Our Lady of Guadalupe 12 December 2009

"...No estoy aqui, yo, que soy tu madre?
“Am I not here, who am your Mother?
Are you not under my shadow and protection?
Am I not the fountain of your joy?...”

Prayer to Our Lady of Guadalupe

Our Lady of Guadalupe, mystical rose, intercede for the Church, protect the Holy Father, help all who invoke you in their necessities. Since you are the ever Virgin Mary and Mother of the true God, obtain for us from your most holy Son the Grace of a firm faith and sure hope amid the bitterness of life, as well as an ardent love and the precious gift of final perseverance. Amen.

O God of power and mercy, You blessed the Americas at Tepeyac with the presence of the Virgin Mary of Guadalupe. May her prayers help all men and women to accept each other as brothers and sisters. Through Your justice present in our hearts, may Your peace reign in the world.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, One God, forever and ever. +Amen.

Ave María Dios te salve, María. Llena eres de gracia: El Señor es contigo.Bendita tú eres entre todas las mujeres. Y bendito es el fruto de tu vientre: Jesús.Santa María, Madre de Dios, ruega por nosotros pecadores,ahora y en la hora de nuestra muerte. Amén.

¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!

Virgin of Virgins Pray for Us!
de Braqntigny

Excerpts taken from, “Women for Faith & Family, specifically here.

Marche Du Pays De Retz

Pour le Paydrets...

Dieu le Roy.

Louis XVI, is put on Trial for Treason

"...On the 11th of December, the sound of a drum, and the noise of the arrival of troops at the Temple, gave us a great deal of uneasiness. My father came down with my brother after breakfast. At eleven o'clock, Chambon and Chaumette, the mayor and attorney-general of the Commune, and Colombeau, the secretary, arrived. They announced to him a decree of the Convention, that he should be brought to its bar to be examined. They obliged him to send my brother to his mother's apartment; but, not having the decree of the Convention, they kept my father waiting two hours. He did not go till about one o'clock, when he went in the mayor's carriage with Chaumette and Colombeau. The carriage was escorted by municipal officers on foot. My father observing, as they went along, that Colombeau saluted a great number of persons, asked him if they were all friends of his; Colombeau answered, "They are brave citizens of the 10th of August, whom I never see but with the greatest pleasure..." Madame Royale, Duchess of Angoulême, Memoires

It was on this day in 1792 that his Majesty King Louis XVI was placed on trial for treason.

Since 13 August the King and his family, his wife Queen Marie-Antoinette, their oldest daughter Marie-Thérèse Charlotte, known as Madame Royale, and her brother Louis-Charles, the future King Louis XVII, Madame Elizabeth the King's sister had been kept in the Temple prison under guard by the orders of the National Assembly.

The National Assembly (Assemblée nationale.) was a transitional body between the Estates-General and the National Constituent Assembly, consisted by 1792 of mainly two groups, Girondins and Jacobins, but may also be broken down further into mini-factions with a more or less radical agenda.

The Girondins who were less radical than their compains the Jacobins believed in maintaining King Louis under arrest, as a hostage and a bargaining piece. Their background in the law made it difficult for a great number of them to accept an execution without due process of some sort no matter how contrived it may be, and it was voted that their king should be tried before the National Convention, the representatives of the so called "sovereign people". The Paris Commune and Parisian deputies who would soon be known as the Mountain(1) argued for Louis's immediate execution.

"...Louis cannot be judged, he has already been judged. He has been condemned, or else the republic is not blameless. To suggest putting Louis XVI on trial, in whatever way, is a step back towards royal and constitutional despotism; it is a counter-revolutionary idea; because it puts the Revolution itself in the dock. After all, if Louis can still be put on trial, Louis can be acquitted; he might be innocent. Or rather, he is presumed to be until found guilty. But if Louis is acquitted, if Louis can be presumed innocent, what becomes of the Revolution?..." Robespierre

On 11 December, among crowded and silent streets, the King was brought from the Temple to stand before the Convention and hear the indictment, an accusation of high treason and crimes(2) against the state. His trial, such as it was, continued from 11 to the 26 of December 1792. It was cold that winter and the only heat was provided by a small charcoal stove.

The problem of what to do with Louis XVI rested on the question of whether the King of France could be tried. The Constitution of 1791 protected the monarch from any penalty worse than dethronement, and no court in the land had legitimate jurisdiction over him. Yet Robespierre's argument (above) that a trial was unnecessary was generally rejected: Louis couldn't be condemned without a trial. So, with no other alternative before them, the Convention took on the role of a court. In most respects this was contrary to accepted judicial principles; but it was expedient, there seemed to be no other alternative.

Louis' defense was founded on his rights under the Constitution and on the illegality of the institution trying him. Constitutionally his case was well founded provided he could convince the deputies that he had honestly intended to become a constitutional monarch. The perception that he was evasive in many of his replies under cross examination did not inspire the confidence that he had so intended. By ordinary standards his trial was illegal, as the defense ably argued; but the Convention had usurped absolute power, and this therefore changed the terms of the trial. It was inconceivable to the Assembly that the King could be allowed to commit treason without being punished. If deputies found him guilty, the penalty was death. To allow Louis to live would undermine the principles of the revolution, but relieve the consciences of those who doubted the Convention's right to act as a court. In the end he would be found guilty.

On 26 December, his counsel, Raymond Desèze, delivered Louis's response to the charges, with the assistance of François Tronchet and Malesherbes. Jean-Paul Marat, (the epitome of démagogues of the sans-culottes), was favourably impressed, and declared: "Desèze read a long speech made with a great deal of art", small praise from a man who on his wall had written La Mort! (Death!).

"...I shall not say any thing of the conduct of my father at the bar of the Convention. All the world knows it: his firmness, his mildness, his goodness, his courage, in the midst of an assembly of murderers thirsting for his blood, can never be forgotten, and must be admired by the latest posterity..."
Madame Royale, Duchess of Angoulême (3) , Memoires

Dieu Sauve le Roy!
Dieu le Roy!

Further reading please see Ruin of a Princess...

(1) Their name derived from the seat location in the assembly; they sat above the Marais or Plein (Marsh or Plain) the majority of the members of the Assembly. The members of the Mountain, or the Montagnards, voted for the execution of Louis XVI. Later the positions would be shifted, so one party sat on the left and the other on the right. Today our notions of the left leaning party,(liberal) and the right leaning party (conservatives) is derived.
(2) "High" in the legal parlance of the 18th century means "against the State". A high crime is one which seeks the overthrow of a country, which gives aid or comfort to its enemies, or which injures the country to the profit of an individual or group. The punishments for nobility were stricter than that for a peasant. Hence cruel and unusual punishment would be one that gave the peasant the same punishment as a nobleman.
(3) Madame Royale became the Duchesse d'Angoulême upon her marriage to Louis-Antoine, Duc d'Angoulême, her cousin. The Kings sister, Princess Elizabeth, called Madame Elizabeth, had been the Duchesse d'Angoulême until her death by the mob.


Gabrielle de Polastron

..."A witness told of her death: "Her last sigh was but her last breath, and to tell this in one word, her death was as sweet as she herself had been. She was buried in Vienna and they wrote on her tomb her name only, followed by this mention: 'Dead from suffering' on December 9th, 1793..."

On this day, 9 December 1793 Yolande Martine Gabrielle de Polastron, Comtesse de Polignac died, some say as a result of a broken heart, some say from consumption. She was a confidant of the Queen Martyr and Governess to the Royal Children, including the future Louis XVII of France and Marie-Thérèse Charlotte de France, Madame Royale.

A article has appeared on Elena-Maria Vidal's blog under the title Madame de Polignac and the Politics of Calumny, on December 6, 2007.

You may find Gabrielle de Polastron in the historical novels, Trianon, see here, and Madame Royale, see here.

Born, 8 September 1749 (my birthday)
Died, 9 December 1793

Dieu le Roy!

Note on above portrait: Yolande Gabrielle Martine, Duchess of Polignac - 1787
oil on canvas, 36 x 29 in, currently at the Wadsworth Atheneum, Hartford, Connecticut.

Spanish Bishops warn King Carlos could be facing an Excommuncation.

That a Catholic Monarch should have himself placed in such a position demonstrates the fallacy of that which is called a "Constitutional Monarchy." I pray that his decision will be the moral one, and not the same wishy-washy mistake he made over homosexual marriage some time ago. We will see what is more valuable to him, his eternal soul or his reign.

By Hilary White

December 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Spanish press is highlighting the dilemma faced by Juan Carlos, king of Spain, a Catholic, who may be called upon to sign into law a bill that, if passed, would further liberalize abortion.

On November 25th, Spain's Catholic bishops warned that those politicians who vote in favor of the law will have excommunicated themselves, having put themselves in an "objective state of sin." The bishops wrote that "while the situation lasts," politicians who vote in favor of the law "may not be admitted to Holy Communion."

However, the Spanish Constitution of 1978 stipulates that new laws must be promulgated by the king, who is head of state, but who now faces possible excommunication if he gives royal assent to the bill.

Prominent Spanish Catholics are calling on the king to refuse to sign the law. In an article appearing on the website Religion en Libertad, titled, "The King should not sign the abortion law," the head of the lobby group HazteOir, Nacho Arsuaga, said the country could be heading for a constitutional crisis over the bill.

"The king of a democratic state under the law cannot sign a law approving the right of a few to kill other human beings. With this law, the government is de facto destroying the validity of the Spanish constitution, which stipulates in its Article 15 the right to life." Arsuaga called on the king either to refuse to sign or to abdicate.

Javier Maria Perez-Roldan, president of the Thomas More Law Center, said that the law would "contradict the principle of monarchy," which "loses all authority if it is exercised against the common good."

Arsuaga's article quotes politicians and the heads of a number of Catholic organizations who have called on the king to abdicate in imitation of King Baudouin of Belgium, who in 1990 temporarily renounced his throne rather than sign his country's law liberalizing abortion. They also cited the more recent case of Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who refused last year to sign the duchy's law legalizing euthanasia and who may be stripped of his constitutional powers as a result.

Milian Manuel Mestre, a businessman and politician and Member of the Congress of Deputies, called it "incomprehensible from the ethical point of view," that the government could pass a law that establishes abortion as a right.

"As a believer and a citizen of this country it does not seem appropriate for the King to sign into law the Act ... Neither the king nor the government nor the Spanish Courts may violate principles of fundamental ethics," Mestre said.

But the editor of the weekly Alba, Gonzalo Altozano, warned not to expect heroics from Juan Carlos. When, in 2005, the Zapatero government created "gay marriage," the king responded, "I'm not the king of Belgium" and displayed no hesitation in signing the bill. Altozano writes, "He was right: Juan Carlos is not Baldwin [Baudouin]. It is, simply, Juan Carlos. Do not expect any heroics from him. No longer."

Juan Carlos was born in Rome, where the Spanish royal family had settled following the proclamation of the Second Spanish Republic in 1931. He succeeded the dictator Franco as head of state and was enthroned as king in 1975. The family's close connection to the Catholic Church is a tradition dating back centuries, and Juan Carlos' wife, Queen Sofia, in an authorized biography, recently denounced abortion, saying she was "absolutely against" it as well as euthanasia, and "gay marriage."

Nevertheless, it was King Juan Carlos himself who instituted the "liberal" political and social reforms in Spain following the death of Franco. Under his rule, leftist groups and movements, such as the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Communist Party of Spain, which had been defeated in the Spanish Civil War, were legalized and legitimized.

Prayer to St. Louis King on the behalf of King Juan-Carlos

O God, who did call thy servant Louis of France to an earthly throne that he might advance thy heavenly kingdom, allow him to assist H.M.Juan Carlos of Spain, zeal for your Church and love for his people, especially those not yet born. Mercifully grant him this day to be fruitfulness in good works, morality in his actions, and devotion to the True Faith. We ask this in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever.

What is one kingdom for a soul?

Dieu Le Roy,


The worst kind of racism, The North Carolina Eugenics Board

It is a sad note that in the history of the State of North Carolina a concerted effort was once developed whereby those who were considered unfit to reproduce children could be legally sterilized. I have been chastized by some, when I have stated that in a democracy we give up far more than we receive. I have in the past also stated that once a person is elected (or approved by the Senate) that person is basically free to do or vote any way which will keep them in power. I reminded them that it was a simple majority of Supreme court judges who "found" a woman's right to abortion. I was told it could never happen...

Long forgotten in the history of my North Carolina is the Eugenics board. This board was given the authority to sterilize thousands it felt were too feeble minded to bear children. Undoubtedly those who favor abortion would probably approve such a system. As one reads the paragraphs below keep in mind the dates. It was in 1929, ten years after World War I when enough voted in the legislature passed into law the formation of Eugenics laws. That is just two years after the Nazis based their eugenics program on the California program of forced sterilization.[1] It was not intil 1977 that the eugenics Board was finally closed down, 4 years after Roe.

During the period of state mandated sterilizations in North Carolina, over 7,600 people were surgically altered either by choice or coercion. the paragraphs below are from the NC State digital collection.

"...The North Carolina General Assembly of 1929 authorized the governing body or executive head of any penal or charitable public institution to order the sterilization of any patient or inmate when such an operation was deemed to be in the best interest of an individual or for the public good. Additionally, the county boards of commissioners were authorized to order sterilization at public expense of any mentally defective or feeble-minded resident upon receiving a petition from the individual's next of kin or legal guardian.

Each order for sterilization was required to be reviewed and approved by the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, and the chief medical officers of any two state institutions for the feeble-minded or insane. A medical and family history of the patient or inmate was attached to the order to provide information and guidance for the reviewers.

In 1933 the General Assembly created the Eugenics Board of North Carolina to review all cases involving the sterilization of mentally diseased, feeble-minded, or epileptic patients, inmates, or non-institutionalized individuals. The five members of the board included the commissioner of the Board of Charities and Public Welfare, the secretary of the State Board of Health, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane (appointed by the other board members), the chief medical officer of the State Hospital at Raleigh, and the attorney general.

In hearings that involved patients or inmates in a public institution, the executive head of that institution (or his representative) acted as prosecutor in presenting the case to the board. Hearings that concerned non-institutionalized individuals were prosecuted by the county superintendent of welfare or another authorized county official. Along with the petition for a hearing, the prosecutor provided a medical history signed by a physician who was familiar with the case and a social history addressing whether the person was likely to produce offspring.

A copy of the petition was sent to the individual and his or her next of kin or guardian. When the inmate, patient, or other individual could not defend himself or herself at the hearing, the next of kin, guardian, or county solicitor represented the individual and defended that person's rights and interests. The county superior court could appoint a guardian if necessary. Individuals could also be represented by legal counsel during the hearing.

Factors to be considered by the board included whether the operation seemed to be in the best interest of the individual's mental, moral, or physical health; whether it would be for the public good; and whether it was likely that the individual might produce children with serious mental or physical problems. Orders for sterilization had to be signed by at least three members of the board and returned to the prosecutor. Mentally competent individuals, at their own expense, could select their own physician for consultation or for an operation. A decision by the board could be appealed by the individual or in his or her behalf to the county superior court and further appealed to the state's supreme court. A successful appeal precluded any further petition for the sterilization for one year unless specifically requested by the individual, or by his or her guardian or next of kin.

In 1937 the General Assembly authorized any state hospital, at the discretion of the superintendent, to provide temporary admission for any feeble-minded, epileptic, or mentally diseased person for whom the Eugenics Board had authorized sterilization. The regular or consulting staff of the hospital could then perform the operation. These hospitals were authorized to charge the appropriate state institution or county for the operation and expenses.

Under the Executive Organization Act of 1971, the Eugenics Board of North Carolina was transferred to the newly created Department of Human Resources (DHR). Although the board retained its statutory powers and actions regarding sterilization proceedings, the board's managerial and executive authority was vested in the secretary of the DHR, a cabinet-level officer appointed by the governor.

Under the Executive Organization Act of 1973, the Eugenics Board became the Eugenics Commission. The following five members of the commission were to be appointed by the governor: the director of the Division of Social and Rehabilitative Services of the DHR, the director of Health Services, the chief medical officer of a state institution for the feeble-minded or insane, the chief medical officer of the DHR in the area of mental health services, and the attorney general.

In 1974 the General Assembly transferred to the judicial system the responsibility for any sterilization proceedings against persons suffering from mental illness or mental retardation. In 1977 the General Assembly formally abolished the Eugenics Commission..."
We never learn. That which we condemned the Nazis for, we did ourselves to our fellow men.

Margaret Sanger founder of Planned Parenthood was an eugenist. Click on her name and read her quotes.

Mercy on us O Lord,

(1). Nazis and the California connection, San Francisco Chronicle,Sunday, November 9, 2003


Dec 8th, 1941

...and the United States was at War...

...And the world is still not safe...

Dieu le Roy!

Starting Six

From the Montreal The Gazette, the sports section no less! ...comes this article on the starting six players in Canada's foundation.

...Samuel de Champlain was the most famous original Habitant of New France. But many of his contemporaries made their mark, too. Herewith is a proposed all-star team - a Starting Six from the earliest days of the French presence in North America...

It seems my ancestor Étienne De Nevers sieur de Brantigny did not make the cut. Zut!

More founders of Canada and Montreal...

Vive le Roi!

Death of Bara

Joseph Bara reputedly a member of the republican French Army and hailed as a hero by the revolution was killed this date in 1793 in action against the Royal and Catholic Army in the Vendee. Supposedly he was trapped by Royalist Forces who demanded his surrender by yelling "Vive le Roi “, he instead chose to die and in his last breath yell "Vive la République". He was 13 years old. He was alleged to have been in the 8eme Regt d'Hussards(Light Cavalry) Whose uniform would have looked simalar to this,8eme Hussards, Vendee, 1793

Touted by Robespierre in the convention paper, as a 13 year old hero, his death was used as propaganda, and his remains were placed in the Panthéon.

This propaganda by Robespierre is undoubtedly false, and used to bolster flagging morale in the convention when the members were getting nervous about the insurrection in the Vendée. What is more likely it was a youth who was killed on the Royalist side who refused to cry "Vive la République" and was killed for voicing "Vive le Roi “, or “Dieu Sauve le Roi”, and that the story was seized upon by Robespierre to further the republican cause. The convention and the person of Robespierre frequently lied when it would suit the ”cause”. The death of a child
would not have mattered a wit to Robespierre, as the suffering of the children of the Vendee, or of the Lost King Louis XVII.

This image painted by Jacques-Louis David, shows an effeminate youth in the pangs of death.
A link to a more republican view is found here. It is in French and English.

because the death of youth in war is always good material for artists to portray patriotic themes, Bara was the subject of many pieces of art.above: Auguste Paris. Bara Mourant (1883)
above: Jean-Joseph Weerts. La Mort de Bara (1883)
above: David d'Angers. Barra [sic] (1838). 35th anniversary?

Vive le Roi!
Sieur de Brantigny