The Theme of the reading is that the kings such as Sir Walter Raleigh, 1599 were considered to be Gods. They had believed that they had the same powers that God has now. Some of the powers that would be included is that if they can create some one and destroy them, another power is that the subjects they will have affection and service of his subjects, and the last power is that the people should praise and follow what ever he says. It is to believed that they have power on Earth just like God has on us. In this time frame Kings or even fathers were called Gods.
Additional background that I have found was about Sir Walter Raleigh. What I have found is that when he was younger he had served as a volunteer of the army in France in 1569. In 1577 he became an undergraduate at Oxford. He also served In Ireland in 1580, he also became an author of many political essays. He had ended up creating many bodies of poetry and in the 1600 he was governor of Jersey, but his fortunes had ended up declining when he had apart from his own ally who was know as Robert Cecil.
The part that stood out to me was the kings were considered to be a God, but I really did not think about that the father or even husbands were actually also considered to be a God. No sooner then I read this it actually kinda refreshed my memory, because I sort of knew that this was true through out this history. Even though the fathers have had heirs to pass down any inheritance that he had considered to give it to the eldest and not the youngest. I thought it was strange how they would favor over the young just by seeing if they like them. While keeping this in mind I thought about that this idea have led into conflict with several different families such conflict that I would expect would be that if the youngest child ever got the inheritance then the older brother would be jealous. This made me think that just maybe in this time there were times when brothers would fight or even kill each other over such inheritance that their father has left after he passes.
Ideas that really generated made me ask questions such as, is there still conflict over inheritance between family members today, and if so is it resolved in a civil matter or is solved by fighting who gets what? This made me think about family issues today and family issues back then, but in that history the father had ideas or even willing to kill off a son in order to keep his inheritance or even have the eldest get the inheritance. This was another idea that I thought was some what strange, I got the idea that some people back then were greedy or even selfish. It just surprised me that people back then killed off their own child line over their own fortunes to be taken care of.
Parallels would be comparing the lives of families back then and families today. Today some families share out their fortunes through out the family equally through wills to where no body is left out, but back in this time frame it was the youngest who would get the inheritance of some kind instead of a different person. It was continued to be more complex conflict for them, because they were afraid who they can trust with such fortunate and they preferred the youngest of them all. We have some families who are close to each other that want to make sure people are well taken care within the family, but in this time of history it just seemed like it was important for the fortunate was safe among the person who gets the inheritance.
Related to the text, would be that in Chapter 14 it actually discuss that the father's discipline matters, and this relates by the fathers of the household who believe have absolute power as God to run things his way just like God would. It had seemed that from the textbook and context of the reading it seemed that it was really controlling both ways between the different types of families back in history. The idea seemed to have been around I would say since the 1550-1618, this relates to how men or fathers have the power over households and the Royal family.
No comments:
Post a Comment