I for one am a great admirer between King Charles I and his wife, Queen Henrietta. Just in the way he addresses the letters, “Deare heart,” convey a relationship deeper than that of a marriage of politics. With that aside, I do see how the relationship could be questionable especially where being a King came with certain responsibilities and expectations. The letter that I most enjoyed reading was Letter XI. Though it captured the emotion shared between the two that I so enjoyed, it also caught my attention with the line “gentleman of the bedchamber,” which I later learned was not evidence of the King Charles I son Charles homosexuality (the scandal of which would have been so interesting during this era). Besides learning new terms, the letter did bring forth evidence of two major accusations in the annotations in The King’s Cabinet Opened. Those being: “It is obvious that the King’s Counsels are wholly managed by the Queen” and “nothing great or small is transacted without [the queen’s] privity & consent.” These two problems arising not only because the King should be making his own decisions especially at this time, the English Civil War, but also the people grew worried of the Queen’s influence because of her religious background. People feared Queen Henrietta, a French Catholic; opinions would do no good for the good of England as a whole, an influence that was unquestionably strong in their relationship.
Letter XI upon first glance seems like a husband informing his wife of his travels and asking opinions on their son. King Charles I begins apologizing for the lack of letters due to their traveling, it being harder to send them from when he was at Oxford. He informs the Queen various travails of the war lately before turning to the pressing matter at hand, the one of their son Charles. The King is at a loss of what to do seeing as how, without his permission Charles appointed a new “gentleman of the bedchamber” (not a lover, someone whose “duties included assisting the King at his dressing, waiting on him when he ate in private, guarding access to him in his bedchamber and closet and providing noble companionship, generally” [British History]). This being a questionable matter and shows the decision-making between the monarchies, one behind closed doors. Was it really so bad for the King to consult his wife though? I feel that it might have benefited the English with the opinions of two ruling instead of a one man who made choices without second thoughts or opinions. At the same time, however, it is easily understood that an opinion so influential was by not only a foreigner of different country descent, but also religious as well. The opinions of the Queen were also problematic with the reasoning behind the civil war, “problem solving” (history learning site). The matter of the war would not be so easily won with that of a King who could not even handle his own problems without the assistance of his wife.
The case concerning Snowden has similar backings to that in The King’s Cabinet Opened”. Snowden exposure of the Government spying on its people was a matter of the people that they had every right to be informed of, quite like the English who deserved to know who in fact was behind their decision making in their government and their lives. Both were scandals of their time and in both ideologies were obstructed; Snowden’s being more a right to privacy of the American people and the King’s more a matter of a right to their religious ideologies. Scandals wreck governments and countries apart, the only way for progress in whatever era is a relationship between citizen and government where decisions are beneficial to both parts of the relationship.
King’s Cabinet Opened Letter XI
Gentleman of the Bedchamber
The English Civil War