Letter II

I read letter II from the King in which he explains to the Queen that he is in Oxford, and as of now he is taking no physical action in the war. He describes how they are preparing to fight the rebels and how he is not worried because they are slow, weak, and lack men and money. To prove just how incompetent he thinks the rebels are he delivers an example, a letter from “one of the most considerable London Rebels” who refuses to give up his anonymousness until the king accepts his proposition. His proposition to the king was that if the treaty is renewed, he promises that the rebels will submit to reason. The king scoffs back at him with a reply that he will not be intimidated with threats to religion and the militia. He continues to reply that the author of this letter, that if he wishes to continue to profane the name of the king, he should plan on yielding to reason instead. He continues on to tell the Queen that the best route for the *Duke of Lorraine’s army will be the western coast of France where there is safe landing because he has “ports under his obedience”.

*Apparently the King and Queen used The Duke of Lorraine or Nicolas François de Lorraine, as means of correspondence with each other. He was an ally of the King and would later aid the Irish Catholics in their struggle against Oliver Cromwell.

This letter is controversial because the Duke of Lorraine is obviously an ally to the king. The queen and the Duke of Lorraine are both French and Catholic, which is religiously and politically in complete opposition to England at the time. Of course the people of England are going to view this as fraternizing with the enemy. Also in response to the letter from the rebel the king was extremely inflexible, unreasonable, and I mean, a dick for lack of a better word. I’m sure when people saw how degradingly the king spoke of the rebels and how unwilling he was to work on the treaty this was upsetting to them. Another reason this was controversial was because the Queen was to be associated with a treaty with the rebels. The king here is saying that the Queen should over seen this treaty. I think the people would not react well to putting this much power in the Queen’s hands. The Queen was seen as an outsider because like the Duke she was French and Catholic which put her in complete opposition to the people of England. When the king gave the Queen this much power and authority over the country, it caused an enormous uproar. In fact, in the annotations it claims that the Queen is “implacable to our religion, nation, and government” in that “she confines not her agency to France, but solicits Lorraine for men”. This concerned the people of england and made them worry about the motivations of the people who were in control of their country, namely the Queen who was not even English. They said that “these treaties must be suspected” and “great care must be had of them in her”. These excerpts from the annotations farther show the controversy caused by giving the Queen, an outsider, so much authority. It caused the people of england to see the king as fraternizing with enemies and not keeping England’s best interest as the priority.

Common conflicts that run through the Kings Cabinet Open, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and WikiLeaks are the idea of the governing body as the enemy not an ally to the people. In the article Ludlow claimed, “Preventing the system from doing evil may well require breaking with organizational niceties, protocols or laws. It requires stepping outside of one’s assigned organizational role.” In the letters the same is true. The scandal is that there is an obvious abusive of power from the king and out nations government because they are not honoring or respecting the opinions of the people. They are bending the rules to suit their own personal interests and wishes without the consent of the majority of the people. Ideologies that are threatened in these two instances are that the governing body should reflect the desires of the people and both cases are not, that the people should be offered complete disclosure by what the governing bodies are doing but they aren’t, and that mutual respect should exist between the government and people but it doesn’t. When one body takes advantage of another it completely thwarts any mutual respect from existing.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/the-banality-of-systemic-evil/?_r=2&

https://engl382fall2013.wordpress.com/readings/0924-the-english-civil-war/

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Letter II

  1. Juliette,

    You did a good job of explaining the background and characters of this letter. It related to the modern controversies to that of the letter extremely effectively. However, there are two things that I would like you to do. First, I need you to quote and cite either the preface or the annotations and relate them back to the controversy. Second, take another look at whose name was to be associated with a treaty with the rebels. Is he not saying that the Queen should oversee the treaty? With this in mind, what would be the main controversy of the letter? Keeping your well-done argument about “fraternizing with the enemy,” how do you think the people would react to putting this much power in the Queen’s hands? Making adjustment according to these suggestions should line up your post with the prompt requirements.

    Adam

    To receive a grade of “S,” satisfactory revision must be posted by 11:59 P.M. Thursday October 17.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s