I chose to look at letter 7 and this is a letter to the Queen from the King. In this letter he begins by stating that he is glad the Queen is satisfied with his writing her and that he is happy to hear from her. He talks about a treaty and how he is not convinced that this treaty will produce the peace he had hoped. He reassures the Queen that the treaty, if they have one, will make it so she can return to him because without her company, he cannot feel happiness or peace. He complains that his time is running up and they have been no agreements on his treaty. He then again reassures her not to worry about the treaty because the people who are working for him will not give up on this treaty that will allow them to be together. He then mentions a man named Percy and how he told the king that there were people among the group who “had a greater mind that way then was fit”. He goes on to explain this is why Percy should be trusted and ends the letter will, once again, reassuring her of his ability to make peace. I think this letter strongly ties in with Annotation 1 because this strong displays how the king is absolutely taken and dedicated to making the queen feel happy and safe. Annotation 1 says, “It is plaine, here, first that the Kings Counsels are whollly managed by the Queen;” and this can be seen when his is reassuring her that the treaty will pass. The king is making decisions for his citizens and his country solely for her and to make sure she is happy and they are able to be together. He is also choosing to who to associate based on who will support her so he can be with her, another display of her control over him.
I googled Percy to see who he was and found a couple Percy’s and was unable to figure out which one could have been the one in the letter. The first was Hugh Percy, born Hugh Smithson and was the first duke of Northumberland. All I learned was that he inherited his title of Duke through his wife. The two sons were also of higher British society, the first was Hugh Percy, after his father, and he was a lieutenant-general in the British army and the second was Algernon Percy who was his second son and he was the 1st Earl of Beverley. I would think that it would have been the first son, Hugh Percy, who was mentioned in the letter due to his service to the King, proving his trustworthiness, and his connection to the British army probably made him valuable in the whole treaty and peace making aspect mentioned in the letter.
I feel that this letter can be seen as controversial because this is displaying the King’s total devotion to making it so his wife can be with him. He is so focused on making sure this treaty goes through that he almost disregards the idea that this treaty might not be what is best for his people. He has all these people who are working to get the treaty in order and hastily make peace so his wife can come be with him. I related this to the Chelsea Manning story because I felt what the King is trying to do and what the government tried to do in that case was similar. The government was trying to conceal and cover-up this report about 15 people being detained for “anti-Iraqi” literature. She investigated this report and found that it was not talking about that at all but kept saying there was nothing to worry about and that Manning should just drop it. I feel like this is what the King is doing in trying to pass this treaty and create peace. He is ignoring the opinions of the people rejecting the Articles and is pushing people to accept his terms and drop their opinions which was what the government wanted Manning to do about the letter.