KING CHARLES THE MARTYR

The King's Life

Harles Stuart was born in 1600, the ſecond ſon of King James I. When Charles was 11, his older brother Henry died, making Charles the heir apparent. In 1625, James died and Charles became king at 24; later that year, he married Henrietta Maria, princeſs of France.

Charles inherited a diﬃcult ﬅate of things right from the ﬅart. Queen Elizabeth and King James had been exceſive ſpenders, and it became the M.O. of Parliament to only grant the king funds under conditions which grew increaſingly diſagreeable to Charles. Things came to a head in 1629, when Charles diſſolved Parliament and did not call it again for eleven years, which was his right. This period is known to hiﬅorians as the Perſonal Rule.

Parliament may have been trouble, but it was alſo Charles’ main ſource of funds; without it, the kingdom’s ﬁnances were even worſe oﬀ. Charles turned to his advisors, who did everything they could to ﬅretch the crown’s alternate ſources of money to their abſolute legal limits. This naturally loﬅ the King a lot of his people’s favor.

England fared fairly well during the Perſonal Rule, eſpecially becauſe Charles’ inability to raiſe war funds kept the country out of the horrid Thirty Years’ War. It was during this time that Anglicaniſm experienced a golden age known to hiﬅory as the Old High Church. Under the patronage of King Charles and the overſight of Archbiſhop William Laud, the Church of England

The King's Death

The King's Miracles

Ne of the moﬅ common ways in which a departed Chriﬅian's ﬅatus as a ſaint in heaven is conﬁrmed is by miracles performed by their relics or in their name. Charles was no exception. What follow are what I find to be the moﬅ credible accounts of Caroline miracles.

Whilst an earthly King, Charles often exerciſed the Royal Touch, the ancient practice of a monarch touching a ſubject aﬄicted with disease (moﬅ often ſcrofula, or the king's evil) in order to cure them. The eﬃcacy of the royal touch was never certain, even with the moﬅ pious of rulers, yet there ſurvive ſeveral accounts of Charles ſuceſſfully curing his ſubjects. In 1631, for example, the King laid his hands upon the moribund daughter of John, Lord Poulett, after which ſhe returned to full health.¹ The moﬅ ﬅriking ﬅory is poſſibly that of Ms. Elizabeth Stephens of Winchester. On 7 October 1648, while the King was held captive at the Iſle of Wight, a ſixteen-year-old Elizabeth was brought him by her mother to be touched. The girl's left eye had been fully blind for about a month. Shortly after being touched by Charles, Elizabeth's left eye ſlowly began to regain its ſight. The King himſelf examined her in the preſence of many others and found her to be truly healed.²

But all this was done by the living man; far more noteworthy are the wonders wrought by the victorious ſaint. On 3 February 1649, juﬅ four days after Charles was beheaded, Mary Baily of Detford obtained a piece of handkerchief which had been dipped in the King's blood. She brought it home to her fourteen-year-old daughter, who had ſuﬀered the king's evil in her neck, eyes, and lips ſince about eighteen months of age. Daily application of the bloodied cloth to her daughter’s aﬄicted parts produced ſigniﬁcant improvement, until at length ſhe was completely healthy. There are other accounts of posthumous Caroline miracles, but this miracle is corroborated by multiple independent ſources and remaineth the greateﬅ ſingle teﬅimony to the Royal Martyr's ſaintly ﬅatus.³

Politics & Propaganda

T muﬅ be noted that the life and legacy of King Charles are inextricably bound up in the politics of the time and almoﬅ invariably ﬁltered through ſomeone's propaganda. This is an eternal iſſue, one which enſureth that Charles shall forever remain a controverſial ﬁgure. In cases such as this, it behooveth the Chriﬅian to approach the matter with as much of cunning and common ſenſe as of faith.

The royaliﬅs would have one believe that Charles was the greateﬅ king to walk the earth ſince Solomon. The Roundheads would have one believe him a cold, ruthleſs tyrant. In reality Charles was neither. He was a virtuous, digniﬁed man who let his country fall to ruin, for he was convinced that it was more important to ﬅand for truth than to appeaſe the maſſes; a king who expected total obedience from his ſubjects yet heſitated not to conſpire and double-croſs in the name of keeping his duties to God; a loving husband and doting father who ſent thouſands of husbands and fathers to their deaths with grief in his heart; a lover of his people who was always willing to ſacriﬁce more of them in the name of God and truth. He was, bluntly, a ſimple man, who poſſeſſed the innocency of the dove if not the wiſdom of the ſerpent. Parliament and the rebels may juﬅly merit blame too, and it is indeed likely that Charles received ſome bad advice from his court, but that doth not fully exonerate the King. A good man he may well have been, but a good king? That is for thee to judge.

King Charles the Martyr

Evertheless, however one judgeth his kingſhip, Charles Stuart is a ſaint. For of all that may be ſaid of him, none may deny that he was a faithful, devout, and pious child of God and ſon of the Engliſh Church. For this, for his Chriﬅlike ſuﬀering in his ﬁnal days, and for his martyrdom in defenſe of the true religion of the one, holy, catholic, and apoﬅolic Church, the good and generous Lord hath given Charles the full day's wage.

It muﬅ be properly underﬅood what is meant in ſaying that Charles died for the Church. Key is that Charles may well have kept his life if he had agreed to collaborate with the rebels—indeed, it is often ſaid that Charles was offered his life in exchange for the abolition of the Engliſh epiſcopacy. The majority of Parliament were againﬅ killing the King (before Pride's Purge, and arguably even after), and it was always deeply unpopular among the Engliſh, Scottiſh, and Iriſh peoples. Furthermore, the rebel leaderſhip were well aware that it would be moﬅ legally expident to get the King to wield his ancient—and, in the eyes of many, divine—authority to bring about their deſires, even if it meant forcing him to aboliſh the monarchy with a ſword preſſed to his throat.

Charles, however, cared more for his ſacred duty to God than for even his own life, and it is here that his ſaintlineſs truly ſheweth forth. He underﬅood himſelf to be God's anointed ſervant, and his coronation oath he rightly knew to be a holy covenant with God. Being thus bound by heavenly bonds to protect, defend, and uphold God's Church within his realm, he utterly refuſed to aboliſh the epiſcopacy, which would have maimed the Engliſh Church by undoing its apoﬅolicity. Had he done so, he likely would have lived, and the deed wrought by kingly hands moﬅ likely would have ﬅuck, leaving the future Church of England and all Anglicaniſm ſevered from the one true Church. Yet it is preciſely becauſe Charles did not ſurrender the epiſcopacy that the eﬀort was made to bring it back it when his ſon at laﬅ returned to the Engliſh throne. It is for this that Anglicans the world round owe Charles a great debt of thanks—a debt of which moﬅ are ſadly ignorant.

A Note on the Royal Martyr's Contemporary Cvlt & Its Interſection With Politics

S with the life and legacy of Charles himſelf, the cult of the Martyr-King often hath certain political undertones to it. It is hiﬅorically popular with monarchiﬅs, traditionaliﬅs, Jacobites, and Tories, all of whom ſhall be readily found among the ranks of the Society of King Charles the Martyr even today (though the Society itſelf is oﬃcially nonpolitical). This can be a ﬅumbling block to veneration of the Royal Martyr, and ſo it muﬅ be addreſſed.

At its core, the veneration of Bleſſed Charles, King and Martyr, as a ſaint is diﬅinct from the political ideologies aſſociated with Charles Stuart as King. St. Charles is not venerated for his defenſe of monarchy or of the divine right of kings; like any ſaint, he is venerated for deeds which were extraordinarily Chriﬅlike in his time and place. He is a pious Chriﬅian and a martyr for the faith—that is enough. We muﬅ not require what we today perceive to be perfection from the ſaints of elder times, leﬅ we ſhall be unfair to them and leſs charitable than God.