg, the state capital, and roughly 90 miles west of Philadelphia. Its website says it has 7,554 residents.

    Local news outlets reported the police department has suspended Mr. Fischer without pay. “No Township official had any knowledge of this individual’s actions prior to his arrest,” it said in part.

    Mr. Fischer‘s court docket did not list a defense attorney for him who could be reached for comment Saturday.


    Encyclopedia Of Detroit

    Often cited as “Detroit’s largest art object,” the Fisher Building has brightened the skyline of Detroit since 1928. The building was the project of the seven Fisher Brothers, of Fisher Body prestige. Originally carriage-makers, the brothers popularized the closed body for the automobile which made year-round car travel possible. When they decided to build offices for Fisher and Company, they were willing to spend whatever it took to make it the world’s most beautiful office building.

    Built with careful attention to detail, the Art Deco Fisher Building features vaulted, hand painted arcade ceilings and an interior utilizing several varieties of marble, brass, and bronze. The brothers hired architect Albert Kahn who used the finest materials, craftsmen and contractors in building what would become Detroit’s tallest building outside of the Downtown Central Business District. When completed in 1928, Kahn was awarded the Architectural League’s silver medal which named the Fisher Building the most beautiful commercial building of that year.

    Incredibly, construction took only 15 months at a cost of $3 million. The main tower’s roof was originally covered in gold leaf, but during World War II it was feared the shining gold leaf would be a target for bombers, so it was covered in asphalt. After the war, terra cotta green tiles were used to cover the asphalt and are illuminated at night to make them appear golden.

    Kahn hired Geza Maroti, an artist from Budapest, Hungary who worked at Cranbrook, for the inside sculptures, mosaics and frescoes for the building. His works in the Fisher Building contain extensive symbolism focusing on two ideas: the wealth and power of the United States conveyed through commerce and transportation, and American culture and civilization imparted through music and drama. The building also contains architectural sculpture by the prolific Corrado Parducci.

    Originally, the building was to include three skyscrapers, but the onset of the Great Depression limited the project to one tower. The completed building measures more than 440 feet high, with a barrel vaulted lobby that features more than 40 different kinds of marble and an exterior covered in more than 325,000 square feet of marble. There are also tunnels connecting the Fisher Building to what was the General Motors Building across Grand Boulevard and to the New Center Building.

    The Fisher Building is home to offices for organizations and professionals, dentists and doctors, banks, retail shops, the renowned Fisher Theater, and the studios of WJR-AM 760. The Fisher Building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1989.


    Watch the video: Look at my Nuts Prank!!