Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Questions re: Charles 1

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Misfit » Mon March 28th, 2016, 8:17 pm



If anyone more expert on this period than I and has some time, I'd appreciate some input on this person's stated facts.
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
MLE (Emily Cotton)
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3560
Joined: August 2008
Interest in HF: started in childhood with the classics, which, IMHO are HF even if they were contemporary when written.
Favourite HF book: Prince of Foxes, by Samuel Shellabarger
Preferred HF: Currently prefer 1600 and earlier, but I'll read anything that keeps me turning the page.
Location: California Bay Area

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by MLE (Emily Cotton) » Mon March 28th, 2016, 11:30 pm

I'm no expert on that period, but I have developed a fairly reliable sense of when somebody is 'grinding the axe' as we used to say--working everything with a slant to prove a point. This list carries the stink of the grindstone.

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Susan » Tue March 29th, 2016, 1:39 am

Below is a link to the Grand Remonstrance and the Petition from the House of Commons presented to King Charles I in 1641. The Petition comes first, followed by the Grand Remonstrance, a list of grievances against King Charles I. There are 203 grievances and the short list in the Facebook post is more or less summarizing some of the grievances.

http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur043.htm
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Misfit » Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:54 am

Thanks ladies, you've been very helpful.
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Misfit » Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:55 am

MLE (Emily Cotton) wrote:I'm no expert on that period, but I have developed a fairly reliable sense of when somebody is 'grinding the axe' as we used to say--working everything with a slant to prove a point. This list carries the stink of the grindstone.
That would be this person's specialty :)
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Susan » Tue March 29th, 2016, 11:47 am

So in this case she is trying to use Charles I's interpretation of the divine rights of kings and Parliament's reactions to further a contemporary political agenda?
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Misfit » Tue March 29th, 2016, 3:57 pm

Susan wrote:So in this case she is trying to use Charles I's interpretation of the divine rights of kings and Parliament's reactions to further a contemporary political agenda?
Oh yes indeedy. I've been following the Bundy Bunch saga since they took over the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge in January. I had no idea how cuckoo this 'patriot' movement was, nor the big push from them to 'return' federal lands to the state level. They have completely focused on the one small section of the constitution that defines Washington DC, and ignore the part about the other parts that define ownership. They completely ignore that most of the western states had to acknowledge federal ownership of those lands in order to become a state in the union.

This KrissAnne Hall calls herself a constitutional attorney and goes all over the country giving her little seminars, even though she's no longer licensed as an attorney. She's mixed up with C.O.W.S., the Coalition of Western States, which is some shadowy organization devoted to wresting federal lands and getting them to the states = which really is getting them into private hands that want to mine it, log it and lock it up.

It's a long and twisty tale, and I'm still trying to rationalize their logic of God's law and natural law and how they tie it back into things like Charles I and even the Magna Carta. And let's not even get into the Constitutional Sheriff movement and why these 'patriots' think the sheriff has supreme power and authority in their county - oops - except when the sheriff of the county doesn't buy into their logic and then said sheriff is now their mortal enemy.

I'm not kidding. The Oregonian has done an excellent and fair job of covering this saga that won't ever end. A good summary of it here if you have time or want to expose your students to some of this. http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-stando ... _highlight
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

SGM
Compulsive Reader
Posts: 699
Joined: March 2010

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by SGM » Tue March 29th, 2016, 6:04 pm

The trouble with the Grand Remonstrance was that it effectively split what had otherwise been a united House of Commons and created the "Royalist Party" from those for whom the Grand Remonstrance was a step too far. Until that time Charles had had no friends there even among those who were later to become his staunchest supporters, eg Edward Hyde (later Clarendon) and his like. From that point onwards for a while Charles seemed to be winning the 'image war'. Until that point it seemed that most were against him. See the works of such historians as Richard Cust or Kevin Sharpe for a better analysis.
Currently reading - Emergence of a Nation State by Alan Smith

User avatar
Susan
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3746
Joined: August 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Susan » Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:17 pm

OK, so it's related to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge issue. That did get coverage on CNN.
~Susan~
~Unofficial Royalty~
Royal news updated daily, information and discussion about royalty past and present
http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Post by Misfit » Tue March 29th, 2016, 9:28 pm

SGM wrote:The trouble with the Grand Remonstrance was that it effectively split what had otherwise been a united House of Commons and created the "Royalist Party" from those for whom the Grand Remonstrance was a step too far. Until that time Charles had had no friends there even among those who were later to become his staunchest supporters, eg Edward Hyde (later Clarendon) and his like. From that point onwards for a while Charles seemed to be winning the 'image war'. Until that point it seemed that most were against him. See the works of such historians as Richard Cust or Kevin Sharpe for a better analysis.
Thank you.
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

Post Reply

Return to “Questions and Research”