Letter VII is a letter from King Charles I to his Queen. The King is in London negotiating a treaty with Parliament. He is writing to the Queen telling her that the negotiations are not going well. The King is very affectionate in his letter using “dearheart” and “without thy company I can neither have peace nor comfort within myself.” He reassures the Queen that even though there has been little progress in London with the treaty that hes commissioners are capable of standing their ground and achieving a compromise.
Then the King admits that she does have right to be worried about him being in London because of those with the same persuasion as “Percy.”
“Percy” is actually Algernon Percy, 10th Earl of Northumberland. Percy is the highest ranking royal official that switches sides and becomes the King’s opposition as they work on the treaty of Uxbridge.
The last two sentences of the letter are very personal. The King is telling the Queen how much she means to him and how because of his love for her he will do his best to end the war. For 17th century England, reading these private letters could have sparked even more controversy toward the King and the power the Queen held over him. During the times the Spanish Catholic Queen was allotted influence in the King’s decisions, Englishman and women might not have enjoyed that so much because the law of the land demanded Protestant beliefs. But looking back at the events from modern day it more or less just seems like a sweet text message the president might send the first lady to catch her up on how his day is going.
If we were able to see the messages the president texted or emailed the first lady, with the government shut down in effect, some U.S. citizens might be feel, “why is he texting when the government is shut down?” Others might feel that this act makes him more relate-able to the public. As the annotation says, “They may see here in his private letters what affection the King bears to his people…it comes from a Prince seduced out of his proper sphere.”
Modern examples of government exposes are, in effect, similar to the King’s Cabinet Opened. The actions of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning are modern and concerning international problems that come with progress, but the end reactions of the public are similar.
The information Edward Snowden took with him overseas is incredible. The fact that a man — without a high school diploma, who worked for a contractor that was hired by the NSA to compile mobile phone information — was able to take all of this private information out of the country shocked citizens of the U.S. and the rest of the world. The controversy is: Snowden was capable of selling or giving away government compiled information. The fact that the NSA is even compiling this information, which was news to most U.S. citizens. And that every day, average American citizen had access to this information.
The reactions by the public are similar to those reactions of the King’s Cabinet Opened. Citizens found out information that the government thought to be private, for the sake of the people. This time it’s our own private information and not the King’s but reactions are the same. Citizen’s wanted to know how this is even legal, like English men and woman wanted to know how it was legal for the Queen to be Catholic. The ideal that so long as we follow the rules (laws), the government’s job is to protect its citizens, is being threatened in both cases because the government is not following the rules that the citizen’s understand as laws they must also follow. Whether it is invasion of privacy or adhering to religious law, when the government undermines the knowledge of its citizens all hell will break lose.