Do the gems, shapes, color have any significant meaning?

My context is that I've been reading about the French Revolution, and it seems to me that part of the chaos is due to it being a five-way battle, between the monarchy, the nobility, the middle class, the lower class, and the church. I'm wondering if some part of why the US didn't have such a large internal backlash to its revolution is due to being perhaps a more "classless" society, with the exception of slaves who were completely excluded from the political process.

So: was there really any nobility resident in the 13 colonies? Was there a strong middle class? Was the gap between the middle class and the workers smaller than it was in France? For example, did a greater fraction of the population own their own land? As a comparison, I recall reading that in New Zealand, the requirement that a voter own their own land was a less strict requirement than it was in England, because a greater fraction of New Zealanders owned land - was the situation similar in the 13 colonies around the time of the war for independence?

For example, we associate the 20s (in America, at least) with prohibition and parties, the 30s with Depression, etc

I studied Tudor history, and it seemed to be that Thomas More offered a decent account of why and how it was carried out. However, I'm currently listening to a Radio 4 program where two Richard the Third fanatics are insisting that it couldn't have been Richard, as he more to lose and little to gain, having already become the anointed King. Is there any evidence to back them up?

(Specifically WW2 era but I'm open to other periods too.)

Both from crashing aircraft and stray bullets that even though the likelihood of them actually hitting someone might be small, they do have to end up somewhere.

I'm not interrested about his "idea imperial" or by anything HRE-related for now but more about how he changed the spanish government and how it lead to the revolt of the communeros.

Bonus point if sources in spanish

Mao only served as Chairman in the 1950s but most sources still say he was absolute ruler over all of China from 1949 until his death. How true is this fact and how was he able to maintain absolute power, like an Emperor?

Specifically in larger cities like Rome and Alexandria. Were commoners allowed to have weapons sheathed on them when walking down the street?

What did Nixon have to gain from covering up for Hunt and Liddy? Why didn't he just let Hunt and Liddy get arrested and that be the end of it?

Since the pact pretty much sealed Poland's fate in the 40s, it seems like it directly enabled the massacre. What other things changed popular views of the pact? Stalin seems to have reasonable justification for it, but it obviously messed up Poland royally.

Thinking about minoring in this field.

Basically - Did the Japanese have any idea that the Americans were working on a superweapon project? For that matter, did the Russians or the Germans? Was there an understanding among world governments that such a thing might be possible or was it completely unexpected?

I understand France for the most part wasn't the aggressor in Napoleon's wars but in the end, Napoleon decided to annex and create puppet states/forced alliances in almost all of Europe (excluding Sweden, GB, and Russia, and maybe some more) instead of impose harsh economic treaties. My knowledge on the subject is limited. I know one of his motivations was to seclude GB from the continent but I would think economic based treaties could handle that, or am I wrong? It seems obvious to me now that France was way overextended and would eventually collapse so I really don't know what Napoleon was thinking but maybe you guys could enlighten me?