Thread: Charles I (Feast of Martyrdom) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025032
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
I suppose this is a particularly Anglican focussed question, but everyone will have an opinion I imagine.
I was wondering how many, if anyone, was keeping the Feast of Charles' Martyrdom tomorrow (to gauge just how far flung the devotion is) and how they are keeping it.
I was also wondering if people had opinions on whether it should be properly reinstated to the Anglican Calender (ie. put back into the BCP) and their opinions on the efforts of some to push this devotion further.
For some info:
The wiki page that mentions about it
and
the Society of KCM website
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Can we have a feast day for Oliver Cromwell?
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Your link to the Society of King Charles the Martyr partly answers your own question; it advertises the commemoration at Whitehall tomorrow - Mass at midday preceded by the short service outside.
I am not a member of the Society of Charles K & M, but I normally attend this commemoration, but unfortunately, another engagement intervenes this year. But yes, it does attract a viable attendance and the Banqueting Hall is quite full.
There is an Anglican church dedicated to Charles K & M in Barnett, north London and I think in the Tunbridge Wells area.
Off the top of my head, I don't know whether this feast is in BCP or not; I will have to look this up.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Your link to the Society of King Charles the Martyr partly answers...
...
Off the top of my head, I don't know whether this feast is in BCP or not; I will have to look this up.
I should have been clearer...
I was wondering if anybody excluding the SKCM and patronals was keeping the feast tomorrow.
I know that the feast is commemorated by the society, I do try and attend when I can, but alas this year I can't - I was wondering if it was kept by others out there, and where they are...
As for the BCP it was removed in the 1850's (I have several copies of the BCP with it still in from the c.18th and early c.19th but it was removed in the 1850's at the behest of Parliament. It was reinstated in the CW calender but the BCP calender is the definitive Anglican Calender (IMO) and so omission there is the reason I ask...
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
I shall be commemorating the day by praying for the soul of the murderous King. That's why it's in the calendar, isn't it? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Thurible
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
/slight tangent alert/
Mention of the Lord Protector reminds me of a lovely little story by M. R. James ( The Uncommon Prayer Book), the theme of which is the...ah..... commemoration of said Lord Protector.
Ian J.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
A plague on both their houses say I.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by ecclesiastical:
quote:
Off the top of my head....
I know it's childish, but I did give a little smirk.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I suppose we can all be redeemed but i fail to see why we should commemorate such a nasty piece of work.
According to Simon Hill, quote:
Charles was one of the most vicious and oppressive rulers that Britain has ever known. Convinced that God had given him the right to rule, he tried to exercise power without Parliament. He levied heavy taxes that hurt the poor and people in the middle rather than the rich. He used many of these taxes to fund very avoidable wars. Eventually, of course, he waged war against his own people.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I'm with both Leo and Karl. I observe the days for Laud and Baxter, but never Charles or Cromwell. I would perhaps favour Cromwell a little more if he hadn't destroyed the Lady Chapel at my nearest cathedral (Peterborough) - hmph!
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by ecclesiastical:
quote:
Off the top of my head....
I know it's childish, but I did give a little smirk.
The pun was unintentional.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Yes, I'm troubled by this one too. Having your head chopped off in public is a horrible way to go, but I can't really see Charles I as a saintly martyr.
I wouldn't go as far as Simon Hill (see extract Leo quoted above). Simon Hill is quite simply wrong to put him in the same league as Stalin or Nero. But he was a bad king, small minded, weak when he should have been firm and pig-headed when he should have been flexible. He also exasperated his opponents because he couldn't be trusted, and did not regard himself as bound by his own word. It was that which ultimately did for him. Cometh the hour, cometh the man who sadly wasn't up to it. So I won't be keeping this as a minor saint's day either.
Mind, I also can't relate to the fondness many shipmates have for the memory of Archbishop Laud. It's curious that many of his greatest fans don't seem to be in the same country as he was. True, his king dumped him to save his own skin - fat lot of good it did him in the long run. But Laud was a fussy, pernickety and interfering little man (I suppose these days, that's sizist).
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
Evidently, in answer to my two enquiries, the consensus so far is:
little and none.
I do find it strange that people will commemorate ++Laud but not King Charles, the two seem to go hand-in-hand, and why anyone, let alone Anglicans, would commemorate that incarnation of the anti-Christ Oliver Cromwell (the butcher of Drogheda, megalomaniac religious fanatic, military dictator, etc. etc.) I'm not entirely sure.
Sorry personal bias came in there fora second...
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
It's a very Tory sort of 'feast', isn't it? And not in any sort of good way.
Thurible
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
They had a do over at All Saints, Ashmont in this here Commonwealth, but unfortunately I couldn't make it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
They had a do over at All Saints, Ashmont in this here Commonwealth, but unfortunately I couldn't make it.
That's weird. Isn't it a form of treason? Do they also celebrate the birthdays of either George III or our present Queen?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
He's in the TEC Calendar too, isn't he?
Bonkers.
Thurible
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Charles I is not in the TEC BCP. I've no idea if he made it into Holy Women Holy Men.
Charles' canonisation was obviously a political statement upon the Restoration, not so very different to digging up Cromwell and dishonouring his remains. Charles was a horrible ruler, and Laud - though I sympathise with his liturgical programme - was vicious in his treatment of dissenters and really would seem to have been as bad a public figure as Charles was, to the more limited extent that Laud's range of temporal authority allowed. Both men may have been religious, faithful and privately virtuous, and Charles certainly met his death with evident courage and honour. However, this doesn't make either man a suitable focus of veneration.
It's even more absurd for American Anglicans to venerate Charles and Laud. St Clement's Philadelphia has a shrine to the King and keeps his feast day. Grace and St Peter's Baltimore do likewise (both awful little shrine and commemoration). In the Diocese of Dallas (may now be in the Diocese of Fort Worth) there used to be a St William Laud church out in some small town community -- so they canonised the archbishop the old fashioned way: by popular tradition.
The Church of King Charles the Martyr in Tunbridge Wells is right in the centre of town and dates from the town's fashionable spa days. It isn't an especially impressive structure -- a rather ho-hum Georgian affair.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
They had a do over at All Saints, Ashmont in this here Commonwealth, but unfortunately I couldn't make it.
That's weird. Isn't it a form of treason? Do they also celebrate the birthdays of either George III or our present Queen?
Farmer George is a sadly under-appreciated figure, I'm afraid. However, HMQ is adored by most Americans, who would no doubt be happy for her long to reign over them if we could figure out a way of integrating the monarchy into a system where we already have an elected head of state. And yes, some special occasions like the diamond jubilee of accession did get formally observed in one way or another in various TEC places.
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to Simon Hill, quote:
Charles was one of the most vicious and oppressive rulers that Britain has ever known. Convinced that God had given him the right to rule, he tried to exercise power without Parliament. He levied heavy taxes that hurt the poor and people in the middle rather than the rich. He used many of these taxes to fund very avoidable wars. Eventually, of course, he waged war against his own people.
I can see no evidence from Symon Hill's home page that he has any particular historical understanding, and lot of evidence from this quotation that he hasn't, so I don't intend to rely on his opinions.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
One parliamentarian and admirer of Cromwell who admired Charles' demeanour in his death was Andrew Marvell.
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173949
What I couldn't stomach in Daily Prayer was the collect and canticle refrains for the Monarch on Accession Day on 6 February.
I keep St Vedast or St Paul Miki and companions.
I've never understood why the Stuarts are considered as so dreadful for the doctrine of the divine right of kings, when Henry VIII and Elizabeth clearly acted as thought they believed it.
If only Tories were still defined by support of the Church of England and the monarchy, rather than by selling off the welfare state.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Ah! Time goes by so quickly. Another year, another discussion on the Feast of Charles' Martyrdom.
Let both he and Cromwell moulder in their graves, say I. They were both a couple of high stakes politicians playing with the future of their country.
So the future came, and it is what it is. Pax.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
I could use a modern metaphor here. If a hockey player* impresses the community of fans sufficiently, they retire his sweater (jersey) and display it in the arena. What pray tell did Charles I do that merits his sweater being retired? Cromwell as well if you want to include him. Not seeing it myself for either of them.
* NHL, what the uninitiated call "ice hockey", and the only sport that really matters to Canadians.
Posted by Metapelagius (# 9453) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Can we have a feast day for Oliver Cromwell?
Certainly not!! The only time that I have ever had an iconoclastic urge was when confronted with a stained glass window depicting the regicide. I don't suppose his followers - men like William Dowsing - would have thought much of it, either.
Now, had you suggested a commemoration of the blessed John Knox, that would have been a different matter
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Can we have a feast day for Oliver Cromwell?
Why? He dismantled the Church of England, suppressed the Prayer Book, and raped Ireland.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
So - both Cromwell and Charles were imperfect - all saints were.
I am coming round to the idea that we should commemorate both of them so as to reflect upon our own shortcomings and how God redeems them.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So - both Cromwell and Charles were imperfect - all saints were.
I am coming round to the idea that we should commemorate both of them so as to reflect upon our own shortcomings and how God redeems them.
Understood, leo, but to suggest that the C of E commemorate Cromwell is a bit like suggesting the Catholic Church commemorate John Knox. If Charles I is to be omitted for his faults, or for doubts that he was a saint, then so be it. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me to put someone on the calendar who was violently opposed to your church's polity, worship, and theology.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
They had a do over at All Saints, Ashmont in this here Commonwealth, but unfortunately I couldn't make it.
That's weird. Isn't it a form of treason? Do they also celebrate the birthdays of either George III or our present Queen?
Farmer George is a sadly under-appreciated figure, I'm afraid. However, HMQ is adored by most Americans, who would no doubt be happy for her long to reign over them if we could figure out a way of integrating the monarchy into a system where we already have an elected head of state. And yes, some special occasions like the diamond jubilee of accession did get formally observed in one way or another in various TEC places.
I'm sure you don't mean the statement I italicized literally, but for the benefit of non-American readers of the thread: note that nobody in the United States has any interest in a monarchy, and most Americans would be very unhappy to have one!
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So - both Cromwell and Charles were imperfect - all saints were.
I am coming round to the idea that we should commemorate both of them so as to reflect upon our own shortcomings and how God redeems them.
Understood, leo, but to suggest that the C of E commemorate Cromwell is a bit like suggesting the Catholic Church commemorate John Knox. If Charles I is to be omitted for his faults, or for doubts that he was a saint, then so be it. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me to put someone on the calendar who was violently opposed to your church's polity, worship, and theology.
Your second point seems best. Charles I should be omitted for his faults: while martyrdom is one of the classic characteristics of sainthood, "dying for one's beliefs" and "dying at the end of a war in which one killed lots of other people in a mutual disagreement about beliefs" are two rather different things. Charles and Oliver both had Christian blood on their hands. While I don't doubt that we'll all see the two of them sharing a pint in heaven eventually, I can't see sainting either in this world, myself.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Actually Cromwell was interesting on polity, really not interested in prescribing it at all. When he decided he had to make the decision, it was basically the polity should be as the area wanted. The problem with the Anglicans was not their polity but that they wanted everyone else to use that as well.
Jengie
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
.....why anyone, let alone Anglicans, would commemorate that incarnation of the anti-Christ Oliver Cromwell (the butcher of Drogheda, megalomaniac religious fanatic, military dictator, etc. etc.) I'm not entirely sure.
Sorry personal bias came in there fora second...
Drogheda was hardly exceptional in the military annals of the time. It's arguable whether Cromwell ordered it or was responsible.
Read the man's letters: this was no Puritan but an independant with a surprising toleration (except for idiots with pretensions on thrones). Military dictator? A man who promoted on merit and fought with great strategic wisdom and insight. The Civil War and the Commonwealth were a period where many churches were planted (Independant or baptist or congregational) - perhaps more than at any time in english history except the victorian era.
If it comes down to prejudice at least he's better than that effete, catholic loving, non entity, lying toerag, Charles Stuart.
King Oliver is a fellow graduate of a certain cambridge college; his step mother lived in the same village I was born in and my ancesters fought in his new model army. Don't diss my mate Ollie!
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yes, I'm troubled by this one too. Having your head chopped off in public is a horrible way to go, but I can't really see Charles I as a saintly martyr.
That really depends on what you mean by a martyr. It doesn't mean a perfect person, they way we often use the word 'saint' in daily life. The reason he is considered a martyr, AFAIK, is that he could have lived but was killed partly because he refused to give up his beliefs concerning the episcopacy.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
[QUOTE] The reason he is considered a martyr, AFAIK, is that he could have lived but was killed partly because he refused to give up his beliefs concerning the episcopacy.
If that's the reason then it's rather ill conceived. The episcopacy didn't really bother him - he'd dump anyone and anything so long as Charles Stuart was top dog. His wasn't and isn't a very attractive character.
Perhaps a martyr to the cause of bluster and bringing the French into fight in England? (What a narrow escape, we'd never have got them out again).
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
There is a certain logic to American Anglicans honouring Laud, given the link between "Laud's Book" and the American Episcopal BCP.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
That doesn't really alter that fact that, faced with the axe, he refused to give up his beliefs.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
We forget that prior to the Enlightenment, the notion that the State would dictate its religious beliefs to its citizens were largely accepted. There were a few dissenters who began to argue for religious freedom, but during the 16th and early 17th century, it was taken for granted that the ruler could dictate religious issues.
Cromwell was of course no different than Charles in that regard. Under the Commonwealth regime, the Book of Common Prayer was criminalized and Anglican worship went underground.
Charles was personally very devout and one could see him as an example of how a person in authority can struggle with being a faithful Christian. Now one can view him that way without endorsing his particular actions. We can say that at the very least, imposing your own religious beliefs on your people leads to disastrous consequences.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
At Ascension, Chicago, tomorrow we'll observe Charles Stuart, King of England and Scotland, and Martyr, 1649, as a lesser feast at 7 a.m. and 6:20 p.m. Low Masses, with collect and lessons of the feast from our parish supplementary lectionary. At Evening Prayer at 6 p.m., I'll supply an antiphon on Magnificat and a collect (not matching the one used at Mass) from the Monastic Diurnal.
[ 29. January 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Oblatus ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
That doesn't really alter that fact that, faced with the axe, he refused to give up his beliefs.
Face by the ax he continued to believe in the divine right of Kings. Rather akin to believing in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Golly, everyone taking sides so vigorously in a war 360 years gone. Almost as bad a going out of one's way to express ethical superiority to both sides. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
I know this is a hide into nothing, but can we keep this discussion civil this year?
(That isn't meant to be a pun by the way...)
Much obliged,
dj_ordinaire, Eccles host
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Golly, everyone taking sides so vigorously in a war 360 years gone. Almost as bad a going out of one's way to express ethical superiority to both sides.
360 years is nothing. Where I used to live, they're still arguing over who sent the most ships to fight the spanish armada
Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So - both Cromwell and Charles were imperfect - all saints were.
I am coming round to the idea that we should commemorate both of them so as to reflect upon our own shortcomings and how God redeems them.
It's the only way I can get by when St Wilfrid's feast comes around. I just think that if he can be a saint, there may well be some hope for me yet, which, I suppose, is rather the point.
Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:
That doesn't really alter that fact that, faced with the axe, he refused to give up his beliefs.
Face by the ax he continued to believe in the divine right of Kings. Rather akin to believing in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy.
I have absolutely no idea how this response was in any way relevant to my point about his belief in the episcopacy. It is perfectly possible to hold a high view of the episcopacy on the one hand and, om the other hand, not believe in the divine right of kings. I doubt that most Anglo-Catholics in the US believe in the believe in the divine right of kings. But I would be surprised if they didn’t hold a high view of the episcopacy.
And I find it historically arrogant to put the idea of the divine right of kings — an idea based, perhaps wrongly, on ideas from Scripture itself — on the same level as belief in the Easter Bunny or the tooth fairy.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
At Ascension, Chicago, tomorrow we'll observe Charles Stuart, King of England and Scotland, and Martyr, 1649, as a lesser feast at 7 a.m. and 6:20 p.m. Low Masses, with collect and lessons of the feast from our parish supplementary lectionary. At Evening Prayer at 6 p.m., I'll supply an antiphon on Magnificat and a collect (not matching the one used at Mass) from the Monastic Diurnal.
In that case, I hope you will also be observing the 6th of February in the form prescribed by warrant of the 26th July 1958?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
It's the only way I can get by when St Wilfrid's feast comes around. I just think that if he can be a saint, there may well be some hope for me yet, which, I suppose, is rather the point.
Thank you for that Scrumpmeister. That's a very encouraging thought about a saint to whose saintliness I also find it difficult to relate.
Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I'm sure you don't mean the statement I italicized literally, but for the benefit of non-American readers of the thread: note that nobody in the United States has any interest in a monarchy, and most Americans would be very unhappy to have one!
Well I am an American who would dearly love to have a monarchy, and shall duly celebrate Blessed Charles' martyrdom tomorrow. It will probably be a lonely celebration, I admit, but still. Even in a secular college in republican America, I shall do my part to keep the cult alive. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
St John Chrysostom whose feast was transferred today is well known to have been a vicious anti-Semite. If being an ass is reason to be taken off the Saints' list, then our lists will be severely trimmed, not just for Charles Stuart.
[ 29. January 2013, 23:17: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
Its not really clear to me that Charles died for the sake of his religious beliefs. He certainly died for political reasons and even if he had renounced episcopacy, he'd still have been dead on a scaffold in WHitehall. You can argue that there was a blend of religion and politics, but really he was killed because he was a very bad (and a very unlucky) king, not because he believed in bishops and all the rest.
John
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
NHL, what the uninitiated call "ice hockey"...
Around these parts we call it Ice Boxing.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
According to Simon Hill, quote:
Charles was one of the most vicious and oppressive rulers that Britain has ever known. Convinced that God had given him the right to rule, he tried to exercise power without Parliament. He levied heavy taxes that hurt the poor and people in the middle rather than the rich. He used many of these taxes to fund very avoidable wars. Eventually, of course, he waged war against his own people.
I can see no evidence from Symon Hill's home page that he has any particular historical understanding, and lot of evidence from this quotation that he hasn't, so I don't intend to rely on his opinions.
Clearly he got confused with St George W. Bush
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Symon Hill is hardly an authority on Charles I!
The Parish Church in Kidderminster is required to supply a priest to commemorate the Feast of Charles, King and Martyr with prayers and a sermon on the steps of the Town Hall every year on this day, at the time of his execution. Charles gave the town its Charter. I understand that the clergy (who take turns officiating) find it a particular challenge to preach something new every year. None, to my knowledge has ever refused to take the service.
There is also an annual commemoration (in June, I think) of Richard Baxter, with a service (usually with a guest preacher) within the parish church and also over at an obelisk which a rich 19th c. eccentric erected in the woods to the north of the town.
[ 30. January 2013, 06:34: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
.....why anyone, let alone Anglicans, would commemorate that incarnation of the anti-Christ Oliver Cromwell (the butcher of Drogheda, megalomaniac religious fanatic, military dictator, etc. etc.) I'm not entirely sure.
Sorry personal bias came in there fora second...
Drogheda was hardly exceptional in the military annals of the time. It's arguable whether Cromwell ordered it or was responsible.
Read the man's letters: this was no Puritan but an independant with a surprising toleration (except for idiots with pretensions on thrones). Military dictator? A man who promoted on merit and fought with great strategic wisdom and insight. The Civil War and the Commonwealth were a period where many churches were planted (Independant or baptist or congregational) - perhaps more than at any time in english history except the victorian era.
If it comes down to prejudice at least he's better than that effete, catholic loving, non entity, lying toerag, Charles Stuart.
King Oliver is a fellow graduate of a certain cambridge college; his step mother lived in the same village I was born in and my ancesters fought in his new model army. Don't diss my mate Ollie!
While I'm no fan of Charles I, 'effete' and 'catholic loving' as insults seem to break the 1st commandment (on the Ship) to me ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 30. January 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by american piskie (# 593) on
:
I see that Pusey House is offering a High Mass of the Martyr (BCP) this evening.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
O dear. Pusey House used to be sensible in my day - where I first heard Ken Leech preach.
In no way wishing to promote this bonkers devotion, I'd point out that the catholic Charles faithfully loved (and got into trouble for the relationship) was his wife.
Charles and George III are the only two heterosexual English kings I can think of who were faithful to their wives. Some people might think that effete.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
O dear. Pusey House used to be sensible in my day - where I first heard Ken Leech preach.
In no way wishing to promote this bonkers devotion, I'd point out that the catholic Charles faithfully loved (and got into trouble for the relationship) was his wife.
Charles and George III are the only two heterosexual English kings I can think of who were faithful to their wives. Some people might think that effete.
He wasn't a king but Prince Albert was ridiculed by Victoria's ministers for his faithfulness to her. It was certainly considered unmanly even in the 19th Century for a royal male to not have a mistress. Also it would appear that Henry VII was faithful to Elizabeth of York, since his only illegitimate child (that we know of) was born before they married (when he was a young man in exile in France which kind of explains it ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
To be honest Charles II was more effete in terms of personality - not that I consider effeminacy to be a negative trait - and obviously not faithful at all in terms of marriage! James II is probably the least effete of all the male Stuarts and he hardly had a happy home life. Not sure why effeminacy is seen as a mark of an unsuccessful monarch - nor indeed Catholic-loving, since most of our monarchs have been RC themselves. Certainly the oppression of Catholics by British monarchs and governments was a shameful episode in our history.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
While I'm no fan of Charles I, 'effete' and 'catholic loving' as insults seem to break the 1st commandment (on the Ship) to me
There has been snark on this thread from various quarters. That's why my hostly colleague, dj_ordinaire, has already made a host post directing civil discussion. Please refrain from junior hosting - it doesn't generally help and can make things worse. If you have concerns about behaviour on a thread then a PM to one of the hosts is the appropriate response.
seasick, Eccles host
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sorry seasick - thank you!
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I see the collect in Common Worship for Charles says:
"Charles prayed for those who persecuted him... grant us by your grace ... that we may love and bless our enemies."
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
...
Charles and George III are the only two heterosexual English kings I can think of who were faithful to their wives. ...
So who was George VI's mistress, then?
I'm reminded of that story about Queen Caroline, George II's wife, on her deathbed saying that he should marry again. No, says, GII through his sobs, I'll have mistresses. Good Lord, says the Queen, that shouldn't stop you!
Whatever the quality of that marriage- and I understand thaat GII certainly had mistresses during his marriage - I think that's rather a touching scene.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
...
Charles and George III are the only two heterosexual English kings I can think of who were faithful to their wives. ...
So who was George VI's mistress, then?
God forgive me. I should have added "before George V".
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
It seems I can change my initial conclusion to some and fairly wide, but still little appetite to see it restored to it's position as a red letter day at least in the UK branches of the Anglican Church.
My enquiry solved.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
It was never a red letter day, but a day of fasting, according to my George II BCP, that the guilt of Charles' death should not be visited on the country.
(The odd thing was it continued in the BCP under the Hannoverian monarchs, when those you would have kept the day most enthusiastically were precisely those who thought their claim to the the English and Scots thrones was illegitimate.)
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
It was never a red letter day, but a day of fasting, according to my George II BCP, that the guilt of Charles' death should not be visited on the country.
(The odd thing was it continued in the BCP under the Hannoverian monarchs, when those you would have kept the day most enthusiastically were precisely those who thought their claim to the the English and Scots thrones was illegitimate.)
Which is strange since my George III has it as a red-letter day (I think, I will have to double check when I get home later to be absolutely sure.) and since I used it this morning I know that my 1830's BCP has it in the same type as the other red letters (although none are in red by choice of the publisher I guess, so the distinguishment comes from the type.)
It certainly has been kept as a red letter day and I refer you to this article for further clarification.
Oh I forgot to say, yes it was also kept as a day of fasting as well for our nations blood-guiltiness, but at some point seems to have become a feast to commemorate his martyrdom with the pleas to God to not look upon the whole nation as guilty, just to judge those who were implicit in the regicide.
[ 30. January 2013, 11:14: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Actually, when his back was against the wall, St Chuck did renounce episcopacy and put on a show of Presbyterianism. Only after his fate was certain did he become the brave martyr. It was Billy Laud that was the faithful Anglican to the end. He may have been a petty-fogging bureaucrat, but he was a faithful petty-fogging bureaucrat that Chuck hung out to dry. Which is why I keep Laud's feast day and not Chuck's.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Maybe we should keep SAINT MARTINA Martyr (†226) or St. Aldegunais, abbess and virgin instead.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
My BCP is 1720 (so George I). It does not print the festivals in red in the calendar, although it does show Charles in italics just like Con St Paul earlier in the month.
It has its own epistle and gospel, so I grant you it is in effect a red letter day.
Sorry to put you down.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
My BCP is 1720 (so George I). It does not print the festivals in red in the calendar, although it does show Charles in italics just like Con St Paul earlier in the month.
It has its own epistle and gospel, so I grant you it is in effect a red letter day.
Sorry to put you down.
I did wonder if it might descend into a 'my BCP is older than yours' penis-fencing competition...
There was no put down, not that I felt anyhow, I accept that it might not have been clearly laid out as a red letter, but for all intents and purposes it was presented and kept as one.
I have long wondered about when it stopped being a fast and became a feast, something that research has not discovered yet, I was wondering if any of the Church Historians on here could help me out; was it a case of popular decision/misuse of language or was there a Convocation/etc. decision to change it from a fast to a feast...
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
For those wanting to play along at home, pg 4 of this 1717 BCP has the stuff about Chas. (Bloomin' large PDF.)
Thurible
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
For those wanting to play along at home, pg 4 of this 1717 BCP has the stuff about Chas. (Bloomin' large PDF.)
Thurible
Very large file but a very beautiful copy.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
It is of course too early for the litany that was devised of Charles, K&M, which can be found here
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
We will keep the feast this afternoon with a sung mass.
It is ultimately unclear to me whether Charles should be a saint, not because he was a bad guy (though he may have been) but because it is unclear whether he can really be considered a martyr.
Something that has been missing from the conversation on this thread is that the historic definition of Christian martyrdom depends in part on the motivation of the one inflicting death: namely, that the act be done out of hatred for the Christian faith (odium Fidei). As to Charles, it seems that he was executed largely for political reasons, or at best for a mix of political and religious reasons. It does not appear, though that his death was solely for religious reasons, nor do we have any reason to believe that the authorities which ordered his death were doing so solely out of hatred for the faith. Thus, I don't think he is a really a martyr. A confessor, maybe, but not a martyr.*
I can't muster the same hatred for CKM as many on this thread. For instance, the divine right of kings is not a deal-breaker for me. I do think that this annual discussion (which generally creates more heat than light) is not of a great deal of relevance for those outside the CofE, even when we do keep the feast.
*Every year I am tempted to celebrate him using the commons for confessors, but I always seem to wimp out and go with the material proper to him.
[ 30. January 2013, 15:07: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
It is of course too early for the litany that was devised of Charles, K&M, which can be found here
Are the following phrases from it really appropriate?:-
quote:
Holy Mary, [response hereafter] Pray for us.
Holy Mother of God,
Holy Virgin of Virgins,
Would any C17 member of the Church of England, yet alone its Supreme Governor, have used that form of prayer?
quote:
Constant frequenter of the Sacraments of Penance ...
Likewise?
quote:
Powerful worker of miracles both in life and after death,
Healer of diseased persons,
Yes, he presumably touched for the King's Evil, but is there any record of anyone being healed of it, or any tradition of his working any miracle after death whether by intercession or through a relic?
quote:
Faithful protector of the clergy
Such as his Archbishop of Canterbury?
This may sound harsh to some shipmates, but that litany reads as a fin de siècle affectation.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
While I would guess that most American Episcopalians* do not have a clue as to who King Charles was, there are some keeping his story alive. Here is a blog post from a young Anglo-Catholic priest in New Haven, CT.
*including myself, before hanging out with you lot.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
If we are going to have feast days for English kings killed in office, why not one for Edward II?
Someone could process carrying a poker.
I gather some gays regard him as a martyr.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Do those of you who are assiduous to commemorate the 30th January also keep the 6th February, 29th May and 5th November with equal assiduity? If not, why not? There is no justification for keeping the one if you do not observe the other three. On its own, it is no more than a romantic affectation, and a form of religious mockery, especially since of those, the 6th February is the only one that is now actually relevant.
Posted by Strangely Warmed (# 13188) on
:
To answer the OP's question, Charles Stuart rates a "commemoration" in the Canadian calendar, which is the lesser of the two lesser categories of observance ("memorials" being the greater). I observe the day as I do all such days, by reciting the Collect for the Day as part of the Daily Office.
Why bother? Well, the Collect prays that "all rulers among the nations may use the power entrusted to their care to vindicate the cause of those who suffer wrong and rescue the needy among the people." Not a bad thing, to be reminded what good kingship ought to look like.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
On a slight tangent, what do we think the chances are of Her present Majesty getting a commemoration in due course? As an example of devotion to a vocation, and a quiet steady witness to the faith (e.g. her Christmas broadcasts, which I think are enormously simple and moving statements of faith).
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If we are going to have feast days for English kings killed in office, why not one for Edward II?
Someone could process carrying a poker.
I gather some gays regard him as a martyr.
The death via poker story is apocryphal and he was most likely strangled or suffocated.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do those of you who are assiduous to commemorate the 30th January also keep the 6th February, 29th May and 5th November with equal assiduity? If not, why not?
Quite, enoch. I said I thought about keeping 6 February last year at Daily Prayer - after all a Diamond Jubilee is not that frequent and I admire HMQ in contrast to her wretched late daughter in law. But I looked at the texts, and I just couldn't do it. 5 November is far too protestant for me. 29 May is just silly, especially since the randy old charmer it commemorates died a Roman Catholic.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If we are going to have feast days for English kings killed in office, why not one for Edward II?
Someone could process carrying a poker.
I gather some gays regard him as a martyr.
The death via poker story is apocryphal and he was most likely strangled or suffocated.
In which case substitute cord and/or pillow for poker.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
St John Chrysostom whose feast was transferred today is well known to have been a vicious anti-Semite.
Same goes for Ambrose.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
One parliamentarian and admirer of Cromwell who admired Charles' demeanour in his death was Andrew Marvell.
He might not have done anything common or mean upon that memorable scene, but his tossing Strafford to the wolves eight years earlier was, as Australians might say, pretty ordinary.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Cromwell was of course no different than Charles in that regard.
Perhaps not in kind, but certainly in degree.
While unsatisfactory by modern standards, the amount of religious freedom permitted by Cromwell was unprecedented.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
Well shiver me timbers. What's a curate doing with a desk like that!
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do those of you who are assiduous to commemorate the 30th January also keep the 6th February, 29th May and 5th November with equal assiduity? If not, why not?
Quite, enoch. I said I thought about keeping 6 February last year at Daily Prayer - after all a Diamond Jubilee is not that frequent and I admire HMQ in contrast to her wretched late daughter in law. But I looked at the texts, and I just couldn't do it. 5 November is far too protestant for me. 29 May is just silly, especially since the randy old charmer it commemorates died a Roman Catholic.
I know about 5 November, but what's commemorated by 6 February and 29 May? I can only find the Martyrs of Japan for 6 February and nothing for 29 May.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
6 February is Accession Day, the anniversary of the Queen's accession (and also of course of her father's death - it was said that one reason, other than the weather, that HMQ wanted the Jubilee celebrations in the summer rather than on the actual date was it had sad memories of the loss of her father.)
29 May is Oakapple Day, the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.
My 1720 BCP includes another long sycophantic service for that day. The dates Enoch quoted all had special services. Only the Accession Day one survives.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Do those of you who are assiduous to commemorate the 30th January also keep the 6th February, 29th May and 5th November with equal assiduity? If not, why not? There is no justification for keeping the one if you do not observe the other three. On its own, it is no more than a romantic affectation, and a form of religious mockery, especially since of those, the 6th February is the only one that is now actually relevant.
I do, but in different degrees, ranked as HM Accession as top, Oakapple as middel and the 'Popish Plot' at the bottom...
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
Regarding keeping it and other similar feasts, I kept Charles yesterday because the Kalendar told me to (as did the CW app that I use for the Office!). However, the other days give us:
quote:
CW The Martyrs of Japan, 1597; (Accession of Queen Elizabeth II, 1952)
29 May is a feria (and Eve of Corpus Christi), ditto 5 November.
Charles has, of course, been removed from the BCP so there's no room to keep him if you're following that Kalendar.
Thurible
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
You can argue that there was a blend of religion and politics, but really he was killed because he was a very bad (and a very unlucky) king, not because he believed in bishops and all the rest.
He was killed because his enemies knew they couldn't take over the country without killing him. Charles wasn't willing to be their puppet king, and they weren't willing to allow him to be a free King. They knew if they let Charles go they would either have to compromise on their power grab, or carry on trying to suppress the royalist faction with even more killing.
At the end of the day it was easier to kill the figurehead of the royalist faction than to kill all the royalists. The victors still had to purge parliament and rule by military dictat afterwards. But at least their blatant military coup temporarily suspended the open warfare for a few years.
All the hand-wringing justifications the conquerors made up for their bloody coup is beside the point IMO. At the end of the day they did it just to get what they wanted. Power.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
Since Charles tried to exercise absolute power, his supporters can hardly criticize his opponents for doing the same thing.
Not that Parliament was a remotely representative body in those days. But the overthrow of the established power did allow the working classes to realize they had a voice of their own.
This sacramentalist bourgeois finds it difficult to sympathise with what they often said, but fully accept they at last had some grounds for self respect.
Am I right in thinking that although England was a republic, there were no parliamentary elections until the restoration? Wasn't that why it was called the Long Parliament.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Since Charles tried to exercise absolute power, his supporters can hardly criticize his opponents for doing the same thing.
Not that Parliament was a remotely representative body in those days. But the overthrow of the established power did allow the working classes to realize they had a voice of their own.
This sacramentalist bourgeois finds it difficult to sympathise with what they often said, but fully accept they at last had some grounds for self respect.
Am I right in thinking that although England was a republic, there were no parliamentary elections until the restoration? Wasn't that why it was called the Long Parliament.
1. Absolute power of Monarchies was a prevailing view, and a justified concept. Charels had, by convention, certain areas that he could levy taxes etc. without the consent of Parliament, the problem was that he tried to do this too much (mainly to avoid the antagonistic Parliaments that kept appearing - which were very much grounded on the religious perspectives and the resultant political theories springing from them) and angered not only MP's who saw it as an erosion of their rights, but also general members of the public. Society was changing, unfortunately Charles seems to have been slightly behind the growing view (of course he wasn't the heir but the spare for 19 years so he is going to have been slightly different due to a slightly different education etc.) - the difference with Cromwell comes that Parliament waas supposed to be established as supreme and it was not... it is hypocritical to claim the absolute authority of the people as expressed in parliament and then disregard that (especially when considered with how Cromwell gerrymandered parliament to try and suit his own ends.)
2. The people were finding their voice, so much so that arfter the tyranny of Cromwell the people decided that that had been worse and accepted back the monarchy.
3. As for Parliaments - Cromwell found them just a trying as none matched his puritan 'godly' ideals, so much so that he dissolved the rump by military force (one of the factors that enraged Parliament when Charles did this), had a military council to run things with Cromwell responsible for running the country by military force instead of democracy (of any type), and was generally paradoxical in that despite advocating parliamentary rule he was truly authoritarian acording to many of hte things he said and did.
[ 31. January 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
While I would guess that most American Episcopalians* do not have a clue as to who King Charles was, there are some keeping his story alive. Here is a blog post from a young Anglo-Catholic priest in New Haven, CT.
*including myself, before hanging out with you lot.
Charles Stuart is pretty much a purely Anglo-Catholic fetish in America. But isn't that true everywhere?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Charles Stuart is pretty much a purely Anglo-Catholic fetish in America. But isn't that true everywhere?
Only amongst certain types of Anglo-Catholic.
Thurible
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If we are going to have feast days for English kings killed in office, why not one for Edward II?
Someone could process carrying a poker.
I gather some gays regard him as a martyr.
Henry VI is presumed to have been murdered in office (possibly by the future Richard III). Ever since then there has been a small but persistent movement which seeks to venerate him as a saint, but this would presumably be as a Confessor - in respect of his pure and humble life - rather than as a martyr. He would certainly be more suited to canonisation than Charles I!
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
quote:
Ever since then there has been a small but persistent movement which seeks to venerate him as a saint [...]
There is a similar group (also quite small) among Catholics with regard to Louis XVI of France. No one seems to have the same interest in Marie Antoinette as a saint, though.
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
While I would guess that most American Episcopalians* do not have a clue as to who King Charles was, there are some keeping his story alive. Here is a blog post from a young Anglo-Catholic priest in New Haven, CT.
*including myself, before hanging out with you lot.
Charles Stuart is pretty much a purely Anglo-Catholic fetish in America. But isn't that true everywhere?
Alas, yes. Your assessment is true. It should be a whole CofE/CinW/CofI/CofS thing, but is looked upon, pretty much as an Anglo-Catholic thing (those that are Anglo-Catholic but not Anglo-Papalist, the latter group has never kept Charles as an Anglican Saint).
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There are plenty of non-papalist anglo-catholics who would be horrified at the idea of venerating a murderous tyrant.
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There are plenty of non-papalist anglo-catholics who would be horrified at the idea of venerating a murderous tyrant.
As it turned out, our observance of the day was limited to the Collect at Mass, red vestments, and a proper preface of saints. I decided not to add any antiphons or a collect at Evening Prayer.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
Ever since then there has been a small but persistent movement which seeks to venerate him as a saint [...]
There is a similar group (also quite small) among Catholics with regard to Louis XVI of France. No one seems to have the same interest in Marie Antoinette as a saint, though.
There is a statue of Henrietta Maria together with one of Charles in St Mary le Strand.
I hope as a faithful daughter of the Roman church, she would object.
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
There are plenty of non-papalist anglo-catholics who would be horrified at the idea of venerating a murderous tyrant.
Indeed. The whole devotion to Charles Stuart thing seems to be disturbingly tied into a fogeyish, sycophantic, brown-nosing, nostalgic Toryism which caused a friend (an Anglo-Catholic) yesterday to confess that 30 January is the annual occasion on which she wishes she were an atheist republican like her mother.
Thurible
[ 31. January 2013, 15:08: Message edited by: Thurible ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
We have Charles in both the BCP and BAS kalendars. I think Fr Reynolds propers in For All the Saints set the right tone: no triumphalism one way or the other, indeed no real attention paid to the historical events themselves. We simply commemorate his zeal for the episcopal church and pray for wisdom for those in power. We used them at Trinity College at Mass, and the collect at Evensong.
As for the Accession Service, the cathedral here holds it on the Sunday nearest the 6. This year it will be anticipated this coming Sunday. Sadly, the Te Deum was dropped between the 1918 and 1959 BCPs, but I fondly recall the Golden Jubilee, when the late lamented choir of men and boys greeted Adrienne Clarkson with Parry's "Vivats!" It was 14-year-old LQ's very first taste of Anglicanism. Meaculpa even read the first lesson, so it was a bit of a proto-shipmeet unbeknownst to any of us at the time!
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But the overthrow of the established power did allow the working classes to realize they had a voice of their own.
I'm always amused at people's attempt to read modern Marxist theories into the English Civil War. It wasn't a class war, and the working classes had nothing to do with it, except to fight and die in large numbers for whoever ordered them to.
The overthrow of the King was carried out by a bunch of disaffected landowners and lesser nobility who purged their elected colleagues in order to take power for themselves. Parliament voted in 5th December 1648 to ratify the Treaty of Newport, agreeing to reinstate the King under the conditions agreed on. However Lord Fairfax was unhappy with the restoration of the King on any terms and instead purged parliament on 7th December, arresting 45 of the moderate members and barring a further 231 supporters of the Newport treaty from getting in.
The remnant either fled or quickly voted to dance to Lord Fairfax's tune and promptly executed the King the following month.
And the people who overruled the will of Parliament and executed their ruler were not the working classes. They were the rich and wealthy. The leading members were John Pym and William Strode, sons of knights; Denzil Hollis, Baron of Ifield; Arthur Haselrig, Baronet, etc.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
I didn't say it was a working class struggle. In Cornwall, the gentry were for parliament (after all they sat in it) but the majority of the population were for the king (after all he could put their bosses in place).
In many old Cornish churches, there is a board with a declaration from Charles II thanking the people of Cornwall for their loyalty.
But they had a voice and it was worth thanking them, even if they didn't have a vote, and even when it was a different vote from the Levellers et at (who were put down by Cromwell).
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
6 February is Accession Day, the anniversary of the Queen's accession (and also of course of her father's death - it was said that one reason, other than the weather, that HMQ wanted the Jubilee celebrations in the summer rather than on the actual date was it had sad memories of the loss of her father.)
As it is, she didn't get the summer either!
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I didn't say it was a working class struggle. In Cornwall, the gentry were for parliament (after all they sat in it) but the majority of the population were for the king (after all he could put their bosses in place).
In many old Cornish churches, there is a board with a declaration from Charles II thanking the people of Cornwall for their loyalty.
But they had a voice and it was worth thanking them, even if they didn't have a vote, and even when it was a different vote from the Levellers et at (who were put down by Cromwell).
Isn't there a st King Charles church in Falmouth too?
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
Yes, there is a Church of King Charles the Martyr in Cornwall; I have looked this up on-line and here is the link:- http://www.kcmchurchfalmouth.org.uk/ .
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
Yes, there is a Church of King Charles the Martyr in Cornwall; I have looked this up on-line and here is the link:- http://www.kcmchurchfalmouth.org.uk/ .
I meant to say Falmouth; I overlooked that I missed typing it in.
Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on
:
I notice that there is a church in Brighton dedicated to Charles K & M, but it is so-called Traditional C of E.
Posted by Laud-able (# 9896) on
:
To add to the answers to the OP: Archbishop Laud and King Charles I are both included in the Calendar of A Prayer Book for Australia, and at our place we remember them on their respective days: we also have in the nave a window to Archbishop Laud with the text ‘faithful unto death’ [Revelation 2:10], and we place a votive light at the foot of the window on his day. Christ Church Brunswick held their annual commemoration of King Charles last night.
I note that there is an Episcopal Church of Saint William Laud in Pittsburg, Texas.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0