|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Charles I (Feast of Martyrdom)
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
I see that Pusey House is offering a High Mass of the Martyr (BCP) this evening.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
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
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry seasick - thank you!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
It is of course too early for the litany that was devised of Charles, K&M, which can be found here
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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 sičcle affectation.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Strangely Warmed
Apprentice
# 13188
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Well shiver me timbers. What's a curate doing with a desk like that!
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
There are plenty of non-papalist anglo-catholics who would be horrified at the idea of venerating a murderous tyrant.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
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!
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
