England's Martyr, England's King

Apologies for general silence on this. It's been a busy month, with holidays, Ofcom's report and Digital Britain all out. But, rested by taking yesterday off to commemorate the martyr king, I'm ready to crack on.

I thought I would start with Charles himself. It being the cause of some discussion by various people I have seen since. It is - clearly - a bit silly to spend a day of leave commemorating a long dead monarch, who was far from exemplary in his life, though there's a good little interview in the Guardian today about how dreadful Cromwell was, which is a timely reminder that maybe monarchy wasn't the worst of the options at hand then. But none of this means he isn't a Saint.

Sainthood is one of those tricky issues that we, especially in Britain tend to get wrong. There is a deep distrust of the sanctification of individuals and tend to put impossibly high standards on those who might be considered saints. I think it stems in part from our experience of the reformation and is a reaction against our perception of the state of Catholicism (such as it was) here. Sometimes, we then take refuge in the technical procedures of the Catholic church and state that these conditions are needed; or even that Anglicanism cannot create saints.

Let's just unpack these objections:

1. Anglicanism cannot create saints. This shouldn't be confused with the perfectly consistent belief that saints are all out, which is doubtless held by many in the church. Therefore sainthood is impossible, for Charles or anyone. However, as we do accept the the status for others, it is entirely illogical to adopt a chronological cut-off for eligibility. Those made saints before 1558 are OK; those after not. The fact none (save Charles) have been considered is an Anglican fudge, not a doctrinal position.

2. The current Roman methods are needed. Again, clearly this isn't true. Firstly, they're not that old (I fail to locate how long), but more importantly it's a false legalism - catholic church, who would have thought it. Early sainthood was very much built up from acclamation and belief. Sometimes this went wrong - the fictitious Andrew the fool should be a cautionary tale - but it's a good corrective to the idea that some miracles make a saint. They have always been nested right in the heart of the community of the faithful, not imposed from above.

3. Being a bit rubbish makes him ineligible. This is of course easy - the Peter principle (not this one, but the apostle). The boundaries of eligibility for sainthood are blurred: martyrdom is not enough, nor is success in defending or propagating the church. But no-one has ever suggested that falling short is a barrier. In fact, to my mind, it is the fallibility of Charles up to his execution that makes him such a good saint. Only at the last did he stand to defend the church to death.

There is much more that can be said on this, but that will do for now. All together now. 'Royal Charles who chose to die...'