Studying history is important, as it often provides a deeper understanding of present-day phenomena. At times, past events can even foreshadow future developments. The reigns of Charles I and Charles III are separated by 15 monarchs and 373 years. Charles I is remembered above all as the only British ruler ever executed by his own subjects. This occurred at the end of the bloody English Civil War in 1649, when he was convicted of treason for waging war against his own people. Like his predecessors, Charles believed that the king had a God-given right to rule in defiance of Parliament’s will.

Before the Civil War, treason had meant almost exclusively the disloyalty of a subject toward the reigning king or his legitimate heir. With the Civil War emerged a revolutionary doctrine: the king was not above the law, and even a ruler could commit treason against his own subjects. In 17th-century England there was no parliamentary monarchy as we know it today, where the monarch’s power is bound by Parliament’s will. Parliament did not represent the whole people either, but was mainly a gathering of wealthy and influential men – a kind of council of royal advisers. Voting rights were limited to the wealthy elite, while the vast majority of the population had no influence over the composition of Parliament. Universal suffrage was established gradually only over the next three centuries.

In 17th-century Britain, a revolutionary notion began to take root: that Parliament might govern above the king – or that monarchy itself could even be against God’s will. Among Puritans and other Protestants, radical teachings spread that demanded greater equality and broader popular participation in decision-making. It was precisely in these times that early Christian Enlightenment philosophers like John Locke began to promote ideas of liberty, equality, human dignity, human rights, and the modern rule of law. Their thinking rested on the conviction that such rights were inalienable and God-given – not privileges granted by a ruler or any earthly authority.

Locke and others emphasized that political power exists for the people, not the people for political power. A ruler’s authority was legitimate only so long as it protected the subject’s life, liberty, and property. If a ruler broke this “natural contract” and turned into a tyrant, the people not only had the right but even the duty to resist him and change the form of government. This way of thinking revolutionized the political theology of the 17th century. It shifted the source of legitimacy from the “king anointed by God” to the common will of individuals equal before God. Thus was laid the foundation for constitutional monarchy and, later, modern democracy – along with the idea that monarchy was just one possible form of government, not an immutable institution ordained by God.

For centuries before the execution of Charles I, and even for decades afterward when the monarchy was restored, kings sentenced those who rose against their absolutism to the brutal death of being hanged, drawn, and quartered. The condemned were first dragged by horse to the gallows, hanged until half-conscious, then castrated, their abdomen slit open and their entrails removed one by one before a horrified crowd, as a warning of the fate awaiting those who defied the king. By contrast, Charles I was sentenced for his crimes against his people only to be beheaded – even though he himself had condemned many of his subjects to this slow and torturous death.

I recount these sickening details only because many modern people may still hold a childishly storybook image of what medieval kingship really was. It was anything but noble, just, or paternal – contrary to the romantic notions often painted today. In reality, medieval and early modern monarchy was often a brutal exercise of power, where the ruler’s primary concern was not the welfare of his subjects but the preservation of his own authority at any cost. The dignity of the crown was defended mercilessly, and the law was frequently used as a tool of fear and subjugation – not for the protection of the people, but for their control.

When we look at monarchy today through the lens of splendid ceremonial processions, jewels, and as a symbol of national unity, it is easy to forget that the same institution was once also a vehicle of bloody vengeance, arbitrary judgments, and the maintenance of a ruthless class society. Thus, the violence of Charles I and other rulers of his age was not an exception, but part of a broader system in which the king’s inviolability and the suffering of his enemies were among the most important rituals of power.

Kingship survived in Britain even after Charles I’s execution and after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 precisely because it was subordinated to Parliament. This marked the beginning of constitutional monarchy, in which the king or queen could no longer rule as an autocrat but had to govern with Parliament’s consent and within the framework of laws that restricted royal prerogatives. The monarch was no longer the very source and supreme interpreter of law, but one state institution among others, bound by the same rules as his subjects. This signaled a decisive shift: the crown’s authority was preserved, but its existence now depended on the will of the people’s representatives.

The Bill of Rights of 1689 enshrined this principle in law, forbidding the monarch from repealing acts of Parliament, levying taxes without its consent, or maintaining a standing army in peacetime without its approval. Thus was created a model in which the king or queen remained head of state, but real executive power began to pass to Parliament and its government – a development that over time led to the ceremonial monarchy of today.

The accession of Charles III to the throne in September 2022 may mark a historically significant watershed. This is not only because his royal name recalls his 17th-century predecessors, whose authoritarian rule hastened the birth of parliamentary monarchy, but also because of his reputation as an “activist king.” Charles’s tendency – both past and present – to intervene in politically sensitive issues directly challenges the centuries-old tradition that the monarch must remain politically neutral. According to his biographer Catherine Mayer, the king has even expressed his desire to follow in the footsteps of Charles I. To quote a 2015 Daily Mail article:

He concludes with a rather unfortunate tribute, saying that Charles III “promises to be as memorable a king as Charles I” – who, of course, was the only English monarch ever to be executed.

However, the article leaves it unclear whether Mayer based this statement on her own opinions or on remarks made by the then-Prince of Wales himself (whom Mayer interviewed for her book).

Just as in 17th-century England some of the people considered Charles I a traitor, today more and more citizens of the United Kingdom are beginning to see their current sovereign as having betrayed his country. In their eyes, he has handed Britain over to the powerful globalist elite of the World Economic Forum and positioned himself as a defender of Islam at the expense of the nation’s Christian heritage. For instance, the conservative media personality – and monarchist himself – Daniel Wootton addresses in the video report below how the mainstream media keeps silent about the King’s pro-Islam views, even though growing numbers of British citizens feel he has betrayed his nation by flirting with the enemies of the Christian West. At the beginning of the video, a British woman interviewed describes the King as “an Islamophile who despises his own people and protects Islam” – a comment that reflects the rising sentiment among many in Britain’s grassroots.

In reality, the King merely embodies the broader discontent of the people toward the liberal and conservative ruling elite that has governed them. This elite strongly supported Britain’s continued membership in the EU in 2016 and often treated citizens who voted for Brexit with contempt, branding them as radical extremists. The mainstream media reinforced this image by using derogatory terms and associating them with the racist far right – in much the same way as the media in the United States portrayed Donald Trump’s voters.

The same attitude has also been applied to those who have criticized Islam and demanded stricter immigration policies to keep Islamist extremist groups out of the country. Perhaps the most well-known example is the way the British political elite and mainstream media have treated journalist Tommy Robinson, who for two decades has advocated for the neglected working class. Many nationalists in Britain regard him as a folk hero, the one who exposed Muslim grooming gangs years before the rest of the media. Yet his revelations have led to him being falsely branded a racist and sentenced several times to solitary confinement on legal pretexts – verdicts that many consider to be part of a politically motivated witch-hunt.

These developments have sharply divided the British people into two camps. On one side stands the nationalist and Christian right; on the other, the red-green left, which defends multicultural, value-liberal, and pro-EU Britain together with the country’s growing Muslim population. This alliance of the left and Muslims has also taken the side of Hamas Islamists in the war between Israel and Gaza, while British nationalists like Tommy Robinson are known as outspoken supporters of Israel. Robinson, in fact, understands Israel to be fighting against the very same Islamist ideology hostile to Western freedoms and glorifying death, the ideology he himself has battled in an information war for two decades, exposing its roots in the Qur’an itself – even though the Islam-appeasing red-green media has branded him a racist and an Islamophobe for doing so.

Many nationalists also feel that the Conservative Party has betrayed them. In their eyes, the party has promoted the same red-green policies – open-border immigration, appeasement of Islam, high taxation, and the World Economic Forum’s globalist climate agenda – rather than listening to its own people. To many, the Conservative government’s line has differed little from that of the Labour Party under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. For this reason, Liz Truss – who served as prime minister for barely two months at the time of Charles III’s accession to the throne and who was ousted in what she herself has described as a coup by Britain’s “deep state” – has warned that no real change to the status quo of the ruling elite can be expected without a “Trump-style revolution.” According to Truss, this “deep state” consists above all of the country’s central bank and the influential networks connected to it, which are able to topple governments whenever their policies deviate too far from the established line.

Without such a “Trump-style revolution,” the country is likely heading toward civil war. At least, this is the view of retired British Army Colonel Richard Kemp, who has often appeared in the media defending the actions of the IDF against the lies of the mainstream media hostile to Israel. Colonel Kemp stresses that he does not wish for such an outcome and does not encourage or incite anyone to violence, but says he fears that in the current explosive situation there is no political solution – at least not one that any politician from the main parties would be willing to pursue.

The question is this: could the United Kingdom drift into civil war during the reign of Charles III – just as it did under Charles I? And if such a thing were to happen, could the chain of events lead to Charles III being deposed, or even to his end in the same manner as his 17th-century predecessor’s execution? Civil wars are always bloody and destructive. Charles III’s position as the formal commander-in-chief of his nation’s armed forces and police would mean that he would be seen as responsible for any crimes committed by government troops against his own citizens. In such a situation, many members of the army and police would face a difficult moral decision: should they obey their oath of service to defend the monarch, or side with the people against the government?

Does the Bible contain prophecies suggesting that the Antichrist would also destroy his own country or be at war against his own nation? Perhaps the clearest such prophecy comes from Isaiah 14 concerning the king of Babylon. This chapter has often been interpreted as a prophecy about the Antichrist, since it is also the source of Satan’s “proper name,” Lucifer, who here is equated with the king of Babylon: “the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who would not let his captives go home?” (vv. 16–17). Clearly this speaks of an end-time figure who brings global devastation, who said in his heart: “I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.” (vv. 13–14). Verse 20 then declares:

“You will not join them in burial, for you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people. The offspring of evildoers shall nevermore be named.”

Arthur W. Pink also mentioned this prophecy in his century-old classic The Antichrist, in which he listed all Old and New Testament prophecies relating to the Antichrist. On page 70 he sets side by side several contrasts between Christ and the Antichrist, based on these verses:

• Christ leads His flock (John 10:3); the Antichrist forsakes his flock (Zech. 11:17).
• Christ was slain for the people (John 11:51); the Antichrist slays his people (Isa. 14:20).

A corresponding prophecy appears in Zechariah 11:16–17, to which Pink refers:

For behold, I am raising up in the land a shepherd who does not care for those being destroyed, or seek the young, or heal the injured, or nourish the healthy, but devours the flesh of the fat ones, tearing off even their hoofs. Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!

Jesus described Himself as “the good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep (John 10:11). In Zechariah, by contrast, appears the opposite – the “worthless shepherd” who abandons the sheep (Zech. 11:15–17). Many interpreters have understood this as a reference to the Antichrist. Interestingly, this prophetic image also fits Charles III’s public image for another reason: he often appears in the media dressed as a shepherd as part of a PR strategy designed to portray him as a down-to-earth country prince concerned for the livelihood of small farmers.

Charles III also fits Isaiah 14’s description of the king of Babylon, since the British Empire and the United Kingdom represent, in the end-time fulfillment of Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, the lion-beast – that is, the Babylonian empire to which the lion referred in Daniel’s own lifetime. In fact, Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th-century British prime minister and the nation’s only Jewish prime minister, remarked that London is the Babylon of the modern age.

According to some prophetic interpretations, such as those of Arthur W. Pink, the Antichrist is also described as “the Assyrian” (Isa. 10; Micah 5). This does not necessarily mean that he must be ethnically from modern-day Iraq or Syria. The prophecy could equally be fulfilled in a situation where a ruler who has moved to or rules over the Middle East meets the conditions of being “Assyrian.” It should be noted that only a small fraction of the current population of Iraq or Syria are historically or genetically Assyrian – most Assyrians today live as a Christian diaspora scattered across the world. For example, Daniel 11:45 indicates that at the end of the time of wrath, the Antichrist would move his headquarters to the Middle East, when “news from the east and the north shall alarm him, and he shall go out with great fury to destroy and devote many to destruction.” In such a case he would also fulfill the prophetic conditions of being an Assyrian.

The problem with the “Syrian Antichrist” theory, however, is that it conflicts with several other biblical prophecies that set more specific criteria for the origin of this figure. This is made especially clear in the book of Daniel, in passages such as Daniel 8:21–23 and Daniel 9:27. These verses link the king’s origin to Rome and Greece. These identifiers also fit the case of Charles III – though within the scope of this article I will not explore that subject in greater depth.

For behold, I will raise up a shepherd to the earth: he will not take care of the lost, nor seek the scattered, nor heal the broken, nor support the upright; but he will eat the flesh of the fat, and will break their legs. Woe to the mad shepherd that forsaketh the sheep! Let the sword fall on his arm and on his right eye. His arm shall be withered, and his right eye shall fail.”

Jesus described himself as a “good shepherd” who lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11). In the book of Zechariah, on the other hand, the opposite occurs – the “mad shepherd” who abandons his sheep (Zechariah 11:15-17). Many interpreters have seen this image as a reference to the Antichrist. Interestingly, this prophetic image fits King Charles III’s public image for another reason: he often appears in the media dressed as a shepherd as part of his public relations strategy to create an image of himself as a down-to-earth country prince supposedly concerned with the livelihood of small farmers.

Charles III, by the way, also fits the Isaiah 14 prophecy criterion of a king of Babylon, because the British Empire and the United Kingdom, in the end-time fulfillment of Daniel’s vision of the four beasts, represents the lion’s den, the kingdom of Babylon to which the lion’s den referred in Daniel’s own lifetime. The 1800’s British Prime Minister Benjamin Disrael, the only Jewish Prime Minister in the country, even said that London is the Babylon of the present day.

According to some prophetic interpretations, such as the teachings of Arthur W. Pink, the Antichrist is also described as “Assyrian” (Isaiah 10, Micah 5). This does not necessarily mean that he should be of Iraqi or Syrian origin. That prophecy could equally well be fulfilled in a situation where a king who migrated to or ruled in the Middle East fulfils the characteristics of an “Assyrian”. It is worth noting that only a small proportion of the current population of Iraq or Syria are historical, genetic Assyrians – the majority of Assyrians today live as Christian diasporas in various parts of the world. Daniel 11:45, for example, suggests that at the end of the age of wrath, the Antichrist would move his centre of government to the Middle East, when “the messages from the east and the north frighten him, and he goes out full of wrath to destroy many and to consecrate them to destruction.” Again, he would fulfil the prophetic conditions of an Assyrian.

The problem with the “Syrian Antichrist” theory is, above all, that it contradicts several other biblical prophecies that set more specific criteria for the country of origin of this figure. This is particularly clear in the Book of Daniel, in verses such as Daniel 8:21-23 and Daniel 9:27, which link the king’s origins to Rome and Greece. These characteristics are also fulfilled in the case of Charles III – but for the purposes of this article, I will not go into this subject in detail.

Of course, it is entirely possible that the cancer diagnosed in the King early last year may take him prematurely to the grave before he has time to fulfill all the biblical prophecies connected with the Antichrist. Those prophecies, however, also speak of this figure receiving a fatal wound from which he would recover, as Pink already taught in his book more than a century ago. I myself traced this interpretation back to the early church, where some of the early teachers believed he would even literally be the emperor Nero rising from the grave to imitate Christ’s death and resurrection. Although I have always been somewhat skeptical toward such sensationalist interpretations, verses like Revelation 17:11 would seem to lend them greater support:

“The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit.”

This expression clearly has a typological connection with Christ, who describes Himself in much the same way in the same book:

“‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty… I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.’”

If the beast’s mortal wound is interpreted merely as, for example, the revival of the Roman Empire – as I myself have sometimes suggested – then this typological connection, in which the Antichrist seeks to imitate Christ in every way, is lost. It is also difficult to explain how a kingdom could rise from the abyss, that is, from Hades, as the preceding verse seems to indicate.

I will end with a quotation from a 1970s scholarly history book, Christopher Hill’s Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England, which confirms that among the Puritans of the 17th century Charles I was regarded as the embodiment of the Antichrist – or at least as one of the many antichrists. My reflections on the historical and prophetic significance of English kings named Charles are therefore by no means new.

‘“‘The government of the nations,’ John Owen told Parliament in April 1649, ‘is wholly built upon Antichrist’s interest. There is no form of government in Europe… in which the Beast [Antichrist] has not had a very great influence in its framing and constitution.’ The shaking of the nations, he declared, ‘will not end until the antichristian interests are wholly separated from the power of these states.’ He added that ‘the discovery, unraveling, and laying open of antichristian interests’ was the ‘greatest discovery’ of his generation. After hearing this sermon, Oliver Cromwell wanted to make Owen’s acquaintance, and in the 1650s Owen became virtually the official interpreter of government policy.

Milton, who had labored to connect Charles I with the Antichrist in his work The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, issued a similar call to a crusade against antichristian monarchy across Europe in his Eikonoklastes. The 1649 pamphlet declared: ‘The present task of the saints is to unite against the antichristian powers of the world.’ ‘Kings, even parliaments and magistrates,’ it proclaimed, had to be overthrown before the kingdom of Christ could be established. The Fifth Monarchist William Aspinwall identified Charles Stuart [King Charles I of England] as the “Little Horn” and the Beast, and concluded that ‘the act of the saints in slaying the Beast and abolishing his power was neither rash nor rebellious, but grounded in sound reason and approved by God.’ The ‘utmost period of Antichrist’s reign,’ he claimed, would extend until the year 1673.

Even the more moderate Edward Haughton, in a lecture series in Horsham, Sussex, described the Civil War as ‘part of that battle spoken of in Revelation chapters 16 and 19.’ Charles I was, in his words, ‘the Pope’s second,’ who was ‘openly and publicly confederate with the antichristian party.’ He predicted that the century beginning in 1641 would prove more destructive to Europe’s monarchy than any other period since the beginning of the world. Later Bishop Burnet remarked that Oliver Cromwell found it difficult to accept the crown offered to him in 1657, because men like John Goodwin had so long presented monarchy as the great Antichrist preventing Christ from ascending His throne. This strong association of monarchy with antichristianity was characteristic of John Goodwin, Milton, and Colonel Goffe.

My intention here is not to evaluate the validity of the 17th-century Puritans’ eschatological interpretations. My point is that this was one of the most significant periods in history – an age that laid the foundations for the birth of modern Western society, democracy, and the rule of law. In 17th-century England, King Charles I was seen as a traitor and even as the Antichrist. Likewise, today more and more people regard Charles III as a betrayer of his people, or even as the final embodiment of the Antichrist. At that time, the eschatological and social convictions of Christians who rose against monarchy ultimately led to the spread of the ideals of democracy, equality, and human rights across the world.

Perhaps in today’s Europe as well, a nationalist revolt – arising from the defense of Christian values and tradition against a godless globalist elite (an elite many see as championing Islam rather than Christianity) – could spark a new societal debate. Such a debate, like that of the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th century, could serve as the seed for a new age of enlightenment. Democracy and equality have always been processes of gradual development. In 1215, the Magna Carta signed by King John marked the first major step along that road, limiting the king’s arbitrary power and recognizing the rights of the nobility alongside the ruler’s authority. Although the Magna Carta did not yet establish democracy in the modern sense, it set forth the principle that the king himself was subject to the law.

In the following centuries, the position of the English Parliament was gradually strengthened, especially as a result of the Civil Wars of the 17th century and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Out of this arose the model of constitutional monarchy, in which the king or queen could no longer govern alone but had to rule with the approval of Parliament. During the 18th and 19th centuries, democracy continued to develop step by step: suffrage expanded from the wealthy upper class to the middle class, and by the early 20th century, the working class and women had gained full political rights. This long historical continuum shows that democracy and equality did not emerge overnight, but were the result of centuries of struggle, compromise, and revolution.

No one claims that today’s world is perfectly democratic and egalitarian. But when compared with the societies of the 19th or 17th centuries, history has made an enormous leap forward. This progress, however, did not occur spontaneously in a vacuum. It arose under the guidance of Europe’s Judeo-Christian values, through centuries of struggle and sacrifice – battles in which the people shed blood and tears in defense of liberty, justice, and human dignity. Arrayed against them were often the wealthy and powerful interest groups, sometimes even rulers themselves, who sought to preserve the status quo, since it guaranteed the continuation of their power and privileges.

Our history has always followed the same pattern: the people have had to fight for their freedoms against the ruling elite, and the same struggle continues to this day. Only from the turmoil of such battles can a more democratic, more equal, more humane, and freer society emerge. Whether Charles III proves to be the final Antichrist or merely one of many predecessors, our struggle for truth and the freedom of nations is not in vain.

---

---

---

The linguistic expressions and sentence structures of this article were refined with the help of large language models, and AI also assisted me in continuing a few of the sentences.