The final Christian testimony of King Charles I

[Hatikvah]

Charles I was an Anglican monarch of the Stewart dynasty who issued the 1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer. I believe that his final speech shows his personal thinking as a monarch: his love of God and country, and his well-intentioned thoughts for his people.

Context is important: Charles I believed firmly in the divine right of kings and ended up quarrelling with Parliament often. When the English Civil War broke out, it was between the pro-Stewart Royalists and the Parliamentarians. When the Parliamentarians captured Charles, he was charged with treason. And so, this speech occurs while he stands on a scaffold before his beheading with an ax.

The end of Charles’ speech is quoted (though I elapsed it a little bit for swifter reading):

*…] I desire [the people’s] liberty and freedom as much as any body whomsoever, but I must tell you, that their liberty and their freedom consists in having of Government; those laws, by which their life and their goods may be most of their own.

…] Sirs, it was for this that now I am come here: 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 (and I pray God it be not laid to your charge) that I am a martyr of the people.

In troth, Sirs, I shall not hold you much longer, for I will only say thus to you, that in truth I could have desired some little time longer, because I would have put then that I have said in a little more order, and a little better digested than I have done, and therefore I hope you will excuse me.

I have delivered my conscience, I pray God that you do take those courses that are best for the good of the kingdom, and your own salvation.

In troth Sirs, my conscience in religion I think is very well known to all the world, and therefore I declare before you all, that I die a Christian, according to the profession of the Church of England, as I found it left me by my father, and this honest man I think will witness it.

I have a good cause, and a gracious God on my side… I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible crown; where no disturbance can be, no disturbance in the world.*

You can find the complete speech of Charles I here: karipearls.com/speech-before-the-execution-of-charles-I.html

Comment and share your thoughts if you will.

 

[Tim_D]

Charles I was a really bad king. He would have never been overthrown if he wouldn’t have done so many dumb things.

 

[Hatikvah]

Charles I was a really bad king. He would have never been overthrown if he wouldn’t have done so many dumb things.

As I was writing this, I thought “maybe he lied” or “maybe he was sarcastic while saying this” (I doubt that someone would use that much sarcasm, especially in their final speech). Louis XVI, before the drums drowned out his words, actually said he wished that France would not see God’s wrath.

Maybe only overthrown monarchs understand?

 

[Tim_D]

Louis was at least a sympathetic king who worked within the framework of France’s political traditions. It is much to his credit that, before the drums drowned him out, he absolved all of those who were responsible for his death.

Charles got to the point where he refused to work with parliament and was even raising forces to use against the significant opposition to him. He refused to participate in his own trial because he claimed that being king, there was no authority that could sit in judgement of him. He really had no-one to blame but himself.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Charles the First stood for the old order, the Divine Right of Kings under an Anglican framework. Unfortunately, he tried to be an Absolutist *a la King Henry VIII * and his Parliament wasn’t having any of it. The Parliamentarians were not powerless and they reacted with force when Charles tried to dissolve them.

King Charles lost and he met his end as a publicly Christian King should ( so did Louis XVI), declaring his allegiance to his faith and admonishing his killers to look after the public welfare. He should have tried to find some kind of accord with the Puritans, but instead he decided to oppose them exodus2013.co.uk/tag/puritan/, spartacus-educational.com/TUDanglicans.htm.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Charles I was a really bad king. He would have never been overthrown if he wouldn’t have done so many dumb things.

That may be so, but nobody’s saying he’s a saint because of his political acumen. Rather he’s a saint because he nobly and Christianly faced his death.

Charles got to the point where he refused to work with parliament and was even raising forces to use against the significant opposition to him. He refused to participate in his own trial because he claimed that being king, there was no authority that could sit in judgement of him. He really had no-one to blame but himself.

Indeed, and this is precisely what I find so admirable about him. Charles probably could have saved his life if he had submitted to Parliament, but that would have meant denying his divine right to rule England, which to Charles would have been just as blasphemous as denying God’s divine right to rule the universe.

 

[Tim_D]

Rather he’s a saint because he nobly and Christianly faced his death.

A saint because he was executed? A person is a saint because of the personal sanctity of their life.

      Indeed, and this is precisely what I find so admirable about him. Charles probably could have saved his life if he had submitted to Parliament, but that would have meant denying his divine right to rule England, which to Charles would have been just as blasphemous as denying God's divine right to rule the universe.

Raising an army to use against your own people because you can’t get your way politically is not something ordained by God. No one believes in the divine right of kings.

 

[Bran_Stark]

A saint because he was executed? A person is a saint because of the personal sanctity of their life.

From everything I’ve read about King Charles, there was plenty of sanctity in his personal life. But even if there wasn’t, there is plenty of tradition of saints honoured for noble deaths after ignoble lives. The Thief on the Cross, for one.

Raising an army to use against your own people because you can’t get your way politically is not something ordained by God. No one believes in the divine right of kings.

The Divine Right of Kings usually refers to the doctrine (which I fervently believe) that kings derive their authority from God, and cannot be overruled or deposed by any earthly power. It doesn’t mean that a given action is God’s will simply because it was performed by a king.