It was on this day in 1649 that an impious conspiracy sent the saintly martyr King Charles I of Great Britain and Ireland to his eternal reward. Charles I is one of my very favorite monarchs, and I am not to be included among those who say (sincerely) that he may have been a good man but he was certainly not a good monarch (and of course there are those who say much worse). In my view he was a great man and a great monarch, his devotion to his duty and his principles are to be admired as is his sincere faith and loyalty to his family. As far as I'm concerned this should be a day of mourning across the English-speaking world and all those across Great Britain and the Commonwealth who treasonously advocate for a republic should be reminded of the death of King Charles the Martyr and the terrible fate that befell the British Isles when their ancient monarchy was torn from them. The name of King Charles I should not be considered an embarassment but rather should be defended and invoked constantly in the struggle of today. As for myself, I believe he is now sitting with the angels.Monarch Profile: King Charles I
MM Video: Charles I of Britain
King Charles the Martyr
May he never be Forgotten!
ReplyDeleteIt is of note that he is the First, and thusfar Only, Saint in the Anglican Communion, and certainly deserves the recognition of all who are ardent in the Faith as he id die a Martyr.
On that note, the Cause of the Republicans can only be seen in the Bloodstains of History, an none deserved least their Cruel Fate at the Hands of the Republicans than did Charles.
Those how say he was a Good Man but not a Good Monarch simply want to justify the Act, but nothing Justifies this.
It was only fortunate that with this sampling of Republicanism, England became Staunchly Loyal to their Monarchy… until recent times, that is.
May his Memory Fuel Further Restoration Of The Old Order!
Regicide tends to backfire on the perpetrators. Creating a "royal martyr", in the long run, can actually strengthen the ideal of monarchy. Both in the case of Charles I and in the case of Louis XVI, revolutionaries tried to get rid of the monarchy by killing the king, but things did not work out so simply. Many (surely, most) people were appalled, and such sentiments probably contributed to the monarchical Restorations in the countries concerned.
ReplyDeleteAs means of destroying thrones, whittling away the monarch's powers slowly and softly, and, in the case of fallen monarchs, letting them live out their days and die in obscurity, are more effective than this lurid public violence (although, of course, I don't like any of these tactics, or their purpose). People begin to see rulers as useless, expensive ornaments, when they are no longer truly sovereigns. And when a fallen king is treated "humanely", people tend to lose sympathy for him. "What does he have to complain about anyway, he was treated nicely, after all..." I've seen comments rather like this about Leopold III of Belgium, for instance. There might be more sympathy for him, and more understanding of his life, had he been killed by his enemies rather than shuffled off to a country estate, to silence, effacement and often oblivion. Bloodshed tends to grab people's attention, at least for a time. A cynical theory, perhaps, but that's mine.
That's true and though I havn't thought about Belgium much in that regard (the monarchy survived thank God) I have thought about that in regards to Flanders and King Leopold III as, from what I understand, he was most popular there rather than in Wallonia yet now Flanders seems home to more republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe Red Chinese were, perhaps, at the same time the most cruel and the most clever in how they treated their last emperor. How do you argue for a restoration when the monarch has been brainwashed and forced into the camp of the usurpers? The Emperor was certain they would kill him (the Kuomintang might have as well) but Mao was afriad that doing so would hurt his cause whereas turning him into a communist puppet would help; showing that anyone can be "reformed" into the communist "New Man" and silencing monarchists while giving his regime a gloss of legitimacy. "See, you Qing loyalists, the Emperor supports me, so you should too!"
Sadly, the French might have learned that lesson to the horror of the poor little Dauphin. They didn't want to kill another king and so they just shut him away and forgot about him. He had a more slow and painful death than his father did -at least the guillotine was quick. I try not to think about what the Dauphin went through -it's just too painful to even contemplate.
MadMonarchist, is there any chance you might someday write a Top 10 or Top 5 favorite monarchs? It would be interesting to see which ones are your favorites and why. Regards, - Lecen
ReplyDeleteI was the M.C. at the annual (Anglican) Mass to commemorate the martyrdom organised by the Society of King Charles the Martyr.
ReplyDeleteWe are lucky enough to be given the use of the Banqueting House for the service, it was from this building that he stepped to the scaffold.