Whew! Well, that was quite a start to Lent Madness 2018. The epic battle between Peter and Paul did not disappoint. In very heavy and heart-thumpingly close voting, Peter edged Paul 51% to 49% with nearly 9,500 votes cast and will face the winner of Phoebe vs. John the Evangelist in the Round of the Saintly Sixteen.
Today Margaret of Scotland takes on Charles I in a Battle Royale. No, literally, it's a battle between royals -- queen vs. king. But please don't refer to this as regicide. Charles is a bit touchy on that subject.
Looking ahead, tomorrow will be the one and only matchup of Lent Madness that takes place on a Saturday. Every other pairing will take place on the weekdays of Lent. So don't forget to set your alarm, make your coffee, and then vote as Genesius takes on Quiteria.
But first, a reminder about our one-vote-per-person rule. Last night at 7:58 pm Eastern time, the SEC removed 254 votes from Paul. We found that someone in Little Rock, Arkansas, had voted for Paul repeatedly (we can verify that it was not Bill Clinton). This person was cast into the outer darkness of Lent Madness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. We do appreciate saintly passion. But we ask that everyone respect the integrity of this little competition. We do keep an eye on voting irregularities. Think Big Brother -- only more purple.
Margaret of Scotland
Margaret of Scotland is the patron saint of that country. An English princess born in 1045 in exile in Hungary, Margaret was also known as Margaret of Wessex and the Pearl of Scotland, homages to both her social status and her lifelong ministry.
Princess Margaret was married to King Malcom III of Scotland, the same Malcolm immortalized by William Shakespeare in Macbeth. A deeply religious Christian, Margaret was a reformer and social justice crusader. She helped build and restore churches throughout Scotland, including Iona Monastery and the Abbey of Dunfermline, where a relic of the cross of Christ was housed and where she would eventually be buried.
Margaret endeavored to change the aged and dated ways of the clergy in Scotland, bringing that church on par with the religious practices conducted elsewhere in Christendom. For example, she believed that on the Lord’s Day, “We apply ourselves only to prayers.” She was also known to read the Bible to her illiterate spouse.
Margaret was a queen and the mother of kings, queens, a countess, and a bishop. Notwithstanding, of particular significance is that she can be considered the true patron saint of Lent Madness! As an observance of her faith, Margaret insisted that clergy start the Lenten season on Ash Wednesday.
She was a reformer beyond the church as well, establishing schools, orphanages, and hospitals throughout Scotland. Margaret and Malcolm were tireless in their efforts to improve the living conditions of the Scottish clans. Many churches are dedicated to Margaret, such as St. Margaret’s Chapel in Edinburgh Castle, founded by her son King David I in the twelfth century. Today the chapel is one of the oldest remaining buildings in Edinburgh.
Margaret died on November 16, 1093, in Edinburgh, three days after her husband and eldest son were killed in battle. Canonized in 1250, she is honored on
November 16.
Collect for Margaret of Scotland
O God, you called your servant Margaret to an earthly throne that she might advance your heavenly kingdom, and gave her zeal for your Church and love for your people: Mercifully grant that we who commemorate her this day may be fruitful in good works, and attain to the glorious crown of your saints; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Charles I
Charles Stuart was born in November of 1600, the second son of Anne of Denmark and James IV of Scotland. When he was eighteen, his elder brother died, and Charles took his place in the royal succession. Charles I became the king of England upon his father’s death in March of 1625.
As king, Charles did not get along with Parliament. They wanted a Protestant queen to bear a Protestant heir; Charles didn’t listen. He married Henrietta Maria, a Roman Catholic French princess, in May, 1625.
Meanwhile, the Thirty Years’ War was raging across Europe, pitting Protestants against Catholics, so his subjects expected Charles to despise the Catholic countries out of patriotism. Charles fought Catholic Spain but kept running out of money and raising taxes, which did not help national morale.
In 1633, Charles appointed William Laud as Archbishop of Canterbury. Together, they pushed for liturgical reforms, including many that are familiar practices to us today, such as adherence to the prayer book rubrics, use of vestments and candles, and the institution of the altar rail. To a large extent, Charles and Laud shaped Anglicanism in the way that we experience it today.
Yet his marriage, wars, and religious changes combined to create a toxic environment for King Charles. The English populace wondered if their king was Protestant or Catholic. Unrest grew. Charles’s refusal to convene Parliament for eleven years threw the country into civil war. Charles was captured in May, 1646. He was tried on charges of treason and other “high crimes” and was executed on January 30, 1649.
At his execution, one historian records that the crowd was overcome with grief and pushed forward to dip their handkerchiefs in his blood as relics. It was commonly thought that Charles was offered his life in exchange for abandoning the historic episcopate, yet he refused. Despite some failures as a monarch, he preserved the historic episcopate in Anglicanism, and ironically, may have enabled the Church to survive the English Civil War.
Collect for Charles I
Blessed Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; We magnify thy Name for thine abundant grace bestowed upon our martyred Sovereign; by which he was enabled so cheerfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto blood; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us; that we may follow the example of his courage and constancy, his meekness and patience, and great charity...And all for Jesus Christ his sake, our only Mediator and Advocate. Amen.
[poll id="206"]
342 comments on “Margaret of Scotland vs. Charles I”
It has often amused me that one of the two patron saints of Scotland was an Anglo-Saxon woman. On a more serious note, Margaret was a wonderful person with a great devotion to serving "even the least of these", not just the the nobles and royalty where her life was mostly based. She worked tirelessly, not just on liturgical reforms, but to promote peace and reconciliation on personal level. She's also the patron saint of housewives! My vote is solidly for her; and I suspect Charles will once again be slaughtered.
As a descendent of Scots and several Margarets, this was a no brainer even before I knew about all her good works with the "common people". I'm glad to see I'm in "good company"
I lived in Edinburgh for a year and was inspired by Margaret’s chapel and her works. She was a figure of peace and generosity in a time where that was not the norm.
As a granddaughter of a Margaret and niece of another Margaret, I’d be naturally inclined to vote for her. However, learning about her passion for social justice, her intelligence and her activism, her name could be Turnip and I’d still vote for her. She is a model for our time. As a student of history, I could NEVER vote for Charles. Had he convened Parliament ten years earlier, he might have saved himself, his throne and saved his country from a civil war. Any leader who says he’s above the law should take heed!
Charles prorogued Parliament because Parliament refused to work with him. From the very day he became King, they opposed him out of senseless hatred and spite, denying him the cooperation he needed to govern the country. When they refused to do their job, he dismissed them - which was part of his traditional prerogative. He then attempted to fund the government from the Crown territories and from the traditional and customary rights and privileges of the Crown. He never claimed to be "above the law." He believed that he and everyone else was under the law of God.
Charles doesn't seem that bad to me. It's regrettable that he is up against such a saintly person as Margaret. I agree with John the Verger, that sometimes it is necessary to raise taxes.
I love it that Charles went with his heart and married a French princess. I love it that he and Laud were instrumental in designing our beloved liturgy. Still, the essence of sainthood is good works. Margaret gets my vote.
Charles, even with the very stylish beard, is a terrible candidate for the Halo. His stubborn nature and inability to put the needs of his 2 countries ahead of his own "divine "rule led to dreadful conflict. Glad to see Margaret running away even in the early hours.
That is a completely inaccurate misconception of the historical reality. I do not argue that Charles was a brilliant statesman or a perfect King, but he truly was committed to well-being and good government of all three of his realms and exercising the powers and responsibilities of the Crown he inherited was his right but also his duty from God.
Pretty lopsided contest.
Charles because I attend St Charles in St Charles, IL, and I didn't think he existed.
Is your church really dedicated to King Charles I. In a place called St. Louis, I would have expected a French saint like St. Charles Garnier, a Jesuit missionary among the Iroquois.
The church was apparently named after the town of St Charles, which was named after some Saint Charles of some distinction somewhere. We never name him in the prayers. He serves no patronly purpose in our identity. I voted for him anyway because "[Charlie,] I never knew ye."
I am sorry Catherine; Even the Jr. warden of St. Charles voted for Margaret.
A good day to pray for and otherwise support the ministries of Sisters of St Margaret, in Haiti as well as in impoverished domestic areas. http://societyofstmargaret.org/
Good call! I voted for Charles, but I can do that.
Lovely post. Thank you.
As for Charles, don't forget the Roundhead saying about Charles's archbishop, "All praise be to God and little Laud to the devil." Charles probably was a good person, but a terrible king. I had to go for Margaret.
Maggie! Because she read to Malcom...I wish my fella would let me read to him.
We really need "heart" buttons. There are so many comments I would "heart." I heart this one.
Heart
I love the discipline of breaking the FB/Twitter habit. I can't say I don't feel your pain though, to the point of catching my body moving before I realize there's nothing there to click. Some of these are truly amazing. There is a time for quiet, though, even if it's refraining from expressions of gratitude. (There are even more opportunities to the reverse.) It's not a space in which most of us are exactly comfortable.
"Twitter habit": I resemble that remark. I appreciate your reminder about quiet.
For Margaret, the crown seems to have been about a high place from which to do good. For Charles, it was about the power. He did not save Anglicanism. Its middle way saved it after the English got a taste of institutionalized Calvinism under Oliver Cromwell. The very fact that the Church of England canonized him shows the regard for the old church they felt after the Restoration of the monarchy. Interesting that the pairing is really of two Scottish monarchs. Parliament cut off Charles's head for leading a Scottish army against England in the Second English Civil War.
He was recognized but not officially canonized. Neither the C of E nor the Anglican Communion since has ever presumed to canonize anyone as a saint after the Reformation split.
Sorry Lisa, but the marks of canonization include enrollment in a listing of saints, the establishment of public devotions, and the dedication of churches or chapels. Parliament, on the recommendation of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, included Charles as a red-letter day (i.e. a feast appointed to be observed) in the BCP Calendar, provided a service for that day, and churches were soon dedicated to him. This canonization -- like some others -- may be controversial, but it was real and official.
So good to see you here, Fr. Loring!
Bill, what I read seems to indicate that it was so controversial from the start that it perhaps cannot be accorded as done deal and doctrine. And was it not the first and only attempt in Anglicanism to canonize post-reformation? BTW I did end up voting for him!
You are incorrect. Charles view of his responsibilities as a king were perfectly in line with those of Margaret. Margaret, however, did not have to face a Parliament dominated by power-hungry Puritan theocrats. Charles had the choice to save his life and his throne by, among other things, accepting the transformation of the Church of England into a dour and joyless Puritan fundamentalist cult. He refused, and his refusal and death tainted the Parliamentarians with his blood and kept the spirit of defiance and faithfulness to the "middle way" alive.
I believe Carolyn is offering her opinion; it is not, therefore, "incorrect." Facts are correct or incorrect. Interpretations are convincing or not. She, like you, is offering an assessment of history. We are free to be persuaded or not. Your assessments are highly partisan and admit of no nuance or disagreement. Indeed, you seem to be trying to preclude any alternative viewpoint. For example, you present the "middle way" as characterized by a "spirit of defiance and faithfulness." Doesn't sound very "middle" to me; I am having a hard time imagining how faithfulness and defiance go together. The DSM does not include a "Cooperational Faithful Disorder" whereas it does include an "Oppositional Defiant Disorder." Given your approach to the "middle," I would prefer Aristotle. So, dear brother, I would like to invite you to consider how you might present your viewpoint in a manner which might possibly persuade and convince us instead of badgering us. Can you offer a rational and compendious view of Charles that is less spattered with hate of the Puritans ("a dour and joyless fundamentalist cult," sez you, who doubtless throw eggs at Presbyterian churches) and more charitable and hospitable toward the intellectual lights of those who might (just possibly might) incline an ear to you if you could lay off some of the rancor toward what you see as the enemy?
Aren't we supposed to throw eggs at Presbyterian churches? Shoot. I missed the memo. 😉
So — from epochal struggle we descend to pattycake. Supremos, Margaret deserved better at your hands than this blatant setup against a coronated fop who happened also to be either an Anglo-Catholic or a Catholic Anglo. For next year I nominate Louis XVI to fill the regicide slot.
Sick burn! Only day 2, I haven't even had a sip of coffee yet, and you're already throwing shade. I hear Louis XVI loved his daughters fwiw.
oooooooo mic drop.
Just shows to go ya how influential a fop can be....
Oh my goodness. Is there really nothing good to say about Charles? I've read that he was a patron of the arts, bringing Van Dyck and Rubens to England, and adding collections of Raphael, da Vinci, Caravaggio, and Titian paintings to the royal gallery. He instituted the still active position of Master of the King's Music to his staff to oversee the royal musicians. Charles was also somewhat shy, probably due to his persistent stammer.
At his trial Charles said, "I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their laws and their goods may be most their own." And at his death he is quoted as saying, "I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be."
Yeah, I voted for Margaret. But it's good to remember that everyone has some redeeming qualities!
Of course (and see my reply to Susan’s comment posted at 8:23, citing the foundation of Maryland as an oasis of tolerance). But redeeming qualities, alas, do not a Golden Halo make.
Your avatar is my favorite depiction of the Annunciation, by the way.
True, devil's advocate that I am! And I'm happy to hear we share a love for Rossetti's girl.
My favorite Annunciation also! The only one I can think of where Mary seems kinda scared, which is just how I picture it. Off topic, but there it is. And I agree that 'redeeming qualities do not a Golden Halo make,' but it is nice to hear about them, since we're all some mix of sinner and saint.
The only other frightened Marys in annunciation art I can think of are in Zeffirelli's movie "Jesus of Nazareth," and American artist John Collier's 1980 painting, now housed in a church in Texas (but easy to find on Google.
If Margaret upgraded and reestablished Iona, then we owe her a great debt indeed. There the Bible and numerous other books were copied by scribes. These books were the only reprints of ones that were lost to time when Rome was sacked and the libraries burned. Consider the book How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Great read about an astounding contribution to our culture. She gets my vote!
Beth, thanks for your comments on the Cahill book. It is one of my favorites. His Hinges of History series books Re all great reads.
Margaret for Scotland! And I am so very weary of politics. Give me a queen who feeds the hungry, literally and spiritually.
AMEN!!!!!
Wait. I thought Andrew was the patron saint of Scotland.
They are both patron saints of Scotland. It's Margaret's only gig, while Andrew is also Patron of Fishermen, singers, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and Patras.
Margaret of Scotland is also the patron saint of housewives.
Margaret gets my vote.
Not only did she do good works, she was a social justice crusader and that is what we need more of today. Therefore my vote goes with her
After yesterday's match up, which began to rival the closeness of a Florida presidential election, this one will leave no hanging chads. Go Margaret of Scotland!
Charles, but only because I'm a new member of St Charles in St Charles, IL, and I never knew he existed. Margaret seems more hospitable, though.
Margaret for her kindness and generosity during an age when it was rare. It really isn't fair to pair Charles I with her.
Voting for Margaret, who is remembered in a beautiful window in my home parish.
“...And one was a queen.” (I Sing a Song of the Saints of God).
How could I vote for other the Queen Margaret!
Saint for Social Justice and Education - count me in for Margaret
I have voted for Margaret, in part because she was a restorer of Iona monastery, and as a member of the community, restoration of the Abbey is a significant part of our community history. Also, having recently observed Charles I in morning prayer, I have to confess to feeling as slightly embarrassed about his inclusion in the calendar.
I'm with you Fiona. Margaret all the way. Loved that she restored Iona Monastery, but mostly for her work with social justice and improving the lives of the people. Oh that we might have more leaders like her today.
My great aunt was a member of the Anglican order of Saint Margaret.
One for the ladies today, Margaret gets my vote for reading the Bible to Malcolm
of Shakespeare's Macbeth. M&M all the way (NOT the given up Godiva chocolates)
Sorry, Charlie.
And he did have pretty good liturgical taste!
[chortling]
For obvious reasons, I am voting for Margaret. I am going to Scotland in May so also looking forward to seeing her influence in the country.