Happy Birthday to Bonnie Prince Charlie!

Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, "Bonnie Prince Charlie" was born on December 31, 1720 in the Palazzo Muti at Rome, eldest son of James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender and Maria Klementyna Sobieska. Pope Clement XI had recognized his parents' claim as King James III/VIII and Queen Consort and given them residence there.

The young prince who would claim the title of Charles III grew up in Rome and Bologna, was baptized Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria with one name referencing his Polish heritage (Casimir) and one paying tribute his father's erstwhile host, King Louis XIV of France.

In 1745 he led the Jacobite invasion of 1745, at first achieving some military success in his attempt to regain the throne of England, Ireland and Scotland for the Catholic Stuarts. The ultimate failure of the cause at Culloden left Scotland at the mercy of the Duke of Cumberland and Bonnie Prince Charlie wandering in Scotland before escaping to the Continent.

He returned to England in 1750 and briefly became an Anglican, hoping that would strengthen his claim and support. By the time he returned to Rome, he repented of that apostasy and returned to the Catholic Church. In 1759 he had another chance when the Duc de Choiseul, chief minister of King Louis XV planned another invasion--but he evidently made a poor impression on his prospective patron. In 1766 his father died and Pope Clement XIII did not recognize him as the rightful king. He married Princess Louise de Stolberg-Gedern and they had an even rockier marriage than his parents! More about him at the end of January, when we remember his death.

Edward Arden, Relative of Shakespeare

Edward Arden, cousin of Mary Arden, William Shakespeare's mother was most unjustly executed on December 30, 1583. Michael Wood's In Search of Shakespeare tells the story of his arrest and execution (although Wood cites the date of his execution as December 20 (typo?):

Although there is no evidence to suggest Arden was directly involved with a plot against the crown, his friendship with more militant Catholics would lead him into trouble. A key player in the 1580 mission of Edmund Campion, Robert Persons, was a close friend of Edward Arden's and probably used his home as a base. After Campion's Jesuit mission was thwarted, government informers (probably about as reliable a source of information as any modern day snitch) claimed that Campion had stayed at Park Hall, the Arden's ancestral home 20 miles north of Stratford, though this could never be proved. . . .

Despite Arden's arrest, the seizure of the Arden's priest, his wife and daughter's confinement in The Tower of London, and mountains of paper evidence purporting to show the link between Arden, Somerville and Throgmorton, no direct evidence of Edward's complicity in a plot could be found.

Even as he was being prepared for execution, Arden protested his innocence. Wood is probably correct that Arden's associations with prominent Catholics got him in trouble, but for a man to be executed for his associations rather than evidence of knowledge or connivance in a conspiracy is of course an injustice. The judge in his case, as in St. Edmund Campion's case, was Christopher Wray, Lord Chief Justice (pictured above). David Marcombe in a chapter of John Foxe at Home and Abroad, edited by D.M. Loades states that Wray was "a government man through and through" but perhaps indifferent in religious matters.

"Corde Natus ex Parentis" translated by John Mason Neale

The Wikipedia entry for "Of the Father's Heart/Love Begotten" features a side-by-side comparison of the original Latin text by Prudentius and the best known English translations, including one by John Mason Neale. It is one of my favorite Christmas hymns, set to a medieval plainchant melody Divinum Mysterium, with the haunting yet comforting refrain, "evermore and evermore".

I first read of John Mason Neale in John Shelton Reed's Glorious Battle: The Cultural Politics of Victorian Anglo-Catholicism. As Vanderbilt University Press describes the book:

How the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Victorian Church of England overcame opposition to establish itself as a legitimate form of Anglicanism.

A thorough, compelling, and often amusing account of how the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Victorian Church of England overcame vehement opposition to establish itself as a legitimate form of Anglicanism.

From working class tenements to the pages of Punch to the very Houses of Parliament, the Victorian Anglo-Catholic movement provoked bitter debate and even violence throughout Victorian times. Rotten vegetables were thrown at priests as they spoke from their pulpits, and fistfights broke out among families over whether dear departed ones would be buried "High Church" or "Low Church." In this innovative critical study, John Shelton Reed provides the first comprehensive treatment of the rise, growth, and eventual consolidation of this controversial movement within the Victorian Church of England.

Reed identifies Anglo-Catholicism as a countercultural movement, in some ways not unlike the counterculture of the 1960s, one that championed practices that were symbolic affronts to some of the central values of the dominant middle-class culture of its time. He identifies certain members of the clergy (including John Henry Newman and his circle), the urban poor, women, and youth of both sexes, expecially those who were put off by "muscular Christianity," as those most attracted both to what the movement had to offer and to the shock value it gave to the institutions, classes, and individuals whom they despised. Each of these component groups can be seen as culturally subordinate or in decline--threatened, oppressed, or at least bored by the Victorian values that the movement challenged--and thus ready to hear subversive messages.

A distinguished sociologist, best known as a major interpreter of the American South, Reed here explores new ground with characteristic scholarly acumen, thorough and meticulous research, fresh perspective and insight, and a remarkably engaging literary style. He has uncovered and taken full advantage of a wealth of largely untapped archival material, from the library of Pusey House, Oxford, as well as the Bodleian Library and the British Library, and has fashioned this into a cogent analysis that will enhance understanding of the subject for both scholars and general readers. His conclusions will shed light on many aspects of Victorian studies and the related disciplines of history (social, cultural, political, intellectual, and ecclesiastical), literary studies, women's studies, and the study of social movements. All future work on Anglo-Catholicism and related subjects will be indebted to Reed's Glorious Battle.

Of the Father's love begotten,

ere the worlds began to be,

he is Alpha and Omega,

he the source, the ending he,

of the things that are, that have been,

and that future years shall see,

evermore and evermore!

At his word the words were framèd;

he commanded; it was done:

heaven and earth and depths of ocean

in their threefold order one;

all that grows beneath the shining

of the moon and burning sun,

evermore and evermore!

O that birth for ever blessèd,

when the Virgin, full of grace,

by the Holy Ghost conceiving,

bare the Savior of our race;

and the Babe, the world's Redeemer,

first revealed his sacred face,

evermore and evermore!

This is he whom seers in old time

chanted of with one accord;

whom the voices of the prophets

promised in their faithful word;

now he shines, the long expected,

let creation praise its Lord,

evermore and evermore!

O ye heights of heaven, adore him;

angel-hosts, his praises sing;

powers, dominions, bow before him,

and extol our God and King;

let no tongue on earth be silent,

every voice in concert ring,

evermore and evermore!

Thee let old men, thee let young men,

thee let boys in chorus sing;

matrons, virgins, little maidens,

with glad voices answering:

let their guileless songs re-echo,

and the heart its music bring,

evermore and evermore!

Christ, to thee with God the Father,

and, O Holy Ghost, to thee,

hymn and chant and high thanksgiving,

and unwearied praises be;

honor, glory and dominion,

and eternal victory,

evermore and evermore!

Nine Lessons and Carols

The Christmas Eve Service at King's College Chapel at the University of Cambridge in England is the Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols. The website I've linked includes a download of the service booklet and links to BBC broadcasts. Because of the broadcast, you might note all the instructions not to cough or talk, when to stand, what noise making devices to turn off, etc. This festive night has been a tradition at King's College Chapel since 1918 and has been broadcast by the BBC since 1928 (except for in 1930) every year. The first carol is always "Once in Royal David's City", written by Cecil Frances Alexander, who also wrote the lyrics "All Things Bright and Beautiful".

If you want to attend, you must queue between 7:30 and 9 a.m. and if admitted will be seated after 1:30 p.m. BBC Television also records a program, "Carols from King's" for broadcast on Christmas Eve.

A Restoration at the Met

I admit that this is off topic, but I was really impressed by this article in the New York Times on-line edition about the restoration and reattribution of a portrait of King Philip IV of Spain by Velazquez at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Philip IV was the father of Charles II).

The article includes an interactive media link showing the results of first the cleaning of the painting and then the restoration.

Pope Benedict Recalls Visit to the UK

The UK Catholic Herald has some interesting stories about Pope Benedict XVI's speech to the Roman Curia recalling his trip to the United Kingdom in September this year: here and here.

The Holy Father dedicates a great paragraph to explaining what Blessed John Henry Newman meant when his mentioned offering a toast to Conscience first then the Pope:

The driving force that impelled Newman along the path of conversion was conscience. But what does this mean? In modern thinking, the word “conscience” signifies that for moral and religious questions, it is the subjective dimension, the individual, that constitutes the final authority for decision. The world is divided into the realms of the objective and the subjective. To the objective realm belong things that can be calculated and verified by experiment. Religion and morals fall outside the scope of these methods and are therefore considered to lie within the subjective realm. Here, it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria. The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart. The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him. His third conversion, to Catholicism, required him to give up almost everything that was dear and precious to him: possessions, profession, academic rank, family ties and many friends. The sacrifice demanded of him by obedience to the truth, by his conscience, went further still. Newman had always been aware of having a mission for England. But in the Catholic theology of his time, his voice could hardly make itself heard. It was too foreign in the context of the prevailing form of theological thought and devotion. In January 1863 he wrote in his diary these distressing words: “As a Protestant, I felt my religion dreary, but not my life – but, as a Catholic, my life dreary, not my religion”. He had not yet arrived at the hour when he would be an influential figure. In the humility and darkness of obedience, he had to wait until his message was taken up and understood. In support of the claim that Newman’s concept of conscience matched the modern subjective understanding, people often quote a letter in which he said – should he have to propose a toast – that he would drink first to conscience and then to the Pope. But in this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth.

Pope Benedict packs a great deal of understanding of Newman and his times in that paragraph:

--"The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him. "

As Blessed John Henry progressed from belief in Jesus Christ and an invisible church of believers, to belief in Jesus Christ and loyalty to the Church Jesus founded, located in the via media of the Church of England, to belief in Jesus Christ and the one, true, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, he was always focused on the Divine Person of Jesus and His truth, way, and life. Newman was always devoted to Jesus and to the truths He revealed. The Pope's words about the 'truth that was gradually opening up to him' contain an indirect reference to Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine!

--"Newman had always been aware of having a mission for England. But in the Catholic theology of his time, his voice could hardly make itself heard. It was too foreign in the context of the prevailing form of theological thought and devotion. In the humility and darkness of obedience, he had to wait until his message was taken up and understood. "

Here Benedict subtly but effectively notes that the hierarchy did not really know what to do with the great convert once they had him. Blessed John Henry Newman endured rejection, failure, and disappointment, responding with obedience. Newman's message was heard only after the attack of Charles Kingsley on the one hand and the honor of the Cardinalate from Pope Leo XIII on the other!

Lest we think that we understand Newman and appreciate him so more than his contemporaries did, the Pope reminds us that Newman's toast comment is often misinterpreted and used to support dissent:

--"In support of the claim that Newman’s concept of conscience matched the modern subjective understanding, people often quote a letter in which he said – should he have to propose a toast – that he would drink first to conscience and then to the Pope. But in this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth."

I think that with proper attention and study, we will benefit for years from the addresses, homilies and speeches Pope Benedict XVI made during and after his official visit to the United Kingdom in September, 2010.

Chesterton the Blogger?

The UK Catholic Herald posts this review of a new book about G.K. Chesterton's holiness--The Holiness of G K Chesterton, edited by William Oddie which I don't think is available yet in the USA. The reviewer comments "that Chesterton would have taken to the blogosphere with gusto. Words, writing and quick repartee came naturally to him; ideas and images flowed ceaselessly from his pen. Faced by the atheist brigade he would have fizzed and sparkled, laughed and lunged, as ready to win over as well as to win."

BBC's Worst Briton of the 12th Century

St. Thomas a Becket was born on December 21, 1118. In 2005, he was selected as the Worst Briton of the 12th Century:

The "greedy" Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, was nominated by Professor John Hudson, of St Andrews University, as the 12th century's worst villain.

"He divided England in a way that even many churchmen who shared some of his views thought unnecessary and self-indulgent," he said.

"He was a founder of gesture politics.

"Those who share my prejudice against Becket may consider his assassination in Canterbury Cathedral on 29 December, 1170, a fittingly grisly end."

I think that Henry II engaged in some "gesture politics" himself, trumping up charges against his former chancellor--and expressing his desire for someone to solve the problem of Becket for him.

The last sentence in the professor's overview reveals quite a bit: "my prejudice"? assassination--murder--violence in a cathedral a "fittingly grisly end"? I think the BBC's website provides a little more balanced view of the disputes between St. Thomas a Becket and Henry II. Seems to me that the professor reveals the role of bias in his evaluation of Becket.

Of course, St. Thomas a Becket's opposition to Henry II was too real a symbol to Henry VIII when a few members of the clergy like the Carthusians and Bishop John Fisher and one layman, Sir Thomas More opposed his will in the 16th century. Not content with violently executing the current opponents of his supremacy over the Church in England, Henry went after the martyr and saint, destroying his tomb and keeping the jewels and gold that had decorated it. St. Thomas a Becket's feast, December 29, was removed from the sanctoral calendar--although the Church of England honors him now on that date.

Book Review: The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty

The Tudors: The Complete Story of England's Most Notorious Dynasty, by G.J. Meyer is a one-volume history of the Tudor dynasty, written for a popular audience by an author referencing many standard works on the era. Meyer's references all are secondary sources and he offers his own interpretation of the dynasty based on his reading of these materials. G.J. Meyer is also a journalist and author of a study of the First World War, A World Undone: The Story of the Great War, also published by Delacorte Press.


Meyer uses the word "notorious" in the subtitle and on occasion in the text he notes that the Tudors excelled in certain discreditable activities: torture, for instance and execution by various means. He calls Henry VIII a monster and tries to remove the romantic fascination of Elizabeth I by diminishing her role in matters of state and emphasizing her vanity and desire for syncophantic praise. Meyer terms Edward VI "a King too early" and Mary I "a Queen too late".


One omission I think is a chapter dedicated to Henry VII! Shouldn't a complete history of a dynasty include a chapter on the founder of the dynasty? He incorporates an overview of Henry VII's rise to the throne and reign into the Prologue and the first chapter of Part One. By the second chapter, Meyer is already discussing the King's Great Matter, and the issues of Henry's marriage to Katherine of Aragon dominate throughout that section. Part Two documents Henry's tyranny and excess with the Dissolution of the Monasteries (Meyer relies on Gasquet here and would do better with Knowles), the Acts of Supremacy and Succession, executions, marriages, etc.



The hardcover edition includes a dustjacket with Elizabeth I and Henry VIII's portraits, in that order, because those are the monarchs he devotes the most pages to in the text. He does, however, give the reigns of Edward and Mary their due, as they share Part Three. Part Four is dedicated to Elizabeth I with a very good analysis of the issues of succession.


Between narrative chapters, Meyer inserts background notes on topics like the monasteries in England, the Tower of London and executions, the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent, Parliament, etc. The reader can either follow these excursions or maintain the narrative, but they do provide good background. I certainly think he should have incorporated the background of Mary I's life before her accession to the throne in the chapter on her reign, rather than attaching it in one of the background notes to that section.


Among his secondary sources, he lists Father John Lingard's History of England, but also references standard modern works by Eamon Duffy, D.M. Loades, David Starkey, Lacey Baldwin Smith, Antonia Fraser, and J.J. Scarisbrick, et al. He uses the sources adeptly to back up his interpretation of events and personalities.



I found it to be a very good overview of the Tudor dynasty and I agree with many of his judgments. Meyer is straightforward about his purpose, his method, and his limitations. He does not claim to be an academic scholar but he does claim the conclusions he had reached about the Tudors based on reading and studying academic works.


My husband bought me this book as a gift.

Philip V of Spain and the War of Spanish Succession

Philip, Duke of Anjou andPetit Fils de France, was born at Versailles on December 19, 1683, the second son of Le Grand Dauphin of the Sun King, Louis XIV, also called Louis. Philips' older brother was Louis Le Petit Dauphin, who would be the father of Louis XV! When poor Charles II of Spain died in 1700, Philip was named as his heir. (I say "poor Charles II" because reports of his disabilities and deformities are rather horrifying.) The prospect of the Bourbon family controlling both the Kingdoms of France and of Spain was too much for the other European powers, including England/Great Britain, and thus began the War of Spanish Succession, which was fought in the North American British colonies as "Queen Anne's War."

One of the Duke of York's/James II's erstwhile followers, John Churchill, the lst Duke of Marlborough led British troops in the Low Countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, etc today). Churchill's victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704 brought him Queen Anne's gratitude and Blenheim Palace, but his wife's insistence on supporting the Whigs tired the Queen, who favored the Tories, as they supported the Church of England. After the War of Spanish Succession and the eventual death of Queen Anne, Marlborough gave his support to the Hanoverians, even after maintaining contact with the Jacobites toward the end of Anne's reign. He would even assist with the defeat of James II's son and Anne's half-brother, James Francis Edward (James III) in 1715.

The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 led Queen Anne of England to pack the House of Lords and gain a Tory majority to accept the treaty and the end of the war. When the War of Spanish Succession was finally decided, with Philip V of Spain renouncing his rights to succession in France, Spain surrendered Gibraltor and Minorca to Great Britain. He reigned in Spain from 1700 to 1724, abdicating briefly for his son, Louis I (another Louis!) who died after seven months on the throne; therefore Philip V returned to reign from 1724 to 1746. The great castrati, Farinelli, sang for the king when he was depressed

Philip was succeeded by his son Ferdinand, who reigned from 1746 to 1759. By Philip's second marriage to Elizabeth of Parma, his daughter Infanta Maria Theresa Antonia Rafaela became Dauphine of France, married to [wait for it]--Louis, the Dauphin of Louis XV of France. She died after giving birth to a daughter, but the Dauphin remarried, to Maria Josepha of Saxony. Their sons Louis Auguste, Louis Stanislaus Xavier (reflecting family support for the Jesuits, bien sur!), and Charles Philippe reigned as Kings of France, respectively: Louis XVI, Louis XVIII (in deference to the Dauphin {Louis XVII} who died in the Temple), and Charles X. The two Bourbon lines "almost" joined to rule in both Spain and France!