Page 1 of 2

Questions re: Charles 1

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


If anyone more expert on this period than I and has some time, I'd appreciate some input on this person's stated facts.

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

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

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

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

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:54 am
by Misfit
Thanks ladies, you've been very helpful.

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:55 am
by Misfit
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 :)

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 11:47 am
by Susan
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?

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

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

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 6:04 pm
by SGM
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.

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 8:17 pm
by Susan
OK, so it's related to the Malhuer Wildlife Refuge issue. That did get coverage on CNN.

Re: Questions re: Charles 1

Posted: Tue March 29th, 2016, 9:28 pm
by Misfit
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.