Saint Charles King and Martyr

24

Comments

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Besides, we’ve got two states named after King Charles I, who was the king of these colonies. I don’t think a church service here and there honoring him as a saint will raise any alarms of threats to the Republic.

    You've also got a state named after George III. I'd be curious to know if there are any American church services honoring his memory.
    Do you mean Georgia? It’s named for George II.

    I stand corrected. But Charlotte and Charlottesville are named for who I think, right?

  • If you mean the wife and consort of George III (and last queen of North Carolina and Virginia—which was named for Elizabeth I), then yes.

    And that illustrates my point. The kings and queens of England/the UK are part of our history up until 1776, and they have continued to be honored and remembered in a variety of ways, particularly place names, with no suggestion that doing so is somehow treasonous.

    As for church services honoring the memory of George III, I’m not aware of any, but I’m also not aware that anyone has suggested he be honored as a saint. SFAIK, only Charles I has that distinction, and I presume those places that do honor him honor him as a saint, not just because he was king.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    And that illustrates my point. The kings and queens of England/the UK are part of our history up until 1776, and they have continued to be honored and remembered in a variety of ways, particularly place names, with no suggestion that doing so is somehow treasonous.

    No, but I would assume that all those names were just holdovers from colonial times, sort of kept on by default after indpendence. Had anyone suggested naming something after the wife of George III during the republican years, I can easily imagine it being seen as suspect. (Granted, Hanover Indiana was so-named after independence, but that was in honour of another town with that name, monikered in colonial times.)

  • Well, there are Victoria, Kansas, and Victoria, Virginia, both named for Queen Victoria.

  • edited February 2020
    Enoch wrote: »
    In the years after the Restoration, obviously his memory would have been encouraged for political reasons, as with oak apple day. Clergy were supposed to preach on the duties of obedience. It was always associated with politics as much as faith, or, I suppose, an unhealthy mix of the two. The service itself was dropped, along with some other state ones in 1859.

    An Anglo-Catholic precisionist did claim in the early C20 that the deletion of the services over 40 years previously had been illegal. As the state services were re-added by royal proclamation at each accession, if one's going to be that precise, as Edward VII did not re-proclaim them in 1901, whatever their status in Victoria's reign, they are abolished now.

    I suppose I ought to apologise for this - but I don't. I associate the cult of Charles King and Martyr with affectation.


    @Augustine the Aleut I take your reassurance that holding such a service is not actually treasonous. But then, how acceptable would it be in Springfield (Illinois) to hold a ceremony honouring the memory of Lenin, Stalin or the Great Helmsman (referencing Chairman Mao, not D Trump)?

    Draft collects follow: Almighty Lord, who sent Cyrus the Persian as a rod of correction on thy people Israel in their manifold sins and wickednesses, so may we remember the contributions of thy servant Vladimir Ilyich/ Joseph Vissarionovich, by whose efforts your Church of Russia was cleansed, as in the burning fire, through etc etc.

    O Lord, whose love for the Chinese people was most mysteriously if not confusingly manifested by your servant Mao, whose considerable abilities ensured that your universities and hospitals were directly managed in line with successive five-year plans, and through whose work the virtue of fasting and penance was imposed upon the Chinese people, all with his elegant calligraphy, so etc etc.



  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    @Augustine the Aleut I wasn't thinking of a church service. I was thinking of a gathering of the US equivalent of Old Bolsheviks in red neckerchiefs laying flowers before a bust of their hero.

    I must admit, though, that your collects are intriguing. Should the Anglican Communion have one for the 17th of November to commemorate Queen Mary for providing so many leading and respected divines with the opportunity to give their bodies to be burnt and so enabling John Foxe of blessed memory to perpetuate their memory in print?


    Incidentally, I read somewhere that one Chinese intellectual who knew him before he was famous condemned the Great Helmsman for the uncouth level of his calligraphy.
  • Choir DroneChoir Drone Shipmate Posts: 13
    Enoch wrote: »
    In the years after the Restoration, obviously his memory would have been encouraged for political reasons, as with oak apple day. Clergy were supposed to preach on the duties of obedience. It was always associated with politics as much as faith, or, I suppose, an unhealthy mix of the two. The service itself was dropped, along with some other state ones in 1859.

    An Anglo-Catholic precisionist did claim in the early C20 that the deletion of the services over 40 years previously had been illegal. As the state services were re-added by royal proclamation at each accession, if one's going to be that precise, as Edward VII did not re-proclaim them in 1901, whatever their status in Victoria's reign, they are abolished now.

    I suppose I ought to apologise for this - but I don't. I associate the cult of Charles King and Martyr with affectation.


    @Augustine the Aleut I take your reassurance that holding such a service is not actually treasonous. But then, how acceptable would it be in Springfield (Illinois) to hold a ceremony honouring the memory of Lenin, Stalin or the Great Helmsman (referencing Chairman Mao, not D Trump)?

    How would a religious ceremony honoring the memory of a British king, whose jurisdiction on these shores ended in January 1649, and whose descendants' jurisdiction ended (effectively) in 1781, constitute treason? I can assure you that the members of SCKM in Trumpistan are a harmless (and tiny) faction of Anglo-Catholics who view Charles as a martyr to the cause of the church Catholic (or at least, episcopal).
  • @Enoch and anyone else. I never said that such services were treasonous or criminal; indeed, I have stated to the contrary. I do think that they are philosophically untidy but, perhaps, these days, that is not the worst thing going on.

    The Crown's jurisdiction on these shores never ceased, at least on the chillier half, although it is no longer a British Crown.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Well, there are Victoria, Kansas, and Victoria, Virginia, both named for Queen Victoria.

    The earliest of those was founded in 1873. Unless my history is off, that's almost sixty years after the last clash between US and UK troops, and no such conflicts ever took place between the Americans and the Brits during Victoria's(unless you count the Fenian raids, which didn't involve the US military itself, but a group of free-ranging guerillas possibly tolerated by the US government just to jerk around the British after the Civil War.)

  • Charles 1 was guilty of the offences he was charged with. Certainly not a martyr
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    If Charles I is a martyr then Henry Vane the Younger was certainly a martyr for the other side. I expect those who kept Charles I to keep his date as well for the sake of taking the middle way.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    If Charles I is a martyr then Henry Vane the Younger was certainly a martyr for the other side. I expect those who kept Charles I to keep his date as well for the sake of taking the middle way.

    I suspect that, unlike Charles, he does not feature in the Kalendar of the SEC.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Well, there are Victoria, Kansas, and Victoria, Virginia, both named for Queen Victoria.

    The earliest of those was founded in 1873.
    Right, which means that after the founding of the Republic and the rejection of the Crown, some Americans were naming the communities in which they lived after the current wearer of that crown.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    If Charles I is a martyr then Henry Vane the Younger was certainly a martyr for the other side. I expect those who kept Charles I to keep his date as well for the sake of taking the middle way.

    I suspect that, unlike Charles, he does not feature in the Kalendar of the SEC.

    I looked up Henry Vane in the C of E lectionary. His death occurred on 14th June 1662, which date is The First Sunday After Trinity this year, so no mention of HVtY. He's not in the very comprehensive list of lesser commemorations in the Office Book of the Anglican Franciscans, either, whereas King Charles is...

    I agree. Not Fair.

  • Just when I need my ration of Naff, along comes the feast day of Headless Chuck, without fail.
  • I trust that all Shippies will be using the prayers of the Accession Service today, it being the 68th anniversary of HMQ'S coming to the throne.
  • I'm afraid prayers relating to HMQ are not in my 1828 (yes!) BCP. I shall, as I do at Morning Prayer every day, pray for my Sovereign Lord, George IV.
    :wink:

    Seriously, though, HMQ could probably do with some prayers on her behalf...

    I wonder how many churches pray for HMQ each Sunday? We do sometimes, but only if the intercessor uses the Common Worship format 'Bless and guide Elizabeth our Queen, etc.'.

    If a 1662 BCP service is being conducted 'by the book', the Queen will also get her special Collect.
  • At least we can pray for Her Majesty and skip over mentioning the PM by name.

    When I was at St George's in Venice for a term, we prayed for Queen Elizabeth, George President of the United States and Georgio President of Italy. I could just about accept praying for Mr GW Bush, but I was very glad we could ignore the existence of Mr Berlusconi who was then the Italian PM.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    I trust that all Shippies will be using the prayers of the Accession Service today, it being the 68th anniversary of HMQ'S coming to the throne.

    Why should I, still stuck in a monarchy, pray for her above others - let alone those in the US and France, for example.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    I'm afraid I read that as "ascension" and was left wondering if she'd gone floaties
  • I trust that all Shippies will be using the prayers of the Accession Service today, it being the 68th anniversary of HMQ'S coming to the throne.

    Er no. Thankfully it is not a requirement of my denominational persuasion and even if it were I am more likely to be giving thanks for all who celebrate today not just a privileged few
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    At least we can pray for Her Majesty and skip over mentioning the PM by name.

    When I was at St George's in Venice for a term, we prayed for Queen Elizabeth, George President of the United States and Georgio President of Italy. I could just about accept praying for Mr GW Bush, but I was very glad we could ignore the existence of Mr Berlusconi who was then the Italian PM.

    I don't have a problem with praying for ABdPJ, even if I have doubts about even the Almighty's capacity to grant him wisdom, compassion, humility, and all the other things we might hope for in a human being, let alone a Prime Minister. Continence, for example.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    We're required to pray for our governments. That original precedent for that was praying for the emperors in Rome. Most of whom were pretty bad. Some were very bad indeed. The reason is quite simple. It's that whether good, bad, legitimate or illegitimate, they are there. They have the power and we don't. They can govern well or they can harm us. There's not much we can do about that apart from put up with it and make the best of it.

    This isn't just for their good. It's for ours. We're the ones who are at the receiving end of what states, governments and those in power do. It may make one want to wretch sometimes, but there's a good theological argument that bad people need prayers even more than good ones. It may be less believable that a bad one might be pervious to the influence of King of Kings and Lord of Lords. However, which would you rather, that they did acknowledge the King of Kings and Lord of Lords or that they continue on their ways regardless?

    The issue that causes me a problem, is a different one. How persuasive are my prayers likely to be in the heavenly throne room when I'm praying for someone whom both the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and me know that I do not love?
  • I like the order of the solemn intercessions that we RCs have on Good Friday. It runs (in descending order?) the Church, Pope, Clergy and laity, Catechumens, Christian unity, Jews, other faiths, atheists, politicians, those in special need.
    All it needs is journalists and estate agents right at the end.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    *snip*
    The issue that causes me a problem, is a different one. How persuasive are my prayers likely to be in the heavenly throne room when I'm praying for someone whom both the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and me know that I do not love?

    It's quite possible that they might be a good bit more persuasive than for those whom you do like.

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Alan29 wrote: »
    I like the order of the solemn intercessions that we RCs have on Good Friday. It runs (in descending order?) the Church, Pope, Clergy and laity, Catechumens, Christian unity, Jews, other faiths, atheists, politicians, those in special need.
    All it needs is journalists and estate agents right at the end.

    Car sales persons?
  • Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick 8th Day Host, Admin Emeritus
    In my poking about for things Caroline, I ran across this curiosity: a small parish church in east Texas (of all places!) dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Are there any other churches anywhere dedicated to him?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    In my poking about for things Caroline, I ran across this curiosity: a small parish church in east Texas (of all places!) dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Are there any other churches anywhere dedicated to him?
    I hope not.

    I'd also be very puzzled why, when there are so many other people to choose from, anyone should have chosen Archbishop Laud as just the person to dedicate a church to. He's only known here to history buffs. One can feel sorry for anyone for ending up being executed, but he's not generally well regarded here.

    I'd also query what the authority is for giving him the title of 'saint'. Even Charles I is only described in pre-1859 prayer books as 'blessed king and martyr' rather than actually as a saint.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    In my poking about for things Caroline, I ran across this curiosity: a small parish church in east Texas (of all places!) dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Are there any other churches anywhere dedicated to him?
    I hope not.

    I'd also be very puzzled why, when there are so many other people to choose from, anyone should have chosen Archbishop Laud as just the person to dedicate a church to. He's only known here to history buffs. One can feel sorry for anyone for ending up being executed, but he's not generally well regarded here.

    I'd also query what the authority is for giving him the title of 'saint'. Even Charles I is only described in pre-1859 prayer books as 'blessed king and martyr' rather than actually as a saint.

    While I find the choice of William Laud puzzling, as I do not generally associate him with east Texas, home of Michelle Shocked and Dr Sheldon Cooper, however I can sort of answer the question about authority.

    In Anglicanism, canonisation is not entirely chaotic and anarchic, but close enough.

    Theoretically, national churches can assign someone to their calendar and, presumably, call them saint or blessed. However, it seems to happen by popular sentiment, and not on a logical or regular manner. For years, there was a Saint Charles Church in the Diocese of Huron, named after Charles James Stewart, the revered second bishop of Québec. More recently, the Ugandan government apparently intends to build a university in honour of Saint Janani Luwum and @Saint_Janani_Luwum even has a twitter handle. The Diocese of Pretoria has two men's guilds dedicated to the martyred acolyte and catechist Saint Bernard Mizeki. The dedication of a church to Saint William Laud (in the Canadian BCP as a martyr) was clearly approved of by the Bishop and the diocesan Standing Committee (in TEC an important body).

    Canonization by popular sentiment is perhaps is not so far off the practice of the early church that one cannot easily condemn it.

  • I can't think of any William Laud Churches in the UK, but there are several William Temple Churches, and a John Keble Church, and doubtless others named for (or after) such prominent people.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    That's part of what puzzles me. There's a difference between being famous, even being memorialised and being canonised as a saint. And apart from being executed, Laud isn't exactly (pun intended) laudable. I can't quite see why a prickly, tactless and somewhat authoritarian archbishop should be held up as a person to be emulated.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    That's part of what puzzles me. There's a difference between being famous, even being memorialised and being canonised as a saint. And apart from being executed, Laud isn't exactly (pun intended) laudable. I can't quite see why a prickly, tactless and somewhat authoritarian archbishop should be held up as a person to be emulated.

    Better ask these folks:
    http://www.affirming-laudianism.org.uk/
    As an aside, with regard to that website, it's reassuring to see that sneering contempt can be found in all parts of the theological spectrum.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    That's part of what puzzles me. There's a difference between being famous, even being memorialised and being canonised as a saint. And apart from being executed, Laud isn't exactly (pun intended) laudable. I can't quite see why a prickly, tactless and somewhat authoritarian archbishop should be held up as a person to be emulated.

    Better ask these folks:
    http://www.affirming-laudianism.org.uk/
    As an aside, with regard to that website, it's reassuring to see that sneering contempt can be found in all parts of the theological spectrum.

    Uhmm! I recognise that site, it is by a shipmate, at least on the old Ship called Edward Green (maybe @EddieGreen on the new ship). He went through a phase of creating multiple small spoof website of possible sects within Anglicanism a while back.

    Sorry!
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    That's part of what puzzles me. There's a difference between being famous, even being memorialised and being canonised as a saint. And apart from being executed, Laud isn't exactly (pun intended) laudable. I can't quite see why a prickly, tactless and somewhat authoritarian archbishop should be held up as a person to be emulated.

    Better ask these folks:
    http://www.affirming-laudianism.org.uk/
    As an aside, with regard to that website, it's reassuring to see that sneering contempt can be found in all parts of the theological spectrum.

    Uhmm! I recognise that site, it is by a shipmate, at least on the old Ship called Edward Green (maybe @EddieGreen on the new ship). He went through a phase of creating multiple small spoof website of possible sects within Anglicanism a while back.

    Sorry!

    Oh, I knew it was a spoof. If the satire was equal-opportunity then all the better.
  • Only the most cynical would smile at statements such as this: "That vitality in Church life can co-exist with decadence and hypocrisy"
  • In my poking about for things Caroline, I ran across this curiosity: a small parish church in east Texas (of all places!) dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Are there any other churches anywhere dedicated to him?

    Dunno. But I would guess that Laud Humprheys, an Episcopalian priest from Oklahoma who wrote a sociological study based on observing oral sex in public washrooms, was named after him.

  • :flushed:

    Which emoji seems appropriate, IYSWIM.
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    I am neither a prude nor a voyeur, but I would have thought - hoped even - that opportunities to further the aforementioned study were reasonably few and far between. Certainly I can say that I have not ever willingly or unwillingly observed this human behaviour in public.
  • stetson wrote: »
    In my poking about for things Caroline, I ran across this curiosity: a small parish church in east Texas (of all places!) dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Are there any other churches anywhere dedicated to him?

    Dunno. But I would guess that Laud Humprheys, an Episcopalian priest from Oklahoma who wrote a sociological study based on observing oral sex in public washrooms, was named after him.

    The mind boggles as to what his archdeacon might have said to him in his evaluation discussion.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    I am neither a prude nor a voyeur, but I would have thought - hoped even - that opportunities to further the aforementioned study were reasonably few and far between. Certainly I can say that I have not ever willingly or unwillingly observed this human behaviour in public.

    So as not to defile the blessed memory of Charles King And Martyr with such low discourse, I am going to start another thread in order to answer your observations.

  • One of the joys of the internet is finding the wikipedia article on Saint Laud (a 6th century Bishop of Coutances, more familiarly known as Saint Lô in the local argot.
  • I happened upon this by chance today: part of the Lenten array at the church of Our Lady Saint Mary at South Creake in Suffolk, is a veil for the shrine there for King Charles I, with carefully embroidered depiction of the block and axe that are the symbols of his 'martyrdom'.
    https://flickr.com/photos/vitrearum/32382667154/in/album-72157679098840331/
  • To cgichard:

    Thank you for the mention of the beautiful church of Our Lady Saint Mary at South Creake.

    I am sorry that I could not open your link, but I was delighted to find this among its treasures: an image which would - I have little doubt - go far towards inducing an apoplexy in any puritan heart.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    Laudable wrote: »
    To cgichard:

    Thank you for the mention of the beautiful church of Our Lady Saint Mary at South Creake.

    I am sorry that I could not open your link, but I was delighted to find this among its treasures: an image which would - I have little doubt - go far towards inducing an apoplexy in any puritan heart.

    I don't know how to use the system properly, but this site: https://www.southcreake.org/ got me there in a couple of seconds. It looks a church where Madame and I would be very happy - apart from the reference to Charles I. As far as we are concerned, he was King, but neither a Saint (except in the general sense) or a Martyr.
  • cgichardcgichard Shipmate
    edited February 2020
    @Laudable The link - which doesn't work for me either now - was picked up from https://medievalart.co.uk/2017/03/03/south-creake-lent-array. But you'll need to scroll to near the end to find the cover for the statue of Charles I, which must be the one you found.
  • To cgichard:

    Thank you for the link.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Although it doesn’t show, the link had an extra ‘http://’ in it and was missing the colon after ‘https’. This should work: https://www.flickr.com/photos/vitrearum/32382667154/in/album-72157679098840331/
  • An afterthought occurs to me. The block depicted on the Lenten veil is not historically correct.

    The King’s captors - utterly mistaking the character of their victim - supplied only a low quartering block, which, aided by staples driven into the floor of the scaffold, would make it easier to tie him down if he should resist.
  • Good grief - how on earth do you know? Were you there, by any chance?
    :wink:

    BTW, South Creake isn't far from Walsingham, and there are several rural Anglo-Catholic parishes in that area. Not sure, though, how many of them might commemorate His late Majesty as saint and martyr...but Walsingham itself (well, the Anglican Shrine Church, at any rate) is so full of tat that there may well be a little image of KCM somewhere...
Sign In or Register to comment.