Saint Charles King and Martyr

Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick 8th Day Host, Admin Emeritus
Today is his feast day -- did anyone do anything? Is there still a mass at the Banqueting House (the SCKM site is woefully out of date)? I was curious if any of the churches dedicated to him keep it as their patronal. It appears Tunbridge Wells is doing nothing, keeping Sunday as Candlemas, although there is a 'King Charles Lecture' on Saturday (concerning the English harpsichord!). Falmouth, Shelland and Peak Forest yielded no discernible info online.

(it is probably a futile plea to ask Puritan sympathisers to avoid derailing this thread on the relative merits of St Charles).
«134

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Well, he showed up on St Sanity's monthly list but we aren't doing anything. AFAIK, there is no church here under his patronage. Bearing in mind your last sentence, shan't say any more.
  • LaudableLaudable Shipmate
    The parish of St Paul’s Naracourte, South Australia, ministers to the church of St Andrew at Lucindale, and the church of Charles King and Martyr at Padthaway.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thank you Laudable. We are toying with the idea of a trip to Adelaide in cooler weather, so could take a run out to Padthaway, have a look around and perhaps buy a few bottles while we're there (just as a memento of course).
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    Definitely, not a puritan sympathizer, but no fan of Charles I either, so nothing here - except end of year reports and I am getting sick of those!
  • Perhaps there is a element of 'keeping it low key' this year given what is happening today: I think that there is some overlap between those people who have been 'celebrating' the anniversary on social media, and those who will be waving union flags for all they're worth tonight, and the churches don't really want to encourage them.

    I doubt Peak Forest would do anything anyway: it's a tiny place and definitely a 'Sunday only' church.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    Perhaps there is a element of 'keeping it low key' this year given what is happening today: I think that there is some overlap between those people who have been 'celebrating' the anniversary on social media, and those who will be waving union flags for all they're worth tonight, and the churches don't really want to encourage them.

    Odd, really, given that the Commonwealth was big on English exceptionalism and fear of dastardly foreigners Catholics being in control. In my mind I associate Charles, King and Martyr with Jacobite sympathies, but that may be a Scottish perspective as the Scottish BCP was produced at his command and he strongly favoured Episcopal polity in Scotland, and the Scottish Bishops later remained loyal to his descendants.
  • I was referring to the royalist tendencies of quite a few people of a Britain First bent. (I studied Charles I for History A Level). Unfortunately they're generally not very historically literate, so they see him as a King Wot Got Killed, rather than as a tyrannical stubborn old man who upset a lot of people, was rather dubious at following the law, and whose actions led to a bloody civil war. Much like the divisions of our current nation.
  • I doubt the Britain First crew darken the doors of a church from one year to the next, except possibly when drunk on Christmas Eve.
  • KCM was mentioned at our regular Thursday Mass yesterday, as a man of Christian faith, who (like all of us) made egregious mistakes.

    We prayed for HMQ, and for the country as a whole, bearing in mind what is happening today...

    I went to a Patronal Festival Evensong at KCM Tunbridge Wells many years ago - the theme of the Vicar's sermon was 'Forgiveness'. Make of that what you will!
  • Not at our place. Although the PinC would probably like to mark it, the laity won't turn out for anything much midweek (we even have problems getting them out for Ash Wednesday), plus I think there's a general feeling that although cutting off his head might have been extreme, he did precious little to deserve being kept on the throne.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Whatever there might have been at the Banqueting House, it's hardly appropriate to have a mass there. Although his wife was one, Charles I was never a Roman Catholic. Nobody would have dreamt of describing a Church of England Service of Holy Communion as a mass until well over two hundred years after his head and body parted company.

    The claim to martyrdom is really very, very doubtful. He was a very bad king, as is shown by what happened to the country during his reign and him at the end of it. He waged war on his own subjects. It was impossible to reach any sort of constitutional settlement with him because he believed that that his so called divine right, he was not bound by anything he said he agreed to.

    It's not a day I mark.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Whatever there might have been at the Banqueting House, it's hardly appropriate to have a mass there. Although his wife was one, Charles I was never a Roman Catholic. Nobody would have dreamt of describing a Church of England Service of Holy Communion as a mass until well over two hundred years after his head and body parted company.

    An Episcopalian one, on the other hand, was famously (and negatively) labelled Mass in an incident that allegedly triggered the National Covenant and subsequent Bishops' Wars.
  • Except that this 'Mass' was not a service of Holy Communion.The lady may (or may not) have said 'dinnae say Mass in ma lug' but it would have been a Morning Prayer service.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    Except that this 'Mass' was not a service of Holy Communion.The lady may (or may not) have said 'dinnae say Mass in ma lug' but it would have been a Morning Prayer service.

    I wondered about that myself. Do we know for certain what type of service it was? Wikipedia suggests that it was the reading of the collects that triggered the outburst, which would fall near the end of morning prayer but close to the beginning of the order for Holy Communion.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I've always assumed - I believe correctly - that Jenny Geddes regarded anything Piskie, whatever form it took, as tantamount to blatant Popery, that as far as she was concerned, there was no difference and she didn't mind who knew that she thought there was no difference.
  • Hookers_TrickHookers_Trick 8th Day Host, Admin Emeritus
    In my foray along the intertubes I happened across this rather marvelous window from Gillingham Parish church (purporting to be by Comper), rather wonderfully and gruesomely depitcting Charles with his head sewn back on.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    In my foray along the intertubes I happened across this rather marvelous window from Gillingham Parish church (purporting to be by Comper), rather wonderfully and gruesomely depitcting Charles with his head sewn back on.
    That's fairly weird. I'd almost have expected if there was going to be an image at all, it would show him carrying his head under one arm like a classic ghost!


  • We should remember that until 1689 the Reformed Church in Scotland was in fact Episcopalian in form ,although Presbyterian in practice. Bishops (and archbishops) were appointed by the king ,but in practice ignored by the local parishes. They drew the emoluments of the pre-Reformation bishops and they voted (for the king) in the Scottish Parliament. Most Presbyterians tended to see supporters of episcopacy as closet papists. By the 1630s in spite of a Presbyterian Book of Order there would be very little liturgical prayer. Holy Communion would only have been celebrated occasionally, but when celebrated it would be very important.
    I think that even Anglicans in England would not regularly have celebrated communion every week. It is extremely unlikely that the service which caused the riot in St Giles' would have been a communion service.
    But anything at all which suggested that the clergyman was reading from a book would have been considered as rank popery.
  • I wasn't sure how quickly the Kirk had backed away from the recommendation of Knox and other reformers that communion be celebrated at least weekly, nor whether Laudian practice included frequent celebration.
  • Pendragon wrote: »
    I was referring to the royalist tendencies of quite a few people of a Britain First bent. (I studied Charles I for History A Level). Unfortunately they're generally not very historically literate, so they see him as a King Wot Got Killed, rather than as a tyrannical stubborn old man who upset a lot of people, was rather dubious at following the law, and whose actions led to a bloody civil war. Much like the divisions of our current nation.

    One thing that can be said for Charles I is he united Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptist and more radical groups together over a single opinion. I think this is the only time that English Dissent unanimously agreed on anything. Unfortunately for him it was that Charles I was a bad thing.
  • Choir DroneChoir Drone Shipmate Posts: 13
    Tomorrow, the TEC Bishop of Springfield (Illinois) will preside over a Mass in honor of Charles I at the Cathedral in Springfield, Illinois, sponsored by the Society of King Charles the Martyr (American Region). A visiting choir will sing a setting by Richard Shephard.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Tomorrow, the TEC Bishop of Springfield (Illinois) will preside over a Mass in honor of Charles I at the Cathedral in Springfield, Illinois, sponsored by the Society of King Charles the Martyr (American Region). A visiting choir will sing a setting by Richard Shephard.
    That's also, if you don't mind my saying, fairly weird. This is a bishop of the 'core' episcopal church in the USA, the one that comes to Lambeth, not one of its break away spin offs. 250 years ago, the USA unilaterally declared its independence from the countries (plural is correct at that date) of which Charles I had once been king. To achieve that independence it fought a fairly violent war which lasted several years and in which a lot of people on both sides died. Ever since, that has been a major part of its foundation myth.

    I don't know enough about US law to know whether that's actually treasonous, but it is pretty odd. After all, I assume that Sunday by Sunday the TEC prays for Donald Trump and not Elizabeth II.

    Or is there something about this that I'm missing?
  • Enoch wrote: »
    250 years ago, the USA unilaterally declared its independence from the countries (plural is correct at that date) of which Charles I had once been king. To achieve that independence it fought a fairly violent war which lasted several years and in which a lot of people on both sides died. Ever since, that has been a major part of its foundation myth.

    I don't know enough about US law to know whether that's actually treasonous, but it is pretty odd. After all, I assume that Sunday by Sunday the TEC prays for Donald Trump and not Elizabeth II.

    Or is there something about this that I'm missing?

    Why would you think this treasonous? You seem to be arguing that members of the C of E (which over a long period fought a rather bloody war against Roman Catholicism) shouldn't venerate St Peter, St Gregory the Great, or St Clement, because they were Bishops of Rome.

    I think it's odd, but that's because I think the whole cult of King Charles is odd. I don't think there's anything exceptionally odd about an American doing it.
  • To the Tower with you! Treason! Treason!
    :wink:

    Mind you, I'm not sure we'd like Cromwell back, even though he did abolish that Christmas flummery...
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I wasn't sure how quickly the Kirk had backed away from the recommendation of Knox and other reformers that communion be celebrated at least weekly, nor whether Laudian practice included frequent celebration.

    Knox may have recommended it, but that was as far as it got. The Form of Prayers that he drew up in Geneva in 1556 says monthly. I seem to recall seeing somewhere that the frequency of celebration in towns in Scotland was monthly, but quarterly in more rural locales. CofE habits were different in that cathedral celebrated fairly frequently - weekly or fortnightly, but parish churches monthly at the most, more often six or four times a year.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Tomorrow, the TEC Bishop of Springfield (Illinois) will preside over a Mass in honor of Charles I at the Cathedral in Springfield, Illinois, sponsored by the Society of King Charles the Martyr (American Region). A visiting choir will sing a setting by Richard Shephard.
    That's also, if you don't mind my saying, fairly weird. This is a bishop of the 'core' episcopal church in the USA, the one that comes to Lambeth, not one of its break away spin offs. 250 years ago, the USA unilaterally declared its independence from the countries (plural is correct at that date) of which Charles I had once been king. To achieve that independence it fought a fairly violent war which lasted several years and in which a lot of people on both sides died. Ever since, that has been a major part of its foundation myth.

    I don't know enough about US law to know whether that's actually treasonous, but it is pretty odd. After all, I assume that Sunday by Sunday the TEC prays for Donald Trump and not Elizabeth II.

    Or is there something about this that I'm missing?

    Church services would not be covered by US law AFAIK. The only problem would be for those who had taken the oath to the US Constitution (legislators, office holders, military) whose presence at such an event would be ....untidy, even though Charles had nothing to do with the seceding colonies' actions.
  • It was not viva Cromwell yet. It was a parliamentary democracy. The Cromwell dictatorship was to come later when Parliament had done some pretty horrific things.
  • AmosAmos Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »
    I was referring to the royalist tendencies of quite a few people of a Britain First bent. (I studied Charles I for History A Level). Unfortunately they're generally not very historically literate, so they see him as a King Wot Got Killed, rather than as a tyrannical stubborn old man who upset a lot of people, was rather dubious at following the law, and whose actions led to a bloody civil war. Much like the divisions of our current nation.

    I wouldn't call 49 an old man. Stubborn he certainly was.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It was not viva Cromwell yet. It was a parliamentary democracy. The Cromwell dictatorship was to come later when Parliament had done some pretty horrific things.

    A parliamentary democracy?! By what democratic process were the MPs elected? No, it was a military-backed revolutionary government that later gave way to a junta. Even if you were to accept the dubious proposition that parliament had some popular legitimacy then surely it must have lost much of that when it was purged by the army to ensure Charles could be tried and executed by the Rump Parliament many years later.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It was not viva Cromwell yet. It was a parliamentary democracy. The Cromwell dictatorship was to come later when Parliament had done some pretty horrific things.

    A parliamentary democracy?! By what democratic process were the MPs elected? No, it was a military-backed revolutionary government that later gave way to a junta. Even if you were to accept the dubious proposition that parliament had some popular legitimacy then surely it must have lost much of that when it was purged by the army to ensure Charles could be tried and executed by the Rump Parliament many years later.

    However flawed, Parliament, by this time just the House of Commons, always had more legitimacy than a hereditary tyrant convinced that he had a God-given right to rule us.

  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    It was not viva Cromwell yet. It was a parliamentary democracy. The Cromwell dictatorship was to come later when Parliament had done some pretty horrific things.

    A parliamentary democracy?! By what democratic process were the MPs elected? No, it was a military-backed revolutionary government that later gave way to a junta. Even if you were to accept the dubious proposition that parliament had some popular legitimacy then surely it must have lost much of that when it was purged by the army to ensure Charles could be tried and executed by the Rump Parliament many years later.

    However flawed, Parliament, by this time just the House of Commons, always had more legitimacy than a hereditary tyrant convinced that he had a God-given right to rule us.

    I'm not convinced that Charles was any more tyrannical than the government of the Commonwealth, nor that they had any more legitimacy after the purge.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I have always had a bit of a suspicion that they jumped out of the frying pan into the fire when they got rid of Charles. I am no fan of Charles I, but my antipathy to Cromwell is greater. The English Civil War, the Regicide, and the Purge created a vacuum which the remaining Parliamentary leadership was unable to fill. England finally got the revolution it should have had in 1642-45 in 1688-90, when the Dutch Stadtholder came across, Dismal Jimmy got the boot, and what proved to be the decisive move towards Constitutional Monarchy was made. The seventeenth century was very messy in terms constitutional history.
  • ISTM there wasn't much to choose between Charles and Cromwell, when it came to being authoritarian...

    Or, perhaps, as Sellar & Yeatman put it in 1066 and all that , the Cavaliers were Wrong, but Wromantic, whilst the Roundheads were Right, but Repulsive (I think that's the right way round!).
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Tomorrow, the TEC Bishop of Springfield (Illinois) will preside over a Mass in honor of Charles I at the Cathedral in Springfield, Illinois, sponsored by the Society of King Charles the Martyr (American Region). A visiting choir will sing a setting by Richard Shephard.
    That's also, if you don't mind my saying, fairly weird. This is a bishop of the 'core' episcopal church in the USA, the one that comes to Lambeth, not one of its break away spin offs. 250 years ago, the USA unilaterally declared its independence from the countries (plural is correct at that date) of which Charles I had once been king. To achieve that independence it fought a fairly violent war which lasted several years and in which a lot of people on both sides died. Ever since, that has been a major part of its foundation myth.

    I don't know enough about US law to know whether that's actually treasonous, but it is pretty odd. After all, I assume that Sunday by Sunday the TEC prays for Donald Trump and not Elizabeth II.

    Or is there something about this that I'm missing?

    Church services would not be covered by US law AFAIK. The only problem would be for those who had taken the oath to the US Constitution (legislators, office holders, military) whose presence at such an event would be ....untidy, even though Charles had nothing to do with the seceding colonies' actions.
    This all sounds a little bizarre to me. As @Leorning Cniht says, there’s nothing problematic about it, in a legal or treasonous sense, at all, even for those who’ve taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Charles is being honored as a saint and martyr, just like lots of other saints and martyrs. As Leorning Cniht asked, how is it any different from Anglican churches, which rejected the jurisdiction of Rome, honoring various popes as saints? Or any other instances where the leaders of one country have been recognized (by whatever process) as saints and are honored in other countries? I just don’t get why it could be seen as problematic for American churches to honor Charles I as a saint.

    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.
  • More's the pity, perhaps, given your current Head of State.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    ISTM there wasn't much to choose between Charles and Cromwell, when it came to being authoritarian...

    Or, perhaps, as Sellar & Yeatman put it in 1066 and all that , the Cavaliers were Wrong, but Wromantic, whilst the Roundheads were Right, but Repulsive (I think that's the right way round!).

    Spot on.

    Enoch, how can attending a service for a long dead person being remembered for supposed sanctity and martyrdom be treason? It involves no pledge of allegiance to him.
  • No, but the Thought Police might see it as possibly leading to treason...
  • @Nick Tamen I used the term untidy on purpose, as I saw no legal problem at all. The difficulty would be philosophical for those who have sworn to uphold a republican constitution to honour a king whose principles were antithetical to those of the founders of that republic. Not that ambiguity is a bad thing and, given the current situation in the US, it would hardly match the untidiness in operation.
  • @Nick Tamen I used the term untidy on purpose, as I saw no legal problem at all. The difficulty would be philosophical for those who have sworn to uphold a republican constitution to honour a king whose principles were antithetical to those of the founders of that republic.
    Fair enough, though I was responding both to you and to @Enoch, who raised the idea of treason. Even then I have trouble finding it philosophically untidy, at least to the point of commenting on. Saints are honored all the time whose views on various things would be inconsistent with our own—there are lots of saints whose views on government would be antithetical to republican views, but they are honored anyway.

    Personally, I think the whole cult of Charles, I, King and Martyr, is strange and a bit skewed in perspective to start with (though again, that’s not necessarily too unusual). But once one gets past the point of viewing him as a saint, I don’t see any particular problem with Americans venerating him as such.

    Not that ambiguity is a bad thing and, given the current situation in the US, it would hardly match the untidiness in operation.
    I’m afraid you’re right about that.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 2
    @Nick Tamen said 'Personally, I think the whole cult of Charles, I, King and Martyr, is strange...'

    That's putting it quite mildly, and politely, I think.

    Their website is worth a look, though, and there does appear to have indeed been a service in Whitehall on 30th January:
    skcm.org/feast-of-s-charles/
  • His cult did of course start quite soon after his death, as the Royalists looked forward to the Restoration, considered him a martyr to the cause, and created a whole industry around eulogising him, most famously with Eikon Basilike. He's a prime example of selective memory, and shaping a historical figure in one's own image.

    It's also not surprising that his cult got taken up by a certain strain of High Church Anglicans, given his religious attitudes. Unfortunately I can't find the service sheet from last week to see if we observed him, but St Quack's does mostly follow the RC calendar, so I suspect not.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    I believe there is a church dedicated to him in Tunbridge Wells.
  • PDRPDR Shipmate
    I believe there are a handful, the one in Tunbridge Wells being the best known.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    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)?
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 3
    There are, I think, four in the UK, at Tunbridge Wells, Falmouth, Potters Bar, and Newtown, the latter being near Shrewsbury.

    The one at Tunbridge Wells, which I have attended occasionally, dates from the Restoration period (1676 IIRC), so is very much of its time. It was much altered in the 19thC, but is an attractive building, and well worth a visit. MOTR services, and excellent music!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited February 3
    (the SCKM site)

    That would have to be one of the more unfortunate political acronyms, right up there with CREEP.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »
    I was referring to the royalist tendencies of quite a few people of a Britain First bent. (I studied Charles I for History A Level). Unfortunately they're generally not very historically literate, so they see him as a King Wot Got Killed, rather than as a tyrannical stubborn old man who upset a lot of people, was rather dubious at following the law, and whose actions led to a bloody civil war. Much like the divisions of our current nation.

    I saw an opinion piece in(I think) the London Review Of Books a while back, chastising some Brexiteers for praising Henry VIII, especially focusing on Rees-Mogg and how Henry was supposedly xenophobic toward Catholics so how could a Catholic like JRM support someone like that.

    It struck me that to think Henry VIII was an overall bad ruler is, in a way, to wish that the UK as we know it today didn't exist. I mean, I realize that all leaders leave some mark on how their country shapes up, but Henry's input was arguably a little more pivotal than most, in terms of establishing a core identity.

    I'd personally be anti-Brexit if I were British, but I wondered if the writer of that article really considered the implications of what he was saying.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    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.

  • 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.

Sign In or Register to comment.