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”
Voted for Margaret. Currently taking a course on the English Civil Wars while studying abroad in the UK, and while Charles died well, I’m not sure his life really qualified him for sainthood. Seems more like a political move after the restoration to me.
As an employee of St. Margaret's Episcopal School I have no other choice but to vote for Margaret of Scotland. After all, it is our goal to instill her values in our students!
No contest! Even if I weren't the great great granddaughter of a woman named Margaret Henderson of Scotland, I would vote for Margaret for her social conscience and work to reform church practices. Also, with Valentine's chocolate still on my breath, I think it's sweet that she read the Bible to her husband.
I didn't know there were so many women named Margaret! She's surely a saintly saint and Charles just isn't. Thing is if it weren't for Charles, I wouldn't be an Episcopalian. I love the vestments, altar rails and rubrics and fluff. Pomp and all. I'm really not that shallow. I did vote for Charles and he was awful. Bless his heart.
Well, Mercy, is nothing sacred? Even voting in a Lenten Saintly competition we experience voter fraud - or, perhaps it is the Russians! Apparently, they are interested in ALL of our elections! Thanks, Big Purple, even if those duplicate votes being discovered cost my pick, Paul, to lose the competition. I'd rather lose fairly than win dishonestly. Someone has Lenten repentance to work on, but glad it's not Bill Clinton!
With a daughter and sister named Margaret and a grandmother named Pearl, how could I not vote for Margaret. She was a pragmatic saint, very much involved in the affairs of the world. We need more like her.
What can I say? I'm a Margaret and partially of Scotch-Irish ancestry. Aside from which, I simply cannot vote for someone who tried to rule without the benefit of Parliament!
It seems to me that many of the British monarchs ignored the Magna Carta long after King John put his seal on it.
He didn't have a choice, really. It's hard to work with Parliament when Parliament was committed to opposing and obstructing him at every turn from the very first day of his reign.
I had similar thoughts under our last president. We'll not mention the current situation! But... Sorry... Gotta work together. Somehow!!
Amen!
As a loyal member of St. Charles Episcopal Church in St. Charles IL, I proudly vote for Margaret. You should have been at the annual meeting some years ago when we finally voted to take the apostrophe off the Charles and decide that we were named after the town instead of the King.
That meeting must have been one for the ages...unlike this Lent Madness match-up ;-).
Riots over apostrophes. I love it.
As much as this Episcopalian loves her candles and vestments, I can't vote for a ruler who inhibited democracy by not convening Parliament.
That is not the case. First, Parliament in the 17th century was hardly democratic - oligarchic is more apt. Secondly, and more importantly, Parliament refused to do its job to advise the king, propose laws, and provide funds unless he caved in to their radical religious agenda, among other things beyond the scope of their constitutional and traditional purview. They "inhibited democracy" by refusing to fund the government, even to defend the nation in war.
Thank you Daniel - I appreciate the clarification.
Any opponent of the Puritans is worth my support.
Ugh, Charles I all the way!
This description of Charles reminds me yet again that English history taught in the USA, or at least that taught 2 generations ago, is extremely skewed by the pro-Protestant, pro-English slant of our history books. I had learned that the 4 Stuarts were an unfortunate blip in the history of England, and that Charles was an inept wastrel: that anything good he accomplished was in spite of his efforts, not because of them. I'm glad this blurb was a little more generous.
Margaret is saintly but Charles, King and Martyr has my vote. My ancestor, John Huett the elder, was his chaplain. After the Restoration, Huett's wife was granted land in Maryland. His son, John Huett the younger, became the first ordained Anglican clergy in MD.
Good job! Megan Castellan, but you had a disastrous assignment. My vote is for Margaret
I dedicate my vote to James Alexander Malcom MacKenzie Frazier.
I voted for Margaret because she read to her husband.
I thought you might choose Margaret today Oliver! Didn't you visit the Abbey of Dunfermline when you visited Scotland?
Yes, we did!! Good memory.
Oliver, that meant a lot to me too.
Margaret rules !
Margaret! Because she's - like - um - a saint?
I must vote for Queen Margaret who did so much to improve the lives of the people of Scotland and saved and restored so many churches. King Charles may have supported the arts and the Anglican liturgy, but he did terrible harm to both his countries and people. I just cannot think of him as a saint.
Unlike yesterday's, when I was very torn about the vote, today's was easy. Go Queen M!
I am a sucker for social justice issues.
I had lunch with someone named Margaret today. It couldn't just be a coincidence; must have been a sign!
A few years ago, I fell in love with St. Margaret's Bay in Nova Scotia, and then
with Margaret because of her compassion and love of her people. Her family
history is fascinating as well.
When I visit Peggy's Cove, I always remember
her.
If Charles I had not died in defense of episcopacy and the sacramental order of the Church, none of us would be here having this debate. The Church of England might exist but as a joyless Puritan fundamentalist cult without any saints to vote for.
My 9th gif emigrated from England in ca. 1635 bye was baptized an Anglican, but apparently came to MA as a Puritan. Now, nearly 400 years later, we have reversed his grevious conversion.
Ggf, not gif. I sometimes detest autocorrect.
Both worthy reasons - thanks for this perspective John. I still have to vote for Margaret though.
This was also a difficult one to decide. Both worked tirelessly to preserve the Anglican Church. Also helping humanity.
Well, like "everybody," I voted for Margaret. As I said, my aim is to look at each saintly pairing in terms of how I imagine they would have responded to the scourge of gun violence that is slaughtering our children and our neighbors. Margaret seems to have been an activist sort, adding direct reform efforts to her "thoughts and prayers." Whereas it is entirely uncertain whether Charles I would have wholeheartedly combatted domestic terrorism. I feel quite skeptical about the "barbarous indignities" mentioned in the collect, fretting that this language has been applied backwards nostalgically to an unworthy wight and not forward preveniently to the outrageous suffering endured by gun victims, who more fully represent the lamb than silk-clad Chuckie. I see your altar rail and raise you Iona. Plus Margaret was a literate woman in the 11th century, who unlike our current pre-beheaded pretender, actually read books. How cool is that?
Nicely put!
While I love and appreciate what Charles gave our church, I have to go with Margaret for all of the work she and her husband did for the people of Scotland. It's what Jesus would have done.
I do appreciate Charles I defense of the church as we know it today, but I'm not only of Scottish heritage, my middle name is a variant of Margaret (Margo) and my daughter's name is also a variant of Margaret (Meighan). Not to mention Margaret's good works and restoring Iona. I think this is going to be a blowout today.
My husband was ordained a priest on St. Margaret's day and our daughter's middle name is Margaret. Guess who I voted for?
Well that's a tough one, Sue.
Well, this seems to a no-brainer and a monumental stomping of Charles--not only because so many voters were named Margaret or descended from ancestors named Margaret, but because of the stunning unpopularity of Charles. I often vote for the underdog as a matter of principle, and my family loyalty is divided between a father named Charles and a mother named McAllister (insofar as ancestors' names matter), but the antipathy to Charles seems to be so strong, and for such good reasons, that I really can't support him. So I'm going with the crowd.
I might add that I have absolutely no use for religious wars, for any reasons or for either "side." Rivers of blood have been shed in pointless arguments over the proper way to express one's faith in the Prince of Peace. A pox on both their houses! . . . Martyrdom is another matter, of course.
I voted for Margaret but as an Episcopalian, I feel like I must give a nod to Charles I. Woops, that's sorta insensitive of me!
However, I am a big fan of the concept of Via Media--I thought that was Elizabeth I; thanks, Lent Madness!