King Charles I sent many letters to many people other than his wife, such as Secretary Nicholas in Letter XXIV. After a little research, I discovered Nicholas was appointed Secretary of State under Charles I, and was a very big supporter of his. He eventually followed the family into exile, remaining loyal to Charles I until the end. Although this is one of his shorter letters, one can tell that it is full of important information.
In this letter, King Charles seems to be going over some points that were of discussion between the two of them. He first touches on religion and church, but says that this matter is already taken care of and should not be discussed anymore. His second point is instructing that Nicholas keep his part of their militia deal by letting Charles pick one half of the soldiers, no matter what country they are from.
The third and largest point, however, contains a bit of controversy. Charles demands for Nicholas to promise certain security people rewards for completing certain tasks. These things are not clearly stated, but we can tell that they are private matter because he says “with this last you are only to acquaint Richmond, Southampton, Culpeper and Hide“. This implies that there is secret information being kept from certain people, yet entrusted in others.
It was rather difficult to find information about these people in which Charles refers to. Culpeper could be referring to Thomas Culpeper, second baron of Thoresway. At one point in his life he was a governor under Charles of the Isle of Wight. Southampton could be Chalres FitzRoy, first baron of Southampton, or it could just be the city of Southampton in general. Richmond is most likely referring to the city itself as well, and no information could be found on Hide.
This situation ties in nicely to the Edward Snowden case. Snowden was, of course, an employee with access to certain confidential information, much like the figures Charles mentions in his letter. After Snowden leaked some things that were not meant to be leaked to the public, we realize that not everyone in the government can be fully trusted. This is probably why Charles writes that Nicholas should be cautious with what he does, because some of these security men “be not of great trust”. He is also worried about this controversial information leaking, but is this necessarily a bad thing? David Brooks, who was quoted in “The Banality of Systemic Evil” article, states ” ‘For society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation’ “. This does make sense, so maybe what we see as controversial is truly just a cautionary way to deal with society and the happenings within it.