Discuss @Thande 's latest article here
You'll also note I got in a reference to acid baths just to make @Skinny87 happy.Very on-brand with the R. Austin Freeman reference.
I've not seen it mentioned in any of the sources.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?
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
—such as William Pitt the Younger.
But Charles had no legitimate heirs
later repeated in France’s revolutionary Rights of Man
I've not seen it mentioned in any of the sources.
I think I'd go with "no legitimate heirs of his body", but that might be a bit medieval.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.
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.I think I'd go with "no legitimate heirs of his body", but that might be a bit medieval.