The Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism of the British Monarchy

 From Crisis:

After the arrival of St. Augustine of Canterbury in 597, England became a gem of Christendom, with many of her monarchs leading the way. King Alfred the Great fought against the pagan vikings to keep the island Christian, and King Edward the Confessor was a model of sanctity. Many English Monarchs enthusiastically supported the medieval crusades, fighting to stop the spread of Islam and regain the Holy Land for Christianity. Even King Henry VIII was a stout defender of the faith against the heresies of Martin Luther before his falling in with Anne Boleyn. 

It would be mistaken then, to simply dismiss the British Monarchy as an anti-Catholic institution that must be wholly rejected by Catholics today. Its history shows a deep connection to the defense and spread of Catholicism, in spite of the stains of the Reformation-era monarchs. I would argue then, that the British Monarchy is like a glorious and beautiful fruit tree, with roots extended deep into the ground. But next to that tree grew up a thick weed that became intertwined with the trunk and branches of the tree. It began to cover the tree’s beauty, and even to suck the nutrients from the tree, stifling its growth and health. Its fruit is no longer beautiful, no longer healthy to eat. (Read more.)

 

From The Catholic Thing:

Among Protestants, one of the great objections to Catholicism has always been that Catholics (also known as papists or Romanists or mackerel-snappers) are prone to “superstition.”

This objection was particularly strong among those situated at the Puritan end of the Protestant spectrum.  Puritanism, which Edmund Burke described as “the Protestantism of the Protestant religion,” made a great attempt to purge all “superstition” from Christianity.  For the Puritans, only two things were holy: God and the Bible (which was the literal word of God).

And thus Puritans made sure that their Christianity would be quite free of many things that ordinary Catholics felt to be holy—things like statues and paintings of saints, stained-glass windows, priestly vestments, rosary beads, religious medals, so-called “holy days” (including Christmas), shrines, pilgrimages to Canterbury, and so on.  By making these and a thousand other trivial things holy – said the Puritanical among Protestants – Catholics were subtracting something from the holiness of God.

The Puritans even demoted the mother of Jesus from the high rank Catholics had given her and did this despite the very high rank that the New Testament, especially the Gospel of Luke, had given her.  The Catholic veneration of Mary seemed to Puritans to be a kind of adoration, something due to God alone.  Catholics had turned Mary into a goddess, they believed, thereby undermining the unique divinity of God.

Half, or more than half, of the great Catholic cathedrals of the Middle Ages had been dedicated to the Virgin Mary.  These cathedrals, to the Puritan mind, had little to do with true religion.  They were monuments of art – monuments of architecture, painting, sculpture, and stained-glass window-making – and they were monuments of superstition, but they were not true monuments of true Christianity.

And therefore, when the Puritans – after they had finished demolishing much of the idolatrous art of the old church buildings of the Catholic religion, and after they had trashed the shrine of the “holy blissful martyr” at Canterbury – built their own church buildings, they took care to make sure that these new and improved buildings would be free of the idols that would excite the superstitious feelings of semi-Christians.

Next to the fall foliage and probably surpassing it in loveliness, the most charming features of the New England countryside are the many old Congregational churches still standing.  The New England Congregationalists were precisely the people Burke had in mind when he spoke of “the Protestantism of the Protestant religion.” (Read more.)

 

From First Things:

The image of the anointed monarch is one that pervades Scripture, giving us the title—“Christ”—by which we acknowledge our Savior. For the literary and historically-minded, it is an image that also haunts Shakespeare’s dramas and the starkest debates and conflicts of British political history. It has been used to mystify and exalt monarchy in ways that most of us would now find uncomfortable at best.

But if we step back a little from the history and think a moment longer about the theology of anointing, we might understand better what the journalist’s question was driving at. Anointing—in baptism or ordination—signifies that someone is being given a new place in the community of God’s people. It is not a job description, nor is it a blank check for power and privilege. It creates a relationship, with God and with the community of faith, and promises grace to make that relationship live and thrive.

The coronation service has this much in common with ordination: It singles out someone to occupy a position whose point is to manifest something about the whole community’s life—and to do so first by just being there, holding the ideals and aspirations of the community (and also carrying its projections). It is the rationale of the theological tradition that tells us that priesthood is not about an individual’s successful or meritorious performance but about fidelity to a position, for the sake of the community’s peace and well-being. It does not exempt priests from censure and judgement where needed, nor does it confer on them an unchallengeable right to win every argument. That is not the point. They are there so that we can gather around something other than our preferences and anxieties and prejudices; around a gift of “kinship” in which we can stand together before God.

And this is what the royal anointing means at its most important level—a gift of the Holy Spirit to hold a fragile human person in faithfulness to this place where community can gather for restoration and renewal. There is no doubt at all that this was exactly what Queen Elizabeth believed about her role. It was a vocation for which she had been blessed and graced, and the anointing was at the heart of it. Sometimes at Windsor Castle she would show visitors her small book of daily devotions from the weeks leading up to the coronation itself—prayers and meditations that had been written for her by the then archbishop of Canterbury. It was obvious that these meditations had sunk in deeply, and that she still shaped her life according to what was laid out there.

People wondered why she did not abdicate as she became a little more frail (though her physical health remained extraordinarily robust until the very last months). But she never saw her role as something she could lay down. In this, she echoed Pope John Paul II, disregarding the pressure of advancing age and vulnerability because the position was not one in which what mattered was success, performance, public glamor. But what she did do was plan very carefully for the transition to her successor, sharing out responsibilities, shifting expectations, gently preparing the nation as much as she could for her departure.

It was typical of her striking lack of egotism. When I held the role of archbishop of Canterbury, I had to meet a large number of political leaders across the world; I can truthfully say that not one impressed me in the same way the queen did. Not one had the same degree of attentiveness, unpompous clarity of mind and response, lack of prickly or defensive reactions. She could be abrupt, she could be caustic; she had a powerful sense of the absurd and a real impatience with clichés and flannel. Yet her profound kindness was always in evidence, and her dry and deflating humor was a great gift in keeping matters in perspective. (Read more.)

 

From The Catholic Herald:

The Servant of God, James II (so we must call him, since his cause was opened by the Archbishop of Paris in 1734; it may be dormant but has never been closed – and boasted at least 19 miracles at the time it was opened!) officially converted to Catholicism in 1670 with his wife, Anne Hyde, after a fairly immoral life. Their daughters, Mary and Anne, later successively to usurp the throne, remained Protestant. James’s wife died a year later, and he remarried in 1673 to the Italian Princess, Mary of Modena. He assumed the throne on his brother’s death in 1685, and the birth of a son precipitated the first successful invasion of England since 1066.

He went into a holy and prayer-filled exile in France, dying at St Germain-en-Laye in 1701. Almost immediately miracles began to occur at both his temporary resting place at St Germain, and his more permanent one in Paris at the English Benedictine St Edmund’s Church (now the Schola Cantorum of Paris – the chapel survives, although the body was destroyed at the Revolution). The English Benedictines became custodians of his memory and offered prayers and so on for his canonization. The horrors of the French Revolution led to the Servant of God’s cause going on the back burner; regardless of whether James is ever canonized, there can be no doubt of his Catholicity.

His coronation is the key point here, however. Although James II did not receive Communion during the Coronation Rite (having done so with his Queen the previous evening at Mass at Whitehall), he did swear the same oath his father swore, with the Pope’s permission: “Will you grant and keep, and by your Oath confirm to the People of England, the Laws and Customs to them granted, by the Kings of England, your lawful and Religious Predecessors, and namely, the Laws, Customs, and Franchises granted to the Clergy, by the glorious King St Edward, your Predecessor, according to the Laws of GOD, the true Profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom, agreeable to the Prerogative for the Kings thereof, and the ancient Customs of the Realm…”

He responded “With a willing and devout Heart, I promise and grant my Pardon, and that I will preserve and maintain to you, and the Churches committed to your Charge, all Canonical Privileges and due Law and Justice, and that I will be your Protector and Defender to my Power, by the Assistance of GOD, as every good King in his Kingdom, in right ought to protect and defend, the Bishops and Churches under their Government.”

From that moment, with Papal approval, the Catholic King James was head of the Anglican Churches of England, Scotland (the latter would revert to Presbyterianism upon his overthrow), and Ireland. He was then anointed and crowned by the Anglican Archbishop. In exile, James acted as head of the English, Scots, and Irish Catholic institutions scattered around the Continent; but he and his son, James III, and grandson, Charles III, continued to be recognised as rightful sovereigns and heads of the Church by the so-called “Nonjurors”- Anglicans who refused to accept the new order of things. One of the few remnants of this headship of these Protestant churches by the Catholic Stuarts is the Protestant cemetery in Rome where Keats and Shelley are buried – and which was created by James III in 1716.

But this is not the last example of a Protestant Church being headed by a Catholic. The Protestant churches of Bavaria, Saxony, and Austria were all headed by their respective Sovereigns. In the last case, for two years it was Bl. Emperor Charles of Austria. As noted in the last article, he resembles the British Charles in his role as family man; here is another point of resemblance! At any rate, as shown by his son James II, Charles I’s coronation by and headship of the Church of England need not be an impediment to his eventual canonization – if, of course, he is indeed in Heaven. (Read more.)

Share

Debbie Reynolds' Estate

 

From SFGate:

“Ain’t that something,” son Todd Fisher said to me on a recent guided tour of the property via FaceTime. “I can’t tell you why, but for some reason, it was her favorite.”

This isn’t the only piece of memorabilia from Reynolds’ life at the 44-acre compound, called Freedom Farms, now on the market for $2.85 million. The property, which includes multiple buildings and much, much more, also houses an expansive collection from Fisher’s famous family: His mother, one of the stars of “Singin’ in the Rain,” her husband, singer Eddie Fisher (who notoriously abandoned his wife for Elizabeth Taylor) and his sister, Star Wars icon Carrie Fisher.

Fisher says he bought the estate from a Hollywood stunt woman in the late 1980s, intending it to be a spot to raise his young family and provide respite for his mother and sister. Over the years, he and Reynolds would become joint owners of the property. The ranch was her sanctuary, her spot to commune with nature — and even a place to work, with a sound studio constructed for her. Following her death in 2016, Fisher became the sole owner and custodian of the property.

The Central Coast compound includes a lake and a natural hot spring, a main home, a barn and two outbuildings. The property is defined by rolling hills dotted with legacy oaks and stands of redwood, aspen and fruit trees.

There’s a burro who “answers to nobody,” Fisher says, though the donkey does spend his days getting mocked by the many families of ducks and geese who patrol the area. All of the wildlife on the premises, including multiple generations of deer, raccoons and kit foxes, seem to fall in line under a rogue flock of aggressive peacocks. The birds even keep the coyotes at bay. And because the ranch is tucked away from view in a canyon, there’s a natural breeze that comes right through, seemingly on the hour, every hour. (Read more.)

Share

What is Raskin Hiding?

 From Revolver:

Last week, Arizona representative Paul Gosar issued a Resolution of Inquiry demanding that Attorney General Merrick Garland turn over all documents relevant to infamous Jan 6 participant and suspected federal asset Ray Epps. Representative Thomas Massie, who has been instrumental in bringing the Ray Epps scandal to national attention, led a debate in Congress yesterday on whether Merrick Garland should make the Ray Epps documents available to Congress and the American people.

[...]

After Revolver News definitely proved that the FBI is withholding critical surveillance footage of the alleged January 6 pipe bomber planting the pipe bomb outside of the Democrat National Committee Headquarters, why aren’t the Democrats demanding the footage? Why aren’t the Democrats at all interested in uncovering the identity of the terrorist who planted a bomb right outside their own national headquarters?  (Read more.)

Share

Royal Flop

 From The Spectator:

Every streaming-service deal has invited quiet sniggers, every ill-judged interview and profile-raising event now brings with it a mixture of pity and irritation. These corporations are learning that they are getting little bang for their buck. Over the last few months there have been whispers of Spotify growing more frustrated with Duchess Dolittle after the $25 million deal that went public in December 2020 only yielded one thirty-three-minute Christmas episode. It seems like a stern word may have worked, as we recently saw the much-awaited launch of Meghan’s new podcast Archetypes. Meghan calls the podcast a place “where we investigate, dissect and subvert the labels that try to hold women back”; her first special guest was the notably downtrodden Serena Williams. Listeners were offered little more than the Meghan show, with the Duchess managing to talk for eleven minutes straight before her guest got a word in edgeways.

Next we were delivered a 6,500-word interview in New York magazine, which covers the Duchess’s views on the monarchy, the British press and racism, in case — somehow — you didn’t know them already. In the article, Meghan claimed she is still viewed as a “real-life princess” and told assorted lies about the British press. Those were quickly debunked: when Meghan claimed that in the UK Archie would be subjected to “a press pen of forty people snapping pictures” on the school run, royal reporters quickly called her claim complete tosh, adding that her sister-in-law, the Duchess of Cambridge, has happily been doing the school run for years without any problem. She also added that she and Harry were like “salt and pepper,” saying “you never move one without the other.” Blink twice if you need help, Harry. The interview didn’t seem to get the reception they presumably hoped for, with even staunch Sussex fans put off by it.

When the Duke and Duchess failed this year to snag an invite to the Oscars or the Beckham wedding, it was clear that they are slowly being frozen out of Hollywood, one red-carpet event at a time. Last year, the couple didn’t make the cut for Barack Obama’s 60th birthday celebration, attended by Tom Hanks, Beyoncé and Jay-Z and the Clooneys. Angela Levin, Prince Harry’s biographer, suspects that the Obamas are wary of Meghan’s supposed desire to run for the presidency and worried about upsetting the British royals.

One LA source told me that “the main reason for them being excluded is that organizers know that all media attention would be on them and take away from the event or people there to celebrate.” They also claimed that one A-lister, known for lavish parties, left the pair off a guestlist because of their “capacity to share,” adding that celebs never know where details of their private lives might end up. This is quite the irony, given Harry and Meghan’s self-professed obsession with privacy. It’s also a far cry from the open-arms welcome that they presumably expected would await them in Los Angeles after turning their backs on royal duties in 2020.

Many of the worst aspects of the couple’s priorities were apparent during their 2018 wedding. It was a lavish affair that came with a $37 million price tag, a diamond tiara, a $471,000 electric Jaguar, a Givenchy wedding gown and a bridesmaids’ fitting that may or may not have seen the Duchess of Cambridge reduced to tears. Meghan described the day as a “spectacle for the world,” as though she had no choice in the matter. Never mind that Harry’s cousin, Princess Beatrice, quietly wed her husband in a private service in Windsor two years later; so privately in fact that they had to announce to the world that it had even happened.

In hindsight it is now clear that the Sussexes’ wedding was part of Meghan’s plan to make it in Hollywood. Stars such as Elton John, the Beckhams, Serena Williams, George Clooney, Idris Elba, Priyanka Chopra and, of course, Oprah Winfrey lined the pews. A gathering of the closest friends of the bride and groom? Well, not quite. One guest that attended the ceremony told me that nobody there knew each other. “It was a show: part of me thinks she Googled who would make her look popular and shipped them over for the day.”

The British journalist Rachel Johnson (sister of Boris) tells a story that was doing the rounds in the weeks after the wedding. While Carolyn Bartholomew, Diana’s former roommate, was waiting for the wedding service to start, she turned to the couple alongside her and asked how they knew Harry or Meghan. “We don’t,” replied the Clooneys. Perhaps it’s a cruel rumor, but it illustrates a feature of their attempt at stardom: they can command the attendance of global VIPs but they can’t command their friendship.

Just two years after the wedding, the Sussexes stepped down as working royals, citing their need to “take a step forward into…a more peaceful life.” After the decision was finalized, it was widely believed that Meghan had won. She would reap the rewards of her blue-blooded marriage — but would no longer be tied down by the archaic rituals of British royalty and could instead begin a Hollywood dynasty of her own founded on a quest for social justice. But with every step she takes, Meghan’s ascent looks less and less certain. If recent months have shown us anything, it’s that she hasn’t won anything at all. And that she vastly underestimated how fickle Hollywood is, mistaking five minutes of fame for lifelong relevance. You can’t just take a mid-budget TV actress and a mid-ranking royal and use their considerable bank balance to buy Hollywood status. (Read more.)

Share

The Rockefeller Foundation, COVID and Behavioral Psychology Research

 From The Defender:

The Rockefeller Foundation, the National Science Foundation (an “independent” agency of the U.S. government) and other nonprofits are pouring millions of dollars into a research initiative “to increase uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and other recommended public health measures by countering mis- and disinformation.”

In conjunction with the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), the Rockefeller Foundation last month announced $7.2 million in funding for the Mercury Project,  initially launched in November 2021, under the slogan, “Together, we can build a healthier information environment.”

The funds will support 12 teams of researchers in 17 countries who will conduct studies on “ambitious, applied social and behavioral science to combat the growing global threat posed by low COVID-19 vaccination rates and public health mis- and disinformation,” the Rockefeller Foundation said.

The Rockefeller Foundation and the SSRC claim the aim of the Mercury Project, whose name is derived from the ancient Roman god of messages and communication, is to bolster public health and safety.

However, some critics described the project as one based on “propaganda” aimed at “nudging” the unvaccinated to get vaccinated.

Creating ‘behavioral change’ by targeting schoolchildren and specific socio-economic groups

Behavioral change lies at the heart of the Mercury Project, which will issue three-year research grants to estimate “the causal impacts of mis- and disinformation on online and offline outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic,” including “differential impacts across socio-demographic groups.”

The research will include “interventions that target the producers or the consumers of mis- and disinformation, or that increase confidence in reliable information.”

Some of the “interventions” proffered by the Rockefeller Foundation include “literacy training for secondary school students” to “help students identify COVID-19 vaccine misinformation,” “equipping trusted messengers with communication strategies to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand” and “using social networks to share tailored, community-developed messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccination demand.”

This information will, according to the Rockefeller Foundation, “provide evidence about what works — and doesn’t — in specific places and for specific groups to increase COVID-19 vaccination take-up.”

But according to ZeroHedge, the research groups funded by the Mercury Project “are operating with the intent to tailor vaccination narratives to fit different ethnic and political backgrounds, looking for the key to the gates of each cultural kingdom and convincing them to take the jab.”

The project uses “ambiguous language and mission statements” to at least partially conceal the project’s main purpose of “using behavioral psychology and mass psychology elements to understand the global resistance to the recent COVID compliance efforts,” ZeroHedge reported. (Read more.)

Share

A Nation of Settlers

 From American Mind:

When we consider the lie that America is a nation of immigrants, the really important question to ask is: how does this lie serve the regime? What’s the instrumental purpose of this lie? And I think, that, if we inquire a bit, it’s political purpose is clear. If we’re a nation of immigrants, fundamentally, then we are wrong not to just throw open the door. We’d be violating our most sacred and eternal traditions not to do that. If you don’t want to do that, you’re not just a bigot, you’re not just a racist, but you’re fundamentally anti-American in some way. That is the narrative that this lie serves.

By contrast, David Azerrad said in a recent speech: “There is simply no precedent in human history for sovereign states voluntarily importing into their homelands untold millions of people of different colors, creeds, and cultures for decades on end. This is what tyrants do to conquer a broken people, to pacify them. It is not something that the natives willfully do to themselves.” And I think that that is pretty much right on the money.

To begin with, it’s important to note that immigrants have never been the dominant force in American society. Even during the last century, when we have had very historically high levels of immigration, we’ve never had higher than about a 15% immigrant population. Indeed in my own lifetime, Immigrants have been as little as 4.7% of the population, as they were in the 1970 census, which was the one taken just a little bit before I was born. When more than 95% of people, even in modern times, are not immigrants, your nation is not inherently defined by the other less-than-5%.

The 1970 census most closely reflects the demographics of the population just before Hart-Celler, the 1965 Immigration Act, took full effect on America. Essentially, the overwhelming majority of people in America 1970 were white or African-American. We had some Hispanics as well (about 3.5% of the population, but many of them had been here for a long time, 80% of them had actually been born in the United States, as opposed to a little more than 60% today. That’s how my mother grew up in Phoenix, around this sort of community. Less than 1% of our population were Asian Americans, and most of those were recent arrivals. Then, obviously, you had Native Americans, who had been here before the United States even existed as a political entity.

On an absolute basis, we now have more than three times the number of immigrants that we had at any previous time in American history. So, that’s just kind of the naïve empirics. But let’s talk about something a little bit deeper. And interestingly, some of the best arguments for my thesis, that we’re not a nation of immigrants, quite unintentionally come from the far Left.

There’s a leftist scholar, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, who wrote a bestselling book using the currently fashionable framework, called Not a Nation of Immigrants. This came out last year. And though Dunbar-Ortiz deplores what she describes, while I’m generally, favorably disposed to it, I think that on the factual matter, we agree on a number of fundamental points. And that is because at first we did not begin as a nation of immigrants. We began as a nation of settlers. And I that’s, I think, a critically important distinction.

The pilgrims, when they showed up at Plymouth Rock, were not looking to join the existing Native American society. They were looking to build their own city upon a hill. Now, of course, that led to inevitable conflicts. There were plenty of atrocities on both sides, and those have been documented extensively. But that doesn’t erase the fundamental, empirical point about what was going on here. And it isn’t just radical historians that are saying this. This is a commentary that goes back to the early days of America.

One of the most interesting things about de Tocqueville, for instance, is that he does not mention immigrants or immigration at all in Democracy in America, written in 1830. The word immigrant or immigration does not appear even once. And that does not mean that there were no immigrants to the United States at that point—of course not. They did exist. But I think it’s important that de Tocqueville was touring the country before the first really great wave of immigration—and it really was immigration in this case—of non-British people to the United States after the failed revolutions of 1848 and the Irish Potato Famine, also of 1848. But there was nothing like that in the years before de Tocqueville’s period of time, and it’s important to note that this was the first 210 years plus of European settlement in the United States. We are closer in time to de Tocqueville today, than de Tocqueville was to the founding colonies of America. (Read more.)

Share

Pictures from the Queen's Funeral

 

 From The Daily Mail:

The Queen has been laid to rest with her beloved husband Prince Philip after her crown, orb and sceptre was removed from her coffin so she could descend into her grave 'as a simple Christian soul'.

Her Majesty returned home to Windsor to be reunited for eternity with her husband, father, mother and sister in the crypt at St George's Chapel to the sound of a lone piper as her 70-year reign came to an end. The Royal Family stood at the end of the short service as the Queen was slowly lowered down into the royal vault while the Dean of Windsor said: 'Go forth upon thy journey from this world, O Christian soul.' He also offered the commendation - a prayer in which the deceased is entrusted to God's mercy.

Moments earlier the Dean had placed her crown and other crown jewels on the altar before the Queen's staff was snapped - signifying the severing of the Queen from her service in death. The Garter King of Arms then pronounced the styles and titles of the Queen as all power and titles moved to her son, the King. (Read more.) 

On the soldier pallbearers. From The Tatler:

Every soldier in the Queen's Company is required to be over 6ft tall, measured by the famous Queen's Company Stick, which makes it the tallest division by average height. The British Army has said that the eight men chosen were the 'very best soldiers' in the Company – and also that they were the eight tallest men in the Company, chosen for stature and consistent stability, and likely arranged shortest to tallest at the back.

The bearers, eight of a full bearer party of twelve, were led by Company Sergeant Major Dean Jones, from Long Eaton in Derbyshire. Jones is married with a child, but the guards behind him were very young; they included the 19-year-old Fletcher Cox from Jersey, who was awarded the Lieutenant-Governor's medal in 2018 while in the Army Cadet Force there, although the Ministry of Defence has elected to keep the pallbearers' names private.

All have been through a rigorous training process. Recruits to the Guards have to undergo a thirty-week training programme at the Infantry Training Centre, two weeks more than the regular training in order to prepare for drills and ceremonies like these, even before the funeral rehearsals.

Various soldiers across Britain have had some part in carrying the coffin from Balmoral, including eight from the Royal Regiment of Scotland. But the task in Westminster Abbey and St George's Chapel yesterday, which involved navigating around the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in the Abbey, and carrying the coffin up three flights of stairs in the Chapel, before King and country, was the greatest by far. (Read more.) 

 And many of us will never forget the piper's lament. Also from Tatler:

It was the last act of the funeral service, the Queen’s Piper’s lament. After even the national anthem. Pipe Major Paul Burns of the Royal Regiment of Scotland played Sleep, dearie, sleep, before the bearer party lifted the monarch’s coffin from the catafalque and moved through the Great West Door. It was the highest of accolades. The King and Queen Consort, and the Prince and Princess of Wales then led the rest of the Royal Family in a procession to Wellington Arch before transferring to Windsor. There, at the conclusion of the Committal Service at St George’s Chapel later today, the Pipe Major will play once more, as the Queen’s body descends from public view. Family members and royal household staff past and present will watch on as the piper plays, walking from the doorway between the chapel and the Dean’s Cloister towards the Deanery in the Cloister. The mournful sound will swell and then fade in the chapel, as the Pipe Major makes his exit and the Queen’s 70-year reign truly comes to an end.

It will be a fittingly nostalgic tribute for the Queen whose every morning began at 9am when her piper played for 15 minutes underneath her window, at Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyroodhouse or Balmoral. (Read more.)

Share

Playing Make-Believe

 From Crisis:

The transgender revolution has been invited into Baltimore Catholic high school sports teams and become etched into primary school handbooks. In the private high school athletic league, in which twelve all-girls Catholic schools participate, there is a new policy that has obliterated women’s competition. While running hills in her first cross-country meet this past weekend, my daughter could have been running alongside (and likely passed by) a few gender-confused boys.

Catholic all-girls high schools in Baltimore participate in the Interscholastic Athletic Association of Maryland (IAAM), a league of 31 private schools. In 2019, the IAAM instituted a policy that allows biological males to participate in female sports. Because the policy was instituted just prior to Covid, many parents are just now discovering its contents, which state, in part: 

On a league-wide basis, the IAAM’s policy permits students’ athletic participation in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity and that affords these students the privacy and confidentiality that all students expect from educational institutions.

“The most basic teaching of the Catholic Church—the biological sex of man and woman made in the image and likeness of God—is no longer agreed upon. By allowing such policies in our Catholic schools, we are cooperating with evil and confusing our youth,” said Christi Gaeng, a mother of three children who played sports and graduated from Catholic high schools in the Archdiocese of Baltimore. She and her husband are concerned about sending their remaining two children to Catholic high schools. (Read more.)

Share

Telling the Bees

 When Queen Elizabeth died, her bees were informed. From Wikiwand:

Telling the bees is a tradition in many European countries in which bees would be told of important events in their keeper's lives such as births, marriages and departures and returns in the household. If the custom was omitted or forgotten and the bees were not "put into mourning" then it was believed a penalty would be paid, such as the bees leaving their hive, stopping the production of honey or dying.^[1]

Little is known about the origins of this practice, although there is some unfounded speculation that it is loosely derived from or perhaps inspired by ancient Aegean notions about bees' ability to bridge the natural world and the afterlife.^[2]

The custom is best known in England but has also been recorded in Ireland, Wales, Germany, Netherlands, France, Switzerland, Bohemia and the United States.^{[3][4][2][5][6]} One Lincolnshire report from the mid 19th century notes,

At all weddings and funerals they give a piece of the wedding-cake or funeral biscuit to the bees, informing them at the same time of the name of the party married or dead. If the bees do not know of the former, they become very irate, and sting every body within their reach; and if they are ignorant of the latter they become sick, and many of them die.^[7]

After the death of Queen Elizabeth II, the Royal Beekeeper, John Chapple, informed the bees of Buckingham Palace and Clarence House of her passing and the ascension of King Charles III.^[8] Chapple described the practice to the press as such: "You knock on each hive and say, 'The mistress is dead, but don't you go. Your master will be a good master to you.'"^[9] (Read more.)

Share