Vive le Roy! Vive le Roy! Vive le Roy!
Richard Sieur de Brantigny, dit Boisvert
I allowed the Native Americans to watch this Mission video for their meeting time today wehere I work in my correctional unit. It is a subtile conversion tool, and a good film. de Brantigny
I got a comment to the Onion News Network satire bellow, the poster the self named 'Dirty European Socialist' stated Democracy is always better the monarchy.
I would disagree, I am unaware of the British queen's wealth, and see that as irrelevant to the issue of whether someone is a monarchist or not.
The problem with politicians is that they seek office, that those who do so are by nature odd, egotistical and usually desire money as well as power, so once in a position of power seek to enrich themselves at our expense, I believe that Elizabeth II inherited much of her wealth and has invested wisely over the past 50 + years resulting in her very healthy bank account.
The 17 billion quoted is something I am unaware of and am not certain whether this includes such places as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace which belong to the Crown and not personally to Elizabeth Windsor.The strength of monarchy is exactly that it is an accident of birth, more...
Thanks to the Irish Tory...
Calumny was always a part of La Reine-Martyre's life. In an expensive war to help the American rebels fight against their lawful monarch, France was pushed into bankruptcy. The Queen, although long accused of being a spendthrift, faced the problems of raising her children with very modest means. No longer being able to count on the treasury for funds, Marie-Antoinette developed a model farm, whereby the table at Trianon and Versailles could be supplemented and supplied. This farm also studied ways in which farms within France could be improved. It was hoped these improvements could provide a way to increase food production within France itself and thereby alleviate shortages and hunger. Unfortunately, her detractors, even knowing the reasons for which the farm was constructed attacked it (and still attack her for it) as though it were an attack against the people of France.
Elena-Maria has a very good bit on Le Petit Hameau de la Reine which may be found here...
Thanks and a tip-o-the-beret to Elena-Maria.
* This news report was a fabrication in order to illustrate a point. Incidentally, Marie-Antoinette would never have permitted the plebeians Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie on the grounds of Versailles or Trianon.
Vive la Reine! Vive Le Roy!
The character of Kings is sacred; their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad---based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people's will... More
Louis XIV devant Maastricht, Pierre Mignard, 1673. An allegory; The Angel, sent by God, demonstrates the approval of Louis, by holding a wreath of immortailes over his head. Louis is dressed asa Roman general and wears the red cloak of a roman general. He carries a marshalls baton in his "right" hand which indicates his right to lead the nation of France.
Vive la Roy.
Accusé de tiédeur et de concussion par Robespierre, il fut guillotiné avec Camille Desmoulins, dans Paris, le 5 avril 1794.
Accused of tepidness and misappropriation of funds by Robespierre, he was guillotined with Camille Desmoulins, in Paris, April 5 1794.
Plus sur Danton pourrait être ici trouvé.
More on Danton may be found here.
Verite pour la Vendée! Vive le Roy!
What Was Galileo’s Trial About?
April 2nd, 2008
When you ask [modern secular] people about Galileo's trial (for his book promoting Copernican astronomy), here's a common view:
*A case of science vs. religion
*Catholic Church as bad guy
*All clear-thinking people knew the earth goes round the sun
*The church (and all who opposed Copernicanism) were dogmatic, ignorant of science, religious fanatics.
*Astronomers were unanimous in agreement with Galileo
*The Copernican system was clearly better than the Ptolemaic
I wouldn't call this a complete myth. The church did bungle the case, thinking verses like this enough to disprove Galileo. But the reality is much more interesting. The trial was not so much about science vs. religion as it was between Galilo's new science and the accepted old Aristotelian science:
In theory Copernicanism was simpler and more elegant (especially in explaining retrograde motion). But when time came for actual calculation it did no better than the old system of epicycles, equants and other weird things.
To Aristotelians, science meant absolute proof from logical deduction. Galileo was saying you don't need absolute proof, that the way to go was experimentation and inference. In modern terms, each camp thought the other was doing pseudoscience. They were doing a GREAT job talking past each other.
A main argument against Galileo was that if the earth turned, all the clouds and birds would be left behind. This may sound very stupid to us today, but it was Galileo himself that developed the notion that things have an inertia (or impetus as he called it). Before Einstein, Galileo developed a basic notion of relavitity. This goes against common sense. This (and not stupidity) is why it was accepted only slowly.
Aristotelians considered the heavens perfect and the earth corrupt (a marriage of convenience with Christianity). The essence of the earth was different, how could it be just a planet? Galileo on the other hand turned the telescope to the planets and discovered they were just like the earth! It's understandable why the notion of ONE law throughout the universe, took a while to catch on -- there was much psychological opposition.
It's common to think those who opposed Galileo were stupid, pig-headed and fanatical. This is just not true -- the opposition had many highly intelligent people we should respect. To use modern 20-20 hindsight in the Galileo case is to be stupid, pig-headed and fanatical. More posts on the semi-myth later, especially the infamous Galileo Syndrome...
Thanks and a tip of the beret to Michael at a Nadder. Michael I have read you articles and I can see you and I come from different perspectives, (as well as religions, no doubt). You remain the only non-Catholic I have ever linked to.
Dieu Le Roy.
Romans 13, 1-7
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
Dieu le Roi,
We come here to the formal aspect of the State -- the question of monarchy versus republic -- which is mostly discussed from a highly emotional rather than a rational point of view. The debate proceeds by arguments ad hominem. A few undignified occupants of royal thrones are enumerated, and are then presented as examples of monarchy as such. The defenders of monarchy are no better. They point to corrupt professional politicians, of whom there exist a sufficient number, and claim that this is the necessary consequence of a republican constitution. Neither is a rational argument. There have been good and bad monarchies -- good republics (like Switzerland), and others which are far from living up to the same standard.
Every human institution, after all, has its good and bad sides. As long as this world is inhabited by men and not angels, crimes and mistakes will continue to occur... Republicans are fond of claiming that a monarchical regime means the rule of the aristocracy. Monarchists, on the other hand, point to the economic difficulties, the tax burdens, and State interference in private life in present-day republics, and compare this state of affairs with the freedom and economic well-being under the pre-1914 monarchies. Both arguments are unconvincing. They use the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes. Anyone who is honest will compare present-day monarchies with present-day republics. It will then be apparent that the aristocracy of birth occupies no greater share of leading positions in monarchies than in republics, and that all states, whatever their form of government, are equally affected by the serious problems of the present day.
Republicans frequently claim, in addition, that monarchy is a form of government belonging to the past, while republicanism is that of the future. Even a slight knowledge of history is enough to disprove this. Both forms have been in existence since the earliest times (though the monarchical periods have usually lasted considerably longer than the republican ones). In any case, it is misleading to call an institution which we already find in ancient Greece, Rome and Carthage, the form of government of the future. more
This was written by HIM Otto von Habsburg, son of Saint Emperor Karl von Habsburg.
House of Hapsburg
No I am not talking about Moe, Larry and Curly! I am talking about McCain, Obama and Hillary!
These three stooges of the status quo power elite will avoid speaking about the economy as much as possible because if they make known their views it will sound and look like the planks of the Socialist Party slightly seasoned with rhetoric straight from the fascist’s doctrine. More.
Thanks and a, well... you know...to Bruce Koerber.
World Government for Liberty? by J.K. Baltzersen
A world government, be its center at the banks of the Potomac or the East River, with the capacity to give you all you want, will also have the capacity to take it all away.
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater told us: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
That also goes for nations and peoples. The government that is powerful enough to give liberty and democracy – or perhaps rather liberty or democracy – to nations and peoples is also powerful enough to take it away.
We here in Europe are often told to be grateful to the Americans for their help to Europe during World War II and for their guard of Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
While I perfectly well understand the American “isolationist” position of not using taxpayers’ money to fight foreign wars and not go about fighting monsters around the world, I am grateful, but not without reservations. I certainly will not submit to servility under the United States federal government because of what the American military has done for Norway and Europe. Freedom, which we – to a considerable degree at least – got through the defeat of Hitler’s regime, includes the freedom of thought and expression.
By no means do I think what the Allies did to Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki was justified. Nor do I believe that the ignoring of internal German resistance was justifiable. Of the lasting concepts Hitler and World War II brought to world society, the reference to Hitler and his regime always being worse as justification for all sorts of violations is arguably among the most unfortunate – if not the most unfortunate.
So if I think it was alright for those United States to protect Europe against Nazism, Fascism, and Communism, why don’t others also have a right to democracy, i.e., by military intervention.
Firstly, there is no such thing as a “right” to democracy. more
Thanks and a tip of the beret to Jørn K. Baltzersen, he is a senior consultant of information technology in Oslo, Norway. His blog may be found here.
My maternal grandfather, Charles Joseph Boyle was 8 years old and living in Donegal in 1916.
I used to sit on his knee listening with breathlessness to him tell the tales of the heroes of the Easter rebellion of 1916.
At four minutes past noon on Easter Monday, April 24th, 1916, a sudden hush fell over the O’Connell Street. From the steps of the General Post Office Patrick Pearse read the Proclamation of the Republic:
POBLACHT NA h-EIREANN
THE PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND
IRISHMAN AND IRISHWOMEN: In the name of God and of the dead generations from which she receives her old tradition of nationhood, Ireland, through us, summons her children to her flag and strikes for her freedom.
Having organized and trained her manhood through her secret revolutionary organization, the Irish Republican Brotherhood, and through her open military organizations, the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army, having patiently perfected her discipline, having resolutely waited for the right moment to reveal itself, she now seizes that moment, and, supported by her exiled children in America and by gallant allies in Europe, but relying in the first on her own strength, she strikes in full confidence of victory.
We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and indefeasible. The long usurpation of that right by a foreign people and government has not extinguished the right, nor can it ever be extinguished except by the destruction of the Irish people. In every generation the Irish people have asserted their right to national freedom and sovereignty; six times during the past three hundred years they have asserted it in arms. Standing on that fundamental right and again asserting it in arms in the face of the world, we hereby proclaim the Irish Republic as a Sovereign Independent State. And we pledge our lives and the lives of our comrades-in-arms to the cause of its freedom, of its welfare, and of its exaltation among the nations.
The Irish Republic is entitled to, and hereby claims, the allegiance of every Irishman and Irish woman. The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities of all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority in the past.
Until our arms have brought the opportune moment for the establishment of a permanent National Government, representative of the whole people of Ireland and elected by the suffrages of all her men and women, the Provision Government, hereby constituted, will administer the civil and military affairs of the Republic in trust for the people.
We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God, Whose blessing we invoke upon our arms, and we pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity, or rapine. In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.
Signed on behalf of the Provisional Government,
THOMAS J. CLARKE
SEAN MAC DIERMADA
When Pearse finished, the beaming Connolly took his hand and shook it vigorously. A few ragged cheers hung in the air, but the poet, Stephen McKenna, who listened to Pearse read these words, recorded later that he felt sad for him, for the response from the crowd was chilling. There were no wild hurrahs, no scenes reminiscent of the excitement which had gripped the French mob before they stormed the Bastille. The Irish simply listened and shrugged their shoulders, or sniggered a little, and then glanced round to see if the police were coming.
Nearby young insurgents were posting copies of the Proclamation, or handing them round among the crowd. One copy, weighted down with stones, was placed on the ground at the foot of Nelson Pillar so that everybody could read it.
Slowly the crowd broke up. Some strolled across to the Pillar, where they idly read the Proclamation; others just stood and stared up at the unfamiliar flags (the green flag on the left at the corner of Princes Street and the Tricolor on the right at the corner of Henry Stree) from the roof of the G.P.O. Quite a few, bored with the whole affair, simply turned and wandered away.
Part of the lack of interest came from actions that had occurred from a rift in the organization. During Holy Week, when Eoin MacNeill got word of the Rising, MacDiarmada with other leaders did their best to persuade MacNeill to agree it it. Late on Holy Saturday night MacDiarmada got word of MacNeill's Countermanding Order appearing in the "Sunday Independent" (Note*** MacNeill did not agree with the Rising and knew that the practice maneuvers of the Irish Volunteers planned for Easter Sunday was a cover for an uprising. He sent messengers all over Ireland to tell the Volunteers to do nothing on Easter Sunday, and he published a cancellation notice in the Sunday Independent, with this action he effectively doomed the uprising to failure***)
A conference between Pearse, Plunkett, and Dermot Lynch was called, but Connolly, Clarke and Ceannt, couldn't be reached so the meeting was adjourned, and they all met at Liberty Hall at 8 a.m.
All members of the Military Council were at the 2nd meeting, it lasted till 1 am Easter Sunday. The decision was made to take action on Easter Monday.
While I am still a steadfast monarchist I honour the courage, bravery, and resolve of those who fought in 1916. I take pride in my Irish heritage.
God save Ireland.
Dieu le Roi.
The Patron Saint of my Parish is having her feast this month, therefore to kick things off I am starting off the month St Catherine. This great and Holy woman, a Doctor of the Church, did great things for our faith, that even in the short synopsis of her radiance, a reflection of the light of Christ, shines through.
Catherine, the youngest of twenty-five children, was born in Siena on March 25, 1347. During her youth she had to contend with great difficulties on the part of her parents. They were planning marriage for their favorite daughter; but Catherine, who at the age of seven had already taken a vow of virginity, refused. To break her resistance, her beautiful golden brown tresses were shorn to the very skin and she was forced to do the most menial tasks. Undone by her patience, mother and father finally relented and their child entered the Third Order of St. Dominic.
Unbelievable were her austerities, her miracles, her ecstasies. The reputation of her sanctity soon spread abroad; thousands came to see her, to be converted by her. The priests associated with her, having received extraordinary faculties of absolution, were unable to accommodate the crowds of penitents. She was a helper and a consoler in every need. As time went on, her influence reached out to secular and ecclesiastical matters. She made peace between worldly princes. The heads of Church and State bowed to her words. She weaned Italy away from an anti-pope, and made cardinals and princes promise allegiance to the rightful pontiff. She journeyed to Avignon and persuaded Pope Gregory XI to return to Rome. Even though she barely reached the age of thirty-three her accomplishments place her among the great women of the Middle Ages. The virgin Catherine was espoused to Christ by a precious nuptial ring which, although visible only to her, always remained on her finger.
Patron: Against fire; bodily ills; Europe; fire prevention; firefighters; illness; Italy; miscarriages; nurses; nursing services; people ridiculed for their piety; sexual temptation; sick people; sickness; Siena, Italy; temptations.
Symbols: Cross; heart; lily; ring; stigmata.
Catherine dictated from memory The Dialogue (here.) in five days before she left Siena forever. It is her account of her visions. She was clairaudient and clairvoyant, also awareness of communion with Jesus. She was illiterate, but yearning to be able to read the breviary, when suddenly she could read--either through the help of Father Tommaso della Fonte or Alessia Saracini (her friend), or through a miracle.
In art, Saint Catherine is always portrayed as a Dominican tertiary (white habit, black mantle, white veil) with a stigmata, lily, and book. Sometimes she is portrayed with a crown of thorns and a crucifix; with her heart on a book; with her heart at her feet and a scourge or skull, book, and lily; with the devil under her feet; crowned by angels with three crowns; celebrating her mystic marriage with Christ; giving clothes to a beggar, who is really Christ. Catherine is the patron of Italy together with St. Francis of Assisi.
Prayer for the Feast of Saint Catherine of Siena
Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God, that commemorating the Heavenly birthday of blessed Catherine, Thy virgin, we may both rejoice on her yearly festival and benefit by the example of so great a virtue. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, world without end.
St Catherine of Siena, Clarksville, Virginia
Dieu le Roi.
Fr Southworth, like many of the martyrs, also converted many Protestants, both rich and poor.One of the most fascinating aspects of this saint is the movement of his body since his execution at Tyburn in 1654. It was delivered to a member of the Duke of Norfolk’s family and then transferred to Douai (where Fr Southworth trained to be a priest) for burial. Other accounts say that the Spanish Ambassador bought his mangled body from the hangman and had it stitched together then sent to the College in France. The body was venerated up to the time of the French Revolution. When war broke out between the Jacobin Government and England after the execution of Louis XVI, a mob of citizens invaded the English College at Douai and seized numerous items. In 1926, the old buildings of the College, which had been used for various purposes since 1793, were pulled down to make way for developments. During the excavations, a laden coffin was found with Fr Southworth’s body in it. Near to the coffin, the hair-shirt of St Thomas of Canterbury and the scarlet biretta of St Charles Borromeo were found. The news quickly got back to England and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster attempted to recover the martyr’s body. Eventually, a Rev Albert Purdie brought the body back to English shores. A hearse took it from Dover to St Edmund’s College, Ware. At the end of April 1930, it was taken to Westminster Cathedral and rested in the Chapel of St George in front of hundreds of priests and people. The body still lies encased in the Cathedral today.
John was born in 1592 into the staunchly Catholic Southworth family of Samlesbury Hall in Preston. His father had paid heavy fines for refusing to attend Protestant services and had even spent time in jail for harbouring St Edmund Campion at the Hall. John was sent to Douai at the age of 21 and educated there before being ordained in 1618.
Sent on the English Mission in October 1619, he initially served in his native county of Lancashire. But Fr John was arrested and condemned to death in 1627. He was first imprisoned at Lancaster Castle, where he gave the last rites to Jesuit Edmund Arrowsmith - who was to become another of the 40 martyrs – as he was being led away for execution. In April 1630, Fr Southworth was transferred to the Clink, London but a month later was released along with 15 other priests through the intervention of Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of Charles I, who achieved reprieves for many condemned Catholic priests. They were delivered to the French Ambassador for banishment and were duly transported abroad. But despite the dangers, the determined priest returned to England a few years later.
Arrested numerous times after his return, it was then that Fr Southworth began to organise plague relief for the recusant poor of Westminster. Much of the work was done whilst he was on daily parole as a prisoner in the Clink.
As the outbreak of Civil War struck, the enforcement of the penal laws against "popish" priests was stepped up under Oliver Cromwell. Southworth’s final apprehension in 1654 was to be the final straw. Dragged from his bed one night by Colonel Worsley, the faithful priest fully admitted that he had exercised the duties of Holy Orders since his last release from prison.
During his trial at the Old Bailey, he insisted on pleading "guilty" to being a priest. Despite the reluctance of the Recorder of London, Serjeant Steel, he was sentenced to death.On June 28, the 62-year-old was dragged to Tyburn on a sledge in mud and sludge. Despite a great storm, thousands came to watch his execution, including a number of gentry seated in horse-drawn carriages
Unlike many of the martyrs, Fr Southworth was permitted to make a long speech at the gallows whilst wearing his vestments. In it he confessed that he was a great sinner for his offences against God but that he was innocent of any sin against the Commonwealth and the Government. After his speech was cut short and asking the Catholics in the crowd to pray fore him, he shut his eyes and prayed quietly. Then the trapdoor opened he was hanged, drawn and quartered.
Despite being imprisoned and released numerous times in a constantly changing political climate, Fr Southworth was defiant in his loyalty to serve the people of God in England. He was clearly respected amongst Catholics – peasants and nobility alike. His work amongst the sufferers of the deadly plague clearly identifies him as a saint to pray to for those with, and caring for, contagious diseases. The care and consideration taken by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England to recover his body highlights the sacredness of saints’ relics, particularly those of the Reformation. These we must venerate at every possible opportunity and use to pray to Our Lord through the intercession of the saints.
Saint John Southworth, Pray For Us.
Thanks and a tip-o-the-beret to Richard Marsden at Bashing Secularism.
Dieu Sauve le Roy,
see my article on Democracy vs Monarchy.
545 People .
By Charlie Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
100 senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes. Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party.She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath(1) to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
I am not really sure Charlie, how replacing these 545 with a like minded 545 would help.
(1) An oath is an invocation to God to witness the truth of a statement,(..here.) as opposed to a vow. A vow is a promise made to God. The promise is binding, and so differs from a simple resolution which is a present purpose to do or omit certain things in the future.
Thanks and a tip of the beret to Robert Banaugh.
Vive Le Roy,