#p walsingham ⟿ [ thomas. ]

[pcppyy]

i will not ask you where you came from. i will not ask you, neither should you. | a playlist for the walsinghams.

𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭.

savior complex by phoebe bridgers.  ivy by taylor swift.  work song by hozier.  orpheus by shawn james.  jackie and wilson by hozier. in the best case scenario we'd die at the same time by my name is ian.  gold rush by taylor swift.  like real people by hozier.  mastermind by taylor swift.

[heartofstanding]

Your latest quote posted made me think about scholars trying to identify what the Black Prince had and they're always looking for a single cause without thinking maybe TBP could have been chronically ill and weakened by past illnesses? Do they not think a big strong manly soldier can have generally poor health? Nope, has to be one specific sickness that he had for years rather than a general chronic illness. (TBP has fibromyalgia or Chron's fite me).

Yeah, exactly - this is also a problem with diagnosing Henry IV, there’s not a lot of diseases that fit all the symptoms and so, I think, the “honest” discussions of both the Black Prince and Henry IV’s health tend to conclude by pointing out that it’s impossible to know for sure. The default position on the Prince’s illness has been to assume amoebic dysentery and it’s only been comparatively recently that people are going, “wait, you can’t survive untreated amoebic dysentery for nine years”. 

David Green’s article ‘Masculinity and medicine: Thomas Walsingham and the death of the Black Prince’ (2009, Journal of Medieval History, 35:1, 34-51) is the best discussion of TBP’s illness I’ve read, not least because he actually acknowledges that it’s really hard to diagnose him - there’s not a lot of contemporary accounts of TBP’s illness that give his symptoms, for instance, the best is Walsiingham’s account that, “almost every month he suffered a discharge of both semen and blood [which] rendered him so weak on many an occasion his attendants very often thought he had died”.

And it’s hard to tell how much of this account is truthful or just symbolism., and if it is symbolic, what it’s meant to symbolism. The passing of blood could be seen as the Prince inflicted with menstruation as a divine punishment for his sins or signal that he has lost his male identity (how could a big strong warrior end up bedridden?). Or it could be that Walsingham was paralleling the Prince with the Fisher King, wounded because England is faltering, or suggesting that Prince’s bleeding was a form of medicinal bloodletting. The bleeding could also signify that the Prince was being tested and purified by God before his death - sort of like he’s beginning to undergo purgatory before he dies.

Green suggests/lists some potential medical diagnoses based on Walsingham’s description: chronic urethritis, haematospermia, prostate disease/cancer, gonorrhoea, an unspecified STI, fistula, dropsy, cirrhosis or a combination of some of these. Crohns and fibromyalgia also seem like good guesses (Susan Howatch depicts him with multiple sclerosis in Wheel of Time which could also fit). Fibromyalgia might also fit Henry IV really well. 

But I think Paul Booth (the author of the quote I just posted) is right when he talks about the Prince’s mental health being bad. I’m not sold on the idea that his illness was purely mental but he does seem to have become very concerned with doing things ‘right’ and seeking absolution. There’s an interesting comment made about the Prince in the immediate aftermath of the Battle of Crecy:

The king is said to have asked the prince of what he thought of going into battle and fighting, and whether he found it good sport. The prince, to his credit, ‘said nothing and was ashamed’. (Richard Barber, Edward, Prince of Wales and Aquitaine: A Biography of the Black Prince, Boydel and Brewer, p. 68)

Which is a long time before the Prince’s final illness but, like, the Prince was sixteen and had been right in the thick of battle. I wouldn’t make this argument in an academic sense but it’s entirely possible that he had some form of PTSD that, perhaps, began at Crecy and stayed with him all his life, and was compounded by guilt over the Castile and Limoges campaigns.

[knario47]

PROPOSICIÓN DE REY DE CANARIAS

EDRA - Origen

SOBRE LA GRAN NACIÓN CANARIA

«Este año el Papa Clemente en público Consistorio nombró Lodovico de España (Luis de Cerda), que hasta entonces había sido uno de los embajadores del Rey de Francia, Príncipe de las islas de la Fortuna. El Papa le auguró “que tú puedas gobernar sobre una gran nación”. Las supradichas islas [...] son muy fértiles y sus habitantes ni son cristianos ni de la secta de Mahoma. Hubiese sido ciertamente un don digno de alabanza si hubiese conseguido ocuparlas pacíficamente»

Thomas Walsingham, 1344

[Historia Anglicana, Vol. 1 A.D. 1272–1381, Ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Cambridge Library Collection, p. 265. Traducción Alberto Quartapelle]

[mumblingsage]

...Marlowe is down at Scadbury, in the household of his long-time friend Thomas Walsingham, in the glories of the Kentish springtime: 'the meads, the orchards, an the primrose lanes.' Perhaps he is working on Hero and Leander, unfinished at his death and later dedicated to Walsingham: a poem about the warm south, and the power of love, and a young man drowning in a storm. There he breathes, in Edward Blount's poignant phrase, the gentle air of Walsingham's liking...

Charles Nicholl, who claims not to ship it, p 314 of The Reckoning

[qqueenofhades]

What do you think is the likelihood that Richard II of England was queer?

Short answer: Possibly yes, but most likely asexual if anything.

Longer answer: Have some Thoughts on the ways in which we construct historical “queerness” and standards of proof (this also serves excellently as a post for Queer History Friday thank you very much) and emotional relationships vis a vis sexual ones, especially in the limited medium of medieval chronicles.

To start, Richard was only 10 years old when he became king (his father was the Black Prince, who died in 1376, and his grandfather was Edward III, who died in 1377) and he died when he was only 33 ( b.1367-d.1400), so he was quite young during all of this time. Even during the 1387-88 crisis with the Lords Appellant, which set the stage for the troubles that basically ended his reign, he was only 20 years old, so it’s pretty understandable that a young man would turn to wise older courtiers for experience and advice. This was especially the case because Richard had three powerful and full-grown uncles, led by John of Gaunt (whose son, Henry Bolingbroke, would later depose Richard and become Henry IV). They were definitely viewed as a possible threat to the throne (as was usually the case with primogeniture, when an underage son of an eldest brother got the heirs and honours and the other brothers missed out) and a regency council was quickly established in hopes of giving Richard a power base away from them. But the English people deeply mistrusted these councils/councillors, and that discontent led to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381, the first major crisis of Richard’s reign (he was only 14). In the aftermath of that, there was continued shuffling around as to who had the effective reins of government and who had influence and so forth. So there was plenty of environment for an ambitious man to get close to the young king and influence/try to win his patronage and trust.

Richard was definitely known to have had male favorites, particularly Robert de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, and Michael de la Pole, his chancellor. The only actual imputation of his possible homosexuality with de Vere comes from the Chronica Maiora of Thomas Walsingham:

According to rumour, his [Richard]’s closeness to Lord Robert and his deep love and affection for him was not without some taint of an obscene relationship, and Lord Robert’s fellow nobles and barons spoke in whispers of their indignation that so mediocre a man should aim at so high an office, seeing that he had no nobility of birth or endowment of other virtues that might rank him above the others.

While Walsingham’s work is one of the major and indeed only sources we have for some events in mid-to-late 14th century England, he definitely had a few axes to grind (against John of Gaunt, Henry IV, and others, as well as to some degree Richard himself) and furthermore, all this proves is that jealous rivals of de Vere’s had no trouble suggesting that he and Richard must be having a sordid affair. This is very understandable given that Richard’s great-grandfather, Edward II, had also had male favorites (Piers Gaveston and Hugh Despenser the Younger) who he had extensively relied upon and given honors seemingly above their station (and as I have discussed in some other posts, 14th-century England was ABSOLUTELY OBSESSED with class/station. It was the be-all and end-all of their lives, including dictating how they were allowed to behave and what clothes they were allowed to wear; the heretical/religious reformer group, the Lollards, and their leader, John Wycliffe, mocked this with their famous couplet “When Adam delved and Eve span/Who then was the gentleman?”) Furthermore, Edward II was absolutely having affairs with Gaveston and then Despenser, and he had been forced to abdicate (as indeed Richard II was later deposed) and this memory was definitely the first thing that would come to mind for the question of whether a 14th-century English king was once more too dependent on and attached to male favorites.

Jean Froissart, a French chronicler, describes Michael de la Pole in his Tales as a sort of Iago/Wormtongue figure giving Richard bad advice, but doesn’t seem to think there was anything scandalous about their relationship per se:

But in one night, Michael de la Pole, earl of Suffolk who at that time was the heart and sole council of the king, and in whom he placed his whole confidence, undid the whole business. I know not what his intentions were for so doing; but I heard afterwards, he should say to the king, “At, ah, my lord, what are you thinking of? You intend then to follow the plan your uncles have devised. Know, that if you do so; you will never return, for the duke of Lancaster wishes for nothing more earnestly than your death, that he may be king. How could he dare advise your entering such a country in the winter? […] Take care of your own person, you are young and promising; and there are those who profess much, but who little love you.“  (ch. 173).

 As noted, Froissart was French, therefore not intimately familiar with the inner workings of the English court, and the takeaway here seems to be that de la Pole, supposedly warning Richard against the treachery of his powerful uncles, steers him into a military disaster instead. He describes de la Pole as “the heart and sole council of the king” but again, doesn’t feel the need to intimate anything else. (Which, although the French got along fairly well with Richard II after the endless wars of Edward III, Froissart would probably do if that was there for the bad habits of an English king to be remarked upon.) Furthermore, both de Vere and de la Pole were definitely into women: de Vere caused a scandal by divorcing his wife, Richard’s cousin, and marrying one of the queen’s bedchamber attendants instead (so yes, powerful people have always had affairs with the nanny, apparently) and de la Pole had eight children with his wife. As we like to remind folks around these parts, Bisexuality Exists, so obviously, both of them having affairs/fruitful marriages with women would not necessarily preclude some kind of strategic sexual liasion with Richard, especially if questions of power or career advancement were involved. But given that the only source on this is the hostile hearsay passed along by Walsingham, aka that de Vere’s enemies were happy to accuse him of deviant sexual behavior with the king in the model of Edward II’s scandals, I am less inclined to think so.

Furthermore, Richard’s relationships with both of his wives were emotionally close and loving. His first wife, Anne of Bohemia, married him in 1382, when they were both about 15. They quickly became devoted to each other and she was known for her influence on him. What is now known as the Crown of Princess Blanche may have been made for her, and she appears alongside Richard in the Liber Regalis, a book possibly made for her coronation service and which still mostly functions as the order of service for major royal ceremonies. Anne’s death in 1394, probably from plague, absolutely devastated Richard, to the point he ordered the manor where she had died torn down. The Historia Vitae et Regni Ricardi II notes this and memorialises her warmly:

Hoc anno, die 7 mensis Junii, die viz. festo Pentecostes, apud Shen Anna, Regina Angliae, diem suum clausit extremum. Propter quod Rex, ejus mortem dolendo, illud nobile regiumque Manorium solo prosterni fecit. […] Sepulta est cum maxima solennitate in Ecclesia Westmonasterio, in die Sanctae Annae sequente, cujus festum ut Ecclesia Anglicana solennius celebraretur ista Regina et Domino Papa impetravit. (p.126)

I can’t be arsed to do a full word-for-word translation, but the sense of the passage is that Anne died on the 7th of June, near Pentecost, and that Richard in his grief ordered the manor where she died to be destroyed. She was buried at Westminster with full solemnity and feasts and commemoration from the English church, and from the Pope. The chronicler goes on to praise her kindness and her piety, as Anne came from Bohemia and was not popular at first because Foreign, but had won over the people with her charity and mercy. We see this also in Richard Maidstone’s Concordia, a verse epic detailing Richard II’s reconciliation with the citizens of London in 1392, in which Anne’s intervention was pivotal. Multiple passages are devoted to praising Anne’s beauty, her love for Richard and vice versa, and her moderating effect on him:

The queen is able to deflect the king’s firm rule,    So he will show a gentle face to his own folk.A woman soothes a man by love: God gave him her.    O gentle Anne, let your sweet love be aimed at this!(line 227-230)

A queen can, for her people, speak the words that please -    None but a woman can do what no man would dare.When fearful Hesther stood before King Assuer’s throne,    She brought to naught the edicts that the king hadpassed.For this, no doubt, almighty God gave you to be    A partner in this reign, a Hesther for the realm.(439-444)

At his command she stands. “What, Anna, do you seek?”    He asks. “Just speak, and your desires will bemet.”“Sweet king of mine,” she said, “my man, my strength, my life!    Sweet love, without whom life to me would be likedeath! (465-468)

Therefore, Richard and Anne’s devotion to each other can barely be questioned, but nonetheless, they had no children. (They are now buried jointly in Westminster, and Richard had ordered their effigies to be carved holding hands.) Jeffrey Hamilton suggests (p.190) that the marriage may not have been consummated (though I’m not sure on what evidential grounds, and unfortunately a page is missing in the e-version so I can’t get his full argument). (See my followup discussion of the deep unlikeliness of a fully chaste marriage here.) Furthermore, when Richard did remarry in 1396, it was to the seven-year-old daughter of Charles VI of France, Isabella of Valois, in an attempt to make a peace treaty. The youth of the bride was brought up as a potential stumbling block in negotiations, but Richard essentially replied that he was fine waiting (he himself was still only 29) and that wasn’t a problem. He then proceeded to befriend the seven-year-old girl, visit her often at Windsor, make funny conversation with her, and otherwise be genuinely decent to a young girl in a foreign country, and he’s not recorded as having any mistresses or illegitimate children that we know of. So even if he was married to a young girl, he a) treated her respectfully and kindly and like a friend, and b) apparently didn’t have the need to go elsewhere for sex. For her part, Isabella adored Richard, so much that she flatly refused a remarriage, after being widowed at the age of 10, to Henry V, son of Richard’s usurper Henry IV. It’s fair to say that she probably wouldn’t have if he mistreated her.

So as ever, this has gotten long, but yes. This is why I am inclined to suggest that if anything, Richard II was probably ace. He had close and loving emotional relationships with both men and women (and as I’ve also discussed a bit, emotional/romantic male friendship was a thing in the medieval era, especially as related to knights and chivalry, in a way that would be considered homoerotic today). However, his political difficulties and probable personality disorder ended up getting him deposed, and he didn’t have any children even though he and Anne loved each other very much and were married for 12 years. He was also fine marrying a young girl for political reasons, but was not very interested in/fine with waiting for any possible sex, and instead actually treated said child well and kindly. The accusations (and as ever, it is “accusations”) of homosexuality come from hearsay hostile sources, and Walsingham is, as far as I know, the only chronicler to suggest it (in comparison to the numerous pieces of chronicle evidence in many different places that discuss the queerness of Richard I). Which as I said above, makes sense given that Edward II had been brought down by reliance on (sexual) male favorites, and it was an easily available paradigm to critique the resented influence of Richard II’s male favorites.

In terms of “Probably Asexual/Ace-spec Historical Figures,” moreover, there is almost no way to prove it, since the underlying assumption (as @extasiswings and I were chatting about) is that all people must be having sex with someone, and the “default” for this sexual expression is het/straight sex. Richard II was by all appearances biromantic, and emotionally close to members of both genders, but it is less clear if that translates to sexual relations with either. 

[history-monster]

#onthisday in 1377, Richard II is crowned at the age of 10. Shameless post plug here - check out my bio link for if Richard II deserves to title of tyrant. It’s my most read post! Richard II, also known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until he was deposed in 1399. Richard's father, Edward, Prince of Wales, died in 1376, leaving Richard as heir apparent to his grandfather, King Edward III. He was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 16th July 1377. During Richard's first years as king, government was in the hands of a series of regency councils, influenced by Richard's uncles John of Gaunt and Thomas of Woodstock. England then faced various problems, most notably the Hundred Years' War. A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis. Less warlike than either his father or grandfather, he sought to bring an end to the Hundred Years' War. A firm believer in the royal prerogative, Richard restrained the power of the aristocracy and relied on a private retinue for military protection instead, causing resentment and mistrust from his nobles. In contrast to his grandfather, Richard cultivated a refined atmosphere at court, in which the king was an elevated figure, with art and culture at its centre. It was Richard who was the first King to insist on being called ‘Your Majesty’. Up until this point ‘Your Grace’ or ‘Your Highness’ would have sufficed. The king's dependence on a small number of courtiers caused discontent among the influential, and in 1387 control of government was taken over by a group of aristocrats known as the Lords Appellant. Hatred was reserved particularly for the King’s favourite, Richard De Vere, Earl of Oxford. The chronicler Thomas Walsingham suggested the relationship between the king and de Vere was of a homosexual nature, due to a resentment Walsingham had toward the king. *continues in the comments* (at England) https://www.instagram.com/p/CCsPWyXHF_n/?igshid=1863v84qfjpj9

[anticattocomunismo]

Appello ai Cardinali di Santa Romana Chiesa. Errore del papa sulla pena di morte

Il sito statunitense “LifeSiteNews” promuove un appello, ripreso da numerosi siti cattolici, firmato da numerose personalità del mondo accademico, religioso e culturale, rivolto ai cardinali della Chiesa romana perché consiglino il Pontefice regnante di ritirare dal Catechismo la variazione aggiunta qualche giorno fa in tema di pena capitale. Anche noi lo riproponiamo ai nostri lettori insieme alla lista dei primi firmatari, tra cui la mia.

Nota: gli studiosi, sacerdoti e laici, che desiderino firmare l'Appello possono presentare il loro nome e le credenziali a questo indirizzo email: appealtocardinals@gmail.com. Una volta verificati, i nomi verranno aggiunti all'elenco dei firmatari.

Papa Francesco ha modificato il Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica nel senso che «la pena di morte è inammissibile perché attenta all'inviolabilità e alla dignità della persona ». Questa affermazione è stata compresa da molti, sia dentro che fuori la Chiesa, come un insegnamento che la pena capitale è intrinsecamente immorale e quindi è sempre illecita, anche in linea di principio.

Sebbene nessun cattolico in pratica sia obbligato a sostenere l'uso della pena di morte (e non tutti i sottoscrittori la sostengono), insegnare che la pena capitale è sempre un male intrinseco contraddirebbe la Scrittura. Che la pena di morte possa essere un mezzo legittimo per assicurare la giustizia retributiva è affermato in Genesi 9: 6 e in molti altri testi biblici, e la Chiesa sostiene che la Scrittura non può insegnare l'errore morale. La legittimità in linea di principio della pena capitale è anche insegnamento coerente del magistero per due millenni. Contrastare la Scrittura e la tradizione su questo punto metterebbe in dubbio la credibilità del magistero in generale.

Preoccupati per questa grave e scandalosa situazione, desideriamo esercitare il diritto affermato dal Codice di diritto canonico della Chiesa, che al canone 212 afferma:

§2. I fedeli hanno il diritto di manifestare ai Pastori della Chiesa le proprie necessità, soprattutto spirituali, e i propri desideri. §3. In modo proporzionato alla scienza, alla competenza e al prestigio di cui godono, essi hanno il diritto, e anzi talvolta anche il dovere, di manifestare ai sacri Pastori il loro pensiero su ciò che riguarda il bene della Chiesa; e di renderlo noto agli altri fedeli, salva restando l'integrità della fede e dei costumi e il rispetto verso i Pastori, tenendo inoltre presente l'utilità comune e la dignità della persona.

Siamo guidati anche dall'insegnamento di San Tommaso d'Aquino, che afferma:

"Quando ci fosse un pericolo per la fede, i sudditi sarebbero tenuti a rimproverare i loro prelati anche pubblicamente" e, citando Agostino (Glossa ordinaria su Galati, 2, 11), prosegue:  "Pietro stesso diede l'esempio ai superiori di non sdegnare di essere corretti dai sudditi, quando capitasse loro di allontanarsi dalla retta via". ( Summa Theologiae, Parte II-II, Domanda 33, Articolo 4, ad 2)

Pertanto il sottoscritto formula il seguente appello:

Alle reverendissime eminenze, i cardinali della santa Chiesa romana. Dal momento che è una verità contenuta nella parola di Dio, e insegnata dal magistero ordinario e universale della Chiesa cattolica che i criminali possono legittimamente essere messi a morte dal potere civile quando ciò sia necessario per preservare il giusto ordine nella società civile, e dal momento che il presente pontefice romano ha più di una  volta manifestato il suo rifiuto di insegnare questa dottrina, e ha invece portato una grande confusione nella Chiesa sembrando contraddirlo, inserendo nel Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica un paragrafo che farà sì, e già sta facendo sì che molte persone, sia credenti che non credenti, suppongano che la Chiesa consideri, contrariamente alla parola di Dio, che la pena capitale è intrinsecamente malvagia, noi facciamo appello alle Vostre Eminenze affinché consiglino Sua Santità che è suo dovere porre fine a questo scandalo, e ritirare questo paragrafo dal Catechismo, e insegnare la parola di Dio senza adulterazioni; e osiamo dichiarare la nostra convinzione che questo è un dovere che Vi impegna seriamente, di fronte a Dio e di fronte alla Chiesa.

Elenco dei firmatari

Hadley Arkes

Edward N. Ney Professor in American Institutions Emeritus

Amherst College

Joseph Bessette

Alice Tweed Tuohy Professor of Government and Ethics

Claremont McKenna College

Patrick Brennan

John F. Scarpa Chair in Catholic Legal Studies

Villanova University

J. Budziszewski

Professor of Government and Philosophy

University of Texas at Austin

Isobel Camp

Professor of Philosophy

Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas

Richard Cipolla

Priest

Diocese of Bridgeport

Eric Claeys

Professor of Law

Mason University

Travis Cook

Associate Professor of Government

Belmont Abbey College

S. A. Cortright

Professor of Philosophy

Saint Mary’s College

Cyrille Dounot

Professor of Legal History

Université Clermont Auvergne

Patrick Downey

Professor of Philosophy

Saint Mary’s College

Eduardo Echeverria

Professor of Philosophy and Theology

Sacred Heart Major Seminary

Edward Feser

Associate Professor of Philosophy

Pasadena City College

Alan Fimister

Assistant Professor of Theology

St. John Vianney Theological Seminary

Luca Gili

Assistant Professor of Philosophy

Université du Québec à Montréal

Brian Harrison

Scholar in Residence

Oblates of Wisdom Study Center

L. Joseph Hebert

Professor of Political Science

St. Ambrose University

Rafael Hüntelmann

Lecturer in Philosophy

International Seminary of St. Peter

Fr. John Hunwicke

Priest

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Robert C. Koons

Professor of Philosophy

University of Texas at Austin

Peter Koritansky

Associate Professor of Philosophy

University of Prince Edward Island

Peter Kwasniewski

Independent Scholar

Wausau, Wisconsin

John Lamont

Fellow of Theology and Philosophy

Australian Catholic University

Roberto de Mattei

Author

The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story

Robert T. Miller

Professor of Law

University of Iowa

Gerald Murray

Priest

Archdiocese of New York

Lukas Novak

Lecturer in Philosophy

University of South Bohemia

Thomas Osborne

Professor of Philosophy

University of St. Thomas

Michael Pakaluk

Professor of Ethics

Catholic University of America

Claudio Pierantoni

Professor of Medieval Philosophy

University of Chile

Thomas Pink

Professor of Philosophy

King’s College London

Andrew Pinsent

Research Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre

University of Oxford

Alyssa Pitstick

Independent Scholar

Spokane

Donald S. Prudlo

Professor of Ancient and Medieval History

Jacksonville State University

Anselm Ramelow

Chair of the Department of Philosophy

Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology

George W. Rutler

Priest

Archdiocese of New York

Matthew Schmitz

Senior Editor

First Things

Josef Seifert

Founding Rector

International Academy of Philosophy

Joseph Shaw

Fellow of St Benet’s Hall

University of Oxford

Anna Silvas

Adjunct Senior Research Fellow

University of New England

Michael Sirilla

Professor of Dogmatic and Systematic Theology

Franciscan University of Steubenville

Joseph G. Trabbic

Associate Professor of Philosophy

Ave Maria University

Giovanni Turco

Associate Professor of Philosophy

University of Udine

Michael Uhlmann

Professor of Government

Claremont McKenna Collegre

John Zuhlsdorf

Priest

Diocese of Velletri-Segni

Dame Colleen Bayer DSG

,

Founder, Family Life International NZ

James Bogle Esq.

, TD MA Dip Law, barrister (trial attorney), former President FIUV, former Chairman of the Catholic Union of Great Britain

Fr. John Boyle JCL

Judie Brown, President, American Life League

Fr. Michael Gilmary Cermak

MMA

Fr. Linus F Clovis

, Ph.D, JCL, M.SC., STB

Hon. Donald J. Devine

, Senior Scholar, The Fund for American Studies

Dr. Maria Guarini

, editor of the website

Chiesa e postconcilio

John D. Hartigan

, retired attorney and past member, Public Policy Committee of the New York State Catholic Conference

Dr. Maike Hickson

, journalist

Dr. Robert Hickson

, Retired Professor of Literature and Strategic-Cultural Studies

Fr. Albert Kallio

, Professor of Philosophy at Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery, New Mexico

Fr. Serafino M. Lanzetta

STD

Dr. Robert Lazu,

Independent Scholar and Writer

Dr. James P. Lucier

, Former Staff Director, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Dr. Pietro De Marco

, former professor of Sociology of Religion, University of Florence

Dr. Joseph Martin

, Associate Professor of Communication, Montreat College

Dr. Brian McCall

, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Director of the Law Center, Orpha and Maurice Merrill Professor in Law, University of Oklahoma

Fr. Paul McDonald

, parish priest of Chippawa, Ontario

Dr. Stéphane Mercier

, former lecturer in Philosophy at the Catholic University of Louvain (Belgium)

Fr. Alfredo Morselli

, SSL, parish priest in the diocese of Bologna

Maureen Mullarkey

, Senior Contributor,

The Federalist

Fr. Reto Nay

Dr. Claude E. Newbury

M.B., B.Ch., D.T.M&H., D.O.H., M.F.G.P., D.C.H., D.P.H., D.A., M. Med; Former Director of Human Life International in Africa south of the Sahara

Giorgio Nicolini

, Writer, Director of Tele Maria

Dr. Paolo Pasqualucci

, retired Professor of Philosophy, University of Perugia, Italy

Prof. Enrico Maria Radaelli

, Philosopher

Richard M. Reinsch II

, Editor, Law and Liberty

R. J. Stove

, Writer and Editor

Fr. Glen Tattersall

, Parish Priest, Parish of Bl. John Henry Newman, archdiocese of Melbourne; Rector, St Aloysius’ Church

Dr. Thomas Ward

, Founder of the National Association of Catholic Families and former Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life

Fr. Claude Barthe

, Diocesan priest

Donna F. Bethell

, J.D. Washington, DC

Prof. Michele Gaslini

, Professor of Public Law at the University of Udine

Brother Andre Marie

, M.I.C.M., MA (Dogmatic Theology), Prior of Saint Benedict Center, New Hampshire

Fr. John Osman

, diocese of Birmingham, England

Fr. Alberto Strumia

, retired professor of Mathematical Physics, University of Bari, Italy

Guillaume de Thieulloy

, PhD in political science, editor of the French Blog Le Salon Beige

Marco Tosatti

, Journalist, Vatican observer

Christine Vollmer

, former member of the Pontifical Council for Family and the Pontifical Academy for Life

[pcppyy]

𝖌𝖔𝖉𝖉𝖊𝖘𝖘𝖊𝖘 𝖆𝖙 𝖍𝖆𝖒𝖕𝖙𝖔𝖓 𝖈𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖙 | penelope walsingham, as  persephone, goddess of spring. 

the attendance of penelope walsingham and her husband, thomas, was well documented in the romance novel ' the spymaster's bride ' written by fledgling fiction author diana suno, inspired heavily by other tudor romance novelists such as jean plaidy and phillipa gregory. it included a very vivid scene that was heavily based on the true events of the pageant of the king's in the year of 1559, where penelope acted out a sorrowful scene of leaving her mother, demeter, to be with the king of the underworld. the two women soon dissolved into giggles once the scene was complete. adorned in mauve silks, it was noted that penelope maintained a higher neckline then some of the other women in attendance, however if the fictional novel is to be believed the fabric was sheer whenever penelope shifted, revealing long dainty legs and bare thighs and glimpse of her breasts if stood in the right position ( one that her husband was notably glued to most of the night as they drank ). historians have remarked in brevity in various writings of thomas walsingham's life that it was unintentional irony for his wife to portray the goddess of spring, growth, and fertility, as according to the timeline it was around this period of time that she became pregnant with their third, and final, child. 

[pcppyy]

a carefully folded piece of parchment, tucked in between the shirts packed that thomas brought with him to florence, it carries the faintest smell of their fireplace and the floral perfume that penelope often wore. as if she had hurriedly written the contents before laying beside her husband in bed. beneath the parchment is handkerchief, embroidered along the edges with a litany of various tiny flowers. | @thquldnunc

my sweeting, 

lady fortuna is a cruel mistress to force us to part once more, i suppose i shall perch as a bird upon the window, collecting seeds as i await your arrival home to me. i meant to gift you such a token for the yuletide, a pity that i pricked my finger a thousand times over simply to have to now make you another for the holiday. i request that you dutifully tuck it into your pocket, so that perhaps my prayers will cross the seas and protect you in my absence. 

careful to not allow james to return home with a bride or child, i fear there is not enough time to remind him of my wrath. 

[ there is a few smudged lines, as if after writing them, penelope swept her finger over the ink before it dried in an attempt to erase them. the only decipherable words being ' love ' and ' promise '. ] 

do try to not keep me waiting very long, lord walsingham. 

yours & yours alone, 

pen.

[history-monster]

#onthisday in 1381, John Ball, leader of the Peasants Revolt is hung, drawn and quartered in the presence of Richard II. John Ball was the son of William and Joan Ball of Peldon near Colchester. He is first mentioned in the Colchester Court Rolls of 30th January 1352, when, on coming of age in 1350 he acknowledged the tenancy of a tenement between East and West Stockwell Street in the town. Ball trained as a priest in York and referred to himself, according to Thomas Walsingham, as "Seynte Marie prest of York". He later moved to Norwich and then back to Colchester. During the rebellion of 1381, he was imprisoned at Maidstone Castle in Kent. What is recorded of his adult life comes from hostile sources emanating from the religious and political social order. He is said to have gained considerable fame as a roving preacher without a parish or any link to the established order by expounding the doctrines of John Wycliffe, and especially by his insistence on social equality. This brought him into deep conflict with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury. Known as the Peasants Revolt, this uprising was fed by the economic and social upheaval of the 14th century. The Black Death had decimated the population leaving less workers on the manorial estates. Labourers could start to charge more for their work and wages sharply increased. In turn the profits of landowners were eroded and the trading, commercial and financial networks in the towns collapsed. The authorities responded by passing two laws, the Ordinance of Labourers in 1349 and the Statue of Labourers in 1351, which fixed the wages of labourers at pre Black Death levels. 🌾 💰 ⚔️ Additionally England was fighting expensive wars in France which needed funding. Parliament introduced the Poll Tax where everyone had to pay the same amount regardless of income. This was the trigger for the uprising when a tax collector tried to arrest some villagers in Essex for refusing to pay it. Violence broke out and three clerks and several townsfolk were killed. Not long after this, the rebels attacked the prison in Maidstone and freed John Ball who joined them on their march to London. *continues in the comments* (at England) https://www.instagram.com/p/CCp9RPpnKIP/?igshid=1skg0nbvd1bmn