by: Amphion, 1st degree Gardnerian
http://www.mysteries.n3.net
Return to the Home Page.
Return to the Gardnerian Page.
'Amphion is a 1st degree initiate of Gardnerian witchcraft and acting High Priest of Sable Star Coven. He is also a student of Kabbalah and Vodoun. More of his writings on the Craft may be found at his website, www.mysteries.n3.net
It is a well known fact that in ancient times man often revered his kings as vessels, incarnate manifestations of the ancient powers of the land, and Gods. In the halcyon days of ancient Egypt, the Pharoah was viewed by his subjects as Horus, the son of the Gods. He was sired by Amun, and after his death he was glorified, known ever after as Osiris. In the days of the Roman Empire, emperors were often deified. Augustus, Claudius and even Livia, wife of Augustus, were vererated by not only Romans but also by conquered peoples as divine in nature. In Japan, even in the 20th century, the emperor was held to be divine by his subjects. The same belief was also held by peoples such as the Babylonians, the Maya and the Aztecs. But what of Britain, spiritual home and land of origin of the Craft practiced by so many today? Was the concept of a Divine King held by the peoples of ancient Britain as well? In this essay I will attempt to prove that this is so, and relate this concept to the practice of the Craft today.
Basic Ideas
To begin, allow me to examine the concepts surrounding the idea of a Sacred King. To our ancient ancestors, all things--life, food, home, survival--depended upon the land. From it was born all things, from the animals and plants that provided food to the stones and metals used for building and the waters that sustained life. Naturally enough, our ancient ancestors personified the land as female, the well known concept of the Earth Mother. The celebrated 'womb and tomb' concept embodied the Earth Mother well in such cultures as the Greek (Gaea), the Roman (Terra) and many others (a little research online or in a library will turn up a vast number of Earth goddesses to anyone willing to put in a little work).
Now, being observant as the ancients of Britian were, and knowing that life could not be without both male and female, they knew that someone or something had to fill the role of male. This role fell naturally enough to the priesthood, and since at that time Priest-Kings were not uncommon, a man who combined secular and spiritual power made a logical choice as consort of the land. So then, the Sacred Marriage developed, a rite in which the King married the land itself, becoming consort of the Earth Mother and therefore father of all.
Now, again looking to manifest nature to divine the spiritual, our ancestors noticed that women did not remain fertile forever. Sooner or later, as the years took their toll, a woman lost the ability to become pregnant. The man, however, could father children even in the most advanced stages of age. Obviously, to our ancestors, there was a power still resident within the male, a power that persisted. Now, it was believed that as time wore on, the land itself would experience a state of 'menopause', losing its ability to bring forth crops and surrendering its fertility to the ravages of age. No longer were the efforts of the King enough to fertilize the land, yet that power still rested within him. The land needed new life, life that could only be found within the body of the king himself. The ancients also believed that life resided in the blood; that fluid was sacred, for every birth occured in a bath of blood, and its loss resulted in death. The blood of the king therefore had the ability to re-fecundate the land. So it was that the sacrifice of the king would save his people and reforge the life of the land.
In ancient Egypt, a pharoah who reigned a full 30 years held a heb-sed (festival), a great socio-magical celebration designed to renew and replenish his power. But in Britain, the sacred number was not 30 but was rather seven. (This number remains significant to modern Craft initiates of several traditions of British origin, but I will not reveal that significance here. Let the seekers seek.) So it was that the Sacred King would reign for seven years, enjoying the power and privledges of an incarnate God, until the time of sacrifice approached. Then, he laid down his life for the land, allowing his divine blood to be spilled out upon the earth, bringing life to it again.
As time passed, it became no longer necessary to sacrifice the King. Rather, if he was still needed by his people, the king was able to appoint a sacred substitute, a willing stand-in who would die in the place of the King. Naturally enough, if the identity of this substitute was known, he would also be viewed as an incarnate God, appointed by the Divine (royal) lord of the land. A measure of secular power would be given to the substitute, who. for seven years, could reign with almost as much power as the god-king himself. So then, for each seven years the king reigned, he could either offer himself up or provide a willing substitute. We shall examine possible historical examples of this arrangement further on in this essay.
The Arthurian Connection
Anyone familiar with the origin Arthurian myths will have experienced a mythological tale of great complexity, one that embodies many of the concepts inherent to the British racial unconscious. One of these is the concept of the Sacred King. (If you, the reader, are not familiar with the original Arthurian myth, make it your mission in life to see the 1980 movie 'Excalibur', which deals well with the Sacred King priciple). The Arthurian tale relates to us the marriage of Arthur with the land. We know Excalibur, the Sword of Kings, from childhood tales, but what does it represent? Simply, Excalibur represents the divine power inherent in the King. Modern students of the Craft can see this in the Sword used in ritual, the weilder of which is the ruler of the Circle (the circle, in ceremonial magickal symbolism, also represents the universe the witch or magus has created, beoming the macrocosm of the universe he creates by force of Will). It is well known that the term 'Grail', that potent cauldron or cup sought by Arthur and his knights, comes from the word 'graal'. This term, as has been put forth by numerous authors, has its roots in the Old French term, 'sang raal', or 'royal blood'. The connection becomes rather obvious. So then, looking simply at the Sacred King threads in the Arthurian tapestry, we see that Arthur is a king wielding Divine power (Excalibur), his quest to heal the land being accomplished through the Grail (royal blood). Let it be remembered that when Arthur dies, Excalibur (his divinity) is returned to the Lady of the Lake (the Goddess manifest), and the cycle comes full circle. Now, Arthur's champion was Launcelot du Lac (Launcelot of the Lake); we could look at him as the personification of Arthur's strength and power. When Gwenhwyfar betrayed the king with Launcelot, we could certainly view this as a metaphor for Arthur's weakening as his time of sacrifice approached. Morgana leFey ('fey', of course refering to the indigenous people of Britian, the spiritual ancestors of the Wica--see 'The God of the Witches' by Margaret Murray) naturally enough represents the Goddess as well, in the capacity of priestess (it is a shame that she has been vilified by Christianization of the Arthurian tale). Her child by Arthur, Mordred, ultimately slays his father, and we shall see further on that the office of slayer of the Sacred King is as important a role as the King himself. Is it not fitting that the slayer of the Sacred King be of the line of the Goddess' priesthood and that of the Sacred king himself?
Also, the number of knights centered around Arthur also bears a distict Craft connection. Twelve knights, plus Arthur, make a total of 13; the number of witches traditionally associated with a 'full' coven is of course 13. This will also become significant as we continue.
The Most Noble Order of the Garter
The Order of the Garter, the highest order of British chivalry, was founded in 1348 by King Edward III under most interesting circumstances. The story reads as follows:
"King Edward III was holding a great dance at Windsor Castle and many noble lords and ladies were in attendance. During this dance, the Countess of Salisbury (there is debate as to who the lady actually was; some say it was Joan Plantagenet, the Maid of Kent; others have proposed Queen Phillipa of Spain. The author is of the opinion that Joan is the correct one) found that her garter had slipped off her leg and was laying upon the floor. Seeing her embarassment, the King picked up her garter and buckled it onto his own leg, saying the immortal words, "Honi soit qui mal y pense!", meaning 'Evil to him who evil thinks of it!'. The King proclaimed that he would make this garter the most honoured on ever worn, and so founded the Order of the Garter."
Now then, to the initates of the British witch-cult, there are a few glaring points that bear further study. At this time, there was absolutely no reason for a woman at court to be embarassed by the mere losing of a garter (and it should be clarified that a garter is meant, not a garter belt). The prudishness of Victorian times was centuries away, and indeed, even up to the reign of King George IV (1820-1830) men and women swan naked together without shame; it is therefore unlikely that a mere slipped garter would have been worthy of a great deal of fuss. Now, Craft initiates are familiar with the symbolism of a garter within the Craft itself. A high priestess of the witch-cult wears a garter buckled to her leg as a symbol of her authority. In this context, and this one alone, we might understand the lady's embarassment. Her distinctive lost garter would have marked her as a high priestess of the witches, and therefore quite possibly placed her in great danger. By placing the garter upon his leg, King Edward would have placed her under his personal protection, certainly a bold step for the monarch and one of great significance to the witches of Britian.
King Edward decided that the Order would be made of of 24 knights, organized into two groups of twelve, one under the auspices of the Prince of Wales, the other directly under the monarch himself. Observant readers will have noticed that this makes two full covens of thirteen. In addition to this, the robe worn by the monarch is covered with 169 small garters or ribbons; 169 being of course 13 times 13. Numerologically, as a point of interest, this reduces to 7 (1+6+9=16 1+6=7), and so brings us back to the sacred number of the Sacred King as well. It is doubtful that this was lost on the witches of the time, just as it has not been lost on us today.
In more recent times, the Order of the Garter's membership has been expanded to include the 'poor knights', now called the 'military knights'. Interestingly enough, they have been organized into coven-sized groups as well. An interesting exploration of the Sacred King principle, especially as relating to the Order of the Garter, can be found in the fictional work 'Lammas Night' by Katherine Kurtz. It is certainly worth reading for any witch. In this book, she puts forth the tale of a magical working against Hitler's planned invasion of Britain in World War II. Kurtz combines the historical Lammas Working of the New Forest Coven (the one into which Gerald Gardner was initiated) with the Sacred King principle and one of reincarnation.
Criteria of a King's Sacrifice
It would appear that certain criteria would exist for the sacrifice of a Sacred King must be met in order for the blood to fulfill its goal. Firstly, the king must be either the ruler of the land, or a duly appointed substitute, in which case the sacrifice must be willing. A forced sacrifice carries no weight, in this situation as well as in the ritual Circle. Secondly, the blood of the Sacred King had to be spilled upon the ground. In a psycho-magical context, this makes perfect sense. The point of the sacrifice was to fecundate, or re-fertilize the land. Naturally, in order for the magickal effect of the blood to manifest, the blood would have to reach its target. A seed cannot grow without being planted. Thirdly, as has already been stated, the sacrifice had to be a willing one. Obviously, in order for these criteria to be filled, the sacrifice would have had to have great faith in the Old Gods, and the magickal principles making up their faith. Fourthly, in the case of a substitute, the sacrifice must also weild a measure of almost kingly authority. Among practitioners of the Old Religion, this would certainly have been a willingly given gift. In more Christian times, however, it is more likely that appointment by the king to a position of power would have been more likely.
Possible Historical Examples of the Sacred King in Britian
Now that we have examined the basic ideas of the Sacred King theory, and factored in the origins of the Order of the Garter, let us look at possible examples of the Sacred King in British history. Let the reader keep in mind a healthy skeptical view. With all the centuries that have passed, there is no way to verify the true circumstances of any of these cited possibilities. They are presented strictly as interesting instances that could fulfill the potential of Sacred King sacrifices.
William the First, 'the Conqueror', died in the 21st (3x7) year of his reign. Notably, England was never successfully invaded after his reign, and as of 2066, will have been free of conquest for a full millenium. Of course, we know little of attitudes at this time in history, though we know that William I was most certainly a pagan. Also, William's death was cuased by a bleeding wound.
Henry the Second, King of England, died at the age of 56 (7x8) in the 35th (7x5) year of his reign. This was not neccesarily an example of a sacred king, but the seven year cycles do match up, and also another sacred number of the Old Religion is herein contained, for 8 (the number of seven-years of his age) multiplied by 5 (the number of seven-years of his reign) result in 40. If I may quote from a publically known portion of the Book of Shadows, "...it is not meet to offer less than 40 strokes to the Gods", referring of course to the scourge. Convoluted to be sure, and smacking of coincidence, but all possible examples of the Sacred King are so.
In 1170, during the reign of Henry II, Thomas a Becket, later to become St Thomas, was killed by the knight Reginald FitzUrse. Seven years before this assassination, Thomas was appointed to the position of archbishop by the king. It does look possible that Becket could have been a sacred substitute. Interestingly enough, Becket underwent a rather profound change in character after his ascent to the archbishopric. He certainly was willing to weild kingly power in his own way. Also interesting, though in no way magickal, is the name of the parish magazine of St Thomas a Becket Church in South Cadbury. The magazine is called 'The Excalibur'. If Becket's death was within the context of a sacred king substitute, however, it must be pointed out that its date does not fit in with a seven year cycle (either in age or regnal year) of the then king, Henry II. Henry II is historically deemed responsible for the death of Becket though.
King William the Second, called William Rufus, died in 1100, as he was entering his 14th (2x7) regnal year. The circumstances surrounding his death are certainly curious. As history records it, William was on a hunting expedition in the New Forest (where Gerald Garder's coven would make their home centuries later) on August 2nd. The tale tells us that William was shot 'accidentaly' by his friend, Walter Tyrrel, with a crossbow bolt, which richoceted off a tree as it flew towards a stag. The tale differs in describing the wound, according to different sources. Some say his eye was pierced, others his chest. Either way, he was killed, and his blood spilled on the earth. Naturally, being the day after Lughnasadh (Lammas), August is a traditional month of sacrifice. Two interesting facts alos might jump out at those who see signs and omens in everything: the stag is a symbol of the God of the witches, and William II was most certainly a pagan. His habit of swearing 'by the sweet face of Lucca' (a pagan goddess) was so well known as his most serious oath that enemies were known to capitulate bloodlessly in argument or war upon hearing this oath.
Sir William Wallace, hero of Scotland and brought to life in Mel Gibson's 'Braveheart', has been put forth as a possible sacred substitute by some. They point out that he was killed when Edward I's son, later to become Edward II, was 21 years old and therefore would have 'needed a life' according to some interpretations of the Sacred King. I must point out however, that Wallace would certainly not have been a willing sacrifice, and so I personally must discount any possibility of his death serving as that of a substitute.
The short reigned King John has also been suggested by some as a sacred sacrifice. He did die in his 49th year (7x7), but not in a bloody way. I would therefore discount his death as well, since it is unlikely that a pagan or witch happened to be nearby to spill his blood.
One monarch of Britian who did die in a very curious way was Charles I. This noble king was murdered by the armies of Oliver Cromwell in the 49th (7x7) year of his reign. The details of his death are most curious from the point of view of a priest of the Old Religion. Firstly, Charles died in his Garter Knight robes and accroutements. As we have already seen, the connection of the Order of the Garter with the Old Religion is very real possibility, and one Charles might have been aware of. Secondly, when Charles was to be beheaded by the new government of England, he was allowed a final request. He requested that he be allowed to pray, and that he would signal the executioner when he was done, so that the axe could fall. This he did. Since he was not beheaded until he so signalled, it could be pointed out that Charles ordered his own death, thereby reclaiming his authority as king with his last act. Thirdly, though many of the people certainly wished the monarchy to be removed in favour of Cromwell, a great cry of sadness arose from the peasants who witnessed his death, and the crowd surged forward in order to collect his royal blood in rags, clothing or anything handy. This very act proves the peasants at least (it is likely that they would have been the only class still involved in any way with the Old Religion) saw the royal blood as something sacred. This act showed a reverence for Charles I beyond that of simple authority figure. Also interestingly enough, this is the time period when the production of certain jars may have begun. These jars, some of which are still found in antique collections, bear a man's face very similar to the Green Man images that portray the god of the witches.
British history also contains several other figures that bear interesting Sacred King potential. These include Alfred the Great, a pagan, who died in the 28th year of his reign as he turned 50; George Plantagenet, brother of Edward IV, who was killed in London in the 35th year of Edward's reign; and Henry I, who died in 1135, in the 35th year of his reign. research will certainly produce more possible examples to anyone willing to do the work.
The Sacred King Today
It may then be a source of wonder, for today's witches, as to the Sacred King today. Does that ancient power still reside in the blood of the Royal Family? We cannot say for sure, though it certainly is still a part of the British racial unconscious.
An interestin point, that was slightly modified for Kurtz's book 'Lammas Night' remains concerning the Second World War. The Battle of Britian, raging in full force, was threatening to destroy the United Kingdom. Although documented workings by such people as the New Forest Coven and Dion Fortune took place in an attempt to magickally protect Britian, the tide of the battle did not turn until a terrible plane crash occured in Scotland. At that time, George, Duke of Kent, a younger brother of King George VI, was killed. Some occultists have speculated that this death sealed the Lammas workings of various witches and occultists, and provided a sacrifice that unleased the magickal potential of those workings. They have also speculated that Kent's service in the RAF during wartime revealed a willingness to die for his country, even if it wasn't conscious or expected, that fulfills the criteria for a sacred substitute. Also, George VI was nearing the final year of his seventh seven-year of life, and had just finshed his second seven-year as king. And is it any wonder that the Spitfire, the plane that helped win the Battle of Britian, was powered by the Benz MERLIN motor?
Some interesting points concerning the death of the Princess of Wales in 1997 have also been made to me by certain intiates, especially since Her Majesty, Elizabeth II was at the time entering her 10th seven-year of life, and completing her sixth seven-year as Queen. This I must point out, is not in keeping with a sacred substitute, as Diana did NOT die on British soil.
To Conclude....
British history certainly contains the Sacred King principle; it is a much overlooked example of the Craft mythos. Sacred blood certainly has had an effect, though possibly only in a subcoscious way, on the tides of British history in both ancient times and modern.
It would certainly behoove practitioners of the modern Craft to better explore the roots of the religion they profess to practice, and to acknowledge that the Sacred King holds power in the astral world of the Craft, whatever permutation or cultural background is professed by the individual. Although the Royal Family has taken a great deal of flak in this century, it must also be remembered that the scourge has as well, and anyone who has used it properly in its proper context cannot deny its usefulness.
Man, as a species, has always derived great benefits as well as terrors from kingly rulership; but every culture in every area, has always deified their kings. The Craft is no different, though we may have ignored this in modern times. Although we know the monarch is not a god, we cannot help but acknowledge the magickal potential of the monarchy. Let the curious read the script of Elizabeth II's coronation ceremony. Those of a magickal mindset will see what many do not.
Many of today's witches are enamoured of the Arthurian mythos, but they are almost wholly ignorant of the theodrama that resulted in the subconsious mind of the race that spawned it. The day will come, as it must, that Arthur will return to save his kingdom in it's darkest hour. We must ask ourselves, will we recognize him and know his sacrifice?
Necator regum sum, et pro regibus necor.
For Further Research:
"The Divine King in England" by Margaret A. Murray
"God of the Witches" by Margaret A. Murray
"Le Morte D'Arthur" by Thomas Mallory
"Excalibur" (film) 1980
"The Wicker Man" (film)
"Lammas Night" by Katherine Kurtz
To contact me or to request topics to be covered, send to RikJohnson@juno.com
by: Rick Johnson 
PO Box 40451
Tucson, Az.
85717
Return to the Home Page.
Return to the Gardnerian page.
