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.
Margaret of Scotland vs. Charles I
- Margaret of Scotland (89%, 7,618 Votes)
- Charles I (11%, 928 Votes)
Total Voters: 8,546
Loading ...
My darling Mother Margaret would expect her daughter, Patricia Margaret, her granddaughter A. Margaret, and two great granddaughters, Kathryn Margaret and Isabella Margaret to vote for their Ancestress multi-great Grandmother, Queen, and Saint.
Go Great (multple) Grandmother
Greetings cousin!
I LOVE Margaritas!
same
Good one!
Ah, yes! From one cousin to another
Delightful. My great-grandmother was Margaret; her granddaughter(my aunt) Margaret; my first cousin, “little Margaret”-until her dying day at 84. Of course, my husband Charles III and son Charles IV but “Margaret of Scotland” won hands down in my heart.
And my wife is Mary Margaret. Nuff said!
I’m glad to hear someone has a relative named Charles, and with numbers after it and all!
By the way, what would we do without rubrics?!
Of course named Margaret, I would certainly vote for Margaret of Scotland. While in Edinburgh several years ago, I went to a chapel named for her at the castle, however, only girls with the name of Margaret are able to be married there! Go Margaret!!
Where did you get the idea that only girls named Margaret can be married in St. Margaret’s chapel? I looked it up. The wedding that was pictured was of a girl named Fiona (whose middle name could have been Margaret), and I also could not find any restrictions about names on the guild site or the St. Margaret Chapel site. Is it an unwritten tradition, or what?
Margaret is mt friend Geri’s 32nd great grandmother! I had to vote for her. I visited the castle in October and said hello to Margaret in her Chapel!
Yeah, that was a ‘Ginger Rogers’ she did it backwards and in heels.
According to the published genealogies I’ve seen of my paternal grandmother’s family, I’m another descendant of St. Margaret. (Hi, cousins!) However, I’m named for my other grandmother, another Mary Margaret. Are girls whose middle name is Margaret allowed to be married in St. Margaret’s chapel?
Margaret! She built a cool Scotland and Charles was TERRIBLE.
Thanks for taking part in this, Pailet!
I agree, Pailet. Margaret was all about helping the Scottish clans, building schools, hospitals, churches. Glad to see so many young people on here.
Go Margaret! Girl Power!
Charles wasn’t a terrible person and as Anglicans we owe him respect. However Margaret meets our modern ideas of who a saint is: someone who does their best for others.
I concur!
Go Wynne! I agree!
Charles also did his best for others. He was committed to living out his faith and taking seriously his duty as a king. He was concerned about the plight of his poor subjects and tried to protect them from the depredations of their landlords and he sought to improve the spiritual, moral, and educational life of his nation. When faced with bitter malice and senseless hatred, he stood by his conscience and convictions to his death, defending the faith he had received and cherished.
Good point, Daniel. In reading Megan Castellan’s blurb, I realized that Charles wasn’t as bad as he’s been made out to be.
And since at this point (9:30 a.m. in California) he’s losing terribly, I’ll vote for him.
I was just thinking, “Is there anybody on this forum who will admit to voting for Charles?
Yes, Although Margaret did the goodly things, Charles did the most difficult. Often the big picture doesn’t reveal enough of the strains and tests that people are under. I was moved to vote for Charles for his conviction and faith in face of a fearful, frustrated people.
Hear, hear!
Yes, Margaret is my choice. I am too much a Protestant to pledge allegiance to Charles.
Margaret was Catholic, not a Protestant! Charles’ farther King James was Anglican and the heir of Elizabeth I if I remember my English history.
Thanks, Wynne, for keeping it real!
Good to hear from you, Pailet! We are doing Lent Madness at my school. Say hello to your parents for me!
Loyal member of St. Margaret’s, Lawrence, Kansas. No question on this one.
Way to go, Nancy!
I got to go with Margaret she improved the lives and worked to help people instead of just enjoying her throne like some monarchs of the day.
cant vote for anyone that raises taxes
here, here 🙂
oops I meant hear hear.
Charles was not allowed to raise taxes by the Puritan-controlled Parliament that refused to work with him even before his father’s body was cold – even when the government needed money desperately to defend the nation in war.
sounds like some current politicians might be able to relate. I would invite them to vote, but could we trust them to vote only once 🙂
Margaret is one of my ancestors.
I’m the third Margaret in my family (two great-grandmothers were also named Margaret Katherine, so this one is easy. I’ve also been to Margaret’s chapel in Edinburgh Castle. But if I had no biases, I’d still go with Margaret. She’s a winner!
As difficult a choice as yesterday’s was, today’s is that easy. Go Margaret, go.
Margaret of Scotland. How could I not vote for the true patron saint of Lent Madness? Also, her devotion, literacy, and charitable works are impressive. Charles, I think, was responsible for political chaos and its resulting destruction. Nevertheless, I’m thankful to him for preserving the historic episcopate, for appointing William Laud as ABC, and for their reforms, especially the vestments and and the altar rail.
My thoughts exactly.
I love St. Margaret!
Charles was not responsible for political chaos and destruction. He stood and died for the traditional constitutional order of his realms against theocratic barbarians who brought death and destruction wherever they went.
I have prayed in St. Margaret’s chapel in Edinburgh Castle. Even though I consider myself a liturgist, I am far more moved by Margaret’s passion for social justice.
I’ve been to St. Margaret’s Chapel in Edinburgh Castle. Loved it!
Let’s vote Queen Margaret through for the Golden Halo! Patron saint of Lent Madness must prevail.
President of the St. Margaret of Scotland Chapter of the DOK at Church of the Epiphany, Miami Lakes, FL. Who else could I vote for?
As a historian of 17th century England, I always find it hard to take Charles seriously as a saint. He was deeply committed to an anti-Calvinist theology, and it could be argued that he was willing to die for that. But there was no generosity of spirit, he made no effort to help others. However, his policies sent a bunch of people to Boston (Plymouth was before his time), so we can be grateful for that.
Amen, Susan. Despite the fact that my church, St. John’s , in Johnson City, Tennessee, has a stained glass window of Charles, I have always considered him a political rather than a religious martyr. I’m sorry he lost his head , but Margaret has my vote for her generosity of spirit.
Amen again, Susan, and amen, Isabel. Charles??? Now, Edward the Confessor…that’s a kingly saint and saintly king. So is Margaret. No contest!
Boston . . . where they set up a Puritan theocracy every bit as intolerant as the regime that drove them out of England. More positively, Charles allowed the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore to found the colony of Maryland, named for his Queen Henrietta Maria and, for the first time, embodying religious tolerance in its charter as a founding principle.
I suspect there have been some lacunae in your studies if you think that S. Charles had no “generosity of spirit.” Even his enemies admitted that he was a pious and faithful man, a loving husband and father.
Some of us can be grateful. There are a few who I’d readily cut loose from that constraint… those of us that were already in place before the loud, grabbby, wimpy people in weird floppy hats showed up.
Thank you, Susan, for your input. I am also a historian — focus on different times/places — and I’m glad to have your confirmation of my opinion of Charles.
Kept Iona Sacred!! The lessed heritage of Columba.
No struggle for me. Margaret all the way. I loved the chapel at Edinburgh Castle. A simple, prayerful place, even withe the throngs of tourists.
Margaret the whole way…she helped orphans!
As a fan of folks who RAISE taxes and thankful for the work of Laud – my vote is for Charles I. But I know I am swimming against the tide today. Margaret is more worthy.
Both worthy reasons – thanks for this perspective John. I still have to vote for Margaret though.
This is a tough one. Obviously, Margaret is known to us today for all the good things she did without any “opposition research” available to counter it. Charles is not nearly so lucky, since his role in history is much better known, examined, pored over, and debated by both supporters and enemies. But maybe it comes down to which saint has had more influence on our lives, worship, and living faith today, and for that reason, I need to vote for Charles.
Nicely put.
I am a descendent of Sir Thomas Lawrence and in our family tree are many John Lawrences. Your name caught my eye and I wonder if you are a someone who should be in our tree?
My thoughts exactly. Margaret was a great woman, but our tradition owes much to
Charles I. He got my vote
I agree! Go Charlie
As a DOK of the St. Margaret, Queen of Scotland chapter, Margaret is my choice. But also, she was truly worthy of saintly status as so nicely explained by Ms. Fox. I was also fortunate to pray in her chapel at Edinburgh Castle.
Patron saint of Lent Madness? Say no more!
I had to vote Margaret for her efforts for reform and education. Also, I have been to the chapel.
Margaret helped build schools, orphanages, and hospitals, throughout Scotland i mean that is amazing where Charles didn’t really do anything
We agree Mason! As your fifth grade teacher I must say that while your comment was well written in thought and purpose, there are a few conventions you missed. Can you guess what they are? I’d give you an A. Seriously, myself and your classmates think you’re pretty terrific! Margaret for sure!
Mrs. Casey,
Please take this not as criticism, but as a teaching moment, for I am sure you are a wonderful teacher. I also believe that if someone does not know what an intensive or reflexive pronoun is, the word myself should not be part of his or her vocabulary. My daughter, who believes that English is a changing language, would not agree with me. Myself should not be used as a subject pronoun, so your enthusiastic last statement should be revised as “Seriously, your classmates and I think….
(Former English teachers never retire; we just mutter endlessly about how we do not accept changes in the English language.)
Agree: “myself” is not a subject pronoun but always reflexive. Additional quibble: holding out an A as a bribe is a suspect pedagogical strategy; satisfaction of mastery should be the goal. But my destrier is tugging on the reins. Let us sinners continue to trot toward Canterbury. The ride is young. Peace be to us all, say me, myself, and I.
As a copy and features editor in my younger days, I would have revised “myself and your classmates” as well. I would not quibble with offering an improved grade on what seems to be a class assignment, though, because grades are both assessments of mastery and incentives, too. High schools across the country are now using a mathematics teaching model in which the students can raise their scores on their “skills checks” by a specified number of points by identifying their errors and correcting them. If a working fifth-grade teacher cannot judge accurately whether her 10- and 11-year-old pupils are sufficiently motivated by “mastery of the goal,” I don’t know who can. Heck, I’m 55, and I’m not always motivated purely by the desire to master my many goals. Good for you, Mrs. Casey, for encouraging a good student to go just a little bit further!
Since there are no more “reply” buttons, I’ll “reply” to myself: Is this an actual class assignment in “real time”? If so, A) how fun and creative, but also B) perhaps evaluative remarks (of students’ work) could be made in a separate (and private) medium. I know this to be an inclusive and supportive group, but to ensure that no one’s feelings get hurt, maybe this is a good instance where the reflective and thinking process could go here but the summative and corrective process could take place in a more structured and protected environment. I assume everyone here is a pilgrim, including my faithful palfrey, who is more interested in grain than in grammar. I hope everyone arrives at Easter strengthened by the communal journey and enlivened by the buoyant, spiritual, sometimes ironic (even wry) conversation along the way. With Thecla’s goldfish in mind, I suggest, humbly, that one way to protect the goldfish is by not bringing the glass bowl along in the first place, because it’s going to get broken when someone stumbles. How can I express this clearly? While a pilgrimage encompasses the world, maybe structuring others’ experience so that a little less of “the world” impinges on them would be a thoughtful and responsible act of caritas, not just for one’s charges but for us all. I offer prayerfully the suggestion that “people” (adults and children alike) post their thinking and their votes but that any grade be treated separately in a designated environment devoted to that function, to respect (all our) privacy and intellectual growth. (That’s been edited about 1 MM times; that’s the best I can do.) I wish a safe and wondrous pilgrimage to all.
Amen, Carolyn Brown
Amen, Carolyn Brown.
Former editors don’t retire, either. I copy-edit everything I read.
One of my very favorite moments in life – receiving the gift of a t-shirt sporting my relentless mindset – “I’m Silently Correcting Your Grammar.”
Carolyn Brown: as a former proofreader (we never retire, either), I applaud your comment.
And here I thought Mrs. Casey was poking a bit of gentle fun, recognizing her student’s work and encouraging it. I hope she knows how Mason will receive it, and proceeded accordingly. Now Mason can do the same in return, but perhaps in a more forgiving forum.
Hopefully this is a “forgiving forum.”
Loved the dialogue, it has me smiling.
This one is a NO brainer. There is no competition here. Who even chose Charles I as a saint???
Technically Charles was canonized by an act of parliament, and is the only post reformation canonized saint within Anglicanism (though that status is not acknowledged throughout the communion).
Not the most sympathetic of saints, but he died a good death, shaped our mother church, and I knew that Lent Madness voters would have none of him, so mostly as an act of contrarianism I gave him my vote.
I had no idea parliament had the authority to canonize someone. I thought such actions were always under the aegis of the church itself. My suspicion is that church and state were somewhat more mingled then and the mix of politics and religion was customary. I like your dry wit: “that status is not acknowledged throughout the communion.” I should think not. I’m going to guess that not everyone dipping their handkerchief in his blood was doing so out of piety.
Charles I is not a saint in the Anglican calendar. He is commemorated as a martyr. Despite his robust defence of the Church of England, and his personal piety, which was genuine, I would agree with those who maintain that Charles was a political rather than a religious martyr. In the context of Lent Madness 2018, the saintly Margaret is the obvious choice between the two.
Margaret for me. Looking after the needs of the people rather than taking them to civil war is important. I appreciate that Charles sponsored some reform of the church but if vestments and altar rails are the pinnacle of his achievements then I don’t know how important they were.
He was offered the choice to keep his life and his throne if he abolished the episcopate and the sacramental order of the Church. He refused, and it cost him his life. Had he given in, then Anglicanism as we know it would not exist.
Daniel, I have to agree with you on Charles and the impact his actions had on the church of today. That’s why I voted for him. This is my second year of Lent Madness and the madness is our ability to make those tough decisions especially when they are both deserving. I like to take the time to look behind the scenes and then it’s still a tough call. I love what I am learning! We can’t always feel good.
Anyone who restored the Iona Monastery gets my vote.
Amen!
With a child named Duncan Campbell, how could I not vote for Margaret?
Day 2 and I’m already not sure how I feel about these contrived pairings!
Charles I may have contributed to saving the episcopate, but he was a tyrannical ruler whose actions were justified by his fervid belief in the divine right of kings. If it were not for coming up with the gimmick of theme pairings, I can’t imagine him being seriously considered for a Golden Halo.
I feel like this year doesn’t have enough contrived pairings. No brother vs brother, only one play on the saints’ names. They really need to step it up next year.
That is false. Charles was in no way a “tyrant.” Every action he took was in accordance with the constitution of his realm and the traditional prerogatives of the Crown, which he was forced to exercise because the Puritan-dominated Parliament refused to cooperate with him, putting their own power and ambition over the good of the nation. The ‘divine right of kings” is a myth made up by later Whig historians. Charles believed that he had a divine right and, more importantly, a divine responsibility to his realms and his subjects to serve them to the best of his ability; Parliament also had a divine right and a divine responsibility to aid and support the King in governing the country and enacting laws. Charles died faithful to his right and his responsibility; Parliament abandoned both.
Voted for Margaret.
Voting from Scotland, there can only be one choice!
It has often amused me that one of the two patron saints of Scotland was an Anglo-Saxon woman. On a more serious note, Margaret was a wonderful person with a great devotion to serving “even the least of these”, not just the the nobles and royalty where her life was mostly based. She worked tirelessly, not just on liturgical reforms, but to promote peace and reconciliation on personal level. She’s also the patron saint of housewives! My vote is solidly for her; and I suspect Charles will once again be slaughtered.
As a descendent of Scots and several Margarets, this was a no brainer even before I knew about all her good works with the “common people”. I’m glad to see I’m in “good company”
I lived in Edinburgh for a year and was inspired by Margaret’s chapel and her works. She was a figure of peace and generosity in a time where that was not the norm.
As a granddaughter of a Margaret and niece of another Margaret, I’d be naturally inclined to vote for her. However, learning about her passion for social justice, her intelligence and her activism, her name could be Turnip and I’d still vote for her. She is a model for our time. As a student of history, I could NEVER vote for Charles. Had he convened Parliament ten years earlier, he might have saved himself, his throne and saved his country from a civil war. Any leader who says he’s above the law should take heed!
Charles prorogued Parliament because Parliament refused to work with him. From the very day he became King, they opposed him out of senseless hatred and spite, denying him the cooperation he needed to govern the country. When they refused to do their job, he dismissed them – which was part of his traditional prerogative. He then attempted to fund the government from the Crown territories and from the traditional and customary rights and privileges of the Crown. He never claimed to be “above the law.” He believed that he and everyone else was under the law of God.
Charles doesn’t seem that bad to me. It’s regrettable that he is up against such a saintly person as Margaret. I agree with John the Verger, that sometimes it is necessary to raise taxes.
I love it that Charles went with his heart and married a French princess. I love it that he and Laud were instrumental in designing our beloved liturgy. Still, the essence of sainthood is good works. Margaret gets my vote.
Charles, even with the very stylish beard, is a terrible candidate for the Halo. His stubborn nature and inability to put the needs of his 2 countries ahead of his own “divine “rule led to dreadful conflict. Glad to see Margaret running away even in the early hours.
That is a completely inaccurate misconception of the historical reality. I do not argue that Charles was a brilliant statesman or a perfect King, but he truly was committed to well-being and good government of all three of his realms and exercising the powers and responsibilities of the Crown he inherited was his right but also his duty from God.
Pretty lopsided contest.
Charles because I attend St Charles in St Charles, IL, and I didn’t think he existed.
Is your church really dedicated to King Charles I. In a place called St. Louis, I would have expected a French saint like St. Charles Garnier, a Jesuit missionary among the Iroquois.
The church was apparently named after the town of St Charles, which was named after some Saint Charles of some distinction somewhere. We never name him in the prayers. He serves no patronly purpose in our identity. I voted for him anyway because “[Charlie,] I never knew ye.”
I am sorry Catherine; Even the Jr. warden of St. Charles voted for Margaret.
A good day to pray for and otherwise support the ministries of Sisters of St Margaret, in Haiti as well as in impoverished domestic areas. http://societyofstmargaret.org/
Good call! I voted for Charles, but I can do that.
Lovely post. Thank you.
As for Charles, don’t forget the Roundhead saying about Charles’s archbishop, “All praise be to God and little Laud to the devil.” Charles probably was a good person, but a terrible king. I had to go for Margaret.
Maggie! Because she read to Malcom…I wish my fella would let me read to him.
We really need “heart” buttons. There are so many comments I would “heart.” I heart this one.
Heart
I love the discipline of breaking the FB/Twitter habit. I can’t say I don’t feel your pain though, to the point of catching my body moving before I realize there’s nothing there to click. Some of these are truly amazing. There is a time for quiet, though, even if it’s refraining from expressions of gratitude. (There are even more opportunities to the reverse.) It’s not a space in which most of us are exactly comfortable.
“Twitter habit”: I resemble that remark. I appreciate your reminder about quiet.
For Margaret, the crown seems to have been about a high place from which to do good. For Charles, it was about the power. He did not save Anglicanism. Its middle way saved it after the English got a taste of institutionalized Calvinism under Oliver Cromwell. The very fact that the Church of England canonized him shows the regard for the old church they felt after the Restoration of the monarchy. Interesting that the pairing is really of two Scottish monarchs. Parliament cut off Charles’s head for leading a Scottish army against England in the Second English Civil War.
He was recognized but not officially canonized. Neither the C of E nor the Anglican Communion since has ever presumed to canonize anyone as a saint after the Reformation split.
Sorry Lisa, but the marks of canonization include enrollment in a listing of saints, the establishment of public devotions, and the dedication of churches or chapels. Parliament, on the recommendation of the Convocations of Canterbury and York, included Charles as a red-letter day (i.e. a feast appointed to be observed) in the BCP Calendar, provided a service for that day, and churches were soon dedicated to him. This canonization — like some others — may be controversial, but it was real and official.
So good to see you here, Fr. Loring!
Bill, what I read seems to indicate that it was so controversial from the start that it perhaps cannot be accorded as done deal and doctrine. And was it not the first and only attempt in Anglicanism to canonize post-reformation? BTW I did end up voting for him!
You are incorrect. Charles view of his responsibilities as a king were perfectly in line with those of Margaret. Margaret, however, did not have to face a Parliament dominated by power-hungry Puritan theocrats. Charles had the choice to save his life and his throne by, among other things, accepting the transformation of the Church of England into a dour and joyless Puritan fundamentalist cult. He refused, and his refusal and death tainted the Parliamentarians with his blood and kept the spirit of defiance and faithfulness to the “middle way” alive.
I believe Carolyn is offering her opinion; it is not, therefore, “incorrect.” Facts are correct or incorrect. Interpretations are convincing or not. She, like you, is offering an assessment of history. We are free to be persuaded or not. Your assessments are highly partisan and admit of no nuance or disagreement. Indeed, you seem to be trying to preclude any alternative viewpoint. For example, you present the “middle way” as characterized by a “spirit of defiance and faithfulness.” Doesn’t sound very “middle” to me; I am having a hard time imagining how faithfulness and defiance go together. The DSM does not include a “Cooperational Faithful Disorder” whereas it does include an “Oppositional Defiant Disorder.” Given your approach to the “middle,” I would prefer Aristotle. So, dear brother, I would like to invite you to consider how you might present your viewpoint in a manner which might possibly persuade and convince us instead of badgering us. Can you offer a rational and compendious view of Charles that is less spattered with hate of the Puritans (“a dour and joyless fundamentalist cult,” sez you, who doubtless throw eggs at Presbyterian churches) and more charitable and hospitable toward the intellectual lights of those who might (just possibly might) incline an ear to you if you could lay off some of the rancor toward what you see as the enemy?
Aren’t we supposed to throw eggs at Presbyterian churches? Shoot. I missed the memo. 😉
So — from epochal struggle we descend to pattycake. Supremos, Margaret deserved better at your hands than this blatant setup against a coronated fop who happened also to be either an Anglo-Catholic or a Catholic Anglo. For next year I nominate Louis XVI to fill the regicide slot.
Sick burn! Only day 2, I haven’t even had a sip of coffee yet, and you’re already throwing shade. I hear Louis XVI loved his daughters fwiw.
oooooooo mic drop.
Just shows to go ya how influential a fop can be….
Oh my goodness. Is there really nothing good to say about Charles? I’ve read that he was a patron of the arts, bringing Van Dyck and Rubens to England, and adding collections of Raphael, da Vinci, Caravaggio, and Titian paintings to the royal gallery. He instituted the still active position of Master of the King’s Music to his staff to oversee the royal musicians. Charles was also somewhat shy, probably due to his persistent stammer.
At his trial Charles said, “I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their laws and their goods may be most their own.” And at his death he is quoted as saying, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”
Yeah, I voted for Margaret. But it’s good to remember that everyone has some redeeming qualities!
Of course (and see my reply to Susan’s comment posted at 8:23, citing the foundation of Maryland as an oasis of tolerance). But redeeming qualities, alas, do not a Golden Halo make.
Your avatar is my favorite depiction of the Annunciation, by the way.
True, devil’s advocate that I am! And I’m happy to hear we share a love for Rossetti’s girl.
My favorite Annunciation also! The only one I can think of where Mary seems kinda scared, which is just how I picture it. Off topic, but there it is. And I agree that ‘redeeming qualities do not a Golden Halo make,’ but it is nice to hear about them, since we’re all some mix of sinner and saint.
The only other frightened Marys in annunciation art I can think of are in Zeffirelli’s movie “Jesus of Nazareth,” and American artist John Collier’s 1980 painting, now housed in a church in Texas (but easy to find on Google.
If Margaret upgraded and reestablished Iona, then we owe her a great debt indeed. There the Bible and numerous other books were copied by scribes. These books were the only reprints of ones that were lost to time when Rome was sacked and the libraries burned. Consider the book How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. Great read about an astounding contribution to our culture. She gets my vote!
Beth, thanks for your comments on the Cahill book. It is one of my favorites. His Hinges of History series books Re all great reads.
Margaret for Scotland! And I am so very weary of politics. Give me a queen who feeds the hungry, literally and spiritually.
AMEN!!!!!
YES!
Wait. I thought Andrew was the patron saint of Scotland.
They are both patron saints of Scotland. It’s Margaret’s only gig, while Andrew is also Patron of Fishermen, singers, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and Patras.
Margaret of Scotland is also the patron saint of housewives.
Margaret gets my vote.
Not only did she do good works, she was a social justice crusader and that is what we need more of today. Therefore my vote goes with her
After yesterday’s match up, which began to rival the closeness of a Florida presidential election, this one will leave no hanging chads. Go Margaret of Scotland!
Charles, but only because I’m a new member of St Charles in St Charles, IL, and I never knew he existed. Margaret seems more hospitable, though.
Margaret for her kindness and generosity during an age when it was rare. It really isn’t fair to pair Charles I with her.
Voting for Margaret, who is remembered in a beautiful window in my home parish.
“…And one was a queen.” (I Sing a Song of the Saints of God).
How could I vote for other the Queen Margaret!
Saint for Social Justice and Education – count me in for Margaret
I have voted for Margaret, in part because she was a restorer of Iona monastery, and as a member of the community, restoration of the Abbey is a significant part of our community history. Also, having recently observed Charles I in morning prayer, I have to confess to feeling as slightly embarrassed about his inclusion in the calendar.
I’m with you Fiona. Margaret all the way. Loved that she restored Iona Monastery, but mostly for her work with social justice and improving the lives of the people. Oh that we might have more leaders like her today.
My great aunt was a member of the Anglican order of Saint Margaret.
One for the ladies today, Margaret gets my vote for reading the Bible to Malcolm
of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. M&M all the way (NOT the given up Godiva chocolates)
Sorry, Charlie.
And he did have pretty good liturgical taste!
[chortling]
For obvious reasons, I am voting for Margaret. I am going to Scotland in May so also looking forward to seeing her influence in the country.
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 am perfectly content for people to conflate Charles 1 with Bonnie Prince Charlie. If Charles makes it to Round 3, expect much Outlander swag.
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.
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!
My beloved twin was named for St. Margaret…and I lived and studied in Edinburgh for a few months, so this is a no-brainer for me. Charles’s bad luck continues into Lent Madness.
St. Margaret was the name of our young women’s guild in the 1970s and 1980s. Such an example to follow for us as young women interested in serving our parish. Unfortunately we have moved on to other parishes, out of the area, other worship styles and lost contact with each other. I hope somebody from San Diego reads this and contacts me. We were a close group of mothers, wives, singles.
Not much of a contest here. I’m not even sure why Charles was canonized. Another one for Margaret.
Margaret! Quite taken aback to even see Charles I in the bracket!
Same here. “Martyr”? Perhaps victim, but not martyr or saint.
Sitting in the chapel in Edinburg is a special moment.
Maggie has my vote today!
Now if you had paired Peter against Margaret there might have been a contest. Of course that would leave Paul paired with Charles and what a disaster that would have been. Go Margaret!
While Maggie was kind Charles defended the faith.
My daughter was born in a St. Margaret Hospital! She has my vote hands down!
Thank you, Neva Ray and Megan, for your presentation of Margaret and Charles I. I voted for Margaret, but it was not easy. Charles was faithful in so many ways. But, not convening parliament for eleven years? And, how, exactly did the altar rail come into play? So much more to learn.
Go Margaret!
https://youtu.be/pwiztVCnjY0
Hahaha! It’s a hoot!
Although I could understand and appreciate Charles’ sacrifice I believe our patron saint, Margaret of Scotland is more deserving.
Two thoughts:
Who the heck tries to steal a vote on saints?
And, PLEASE — Charles I was no Anglican martyr. He was a rigid autocrat who refused to accept limits on his powers. His death was unnecessary and tragic, but in no way a martyrdom.
Charles knew that his powers had limits; the trouble is that Parliament didn’t accept any limits on theirs and tried to limit his traditional and constitutional authority even further.
He is a martyr because he was given the choice to keep his life and his throne if he abolished the episcopate and the sacraments. He refused, and died for his faith.
However one interprets the history, and whatever the provenance of the tale that is used to justify Charles being a martyr, he died for his crimes and not his faith (presuming a genuine Christian faith). I certainly object (anachronistically, to be sure) to the mode of punishment as well as the abuses of Parliament and the Puritans, but in my view Charles (and Laud) were almost wholly in the wrong at the points where they clashed with Puritans on matters political and religious. Many of the worst aspects of contemporary Anglicanism stem from them as well.
Margaret is worthy of the Golden Halo!
Tracey Henley, I agree wholeheartedly!
I voted for Margaret. She accomplished so very much in her time in history. In my humble opinion, the actions of Charles were influenced more by politics than religious conviction. In my reading I did discover a new word, “Defenestration” meaning (Quoted from Wikipedia) “…Defenestration is the act of throwing someone or something out of a window…. The term was coined around the time of an incident in Prague Castle in the year 1618, which became the spark that started the Thirty Years’ War…”
Thank you. Please do not include my last name “Waller” in the comment.
How many Churches are named Charles the First of England? We do have a St. Margaret of Scotland though. She has a school attached too.
Not a difficult choice at all. Apologies to friends in the SKCM, but I just don’t see how His Majesty measures up in this contest.
Margaret worked tirelessly. She was a woman, and a woman with power could have suffered a great deal for that. She has a beautiful chapel in Edinburgh which I went to this past summer. Her tirelessness,her fight for helping the poor. And her deep spirituality win my vote for heroic virtue.
Gotta vote for my Granny St. Margaret!!
Margaret, definitely. She was prolific in her good deeds. And she died exactly 863 years before I was born.
Wow! I had to read both a couple times before thoughtfully voting. Very surprised at the Cote stead!
Perhaps the Russians are trying to influence the outcome….
Charles I is not a saint. He is commemorated in the Anglican Calendar as a martyr. Despite Charles’ robust defence of the Church of England, and his personal piety, which was profound, I voted for the saintly Margaret, whose sainthood is indisputable.
I am always a supporter of the less fortunate.” Charles I, King and Martyr” need I say more.
As a fellow Scot, I’m for Margaret all the way. I love her! Poor Charles, drama drama drama!
Margaret had such an important place in the Christian world. Sorry Charley
My late father venerated Charles I almost as much as he enjoyed Lent Madness. (Really!) While I try to honor Dad a lot of the time, Margaret’s concern for Iona, education, & reading aloud honor him, too. All the best, Dad, even though I didn’t pick your fave.
Well, that seemed rather easy choice for many of us. After yesterday’s difficult one it is good.
I voted for Charles because I wanted to.
Charles you tried, but got put up against the wrong Saintess!
All of us who count Margaret in our family trees should throw a party if/when she wins. Go Granny go!
Comedian Eddie Izzard had some strong opinions about Charles I. (Check it out on Youtube.) I voted for Margaret. Unfortunately, two of my staff members pitted themselves against each other. Margaret – glad to support your saint. Geoffrey – don’t be angry with me!
“Cake versus death.” Most of us are voting for cake.
Margaret of Scotland and her Christian zeal for social justice and church rebuilding.
I had to vote Charels because we Protestants have to stick together. Lol
Well, I appear to be in the minority here, with a vote for Charles. I like the fact that he stayed true to his own mind, kept the episcopate intact, and started the civil war. Those were necessary evils that had to be borne, and he did them with Grace and Humility. So for me, it’s one for ol’ Chuckie.
I feel rather sorry for Charles I, and don’t think he’s nearly as bad as he’s been painted.
That said, my vote still goes to Margaret of Scotland!
Being from South Carolina, I must make a plea for Charles. Not only is he (or at least his son) our state’s namesake and mine, his travails are also ours. He was martyred by the forces of Reformed biblical fundamentalist who disdained the essential elements of Anglicanism – the via media, the three-legged stool, the prayerbook, the lectionary, hierarchy,etc. – in their quest for the perfectly pure and biblically-based church. His battle is the same as ours in our Diocese today.
I have always admired Margaret of Scotland for several reasons so had to vote for her here. Go, Margaret (sorry, Charles)!
Considered a vote for Charles I, simply because of the shout-out to his queen, Henrietta Maria, after whom my home state is named. (Henriettaland–you haven’t heard of it?) But then I remembered that the Roman Catholic settlers who came here named their settlement St Mary’s City, on the St Mary’s River, and that the whole “named the colony after the queen” thing was most likely political bunk. So I cast my vote for Margaret of Scotland, who certainly seems more saintly to me!
I voted for Charles I because he granted the release of my ancestor Rev. John Lothropp/Lathrop (1584-1653), liberal minister of the First Independent Church of London, from the Tower of London providing that he left the country. He with 4 of his sons and many members of his congregation sailed to America, finally settling in a new town, Barnstable, Massachusetts.
Margaret had me at Iona–a “thin” holy space indeed! (and puffins near by–what more could one want in a pilgrimage site?)
I voted for Charles in part because of the Altar Rail, in part because of the historic episcopate. Thanks be to God for the Anglican/Episcopal branch of the Church!!!
Interesting: I note that many Margarets voted for St Margaret because of her name; I didn’t see a single vote for Charles from Chucks or Charlies out there. Not quite sure what that signifies, but I note it nonetheless! In another pairing, I might have voted for Charles… but up against Margaret, he didn’t stand much of a chance.
Had to cast a vote for Charles I in honor of my son, father, great-grandfather, and grandfather-in-law!
Here’s a reason for a vote for Margaret that hasn’t been mentioned. When I made my Cursillo (Diocese of North Carolina, Cursillo #61), I was at the table of St. Martin of Tours. But one of the other tables was of St. Margaret, and every time that group announced who they were, one of the men with a beautiful low bass voice would always add “of Scotland.” I can hear his voice to this day.
Don’t tarnish the Halo! Vote for Mags!
I remember one of my favorite lines from a old favorite books (1066 and All That)
“Cavaliers – wrong but wromantic
Roundheads-right but repulsive”
Wow, I remember that book! Glad I’m not the only one.
I’m off to a bad start. Paul made it possible for me to be a Gentile Christian. He was defeated. Charles and William Laud (and some others) made it possible for me to be the Anglican I am today. He too seems to be going down to defeat. Hope things go better in the days to come.
Dear SEC,
I wanted to refresh my memory of info about Charles and the English succession, so I looked him up. Oops! I was right: something was awry in our description. He was NOT the son of James IV, but of James VI. Edits, please. (And thank you.)
Margaret is running away with this match! It seems that many voters decided easily on their vote, as I did. Go Margaret!!
Charles I “meek”??? A martyr? Hardly! He was a real divine-right-of-kings guy. The very fact that he refused to convene Parliament reminds me too much of despots everywhere. Queen Margaret all the way!
Grandma Nancy Margaret (known familiarly as “Mag”); Aunt Margaret; my nickname as a child, Peggy (though my name is Lucy); but more importantly, St. Margaret was Scottish, willing and able to improve the lot of her people, restored Iona (with which I have a very intuitive and subjective connection and long to visit), and read to her husband. She gets my vote.
Of course I voted for Margaret, she’s one of my ancestors!
It should be noted, surely, that Charles, King and Martyr is a direct descendant of Margaret of Scotland.
I was going to say that this was surely the first time Lent Madness had pitted relatives against each other. Then I had a dim memory of it happening to brothers Cyril and Methodius.
Also brothers John and Charles
Here’s hoping that after this year’s contest, both of Susannah’s boys will sport the Golden Halo.
Today’s choice pits two of Scottish heritage against each other, a kind of civil war of its own. Nevertheless, the vote must go on. I was born in Scotland of a Scottish mother, and half of my family lives in Scotland. I have been to Edinburgh and Iona several times (more times to Iona!). I have had the privilege of taking my two children to Scotland and seeing my daughter as a 10-year old pray in St. Margaret’s Chapel. St. Margaret’s faux stained glass window hangs in my house. Surprise! I vote for Margaret. That said, my father took both of his theology degrees (B.D. and Ph.D.) at Glasgow, and the fact that St. Margaret is an Edinburgh lass made it a harder choice (not).
The gremlins in my computer did it again ! They dropped days’ worth of Lent Madness info. That I could handle, but when they dropped the Peter/Paul match until it was too late to vote, I was ready to strangle them all. I’m glad, however, that this match was the first for the season. I was afraid that we were going to have it at the End of all the voting.
It’s a landslide, hanging chads and all!!!
Almost persuaded to vote for Charles because of the episcopate thing and the prayer, but love St. Margaret of Scotland too much! She has always been one of my favorite saints. P. S. I so enjoy St. Celia’s comments! I too, wish we had emoji responses!
I’ve been to that little chapel in Edinburgh Castle several times – it is a peaceful, holy little place.
St Margaret because of her connection to Iona gets my vote. I love the music of Iona.
Reading between the lines I see an argument that Margaret was involved in a top-down imposition of continental norms on a native Celtic church. In a battle of personally pious autocrats, I’ll go with today’s underdog–Charles the martyr.
Thank you. We do forget that no villian is purely evil, and no saint is completely saintly. Yes. Maybe we have her to thank for this sometimes-fiasco that is western medicine. We of the establishment scarcely imagine that what we have to offer might be something less than ideal, to say nothing of the comparison to what it replaces.
There’s no question here – MoS for me! It’s like a 1/16 match-up.
Sorry, Charlie, halos are for real saints.
How could I not vote for the patron saint of Lent Madness?
I am both
I am both
I am both Scot and Eng. Margaret of Scotland is my vote,
I am both Scot & Eng. my vote Margaret of
I am Scot.
I am Scot and Eng. vote for Margret of
I m both
I am both Scot and Eng. my vote Margaret of Scotland I am from 6 countries God help me
Charles I? Really? Meh. He may have been personally devout and kind. But the Civil War was primarily caused by his refusal to call Parliament for ten years, and his attempt to raise taxes without parliamentary consent. Same issue the American Revolution was fought over. His defense of the Episcopate also had political motives; it was commonly thought that social control was best maintained through the church, “No Bishops, no King.” And the immediate cause of his execution was that he instigated the Second Civil War while in the midst of negotiating with Parliament after having lost the first. It was only after that that the army then overthrew both the King and parliament and executed Charles. Sorry, just can’t see him as a saint !
Margaret gets my vote…for all the help she did for hospitals & literacy. And we have a daughter named Margaret !
I have some concerns about what St. Margaret did to the Culdees, and her general advancement of Latinization, but still, she was a remarkable and holy woman and I’ll support her over Charles I any day 🙂
This one looks like it’s going to be a landslide!
You had me at Iona
Me too.
St. Margaret’s of Scotland in Sarasota FL remains in our hearts even years after moving away. St. Margaret hands down in my opinion.
Margaret of Scotland is my 27th great-grandmother, so I was very excited to see her name in the bracket today! And for the record, I would have voted for her anyway… no nepotism here. 🙂
Trying to figure wwhy Charles is a saint.
Last November 16th, my priest gave a wonderful sermon about Margaret’s life and works. I also like that she read the Bible to her husband. Go Margaret! Patron Saint of Lent Madness! Iona! Alba Gu Bràth!
Voted for Charles on the basis of his martyrdom, and for the fact that he was a mainstream Christian martyred by Christian fundamentalists.
While there is a lot of attention given these days to the persecution of Christians by people outside the Christian faith, there is very little attention (IMHO) to the contempt shown by Christian fundamentalists of people of other faiths, of people of lifestyles with which they disapprove, and of mainstream Christians whose faith they do not deem adequate.
It can get worse, and can be transformed into active persecution, as anyone who know the history of the Salem ‘Witch Trials knows (and as anyone who has either read – or viewed – “The Handmaid’s Tale” can imagine).
With all my respect for Margaret of Scotland, my vote goes (despite his obvious flaws as a monarch) to the Martyr King, as a representative of all the victims of fundamentalist versions of Christianity.
These are valid points, Bob. I couldn’tagree more.
I am not sure that Puritanism can be reduced to our contemporary category of “fundamentalism.” Fundamentalists typically do not reflect on and consider the various merits of opposing points of view, or on how they can be wrong:
Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Precept may be upon precept, line may be upon line, and yet the Word of the Lord may be to some a Word of Judgment; that they may fall backward and be broken, and be snared and be taken!
The Lord give you and us understanding to do that which is well-pleasing in His sight. Committing you to the grace of God, I rest,
Your humble servant,
OLIVER CROMWELL
Queen Margaret was of course an ancestress of King Charles I though at least two different lines.
I voted for Margaret of Scotland because of her involvement with h Iona Monastery. I had the privilege of singing there, and it is truly one of the most Spiritual places on earth.
Margaret. It just had to be Margaret for all sorts of reasons!
Even if Margaret hadn’t done all the other things she had, teaching the Scottish nobility to eat with utensils rather than fingers deserves a golden halo. If she wins, there should be a fork (or maybe napkin) produced in her honor.
Heart
Our chapter of the DOK is St Margaret of Scotland and many of us also prayed in her Chapel. Social justice advocate before most knew what that was. Had to vote for someone who was ahead of her time and her commitments are still so important today.
Our chapter of the DOK is St Margaret of Scotland. Her life in social justice was important then and is a role model for all today. Also prayed in her chapel. No doubt about it. My vote went to St Margaret
A woman who worked “to change the aged and dated ways of the clergy” gets my vote. Btw, although I’m a Peggy I’m not a Margaret. I love St M anyway!
Had to go with Margaret, sorry for Charles though always dislike the stories about the ones that died as he did.
I’m certainly no fan of Oliver Cromwell and his gang, and I respect King Charles for having tried to take a stand against them. However, my vote goes to Margaret, the church-builder and reformer. She left a great legacy.
I voted for Margaret because she read aloud to her husband.
No contest here. I voted for Margaret!
Where is Sr.Diana and her wonderful hymns ?
Margaret for me – based on her tireless work for social charge, change in the ways of the church, and the fact that in my line of ancestors we have many Margarets, who mostly went by Maggie. My mother and my daughter are Margarets.
I am almost feeling sorry for Charles.
Margaret has a tiny “grotto” in Drumferline, where it is said she used to like to go to pray in seclusion. They had to cover the entrance to it when they built a car park above it, so they built a new tunnel by which you can descend to this tiny holy place. There actually is not much there, but standing in the dim artificial light, one senses a feeling of great peace.
It was said that she often would go to a secluded spot to pray, and her husband King Malcolm did not know where she went or what she was up to. One day he secretly followed her, to find her in prayer. From that day forth, he supported her in whatever she did. Perhaps she was thus able to be like Eleanor would be to Franklin a few centuries later.
As for Charles, it was his belief that his rule was divinely granted, and if others wished to take it away, that did not give him to right to give it. He would sooner die than betray that trust. And so he did. The snarky comments about Charles are out of place in good Anglican discussion. And sharpshooters correcting someone’s grammar! What a shame…
I don’t think a rejection of the doctrine of divine right of kings is “snark.” Nor do I think the divine right of kingship is Anglican. But peace be with you.
And what is out of place in good Anglican discussion is not necessarily out of place in Lent Madness. My first post of today, in which I trashed not just Charles but the SEC as well and employed the barbarism “coronated” for rhetorical effect, is living proof.
And what is out of place in good Anglican discussion is not necessarily out of place in Lent Madness. My first post of today, in which I snarkily trashed not just Charles but the SEC as well and employed the barbarism “coronated” for rhetorical effect, is living proof.
How’d I do that?
Really! What a joke! Get serious ! Margret!!!!!!
I’m going to vote for Charles, though, to be honest, it’s a little bit hard for me. The gist of Margaret is one to which I aspire. I mean, really, just get in there and help. This isn’t rocket science. Charles, though, had the task of sorting out the sinister parts of history and retaining the truly useful parts, or at least providing the political legs for a vision of doing some of the same things in a different way. It seems he or Laud had the foresight of bridging a little-seen gap (imagine where we’d be politically if the Catholics and the Orthodox were the only liturgical churches, and you can’t say Charles didn’t influence the Lutherans). I can’t help but throw what little weight I have in the direction of those in the establishment who see the truly good bits despite an angry populist mob; it sounds to me like he was in a terribly misunderstood position. I truly admire his being in the thick of it, and rendering *us* with something so beautiful. (That, and as a former Baptist, I have Calvin baggage. :P)
I do think it’s easy for us to forget that civilization and human-made beauty as we know it is something which requires and is worth sacrifice. Sure, Charles only had a subset with which to work, but as Robin Williams as John Keating in “The Dead Poets’ Society” said, “We don’t write poetry becuase it’s cute. We write it becuase we are members of the human race…. poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.”
In short, we probably wouldn’t be here doing this if it weren’t for Charles.
We write poetry to woo women, Janis, and to woo men. That’s my take-away from the Dead Poets’ Society. Carpe diem. Peace be with you.
I’ve got a middle schooler. At this point I am entirely given to any and all civility and structure around wooing. I’m glad the ladies, and gentlemen, of history have persevered in their effort to raise the standard. Art may rise from the basest motives, but it is the art itself that raises them.
Loving in truth, and fain in verse my love to show,
That she (dear She) might take some pleasure of my pain:
Pleasure might cause her read, reading might make her know,
Knowledge might pity win, and pity grace obtain,
I sought fit words to paint the blackest face of woe,
Studying inventions fine, her wits to entertain:
Oft turning others’ leaves, to see if thence would flow
Some fresh and fruitful showers upon my sun-burned brain.
But words came halting forth, wanting Invention’s stay,
Invention, Nature’s child, fled step-dame Study’s blows,
And others’ feet still seemed but strangers in my way.
Thus great with child to speak, and helpless in my throes,
Biting my truant pen, beating myself for spite,
‘Fool’ said my Muse to me, ‘look in thy heart and write.’
Sidney, “Astrophil and Stella” (but you knew that)
A more interesting (and challenging) pairing would have been Margaret of Scotland vs. Charles the Good.
At least this time I can remember who I voted for. Despite a deep personal loyalty to St. Charles the Martyr, who is one of the few martyrs I have a quasi-relic of–a Harvard beer stein with the word “Remember on it–I never doubted that I would vote for Margaret, who did so much good for her kingdom and for the observance of a Holy Lent. And I’ll henceforth treasure the image of Margaret reading to her illiterate husband Malcolm–a detail of her story I had not known ere this.
I love St Margaret, plus her day is closest to my daughter’s birthday. Nevertheless sorry to hear Charles I get so whupped, if he was with Laud one of our faith’s architects! Voting for him next time.
I was sorely tempted to vote for the Queen, but knew she would win without me, so have cast my vote for the King. I am very thankful for our Anglican practices and his contribution to them!
Oops. Charles was the successor to James VI of Scotland (James I of England), not James IV, I think, if I am not mistaken.
Sadly, I was sold by a name, and that I have a stained glass depicting her from her chapel. Sorry nephews Malcolm and Charles
After much thought I am going with the underdog (I do that. I live in eastern PA and care not a bit about football, but had to root for the Eagles nonetheless!) Margaret clearly did a great deal of good for a great many, but as the wife of a monarch she had the easy privilege to be able to do so. Clearly she is more unsullied in her saintliness than Charles, but (for the same gut reasons that Peter got my vote yesterday) I am intrigued by those who are mixed bags dealing with myriad pressures, who yet manage to do something good and honorable. Even if he had delusions of divine right, I suspect Charles in his time felt constantly under siege. Certainly he was not a good king — not convening Parliament for 11 years is unconscionable! — but still, he staunchly defended some of the things that make our tradition liminal and transcendent: the unbroken chain (back to my buddy Peter!) of apostolic succession, and the beauty, candlelight and holiness of sacramental worship. Altar rails? Meh. But the rest helped me to find home in the Episcopal Church. Was he executed for these stands, or for general negligence? I’m not sure, and accounts seem to vary. But he did stand his ground on this at least, and made a difference in the history of our branch of Christ’s people.
I was glad to see someone else caught the typo. James IV was CharlesI’s great grandfather.
Responding to another post, The Society of St. Margaret is named for Margaret of Antioch.
I voted for Margaret, but with some reservations. I always wonder if some of the “barbarous” church customs she was so determined to eliminate were not what we now understand as Celtic Christianity.
Having worked at St. Margaret’s Hospital and driving often by St. Margaret’ Cemetary here in Montgomery, AL, St Margaret has my vote. I learned a great deal about her today.
Not only was Margaret saint, but she was a crusader for Christ and she used her time and talent to promote her ministry. Charles on the other hand was born into royalty and had his own agenda. He died by execution, but should be given credit for helping the Anglicans survive the Civil war.
Margaret was a friend (or at least an acquaintance) of the family, but I am also a 50+ year member of the Society of King Charles the martyr so the biases balance out. In the end, I voted for Charles. Unlike Margaret, he had to actually rule and still managed to improve the situation of the poor. Like almost everyone else in Europe, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings but saw this as a responsibility to care for the wellbeing of his people. He was king in a troubled time and certainly made mistakes, but did uphold his faith and his principles, even to the scaffold.
Without Charles dying to save the historical episcopate we may not have had an Episcopal Church.
It appears I’ll have a second chance to vote for the Scottish Queen whose husband appears in the Scottish Play.
As a long-time parishioner of the Episcopal Church of St. Andrew and St. Charles [Charles I King & Martyr] in Granada Hills, CA, I will cast my very outnumbered vote for Charles!
I and my Scottish clan, Clann Donnachaidh (Robertsons, Duncans, and Reids) are supposedly descended from King Malcolm III. Therefore, it is only right that I vote for Queen Margaret of Scotland. Then, of course, there’s the line from the hymn, “I Sing a Song of the Saints of God,” that goes, “One was a doctor, and one was a queen” which I’ve always thought referred to St. Margaret of Scotland. Lastly, I am quite fond of the Sisters of St. Margaret, my favorite religious order.
Charles was able to ignore others’ prejudiced expectations of whom he should marry…. and chose a catholic French woman.
Any monarch is going to have to be very special to get my vote and Charles I doesn’t make the cut. This deeply ingrained American believes that all mankind has equal unalienable rights ordained by God. Thank you Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton and Washington et al.
[Am I the only one that just shakes there head in wonder at my fellow Americans that fawn over royal weddings, births or what have you? Who cares?! We fought to break those tyrannical shackles! But I digress.]
The UK has the NHS and a female head of state (who is a church-going Anglican) and they haven’t had a mass shooting at a school in decades.
We have . . . a mess.
God help the U.S.
Though late, I vote for Margaret of Scotland.
Interesting that the January BBC magazine that just reached me had an article on the wife of Charles I and gave some interesting facts on religion during his reign.
My vote would be for Margaret.