>>>>>I don't think He pays much attention to that. He just picks a side and helps out generally so that when they win, He can get one of those "God was on our side" accolades.
>>>>
>>>>Funny. I have a repro of a WWII poster, with a German soldier and the legend "Gott Mitt Uns"
>>>
>>>They had that on their belt buckles, too. Now there's also another nation where they trust their money to the guy. Or the money has such a firm standing that they feel they need to call the guy or nobody would trust the bearer... or something to that effect.
>>
>>As in: "In God we trust. Everyone else must provide surety"?
>>
>>On our banknotes is written "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of ...", signed by the chief cashier of the Bank of England. Now I wonder what would happen if I went in there and presented him with it. Would he be obliged to give me its value in gold? Or would he just give me back a note or the same value?
>>
>>I've never quite understood that wording.
>
>It's a hold-over from when paper money was backed by gold or silver and you could go to your local money lender, deposit your gold/silver/gems, get a paper voucher for the amount and take it to the next city over where, hopefully, that local money lender had an agreement with your local money lender (or your money lender had an office there) and would take the voucher and give you the equivalent amount in gold/silver/gems.

Thanks Dorris but that's kinda what I just said. What I mean is that the wording is no longer valid cos, talk about a "run on the {currency}", imagine if all hands went into the issuing bank and asked for their equiv in gold, etc. and walked out humping a sack of precious metals.

The wording should say something like "This is a genuine banknote worth X in gold and will achieve such value in a payment transaction" - or summat like that.