Charles, King and… erm, come again?
John H Friday 30th January, AD 2009
Today has been – for members of the Church of England – the commemoration of Charles, King and Martyr, better known as Charles I of England. A day that brings out the Roundhead in me (until I remember about Oliver Cromwell, which then brings out the Leveller in me). “Martyr”. Good grief.
Talking of the Regicide, the national ambivalence about Cromwell is well summarised in the two announcements run side-by-side in The Times on 3 September 1969 (quoted in John Julius Norwich’s Christmas Crackers):
OLIVER CROMWELL, 25th April, 1599 – 3rd September 1658.
Lord Protector, 1653-1658. Statesman, General and Ruler.
“Let God arise, let His enemies be scattered”. – Psalm 68, verse 1.
In honoured remembrance.CROMWELL. – To the eternal condemnation of Oliver, Seditionist, Traitor, Regicide, Racialist, proto-Fascist and blasphemous Bigot. God save England from his like. – Hugo Ball.
Those are certainly the two poles between which my own views of Cromwell oscillate.
The last word, though, should go to Sellar and Yeatman’s matchless analysis in 1066 and All That of the causes of the Civil War. Or rather:
the utterly memorable Struggle between the Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and the Roundheads (Right and Repulsive).
As they continue:
Charles I was a Cavalier King and therefore had a small pointed beard, long flowing curls, a large, flat, flowing hat, and gay attire. The Roundheads, on the other hand, were clean-shaven and wore tall, conical hats, white ties, and sombre garments. Under these circumstances a Civil War was inevitable.
A Civil War which, Charles having lost, resulted in his being “found guilty of being defeated in a war against himself, which was, of course, a form of High Treason”.
Y’see? Treason. Not a martyr at all, then. If you don’t like it, take it up with Sellar and Yeatman.
- Tags: 1066 and all that, charles I, church calendar, cromwell, english civil war, gay attire, sombre garments
- Categories: History
- Comments(5)
John,
Sadly, I must disagree with you once again.
Politics has nothing to do with it. Charles was devoted to the Church of England as the Apostolic Church in that realm, and he would not suffer it to be transformed into a heretical conventicle. And make no mistake, Cromwell and the Roundheads were heretics: detestable Predestinarian, sacrament-denying, grace-limiting, iconoclastic heretics. As surely as Maximos Confessor died defending the fullness of the Catholic faith against the Monotheletes, Charles died defending the Catholic faith against the Roundheads. You may judge him a knave, a fool, and a failure as a monarch (as Fr Peter Ould did in the blog post you linked), but in the end it was not for political principle, but for the Catholic faith and order of the Church of England that he gave his life.
If only those who have shepherded the Church of England in our time had such devotion to her orthodox and Catholic heritage.
Beate Carole, Rege Martyreque, ora pro nobis
As an Anglican my entire life (even if I have been somewhat disillusioned with the entire Bride of Christ in the past few years) this is the first time I’ve heard of us ‘commemorating’ Charles I.
Oh hum. I must be ‘low Church’.
But yeah, Sellar & Yeatman are the fount of all true wisdom. SRSLY.
Let’s see. Alec Guinness played Charles in the movie Cromwell. He also played Obi Wan in Star Wars. Was Obi Wan a martyr? From watching Star Wars, you could argue it either way. You would probably have had to have been one of his companions to know for sure. But in Hardware Wars, his companions did in fact call him a martyr. The question is, do you really trust Anne-Droid or Ham Salad on a doctrinal issue such as this?
Chris: I’m sorry, I don’t buy the “Charles was a martyr” argument. Charles died as a tyrant, an absolutist monarch and an instigator of civil war (and Scottish invasion). The martyr cult was Restorationist propaganda.
As for his willingness to go to his death for the defence of episcopacy, my recollection (backed up by Wikipedia, for what it’s worth) is that he’d offered a deal to the Scots whereby he’d introduce Presbyterianism in England in exchange for their assistance in the second civil war.
And it would have been better for the catholic faith in this country had it not allowed itself to be shackled so firmly to the monarchy, in particular “monarchy as opposed to parliament” (“Church and King!”). One reason the Church of England failed to win the hearts of many rural and working-class people – leading to the rise of Methodism and other forms of non-conformity – was that it was too closely associated with monarchy and the “squirearchy” as an institution devoted to keeping the people in their place. And I say that as someone with a great love for both the Church of England and its prayer book (and who shares, albeit reluctantly, your negative assessment of Commonwealth religion).
Sellar & Yeatman. I used to love their Christmas specials on the Beeb. Er, no, hang on, it were them other blokes.