• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Chains of Consequences: How the Principle of Habeas Corpus comes from a Seventeenth Century Fat Joke

Very well written @Thande. Nice to finally get the whole story, too because for the years I've been on this forum people like yourself have been routinely saying 'of course we all know Habeas Corpus came from a fat joke but did you also know this ....' and I've never had the courage to actually ask about it.
 
Sorry to drag this one up a year after the writing, but do we know who the portly peer in question was, or has that been lost to the mists of time?
 
That gatekeeping you talk about, while existing in countries like France is miles worse when you do it in a country whose language does not derive from that earlier language. This is also how you end up with gobbledigook like the obsession of some about dangling participles.

In fact this is a very modern, hindsight-driven view; in reality the suspension of habeas corpus in that sort of era was not only the act of governments now universally reviled, but was also practiced in time of war or feared revolution by figures which are generally well regarded

Oh, he's gonna mention Lincoln...

—such as William Pitt the Younger.

MURDER BURN DESTROY

But Charles had no legitimate heirs

I'd argue you should write 'legitimate sons' here. He had a legitimate heir, his brother James, since intolerant nonsense (what's an edict of Fontainebleau? Don't know no Fontainebleau) from the Exclusionists was trying to remove him.

later repeated in France’s revolutionary Rights of Man

Absolutely not. Still not quite enshrined in French law despite multiple condemnations from the ECHR. The phrase "condamné par contumace", i.e. in absentia (oh dear, I'm doing it) is even somewhat a staple of some works of late nineteenth century.
 
I've not seen it mentioned in any of the sources.

Now that's something a historic sleuth should suss out.

First, is there a list of names recording ayes and nays? I suspect not, but there must be a list of enrollees overall. From there, select those whose portraits can't quite hide the rotundity and then see who among them are more whig or more tory.
 
I'd argue you should write 'legitimate sons' here. He had a legitimate heir, his brother James, since intolerant nonsense (what's an edict of Fontainebleau? Don't know no Fontainebleau) from the Exclusionists was trying to remove him.
I think I'd go with "no legitimate heirs of his body", but that might be a bit medieval.
 
I think I'd go with "no legitimate heirs of his body", but that might be a bit medieval.
On a core level the British education system has drilled into me that 'heirs' = 'legitimate sons' because of our relentless focus on Henry VIII. You can tell this from how I write LTTW, where every time a brother succeeds a childless monarch it's phrased as though this is some extraordinary and vaguely dodgy event.
 
Back
Top