Ticking Fabric and How to Use It

  

From House and Garden:

Ticking, that satisfyingly sturdy striped fabric, has a practicality and versatility that is arguably unmatched. Not only is it suitable for upholstery as well as curtains (and even clothes), but it can be chic against toiles, pretty with florals, can add interest to monochrome, blend harmoniously with other stripes, or bring balance and grounding to maximalism. Plus, it’s equally at home in a townhouse, cottage, castle or even industrial-style warehouse, where it softens the rawness of exposed brick. And it comes in a range of prices, starting at very affordable, and rising.It is the late American design legend Sister Parish who is credited with having made ticking mainstream; she used it in her own house for curtains. (Famously, Parish was Jacqueline Kennedy’s interior designer; she and Jackie spent the entire $50,000 White House redecoration budget in two weeks, on the personal quarters. Bearing in mind inflation, it makes the recent Soane-ing of Downing Street look positively parsimonious.) Before Parish, ticking was a utility fabric, used for encasing pillows and mattresses in the centuries before open coil, pocket sprung and memory foam became watchwords for comfort, when typical mattress content included straw and twigs as well as wool, horsehair and feathers (all the potential for a rather prickly bedbase!) The word ‘ticking’ derives from the Latin word tica and the Greek word theka, both meaning covering. (Read more.)

Share

SCOTUS ends Nationwide Injunctions?

 From The Reactionary:

For background, nationwide injunctions – “a universal remedy whereby a court enjoins a party with respect to all persons and entities, not just parties to the litigation” – have gone from a historically non-existent remedy to one which has dramatically increased in popularity over the last 25 years. The current Trump Administration has, in particular, been a victim of that judicial overreach. Seventeen nationwide injunctions were issued against the Trump Administration in the first 60 days. Trump’s first term saw 64 nationwide injunctions. To provide context, Bush, Obama, and Biden totaled 32.

Nationwide injunctions have been roundly condemned by members of the Supreme Court, and the critics are from the left and the right, from Justice Kagan to Justices Gorsuch and Thomas. But under the guidance of Chief Justice Roberts the Court failed to act. According to Justice Gorsuch, this encouraged venue gamesmanship and sowed chaos, forcing “judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”1

The majority opinion came from Justice Barrett, who has experienced her own recent criticisms from the Right. Today gave her a temporary reprieve. Important to the Court’s analysis was the lack of similar historic remedies and how nationwide injunctions are contrary to concepts of equity and judicial power. As Justice Barrett observed, “the universal injunction was conspicuously nonexistent for most of our Nation’s history” and “were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20^th century.” In effect, relief will not be awarded to nonparties. (Read more.)

Share

The Great Tolkien

 From The Imaginative Conservative:

My encounter with this writer of genuine significance was unexpected. I was in the United States for the first time—my new homeland—pursuing doctoral studies in California, and I was rather perplexed: the world, the people, the customs—everything was still new and unfamiliar. I was irritated by the attitude of my fellow graduate students, whose ideological and political views and behaviors seemed wrong to me. Yet one of their favorite authors, someone they all seemed to warmly admire and know quite well, was John Ronald Reuel Tolkien. I read his trilogy, enjoyed it, and found in it a strong connection to my own reading traditions and personal tastes.

I wanted to learn more about him and became even more puzzled: here was a Catholic professor in Protestant England, originally from South Africa, and a well-recognized expert in “exotic” fields—Old English language and pre-medieval literature, as well as pre-Christian Scandinavian and Irish cultures, among others. It took several years before I understood him as part of a literary movement with a clear structure, one that included highly esteemed intellectuals such as Clive Staples Lewis (a prominent literary critic and historian, prose and poetry writer, and Christian apologist), Dorothy Sayers (creator of captivating detective novels, but also a highly competent translator of Dante and author of a radio play about the life of Jesus), Charles Williams (a complex novelist with an expressionist style and a literary critic with religious undertones), and others still.

But the most difficult question remained: why were these left-leaning young people so passionate about a “dusty,” deeply traditional author like Tolkien, with his dragons, knights, and wizards? After some time, I began to understand what his admirers saw in Tolkien, and from that moment on, I began to understand the author himself much better. These young radicals and progressives, as they were, still had a thirst for spirituality and imagination. They were searching for alternative roots—different from the utilitarian and contractual world in which they had grown up. They sensed these roots, even vaguely or confusedly, in Tolkien’s writings. It was, in fact, a compensation for the romanticism they lacked.

Very well—but in that case, Tolkien was deeper and more complex than I had initially thought. Beneath the colorful surface, there were layers that only gradually reveal themselves to a thoughtful reader. First, there is the mythological layer: a reinvention of mythology, we might say, because this scholarly author didn’t merely reuse the legends of the distant North—he rewrote them in a spectacular and often extremely intricate way. Then comes the allegorical level, which carried significant political implications. Tolkien’s thinking descends from the “distributist” movement that flourished in England between 1910 and 1930, theorized especially by Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc. This brief political movement opposed both socialism (meaning state and central control over the economy and politics) and large-scale capitalism (which implied vast differences in class, wealth, power, and influence). (Read more.)

Share

Cult of the Supreme Being

 Many Catholics, particularly priests, monks and nuns, were murdered by the revolutionary government for refusing to renounce the papal sovereignty. From World History:

The Cult of the Supreme Being was a deistic cult established by Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Its purpose was to replace Roman Catholicism as the state religion of France and to undermine the atheistic Cult of Reason which had recently gained popularity. It represented the peak of Robespierre's power and went unsupported after his downfall.

In establishing the Cult of the Supreme Being, Robespierre intended to shepherd the French Republic toward a state of absolute virtue, or moral excellence. He meant to use the idea of an abstract godhead, or Supreme Being, to educate the French people on the relationship between virtue and republican government, thereby creating a perfectly just society. According to the decree of 18 Floréal (7 May), the cult acknowledged the existence of a Supreme Being as well as the immortality of the human soul. Worship of the Supreme Being was to be done through acts of civic duty.

On 8 June 1794, a Festival of the Supreme Being was held on the Champ de Mars. Robespierre, who was then at the apex of his dictatorial powers, took on a central role in the festivities, giving him the appearance of pontiff to the new religion. It is thought that distaste for the cult, and for Robespierre's central position in it, helped lead to his downfall a little over a month later. According to historian Mona Ozouf, the Festival represented a certain revolutionary stiffness that foreshadowed the "sclerosis of the Revolution" (Ozouf, 24).

The French Revolution had been at odds with the Catholic Church since its beginning. A fundamental pillar of the oppressive Ancien Régime, the institution of the Church seemed to stand for corruption, superstition, and backwardness, all contrary to revolutionary values. In November 1789, Church lands were seized and nationalized to bolster France's withering economy, while the Civil Constitution of the Clergy forced all practicing clergymen to swear oaths to the new constitution and pledge that their loyalty to the French state would supersede their loyalty to the Pope in Rome.  

Yet in this early phase of the Revolution, it was the institution of the church that was under attack rather than Christianity itself. Many citizens would still consider themselves Catholic, and many even sought to reconcile the Gallican Church with the Revolution; most early revolutionary festivals included sermons from constitutional priests, who made sure to draw parallels between revolutionary values and the Gospels and to refer to Jesus Christ as the ideal sans-culotte. Infants would be baptized with a tri-color cockade pinned to their diapers, being simultaneously given over to both Christ and the fatherland. 

But before long, the differences between the Church and the Revolution became too vast to ignore. The Pope condemned the Revolution and excommunicated certain clergymen who had supported the new constitution. King Louis XVI of France (r. 1774-1792), after his failed flight to Varennes, made clear his disgust at the Revolution's treatment of the Church, further helping to associate it with corrupt aristocracy. In late 1791, the French Legislative Assembly declared that all clergymen who had not yet sworn oaths to the constitution were guilty of conspiracy and sentenced to deportation. The Assembly also legalized divorce and declared that all records of births, deaths, and marriages would henceforth be handled by secular officials only, removing an important function from the Church. (Read more.)

Share

Iran: Necessity and Opportunity

 From The Reactionary:

The cease-fire between Israel and Iran holds, for now. Both sides got their final shots – Iran with a few missiles and an Israeli retaliation against an Iranian radar system – but it holds. The “12 Day War” is potentially over. At least the first stage of it.

It’s tough to disagree with the success of the Israeli strikes, even if you are opposed to the strikes themselves. (Not that we’re opposed.) After years of planning and months of covert operations inside Iran, Israeli drones – launched from within Iran with the support of Israeli forces on the ground – struck surface-to-air missile launchers and Iranian air defenses, allowing Israeli aircraft to strike more than 100 military and infrastructure targets, including Iran’s “main nuclear [uranium enrichment] facility in Natanz,” damaging its underground structures, enrichment capabilities (allegedly), and overall infrastructure.

There is an interesting question of whether Iran’s imminent development of nuclear weapons served as the basis for the strikes. After the campaign commenced, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the actions in stating “Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time” – which he explained “could be a year. It could be within a few months.”

Now, that may be true. But given warnings and predictions about Iran’s nuclear trajectory over the years – they’ve been months away from nuclear weapons for years – it’s hard to assume that’s true. In 2012, Netanyahu warned that “Iran would reach the brink of being able to build a nuclear bomb in just six or seven months.” Others have made similar statements. The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (or ISIS, the group that picked what would become the most unfortunate acronym) issued a report in 2013 that Iran had “significantly shortened the time needed” to develop a nuclear bomb and could “enrich enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear bomb in about a month.” And those are just a couple examples of many. (Read more.)

Share

Hunting and the English Civil War

 From H-net Online:

This tantalizing study engages with the English Forest Laws, the distinct law code covering the royal forests and primarily designed to protect the king’s deer, in the twenty years before 1642. Why did these jurisdictions prompt so many riots as the nation divided between Royalists and Parliamentarians? Daniel C. Beaver has trawled through the files of the Forest Courts to present four case studies where he fills out the courts’ procedural records with depositions generated in suits before the Court of Star Chamber or participants’ family papers. This approach generates plenty of detail demonstrating the local impacts of forest law, a medieval institution that weighed hard on territory under its jurisdiction.

These studies engage with the prestige that surrounded hunting and venison, while disputes that simmered in the 1630s and exploded in 1642 highlight royal interference in a core strand in gentry culture. Investigating the questions of honor invoked in a succession of local quarrels offers a fresh perspective on local communities’ decisions to attack royal forests as King Charles I’s Personal Rule crumbled into civil war. Some of the book’s most tantalizing references sample later royalist critiques of postwar societies that demeaned the honor of hunting. Newmarket Heath, a pamphlet play from 1649, jeered at the misadventures of some London merchants on a hunting trip who mangled the archaic jargon of the hunt before getting their come-uppances, with an alderman breaking his neck and the Lord Mayor hanged in a tree. In this royalist fantasy, the humor centers on the snob appeal of deer hunts whose rituals provided shibboleths for gentry and aristocratic culture. A further pamphlet from the 1660s, “The Court and Kitchen of Elizabeth, Commonly Called Joan Cromwell,” grumbled that the civil wars had cheapened the aristocratic monopoly of venison, as a prestigious dish became just another meat.

It is clear that the king’s deer were difficult neighbors. This had been so through the Middle Ages. In the 1630s, the royal forests continued to protect deer for the king’s “princely recreation and delight of hunting and chasing,” which imposed additional constraints on farming such areas (p. 62). Livestock that grazed in the woods were to be removed for the “fence month” or “forbidden month” of the fifteen days on either side of Midsummer’s Day to leave the deer undisturbed after their fawns were born (p. 70). Under forest jurisdiction, gathering firewood, felling timber, keeping dogs whose front toes had not been amputated, or erecting fences that blocked wandering herds of deer were all offences. Clashes were inevitable, even without factoring in poaching, itself feeding a wider appetite for venison--and here a book on the forests that does not index “Robin Hood” only addresses some of the cultural resonances of hunting in English culture. Beaver highlights local consequences of the revived enforcement of the Forest Laws during the 1630s. Showing that as King Charles limited new peerages or knighthoods, alternative strategies for social display became sought after, with aspiring aristocrats and gentry securing grants making their estates deer parks, which delivered prestige but imposed new regulations onto their neighbors. Novel applications of ancient privileges provoked squabbles and skirmishes. (Read more.)

Share

An Irresistible Canvas

 

 From House and Garden:

Inspired by artists who also used their homes as a stage for their work like David Parr, Peggy Angus and Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant’s work at Charleston, her approach is at once scholarly and playful. ‘I enjoy living in a house that is my own creation and is not constrained by any particular style or fashion.’

In the entrance a tricky L-shaped biomorphic frieze cascades overhead, each detail radiant with 24-carat gold leaf. On the sitting room wall hangs a hand-drawn geometric design from a collection Natasha produced while studying at the Prince’s School. One of the pieces, was selected by Prince Charles for the ‘Prince and Patron’ exhibition that marked his 70th birthday. A border painted by Natasha, reminiscent of the Art Nouveau period, wraps the room. (Read more.)

 

 

Share

Chaos Creeps in on Little Cat's Feet

 From James Howard Kunstler:

The Democratic Party put another bullet in its head this week with the election of the charming, affable jihadi communist Zohran Mamdani. Is “communist” too harsh a label? (He styles himself, softly, a “socialist.”) Yet his campaign platform looks like a template from the venerable Soviet Council of Ministers circa 1957: Free Everything: housing, buses and subways, college, child-care, government food stores. . . with a cherry-on-top of replacing police with social workers in high crime areas — because rapists and car-jackers would quit their rowdy ways if only they could talk about their feelings.

If you believe the news reports emanating from Woke Central, Zohran received major support from the folks who predominate the Upper West Side, where he was raised-up by his Columbia prof Dad and film-maker Mom. That is, voted in by the same high-income demographic that flocks to Zabar’s Deli on Sunday mornings for smoked sturgeon and babka — a curious alliance. I guess this solves the old riddle of why Europe’s Jews walked so placidly into Auschwitz.

“Life imitates art,” old Oscar Wilde liked to say, and with so many self-administered bullets in its head now, the Democratic Party looks more and more like The Walking Dead, a necromantic tribute to its erstwhile mascot, “Joe Biden,” the Phantom of the White House. Fortunately, the Latinx bombshell, AOC, America’s answer to Eva Peron, has stepped up to the leadership role, flanked by the foxy Jasmine Crockett, with their mentor, Bernie Sanders close at hand (on a leash, really) barking validation for the Party’s death trip. (Read more.)

Share

Ireland’s Oldest Book Shrine

 From ArtNet News:

In 1986, divers fished a series of ancient fragments out of a lake in a Longford County village in Ireland. The pieces were well-preserved, thanks to sediments in the lake—but they were no humble find. When researchers eventually fitted the wood, metal, and decorative components together, what emerged was nothing less than Ireland’s largest and oldest book shrine.

 Nearly four decades after its discovery, the Lough Kinale Book Shrine, so named for its find site, is now on view at the National Museum of Ireland (NMI), where it was conserved.

And it’s quite a sight: the 9th-century book shrine, an elaborate container for a manuscript associated with a saint, is an oak box overlaid with bronze plates, measuring more than 13 by 11 inches, with a thickness of almost five inches. On its face is florid metalwork with four circular medallions and a large cross, encircled by ornately embellished openwork panels. Its hinges are in the shape of snake heads, built to hold a thick leather strap for transportation of the book shrine to ecclesiastical ceremonies.

Otherwise, Paul Mullarkey, a conservator at the museum, told the Irish Times: “The box was permanently sealed, with no direct access to the contents.” (Read more.)

Share

The Sacred Heart, Our Lady, and General de Sonis

The following is the little known story of a great battle was fought over the fate of France. General de Sonis was a devout Catholic husband and the father of a large family, as well as being a lay Carmelite. To quote:

Back on the battlefield, a strange thing happened. The Virgin Mary appeared to the wounded General Sonis, assuring him that all was not lost and that France would survive. A scattering of soldiers milled around the former battle; only the Zouaves and a very few other units retained their order and discipline. The remnant of the 17^th Corps retreated to Poitiers. When the surviving Zouaves reached this refuge, they were welcomed deliriously by the townspeople. Deeply saddened by the plight of his former paladins, Pius IX sent a message to them: “Tell Charette and his heroic sons as speedily as possible that my wishes, prayers, and remembrances constantly follow them wherever they go; that as they were, and still are, present with me, I am also with them in heart and soul, ever entreating the God of all mercy to protect and save both them and their unhappy country, and to bless them as fully and as specially as I do this day, in His name and with the warmest effusion of my heart.” (Read entire post.)

Share

Can the Senate Be Saved from Its Democrat Parliamentarian?

 From Amuse on X:

Let us begin with a matter of fact, not speculation. The Parliamentarian's rulings are advisory. They are not law. The idea that she is the final arbiter of what may or may not appear in a reconciliation bill is a legal fiction, propped up by political timidity and institutional inertia. There is precedent, and not ancient, musty precedent, but recent, muscular precedent, for the Vice President to exercise the authority that the Constitution vests in him. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller overruled the Parliamentarian in a matter involving the filibuster. In 1969, Hubert Humphrey attempted the same. The office of the Vice President, when acting as President of the Senate, is not a rubber stamp.

Consider the bill in question. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the House in May by the narrowest of margins, is not merely another legislative vehicle for routine policy tinkering. It is the centerpiece of Trump’s second-term agenda, and its key provisions are deeply rooted in the fiscal and moral expectations of the American electorate. The bill eliminates funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a bureaucratic stronghold created by Dodd-Frank, long insulated from congressional accountability. It restricts Medicaid and CHIP funds from being used for what is euphemistically called "gender-affirming care" for minors, and it bars the disbursement of public health funds to those unlawfully present in the country. Each of these provisions carries both moral clarity and budgetary consequence. Yet MacDonough has ruled them impermissible under the Byrd Rule.

Here we must pause and ask, what precisely is the Byrd Rule? Enacted in 1985 and named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule prohibits the inclusion of "extraneous" material in reconciliation bills. What counts as extraneous? Anything that does not primarily affect federal revenues or outlays. The Parliamentarian’s job is to interpret this language. But interpreting is not the same as ruling. And even if it were, the text of the rule allows far more discretion than MacDonough appears willing to concede. (Read more.)

Share

Why Camelot May Have Been a Real Place

 From The Collector:

Therefore, the fact that Camelot was first mentioned in the 12th century does not mean that it was not based directly on a real location. Chretien may well have been thinking of a real place, but given it a fictional name. Similarly, Jane Austen gave the fictional name “Sanditon” to her version of the perfectly real town of Bognor Regis.

While this is all well and good in theory, is there any evidence that the medieval romance writers were actually describing a specific, real location when they referred to Camelot? As it happens, we find such evidence in the preface of Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur, written in the 15th century. This preface was written by William Caxton, the publisher. He refers to the fact that the grand stone walls of Camelot were still visible in Wales and were regularly visited by many people.

This does not necessarily tell us anything about any potential historical connection between Arthur and Camelot. It does, however, tell us that William Caxton evidently had a specific place in mind when he referred to Camelot. The Camelot that Caxton mentioned was, therefore, by definition, a real place. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that all the other writers who mentioned Camelot were thinking of the same location. What do Thomas Malory’s own words indicate regarding this? (Read more.)

Share

The Widow Capet

Above is a posthumous portrait depicting Marie-Antoinette in the Temple prison after the murder of her husband. A bit idealized (I doubt that she had a bust of Louis XVI at hand) it is nevertheless based upon a Vigee-Lebrun portrait. The queen did have her missal with her, because it is recorded that the Revolutionaries later took it away when she was sent to the Conciergerie. Antonia Fraser mentions in Marie-Antoinette: The Journey that the queen would ask her sister-in-law Madame Elisabeth to read the words of the Mass to her from the missal. (In the Temple prison they were forbidden to receive the sacraments.)

Here are the statements of Louis XVI concerning his wife from his Last Will and Testament:

I commend my children to my wife; I have never doubted her maternal tenderness for them. I enjoin her above all to make them good Christians and honest individuals; to make them view the grandeurs of this world (if they are condemned to experience them) as very dangerous and transient goods, and turn their attention towards the one solid and enduring glory, eternity. I beseech my sister to kindly continue her tenderness for my children and to take the place of a mother, should they have the misfortune of losing theirs.

I beg my wife to forgive all the pain which she suffered for me, and the sorrows which I may have caused her in the course of our union; and she may feel sure that I hold nothing against her, if she has anything with which to reproach herself.

Share

How Trump Surprised Hawks and Doves

 From Daniel McCarthy at Compact:

Trump bombed Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday evening, and by Monday evening was announcing a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. He ended the war almost as soon as he got America into it, a feat that confounds hawks and doves alike. The former wish the war had been longer, the outcome more certain, and the conclusion the end of the ayatollahs’ regime. The latter wish Trump had never allowed the war to happen—assuming he had the power to stop it—or that he’d kept America out of it. Now the raging debate online is over who won the policy battle. Is a two-day war (for us) consisting of one bombing sortie actually a war? It defies the grandiose claims of both interventionists and non-interventionists, who were more alike than not in assuming that regime change was in the offing and the stakes were much the same as those on the table in the 2003 debate over the Iraq War.

“We can’t just bomb Fordow and go home,” was the sentiment of more than one antiwar friend. Any ideology, hawkish or dovish, subsists on extreme scenarios. The idea that some policy either good or bad could be less than apocalyptic, or utopian, is hard to accept. But Trump is not an ideologue, which means he neither feels ideological constraints (which would have kept him out of the war altogether) nor suffers ideological delusions (which would have told him more force achieves more good). 

Once again Trump proves to be ambidextrous, in defiance of conventional political logic. He’s the president who brought about the end of Roe v. Wade and the Republican leader who has moved the party away from pro-life orthodoxy. He loves a grand, seemingly impossible bargain. But can he really reconfigure international relations the way he’s redrawn the boundaries of domestic politics? A realignment in party ideologies and voting blocs is one thing; realigning the Israeli-Iran relations is entirely another. The ceasefire is fragile at best. No matter how successful the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran may have been in destroying existing nuclear facilities, Iran can always rebuild what it has built before. Will that mean more Israeli attacks, coupled with further American intervention? If Trump is not careful, the scenario that may emerge over the coming weeks will not look like 2003, but rather like the situation that persisted for more than a decade and led up to the Iraq War. 

In 1991, George H.W. Bush also won a swift victory, ejecting Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. But then what? The “Marsh Arabs” whom Bush encouraged to rebel against Saddam were massacred. Bush and his successor, Bill Clinton, enforced no-fly zones over parts of Iraq, a form of low-intensity war with no obvious end, other than the one George W. Bush decided upon in 2003. The second Bush’s regime-change war was a dozen years in the making. All the while, America’s foreign-policy establishment was becoming accustomed to thinking of this as a proper and normal exercise of “leadership” and global responsibility. The mental habits acquired by America’s elite in the 1990s—in foreign policy, in cultural politics, and in economics—account for most of the political crises of the early 21st century, as well as for the rise of right-wing populism and Donald Trump in response to them. (Read more.)

Share

Inca String Codes

 From The Conversation:

Five centuries ago, the Incas ruled the western half of South America with the help of a unique form of writing based on coloured and knotted cords. These strings, called khipus, recorded major events, tracked economic matters, and even encoded biographies and poetry, according to the Spanish chroniclers who witnessed their use.

Most khipus have knots that indicate numbers that we can “read”, but we’ve lost the ability to interpret what those numbers mean. Recent discoveries are bringing us closer to deciphering these mysterious strings. In a remote community set high in the Peruvian Andes, my team and I have found khipus that were used by villagers to track climate change.

Last year, I was invited to study the centuries-old khipus preserved in the village of Santa Leonor de Jucul in the Peruvian Andes. The 97 khipus conserved by villagers include the largest khipu in the world, which is over 68 metres long. (Read more.)

Share

Marie-Antoinette's Love for Louis XVI

With all the fervid speculations over Marie-Antoinette's relationship with Count Fersen, people forget that she saw herself first and foremost as the wife of Louis XVI, and mother of his children, the Enfants de France. There were many times she was witnessed expressing wifely affection and concern for him. Furthermore, Marie-Antoinette could have escaped without Louis and saved her life, but she refused to desert him. She sacrificed herself to remain with him, and that looks like love to me.

After the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, Louis XVI went to Paris to reconcile with his subjects. Marie-Antoinette dreaded that he would be killed. When he returned safely, a contemporary writer, Lemaire, described her reaction:

This princess, as virtuous as she was amiable, whom monsters later on accused of having never loved her husband, was absolutely in despair. As soon as she heard the King's carriage entering the Cour Royale she ran towards him holding the Dauphin in her arms, then breathless and almost fainting she fell into those of the King who was no less moved than she was. Holding out one hand to his children who covered it with kisses, with the other wiping the tears from the eyes of Marie-Antoinette and Madame Elisabeth, Louis XVI smiled again...he kept on repeating: "Happily no blood was shed, and I swear that not a drop of French blood will ever be shed on my orders."
~ Histoire de la Revolution Francaise (3 vol.) by M.H. Lemaire, 1816

Share

RFK Jr. Shocks Congress With Brutal Message to Top Democrat Rep

 From The Vigilant Fox:

Before you can fix a broken system, you have to acknowledge just how broken it really is.

That was the message from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as he opened his testimony before Congress with a sobering diagnosis of America’s healthcare crisis.

“The United States remains the SICKEST developed nation,” he said. “And yet we spend $4.5 trillion annually on healthcare, 2 to 3 times more per capita than comparable nations.”

Kennedy didn’t just point to waste; he warned that the entire system is becoming unsustainable. Healthcare costs are rising faster than the economy, while health outcomes keep sliding. Americans are paying more than ever, and getting sicker in return.

“If we don’t stanch this trend, we will ransom our children to bankruptcy, servitude, and disastrous health consequences.”

More money isn’t the answer, Kennedy argued. It’s about how we spend it. “We won’t solve this problem by throwing more money at it,” he added. “We must spend smarter.”

That means cutting the bureaucracy, fixing misaligned incentives, and making sure dollars actually go toward improving health, not just managing disease. (Read more.)

Share

The Lost Basilica of Saint John at Ephesus

 From Liturgical Arts Journal:

This basilica was constructed by the Emperor Justinian in the sixth century over what was said to be the site of tomb of the apostle John. It replaced another, even earlier church founded on this same site, a church that was already ancient and worn down by Justinian's time. This new church was constructed in a typical Eastern Roman, Byzantine style and, according to the Greek historian Procopius, it took its design inspiration from the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. The actual dates for its construction are A.D. 548-565 and the construction was overseen by the local bishop of Epheuus, Hypatius. 

This basilica was cruciform in shape and included typical features such as a long, columned nave; a sanctuary surrounded by a balustrade, a ciborium covering the altar and tomb of St. John, and a synthronon located behind. There was also an octagonal baptistery attached to the basilica, as well as a forecourt. 

The interior walls of the basilica were covered in polychrome marbles, as were the columns and there was a decorative stone pavement for the basilica's floor. Mosaic work ornamented the ceiling and at some point following the main construction of the church, iconographic paintings were also added, a few of which are still extant.  

In short, it sounds like both familiar and noble, and between the basilica's imperial patronage and its connection with the Apostle John, it would go on to become one of the most important Christian sites in the region -- though one which, sadly, history would not be as generous toward. (Read more.)

Share

Walking Inside Christian Eschatology

  

From Hilary White at The Sacred Images Project:

In last week’s post for all subscribers, we talked about the iconographic programmes; the carefully planned cycles of images in fresco or mosaic, that covered all the surfaces of the interiors of Byzantine and western early medieval churches. These cycles structured how sacred images were arranged to tell the story of salvation, that would have been understood by worshippers, transforming the space inside the church into an elevated, sanctified place where those realities were made present.

In many churches, all the way up to the late Gothic (or “proto-Renaissance”), a typical feature of these programmes was the back wall of the church - the opposite end of the nave from the sanctuary, or the west wall - being decorated with often shocking and arresting images of the Last Judgment. This was an innovation that came to Western Christendom during the 11th and 12th centuries.

 In today’s post for all subscribers, we’ll look closely at three examples of these commanding scenes, starting in the period when Italo-Byzantine was established throughout the Italian peninsula and was beginning to merge into the Romanesque style. We’ll look at Torcello’s Basilica of Santa Maria Assunta, a mid-11th century grand, multi-tier mosaic cycle and Sant’Angelo in Formis (Capua) early 12th c. where Romanesque style first appeared. We’ll briefly compare these antecedents to the great fresco of the Arena Chapel in Padua, where Giotto took the motif and translated it into his more naturalistic style. (Read more.)

Share

Concrete Proof

 From Tierney's Real News:

We now have concrete proof that Iran intended to build a nuclear weapon and wasn’t just dabbling in nuclear energy. I’ve been waiting to hear this for years. The former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, confirmed that Iran is not just enriching uranium for their civilian energy program - but for nuclear weapons.

Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, made a statement suggesting that the enrichment of nuclear material by Iran and the "future production of nuclear weapons will continue.” He further claimed that a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.

Medvedev is close to Putin and often speaks for him. You’ll read otherwise - but this is the truth.

Here is his total statement:

MEDVEDEV: What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?

1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.

2. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.

3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.

4. Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking.

5. The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon.

6. Iran’s political regime has survived — and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger.

7. The people are rallying around the country’s spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.

8. Donald Trump, once hailed as ‘president of peace,’ has now pushed the US into another war.

9. The vast majority of countries around the world oppose the actions of Israel and the United States.

10. At this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become. What a way to kick things off, Mr. President. Congratulations! (Read more.)

Share

Leo XIV Pays Tribute to Palestrina

 From Aleteia:

Composer Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (1525-1594) is “one of the musicians who contributed most to the promotion of sacred music.” These are the words of Leo XIV on June 18, 2025, during a ceremony organized on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of the birth of the former Vatican choir master.

The pontiff highlighted the importance of the Roman polyphonic tradition, which flourished particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries but which remains a “point of reference” to this day.

On Wednesday afternoon, Leo XIV took part in an event promoted by the Domenico Bartolucci Foundation, named after the cardinal who was head of the Sistine Chapel choir from 1956 to 1997.

Bartolucci played an important role in preserving the sacred music heritage of the Catholic Church after the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. He promoted not only Gregorian chant but also polyphony, particularly that of Palestrina, of whom he was a recognized expert. (Read more.)

Share

The Storming of the Tuileries, June 1792

Louis XVI dons the Bonnet Rouge

Madame Royale describes the storming of the Tuileries palace on June 20, 1792 and how her family escaped death:

On the 20th of June, about eleven o'clock in the morning, nearly all the inhabitants of the faubourgs Saint-Antoine and Saint-Marceau, where the populace chiefly lived, marched in a body to the National Assembly, to go from there to the garden and plant the liberty-tree. But as they were all armed, which gave reason to suspect bad intentions, my father ordered the gates of the Tuileries to be closed. The Assembly showed great dissatisfaction, and sent a deputation of four municipals to induce the king to order the gates to be opened. These deputies spoke very insolently; said they exacted the opening of the gates in order that those who had come to plant the tree, the sign of liberty, might return that way, inasmuch as the crowd in the rue Saint-Honoré was too great to allow them to pass. My father, however, persisted in his refusal, and they then went and opened themselves the gates of the garden, which was instantly inundated by the populace; the gates of the courtyards and the château still remained locked. 

An hour later this armed procession began to defile before our windows, and no idea can be formed of the insults they said to us. Among others, they carried a banner on which were these words: 

"Tremble, tyrant; the people have risen;" and they held it before the windows of my father who, though he was not visible himself, could see all and hear their cries of "Down with Veto!" and other horrors. This lasted until three o'clock, when the garden was at last freed. The crowd then passed through the Place du Carrousel to the courtyards of the Tuileries, but quietly, and it was generally thought they were returning to their faubourgs. 

During this time our family were in the rooms on the courtyard side, absolutely alone and observing all that went on; the gentlemen of the suite and the ladies dined on the other side. Suddenly we saw the populace forcing the gates of the courtyard and rushing to the staircase of the château. It was a horrible sight to see, and impossible to describe–that of these people, with fury in their faces, armed with pikes and sabres, and pell-mell with them women half unclothed, resembling Furies. 

Two of the ushers wishing to run the bolts of my father's door, he prevented it and sprang himself into the next room to meet the rioters. My aunt followed him hastily, and hardly had she passed when the door was locked. My mother and I ran after her in vain; we could not pass, and at that moment several persons came to us, and finally, the guard. My mother cried out: "Save my son!" Immediately some one took him in his arms and carried him off. My mother and I, being determined to follow my brother, did all we could against the persons who prevented us from passing; prayers, efforts, all were useless, and we had to remain in our room in mortal anxiety. My mother kept her courage, but it almost abandoned her when, at last, entering my brother's room she could not find him. The persons who, on her own order, had carried him away lost their heads, and in the confusion, took him up higher in the château, where they thought him in greater safety. My mother then sent for him and had him brought back to his room. There we awaited, in the silence of profound anxiety, for news of what had happened to my father. 

Returning to him, I must resume at the moment when he passed through the door which was then locked against us. As soon as he thought the danger passed the king dismissed his suite, so that no one was with him but my Aunt Élisabeth, [Maréchal de Mouchy (who in spite of his 77 years and my father's order persisted in remaining), two old ushers, the brave Acloque, commander of the division of the National Guard, an example of fidelity in the uniform of rebellion], ¹ and M. d'Hervilly, lieutenant-colonel of the new King's-Guard, who, seeing the danger, ran to call the Guard and collected about twenty grenadiers, but on reaching the staircase he found only six had followed; the others had abandoned him. My father was therefore almost alone when the door was forced in by one sapeur, axe in hand raised to strike him, but [here] by his coolness and imperturbable courage my father so awed the assassin that the weapon fell from his hand,–an event almost incomprehensible. It is said that some one cried out: "Unhappy man, what are you about to do?" and that those words petrified him; for my part I think that what restrained that wretch was Divine Providence and the ascendancy that virtue always maintains over crime. 

The blow having thus failed, the other accomplices, seeing that their leader had let himself be cowed, dared not execute their evil designs. Of all this mass of the populace, there were certainly very few who knew precisely what they were expected to do. To each had been given twenty sous and a musket; they were sent in drunk with orders to insult us in every imaginable way. Their leader, Santerre, had brought them as far as the courtyard, and there he awaited the success of his enterprise. He was desperate on learning that his stroke had missed, and he came near being killed himself by a man in the château, who aimed for him, and was prevented from shooting only by remonstrances as to the danger to which he exposed my father; for if Santerre were sacrificed the brigands would surely avenge him. 

My father was nevertheless obliged to allow all these wretches to go through the rooms of the château, and, standing himself in a window with my aunt, he watched them pass before him and heard the insults with which they overwhelmed him. It was on this horrible day that my father and my aunt each made a memorable speech. At the moment of the greatest danger a soldier came up to the king and said to him, "Sire, fear nothing." My father took his hand and laid it on his own heart. "Does it beat hard, grenadier?" he said. Shortly before, my Aunt Élisabeth, being mistaken for the queen, saw herself exposed to the utmost fury of the brigands; some one near was about to make her known. "Do not undeceive them," cried my aunt with sublime devotion. 

This dreadful situation lasted from half-past three in the afternoon till eight at night. Pétion, mayor of Paris, arrived, pretending to be much astonished on hearing of the danger the king had run. In haranguing the people he had the impudence to say: "Return to your homes with the same dignity with which you came." The Assembly, seeing that the stroke had missed, changed its tone, pretended to have been ignorant of everything, and sent deputation after deputation to the king expressing the grief it feigned to feel for his danger. 

Meantime my mother, who, as I said, could not rejoin the king, and was in her apartment with my brother and me, was a long time without hearing any news. At last, the minister of war came to tell her that my father was well; he urged her to leave the room where we then were, as it was not safe, and we therefore went into the king's little bed-chamber. We were scarcely there before the rioters entered the apartment we had just left. The room in which we now were had three doors: one by which we had entered, another opening upon a private staircase, a third communicating with the Council Chamber. They were all three locked, but the first two were attacked, one by the wretches who were pursuing us, the other by men who came up the little staircase, where we heard their shouts and the blows of their axes. 

In this close danger my mother was perfectly calm; she placed my brother behind every one and near the door of the Council Chamber, which was still safe, then she placed herself at the head of us all. Soon we heard some one at the door of the Council Chamber begging to enter. It was one of my brother's servants, pale as death, who said only these few words: "Madame, escape! the villains are following me." At the same instant, the other doors were forced in. In this crisis my mother hastily ordered the third door opened and passed into the Council Chamber, where there were, already, a number of the National Guard and a crowd of wretches. 

My mother said to the soldiers that she came to take refuge with her son among them. The soldiers instantly surrounded us; a large table standing in the middle of the Chamber, served my mother to lean upon, my brother was seated on it, and the brigands defiled past it to look at us. We were separated from my father by only two rooms, and yet it was impossible to join him, so great was the crowd. We were therefore obliged to stay there and listen to all the insults that these wretches said to us as they passed. A half clothed woman dared to come to the table with a bonnet rouge in her hand and my mother was forced to let her [Page 236] place it on her son's head; as for us, we were obliged to put cockades on our heads. It was, as I have said, about eight o'clock when this dreadful procession of rioters ceased to pass and we were able to rejoin my father and aunt. No one can imagine our feelings at that reunion; they were such that even the deputies from the Assembly were touched. My brother was overcome with fatigue and they put him to bed. We stayed together for a time, the room being full of deputies. An hour later they went away, and about eleven o'clock, after having passed a most terrible day, we separated to get some rest . . . . 

The next day Pétion came again to play the hypocrite, saying he had heard of more assemblings of the people and he had hastened to defend the king. My father ordered him to be silent; but as he still tried to protest his attachment, my father said: "Be silent, monsieur; I know your thoughts." (Read more.)

 

Marie-Antoinette, her children, and Madame de Tourzel face the mob

 

 

 

 

Louis XVI was mocked with the "Red Cap of Liberty" which was displayed at the Paris Olympics. From Daily Sabah:

In the aftermath of the French Revolution, Louis XVI, the last king of France, was depicted in many paintings with a "Bonnet Rouge" (Red Cap) on his head. However, what is the story of this red cap with its long apex bent over to the front, and why was it placed the head of the French constitutional monarch before he was executed?

[...]

In ancient Rome, freed slaves were dressed in a white cap called a pileus. Brutus, who betrayed Caesar, chose this cap, which symbolizes freedom, as an expression of Rome's return to the republic, and engraved it on the coin he minted. But this fez, which looks like the white cap worn by Albanians today, actually had nothing to do with the red Phrygian cap.

With the American Revolution, the pileus became an omen of revolutionaries, anarchists, and republicans. It resurfaced with the protests against the Stamp Act of 1765 when Britain imposed a direct stamped paper tax on the British colonies in America.

In particular, a figure of British parliamentarian John Wilkes – nicknamed the "Devil," and known for his support of the American rebels – with this cap became very popular among the rebels known as the "Sons of Liberty."

French anarchists, who inherited this symbol from the American Revolution, preferred the Phrygian cap instead of the pileus. Thus, this red hermetic cap became the symbol of the French revolutionaries and freedom from 1789 onwards. For example, in a sculpture made by French artist Joseph Chinard in 1794, representing the revolution and the republic, a Phrygian cap was placed on the head of a woman in Roman attire. (Read more.)

Share

Trump's Legal Strike on Iran: A Case Study in Presidential War Powers

 From Amuse on X:

A president sends bombers across an ocean. An adversary’s nuclear infrastructure lies in ruins by sunrise. The political response is predictable. Progressive lawmakers erupt with outrage, while establishment media outlets evoke doomsday analogies and quote scholars feigning constitutional clairvoyance. Yet the core question remains unmoved by headlines: Did President Trump have the legal authority to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities without prior congressional approval? Yes, he did. And if that sentence jars the reader’s sensibilities, one need only recall Barack Obama’s Libya intervention or Joe Biden’s Syria strikes, both executed without congressional authorization and with a fraction of the current outcry. To assert that Trump’s action was unique or impeachable is not only mistaken but deeply hypocritical. The United States has, for decades, operated under a presidency that claims robust authority to initiate limited military actions abroad, particularly when vital national interests are at stake. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, often brandished by critics, has become more of a procedural courtesy than a substantive check. Obama and Biden both used it to justify acts of war after the fact, with little or no prior consultation. No articles of impeachment followed. (Read more.)

 

From UnHerd:

Natanz, Iran’s primary uranium-enrichment facility, and the complex at Isfahan, where research for the nuclear weapons programme is conducted and weapons-grade fuel is stored, were struck with 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from naval vessels. Meanwhile, a B-2 bomber dropped two “bunker busters” on Natanz. Fordow, the critical Iranian enrichment facility, located deep under a mountain near Qom, was hit with a dozen bunker busters, according to US officials (initial reports said six). At the White House press conference following the strikes, Trump said all the sites had been “obliterated”. It will take some time to know if this is true.

When Israel began its military campaign in Iran 10 days ago, Natanz was one of the first targets, and it was confirmed that power had been cut to the facility and that the 15,000 centrifuges there had been “severely damaged if not destroyed altogether”. After last night’s US attack, it does not seem likely that much functionality remains at Natanz. Isfahan, as an above-ground site, had little hope of surviving a serious American attempt to destroy it, and the complex had already been seriously damaged by Israel. (Read more.)

Share

The Mysterious Frescoes of Castelseprio

 From Hilary White at The Sacred Images Project:

It might seem surprising that this fresco of Christ Pantocrator, discovered in the apse of a small obscure church in the north of Italy, is so unusual that it caused a major re-write of the art-history timeline.

It looks like any early Byzantine image that we’ve seen hundreds of times: serene, otherworldly, with the face symmetrical with classical proportions, modelled with lights and darks to give the impression of lifelike three-dimensionality. But at the same time, we can see it is stylistically different: the softness of the facial modelling, the natural fall of the hair, the subtly rendered shadow beneath the chin, the piercing gaze and human expression.

In fact, it immediately reminds me in its naturalism of the frescos discovered at Pompei and Herculaneum. It might not be surprising to find that it dates to the earliest paleo-Christian period, when Roman standards were still in use.

But that would be the wrong guess. (Read more.)

Share

The Flight to Montmédy

  On June 21, 1791, Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette, and their family were captured at Varennes after escaping from the Tuileries in Paris. The King begged the the grocer Sauce and his family not to hand them over to the authorities, saying:

I am your King; this is the Queen and the royal family. Surrounded in the capital by daggers and bayonets, I have come to the country, into the midst of my faithful subjects, to seek the peace and liberty you all enjoy. I could not stay in Paris; it would have been death to myself and my family. I have come to live among you my children, whom I will not forsake....Save my wife, save my children." (Webster, Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette during the Revolution, p.149)

His entreaties fell on deaf ears; the royal family were sent back to Paris where they all, except for young Madame Royale, met their deaths. It was Corpus Christi; the Royal Family passed the small home altars all along their route back to Paris and prison.

Some people find it interesting how a quatrain in the prophecies of Nostradamus appears to allude to the capture of the royal family at Varennes.

De nuict viendra par le forest de Reines,
Deux pars, vaultorte, Herne la pierre blanche,
Le moyne noir en gris dcdans Varennes:
Esleu Cap. cause tempeste, feu, sang, tranche.

By night shall come through the forest of Reines
Two parts, face about, the Queen a white stone,
The black monk in gray within Varennes.
Chosen Cap. causes tempest, fire, blood, slice.

Whether the prophecy genuinely refers to the night of Varennes or not, it was indeed the night that spelled the end of the monarchy.

Vive la Reine on some common misconceptions. [Falsehoods are in bold type]

Louis XVI, Marie Antoinette and the royal family were fleeing to the town of Varennes

The intended destination of the royal family was actually the royalist fortress of Montmedy.

Louis XVI intended to flee France

Louis XVI firmly refused to leave the country and, according to biographers such as Fraser, Webster, Hardman and more, turned down several flight routes to Montmedy which would have been much faster and safer because they briefly took him across the French border.

The coach which carried the royal family was recognized because it bore their royal arms/was too extravagant

The coach, presumably ordered by Axel Fersen, was large but not unusually so and was in fact based upon previously drafted plans for a Parisian’ companies carriage. It was not decorated with the arms of the royal family and, on the outside, was nothing out of the ordinary. The coach featured a variety of traveling amenities often used by those who could afford them - including a larder, cooker, fold-up table and chamber pots - because it was necessary for the flight to eliminate the need for its passengers to stop or leave the carriage. (Read entire post.)

The Royal Family returns to Paris after being captured at Varennes

Share

Transcript of Trump’s speech on US strikes on Iran

 From the AP:

For 40 years, Iran has been saying. Death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.

I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done. And most importantly, I want to congratulate the great American patriots who flew those magnificent machines tonight, and all of the United States military on an operation the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades.

Hopefully, we will no longer need their services in this capacity. I hope that’s so. I also want to congratulate the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan ‘Razin’ Caine, spectacular general, and all of the brilliant military minds involved in this attack. (Read more.)

From Sharyl Attkisson:

• The U.S. has not formally declared war since World War II, yet it has engaged in countless military operations, and even war, without prior congressional approval.

• From Trump’s first-term hits on the Islamic extremist terrorist group ISIS that grew to power under Obama, to Biden’s retaliatory strikes in Syria, the U.S. has frequently relied on expansive interpretations of executive authority to justify unilateral action.

• Legal precedent supports President Trump’s position.

The U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities are igniting a firestorm of debate over presidential war powers, with critics arguing that President Trump’s decision to act without prior congressional approval violates the Constitution.

The strikes, targeting sites like Iran’s heavily fortified Fordo nuclear facility, follow a pattern of U.S. military actions abroad that sidestep Congress, a practice spanning decades.

But the high-stakes nature of bombing Iran—a regional powerhouse with the potential for devastating retaliation—has brought renewed scrutiny to this contentious issue.

Why do these strikes spark such outrage when unilateral action is so common? And what does history tell us about America’s approach to war powers?

Read on for details. (Read more.)

 

From Direct Line News:

To the brave and noble people of Iran—those with fire in their hearts and the memory of freedom in their bones—hear this message with clarity: The time is now.

For more than four decades, your nation has been chained by a theocracy that hijacked your revolution and replaced one tyrant with another—only this one cloaked himself in religious robes and pretended his brutality was divinely sanctioned. Since 1979, the radical mullahs have ruled your land with cruelty, paranoia, and isolation. They turned Persia—a cradle of civilization—into a regime synonymous with oppression, terrorism, and fear.

But Iran is more than its rulers. Iran is its people. And the people remember.

A Legacy Stolen

Once, your homeland was a beacon of science, poetry, medicine, and liberty. Long before Western Europe knew the concept of a republic, Persians had drafted declarations of human rights. While other empires were burning books, you were building libraries. While others glorified conquest, you built gardens and wrote love poems. The very word “Iranian” should stir pride, not fear.

Yet the ruling clerics—the Ayatollahs and their cronies—have done everything they can to bury that legacy. They tell you your only future is jihad. That women should be silent. That dissent is blasphemy. That your neighbor Israel must be destroyed. That America is the “Great Satan.”

But deep down, every honest man and woman in Iran knows the truth: this regime does not speak for you. It never has. (Read more.)

Share

The Great Feast: The Hapsburgs And Corpus Christi

 From The War for Christendom:

 In 1264, Pope Urban IV issued the Papal Bull Transiturus de Hoc Mundo, promulgating to the Latin Rite the Solemn Feast of the Body and Blood of Christ, to be celebrated on the first Thursday after Trinity Sunday. Around this same time, Rudolf the eighth Count of Hapsburg aided and protected a priest bringing the Viaticum to a dying farmer, giving the priest his horse and guiding him across a raging torrent, walking bareheaded. The priest then prophesied that the humble Count and his descendents would receive the Imperium of the Holy Roman Empire.

This veneration of the Holy Eucharist was continued by all the descendants of the Noble House, and the Feast of Corpus Christi in the Hapsburg realms became second only to the Solemn Feasts of Easter and Christmas. The Family indeed owed all to Rudolf’s great devotion to the Holy Eucharist, and the special Eucharist blessing bestowed on him, thus it was most fitting that the Feast of Christ’s Body should become the greatest feast of the Empire. So long as the Family remained devoted to the Cross and the Eucharist, God would bless and protect them (and He still does, even though they have been cast from the throne).

First in the great procession in the Imperial City of Vienna came three priests in splendid vestments like heralds to the city. Then came the Court officials in full Court dress, and the Court Clergy vested in gold and white vestments, followed by dignitaries of every rank. Before the gilded canopy marched the Archdukes of the House, carrying candles, and the acolytes carrying forward the Cross, the golden banners swaying in the wind, the swinging thuribles sending into the air clouds of incense, and the ever ringing bells. The great canopy itself was carried by four noble chamberlains in Imperial livery, upheld over the Hofburg Parish Priest who held up in benediction the golden Monstrance with radiating rays like the sun, in which resided the truly present Most Sacred Body of the Son of God, while the Emperor of Christendom walked behind bareheaded and flanked by the Imperial Guard, humbly worshiping his Divine King. (Read more.)

Share

Royal Ascot 2025

 

From Tatler:

The Duchess of Edinburgh has truly led the style stakes at Ascot this year. On 17 June, she arrived at the hallowed grounds in a delicate, petal-adorned lace gown from Marylebone-based label Suzannah London, which she teamed with a peach rose-adorned hat from Jane Taylor and a coordinating bag from the Archduchess of Austria’s eponymous accessories line, Sophie Habsburg. Sophie has turned to Suzannah London for classic, elegant outfits – think A-line dresses, clean lines and neat, belted jackets – on countless occasions, most notably Prince Philip’s funeral and King Charles’ Coronation. For a state banquet at Buckingham Palace, honouring the Emir of Qatar and his wife, the Duchess of Edinburgh worked with the atelier on a bespoke navy gown, which featured a wide boat neckline and sleek long sleeves. Suzannah Crabb, the brand's founder, described working with Sophie to The Telegraph as ‘an effortless and enjoyable collaborative process,’ making it no surprise that the Duchess often relies on her designs for Royal Ascot, one of the biggest fashion events in the English summer calendar. (Read more.)

 

More HERE. 

Share

Against Sorcery: A Guide

 One of the best explanations of Church teachings on various phenomena that I have ever read. Apparently there was a debate somewhere online. Puritanism, which sees the devil everywhere, is alive and well. Charles Coulombe posted the following. Brilliant. From El Antiguo:

Some readers may already feel discomfort, perhaps even alarm. But I believe this stems not from true disagreement, but confusion over terminology. The critics of what they describe as ‘occult’ sympathies (really just classical Neoplatonic Realism) within contemporary “trad” Catholicism are conflating distinct traditions and terms—Hermeticism, theurgy, natural magic, Gnosticism, symbolism, etc.—without academic, historical, or theological nuance. This only increases confusion. Worse, it leads to a kind of moral panic wherein any language of cosmic participation, hierarchy, correspondence, or symbolic efficacy is flattened into the word “magic,” and then condemned wholesale, regardless of how those words and concepts were employed by the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, or even Christ Himself in His teaching and signs. (Read more.)

 

Part II, HERE.

Part III, HERE.

Share

The Monmouth Rebellion Explained

 From Andrea Zuvich at Art UK:

The year 2025 marks the 340th anniversary of the Monmouth Rebellion of 1685, and is the subject of a moving exhibition at the Museum of Somerset, 'After Sedgemoor: Remembering the Monmouth Rebellion'. You can find out more about this exhibition on Bloomberg Connects. The rebellion, named after its enduringly romantic, yet flawed, leader, James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, is a tragic episode in the history of Stuart Britain.

 The road to the Battle of Sedgemoor was the culmination of decades of anti-Catholic rhetoric and fear of a Catholic succession. Few figures in history have had the appeal of James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. His life, with its intoxicating mixture of privilege, intrigue, rebellion, betrayal – and grisly bloodshed – makes for an unforgettable episode in British history. (Read more.)

Share