The eleventh letter chronicles the kings journey to deliver his letter at a nearby town and reflects on his days at Oxford. He also is relieved that the Marquess of Montrose will do his countrymen no harm this year and has even offered Charles I 20,000 men in exchange for 500 horses. The Marquess, or James Graham, was a military genius during the time of the English Civil war who supported the kings both Charles the first and second. Charles I then ponders the rebels and their current situation. He thinks that the rebels do not have the funds and the resources to fight this war. He also acknowledges other forces saying “I am not sure of their northern forces, but expect they are much stronger than I am made to believe.” This arrogance and his self assured vernacular are just a forewarning to a terrible fate for the king. I feel that the big controversy in this passage is obviously the King’s grave misunderstanding and underestimating of the rebel forces, believing himself to be safe and more concerned about his sons of affairs. This is actually a bit comical in that this sort of false sense of security and misguided focus on family affairs eventually leads to the main being decapitated. It is also humorous when he says “wherefore I desire thee first to chide my Sonne for engaging himself without one of our consents”. This statement is funny because it very accurately parallels how the king does not ask for parliament or the people’s consent and yet he becomes upset when his son act without his authority. Although the other controversy is less dire, the king makes a reference to his son Charles. He apparently had been engaged with another man and asked his father his blessing. The king is mainly upset that he was not told about this prior and to refuse the relationship now would just be shameful. His son Charles the Second was to be his successor and does eventually become king and is much more well liked by the people then his father was. So, Charles the first, is writing to his queen and just prays for the best.
In relation to Snowden they talk about the ideologies of freedom and governments right to surveillance the people. In the article it claims “individuals do not have a right to privacy in the numbers they call”. People understand that they give away this knowledge to the phone company and the government but what isn’t clear is how much is looked at? I feel the ideology being threatened is more than an invasion of privacy but uneasy feeling of just how much invasion is happening, which Snowden apparently believed to be an inappropriate amount. In relation to the kings cabin King Charles is a tyrannical leader imposing taxes without the parliaments consent or the people, both the Snowden case and Kings Cabinet deal with political regimes that seek to oppress their people in some sort of way. The King invades the lives of his people with physical taxation and oppressive regimes while the government in Snowden’s case seeks to invade peoples live through digital means without their knowledge of it. It then comes down to the people to decide what to do about these injustices and the situation they are dealt, such as Chelsea Manning, who had learned of injustices in the military in dealing with anti-Iraqi literature, who “When [she] reported this discrepancy to the officer in charge, she was told to ‘drop it,’ she recounted”. So there is a link between King Cabinets and these controversial cases, and that is that governments should be wary of the power of their people, because they might lose a position that they thought was not prone to change.