Celebrating a royal tyrant

While reading the Church Times in bed last night, I flicked over to the adverts and saw an announcement that disgusted me. It was advertising the “Commemoration of the martyrdom of King Charles I”. It listed two eucharistic services, in London and Edinburgh, each led by a bishop, to mark this “martyrdom”. 

All tyrants have their fans. Joseph Stalin is still popular with certain people both inside and outside Russia. I’m sure there are people who think that the Roman Emperor Nero was a good bloke. What is surprising is not that a tyrant is being celebrated, but that this celebration is listed in the official calendar of the Church of England and marked in church services led by bishops. 

The Church of England lists 30 January as the “Feast of King Charles the Martyr”. This was the date in 1649 when Charles I was executed following his conviction for treason. 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 am not suggesting that Charles was solely responsible for the deaths of the thousands of people who were killed in the civil war. But no-one bears more responsibility for those deaths than he does. He was rightly found guilty of treason. This was an important moment, as treason had generally been defined as the betrayal of a monarch. Convicting a king of treason made clear that a ruler is expected to be loyal to the people; not the other way around.

As an opponent of the death penalty, I do not condone the execution of Charles I – or of anyone else. This was a time in which the death penalty was used for a wide range of crimes, certainly including treason and murder – and Charles was guilty of both of these. 

The services listed in the advert, which I assume take place every year, seem to be organised by a group called the “Royal Martyr Church Union”. I suspect they may be a very small group, as they don’t appear even to have a website. I would be inclined to dismiss them were it not for the people presiding at their services – Robert Ladds, Assistant Bishop of London and John Armes, Bishop of Edinburgh. 

More worrying still is that the “Feast of King Charles the Martyr” continues to be listed in the Church of England’s calendar. It was instituted after the republic was overthrown in 1660 and Charles I’s son returned from exile in France to take the throne as Charles II. He did so on the basis of promises of religious and political liberty that were almost immediately broken. 

I understand that high church Anglicans may share some of Charles I’s views on church government, although Anglo-Catholicism has included a strong left-wing strand since the nineteenth century. But it is one thing to agree with a ruler’s views on a particular issue, quite another to overlook oppression. I’m sure that many Anglicans find this celebration repugnant. Why are others continuing with it? 

6 responses to “Celebrating a royal tyrant

  1. Many thanks for drawing attention to this. I wonder to what extent many clergy just don’t draw attention to the date, and so it goes unnoticed, except by those who want to notice it? Its a very Anglican way of thinking!

  2. I attended the wreath-laying and the subsequent Eucharist yesterday. It was a splendid occasion. The bottom line for the execution of Charles I is that he refused to abolish the episcopacy, thus rendering the C of E out of existence. Cromwell and his cronies wanted only the sterile worship which we now refer to as ‘non-conformist’ – they wanted this to be the Conformist style. Even at the end, he was offered a pardon if only He [Charles I] would abolish episcopacy. He refused to do this and would not bargain with his life. He went to an honourable death and we should be grateful and thankful for his honesty and courage as a believing member of the Church of England.

    I salute Him !

    Sqn Ldr Alan Birt

  3. Compared to the absolutism of his contemporaries the Romanovs, Medici and Bourbons, Charles I while ultimately loyal to the Church, was quite liberal on ecclesiastical polity: like his father, he tolerated nonconformists, and indeed was married to a Roman Catholic. His personal rule involved a vigorous support of the poor as is agreed by recent historians. If anything the problem is indeed Cromwell and the commonwealth gentry (no elections after he came to power!) who raised far more in tax, abolished Christmas and wedding rings, and desecrated the holy places. It is thus not a secure left wing position (and certainly not usually a gay one!) to attack this cultured monarch who paid the price of being King at a time of political and ecclesiastical tension….. If you read more of him it is easier to understand and forgive in the light of the tragic forces which impelled the country to civil war…..PS since it matters to you I did not go to a public or religious school, am not a member of the English Church, and do not support authoritarian causes of any description.

  4. I am a secular monarchist,but consider King Charles a martyr of sorts for that cause.A ruler is responsible for the best interests,not the desires,of those he governs…it is not for them to hold him to account.
    They may abandon his rule but have no right to call him a traitor to a government he alone is entitled to define.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s