The martyrdom of Marie-Antoinette

Catherine Delors also remembered la Reine-Martyre with a time line of the events...

The last few posts have brought back memories of the dethroned Queen while she was imprisoned in the Tower of the Temple, beginning in August 1792.

The following December, her husband, Louis XVI, stands trial before the National Convention, the elected body that now governs France. Louis is executed on the 21st of January 1793. Then, the following August, Marie-Antoinette is transferred, alone, without her children or sister-in-law Madame Elisabeth, to the jail of La Conciergerie. It is located within the premises of the main Courthouse of Paris, next to the Revolutionary Tribunal. For an ordinary prisoner that would mean that trial is imminent.

Yet Marie-Antoinette is no ordinary prisoner. She may have some value as a hostage in war negotiations with the Austrians, and the National Convention sends emissaries to that effect to the enemy. But Marie-Antoinette's brothers, Joseph II and Leopold II, no longer reign over Austria. The new Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II, her nephew, has never met her. He is not ready to compromise the hopes of a victory against the French armies for the sake of an aunt he does not know.

This is the context of her transfer to La Conciergerie: the National Convention hopes to step up the pressure and show Francis II that a trial is a real possibility. To no avail: the Emperor is content to express his indignation. For the National Convention, there is political advantage in executing a hated public figure, and none in keeping her alive.

I am struck by the visage of the juring priest in the portrait above. The Pope had promulgated a bull which excommunicated any priest who swore alleigance to the new code which removed Rome as the head of the church in France. Marie-Antoinette properly refused his ministrations. He appears in a shadow, and as shady charecter.


The Relic of a Saint

Elena-Maria reports on what may possibly be a 1st class relic of Saint Louis XVI.

...Then cries of “Long live the Republic!” were heard. People rushed forward, dipping handkerchiefs into the blood of Louis XVI. The Abbé, dazed, did not know how he climbed off the scaffold. He could only notice that some of the blood from the severed head had splashed upon his clothes. Meanwhile, Sanson was selling locks of the King’s hair, pieces of his jacket, his buttons, his hat. Someone began to play the Marseillaise, and people joined hands, dancing and cavorting around the guillotine, “like the prophets of Baal,” thought the Abbé. A cold mist had descended upon Paris at the moment of the King’s death, but above, and beyond it, was the sun... ~from Trianon by Elena Maria Vidal

More is found here...

St Louis, Martyred King pray for us.



French Regiments of the Seven Years War an overview...

Regimental coulors of the Dillion Regiment, (Irish) The motto is Latin and means "By This Sign Find Victory".

French Regiments of the "Ancien Regime" in the Seven Years War

In 1756 France had arguably one of the largest military organizations in Europe. It was also as diverse as it was large. I will cover the infantry first. It consisted of 80 Regiments of the Metropolitan Army made up of native born Frenchmen, 32 regiments of foreign extraction, 12 German, 9 Swiss, 7 Irish, 1 Scots, and 2 Italian. It also had 2 regiments of Guards, one French and one Swiss. Each regiment was commanded by a colonel and his staff comprised 1 lieutenant colonel, 1 major, 1 assistance-major, 1 chaplain and 1 surgeon. In the french regiments the Chaplain was a Catholic priest and it was required that the fantassin (the common infantryman) was Catholic. the foreign regiments were authorized to have a Chaplain of the common faith of the soldiers, usually Lutheran for the German and some Swiss regiments, the Irish, Scot and Italian Regiments had Catholic Chaplains. As far as I can tell there was no effort to proselytize the troops into accepting the Catholic faith. Before the Seven Years war the metropolitan army could only serve in France or Europe. The clonial military establishment was controlled be the Ministry of Marine, which furnished French Marines. They where not formed as regiments but as detachments usually about a company but as few as a handful in far off posts, especially in Canada. Their basic uniform was similar to the metropolitan army in the cities but could be indian dress in remote places.

The uniform of the time consisted on a long undyed wool coat called a Justacorps, which varied from time to time since the early part of the 18th century with a different number of buttons. Due to the undyed wool the coat appeared from white, or light grey depending on the quality of the wool. Wool was used because it has natural properties; it is a natural rip-stop (it frays), it will breath and allow sweat to pass through it*, it will warm even when wet, dirt may be brushed out of it,(somewhat),it was cheat and available. Officers at the start were allowed to wear coats of the own specifications but this was ended during the reign of Louis XV. In any case the quality of the wool was better for the officers. Regimental coats differentiated the unit by a various combination of button placement, button colour, cuff design and pocket placement and shape. Various regiments also wore different colour cuffs and later collars. It was all quite perplexing and in many cases the result was a combination of the Colonels desires, the uniform regulations and the amount of money available to be spent. Officers wore gorgets, the last remaining evolution of the knights armor. Some were inscribed with the King cypher.

If that wasn't enough, foreign regiments wore different coloured justacorps, red for Swiss and Irish, cornflower blue for German, dark blue for Scots, and brown for Italian. The French Guards wore a dark blue justacorp and the Swiss guards wore a red justacorp, they copied each other and were different only in the colour of the cuffs, which could be blue or red for the French regiments and different colours for the foreign.

The regiments were not numbered, but were named, for The King, (du Roy), The Queen (de La Reine), the various provinces, and in the case of some of the French Regiments and foreign regiments after the colonel (Regt Dillion, Irish) or country of origin Royal Scots (Royal Eccosais) and Royal Italien.

During the first half of the 18th century the buttons reached all the way from the collar to the bottom of the coat. They were buttoned during cold weather but the bottom was usually left open to just below the waist belt and from the top to about mid-chest. Slowly the amount of buttons were reduced to just neck to the belt. 13 buttons down the front and 3 or more on each pocket which were often only for show.

Under the Justacorps the soldier wore an additional garment called a "gilet, which was really worn as a vest. In the French army this was actually a short coat with sleeves, made from wool, and of the Regimental colour. It can be see in the artists rendition to the right though this portrait is of the Compagnies Franches, French Marines, the pattern was basically the same and its use was the same. These gilets could be worn without the white justacorps as a fatigue uniform, and for training. In America the troops might also fight with these gilets, for comfort and from the heat. Soldiers in every war have always adapted.

Soldiers wore a knee breeches called a culotte, it extended from the waist to just below the knee. It differed from those worn in the American War of Indepedence in that it buttoned down the outside of the fly instead of being hidden. At the knee it had three buttons on the outside and a strap to keep it below the knee. It had a full seat to allow bending over. Made from wool it was in the colour of the regiment.

The legs were protected by canvas leg covering called gaiters, which buttoned up the side and were form fitting. They existed in each European army of the time. I have heard reference made about white in the summer and Black in the winter for English troops but I can't pin down a source for the French. They were hard to put on and hard to take off. The top three buttons were attached through the gaiters to the knee buttons on the culottes. A black leather garter was fastened around the knee to keep the gaiter snug about the knees.

The hat was black wool felt trimmed in gilt or silver depending on the button colour. It was cocked or folded in the french fashion, meaning basically the the leaves were about five inches instead of four as the English wore, and it hooked instead of being attached through the crown with string. A white (or black) cockade was worn on the left side attached by a button and ribbon. The hat was cocked over the left eye to allow a musket to be carried on the left shoulder as was habitual. A wool fatigue cap was usually fabricated from an old uniform coat or scraps left over from manufacturing the coat.

Commands were passed during battle by drums call. The troops knew the calls from memory. Drummers called tambours wore a beautiful coat usually in the Kings livery, a blue coat heavily embroidered with a special kind of lace. The drummers wore the Grande Tenue for ceremonies and special occasions and a Petit Tenue for normal use which was less heavily embroidered. Regoiments who wore white usually had drummers uniform of blue as did most foreign regiments, occasionally the colonels livery was worn but this practice was discontinued, by royal decree. The lace looked like this.

The drummers coat looked like this.

* Note: You are probably thinking, "Wow that must have been uncomfortable and scratchy." Well it is wool, but modern wools and 18th century wools are different. The process for shearing, cleaning and fulling wool has changed, many of the natural softeners have been removed by the modern process.

Vive le Roy!

Much of the art is from Pierre Joux Graphiste, These are excellent representations, albiet some have a mature theme.


St. Marie-Antoinette's Holy Card and Prayer

It came to me that on the 16th instant we will have the 218th anniversary of the Martyrdom of Marie-Antoinette, while I do not know if a process has been set up concerning her sainthood, (Martyrdom automatically means Sainthood.) I wonder which portrait should be used on her holy card.

In any event her symbol should be a Pink Rose. A mixture of White for Purity of Faith, Motherhood, the French Royal colour, and Red for her Martyrdom.

Prayer to Saint Marie-Antoinette

Saint Marie-Antoinette, martyred Queen, despised by the people whom you loved, you coupled your sufferings to that of Jesus our Lord and Savior. You remained strong in hope, when you could have disparaged. When presented with the instrument of your death you remained firm in your faith and never doubted the resurrection and the Kingship of Christ.

You, Martyred Queen of France, who is in the beatific presence, pray for us in the hour of our greatest need.


Vive la Reine!
Vive le Roy!

The Knights Templars

It was on this date in 1307 that the French King Philip IV convicts Templars on the charge of heresy.

The Knights Templars were the earliest founders of the military orders, and are the type on which the others are modelled. They are marked in history (1)by their humble beginning, (2)by their marvellous growth, and (3)by their tragic end.

Their humble beginning

Immediately after the deliverance of Jerusalem, the Crusaders, considering their vow fulfilled, returned in a body to their homes. The defense of this precarious conquest, surrounded as it was by Mohammedan neighbours, remained. In 1118, during the reign of Baldwin II, Hugues de Payens, a knight of Champagne, and eight companions bound themselves by a perpetual vow, taken in the presence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to defend the Christian kingdom. Baldwin accepted their services and assigned them a portion of his palace, adjoining the temple of the city; hence their title "pauvres chevaliers du temple" (Poor Knights of the Temple). Poor indeed they were, being reduced to living on alms, and, so long as they were only nine, they were hardly prepared to render important services, unless it were as escorts to the pilgrims on their way from Jerusalem to the banks of the Jordan, then frequented as a place of devotion.

The Templars had as yet neither distinctive habit nor rule. Hugues de Payens journeyed to the West to seek the approbation of the Church and to obtain recruits. At the Council of Troyes (1128), at which he assisted and at which St. Bernard was the leading spirit, the Knights Templars adopted the Rule of St. Benedict, as recently reformed by the Cistercians. They accepted not only the three perpetual vows, besides the crusader's vow, but also the austere rules concerning the chapel, the refectory, and the dormitory. They also adopted the white habit of the Cistercians, adding to it a red cross.

Notwithstanding the austerity of the monastic rule, recruits flocked to the new order, which thenceforth comprised four ranks of brethren:

•the knights, equipped like the heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages;
•the serjeants, who formed the light cavalry; and two ranks of non-fighting men:
•the farmers, entrusted with the administration of temporals;
•and the chaplains, who alone were vested with sacerdotal orders, to minister to the spiritual needs of the order.

Their marvellous growth

The order owed its rapid growth in popularity to the fact that it combined the two great passions of the Middle Ages, religious fervour and martial prowess. Even before the Templars had proved their worth, the ecclesiastical and lay authorities heaped on them favours of every kind, spiritual and temporal. The popes took them under their immediate protection, exempting them from all other jurisdiction, episcopal or secular. Their property was assimilated to the church estates and exempted from all taxation, even from the ecclesiastical tithes, while their churches and cemeteries could not be placed under interdict. This soon brought about conflict with the clergy of the Holy Land, inasmuch as the increase of the landed property of the order led, owing to its exemption from tithes, to the diminution of the revenue of the churches, and the interdicts, at that time used and abused by the episcopate, became to a certain extent inoperative wherever the order had churches and chapels in which Divine worship was regularly held. As early as 1156 the clergy of the Holy Land tried to restrain the exorbitant privileges of the military orders, but in Rome every objection was set aside, the result being a growing antipathy on the part of the secular clergy against these orders. The temporal benefits which the order received from all the sovereigns of Europe were no less important. The Templars had commanderies in every state. In France they formed no less than eleven bailiwicks, subdivided into more than forty-two commanderies; in Palestine it was for the most part with sword in hand that the Templars extended their possessions at the expense of the Mohammedans. Their castles are still famous owing to the remarkable ruins which remain: Safèd, built in 1140; Karak of the desert (1143); and, most importantly of all, Castle Pilgrim, built in 1217 to command a strategic defile on the sea-coast.

In these castles, which were both monasteries and cavalry-barracks, the life of the Templars was full of contrasts. A contemporary describes the Templars as "in turn lions of war and lambs at the hearth; rough knights on the battlefield, pious monks in the chapel; formidable to the enemies of Christ, gentleness itself towards His friends." (Jacques de Vitry). Having renounced all the pleasures of life, they faced death with a proud indifference; they were the first to attack, the last to retreat, always docile to the voice of their leader, the discipline of the monk being added to the discipline of the soldier. As an army they were never very numerous. A contemporary tells us that there were 400 knights in Jerusalem at the zenith of their prosperity; he does not give the number of serjeants, who were more numerous. But it was a picked body of men who, by their noble example, inspirited the remainder of the Christian forces. They were thus the terror of the Mohammedans. Were they defeated, it was upon them that the victor vented his fury, the more so as they were forbidden to offer a ransom. When taken prisoners, they scornfully refused the freedom offered them on condition of apostasy. At the siege of Safed (1264), at which ninety Templars met death, eighty others were taken prisoners, and, refusing to deny Christ, died martyrs to the Faith. This fidelity cost them dear. It has been computed that in less than two centuries almost 20,000 Templars, knights and serjeants, perished in war.

These frequent hecatombs rendered it difficult for the order to increase in numbers and also brought about a decadence of the true crusading spirit. As the order was compelled to make immediate use of the recruits, the article of the original rule in Latin which required a probationary period fell into desuetude. Even excommunicated men, who, as was the case with many crusaders, wished to expiate their sins, were admitted. All that was required of a new member was a blind obedience, as imperative in the soldier as in the monk. He had to declare himself forever "serf et esclave de la maison" (French text of the rule). To prove his sincerity, he was subjected to a secret test concerning the nature of which nothing has ever been discovered, although it gave rise to the most extraordinary accusations. The great wealth of the order may also have contributed to a certain laxity in morals, but the most serious charge against it was its insupportable pride and love of power. At the apogee of its prosperity, it was said to possess 9000 estates. With its accumulated revenues it had amassed great wealth, which was deposited in its temples at Paris and London. Numerous princes and private individuals had banked there their personal property, because of the uprightness and solid credit of such bankers. In Paris the royal treasure was kept in the Temple. Quite independent, except from the distant authority of the pope, and possessing power equal to that of the leading temporal sovereigns, the order soon assumed the right to direct the weak and irresolute government of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a feudal kingdom transmissible through women and exposed to all the disadvantages of minorities, regencies, and domestic discord. However, the Templars were soon opposed by the Order of Hospitallers, which had in its turn become military, and was at first the imitator and later the rival of the Templars. This ill-timed interference of the orders in the government of Jerusalem only multiplied the intestine dessentions, and this at a time when the formidable power of Saladin threatened the very existence of the Latin Kingdom. While the Templars sacrificed themselves with their customary bravery in this final struggle, they were, nevertheless, partly responsible for the downfall of Jerusalem.

To put an end to this baneful rivalry between the military orders, there was a very simple remedy at hand, namely their amalgamation. This was officially proposed by St. Louis at the Council of Lyons (1274). It was proposed anew in 1293 by Pope Nicholas IV, who called a general consultation on this point of the Christian states. This idea is canvassed by all the publicists of that time, who demand either a fusion of the existing orders or the creation of a third order to supplant them. Never in fact had the question of the crusaders been more eagerly taken up than after their failure. As the grandson of St. Louis, Philip the Fair could not remain indifferent to these proposals for a crusade. As the most powerful prince of his time, the direction of the movement belonged to him. To assume this direction, all he demanded was the necessary supplies of men and especially of money. Such is the genesis of his campaign for the suppression of the Templars. It has been attributed wholly to his well-known cupidity. Even on this supposition he needed a pretext, for he could not, without sacrilege, lay hands on possessions that formed part of the ecclesiastical domain. To justify such a course the sanction of the Church was necessary, and this the king could obtain only by maintaining the sacred purpose for which the possessions were destined. Admitting that he was sufficiently powerful to encroach upon the property of the Templars in France, he still needed the concurrence of the Church to secure control of their possessions in the other countries of Christendom. Such was the purpose of the wily negotiations of this self-willed and cunning sovereign, and of his still more treacherous counsellors, with Clement V, a French pope of weak character and easily deceived. The rumour that there had been a prearrangement between the king and the pope has been finally disposed of. A doubtful revelation, which allowed Philip to make the prosecution of the Templars as heretics a question of orthodoxy, afforded him the opportunity which he desired to invoke the action of the Holy See.

Their tragic end

In the trial of the Templars two phases must be distinguished: the royal commission and the papal commission.

First phase: the royal commission

Philip the Fair made a preliminary inquiry, and, on the strength of so-called revelations of a few unworthy and degraded members, secret orders were sent throughout France to arrest all the Templars on the same day (13 October, 1307), and to submit them to a most rigorous examination. The king did this, it was made to appear, at the request of the ecclesiastical inquisitors, but in reality without their co-operation.

In this inquiry torture, the use of which was authorized by the cruel procedure of the age in the case of crimes committed without witnesses, was pitilessly employed. Owing to the lack of evidence, the accused could be convicted only through their own confession and, to extort this confession, the use of torture was considered necessary and legitimate.

There was one feature in the organization of the order which gave rise to suspicion, namely the secrecy with which the rites of initiation were conducted. The secrecy is explained by the fact that the receptions always took place in a chapter, and the chapters, owing to the delicate and grave questions discussed, were, and necessarily had to be, held in secret. An indiscretion in the matter of secrecy entailed exclusion from the order. The secrecy of these initiations, however, had two grave disadvantages.

As these receptions could take place wherever there was a commandery, they were carried on without publicity and were free from all surveillance or control from the higher authorities, the tests being entrusted to the discretion of subalterns who were often rough and uncultivated. Under such conditions, it is not to be wondered at that abuses crept in. One need only recall what took place almost daily at the time in the brotherhoods of artisans, the initiation of a new member being too often made the occasion for a parody more or less sacrilegious of baptism or of the Mass.

The second disadvantage of this secrecy was, that it gave an opportunity to the enemies of the Templars, and they were numerous, to infer from this mystery every conceivable malicious supposition and base on it the monstrous imputations. The Templars were accused of spitting upon the Cross, of denying Christ, of permitting sodomy, of worshipping an idol, all in the most impenetrable secrecy. Such were the Middle Ages, when prejudice was so vehement that, to destroy an adversary, men did not recoil from inventing the most criminal charges. It will suffice to recall the similar, but even more ridiculous than ignominious accusations brought against Pope Boniface VIII by the same Philip the Fair.

Most of the accused declared themselves guilty of these secret crimes after being subjected to such ferocious torture that many of them succumbed. Some made similar confessions without the use of torture, it is true, but through fear of it; the threat had been sufficient. Such was the case with the grand master himself, Jacques de Molay, who acknowledged later that he had lied to save his life.

Carried on without the authorization of the pope, who had the military orders under his immediate jurisdiction, this investigation was radically corrupt both as to its intent and as to its procedure. Not only did Clement V enter an energetic protest, but he annulled the entire trial and suspended the powers of the bishops and their inquisitors. However, the offense had been admitted and remained the irrevocable basis of the entire subsequent proceedings. Philip the Fair took advantage of the discovery to have bestowed upon himself by the University of Paris the title of Champion and Defender of the Faith, and also to stir up public opinion at the States General of Tours against the heinous crimes of the Templars. Moreover, he succeeded in having the confessions of the accused confirmed in presence of the pope by seventy-two Templars, who had been specially chosen and coached beforehand. In view of this investigation at Poitiers (June, 1308), the pope, until then sceptical, at last became concerned and opened a new commission, the procedure of which he himself directed. He reserved the cause of the order to the papal commission, leaving individuals to be tried by the diocesan commissions to whom he restored their powers.

Second phase: the papal commission

The second phase of the process was the papal inquiry, which was not restricted to France, but extended to all the Christian countries of Europe, and even to the Orient. In most of the other countries — Portugal, Spain, Germany, Cyprus — the Templars were found innocent; in Italy, except for a few districts, the decision was the same. But in France the episcopal inquisitions, resuming their activities, took the facts as established at the trial, and confined themselves to reconciling the repentant guilty members, imposing various canonical penances extending even to perpetual imprisonment. Only those who persisted in heresy were to be turned over to the secular arm, but, by a rigid interpretation of this provision, those who had withdrawn their former confessions were considered relapsed heretics; thus fifty-four Templars who had recanted after having confessed were condemned as relapsed and publicly burned on 12 May, 1310. Subsequently all the other Templars, who had been examined at the trial, with very few exceptions declared themselves guilty.

At the same time the papal commission, appointed to examine the cause of the order, had entered upon its duties and gathered together the documents which were to be submitted to the pope, and to the general council called to decide as to the final fate of the order. The culpability of single persons, which was looked upon as established, did not involve the guilt of the order. Although the defense of the order was poorly conducted, it could not be proved that the order as a body professed any heretical doctrine, or that a secret rule, distinct from the official rule, was practised. Consequently, at the General Council of Vienne in Dauphiné on 16 October, 1311, the majority were favourable to the maintenance of the order.

The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree (Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, the pope himself was to decide as to the fate of its members and the disposal of its possessions. As to the property, it was turned over to the rival Order of Hospitallers to be applied to its original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. In Portugal, however, and in Aragon the possessions were vested in two new orders, the Order of Christ in Portugal and the Order of Montesa in Aragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless were allowed either to join another military order or to return to the secular state. In the latter case, a pension for life, charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before their bishops were to be treated "according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy".

The pope reserved to his own judgment the cause of the grand master and his three first dignitaries. They had confessed their guilt; it remained to reconcile them with the Church, after they had testified to their repentance with the customary solemnity. To give this solemnity more publicity, a platform was erected in front of the Notre-Dame for the reading of the sentence. But at the supreme moment the grand master recovered his courage and proclaimed the innocence of the Templars and the falsity of his own alleged confessions. To atone for this deplorable moment of weakness, he declared himself ready to sacrifice his life. He knew the fate that awaited him. Immediately after this unexpected coup-de-théâtre he was arrested as a relapsed heretic with another dignitary who chose to share his fate, and by order of Philip they were burned at the stake before the gates of the palace. This brave death deeply impressed the people, and, as it happened that the pope and the king died shortly afterwards, the legend spread that the grand master in the midst of the flames had summoned them both to appear in the course of the year before the tribunal of God.

Such was the tragic end of the Templars. If we consider that the Order of Hospitallers finally inherited, although not without difficulties, the property of the Templars and received many of its members, we may say that the result of the trial was practically equivalent to the long-proposed amalgamation of the two rival orders. For the Knights (first of Rhodes, afterwards of Malta) took up and carried on elsewhere the work of the Knights of the Temple.

This formidable trial, the greatest ever brought to light whether we consider the large number of accused, the difficulty of discovering the truth from a mass of suspicious and contradictory evidence, or the many jurisdictions in activity simultaneously in all parts of Christendom from Great Britain to Cyprus, is not yet ended. It is still passionately discussed by historians who have divided into two camps, for and against the order.
Catholic Encyclopedae

Today of course the Knights Templars have been intermingled in legend and myth as a part of Free Masonry*, indeed their male youth group is De Molay the last grandmaster of the order. In books they are seen as self rightious vigilaties such as those in Ivanhoe, or as blood drunk warmongers in the film "The Kingdom of Heaven".** The History Channel offers one the opportunity to view every myth and sensational tidbit available.

* More than enough reasonto stay out of it. It is expressly forbidden by Canon Law of the Catholic Church to be a Mason or to join a secret society.
** I have been to the Holy land and Jerusalem is not a Foriegn Legion outpost in the desert

St. Edward the Confessor

Yesterday I posted an article on another Edward who was King of England who had Norman roots, today I post on the last Anglo-Saxon King of England, Edward the Confessor... What a difference 500 years make...

...Edward, the last king of the Anglo-Saxons, a grandson of the martyr-king Edward, passed his youth in exile with his uncle, a Norman leader. In an environment of sin he preserved innocence of life. Called to the throne of England in 1042, he sought to put into practice the Christian ideals for a ruler, with the help of God's grace. His first efforts were directed toward a renewal of religion in the hearts of his people. Priests were invited into his kingdom, churches were built. Yielding to pressure, he married, but is said to have retained virginity during his whole married life... more,

Saint Edward Pray for us.


It's a Boy!

...Edward, the Duke of Cornwall, Henry VIII's longed-for son and heir, was born on October 12, 1537 at Greenwich. His mother, Jane Seymour would unfortunately not survive the childbed. When Henry VIII died in 1547, Edward VI was only nine years old and he did not live to reach his majority. He was crowned on February 20, 1547 and died on July 6, 1553. His father left provisions for a council of noblemen as regents, but two men dominated his reign: Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset (1547-49) and John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland (1550-1553)... more...


What about women's ordination?

Reverend Know-it-all explains why women should not be ordained into the Catholic Church.

"...Men are powerful and to be powerful, to be equal, is to do what men do. In the feminist debacle of the second half of the 20th century men have learned none of the virtues of women, but women have learned all the vices of men. Women now die at the same rate as men of heart attacks, lung cancer and the ills of modern society. They populate the offices and the factories and run the rat race just like men while our children are raised by poorly paid strangers. Women are masculinized and men are feminized and children are quite confused and poorly educated..." More.



The Five Virtues of Chivalry


The truth about Christopher Columbus

Christopher Columbus

We have all heard this rant, this hate for things European. Today is Columbus Day a forgotten holiday, in honor of the "discoverer of the new world". While others ranging from Irish monks, to Chinese explorers, to Vikings all claim or have the claims made for them that they were first, it is Columbus who did what none of the others had done. Columbus' discovery opened the door to settlement of the new world, and opened new resources to Europeans.

The Vikings died off, the Irish monks did not stop to settle and the Chinese ended (by the Chinese Emperors decree) the vast treasure fleet which was destroyed.

By Tommy De Seno

Published October 11, 2010 | FoxNews.com

I’m sure it’s happened to you, as it did to me, again, last night: Some starry-eyed collegian told me that Christopher Columbus shouldn’t be celebrated because of his treatment of native Americans. Oh, and surprise, surprise, she was armed with nothing more than her university professor’s insistence.

If Mark Twain was right that a lie can travel halfway around the world before truth has a chance to put on its shoes, imagine the damage a lie can do over 500 years.

Let me introduce you to Francisco de Bobadilla – liar and Columbus usurper. The criticism of Columbus today comes from de Bobadilla. Who was he? The man who wanted Columbus’s job as governor of Hispaniola.

In 1500 the King and Queen sent him to North America to investigate claims that Columbus wasn’t being fair to the European settlers (which means Columbus was protecting the Indians). So de Bobedilla came here, and in just a few short days did his investigation (with no telephones or motorized vehicles to help him), and promptly arrested Columbus and his brothers for Indian mistreatment and sent them back to Spain, sans a trial. Oh and, he also appointed himself governor. Coup de coeur for power lead to coup d’ etat, as usual.

The King and Queen out these shenanigans and sent for be Bobadilla two years later, but he drowned on the trip home. Columbus was reinstated as admiral.

But what we know of Columbian malfeasance comes from a defrocked liar, de Bobadilla.

Nor was Columbus involved in the slave trade, as critics like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have asserted. One of his boats crashed in Haiti. He had no room for 39 men, so he started a colony there.

Columbus came back a year later to find that the Taino Indians killed all of them and left them where they fell. Columbus went to war with the Tainos and took 500 of them as prisoners of war, not slaves. They were released after the war.

Big difference, of course.

It is also wrong to blame Columbus for bringing genocidal microbes to kill native Americans. His detractors make fun of him for thinking he was in the East. So was his evil plan then to bring disease to wipe out the East?

Europeans didn’t know anything about germs until Italian physicist Girolamo Fracastoro proposed the theory 40 years after Columbus died.

Also, had an Indian built a boat and traveled to Europe and back, he would have contaminated the Indians too. Transcontinental contamination was going to happen at some point, making the first carriers irrelevant.

Brown University recently changed the name of the Columbus Day holiday to “Fall Weekend” due to the Columbus slave allegations. Hypocrisy alert: Brown University was partly founded with slave trade money, according to the university's own reports. But they didn’t vote to change the name of their college!


Happy Columbus Day!

Tommy De Seno is a writer and an attorney. Read more from Tommy De Seno at JustifiedRight.com.


Cross posted to Of Jacobins and Girondins my other blog.

Matthew Palardy has made an interesting point, that Columbus retyurned to Spain with diseases. See here.

In Memory, Joan Sutherland - Spargi d'amaro Pianto - 1959 Studio

Rest In Peace


Catherine Delors has posted this...

Montjoie! St Denis

...In the early 7th century, Dagobert, last Merovingian king of the Franks, had built an abbey at the place of Denis's burial. In 1137 Abbot Suger ordered the basilica rebuilt, and this was the first architectural work in a style bound up in our popular imagination of the Age of Faith, which we now call Gothic. The abbey's sacred banner, the oriflamme, became the battle standard of the king of France, and the name of St. Denis was used in France's war-cry, "Montjoie Saint Denis!" (Montjoie is thought to be a derivation of mons Jovis, the Latin term for signposts or milestones, the idea being that St. Denis would guide the way of the king to victory.)...more...


Tours 732

...A victorious line of march had been prolonged above a thousand miles from the rock of Gibraltar to the banks of the Loire; the repetition of an equal space would have carried the Saracens to the confines of Poland and the Highlands of Scotland; the Rhine is not more impassable than the Nile or Euphrates, and the Arabian fleet might have sailed without a naval combat into the mouth of the Thames. Perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet...--Gibbon

...Recent scholars have suggested Poitiers, so poorly recorded in contemporary sources, was a mere raid and thus a construct of western mythmaking or that a Muslim victory might have been preferable to continued frankish dominance. What is clear is that Poitiers marked a general continuance of the successful defense of Europe, (from the Muslims). Flush from the victory at Tours, Charles Martel went on to clear southern France from Islamic attackers for decades, unify the warring kingdoms into the foundations of the Carolingian Empire, and ensure ready and reliable troops from local estates...--Victor Davis Hanson

Vive le Roi!