Another post on...France...is inbound.

I've been married to a French teacher for nigh-unto fifteen years. It was bound to happen one of these years.

But such has natural limits which cannot be overcome, and for obvious reasons.

We have it good here.

"We" as in Christians. Not that the things I gripe about are irrelevant, but they are pretty much all less life-and-death than our Christian sisters and brothers around the world are facing.

Consider the brave witness of converts out of Islam. Try watching this without having your heart rent.

Please note that it is women like Sana that upper class twits in Britain are perfectly content to leave to the care and consideration of sharia courts.

Then pray.

Thanks to Lydia at What's Wrong With The World for the link.

Let's all work together and annoy Hilary into going to the Doctor.

Here is our problem patient's problem.

And to sweeten the pill, compliment her on her fine photography of Merrie Olde Englande in her summer glory.

Victims, victims everywhere.

Perhaps the most poisonous thing about multiculturalism is that inculcates the idea that everyone can try to play the victim card.

For instance, fellow beadsqueezers Tracey Ann and Matthew McVeigh.

For Matthew McVeigh, it was the moment he had excitedly been working toward for months.
But when the youngster learned that to become an official Cub Scout he would have to pledge allegiance to the Queen when reciting the Cub Scout Promise, he refused to do it on religious grounds.

Now a row has broken out after the eight-year-old was told he cannot become a fully-fledged Cub as a result.

His mother, Tracy Anne, 29, said yesterday that her son's refusal to say the part of the oath that declares a promise 'to do my duty to the Queen,' was a matter of principle for their Roman Catholic family.

* * *

'He was really excited about it. But when he had to fill out the application form, he realised he would have to pledge duty to the Queen and that's when it all kicked off.

'We weren't happy about this aspect of the Promise as we don't think it's necessary in today's world. We are supposed to live in a multi-cultural age, but this just flies in the face of that.

'I don't want to make this a religious issue, but being a Catholic in this country, a lot of things are out with our reach.

'My son cannot grow up and become Prime Minister because of his religion. The 1701 Act of Settlement specifically discriminates against Catholic people and only allows for Protestants to take the throne - so why should we make an oath to the Monarchy? It actively discriminates against Catholics.'

First of all, she's wrong--her son can become Prime Minister. The Catholic Relief Act of 1829 ensured that. Rather long odds, admittedly. Even longer of marrying into the House of Windsor, her other gripe.

Second of all--suck it up and swear the oath. This is the United Kingdom, not some benighted, fanged despotism. The Stuarts aren't coming back. Queen Elizabeth II is the legitimate head of state of a free people--you owe her your allegiance. Moreover, pledging allegiance doesn't mean a mindless endorsement of everything a free nation does or permits.

In short, we don't need to add ourselves to the ranks of the aggrieved with baseless protests like this.

It worked out pretty well for my ancestors.

Two million Brits have left Ol' Blighty in the past decade.

Actually, the figures may conceal more than illuminate, but it's still interesting.

A Loring! A Loring! Saint George for England!

Happy feast of Saint George to you!

Especially to my little Louis George, who is almost 16 pounds of future dragonslayer at age 4 months.

I'll let Jay fill you in on the details.

Blogpoll results--British monarchs.

Which of these are your favorite British monarchs?


Total votes: 143.


Edmund the Martyr
18 (12%)

Alfred the Great
44 (30%)

Canute
10 (6%)

Edward the Confessor
33 (23%)

Harold
12 (8%)

William I ("Conqueror")
8 (5%)

Edward I
4 (2%)

Richard I ("Lionheart")
25 (17%)

Henry V
26 (18%)

Richard III
10 (6%)

Henry VIII
1 (0%)

Elizabeth I
11 (7%)

James VI and I
3 (2%)

Charles I
10 (6%)

Charles II
18 (12%)

James II and VII
13 (9%)

George III
5 (3%)

Victoria
15 (10%)

Edward VII
2 (1%)

Edward VIII
2 (1%)

George VI
8 (5%)

Elizabeth II
17 (11%)

I'm Irish and allergic.
43 (30%)

It's a BA, Price. Sheesh.
5 (3%)



A mixed bag of gentlemen and ladies, and a mixed vote. First, who's not there: Henry II (The Lion In Winter and all that), Edward III, Henry VII. All worthy and intriguing in their own way, but there's only so much space, both in my memory and for the poll.

Now to the vote.

#2 in the vote: Irish.

Irish...

You people do realize there's a reason it's called a paddywagon, don't you? I would have been devoutly irritated had that been No. 1. My kids are part Irish, so I suppose this is what I can expect from now on? Thank you, last vote for Alfred.

Now on to the individual results (my votes in bold):

A. Edmund the Martyr. Should have had more votes--one of the most popular English saints, he was a good king and an unlucky soldier. Then again, even good soldiers could be unlucky against the bloody Vikings. Even the next guy on the list.

B. Alfred the Great. If you don't know, learn. He's the only English monarch called "the Great," and for good reason. A just and far-sighted ruler, brilliant soldier, and canny Christian diplomat, he rallied Christian civilization in England in its darkest hour.

C. Canute. I like him if only for the reason that the wave story is always mistold. Canute wasn't being fatuous, he was rebuking yes-men.

D. Edward the Confessor. Another popular English saint, but I've never quite warmed to him. Kinda James Buchanan-ish in the face of a grave crisis.

E. Harold. A great soldier with the potential to be a great king, he fought two titanic battles in three weeks a couple hundred miles apart. The first, Stamford Bridge, repelled the last great Norse assault, and is almost forgotten. He came within a hairsbreadth of winning the second, at Hastings. History would have been changed beyond recognition had he won.

F. William the Conqueror. Give the man his due--the bastard son of a tanner's daughter became one of the most important figures in history.

G. Edward I. Four of you didn't like Braveheart very much. The Hammer of Scots and the conqueror of Wales, his legacy still stands in the latter place, with his great fortresses at Caernarvon and Harlech.

H. Richard I. I dunno--I think the Lionheart is a bit overrated. But he fought Saladin to a draw, which is no mean achievement.

I. Henry V. Immortalized by Shakespeare, and for good reason. A great soldier-king died too young. Even another ten years would have done the hapless Henry VI a world of good.

J. Richard III. Ah, the partisans of the White Rose are still among us! Face it: he had the Princes in the Tower killed.

K. Henry VIII. This is a Catholic blog, you know.

L. Elizabeth I. Gloriana had her undeniable virtues. But I'm a big fan of St. Edmund Campion.

M. James VI and I. Fine, if you like your kings putting from the tee, if you know what I mean. More seriously, a decent king, just not a member of the pantheon of greats. Sure, momentous things happened during his reign--the colonization of America, the Authorized Version--but that was coincidental, not driven. Still, he was smart enough to know the difference between "pick your fights" and "pick a fight." Unlike his son.

N. Charles I. Inflexible and pig-headed, he was a good family man who defended himself and faced death with remarkable courage. In fact, the way he spent the last few months of his life did more to rekindle monarchist sentiment than the rest of his reign.

That, and he irritated equally pig-headed Presbyterians, which has to count for something.

O. Charles II. I like the Restoration in general and the Merry Monarch in particular. Yes, he was a cad, but he loved his wife in his own grossly inadequate way and made sure his illegitimate children were provided for. And he converted to Catholicism on his deathbed. After the grey bloodbath of Cromwell, Charles II was a necessary man.

P. James II and VII. Victor's right--James II was a disaster on the throne.

Q. George III. The first truly English king of the Hanoverian line, he was a model husband and father. King--not so much. Then there's that "years of gibbering insanity" thing.

R. Victoria. We are amused. Or at least like her a lot. When your name defines an age, that says it all.

S. Edward VII. His name at least defines furniture and architecture. And his example means the big and tall types don't have to do up both the buttons on the suitcoat--thanks, Ed!

T. Edward VIII. One romantic fell for the Wallis Simpson fiasco. Sorry, but both of them were godawful twits who deserved to be marooned on Bermuda. He was a dimwitted Nazi sympathizer and she was an airheaded bimbo.

U. George VI. One of those rare situations where the little brother has it all over the elder. Everything Edward VIII wasn't: duty-minded, serious, family-oriented, and stable. Maybe we owe Wallis a thanks after all.

V. Elizabeth II. Her father's daughter. The Queen.

W. Hey, I have to put the history major to use somehow. Might as well show off here.

Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves!

I love this: the band for the Horse Guards greeted the Saudi king with the Imperial March from Star Wars.

Yep--the Brits are still the reigning champions when it comes to the vicious rapier.

God Save the Queen!

Yes, it's turning into Anglophile week here at the blog.

About the new blogpoll.

You can vote for more than one fave-rave crowned head.

That is all.

Great idea!

Because we all know what a colossal failure the English common law system has been worldwide. Sharia: a sure-fire remedy for the twin scourges of ordered liberty and prosperity.

All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

The before/after aspects would make for an interesting sociological experiment, but for the horrific human cost. Coming soon to a metropolitan area near you: Chinese and Indian Malay refugees.

Oh, and it's being touted as an anti-colonial initiative? So I guess Islam originated in Kuala Lumpur?

Tally ho!

The British thwart metrification. Score one for the foot, pound and gallon.

Wow.

Despite my wife's understandable disdain, every now and then reality TV shines a ray of the true, the good and the beautiful.

Here's my evidence: Paul Potts, a soft-spoken Welsh telephone salesman with a tremendous gift.

Just see it. It's like watching--and hearing--the divine spark blaze into full glory.

We interrupt the nonstop Paris Hilton coverage to bring you this.

A rare Saturday post, but worth breaking the silence. Here are three good blogs I've found recently:

The Roving Medievalist--devoted to medieval images and architecture.
Let Britannia Rise--the same, except focused on Great Britain.

Both by Jeffrey Smith, a Toledan with a fine taste in imagery, Catholic and Britannic. His tag is a classic: "Cantankerous middle-aged relapsed Catholic who is hopelessly in love with 'old unhappy far-off things and battles long ago.'" Actually, I've seen TRM before, but I've been dilatory in linking. Here's the overdue correction.

fides et ardor, by a former Anglican priest-turned Catholic in Wales, with a focus on promoting Welsh and English culture, no small task in the era of "Cool Britannia."

Give them a look.

I can't imagine the horror.

I also can't imagine leaving my children alone in a hotel room while I went to a restaurant.

Madeleine McCann disappeared May 3 when her parents left her and her 2-year-old twin siblings alone in their hotel room while they went to a restaurant in their hotel complex in Praia da Luz, a resort town in Portugal's Algarve region.

I'm praying for Madeleine McCann's safe return, and for her entire family.

However, this is a textbook example of a preventable tragedy, if there ever was one.

All Americans are Anglophiles.

And I can prove it.

How? Easy: when news stories mention "The Queen," we never, ever ask "of what?"

Happy Fourth of July!

I love this country. America has been very good and generous to me and mine--"mine" being a term that stretches across the generations. Which is why I worry like hell about her, of course.

Just to remind you of how it got started--the Declaration of Independence.

Oh, and a brief amusing anecdote: I studied at the University of Aberdeen in 1989. One of my classes was about the history of the European Enlightenment, and the American Revolution came up, natch. Aberdeen had seminar classes (cattle call learning familiar to any American undergrad in a 100 level course), but also had "tutorials," which were breakout sessions of ten students or so in groups. I was "the American" in my group in this particular course. The Professor (an Englishman) asked me to set forth the gist of the American Declaration of Independence. Don't worry, dear reader--to use a term from earlier this evening, I held up the side. I explained that the document, in addition to the immortal preamble, "set forth the crimes of King George III." Apparently, the English professor found this to be a bit too Yankocentric an interpretation, and replied thusly:

"Ah, yes, the alleged crimes of George III."

A few of the native Scots rolled their eyes in sympathy for me. Bloody sassenach was the undertone.

Anyway, here is the magnificent founding document of my nation:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.
We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Will there always be an England?

Kathy Shaidle informs us that the Brits have caught a bad case of Dhimmi Fever.

At this rate, I'm going to renounce my Limey/Taffy heritage. But we shouldn't let the Sceptred Isle go down with out a fight--Join the Free Piglet! campaign now.

Strike a blow for insensitivity--you'll be glad you did.

Rue, Britannia...

Britannia rue the day/
Britons became PC slaves...

Oh, it has come to this:

Two hundred years ago a daredevil naval hero by the name of Horatio Nelson led the British to a glorious victory over France and Spain. But that might not be clear from watching Tuesday's re-enactment of the Battle of Trafalgar.

Wary of offending European neighbors who enjoy a close but sometimes testy friendship with Britain, organizers decided to dispense with details such as who won and who lost. Instead of depicting the battle as a contest between countries, they assigned the fleets colors - red and blue - and left it up to the spectators to figure out which was which.

One of Nelson's descendents summed it up quite nicely:

Nelson's great, great, great granddaughter called it a ``pretty stupid'' idea.
``I am sure the French and Spanish are adult enough to appreciate we did win that battle,'' said Anna Tribe, 75. ``I am anti-political correctness. Very much against it. It makes fools of us.''

Truly. It's not like the Brits were reenacting Mers el-Kebir, after all.

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Wasn't a big one in my household--my family is true Brit--both sides. But the wife (descended from Shanahans) is Irish, and the wee ones are, too. Not to mention the priest who married us, the estimable Fr. William McGoldrick, who kindly deigned to the overlook my Englishness.

[Heather also roots for Michigan State, so it's a wonder we ever spoke civilly to each other, let alone married. The mysteries of Providence. But I like beer, and I'm wearing green, so there you go.]

Anyway, for things Irish:

The (High) King of Beers.

Mark Sullivan has his usual feast of links.

No word yet from Thomas Fitzpatrick, but keep checking. Odds are you'll need a bypass, but you'll die happy.

Via Mark, we learn that Fr. Ethan is blogging his top five Irish-themed films. Scroll down to see.

A good list, but he missed a few, in my estimation:

In The Name Of The Father: the story of the Irish immigrants wrongly convicted of the Guildford pub bombings in 1974. Daniel Day-Lewis and Pete Postlethwaite are brilliant, and the injustice of the convictions is staggering. I was studying in Scotland in 1989 when Conlan was released--it was a huge story in Britain. Please note it got an R-rating for non-gratuitous violence.

Hear My Song: a light-hearted charmer (but note that it, too, is R-rated--for some nudity) about a slick promoter who has to lure a legendary Irish tenor out of tax exile for a concert in Britain. Ned Beatty stars as the reluctant tenor, and some fine Irish music is (too briefly) showcased. For the lads, pixie-cute Tara Fitzgerald also has a prominent role. It is actually based--very loosely--on the life of Irish tenor Josef Locke, who ran into tax trouble in post-war Britain.

Evelyn: Another film based on a true story, this time the travails of Desmond Doyle, an unemployed Irish housepainter whose wife deserted him. Under Irish law, the children of indigent single fathers (but not mothers) were taken away and put into Church-run orphanages. Doyle decided to fight it out in court, with the assistance of an Irish-American lawyer. Evelyn is Doyle's eldest daughter. Mostly light-hearted, and even a little cutesy, but well done. Pierce Brosnan is convincing in the role of Doyle, who is reduced at one point to leather-lunging it in the pub for whatever change he can scrounge up to support his family and his fight. And, as a nice bonus, with one exception, the priest and nuns are sympathetic and humane characters. The priest apologetically offers an interesting insight into Irish seminary life at the time: "Well, I was the seminary boxin' champion, you know..."

Sounds like a custom that could be revived here in the States.

Slainte!

Next, they'll fly the Man United fans over to Paris on holiday.

"And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here...."

The Sun, the fiery pro-American and anti-French British tabloid, commissioned a daring--and decidedly unique--daytime raid on a French military vessel moored in the Thames.

[Link via The Corner.]