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

Consort Profile: Queen Anne Marie d'Orleans

The first Queen consort of the Savoy reign over Piedmont-Sardinia was Anne Marie d’Orleans, a woman of impeccable pedigree whose bloodlines brought some interesting history and potential into the House of Savoy. She was born on August 27, 1669 at Chateau de Saint-Cloud in France, the daughter of Duke Philippe I of Orleans (younger brother the great King Louis XIV) and his wife the controversial Princess Henrietta of England (daughter of the martyred King Charles I). Less than a year after Princess Anne Marie was born her mother died (last rites being administered by the great Bishop Bossuet) but a year later the Duke of Orleans married Princess Palatine Elizabeth Charlotte who proved to be a good stepmother and Princess Anne Marie was very close to her. Even as a young girl Princess Anne Marie stood out for her kind and friendly nature as well as her virtue and firm principles. Of course, in those days, royal girls had to grow up fast and marriage tended to come quickly. Anne Marie was only fourteen-years-old when King Louis XIV decided to help maintain French influence in northern Italy by marrying his niece to Duke Victor Amadeus II of Savoy. A marriage contract was negotiated and signed by the two governments and a marriage ceremony by proxy was performed at Versailles on April 10, 1684 with Louis-Auguste de Bourbon, duc du Maine standing in for Victor Amadeus II.

In one of those odd twists that history often presents, this marriage was arranged in part by a countess who had been the mistress of Victor Amadeus II for about four years and who had given him two illegitimate children. Whether Anne Marie knew about this or cared she had little say in the matter with such royal marriages being a matter of state policy rather than personal preference. The Princess said her goodbyes, her father escorted her to the frontier and she finally met her husband at Chambery on May 6, 1684. The two were married in person by the Archbishop of Grenoble and later made their grand entrance into the Savoy citadel of Turin. She seemed a lovely but delicate girl, her fragility no doubt emphasized when next to a veteran soldier like Victor Amadeus II. Nonetheless, despite having a couple of years pass before she did her part for the succession and became pregnant, her first childbirth was a traumatic ordeal. She was only sixteen-years-old when she gave birth to her first child, Princess Maria Adelaide (later Dauphine of France) but it was so difficult that for a time she seemed close to death and even received the last rites before finally recovering from the ordeal. Ever dutiful though, she would go on to have five more children, a future queen and king among them. She was a good mother and also a devoted wife, patiently nursing Victor Amadeus II when he came down with smallpox, attending to every detail of his care.

In 1688 Anne Marie gave birth to another daughter, Maria Luisa of Savoy, who was eventually married to the Duke of Anjou, the new King Philip V of Spain. This set off the War of the Spanish Succession in which the Duke of Savoy took the side of the Austrians against France and Spain. It must have been a painful ordeal for Anne Marie with relatives on both sides of the conflict. She was herself half French and half British with France on one side and Britain on the other. Her husband was on the side of Austria and Britain while her daughter and half-siblings were on the side of Spain and France. The war began in 1701 and in 1706 Anne Marie had to take her young sons and flee Turin as it was besieged by French and Spanish forces led by her half-brother the Duke of Orleans and her son-in-law King Philip V of Spain while her husband stayed on to defend the city. It seemed hopeless but Victor Amadeus II was able to hold out long enough for the Austrians (under Prince Eugene of Savoy) and the Prussians to come to the rescue and win the battle. When it was all over in 1713 the Treaty of Utrecht rewarded Victor Amadeus II with a royal crown; the Kingdom of Sicily. However, he was later forced to trade that for the Kingdom of Sardinia. This was seen as a lesser prize, nonetheless, it brought recognized royal status to the House of Savoy and made Anne Marie Queen consort of Sardinia.

Yet, this was not the only royal connection to come along for Queen Anne Marie. The following year she became the heiress presumptive of the Jacobite legacy of the British Isles through the Stuart blood of her mother. With the death of Queen Anne of Great Britain in that year, she was the next closest relative of the “Old Chevalier” Prince James Francis Edward Stuart (“King James VIII & III to Jacobites) until the birth of his son Prince Charles Edward Stuart in 1720. The Jacobite legacy would be carried on by Prince Charles (and come closest to effecting an actual Stuart restoration) and his brother the Cardinal Duke of York in turn. After that, however, the legacy would pass to the House of Savoy because of the marriage of Queen Anne Marie and King Victor Amadeus II. No one was happier than the Duchess of Orleans, the stepmother of Queen Anne Marie, that she had achieved such royal status. Despite their having been on opposite side of the Spanish war, the Duchess wrote that, “one thing I shall enjoy is to see our Duchess of Savoy become a queen, because I love her as though she were my own child” which is a testament to the good nature of both royal ladies.

Queen Anne Marie sadly died at her villa on August 26, 1728 of heart failure, one day before turning 59. She had already outlived all but two of her six children and was buried at the Basilica of Superga in Turin next to all but the two who had been married off to France and Spain.

Consort Profile: Prince George of Denmark

Prince George, consort to Queen Anne of Great Britain, was born on April 2, 1653 in Copenhagen to King Frederick III of Denmark and Sophie Amelie of Brunswick-Lueneburg, their youngest son. Though there was little chance of him inheriting the Danish throne, Prince George seemed destined for great things. He was given a top level education with somewhat of an emphasis on military subjects, which is not surprising given that younger sons of royal houses were usually expected to take up a military career. He grew to be a well-rounded young man, he toured Europe, lingering in France and England so he had a good grasp of European affairs. He took his religion seriously and was genuinely interested in a variety of subjects but, perhaps because he was not subject to the pressures of an heir to the throne, had a rather relaxed attitude that put people at ease and made him seem very casual on the surface. His reputation was such that in 1674 no less a figure than King Louis XIV of France proposed him as a candidate to be King of Poland. However, Prince George refused to give up his Lutheran faith and Catholic Poland would not have a Protestant monarch, so the opportunity passed him by, going instead to the famous John Sobieski. Still, he distinguished himself during the Scanian War between Denmark and Sweden, fighting alongside his brother, by then King Christian V, at the battle of Landskrona. His actions were admirable but feuding Danish generals put them at a disadvantage and the battle was a Swedish victory.

Meanwhile, over in Britain, King Charles II was looking for a husband for his niece, Princess Anne, daughter of the Duke of York (later King James II). Royal marriages were a tricky subject at this time because anti-Catholicism was at a high point in Protestant Britain yet the King was supported by King Louis XIV of Catholic France. Prince George was known to be a devout Protestant and so was acceptable to most in London and Britain and Denmark were both rather upset with The Netherlands at the time. The hope of an Anglo-Danish alliance against the Dutch caused the King of France to support such a marriage just as it made the Dutch Prince of Orange (who was married to Anne’s sister Mary) oppose the match. James, Duke of York, was a staunch Catholic but he approved of his daughter marrying Prince George if for no other reason than that it pleased Louis XIV and angered his Protestant Dutch son-in-law. So, the agreements were all made and on July 28, 1683 Princess Anne and Prince George were married at St James’s Palace in London. Prince George was happy with his wife but found life in London rather too hectic for his laid-back personality. The court was riddled with gossip and intrigue and drama of all sorts between the allies of Holland and France, the Catholics and the Protestants, the girlfriends of the King and Prince George wanted no part of it. A quiet life and domestic happiness were his primary goals.

When it came to family, Prince George certainly went above and beyond the call of duty. Within months of their marriage Anne was pregnant with the first of seventeen children. However, to their great sorrow, these many pregnancies resulted in miscarriage after miscarriage, stillborn after stillborn with only one child surviving infancy and that one did not live to see his twelfth birthday. When King Charles II died the Duke of York became King James II and Prince George, now husband to a King’s daughter rather than niece, was given a place on the Privy Council. His brother-in-law refused to attend, being offended at Prince George being given preference over him, which is somewhat ironic given how little Prince George thought of such things. He critics describe him as being fat and dull but, in truth, he was quite intelligent but simply had no desire to get involved in court drama. As a foreign spouse he was content to remain on the sidelines, assisting his wife when needed but preferring peace and quiet to cliques and schemes. When William of Orange was preparing to invade England to overthrow King James II, Prince George was forewarned by his contacts in Denmark and he let it be known that moral was low in the English army and he would accept no post from his father-in-law, correctly predicting that he would lose the contest.

Protestant enemies of King James II had gravitated toward Princess Anne and Prince George but although Princess Anne joined those who raised doubts about the legitimacy of her newborn half-brother, Prince George preferred to stay out of it for the most part. Still, the time came when a side had to be taken and the King was rather upset when Prince George (the son-in-law he liked) declared for Prince William (the son-in-law he did not like). James II was forced to exile in France and the Prince and Princess of Orange became King William III and Queen Mary II. Prince George was rewarded with the title of Duke of Cumberland. However, relations between King William and Prince George were never friendly. The King never trusted him with any responsibility and only paid the extensive debts he owed to Prince George when Queen Mary II died and Princess Anne was the only Protestant left to inherit the throne. In 1702 William III died and Queen Anne took the throne with her faithful Prince consort beside her. She promptly appointed him commander of the army and Lord High Admiral but these offices were mostly ceremonial and Prince George had little to do with either branch of the forces.

Many of the accounts which dismiss Prince George as a nonentity can be attributed to the very different attitudes toward male consorts at a time when such were a rarity. The only previous examples had been Philip II of Spain and William of Orange, both of whom insisted on being granted the title of King and, in the case of William, the authority of a reigning monarch. Prince George, however, was ahead of his time in neither demanding nor desiring such a position. He was content to take second place to his wife the Queen, advising or assisting her when needed but making no effort to establish his own network of support and power base as so many expected. This does not, however, mean that he was unimportant. On the contrary, the moral support he gave to Queen Anne was vital. She had not had much preparation for becoming a reigning monarch and particularly after the loss of their only surviving child she was quite sad and became increasingly religious. This was something Prince George had in common with his wife and his own religious convictions are evident in the fact that, despite efforts to suppress non-conformists, he never joined the Church of England and remained a Lutheran throughout his life. He was a quiet and humble man but a devoted husband who was a great source of strength to his wife the Queen. He was, perhaps, overly fond of a well-set table but he was also friendly, trustworthy, honest and unassuming. A good man overall. In 1706 his health became noticeably worse and he had long suffered from asthma and dropsy. He died on October 28, 1708 at Kensington Palace at the age of only 55. Queen Anne was certainly worse off for his loss.

Favorite Royal Images: The Restored King

Not actually a part of my "favorites" album previously, but it is Oak Apple Day and King Charles II deserves some recognition. According to the law:
"Parliament had ordered the 29 of May, the King's birthday, to be for ever kept as a day of thanksgiving for our redemption from tyranny and the King's return to his Government, he entering London that day".
Since we recently read about what a horror show was done away with by the return of the exiled Stuart king, I am sure everyone would join in celebrating this special holiday, grateful for the humane and dignified leadership of Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen in stark contrast to the vicious, corrupt and juvenile creatures who occupy the realms of elected office. A Happy Oak Apple Day to all!
Death to the usurpers!
Death to all enemies of the Crown!
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

Consort Profile: Princess Royal Mary Henrietta of England

HRH Princess Mary Henrietta was born at St James’s Palace in London on November 4, 1631, the eldest daughter of Their Majesties King Charles I of Britain and Queen Henrietta Maria of France. Wishing to imitate the French tradition of the firstborn daughter of the King being known as Madame Royal, the French-born Queen consort wanted to do something similar for her own daughter. So, in 1642 King Charles I gave Princess Mary the title of Princess Royal, establishing a new tradition in the British Royal Family. Even as a tiny child, the new Princess Royal was immediately the center of marriage negotiations. Originally, King Charles had wished his daughter to marry into the Spanish Royal Family to secure a long-lasting alliance between Britain and Spain. His own father had tried to see him married to a Spanish princess as King James had hoped that Britain could act as the great peace-maker between the Catholic and Protestant powers as the wars between the two sides were tearing Europe apart. This was a long-standing ambition of the House of Stuart, to emerge as the monarchy that restored peace, if not unity, to Christendom.

First choice was therefore one of the sons of King Philip IV of Spain but Karl I Ludwig, Elector Palatine (and her first cousin) was also a possibility as he hoped to counter any British shift toward Spain. Indeed, in the future he would be alienated from his uncle King Charles I for his sympathies with Parliament during the English Civil War. In any event, neither match came to be and so the Princess Royal was engaged to Prince Willem, son and heir of the Prince of Orange, Frederik Hendrik, Stadtholder of the United Provinces of The Netherlands. Despite not being the first choice, this was a potentially beneficial match. Prince Fredrik Hendrik was fast proving one of the greatest leaders the Dutch ever had and The Netherlands was emerging as a rapidly growing maritime power and commercial powerhouse. Both sides were in agreement and the marriage was properly arranged though it would have all seemed very strange to modern eyes. The wedding was held on May 2, 1641 at the Chapel Royal in Whitehall Palace in London, the Princess Royal a mere nine years old and the little groom only fifteen. Although, at that time, 15-years-old was not an unheard of age to start married life, the couple had to live apart until the 9-year-old Princess Royal matured enough to be a wife in fact as well as name.

Britain was no safe place for a young princess either. There had been the Bishop’s War with Scotland, a rebellion in Ireland and by 1642 civil war was raging in England. That being the case, the little Princess Royal, accompanied by her mother Queen Henrietta Maria, traveled to The Netherlands to take up residence with her new family. By 1644 Princess Mary Henrietta was becoming a major social figure in the Dutch Republic as the daughter-in-law of the Stadtholder. Although Prince Fredrik Hendrik held things together well, the Dutch were going through some of the same problems as the British, with an Orange faction favoring a greater role for the Princes in a more stable system and an anti-Orange faction which opposed this, knowing that such changes would ultimately lead to a monarchy. On March 14, 1647 Prince Fredrik Hendrik died and his son succeeded him as Prince Willem II of Orange, Stadtholder of The Netherlands and things came to a head. Prince Willem II was sincerely convinced that electoral formalities were hindering his country which was practically a monarchy already but which lacked the stability of a formally established royal system. He was determined to see all that changed and probably looked to becoming the first King of The Netherlands.

Naturally, Princess Mary Henrietta supported her husband in his endeavors and also campaigned for Dutch assistance to her father and the embattled royalists of Great Britain. Because of this, the Princess Royal was not the most widely popular Dutch “First Lady”, though this has, to some extent, been overblown. She was certainly unpopular with the anti-Orange republicans who opposed the efforts of her husband to formalize the authority of the House of Orange and the efforts of the Princess to aid the royalists in Great Britain. However, she was, of course, popular with the Orange party and those in The Netherlands who sympathized with the English cavaliers and feared what might happen if the wealthy merchant-class that funded the cause of the Parliamentarians came to power. The situation in The Netherlands became more and more heated and Prince Willem II decided, like his father-in-law had done, that he must take up arms to save his country. The military was strongly behind him and so he left Princess Mary Henrietta, who was heavily pregnant at the time, to march on Amsterdam with his army. He besieged the city and negotiated the removal of some of his fiercest political opponents but, only a few days later, died of smallpox on November 6, 1650 at only 24-years-old.

Just two days before Princess Mary Henrietta had given birth to their only child, Prince Willem III of Orange but she had to share guardianship of her young son with her mother-in-law Princess Amalia von Solms-Braunfels, an intelligent, ambitious and overall formidable woman. For the mourning Dowager Princess of Orange, this was a dangerous time. After the death of her husband the anti-Orange republicans seized power and The Netherlands entered what is known as the period without a Stadtholder. The republicans also whipped up public opinion against Princess Mary for the (obviously quite natural) concern and support she showed her family, giving her brothers, rightly King Charles II and the future James II, the Duke of York, safe haven in The Netherlands, which became something of a center of exiled English royalists. Finally, the political authorities forbid her to have any contact with her own English relatives and she spent more and more time outside of the country. In 1657 she became sole regent for her son, Willem III Prince of Orange, which enhanced her position but things were still far from ideal. As her mother always advised she called on King Louis XIV of France for help but none was forthcoming as he had his own designs on the Low Countries.

Anti-English sentiment in The Netherlands was heightened by the First Anglo-Dutch War between the United Provinces and the “Commonwealth of England” under Oliver Cromwell. Despite their squabbling in The Netherlands, the English Parliamentarians viewed the Dutch as enemies they wished to take revenge on due to the support (moral and monetary) that Prince Fredrik Hendrik had given the late King Charles I. In fact, he had even considered direct military intervention with his powerful, highly-skilled army. Cromwell wasted no time in striking back, despite the overtures of friendship from the Dutch republicans who even hinted that they might wish to join his Commonwealth in return for his support against the Orange party. Despite some remarkable successes, the result was eventually a defeat for The Netherlands but not such a defeat that they were unable to reject most of the English terms. They refused to join the English Commonwealth and refused to ally with Cromwell for a war of conquest against Spanish America. They did agree, since they wished it as much as Cromwell, to prevent the young Willem III from ever becoming Stadtholder. This was the hostile environment the Dowager Princess of Orange found herself in with enemies to her father and brothers in control in England and enemies of her late husband and son in control in Holland.

Finally, relief came with the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660. Suddenly, the Dowager Princess and her son were important figures again and could not be ignored. Anxious for friendly surroundings, the Princess of Orange quickly returned to her native England where she died not long after on December 24, 1660 at Whitehall from smallpox, the same affliction that had carried away her husband. She was not yet 30-years-old. The course of her life had been set before her from the time she was a small child and she had known great troubles and difficulties throughout her all too short life. Yet, though she did not live to see it, thanks to her young son, she would have the last laugh against all who had opposed her. The politicians in Holland proved unable to lead and the Prince of Orange did finally become Stadtholder of The Netherlands, fend off French invasions to become the Protestant champion of Europe and, in 1688, would invade England and alongside his English wife become King William III of Great Britain, beginning the era of the British constitutional monarchy as it exists today.

MM Video: Mary Queen of Scots

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: King James I of Britain

MM Video: Jacobite Lineage

Monarch Profile: James V, King of Scots

James V, King of Scots, is one of those monarchs who clearly knew right from wrong, tried to follow the right path as king and yet had a major problem when it came to denying himself. In the Tudor period he was the Catholic champion of Scotland who steadfastly refused to follow the example of King Henry VIII of England. Yet, like Henry VIII, he had a real weakness when it came to women, however, in the case of James V this was his only real weakness and in every other way he was an astute monarch, devoted Catholic and loyal son of the Church who did his best in extremely difficult circumstances. He was born in April of 1512 (the exact date is still debated) at Linlithgow Palace in West Lothian and was little more than a year old when his father, King James IV, was killed at the battle of Flodden on September 9, 1513. The infant monarch was then crowned King of Scots in the royal chapel of Stirling Castle on September 21, 1513 initially with his mother, Margaret Tudor (sister of King Henry VIII of England) as his regent. This lasted only until the next year though when Queen Margaret remarried after which the regency passed to John Stewart, Duke of Albany. John himself was second in line for the throne after Prince Alexander, Duke of Ross, the younger brother of James V, who was born after the death of their father.

In 1525 the Earl of Angus, who was stepfather to James V, took the young king prisoner and ruled Scotland on his authority until James escaped in 1528 and took power himself for the first time. It was also in 1525 that the Protestant doctrines first began to spread into Scotland and James V was determined to resist them. He had parliament pass an act forbidding the importation of Lutheran books and the following year James wrote a letter to Pope Clement VII in which he promised to use all the power at his disposal to combat the spread of Protestantism in Scotland. In 1528 James V had Patrick Hamilton, a commendatory abbot with connections at court, burned at the stake at St Andrews for preaching heresy. The Protestant leader John Knox credited this action with being the starting point of the Protestant Reformation in Scotland. However, in Scotland as in other areas, there were power hungry men who adopted the Protestant cause simply because they were interested in revolt rather than reformation. Had they only been concerned with reforming the Church they would have found a useful ally in King James V who was himself devoted to reforming the clerical abuses that existed in his country. To deny the problem was no longer possible as the Catholic Church in Scotland had, by that point, become rather infamous across Europe for corruption and immorality.

In political matters James took immediate action against the Earl of Angus who had imprisoned him as well as cracking down on rebel factions along the border and troublesome chieftains in the Western Isles. He improved the financial situation of the monarchy by keeping a closer watch on the royal estates and by taking advantage of his traditional feudal rights over the nobles. James V spent much of this money on building projects at Stirling, Falkland, Holyrood and Linlithgow. On January 1, 1537 he renewed the alliance with France by marrying Madeleine of Valois, daughter of King Francis I. However, Madeleine died only a few months after being married and so as to maintain the political situation James marred Marie of Guise on June 12, 1538. Marie of Guise was a devout Catholic woman, the daughter of Duke Claude of Guise (the Guise family were the leaders of the Catholic League in France) and she was the widow of Louis of Orleans, Duke of Longueville by whom she already had two children. Together James and Marie had two sons, the Duke of Rothesay and the Duke of Albany, in 1541 and 1542 but neither of them survived. In 1542 the couple gave birth to a daughter, Princess Mary, on whose shoulders the future of Scotland and the Stuart dynasty would one day rest. However, showing his major weakness, James fathered at least nine illegitimate children (3 before he was even 20 years old) of whom James, Earl of Moray would prove the most troublesome in the future for his legitimate heir.

Probably the most pressing issue for James V was the overflow into Scotland of the religious divisions his uncle King Henry VIII introduced to England by breaking with Rome and establishing his own Protestant church. Just as this divided the English into Catholic and Protestant camps, so too would Scotland be likewise. King Henry tried to persuade his Scottish nephew to follow his example and break from Rome as well but the staunchly Catholic James V refused to do so. Scotland became divided between those who favored the position of Henry VIII of England and those who were loyal to the Church and King James. The, essentially, Protestant camp included most of the nobles, the English Queen mother and religious dissidents. The Catholic camp included some powerful nobles, most of the clergy and the vast majority of the common people who were loyal to their King and the old religion. One of his most faithful servants was James Beaton who was made a cardinal in 1538 and shortly thereafter Primate of Scotland. It is a mark of his quality that Henry VIII of England considered him his greatest nemesis north of the border. The King of England was further enraged when the pope transferred to the King of Scots the title, Fidei Defensor, which Pope Leo X had originally awarded to Henry VIII for his refutation of Luther.

Matters came to a head after the death of the English queen mother in 1541 after which war soon broke out between England and Scotland. King Henry VIII, angry that King James V had rejected his offer, ordered an invasion of Scotland and this raid forced James to order his own forces to assemble for war. At first things seemed to go very well when, on August 24, 1542, Lord George Gordon, Earl of Huntly, soundly defeated the English army of Robert Bowes at the battle of Haddon Rig. However, Scottish hopes were soon dashed when the Scots were defeated at the confused battle of Solway Moss on November 24, much of it caused by the breakdown of the Scottish command after the death of Lord Robert Maxwell, before the battle, which caused the remaining Scottish leaders to start feuding amongst themselves for command. There were relatively few losses but many Scots were captured and the battle was a humiliation since they had the English considerably outnumbered. King James V was not present on the battlefield but was then at Lochmaben. He reportedly fell into a feverish despair when news of the defeat reached him and he withdrew to Falkland Palace in a state of nervous collapse.

James V took to his deathbed and was there when his only living heir, a daughter, was born on December 8. That girl would soon become the famous but tragic Mary Queen of Scots. King James V was alleged to have said on his deathbed when word of the birth came that, "It began with a lass and it will end with a lass". This was a reference to the origins of the Stuart dynasty with the daughter of Robert the Bruce and would prove to be true as the last reigning monarch of the House of Stuart would be Queen Anne; a lass. King James V died on December 14 and was immediately succeeded by his daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, and he was buried at Holyrood Abbey alongside his first wife Queen Madeleine and his sons by his second wife Queen Marie of Guise who would soon be ruling as regent on behalf of her daughter. In many ways his reign had been the last gasp of Catholic Scotland. The country would never be quite the same again, neither was independent Scotland ever to be quite the same as it had been under King James V. It would for some time be a rather unequal partner with England, for some time be held under the boot of England and then finally restored to her full rights, but all in all things would never be quite the same as it had been before. It was only left to Queen Mary to carry the cause of Catholic Scotland to its tragic end.

Consort Profile: Queen Marie d'Guise

One of my favorite female royal figures from history, and one that does not get very much attention, is Marie d’Guise, Queen-regent of Scotland. The problems she had to deal with were immense and far-reaching, reliable support for her was scarce and fragile and many probably did not expect much from her in terms of success. Yet, she ruled during a period when, whether good or bad, strong royal women in national leadership was fairly common considering this time also saw Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I in England and the formidable Queen Catherine in France. In fact, Marie d’Guise is one of the most important but often overlooked figures of the Tudor era in British history. She was born in 1515 to Claude Duc d’Guise and Antoinette de Bourbon-Vendome and was first married to Louis d’Orleans, Duc d’Longueville in 1533. King Henry VIII of England famously considered asking for her hand but Marie declined on the grounds that she had not a head to spare. Sadly, less than five years after her marriage she was a widow and in 1538 married the Stuart monarch, James V King of Scots (r.1513-42). France and Scotland had (and would be) old allies against the common threat of England, but the rise of Marie d’Guise as Queen consort of Scotland took things to a new level.

Despite his rather “colorful” private life, King James V and Queen Marie d’Guise both endeavored to due their royal duty but the royal couple’s only child, the famous Mary Queen of Scots, was born only a few days before the death of King James V. Queen Marie d’Guise was immediately faced with a crisis when King Henry VIII of England (always looking for ways to increase his power, at home, in France or northward) tried to take advantage of the situation and conquer Scotland, but was unsuccessful. No doubt he was also a bit disappointed that a previous English victory over the Scots had been won while he was away with his wife Catherine of Aragon acting as regent during the Scottish invasion. So, suffice it to say, there was danger and crisis from the beginning when Marie d’Guise was left alone in Scotland following the death of her husband. The child Mary Queen of Scots was spoken for by James, Earl of Arran (a Protestant pro-England Scot who later became a Catholic pro-French one and thus not entirely trusted by all) until 1554 when Marie d’Guise deposed him and became regent of the Kingdom of Scotland herself.

Queen Marie d’Guise faced a difficult situation. Come from the family that was well known as the leaders of the Catholic faction in France, she was a devout daughter of the Church of Rome which made her unpopular with many of the Scottish nobles who were adherents to the new, more austere, Protestantism of John Knox. However, Marie d’Guise was tolerant toward the Protestants and ruled in such an open manner that she made friends out of many who would have been her enemies. In fact, any claim that the Queen was intolerant is easily disproven by the fact that the Protestants even backed her decision to marry their young Queen to the Dauphin of France, Francois II. The Prince of Wales had been an earlier candidate and it proved extremely difficult to keep religion out of politics when England supported the Protestants and France supported the Catholics. Thus, Scotland easily could and often did become a battleground for the two more powerful nations to the south.

The Queen wanted to avoid this, knowing that the fragile coalition she had built between the Catholics and Protestants could be easily shattered. Nonetheless, problems soon arose with England. English support for the Scottish Protestants had dried up when the Catholic Queen Mary I was on the throne in London, but that changed with the accession of her Protestant sister, who soon began sending support to the Protestants in Scotland. Although Queen Elizabeth I had signed a peace treaty with Marie d’Guise, she sought to arouse the Protestants against their regent as a way to remove French influence in Scotland. Civil war broke out anew and Queen Marie d’Guise showed no hesitation in crushing the rebellion. Indeed, her forces had all but destroyed the Protestant rebels when the timely arrival of the English fleet staved off disaster. Marie d’Guise was forced to call in French troops and England forged an alliance with the Protestant Scottish nobles and supported them with an English army sent to invade Scotland. Fortunately for her, Queen Marie d’Guise defeated the English in a stunning victory at Leith. However, the resulting crackdown against the Protestants only widened the civil war.

In time, the Queen-regent was driven from power, but was later able to return. France and England continued to support the opposing sides but the Queen managed to hold the government together by sheer determination; the determination that she did not want her daughter to endure the same problems she had been forced to deal with. Her work was far from complete when Queen Marie d’Guise died of dropsy on June 11, 1560. However, even as her health failed her, she had continued to lead. While on her deathbed she gathered the Scottish nobles around her and pleaded with them to come to an agreement and restore the peace that had existed between the two groups at the beginning of her regency. Sadly, she died before the conference came to a conclusion and the divisions would outlive her. Her daughter, Mary Queen of Scots, was summoned from France and would continue to rule according to the dictates of her faith and sense of duty but, like her mother, would also be plagued by religious attacks, the conflicting interests of France and England until she too was driven from the country and eventually executed by Queen Elizabeth I.

Favorite Royal Images: Jacobus II

Britain's King James II in classic pose.

I do love portraits done in the 'Roman' style -and rather fitting for this king in particular.

Monarchist Music: Wha'll Be King But Charlie

Probably my favorite Jacobite song of the '45
aka "The News Fae Moidart"

The news from Moidart cam yestreen
Will soon gar mony ferlie,
For ships o war hae just come in
And landed Royal Charlie.

Come through the heather, around him gather,
Ye're all the welcomer early;
Around him cling with a your kin,
For wha'll be King but Charlie?
Come through the heather, around him gather
Come Ronald, come Donald, come a thegither;
And crown your rightfu lawfu King
For wha'll be King but Charlie?
The Highland clans with sword in hand
Frae John o Groats tae Airlie
Hae tae a man declared to stand
Or fa wi Royal Charlie.

The Lowlands a, both great an sma,
Wi many's a lord and laird hae
Declared for Scotia's King an Law,
And spier ye wha, but Charlie.

There's ne'er a lass in a the land
But vows both late and early
To man she'll neer give heart nor hand
Wha wadna fecht fer Charlie.

Then here's a health tae Charlie's cause,
And be't complete and early;
His very name our heart's bluid warms;
Tae arms for Royal Charlie.

Pretender Profile: Bonnie Prince Charlie

There is probably no more famous royal pretender in history than “Bonnie Prince Charlie”, son of the “Old Chevalier” and grandson of King James II of Britain. His story has become the stuff of legend and he has been as unjustly vilified by the Hanoverians as he has been romanticized by Jacobites. However, as with any question of this sort in western monarchy, the cause was more important than personality and for Jacobites it was that cause; royal legitimacy, that was really what was being venerated in song and story. The romantic image of the “Young Pretender” was never meant to be an accurate depiction of the man but rather the symbol of a struggle, an icon to which could be attached various ideals from pristine, divinely ordained monarchy to the struggle against the centralization of power in Britain to Scottish nationalism. In all of that it would be easy for the prince to be lost.

Prince Charles Edward Stuart was born in Rome on December 31, 1720 and grew up in Rome and Bologna. His family life could be tumultuous but it was affectionate and like his father before him he was raised with the expectation of one day restoring the House of Stuart to the British throne. Toward this end he was given military training from an early age and first saw battle at the siege of Gaeta in 1734. He was sent to France in 1744 to lead a French army in an invasion of Britain but the plan fell through. The year before Prince Charles had been named regent by his father to give him the authority to act in his name to pursue the restoration. Plans were constantly being made which seemed more urgent the longer the German House of Hanover consolidated itself on the British throne. Finally, in 1745 the gamble was made and Charles set sail for Scotland, the home of his ancestors and where he could expect the most support.

Unfortunately for him the French fleet that was to accompany him was scattered by bad weather and he was left to fend for himself. Undeterred, he landed in the northern islands and proceeded to Glenfinnan where he rallied the highland clans (which were mostly Jacobite in sympathy regardless of religion) and raised the Stuart royal standard proclaiming his father King. However, not all of Scotland was with him. Some of the highland clans refused to join what seemed a hopeless cause and most of the lowlands were firmly loyal to the House of Hanover. Still, after enlisting the eminent soldier Lord George Murray the Prince marched on Edinburgh, capturing it without a struggle. Later, in a shocking turn of events, his Jacobite army, armed for the most part with swords rather than muskets, surprised and soundly defeated the British army of Sir John Cope at Prestonpans.

Buoyed by this victory Prince Charles, with 6,000 men, marched south into England. He hoped to rally the public to his side (King George II being far from universally popular) but aside from a few hundred English volunteers (mostly Catholic) the population either took the side of the House of Hanover or chose to sit by the sidelines to see which side would win. Prince Charles reached as far south as Derby and George II was making plans to evacuate London and return to his native Germany if the situation deteriorated. However, the government had a man in the Jacobite camp, a double agent, who assured the Scots that George II had tens of thousands of troops converging on their position. Prince Charles, having beaten the odds already in coming so far, wanted to throw caution to the wind and press on. Lord Murray and the highland chieftains, however, overruled him and ordered a retreat back to Scotland. In fact, the situation was not as hopeless as it had seemed but disaster had been averted for King George II and henceforth the winds of fortune would blow in his favor.

Prince Charles was demoralized marching north but his small army of rough warriors was still formidable. At Falkirk in January of 1746 the Jacobites won another stunning victory over the pursuing government forces of General Henry Hawley. Prince Charles wanted to take the initiative and renew the offensive after this victory but was again overruled. The efficient and ruthless Duke of Cumberland, son of George II, took over the pursuit and chased the Jacobite army from pillar to post across Scotland until they made their final stand in the far north at Culloden Moor. The battle was heroic, it was glorious and it was an utter disaster for the Jacobites. Absolutely every advantage was held by Cumberland but with bagpipes wailing and swords held high the Jacobites made one last great ‘highland charge’ and were all but annihilated. Cumberland showed no mercy and the aftermath of the battle was a scene of horrific butchery.

His spirit crushed, Prince Charles fled to the outer islands. Despite a huge bounty placed on his head by George II no one betrayed him and he made his escape with many legends, stories and songs told ever since about his harrowing flight. Picked up by a frigate he was returned to France. Charles had a daughter by a mistress he had met in Scotland during his ill-fated adventure but after the defeat at Culloden he was a broken man in every way, plagued by depression and began to drink heavily. During the Seven Years War (known in America as the French & Indian War) he was summoned to Paris to discuss his participation in a French invasion of Britain. Intoxicated and spiteful he did not react well to the grand promises of the French minister. He had heard it all before and saw what such promises were worth. France would not deal further with him and, as might have been expected, their planned 100,000-man invasion, never came off.

In 1766 his father died and the faithful few Jacobites proclaimed the prince King Charles III. However, this time there was no recognition of his title from the Pope. Most of the major powers in Europe viewed the Jacobite cause as lost and it was no longer in their interests to maintain recognition. In 1772 Charles married a Belgian princess with whom he moved to Italy. She began having an affair with an Italian artist and left the prince in 1780, claiming he had been abusive. The discarded, defeated and dispirited would-be King finally came to the end of his sad life in Rome on January 31, 1788. His remains are today buried in the crypt of St Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican alongside his father and brother. Jacobite remnants continued on after his death but for all intents and purposes their struggle had been decided on the cold, damp ground at Culloden and it was the hope represented in the 1745 rising and the romantic image of the young prince come to reclaim the throne of his ancestors that captured public imagination. It is also, for obvious reasons, that image which most prefer to remember rather than the tragic fate of the man himself once known as “Bonnie Prince Charlie”.

Pretender Profile: King James VIII & III

Ordinarily the birth of an heir to the throne is an occasion of great joy; the hope of stability and the future of a dynasty. However, the birth of Prince James Edward Francis Stuart, first son King James II of Britain and Queen Mary of Modena, brought about war, upheaval and the effective fall of a dynasty that had reigned in Britain since 1371. The prince, who would become known as “The Old Chevalier” and “The Old Pretender” was born at St James Palace on June 10, 1688 and was soon thereafter baptized into the Roman Catholic Church of his parents and this was the “problem” with the newborn prince. He represented the potential of a Catholic British dynasty and this was something that those with power in the country were not willing to tolerate. First, his legitimacy was called into question and the King even ordered a formal investigation to remove all doubt but it was all rather pointless. William of Orange soon landed with a Dutch army and the Protestant elites rushed to his banner. The Queen and Prince James were sent to safety in France while the King struggled (unsuccessfully) to maintain his throne.

The Prince was brought up in France and upon the death of his father in 1701 was recognized by British Jacobites as King James VIII of Scotland and III of England. The King of France, the King of Spain, the Pope and the little Italian Duchy of Modena also recognized him as the legitimate monarch of the ‘three kingdoms’. As a result of this he was declared a criminal by his half-sister and brother-in-law in London, King William III and Queen Mary II, who declared him a traitor the following year. As a boy ‘King James III’ had been prepared by his father for the one paramount goal of restoring the House of Stuart to the British throne and holding fast to their Catholic faith. Not all Jacobites were Catholic and some Protestant Tories pointed out to James that as William of Orange was not terribly popular he would greatly increase his chances of success in restoring the Stuarts if he would reject Catholicism and become an Anglican. This, he adamantly refused to do. His father had only become more religious during his years in exile and although James III made it clear he stood for religious toleration, he would never abandon the Catholic Church no matter how much it might benefit him politically.

In 1708 James III made his first effort to restore himself to the British throne and King Louis XIV of France made a major commitment to supporting him. James sailed from Dunkirk with a considerable French fleet and some 6,000 French troops however, the British Royal Navy (loyal to Queen Anne, successor of William III, daughter of James II and thus half-sister to James III) intercepted the fleet and hounded it all the way around Scotland and back to France. Still, he did not lose hope. When his sister Queen Anne died in 1714 the government had to go looking quite far to find a suitably Protestant prince to take the throne, finally settling on Prince George, Elector of Hanover. In the past Protestants had often stirred up xenophobic support by associating Catholicism with being “foreign” (unlike the homemade Church of England). Now, that same devotion to Protestantism had brought a rather reluctant distant German cousin to the throne in preference to the son of a born and bred British king.

James thought, with the fairly unpopular German King George I in power in London, the British public might be willing to rise in his favor if he could mount a comeback. However, it would not be easy. Only the year before France and Spain had been forced to make peace with the British and part of the peace was a British demand that James III be expelled from France (having him next door was too big a worry). In many ways it seemed like this was the last chance he would have to claim the throne of his father. In 1715 he wrote to the Earl of Mar who rallied the chieftains of the highland clans in Scotland and proclaimed James their king. They secured the highlands fairly quickly, occupied Perth and attracted an army of about 8,000 men. However, the Duke of Argyll opposed them and the government in London began arresting anyone whose loyalty was the least bit suspect which squashed potential risings in other parts of Britain before they could get off the ground.

Fighting raged off and on in Scotland to little effect. When James arrived at Peterhead via a French ship he found the rising going nowhere and he himself was suffering from illness and unable to take a decisive leadership role. The Jacobites were ultimately defeated and James was forced to retreat to Montrose where he boarded a ship bound for the continent; he had rolled the dice and lost. Back in Europe Pope Innocent XIII gave James a palace in Rome and a pension to support him while in Britain sparks of hope lingered. During “the ‘15” many Scots had opposed James III but in the aftermath the government crackdown in Scotland caused opposition to George of Hanover to grow and nostalgia for the Stuarts to increase. In 1719 Spain gave support to another effort at a Jacobite uprising but it failed as well.

That same year James III married Maria Clementina Sobieska, granddaughter of King John III of Poland by whom he would eventually have two sons; Charles and Henry. Like his father before him James spent his time in prayer and preparing his son and heir Charles to restore the Stuarts. In time this developed into the Jacobite uprising of 1745 when the young Prince Charles landed in Scotland after a storm scattered the French ships meant to support him and a worrisome King of France withdrew his promise of military support. Nonetheless, Charles raised the Stuart standard and proclaimed his father king once again. Most of the highland clans rallied to him, Edinburgh was occupied and a stunning victory was won at Prestonpans. Fortunes seemed to be turning.

This time the Jacobites marched south into England, reaching as far as Derby before the chieftains lost their nerve and turned back. The Jacobites won another victory at Falkirk but continued to retreat. In 1746 at the battle of Culloden they were decisively defeated and Prince Charles only narrowly escaped back to Europe. James was disheartened though he always held out at least some hope that the Stuarts could one day be restored. French plans for another restoration attempt in Ireland were made but never got far beyond the drawing board. The Old Pretender, King James VIII of Scotland and III of England to his loyal Jacobites, died in Rome on New Year’s day 1766. He was buried in the crypt at St Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

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?

Last Bow of the Jacobites

Today marks the anniversary of the last battle fought on British soil; the battle of Culloden moor in the north of Scotland in 1746. It was the last battle in the fight to restore the Stuarts to the British throne and is generally remembered as the last charge of the highland clans. It is often forgotten that the 45 Uprising was a fight for the whole of the British Isles and the Jacobite army included men from England, Scotland and Ireland while the Hanoverian army included many foreign mercenaries from Europe. However, the battle does hold a special significance for Scotland, especially given the atrocities that happened afterward and the suppression of Scottish culture that followed. It was the end of the old, traditional system of organization and loyalties of the highland clans. It many ways it was the end of an era, the last of the old and the first of the new when it came to both tactics and politics. Men fought for the Stuarts for personal reasons, men fought for the Hanoverians for political reasons. It was a victory for modernity, for the current form of the parliamentary monarchy and in a way a victory of reason over romance. It was also the end of the Jacobites as a viable group of opposition. When revolution came to North America many former Jacobites fought for King George III against the republican revolutionaries.
I would hope that enough good grace is left in Great Britain to show tolerance and kindness to the vanquished in that last British civil war. With the battle of Culloden the Jacobites were finished and everyone, deep down, knew it. Henry Cardinal York seemingly endorsed the house of Hanover in the person of King George III and so, given all of that, I would ask the modern-day Hanoverians not to be too hard on the modern-day Jacobites and let them keep their vision and their ideals as it is all they have left. Every Jacobite I have ever met supports the British monarchy, they know that the Duke of Bavaria is never going to press his claim and they would rather have any monarchy rather than the nightmarish lie that a British republic would be. They simply want their history and traditions treated with the dignity they deserve for it was very noble ideals and principles that those men who charged across the moor at Culloden were fighting for; legitimate royal authority, loyalty to their rightful king, their ancient traditions and rights and de-centralized over centralized government.
Who can say what would have happened if they had won? I would like to think that the monarchy would be stronger, the succession out of political hands, parliament would understand that they answer to the Crown and the Crown does not answer to them and maybe the Sovereign would veto something once and a while (like the EU agreements that threaten UK independence). Maybe things would have not reached the point of no return with Ireland but of course no one can know that for sure. Just in case it is though, and just out of respect for what those wild highlanders at Culloden were fighting for their memory should be honored.

King James' Chinese Friend

Michael Shen Fu-Tsung was a Catholic convert, born in China and who left via the Portuguese port of Macau in 1682. He visited many countries in Europe and accompanied a Belgian priest to Britain; the first Chinese person known to have visited Great Britain. He reportedly taught King Louis XIV how to eat with chopsticks while visiting Versailles and was presented to King James II of Great Britain. King James was so taken with the Chinese scholar that he had a full-length portrait of him painted which King James hung in his bedroom. He left England in 1688 (just in time you could say) and sailed to Lisbon, Portugal where he entered the Society of Jesus. He was evidently supposed to return to China to carry out missionary work with the other Jesuits there but, alas, he died during the voyage somewhere off the east coast of Africa. It would be well over a hundred years later before anyone from Great Britain visited China in an official capacity. That was Lord MacCartney who, unlike President Obama, caused outrage (in China at least) for his refusal to kotow to the Qienlong Emperor in the traditional fashion. I suppose it did not matter but, for the record, Qianlong is widely considered one of the greatest emperors of the Qing dynasty.