#but i did not see character assassination re: will (or charles for that matter)

[book-extravagance]

1. For me, by far the biggest takeaway from Spare was Harry's claim that it was Clarence House that did most of the leaking against him and Meghan—and, too, that it was Charles and Camilla also fed the press the story about Will's alleged affair with Rose Hanbury.

As someone who had previously thought William was behind most of the Sussex-related leaking, that was... interesting.

2. Another great point of interest for me is Harry coming to William's defense on the issue of his "laziness"? Harry claimed it was unfair that the papers ragged on William for being "work-shy" when in fact Will could only do the work that Charles funded.

I find claim #1 pretty plausible. I think Harry is still very biased in favor of his brother when it comes to #2 (but I'm keeping an open mind as I continue my royal studies, perhaps he is right. Certainly it's a factor to keep in mind.)

[girlactionfigure]

The Peanuts first and only major Black character, Franklin Armstrong, made his debut in the comic strip in June 1968. This came shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4. 

A Los Angeles schoolteacher, Harriet Glickman wrote to Peanuts creator Charles Schulz about integrating the world of Peanuts. She believed the popular comic strip could help shape American attitudes on race. The result of their correspondence was the character of Franklin, introduced to Peanuts fans that summer. 

On the centennial of Schulz's birth (1922), the postal service will release a sheet of stamps featuring his beloved Peanuts characters including Franklin, Charlie Brown, Snoopy and several others. They will be available on Friday, Sept. 30. Fannie Lou Hamer's America

From The Jon S. Randal Peace Page

On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.

What they saw was Franklin Armstrong's first appearance on the iconic comic strip "Peanuts." Franklin would be 50 years old this year.

Franklin was "born" after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room.

Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say.

She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, 'I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”

Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society.

She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.

Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn't sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn't want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.

Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.

On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was "over at Vietnam." At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship. [The original comic strip of Charlie Brown meeting Franklin is attached in the initial comments below, the picture attached here is Franklin meeting the rest of the Peanuts, including Linus. I just thought this was a good re-introduction of Franklin to the rest of the world - "I'm very glad to know you."

There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin's father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.

Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”

It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic's distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz' popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.

Schulz' response: "I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin -- he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, "Well, Larry, let's put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How's that?"

Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team.

More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.

But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question.

Glickman would explain later that her parents were "concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people . . . And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit . . . Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them . . . and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time."

Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.

[juneisafantasyaddict]

If LB wanted The Darkling to be pure evil, there are literally a lot of things she could have done. But giving him a sympathetic backstory that is actually a legitimate reason for him to turn out the way he did was definitely not the way to do it. If she wanted pure evil, she could’ve given him a backstory that’s just a ridiculous sob story, not “for hundreds of years my people have been hunted and killed because of prejudice and no one did anything about it until I had enough power to.” Do you even realize how easy it is to get people to be on your side when what you want more than anything is for your people to be safe from harm?? That’s literally why we don’t get mad at heroes for killing people, it’s because we know they are protecting vulnerable people.

I’ve seen people say The Darkling is like Magneto (re: his fight against what was happening to mutants), and while that comes close, I think The Darkling is even more sympathetic because at least the XMen had the good sense to have Charles Xavier there to provide a more humane/viable alternative to Magneto’s solutions, and we got to see the difference between their methods. But, in the Grishaverse, we have a monarchy in Ravka that only sees the Grisha as useful for war but also doesn’t let them own property, we have a heroine who doesn’t seem to care about anything except meadows and her childhood crush, we have the entire country of Ravka that seems to only like dead Grisha because “new saint to build a cult over,” then we have the only person who seems to prioritize the protection of these people who have no one and we’re supposed to care that he’s ruthless with anyone he perceives as a threat to his people? When you haven’t given us a viable alternative to his methods? To make matters even worse, he’s not even imagining these threats, he is literally reacting to their aggression, e.g Fjerdans come for Alina, he uses the cut, Zlatan sends an assassin to infiltrate his secure building and kill Alina, but ends up killing another Grisha under his care, he kills the assassin and does Novikribirsk, etc.

This is not a justification of his ruthless methods of punishment for those who are threats to him and his people, this is a “you cannot expect me to focus entirely on his methods when he’s literally the only reason why his people have any semblance of protection” rant. The heroine who we think is going to save the day is basically dragged through her character development and all her progress is destroyed very quickly because of this ridiculous need to pretend that the underdog is always right (Mal, power is evil, blah blah blah).

Somehow, we’re supposed to just be ok with the fact that a group of people who haven’t exactly showed that they care about Grisha suffering are going to save them from prosecution? I mean, let’s not forget that this group includes: Mal who we already know is prejudiced against Grisha, Alina who *sigh* so much potential wasted there, Nikolai who I have decided exists for comic relief because I will not be convinced that a “maybe prince who is also a Jack sparrow type pirate should be king of a country with very complex social and political situations.” Like, I’m looking at this group of supposed saviors and honestly, I would rather take my chances with the 500 year old extremely powerful Grisha who scares everyone. Let’s not even forget that we’re somehow supposed to consider Baghra one of the good guys for “warning Alina,” even though 2 episodes later, we basically see that Baghra doesn’t exactly care about the survival of the Grisha.

Give people a truly evil villain and we will act accordingly. Don’t give us a Magneto type villain with legitimate points and then expect us to treat him like Voldermot or something. You can even decide to not understand Magneto because hello, we are given real alternatives to his problem solving skills right away. But with The Darkling it’s just “he’s pure evil because I said so, but like also this is how he got here, but also he’s super evil, but like do you understand where he’s coming from? but also he’s super evil even though he has points.” That’s not a villain dear, that’s a good person doing bad things and needs to be shown a better way.

You can’t give me an antagonist with a compelling, truly tragic backstory and then be like “now that you understand why and how this character ended up in this dark place and you can see that all this was probably avoidable if so and so did/didn’t happen, let’s totally blow up their life because so what if they’ve deeply suffered?” Especially when there’s a path to redemption right there in the protagonist who you have made sure to establish has a deep bond/connection with this person.

You want to write pure evil? Give me a character that has no remorse, no capacity to care for anyone or anything else, no reason for his cruelty, etc. Don’t give me guy who uses his power to keep his people safe and then falls in love with his soulmate so deeply he can’t stop looking at her and holding her hand in front of the whole country.

Also, can we like actually address the issue that got Nina kidnapped, made the Darkling who he is, and forces all Grisha to basically only have one life plan?

It would be so much easier to believe that The Darkling is a villain if there was an actual alternative to him, but there isn’t.

And btw, in this age of social justice, the fact that LB didn’t think people will see the value in a person from a marginalized community doing whatever is necessary to free his people from oppression is just LOL.

Ok, incoherent rant over.

[drysuitdivingdrone1950]

FRANKLIN ARMSTRONG

On July 31, 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions.What they saw was Franklin Armstrong's first appearance on the iconic comic strip "Peanuts." Franklin would be 50 years old this year. (2018)Franklin was "born" after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room.Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say.She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, 'I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'”Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society.She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that.Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn't sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn't want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color.Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968.On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Linus meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Linus. Franklin also mentions that his father was "over at Vietnam." At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Linus invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship. I just thought this was a good re-introduction of Franklin to the rest of the world - "I'm very glad to know you."There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin's father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz.Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.”It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic's distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz' popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip.Schulz' response: "I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin -- he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, "Well, Larry, let's put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How's that?" Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team. More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone on the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers.  But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question. Glickman would explain later that her parents were "concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people . . . And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit . . . Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them . . . and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time."Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.From The Jon S. Randal Peace PageLearn more about the experiences of people of color at https://www.netflix.com/title/80091741or free on YouTubehttps://youtu.be/krfcq5pF8u8 The World would be a better place if we could see it through the eyes of a child

[2whatcom-blog]

Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Dangerous

In a current publish I evaluation The Ashtray (Or the Man Who Denied Actuality), filmmaker Errol Morris's takedown of philosopher-historian Thomas Kuhn. Morris claims that Kuhn was a foul particular person and dangerous thinker, who threw an ashtray at him in 1972, when he was a graduate scholar. My good friend and colleague James McClellan, a distinguished historian of science at Stevens Institute of Know-how, was additionally Kuhn's scholar in Princeton the early 1970s. Desperate to get Jim's tackle Ashtray, I gave him a replica, and he rewarded me with this response. -John Horgan Pricey John, Thanks a lot on your reward of Errol Morris' The Ashtray. For causes I am going to clarify, I had hassle preventing my method by way of this e book, however studying it was a social and mental nostalgia journey of the best order for me. I used to be a graduate scholar myself within the Princeton historical past of science program on the time of "the incident." My spouse Jackie and I knew and beloved Errol, an ebullient genius himself, as his future profession amply demonstrates. (I vividly bear in mind his triumphant return to a celebration occurring at our home after his well-known escape from jail in Trenton as an anti-war protester!) We had been good associates with Norton Sensible, for instance, who figures in Errol's narrative, too. Largely on this context, I knew Tom Kuhn and had common dealings with him over my 5 years within the Princeton program from 1970 to 1975. Kuhn taught the seminar for coming into graduate college students the 12 months I arrived. (Are you able to think about? Though what we had been supposed to realize from an in depth studying of Anneliese Maier remains to be a thriller to me.) The next 12 months Kuhn recruited me into his seminar on the prehistory of thermodynamics, and figuring out that my mathematical abilities could not deal with, say, Clausius, he assigned me the introductory periods on Lavoisier and the caloric concept of warmth and Depend Rumford on warmth as a mode of movement. (Out of this seminar got here his landmark piece on simultaneous discovery.) The 12 months after that Kuhn was an examiner on one in all my qualifying exams, this one on the Scientific Revolution. (I handed, if barely.) Greater than that Kuhn was a fixture in Princeton and within the Princeton program whom everybody knew effectively and, I daresay, a minimum of revered. All of us socialized on the weekly Program sherry events that befell after his seminar, enhances of the Ford Basis. (Ah! The Ivys!) He was a daily in the classroom reserved for the historians of science within the basement of Firestone Library. Jackie and I noticed him as soon as in tennis apparel driving down Nassau Avenue in a convertible trailing cigarette smoke behind, and once more at a basketball recreation the place he tried gamely to maintain rating in a scorebook given to him by his kids. He as soon as slummed at a celebration at our decrepit graduate scholar digs, the place joints circulated freely. Errol's e book is a masterpiece of rhetoric and character assassination: do we actually want the illustration of Louis XVI's bloody head raised on the guillotine? Sure, Kuhn might be a bully, particularly in direction of anybody who challenged him, resembling Errol or our late colleague Harold Dorn. However for somebody like myself, non-threatening and eager about science and the Enlightenment, Kuhn was type and took his tasks severely as a trainer. The primary draft of my paper for his thermodynamics seminar was a catastrophe, however he took the time and hassle (and solely 1-1\/2 pages of single-spaced typed response) towards guiding me to see its flaws, and he taught me the straightforward, however invaluable lesson that earlier than you write, you must know what you wish to say. We peculiar mortals - and I actually did - thought that Kuhn was a superior genius, somebody with super-human mind energy, as if his cerebral cortex had one other layer the remainder of us lacked. He appeared to undergo in considering, and at all times with a smoke and three steps forward of any interlocutor, he might abide not three sentences earlier than his attribute interjection, "Look,...," adopted by advanced corrections and . His writing displays his tortured thought as effectively. Leaving apart his angst and guilt, Kuhn jogs my memory of Galileo, Galileo's incomparable mind, and Galileo's well-merited intolerance. What's neglected of Errol's account and as we speak's concerns of Kuhn are the historiographical circumstances of the 1950s and 1960s that gave rise to Kuhn's work within the first place. Submit-modernism and the social development of data got here later. We overlook the triumphant historiography and bedazzled public view of science that emerged after WWII. Recall that Charles Gillispie, my mentor and the person accountable for bringing Kuhn to Princeton, in 1959 revealed The Fringe of Objectivity, an account purportedly documenting these transitions the place inchoate information of nature metamorphosed into true science. Again then science was seen as having a definite methodology and because the triumphant and seamless layering of 1 safe brick of data on prime of one other. No matter else we could consider Kuhn's Construction of 1962, he killed Whiggism. He confirmed as soon as and for all that the historical past of science has been marked by elementary discontinuities (revolutions), and he was supremely inventive in outlining processes concerned in scientific change. These are main and incontrovertible contributions to our understanding of science and its historical past. Past that, the historiography of science within the 60s and 70s centered on distinctions between the "internal" historical past of science, or the interior logic of scientific concepts and their disembodied improvement over time, and the "external" historical past of science, or the grubby social and institutional contexts during which serene pure philosophers constructed on the work of their predecessors. What fucked Kuhn up is that he was at all times an internalist, and when social development and post-modernism got here down the pike he needed to reconcile his views of the interior improvement of scientific concepts (and their methodological and epistemological penalties) with this cascade of recent and troubling sociological views. I bear in mind asking Kuhn within the 70s about how we should always bridge the hole between the interior and the exterior, and he tepidly recommended specializing in completely different generations of scientific practitioners, however he did not appear to care, actually. (Even into the 1980s Arnold Thackray on the Division of Historical past and Sociology of Science at Penn was arguing for prosopography, or collective biography, as the way in which ahead to bridge the internal-external debate.) After all, all that got here crashing down, Errol and Steven Weinberg however, when it turned clear that science is basically a social exercise and scientific claims are socially constructed by practitioners, admittedly making an attempt their greatest to say one thing stable concerning the pure world round us. Kuhn's views of 1962 needed to be fitted in to and defended on this radically new mental context. He did his greatest regardless of the disdain of multinational philosophers, who by no means accepted him as a legit voice. I'm not a thinker myself, and thus additionally haven't any standing on this dialogue, however the solutions to Errol's dilemma have lengthy appeared clear to me: that's, Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some exterior, materials actuality past our language and cultural constraints, however he's concurrently a relativist in that he has no entry to nor can say something definitive about that exterior world unbiased of language and the conceptual classes that lead us to assume this or that about exterior actuality. Furthermore, in opposition to extra radical relativist positions, which he eschewed, Kuhn holds that some tales are higher than different tales. For that purpose, then, Errol's assault on Kuhn as resulting in Trump, "fake news," and an unmitigated mental or political free for all the place something goes falls brief. Nobody desires to return to Aristotelian or Newtonian physics for good purpose, however we have to additionally acknowledge that our present thought classes are dynamic, not mounted. And right here, Kripke's notion of reference fails, a minimum of in my estimation, not solely contemplating that the factor referenced can't be understood or grasped independently of language and society, but additionally as a result of the very ideas - the moon, an electron - themselves are always in flux and alter with each slight iteration, all of which leaves the goal reference much more inaccessible and vacuous. If Errol or Kripke or anybody can inform me one thing completely goal and unchanging about what's on the market within the pure world, I sincerely wish to hear and imagine that. Perhaps I ought to (re)flip to Jesus. Your good friend, Jim Additional Studying: Jim McClellan makes an look in my new on-line e book Thoughts-Physique Issues (see introduction) in addition to earlier weblog posts (Cantankerous Historian of Science Questions Whether or not Science Can Obtain "Truth" and Science, Historical past and Fact on the College Membership). I talk about Morris's views of Kuhn in three earlier columns: Did Thomas Kuhn Assist Elect Donald Trump?, Second Ideas: Did Thomas Kuhn Assist Elect Donald Trump? and Filmmaker Errol Morris Clarifies Stance on Kuhn and Trump. What Thomas Kuhn Actually Considered Scientific "Truth" Was Thinker Paul Feyerabend Actually Science's "Worst Enemy"? The Paradox of Karl Popper Thoughts-Physique Issues (free on-line e book) For different takes on Ashtray, see evaluations by Tim Maudlin, David Kordahl and Philip Kitcher and a weblog publish by Kuhn's son Nat. Read the full article

[internetbasic9]

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers https://ift.tt/2Dx9PTa

Business ImageSenator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is a potential swing vote in the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesWASHINGTON — President Trump assailed the latest woman to accuse Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, saying on Tuesday that she “has nothing” because she was “messed up” at the time, even as a key Republican senator urged colleagues to take the accusations seriously.With pressure rising in advance of a make-or-break hearing on Thursday, Mr. Trump lashed out in a more vociferous way than he has since his nominee came under fire for allegations of sexual assault, blaming Democrats for orchestrating a “con game” and targeting one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers in scathing, personal terms.“The second accuser has nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “She thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. She admits that she was drunk. She admits time lapses. There were time lapses. This is a person, and this is a series of statements, that’s going to take one of the most talented and one of the greatest intellects from a judicial standpoint in our country, going to keep him off the United States Supreme Court?”The president was referring to Deborah Ramirez, who said in an interview with The New Yorker published this week that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking party while they were students at Yale. She was initially reluctant to characterize the judge’s role, but said that after six days of assessing memories, she was confident that he was the one who took down his pants.As Mr. Trump and Republican leaders insisted that they will install Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite the accusations, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a crucial Republican swing vote, offered a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee.“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski said in an extended interview on Monday night in the Capitol. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”With a 51-to-49 majority, Senate Republicans can afford to lose only one vote. If Ms. Murkowski votes no, she could swing Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the other abortion-rights Republican in the Senate. But Republican leaders were confident enough on Tuesday that they scheduled a committee vote for Friday, just a day after the hearing, a move that drew rebukes from Democrats who said the majority was not taking the allegations seriously.Senate Judiciary Committee staff members interviewed Judge Kavanaugh by telephone on Tuesday about Ms. Ramirez and he denied her account, according to people familiar with the interview. The committee plans a hearing for Thursday to hear another woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who has said that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, but it was not clear whether Ms. Ramirez would be called as well.The committee’s Republican leadership said on Tuesday that it had retained an outside counsel — Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, called her a “female assistant” — to aid in Thursday’s hearing, but declined to identify the lawyer, citing safety concerns. Dr. Blasey, who also goes by her married name, Ford, had sought to have senators question her rather than a lawyer.VideoSenator Mitch McConnell said that being male didn’t preclude making a fair decision but that “a female assistant” was hired to question Christine Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee.Published OnSept. 25, 2018CreditCreditImage by Erin Schaff for The New York TimesBut mindful of the backlash after sharp questioning of Anita F. Hill during confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, the all-male group of Republicans on the committee preferred to pass off the task to a professional and a woman.Mr. Trump’s aggressive comments on Tuesday came after privately expressing concern that Judge Kavanaugh had been too weak during an interview on Monday night on Fox News. The judge denied the allegations against him in a calm way, growing a little emotional at the end, but the president and some of his advisers worried that he was not forceful or indignant enough. Judge Kavanaugh repeated some of the same scripted lines repeatedly, to the point that some of his allies believed it came across as robotic.Image“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine told reporters on Tuesday.CreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesThe president hinted at his private disappointment in his public comments to reporters on Tuesday. “He was so truthful,” he said of the judge. “You’re also not seeing him on his footing. This isn’t his footing. He’s never been here before. He’s never had any charges like this, I mean charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated.”But Ms. Murkowski’s expressions of concern undercut Republican efforts to paint the accusations as a grand Democratic plot. She was always expected to be a critical vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But she is making clear that, beyond matters of abortion, she is deeply troubled by Dr. Blasey’s story.In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she was in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. Her view that an “arbitrary timeline” should not scuttle a potential hearing helped nudge Republicans toward reaching an agreement with the accuser’s lawyers last weekend. She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she leads on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.“All you can try to do is be as fair as possible to ensure that at the end of the day justice is delivered,” Ms. Murkowski said.As senators prepare to face contradictory testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey, with little hope of independent corroboration, Ms. Murkowski is emerging as an important voice, along with Ms. Collins, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and, possibly, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, the only Republican up for re-election in November in a state won by Hillary Clinton.As new accusations surface, their ultimate decisions are looking ever more difficult. Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of Ms. Ramirez.“Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,” he wrote, adding, “he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”Another Yale schoolmate, Steve Kantrowitz, took to Twitter on Tuesday to contradict the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News on Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter.”“Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school,” he wrote. “But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrence Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite.”In lashing out on Tuesday, Mr. Trump dispensed with the restraint that advisers have urged him to exercise and adopted the attack mode he prefers. He portrayed the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh as character assassination, and he went further than before in directly challenging the credibility of Ms. Ramirez.“She said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up and she doesn’t know it was him but it might have been him,” Mr. Trump said while in New York for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. Then, speaking sarcastically, he added, “Oh, gee, let’s not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.”As the president of Colombia looked on, Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of smearing Judge Kavanaugh. “I think it’s horrible what the Democrats have done. It’s a con game they’re playing; they’re really con artists,” he said. “They’re playing a con game,” he continued, “and they play it very well. They play it actually much better than the Republicans.”ImageThe chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley, hired an outside lawyer to question Christine Blasey Ford on behalf of Republicans.CreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesHe went on to call it a con game several more times, even at one point spelling it out, “C-O-N.”Democrats argued that Mr. Trump and other Republicans were casting a verdict without actually hearing from any accusers. “Senate Republicans promised that ‘anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard,’” Senate Democrats said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it appears that Republican leaders have prejudged the outcome of Thursday’s hearing.”For many Republicans, the charges and countercharges have only cemented their view that Judge Kavanaugh is being smeared by a coordinated campaign of Democrats and liberal activists.Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said he was not persuaded by Ms. Ramirez’s story. “I read The New Yorker article. It’s pretty thin. No one else remembered any of it,” he said. “This is really getting kind of carried away, it’s feeling more like a circus. But again, I did feel like this first accuser should be heard.”Projecting optimism, Mr. McConnell signaled that Republicans would be ready to move forward quickly after Thursday’s hearing.“We’re going to be moving forward; I’m confident we’re going to win,” he told reporters.In the interview, Ms. Murkowski was not so dismissive of the accusations. “We are at just a difficult place because the conversation is not rational on either side,” she said. She added: “Just look at some of the hateful things that are being said out there. How do you dial that back?”“We need to be able to listen,” she said, pledging to take Dr. Blasey seriously. “We have to listen to what she will say on the record, under oath, and what Judge Kavanaugh will say on the record, under oath.”When Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist in Northern California, came forward in an interview this month with The Washington Post, Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins had largely completed exhaustive reviews of Judge Kavanaugh’s career and legal writing, including follow-up calls with the nominee just two days before. Both senators were particularly interested in Judge Kavanaugh’s views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, but privately, fellow Republicans believed the judge had probably won their support — and with it a ticket onto the court.Those views will still influence their decisions, both senators have said. Ms. Murkowski said on Monday that Judge Kavanaugh had laid out for her a powerful case about the importance of precedent and the “reliance of interest” it creates.“How he articulated how it had been reinforced in so many different steps, I certainly have greater confidence with the way that he portrayed to me how he views Roe,” she said.Ms. Collins, an institutional-minded centrist who carefully reviews judicial nominees, has expressed similar views on Judge Kavanaugh and Roe and indicated that she will watch on Thursday with equal vigor.“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Ms. Collins told reporters on Tuesday. She expressed concern about Ms. Ramirez’s accusation and suggested that the Judiciary Committee question her under oath as well as Dr. Blasey.Given the explosive nature of the allegations, the decision by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to hire an outside lawyer to question Dr. Blasey was cast by some as a way to preserve some sense of decorum. “We have done it because we want to depoliticize the whole process, like the Democrats politicized the Anita Hill thing,” said Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the committee.A version of this article appears in print on of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Takes Aim At New Accuser: She ‘Has Nothing’. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe Read More | https://ift.tt/2NDmKaB |

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers, in 2018-09-26 01:45:38

[blogparadiseisland]

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers http://www.nature-business.com/business-trump-unleashes-on-kavanaugh-accuser-as-key-republican-wavers/

Business ImageSenator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, is a potential swing vote in the nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.CreditCreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesWASHINGTON — President Trump assailed the latest woman to accuse Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, saying on Tuesday that she “has nothing” because she was “messed up” at the time, even as a key Republican senator urged colleagues to take the accusations seriously.With pressure rising in advance of a make-or-break hearing on Thursday, Mr. Trump lashed out in a more vociferous way than he has since his nominee came under fire for allegations of sexual assault, blaming Democrats for orchestrating a “con game” and targeting one of Judge Kavanaugh’s accusers in scathing, personal terms.“The second accuser has nothing,” Mr. Trump said. “She thinks maybe it could have been him, maybe not. She admits that she was drunk. She admits time lapses. There were time lapses. This is a person, and this is a series of statements, that’s going to take one of the most talented and one of the greatest intellects from a judicial standpoint in our country, going to keep him off the United States Supreme Court?”The president was referring to Deborah Ramirez, who said in an interview with The New Yorker published this week that Judge Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a drinking party while they were students at Yale. She was initially reluctant to characterize the judge’s role, but said that after six days of assessing memories, she was confident that he was the one who took down his pants.As Mr. Trump and Republican leaders insisted that they will install Judge Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite the accusations, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a crucial Republican swing vote, offered a blunt warning of her own: Do not prejudge sexual assault allegations against the nominee.“We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified,” Ms. Murkowski said in an extended interview on Monday night in the Capitol. “It is about whether or not a woman who has been a victim at some point in her life is to be believed.”With a 51-to-49 majority, Senate Republicans can afford to lose only one vote. If Ms. Murkowski votes no, she could swing Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the other abortion-rights Republican in the Senate. But Republican leaders were confident enough on Tuesday that they scheduled a committee vote for Friday, just a day after the hearing, a move that drew rebukes from Democrats who said the majority was not taking the allegations seriously.Senate Judiciary Committee staff members interviewed Judge Kavanaugh by telephone on Tuesday about Ms. Ramirez and he denied her account, according to people familiar with the interview. The committee plans a hearing for Thursday to hear another woman, Christine Blasey Ford, who has said that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school, but it was not clear whether Ms. Ramirez would be called as well.The committee’s Republican leadership said on Tuesday that it had retained an outside counsel — Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, called her a “female assistant” — to aid in Thursday’s hearing, but declined to identify the lawyer, citing safety concerns. Dr. Blasey, who also goes by her married name, Ford, had sought to have senators question her rather than a lawyer.VideoSenator Mitch McConnell said that being male didn’t preclude making a fair decision but that “a female assistant” was hired to question Christine Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee.Published OnSept. 25, 2018CreditCreditImage by Erin Schaff for The New York TimesBut mindful of the backlash after sharp questioning of Anita F. Hill during confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991, the all-male group of Republicans on the committee preferred to pass off the task to a professional and a woman.Mr. Trump’s aggressive comments on Tuesday came after privately expressing concern that Judge Kavanaugh had been too weak during an interview on Monday night on Fox News. The judge denied the allegations against him in a calm way, growing a little emotional at the end, but the president and some of his advisers worried that he was not forceful or indignant enough. Judge Kavanaugh repeated some of the same scripted lines repeatedly, to the point that some of his allies believed it came across as robotic.Image“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine told reporters on Tuesday.CreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesThe president hinted at his private disappointment in his public comments to reporters on Tuesday. “He was so truthful,” he said of the judge. “You’re also not seeing him on his footing. This isn’t his footing. He’s never been here before. He’s never had any charges like this, I mean charges come up from 36 years ago that are totally unsubstantiated.”But Ms. Murkowski’s expressions of concern undercut Republican efforts to paint the accusations as a grand Democratic plot. She was always expected to be a critical vote in Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation process. But she is making clear that, beyond matters of abortion, she is deeply troubled by Dr. Blasey’s story.In the interview, Ms. Murkowski emphasized how invested she was in assessing Dr. Blasey’s story. Her view that an “arbitrary timeline” should not scuttle a potential hearing helped nudge Republicans toward reaching an agreement with the accuser’s lawyers last weekend. She canceled a meeting of the Senate committee she leads on Thursday to ensure her schedule was clear. And although she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she will be watching.“All you can try to do is be as fair as possible to ensure that at the end of the day justice is delivered,” Ms. Murkowski said.As senators prepare to face contradictory testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey, with little hope of independent corroboration, Ms. Murkowski is emerging as an important voice, along with Ms. Collins, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, and, possibly, Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, the only Republican up for re-election in November in a state won by Hillary Clinton.As new accusations surface, their ultimate decisions are looking ever more difficult. Late Monday night, a freshman roommate of Judge Kavanaugh’s at Yale, James Roche, released a statement in support of Ms. Ramirez.“Although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time,” he wrote, adding, “he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk.”Another Yale schoolmate, Steve Kantrowitz, took to Twitter on Tuesday to contradict the assertion Judge Kavanaugh made on Fox News on Monday night that he was a virgin in high school and “for many years thereafter.”“Perhaps Brett Kavanaugh was a virgin for many years after high school,” he wrote. “But he claimed otherwise in a conversation with me during our freshman year in Lawrence Hall at Yale, in the living room of my suite.”In lashing out on Tuesday, Mr. Trump dispensed with the restraint that advisers have urged him to exercise and adopted the attack mode he prefers. He portrayed the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh as character assassination, and he went further than before in directly challenging the credibility of Ms. Ramirez.“She said she was totally inebriated and she was all messed up and she doesn’t know it was him but it might have been him,” Mr. Trump said while in New York for the annual session of the United Nations General Assembly. Then, speaking sarcastically, he added, “Oh, gee, let’s not make him a Supreme Court judge because of that.”As the president of Colombia looked on, Mr. Trump accused the Democrats of smearing Judge Kavanaugh. “I think it’s horrible what the Democrats have done. It’s a con game they’re playing; they’re really con artists,” he said. “They’re playing a con game,” he continued, “and they play it very well. They play it actually much better than the Republicans.”ImageThe chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Charles E. Grassley, hired an outside lawyer to question Christine Blasey Ford on behalf of Republicans.CreditErin Schaff for The New York TimesHe went on to call it a con game several more times, even at one point spelling it out, “C-O-N.”Democrats argued that Mr. Trump and other Republicans were casting a verdict without actually hearing from any accusers. “Senate Republicans promised that ‘anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has deserves to be heard,’” Senate Democrats said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it appears that Republican leaders have prejudged the outcome of Thursday’s hearing.”For many Republicans, the charges and countercharges have only cemented their view that Judge Kavanaugh is being smeared by a coordinated campaign of Democrats and liberal activists.Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said he was not persuaded by Ms. Ramirez’s story. “I read The New Yorker article. It’s pretty thin. No one else remembered any of it,” he said. “This is really getting kind of carried away, it’s feeling more like a circus. But again, I did feel like this first accuser should be heard.”Projecting optimism, Mr. McConnell signaled that Republicans would be ready to move forward quickly after Thursday’s hearing.“We’re going to be moving forward; I’m confident we’re going to win,” he told reporters.In the interview, Ms. Murkowski was not so dismissive of the accusations. “We are at just a difficult place because the conversation is not rational on either side,” she said. She added: “Just look at some of the hateful things that are being said out there. How do you dial that back?”“We need to be able to listen,” she said, pledging to take Dr. Blasey seriously. “We have to listen to what she will say on the record, under oath, and what Judge Kavanaugh will say on the record, under oath.”When Dr. Blasey, a research psychologist in Northern California, came forward in an interview this month with The Washington Post, Ms. Murkowski and Ms. Collins had largely completed exhaustive reviews of Judge Kavanaugh’s career and legal writing, including follow-up calls with the nominee just two days before. Both senators were particularly interested in Judge Kavanaugh’s views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, but privately, fellow Republicans believed the judge had probably won their support — and with it a ticket onto the court.Those views will still influence their decisions, both senators have said. Ms. Murkowski said on Monday that Judge Kavanaugh had laid out for her a powerful case about the importance of precedent and the “reliance of interest” it creates.“How he articulated how it had been reinforced in so many different steps, I certainly have greater confidence with the way that he portrayed to me how he views Roe,” she said.Ms. Collins, an institutional-minded centrist who carefully reviews judicial nominees, has expressed similar views on Judge Kavanaugh and Roe and indicated that she will watch on Thursday with equal vigor.“I had not made a decision, and obviously the hearing Thursday is an important one,” Ms. Collins told reporters on Tuesday. She expressed concern about Ms. Ramirez’s accusation and suggested that the Judiciary Committee question her under oath as well as Dr. Blasey.Given the explosive nature of the allegations, the decision by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to hire an outside lawyer to question Dr. Blasey was cast by some as a way to preserve some sense of decorum. “We have done it because we want to depoliticize the whole process, like the Democrats politicized the Anita Hill thing,” said Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the committee.A version of this article appears in print on of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Takes Aim At New Accuser: She ‘Has Nothing’. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe Read More | https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/us/politics/lisa-murkowski-brett-kavanaugh.html |

Business Trump Unleashes on Kavanaugh Accuser as Key Republican Wavers, in 2018-09-26 01:45:38

[christinaepilzauthor-blog]

An Overview of Laud and Strafford – Charles I's 'Evil Councillors'

by Annie Whitehead William Laud and Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford: these men are perhaps less well-known than some other characters during the time of political upheaval which ultimately led to the first of the English Civil Wars, and the intention of this article is to give, in the constraints of a blog post, only an overview of their careers. Both Laud and Strafford did much good for England, but their attitudes and characters contributed greatly to their unpopularity and ultimately towards their downfall. Their careers invite comparison. William Laud (7 October 1573 – 10 January 1645) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1633, until his execution in 1645. His career began in the reign of James I, but progressed slowly. James said of him that "He hath a restless spirit, and cannot see when matters are well, but loves to toss and change, and to bring things to a pitch of reformation floating in his own brain." It has been said of Laud that he did more than any other single man to provoke the Civil War. Charles I shared many of his 'qualities', and once Charles acceded, Laud's rise was rapid. In 1626 he became Bishop of Bath and Wells, in 1628 Bishop of London and Chancellor of Oxford University in 1630. Along with Strafford, Laud dominated Charles' government during the eleven years' personal rule, and his chief aim was to 'stop the rot' in the Church of England, suppressing all traces of Puritanism.

William Laud

Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford (13 April 1593– 12 May 1641) served in Parliament and from 1632–40, served as Lord Deputy of Ireland; he was condemned to death by parliament and executed in 1641. Early in his political career he was an opposition MP. He joined in the attacks on the king's favourite, Buckingham, and he was imprisoned in the Marshalsea 1627-8 as one of the 76 who refused to contribute to the forced loan for Buckingham's pro-Spanish policy. His career changed direction after the assassination of Buckingham, and when given the choice between increasing the power of the king or the people, he chose the king.

Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford

Archbishop Laud was an Arminian, and this religious attitude alone was enough to gain him unpopularity. He was feared by the parliamentarians, who believed that he intended to lead the king and the country back to Catholicism. Laud brought about further conflict when he declared that bishops should have more political power, and that they should become involved in local government as Justices of the Peace. Laud was not a popular man with parliament, and he went on to upset the bishops when he decided to reform the Church. He declared that the Church was dishonouring God, and he wanted the Church to work towards uniformity and conformity. Laud was determined to stamp out Church abuses such as: Simony (the buying of offices), Nepotism (obtaining positions for relatives) and Pluralism (holding more than one office, which led to non-residence). He made himself unpopular with the bishops who were opposed to his reforms. They would not earn as much, and they could no longer put people who would support them in influential positions. Some of Laud's ideas were less contentious; he ordered closer examination of candidates for the priesthood and encouraged more honest and dedicated clergymen. Unfortunately for Laud, his religion made him unpopular, and his reforms of the Church led people to fear him. Laud was stubborn and would take advice from nobody, and parliamentarians felt justified in believing him evil. It was reported that he was unable to keep a check on his temper during meetings. Strafford had very similar problems to those of Laud's. He upset parliament when in 1628 he changed sides, because he was not fully committed to the radical ideas of parliament, who were at the time totally opposed to the monarchy. He was never trusted by the parliamentarians or the king and, like Laud, his character made him enemies. He was arrogant, stubborn, and ruthless. He was an efficient administrator, and Charles moved him from London, appointing him President as the Council of the North. He revived the decaying administration there and rooted out corruption. In 1632 Strafford went to Ireland as Lord Deputy, and there he removed corruption and set up a prerogative court. He encouraged industry and investigated land ownership. Unfortunately, whatever the merits of their ideas for reform, Laud and Strafford  were not likeable as characters, and they were feared by parliament for the power they held. Their reforms, necessary or not, would never have been welcomed by parliament, the landowners, or the clergy.

The trial of Laud

Besides facing almost impossible tasks, Laud and Strafford were ruthless to the point of cruelty while they were carrying out their plans. They both pursued the Policy of Thorough, which consisted of a belief that a higher standard of efficiency and honesty was needed to put the country in order.

The trial of Strafford

In 1630, Leighton, a clergyman, published Sion's Plea against Prelacy, an attack on the bishops. For this, he was punished by Laud; he was tried in Star Chamber, imprisoned, and he lost his ear. In 1637, William Prynne, John Bastwick, Henry Burton, and John Lilburne were involved in writing and publishing an attack against the bishops. Laud had Lilburne flogged through the streets of London, while the other three men lost their ears and were sent to the Tower.

John Lilburne

Strafford was perhaps less cruel than Laud, but he was certainly determined to achieve his aims no matter what. While he was President of the Council of the north, he humbled the great northern families and ordered the Yorkshire weavers to work according to rule, which brought less money in for the workers. In Ireland, Strafford forced the convocation [of bishops] to accept the 39 Articles* of the English, although the Irish Church had remained predominantly Catholic. Laud and Strafford were not likeable characters. Their ideas were bound to have been met with resentment. No Englishman would welcome efficient administration and tax collection, and many influential men would resent the reform of the Church and the government of the North and Ireland.

Strafford on his way to execution, being blessed by Laud

Strafford was impeached by the Long Parliament, but despite numerous complaints against him, including from those with whom he'd had dealings in Ireland, there was no proof of treason. His enemies then issued a Bill of Attainder, and Strafford was executed on 12th May 1641. Laud was accused of treason by the Long Parliament and was imprisoned in the tower. Prynne, with good reason, was a personal enemy, but others were inclined to let old age despatch the unpopular archbishop. Like Strafford before him, he faced a trial in which it proved impossible to prove any specific act of treason, but Laud was executed on Tower Hill on 10th January, 1645. *Read about the 39 Articles Here and for further detail about the careers of these two men:

Archbishop Laud - Hugh Trevor-Roper

Archbishop Laud - Arthur Stuart Duncan-Jones

Strafford - C.V. Wedgwood

Strafford in Ireland 1633-1641: A Study in Absolutism - Hugh F. Kearney

The King's War, 1641-47 - C.V. Wedgwood

[all above illustrations are in the public domain, and sourced from Wiki Commons]

~~~~~~~~~~

Annie Whitehead is an historian and novelist who writes about the Anglo-Saxon era, although she has a keen interest in the seventeenth-century. The author of two award-winning novels set in Anglo-Saxon Mercia, she was also a contributor to 1066 Turned Upside Down, a re-imagining of the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings. She is a member of the Royal Historical Society and an editor of the EHFA blog. Currently she is working on a contribution to a non-fiction book to be published by Pen & Sword Books in the summer of 2017.

Amazon Author Page

Blog

Website

Twitter

Hat Tip To: English Historical Fiction Authors