Remember

Saintly Royals Sunday

King Charles the Martyr of Great Britain

a saint in the Anglican communion, a martyr for the cause of monarchy 

and his staunch defense of the Church of England

Remember

Today, again, we “remember” the regicide of the sainted royal martyr King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland on this day in 1649. As he stated so eloquently at his farce of a show-trial, the King fought and ultimately gave his life for a principle; not simply the principle of monarchy and royal legitimacy but the principle that no one could take what legally belonged to another. He fought for the idea that neither his rights as King nor the rights of any of his subjects should be able to be trampled on simply by brute force. King Charles I fought a noble fight, for the protection of all of his subjects, for effective government and respect for religion. In this day and age especially, when republicanism is fashionable amongst the leftist elites in Britain and where treason is tolerated, it is worth remembering that it was the King who fought for his people, who worked to bring the three kingdoms together and who wanted peace with foreign powers while it was Oliver Cromwell, the only republican leader Britain has ever had, who conquered England, Scotland and Ireland, placed everyone under military rule, held power as a dictator and carried out some of the most brutal massacres in the history of the British Isles.

This is what can be very infuriating for monarchists. Republicans (and any monarchist has encountered this, I certainly have often enough) love to speak in hypothetical terms. They invariably begin their arguments with phrases like, “what if…” and then go on to paint every monarchy as being only one breath away from being under the arbitrary rule of a drooling imbecile. However, monarchists have actual facts on our side. Britain actually did become a republic and it was a horrible, blood-soaked tyranny. That is not hypothetical, that was what really happened. We do not have to imagine anything, it is a fact of history, Britain went through it and the lesson should have been well learned. It certainly was by those who actually experienced it and so enthusiastically welcomed King Charles II home for the restoration of the monarchy. The life and death of King Charles I should not be forgotten or avoided by monarchists but proudly cited as solid evidence of what not only could happen but which actually did happen when the British monarchy was abolished.

Monarch Profile: King Charles I
The Trial and Regicide of Charles I
King Charles the Martyr

The Trial and Regicide of Charles I

Few events in the history of nations can be as traumatic as civil war. Yet, the English Civil War in particular was a conflict with an outcome unprecedented in the history of the world: the public trial and regicide of a reigning monarch by rebel forces. Unlike similar disturbances in France or Russia, the English rebels who executed HM King Charles I actually made at least a haphazard effort to look like they were showing fairness and providing a legal validation for the murder of their archenemy, who happened to be their anointed sovereign.

It seems like a theme that would appeal to Americans in particular; the idea of Parliament overthrowing and executing a powerful monarch. However, is the situation as simple as it seems? Not likely, and how fair was this trial and how accurate is the picture painted of the Stuart king? Certainly, few people if any could accuse King Charles of being a wicked or immoral man. Charles, son of King James I (of the Authorized Bible fame), never had a mistress, set an example of moral uprightness and required that his court follow the same high standards that he lived by.

The method with which Charles led the British government is a bit more complex, but still does not seem malicious by any leap of the imagination. Nevertheless, he inherited an attitude and mindset that was not always good for his image or government function. S.R. Gardiner wrote that King Charles “looked upon the whole world through a distorting lens” and refused “to subordinate that which was only desirable to that which was possible”.

King Charles believed (like his father) that the monarch was answerable to God alone, not the public and not both. He was afraid, not so much of rule by the people but rule by those who claimed to speak for the people. He felt that government was for kings and not meant for the public. There was no evil intent behind this, it was simply his sincere belief that republican rule would harm society. King Charles did not speak of himself as the divine personification of Britain, as Louis XIV of France might have been tempted to do, but instead spoke of himself as the guardian of his people and their place in society and status as free subjects.

In fact, it has been argued that if King Charles had shown as much ruthlessness in fighting the war as he was accused of showing in government the royalist cause might well have prevailed. The King himself wrote, “It is a hard and disputable choice for a king that loves his people and desires their love either to kill his own subjects or be killed by them”. His enemies were successful, especially in the Irish campaigns, because they were willing to be more cruel than the King was who seemed to only want to use his military force to persuade his enemies to surrender and frighten the rebels into submission. An impartial look shows that the philosophy of the forces of Parliament and the Puritans was even more terrifying than the principles of Divine Right Monarchy. Their warrior-hero, Oliver Cromwell, expressed the belief that Charles was wrong simply because he had lost and in effect stated the very dangerous belief that ‘might makes right’.

Also, as much as His Majesties’ Puritan opponents, Charles I was a man of great faith who was extremely devoted to the Anglican communion of the Christian religion. Part of this faith was his belief that it was his right and duty to rule England as best he could, not as Parliament saw best or advised him. He made it clear that he could never be king if he did not have the power to rule as he saw fit. Even after his defeat Charles remained convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He wrote, “If I must suffer a violent death with my Savior…it is but mortality crowned with Martyrdom”.

This prophetic statement undoubtedly rung in the ears of many when the event that seemed so unthinkable to most people, the regicide of the King of Britain, actually occurred. However, it was not a thing that happened by sheer accident. Before the second war had even started Cromwell was stating that Charles had to be destroyed and his people should not deal at all with the monarch as to negotiation a peaceful settlement. Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was advocating that the army occupy London, remove all dissenters from the House of Commons, arrest the king and abolish the monarchy by sheer military force. Eventually this was taken to even greater extremes to propose that Parliament should be dissolved altogether and an entirely new voting system be established for entirely new elections and representations. This is important to remember since the rebels claimed to be on the side of popular opinion and called themselves the forces of Parliament. In fact, the Parliament had already declared that the king could not be legally deposed.

It would also be a mistake to claim that the rebellion against the King was the masses against the upper class. In the end all of the results of the war and the regicide were to the advantage of the merchants and gentry class. The forces of the rebellion were anything but popular or democratic. When rebel troops marched into London and seized Parliament they were acting to prevent the democratic process by turning away close to 200 members who tried to take their seats. When these men protested against this tyrannical, police-state action, many were arrested.

Even before the “legal” process began Cromwell told the remaining 150-man ‘Rump’ that was to judge Charles I, “I tell you, we will cut off the King’s head with the crown on it”. So much for a fair trial. This is not to say, however, that there was even a great deal of popular support for putting the king on trial at all. Had this been the case the rebel troops would not have feared a fair vote by the Parliament. The prosecution for “treason” (legally defined as encompassing ‘the death of the King or the overthrow of the King’s legitimate governments’ -which was exactly what the rebels were doing) of a reigning monarch was opposed by the Presbyterians and the Levellers, both of whom opposed Charles I, who believed that the trial was a trick to divert public attention away from the issues of what they regarded as much-needed social reform. Both Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer all boycotted the proceedings; all of whom were opposed to the King’s policies! The House of Lords likewise was absent, not recognizing the act of putting a monarch on trial. However, had they wished to take part, it is unlikely they would have been allowed to. Even for his enemies, trying a reigning monarch was too much for most people.

Far from being an upright quest for justice, the trial of King Charles is seen by many as perhaps the greatest act of deceit in British history. Author C.V. Wedgwood wrote that,
“Cromwell’s faction was determined to kill the King mainly because this symbolic act of revolution would satisfy discontents that might otherwise be directed toward the more fundamental and more farsighted constitutional changes sought by Lilburne’s Levellers”.
Nevertheless, just or not, King Charles I was taken before what was left of Parliament to stand trial for his actions.

To say that such an act was unprecedented is a vast understatement. The King was accused of making war against Parliament, not the actual nation, and no effort was made to show how this “Rump” (which had been purged by military force) was a true representation of the English people. Realizing this, His Majesty protested that this left his accusers with no legal right to judge him saying, “you never asked the question of the tenth man in the kingdom, and in this way you manifestly wrong even the poorest ploughman, if you demand not his free consent”.

Because of this principle, King Charles refused to enter a plea and demanded to know by what authority was he, a reigning monarch, called to trial? The head “judge” John Bradshaw said he stood accused by “the people of England” at which time Lady Fairfax (wife of the Parliament’s military commander of all people) shouted from the audience, “Not a quarter of them! Oliver Cromwell is a traitor!” At this the officer of the guard actually ordered his troops to fire into the crowd, but relented when the lady’s identity was made known. She was, however, forced to quit the proceedings.

This is a good example of how unfairly this rebel trial was conducted. King Charles conducted himself superbly by all accounts. When told that the court operated in representation of the Commons Charles said, “Show me one precedent” in which it was the King who was answerable to the Commons rather than the reverse. In any case, this was a moot argument since the Commons had been purged by force of arms. Previous cries among the crowd calling Cromwell a traitor led to the court’s order to immediately arrest anyone who “caused a disturbance”.

On His Majesty’s charge that the court had no authority Chief Justice Bradshaw brazenly said that the court was convinced of its own authority and that the king and the country must submit to their judgment. When Charles began to refute this statement he was cut off by the judge. This seemed to be rather typical for this court. When making a speech that came out too logical for the court’s comfort, rebel troops promptly dragged him from the courtroom amid cries of “Justice!” but also of “God save the King!”.

Finally, Bradshaw pronounced the King guilty for refusing to plead. In response, Charles requested that a full Parliament, the Lords and Commons, be called to hear him. His Majesty said, “If I cannot get this liberty, I do here protest that so fair shows of liberty and peace, are pure shows and not otherwise, since you will not hear your King”.

The court recessed after Charles’ request, though not so much for a consideration but so that calm could be restored. For while Bradshaw was accusing the King of delaying tactics a man in the audience began to call out, “Have we hearts of stone? Are we men?”. It was becoming ever more clear to all that this court was not interested in justice at all but vengeance and the idea was a profoundly disturbing one. When the court did reconvene, the King’s request was denied on the basis that it was a ploy to delay his execution, or as they termed it, “justice”. Charles admitted it would cause delay,
“but a little delay of a day or two further may give peace, whereas a hasty judgment may bring on that trouble and perpetual inconvenience to the Kingdom, that the child that is unborn may repent it”.

In his closing Bradshaw referred to the ridiculous notion that the King was elected and even went so far as to compare him to the Roman Emperor Caligula (who was murdered by his guard). He cited the removal of Edward II and Richard II, neither of which was lawful, the Magna Carta, which was forced by and for the lords and not the common people and all in all his argument was high-sounding but full of holes, half-truths and blatant lies. In fact, when King Charles tried to reply to this Bradshaw silenced him and arrogantly declared, “And the truth is, all along, from the first time you were pleased to disavow and disown us, the Court needed not to have heard you one word”. In effect, he was saying that even if the King had not been given a fair trial, he deemed if undeserving of one anyway. His Majesty was sentenced to death by beheading. He was refused permission to respond and was taken out by troops while saying, “I am not suffered to speak; expect what justice other people may have”.

On January 30, 1649 King Charles I was taken to a scaffold outside the palace of Whitehall for his execution. He dressed warmly for fear that shivers of cold would be mistaken for a sign of fear. He addressed his enemies one last time saying,
“I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people”
His final words were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be”. A boy in the crowd who witnessed the execution wrote,
“The blow I saw given, and can truly say with a sad heart, at the instant whereof, I remember well, there was such a groan by the thousands then present as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again”.

King Charles was buried in secret at Windsor Castle. In the end, Parliament itself was its own worst enemy. Rather than pointing out the merits of their case (dubious though they were in the best cases), they resorted to strong-arm tactics that only made them look all the more like the disloyal demagogues that they were. King Charles never looked better than when he was seen by all the world as the pious victim of treasonous force. Due to the forceful tyranny and the unjust murder of their anointed king, Parliament also provided the Royalist forces with a martyr in the person of King Charles I. The monarch’s gentle and passive conduct impressed his friends and infuriated his enemies. He was himself no less aware of the course history was taking, and showing both mercy and foresight; Charles told his son in Eikon Basilike, “Let then no passion betray you to any study of revenge on those, whose own sin and folly will sufficiently punish in due time”.

MM Video: Emperor Charles I

Remember!

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

Monarch Profile: King Charles I of Britain

It often seems that when it comes to anti-monarchial revolutions it is the best monarchs who end up losing their lives. It was the case with Czar Nicholas II of Russia and King Louis XVI of France, both very good, decent, God-fearing men and so it was with King Charles I of Great Britain; one of the most upright, noble and principled men to sit on the throne of the three kingdoms. He was born in Scotland, the second son of King James (VI of Scotland, I of England) and his queen Anne of Denmark on November 19, 1600. He was frail and sickly as a child but very intelligent and gifted when it came to languages. In 1612 his brother Prince Henry died and young Charles became the heir to the throne, becoming Prince of Wales in 1616. He was very short but polite, dignified and possessing a very regal bearing for his 5ft 4in.

On March 27, 1625 with the passing of his father he became Charles I, King of England, Scotland, Ireland and (nominally) France. Two months later he married Princess Henrietta Maria of France, the very religious sister of King Louis XIII. It was not love at first sight but in time they would grow to be as devoted to each other as any couple could be even though religion divided them. He sent the cohort of priests who came with her back to France and she refused to attend his formal coronation on the grounds that it was Protestant ceremony. However, in time their religious differences would grow less and less pronounced as King Charles I became known for his adherence to “High Church” Anglicanism which put more emphasis on free will and more elaborate, beautiful styles of worship which Catholics viewed as moving in the right direction at the very least.

From the outset Charles I was troubled by financial issues. Inflation had been steadily growing in England for a very long time and fixed incomes began to suffer, including the King. This, along with a combination of other factors and simple mismanagement meant that Charles I did not have the money to meet the obligations, particularly national defense, for which he was responsible. This drove the King to all sorts of inventive, but perfectly legal, means of collecting money such as cashing in the dowry of his wife, borrowing money from the wealthy elites of the country and spreading “ship money” (taxes collected in coastal areas for the navy) nationwide. Parliament, dominated of course by the wealthy elites, began to grumble more and more, especially when the wars being waged were not victorious. Greed and ambition combined with a growing religious fanaticism to create a ’perfect storm’ directed against the British Crown.

King Charles, despite his reputation, was not a rigid, intolerant man and he conceded on many of the points Parliament insisted on. When they demanded still more he dissolved Parliament and ruled alone for the next eleven years in peace and harmony. However, efforts to enforce his religious style in Scotland led to war, which did not go well, and forced him to recall Parliament. The new members refused to get down to business without first re-stating their old grievances. Charles dissolved them again but unfortunately his forces in Scotland were soundly defeated, bringing him back to square one.

Parliament was even more unreasonable than before and more religiously intolerant with not only Catholics but Anglicans and High Church Anglicans in particular being attacked as ‘insufficiently Protestant’. Again, though this often ignored, King Charles I was willing to negotiate and gave in to almost all of the demands of Parliament for the sake of peace in the realm. However, like all liberal revolutionaries, give them an inch and they demand a mile. Charles agreed to all but two of the demands of Parliament; that he should effectively stop being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and that he give up control of the militia. On these two issues Charles I refused to negotiate but that was not enough for the radicals in Parliament who demanded all or nothing.

After failing to gain Scottish support Charles I attempted to arrest the Parliamentary ringleaders but this too came to nothing and both sides prepared for war. The start is usually dated August 22, 1642 when the Royal Standard was raised at Nottingham. With the Parliamentarians (or Roundheads) controlling the majority of the wealth of the country and the most vital areas the odds were greatly stacked against the Royalists (or Cavaliers), however, they fought extremely well and King Charles himself proved that, while he may not have been a military genius, he was certainly a competent and worthy military commander with a good grasp of tactics. His strategic judgment has often been criticized, but in truth this was simply a result of his humanity. Charles I did not want to wage a ‘total war’. Opportunities were often lost because the King hated having to fight his own people, was convinced that most had simply been led astray by wicked men and that he simply needed to sting them to bring them to their senses and return them to loyalty.

In short, the Roundheads were out to destroy the King but the Cavaliers were not out to destroy anyone. Despite coming fairly close to success in 1643 the tide turned against the King who sought support in Scotland. The Scots turned him over to the Roundheads but Charles escaped, was recaptured, Scotland reconsidered and attacked the Parliamentarians but in the end Charles was captured for good, the Scots and English royalists were defeated, Edinburgh was occupied and King Charles was hauled before a rump “parliament” (no House of Lords) to be tried for “treason”. With great dignity and composure he refused to recognize the authority of the court (which made a farce of justice, refusing to allow anyone even suspected of favoring the King from taking their seat and silencing anyone who spoke in his favor) and did not speak much at all until his final statement at the time of his condemnation.

On January 30, 1649 King Charles I was executed by beheading at Whitehall Palace -and Britain would never be the same again. The gallant monarch was buried, secretly and in haste, at Windsor Castle and the Puritan military commander Oliver Cromwell became dictator of Britain and Ireland for the only period in British history without a monarch on the throne. Ruling in tyrannical fashion and bringing gruesome persecution down on the people of Ireland, the British Isles were a gloomy place before the death of Cromwell allowed King Charles II to claim his father’s throne.

The Church of England eventually recognized King Charles I as a saint, a martyr for Anglicanism. However, the victory of the Parliamentary forces could not be undone, even though the monarchy was finally restored. Ever since tension has existed between Crown and Parliament, which has even been enshrined in the ceremonies of the British Parliament to this day. It would take a while longer to be fully put in place but with the defeat of the heroic King Charles I, Great Britain set out on the path toward a system effectively dominated by Parliament. Looking down from his “incorruptible crown”, what would the late Stuart King things of his countries today?

MM Video: Charles I of Britain

King Charles the Martyr

It was on this day in 1649 that HM King Charles I of Great Britain suffered martyrdom for the cause of religion and monarchy at the hands of that archtraitor of the English-speaking world Oliver Cromwell. The regicide of Charles I had far-reaching consequences not often considered. Of course it brought about the era of the Cromwellian Puritan dictatorship which remains to this day the most oppressive government in English history but it also meant great suffering for Scotland and a near genocidal campaign in Ireland. However, it also represented the start of an era of republican triumphalism that was to last for much, much longer. In fact, with some periods of exception it has continued to this day. It was the victory of the Parliamentary forces, illustrated by the regicide of Charles I, that gave them the strength of will to continue to resist all efforts at a true royal restoration ever after.

Of course we know that the people of Britain soon had enough of Cromwell and his oppression and happily welcomed the martyred King's son back on the throne as Charles II, but the fact that these traitors had never been openly and finally defeated on the battlefield meant that they still felt empowered to resist monarchs thereafter. This is seen in the efforts to subvert the natural succession under Charles II who finally was obliged to dissolve Parliament and forbid any talk of him divorcing his wife or disinheriting the Duke of York. It was seen the coup against King James II when he failed to please the Parliamentary elites and in the restrictions placed on his successors starting with King William III and Queen Mary II. It also set a dangerous precedent in the minds of the English-speaking-peoples that the monarchy was something which could be toppled. Something of that monarchial sacredness had already been lost with the judicial execution of Mary Queen of Scots but with Charles I it was even more emphasized as he was no foreign prince and the execution was done, not by a rival monarch, but by a rump of Parliament. It seared into the minds of traitors for generations that it was Parliament rather than the Crown that was the ultimate power in the land.

At his trial the heroic King Charles I did not really deny that. He was within the power of Parliament and he knew it. He also knew that while Parliament, by virtue of Cromwell's New Model Army, had the power they did not have legitimate authority which rested with him alone. At his trial he compared it to the power of a roadside bandit, who can take your money or your life, but whose power is based on material force and not true, spiritual authority. The words of King Charles I at his trial are something every monarchist should read, especially those who consider the reign of Charles I as some kind of totalitarian tyranny. Charles I fought, not simply for his own Crown, but for his right, and by extension the right of every person in his kingdoms, to that which was lawfully his own. As the King said, if they can treat the sovereign of Britain so, what man, high born or common, could ever be sure of that which is his own? Charles I was fighting for the traditional, natural government of Britain and fighting against what we would now call the "big government" of political elites.

It is, in fact, even something of a lie to say that the Parliamentary forces actually represented parliamentary government in any way. The Parliament had been stripped, purged and violated in every way in order to produce the results that the Cromwellian elite wanted. Even then, Cromwell was fairly quick to dissolve Parliament when it failed to please him after the great King had gone on to his eternal reward. The Parliamentary system also died alongside Charles I and was only ever restored because the treasonous clique recognized that it could be manipulated to serve their own purposes. All of this makes the memory of King Charles I a very useful one for monarchists today and we should all speak up on his behalf when he is slandered. King Charles is a symbol of true royal authority and legitimate government fighting against powerful political elites. He is also a symbol of religious unity for he was declared a saint and martyr of the Church of England but was married to a Catholic and supported by the vast majority of Catholics in his own time. This is contrasted with the religious intolerance of the Puritans and especially the horrific massacre of Irish Catholics by Cromwell and his troops. He is also a symbol, sadly not the only one, of how republican governments almost invariably come to power only through blood, brute force and the murder of the innocent.

May King Charles rest forever with the angels.
A Litany of Charles, King and Martyr (CofE)

Birthday of a Blessed Emperor

It was on this day in 1887 that HIRH Charles Francis Joseph Louis Hubert George Mary of Habsburg-Lothringen was born to Archduke Otto and Archduchess Maria Josepha in Lower Austria. At the time few probably imagined that he would one day become heir to the throne, much less that he would have the sad distinction of being the last Hapsburg Emperor from that ancient and widely respected dynasty. It is well enough that he had such a happy marriage and family life and that he was able to take such consolation in his deep Catholic faith for his life was a succession of tragedies from end to end. He is often relegated to a foot note in the history books dealing with the Great War, yet he should be praised and held up as an example for all others to follow for he was one of only a literal handful of European leaders who actually tried to end that disastrous and suicidal conflict peacefully. He inherited the thrones of Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary upon the death of the esteemed Emperor Francis Joseph but by 1918 the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary was falling apart around him, he was deposed and forced into exile. Yet, Charles was a monarchists' monarch and he tried twice to regain his throne in Hungary as a prelude to a further restoration of the Hapsburg dominions but it was not to be. His greatness in terms of his honor, dignity, piety and devotion to duty is impossible to ignore and cannot be overstated. Thankfully, he is more well known now that he might have been for one man who did not forget him was the late Pope John Paul II who beatified him in 2004; pointing especially to his example of trying to stop the Great War peacefully.

Consort Profile: Queen Henrietta Maria

Queen Henrietta Maria was the consort of King Charles I of Great Britain. She was the daughter of King Henri IV of France and Marie de Medici and so was the sister of King Louis XIII. When she married Charles I in 1625 many in England were unhappy at the choice of a French Catholic princess but Charles was more worried about his bride being taller than him (the King was extremely short). However, he need not have been so as Henrietta Maria was an extremely petite woman, almost tiny in fact, but very beautiful like a very delicate little bird. However, her small size was out of proportion to her very strong will and unbreakable principles. She insisted on keeping her Catholic confessor and would not even attend her own husband's coronation because she refused to attend any Protestant services. She was an extremely devout Catholic to say the least.

The marriage had a somewhat rough start but Charles found his Queen to be a tower of strength for him after the death of the Duke of Buckingham (whom the Queen disliked) and the two had probably the most happy marriage of any couple of the Stuart dynasty. Charles and Henrietta Maria were devoted to each other, faithful to each other and respected each other and saw the succession secured with seven children. She detested the Puritanical streak of the Protestant elites in Parliament and worked to secure the support of the Catholic powers on the continent for the King, not only from France but Spain and the Holy See as well. Even with civil war engulfing Britain Queen Henrietta Maria showed herself more than up to the challenge. After raising money for the royalist cause in Europe she landed in northern England and based herself at York surrounded by her own troops before joining the King at Oxford.

After the regicide of Charles I she went into exile in France where she never relented in pushing for the restoration of the British monarchy and urging her children to convert to Catholicism. When the monarchy was restored she lived in England again for a while but finally returned to her native France where she founded a convent and spent her final years. She adamantly believed that her husband Charles I had become a Catholic before his death though this is hotly debated and usually dismissed. What is not disputed is that her sons King Charles II and King James II both converted to Catholicism and maintained the style of monarchism that their mother (and father for that matter) had approved of. In the United States Queen Henrietta Maria is commemorated by the state of Maryland which was named in her honor when established as a colony for English Catholics. The Queen died in 1669.