A Poem to Honor Jeanne d'Arc

The first poem to honor Saint Joan was written by French poetess Christine de Pisan during the Maid's lifetime. (Via Daniel Mitsui)

 Tu, Jehanne, de bonne heure née,
Benoist soit cil qui te créa!
Pucelle de Dieu ordonnée,
En qui le Saint Esprit réa
Sa grant grace, en qui ot et a
Toute largesse de hault don,
N'onc requeste ne te véa.
Qui te rendra assez guerdon?

Blessed be He who created thee, Joan,
Who wast born at a propitious hour!
Maiden sent from God,
Into whom the Holy Ghost poured
His great grace, in Whom there was and is
An abundance of noble gifts,
Never did Providence refuse thee any request.
Who can ever begin to repay thee?

Share

The House of Elliot (1991-1994)

I just finished watching the entire BBC miniseries The House of Elliot. It is about the tribulations of two sisters trying to build a business in the fashion industry in the 1920's. Beatrice (Stella Gonet) rears her little sister Evangeline (Louise Lombard) after their mother dies in childbirth. Left penniless by a tyrannical father, who refused to educate them properly while failing to provide for them, the girls are forced to turn to the only thing they know how to do: sewing. Because of their innate creativity and sense of style, the clothes they design are soon popular with the ladies of London high society.

According to Blogger News Network:

“The House of Eliott” is a lavish and lush treat for anyone who loves the beautifully detailed BBC costume dramas.... I’ve never been able to figure out why the Brits do this sort of thing so consistently well, but American producers attempting the same thing more often fall flat. Attention to detail, I think… or a total willingness to put the acting company in authentic costumes and hairdos that may look distinctly odd, or unattractive to conventional modern eyes.

This three-season long series aired originally from 1991-1994 and follows the fortunes of the Eliott sisters, Beatrice “Bea”, (Stella Gonet) and Evangeline “Evie” (Louise Lombard) who are left apparently impoverished by sudden death of their domineering father early in 1920s London. Bea is a thirty-year old spinster who has raised her seventeen-year old sister after the death of their mother. Neither of them have any professional training, only the usual education thought fit for a middle-class woman of the time, no prospects for marriage… and no money.

But Bea has the experience of running a household, and Evie is a skilled amateur artist… and they are accustomed to making their own clothes. They are fiercely determined to be independent, to have successful lives on their own… and with the aid of a circle of friends they are able to establish a small couture firm; the “House of Elliot”. The series follows the sisters’ business and personal ups and downs, and those of their circle of friends and employees. Bea and Evie clash with each other, over what they want to focus on with their business, just as often as they agree. It’s soap-opera-ish but briskly paced. The details of period fashion are exquisite and fascinating, as the sisters very gradually develop confidence and style of their own, moving from dowdy post-war styles that seem a hangover from the age of Victoria, to very chic, jewel-colored clothes befitting the owners of a notable haute couture house.

So much of our current culture landscape was just coming into flower in the 1920s. Mass entertainment like the movies, radio and recorded music, the retail fashion trade, telephones and commercial air transport, the near-universal utility of automobiles, and women pursuing independent careers and balancing that with a family life. The world of the Eliott sisters looks just enough like ours to be familiar… but just different enough to be intriguing. But one absolutely timeless, brief scene of an elegant Evie Eliott, in high heels and a knee-length skirt, sashaying briskly along a London sidewalk is a reminder of how swiftly expectations of what a woman should be, and those that a woman had of herself had changed in a bare two decades.

The Elliot sisters' rise from simple dressmakers to couturiers is fraught with financial adversity and scandal. Because of their early cloistered existence the girls are easily taken in by any number of swindlers and bad eggs throughout the series. Their innate honor and integrity always get them through as well as a coterie of devoted friends. The most devoted is Jack Maddox, a popular society photographer who turns to film making, journalism and eventually politics. Over and over again Jack drops everything to save Beatrice and Evangeline from disaster.

The stormy romance of Bea (Beatrice) and Jack is one of the undercurrents that hold the story together amid many twists and turns. Having been betrayed by her father, Bea finds it difficult to trust men, even the man who has repeatedly demonstrated his trustworthiness. Since she struggled so hard to succeed in business she is terrified to lose control of all she has worked for, and so often puts the House of Elliot ahead of her relationship with Jack. The conflict many women have between career and family is thus vividly illustrated. Seeing all she has gone through makes it easy to understand Bea's point of view, although she comes close to losing the love for which she has longed. By the end, she realizes that she can surrender the business to other hands and focus on the domestic life which has always been her ultimate goal. Although she loses her temper at times, Bea is consistently a lady, putting up with snubs and humiliations with patience. She never loses her dignity and manages to bounce back from every calamity.

Evie (Evangeline) is thirteen years younger than Bea; she is a teenager when the story begins. Along with possessing a rare beauty, Evie is bubbling over with creativity as well as with curiosity about the big, bad world. Jack's feminist crusader sister Penelope gives Evie information about birth control without Bea's knowledge. After an initial affair with a French designer, Evie quickly goes from being a schoolgirl to femme fatale. She does not listen to Bea's advice but embraces a bohemian lifestyle, insisting upon learning about life the hard way. A torrid affair with Lord Montford almost destroys both Evie and the House of Elliot. Throughout it all, Evie retains a naive, almost innocent quality which is endearing, for she always looks for the good in people and wants to help the unfortunate. She refuses to accept money from her aristocratic lover, even when she desperately needs it to save the business. When she takes up with scruffy Daniel, the self-centered, impoverished artist, it seems to be part of a negative pattern of bad taste in men. In the end, however, Evie becomes a bride, with her prince awaiting her at the altar.

For those who love the history of fashion and couture, I highly recommend The House of Elliot. It is also a perfect portrait of England in the years between the Wars. And since it is the Roaring Twenties, the champagne flows. Every aspect of British life in the 1920's is touched upon, from the impossible living conditions of the working class to the rise of Communism and feminism. As the aristocracy declines, the way business is done and the way clothes are made and worn are changed forever.

Evie becomes a bride at last.

Bea and Jack At Home

(WARNING: The House of Elliot is highly addictive.)

(Images) Share

Louis at the Plow

Here is a print of the painting originally sent to the Archduchess Marie-Antoinette depicting her future husband helping the peasants at their work, entitled Monseigneur le Dauphin labourant. Share

The Queen is Charged

What were the seven charges made against Marie-Antoinette? Share

Whittaker Chambers Remembered

My interview with David Chambers, the grandson of ex-Communist spy Whittaker Chambers, was recently published in the National Observer. Share

Marie-Antoinette (1938)

Author Gareth Russell reviews the best film about Marie-Antoinette to date, which included a spellbinding performance by Norma Shearer, saying:

The scene in which she and her two children have their last meal with her husband, Louis, before he is taken for his execution on the following morning is incredibly moving, mainly because it is so understated. Norma Shearer's face as she watches her on-screen husband say grace before the meal, knowing that tomorrow he will be dead, is a wonderful example of saying more by doing less in one's acting. A warning though, the following scene, in which the queen's eight year-old son, Louis-Charles, is ripped from her arms to be placed in solitary confinement by their republican jailers is absolutely harrowing to watch. Norma Shearer pulls no punches with her performance and her screams as they try to separate her from her child take a long time to forget. It's made all the worse to watch when you know that it's almost word-for-word historically accurate.

Share

Gown

People have asked for a better picture of my wedding gown, which I described in my post on wedding preparations. So here it is. Share

The Real Catherine Parr

We cannot underestimate the influence she had on the future Elizabeth I, as Claire of The Anne Boleyn Files explains. It is a shame that the young Elizabeth would lose the only mother she had ever known because of Tom Seymour's shenanigans. (Via Gareth Russell.)

As for the precocious Lady Elizabeth, she was completely won over by her stepmother’s warmth, charm, wit and intelligence. Elizabeth’s love and respect for her stepmother is clearly shown in the beautiful gift given to Catherine by Elizabeth at New Year 1544/1545. The gift was a translation of the famous literary work by Marguerite of Navarre, “Le miroir de l’ame pecheresse”, the mirror or glass of the sinful soul. The eleven year old Elizabeth had managed to translate a poem which David Starkey¹² says “leaves today’s undergraduates blank”. Not only did it show Elizabeth’s intelligence, but it also showed her love for her stepmother, in that it would have taken many hours of work, and her appreciation of Catherine’s religious views. Starkey wonders if Catherine had actually been sharing Le Miroir with Elizabeth in the summer of 1544 with the mission of converting her. Whatever the truth of the matter, it was a special gift to a beloved stepmother and shows that Catherine was a major influence on the young Elizabeth.

After Henry VIII’s death in January 1547, Catherine Parr became Elizabeth’s guardian and took her to live with her. Their shared love of religion and learning meant that the two were incredibly close but in May 1548 Catherine sent Elizabeth to live at her friend Sir Anthony Denny’s house and the two never saw each other again. Why? One word: Thomas Seymour. (Read More.)

Share

A New Abolitionism

Lord Nicholas Windsor spoke in New York city last month.

Lord Windsor modestly described his lecture as "modest," but the importance of his message is monumental and he is a particularly noteworthy messenger. He is a great-grandson of King George V of the United Kingdom, the first blood member of the British royal family to be received into the Catholic Church since King Charles II on his deathbed in 1685, a patron of the Right to Life Charitable Trust and the Catholic National Library and a student of theology at Oxford University. His godfathers include Prince Charles and an Archbishop of Canterbury.

After crediting European accomplishments during the twentieth century, Lord Windsor asked whether "anything of any real significance...had been overlooked, anything dangerous smuggled into this new phase of history that has caught us unawares." He answered affirmatively and identified "the abortion of our unborn children" as "a practice that constitutes the single most grievous moral deficit in contemporary life: the abortion of our unborn children."

The first member of the British Royal Family to be born in a hospital and married in the Vatican, Lord Windsor noted that he was born in 1970, about the time abortion was legalized in both the United Kingdom and the United States and lamented the "historically unprecedented cascade of destruction wrought on individuals: on sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, future spouses and friends, mothers and fathers—destroyed in the form of those to whom we owe, quite simply and certainly, the greatest solidarity and duty of care because they are the weakest and most dependent of our fellow humans."

Lord Windsor's based his case against abortion on the primacy of the right to life and human instinct . As he put it in his article: "All else that we concern ourselves with in the lives of human beings derives from the inescapable fact that first we must have human lives with which to concern ourselves. By disregarding this self-evident fact of the debt owed immediately to the unborn—which is to be allowed to be born (and let us not forget that all of us might have suffered just the same fate before our birth)—humanity’s deepest instincts are trampled and shattered."

Explaining what he deemed the "normalization" of legal abortion and "insidious," Lord Windsor related that what had been "only an implausible glimmer in the eyes of the most radically progressive thinkers and activists a century ago" is now "a fact of life so deeply embedded and thoroughly normalized in our culture that...it has been rendered invisible to politics in Europe" and its mention "has become the first taboo of the culture."

Lord Windsor acknowledged his fellow pro-lifers in both Europe and the United States, but opined that abortion is "a matter that impinges little" "[f]or most of our contemporaries" because "[t]he effectiveness of determined campaigns of propaganda at the outset to harden consciences, and gradually to enforce a conformism that fears to question what is said to be a settled issue, has worked wonderfully well."

Lord Windsor attributed this conformism to the allure of "choice": "...enforcement of a new status quo succeeds so well due, surely, to benefits enjoyed as a result—benefits of an order that make acceptable even the killing of innocents, by their protectors, on a scale that freezes the imagination. How much then must depend on its remaining so, remaining beyond question? This is the nub of that ideological word choice. So much else can be chosen in a given life if the option to dispose of unwanted children is dependably available. So many intoxicating freedoms are newly established, if only abortion is never again denied to women and to men."

To dispel the allure of "choice," Lord Nicholas eloquently explained the inevitable cost--to the aborted, to those who choose abortion and to society.

"But what of the cost? As with the cost of previous great willful destructions of human life, of whole classes of human life, the fact that it must and will be borne is a certainty, whatever the nature and scale of it. Of course, in the first order of consequences, the price paid by the victims is not obscure: We must never forget that the heaviest price is paid by those whose lives are not to be lived.

Share