Friends, Today, January 30, is the 364th anniversary of the beheading of Charles I Stuart, King of England, by the Puritans. Can anyone give some history about the beginning of the remembrance of His Majesty as a Martyr? What do you think personally? In editions of the BCP printed from 1662-1859, this prayer attended to Holy Communion: "Blessed Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; we mangify thy Name for that abundant grace bestowed on our late Martyred Sovereign; by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek bearing of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto blood; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his patience, and charity; And grant, that this our Land may be freed from the vengence of his blood, and Thy mercy glorified in the forgiveness of our sings; and all for JESUS CHRIST His sake. Amen."
I don't know much about this period of history, but I had understood he was hanged a traitor to his people, What I gather from history books is that the Civil war was over the divine rights of kings - whether the king makes the law or is under it. I dont see any reason for him to be considered a martyr
Hardly! Would it be possible to name one instance of his betrayal? On the contrary he was a mild and patient king. True enough he espoused the Divine Right, but so did James before him, and Charles II after him. The doctrine received an end in the 1687/8 Revolution, and consequently one can hardly blame Charles I for it.
Society of King Charles the Martyr: http://skcm.org/ There's a church dedicated to him in my Diocese and our Cathedral maintains the commemoration. The celebration of the Feast of Charles was ordered by authority of Parliament and Convocation. Propers were provided and a special order of service was enjoined. Opinion varies as to whether canonisation was in mind, as the Prayer Book Kalendar doesn't actually refer to him as Saint Charles. However, a 1957 report 'The Commemoration of Saints and Heroes in the Anglican Communion' regards Charles "as genuine Canonisation - that too, of a martyr - as the historic church can show, Convocation, Parliament, and popular acclaim acting in passionate unity." -
He did try to force the Scottish Kirk to conform to the English through the prayer book and bishops. The Scots rose up to defend the liberty of their Church. I don't know much about the English side. I gather from reading, that the he was mainly accused of war crimes at his trial for starting a second war when he had been defeated on his people. But Charles I took it to a greater level than before with his constant dismissing of Parliament. Most historians seem to think he made a lot of unwise decisions.
Charles the First is a much maligned king. He was not hanged, but he was executed, when he refused to sign away the Church in England in to the hands of the Calvinists in 1649. The business of the Divine Right of Kings, is a joke. Long before the Civil War had started Charles gave up all pretensions of a political struggle against the Calvinist dominated Parliament and it was the pretensions of the protestants that powered the road to war. The Great Rebellion in England was not a political struggle, primarily , it was a War of Religion, more or less driven by protestant fanatics. Not to put to fine a point on it, Charles was offered his life at the peace Conference in 1648, on two conditions, A. He signed the legislation abolishing the Catholic content of the Anglican Church, i.o.w. Apostolic orders and theology. B. he agreed that his supporters,(Chiefly Anglican,) should accept blame for the Civil War and find the cost for it. He refused to sign away the Church and he was warned by Lord Saye & Sele that this was his last chance, If he signed, he would be returned to the throne and his family , he would receive his wealth and palaces back and in short everything would be as it was! he refused in September 1648 and in january 1649 was executed. I most certainly think he was a martyr for the Church and have commemorated his martyrdom continually since about 1950. My parish hold an annual service of remembrance and at this moment we are raising funds to commission an Ikon in his memory!
Just the formulation of the case points to a modern and (if you'll permit) a revisionist source behind what you said. There was no Geneva Convention or the accusation of war crimes in 1649. He did try to force the Scottish Kirk - and the Kirk tried to force the Church of England. Such were the mores of the time on all sides; no reason to paint the scots as a patient church suffering in captivity, when they were so much opposite of that. But then again I see your username and the reason appears... He may have made unwise decisions, but omniscience is not a prerequisite for martyrdom, last I checked. Dismissing the Parliament was his constitutional right and K. James I availed of it also. That seems egregiously unlikely for one like him who elevated Abp. Laud to being his closest advisor. I would ask you to state your source, and maybe we can get to the source of this modern libelous pamphlet after all Atheism my friend. That's who won - atheism. I'm sure that Anglicans can be chaplains in Scotland.
The terminology was used in an article, that might be the case I don't know. I will try and search for the original accusations from the trial and find out this is true. And I don't think the covenanters were right in that respect. However the fact remains that Charles was the one who started it and caused the revolt. But if he was a martyr what was he witnessing to? Because he was executed doesn't necessarily make him a martyr unless there was a cause Charles's negotiations continued from his captivity at Carisbrooke Castle on the Isle of Wight (to which he had 'escaped' from Hampton Court in November 1647) and led to the Engagement with the Scots, under which the Scots would provide an army for Charles in exchange for the imposition of the Covenant on England. This led to the second Civil War of 1648, which ended with Cromwell's victory at Preston in August. Source - http://www.royal.gov.uk/historyofth...nsoftheunitedkingdom/thestuarts/charlesi.aspx Also found this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engagement_(1647)
Here is an interesting document from the mid-19th century, about the scurrilous pamphlet war waged by unknown Puritans as early as the 1560s. Even Walsingham, Elizabeth's "Spy Master", could not discover the source of the sedition. It was fascinating... and started early!
Great link. I just finished reading the admonition, we can see their aims set out in this clearly. Puritanism can be seen even earlier in Bishop Hooper's day in the vestments controversy.
It depends on whom you read and ultimately believe. The Monarch has no right to interfere with spiritual matters especially Hanoverian ones, who are definitely not the Lord's anointed! It wasn't even done after consultation!