“The Pilgrim Queen
(A Song)

There sat a Lady
all on the ground,
Rays of the morning
circled her round,
Save thee, and hail to thee,
Gracious and Fair,
In the chill twilight
what wouldst thou there?

'Here I sit desolate,'
sweetly said she,
'Though I'm a queen,
and my name is Marie:
Robbers have rifled
my garden and store,
Foes they have stolen
my heir from my bower.

'They said they could keep Him
far better than I,
In a palace all His,
planted deep and raised high.
'Twas a palace of ice,
hard and cold as were they,
And when summer came,
it all melted away.

'Next would they barter Him,
Him the Supreme,
For the spice of the desert,
and gold of the stream;
And me they bid wander
in weeds and alone,
In this green merry land
which once was my own.'

I look'd on that Lady,
and out from her eyes
Came the deep glowing blue
of Italy's skies;
And she raised up her head
and she smiled, as a Queen
On the day of her crowning,
so bland and serene.

'A moment,' she said,
'and the dead shall revive;
The giants are failing,
the Saints are alive;
I am coming to rescue
my home and my reign,
And Peter and Philip
are close in my train.”

 John Henry Newman 

How right the Philosopher was to say in his Rhetoric that we are not angry with the dead, since we feel that the worst has already befallen them. I was speaking yesterday to my mother, although she lives in another land, when she asked me if I associated anything with the name ‘Maradona’. “I should think so”, I replied, feeling a generous wrath rise within me, “he was the footballer who defrauded us out of…”; “don’t be too hard on him”, she replied, “he has just died”. Immediately, I felt my g.w. subside, as if by the turning of a tap, and I was moved to murmur a prayer for his soul, gone on its last and most tremendous journey.

I was interested to read today that Yeats wrote his poem on ‘The Second Coming’ in January 1919, just after Blessed Charles of Austria announced that he was relinquishing his involvement in public affairs.


One of the assumptions which pervades the question of Scottish independence is the idea that Britain is a coalition of nations while England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are individual nations. But is this really true? Ethnically the population of the British Isles homogenous. A single base population lies under the various waves of invasion and migration and remains the large majority of the genetic heritage across the British Isles about 75% in East Anglia and 95% in Galway. The original name for the islands is Britain (Πρεττανική) the largest island being called megale Brettania and the second largest mikra Brettania. The original language of the Britons is lost (it may have been Basque). While the population remained stable they adopted the language of successive waves of invaders down to the present universal English speech which is no more or less ‘foreign’ than the Celtic languages which are also the tongues of transient invading elites. The legendarium of Britain is also stable. Beowulf is a literary survival with no purchase on folk culture. Princess Scotia is a self conscious invention of the Wars of Independence. From the High King Mac Ercae to Lot of Orkney to Arthur’s Seat to Winchester to Tintagel the mythology of Britain is Arthurian. These are the tales passed down by real people across the generations. The dynasty is likewise pan-insular. The Scottish Kings (and later the English and then the British Kings) are descended from Fergus Mór and crowned upon the Lia Fáil from Tara. The Scottish Kings are also, since St Margaret, the heirs of the House of Wessex. The Union of 1603 thus returned the English Kings to their ancient throne. The name of Scotland in English means Ireland, the name of Scotland in Gaelic (Alba) means Great Britain. The Lion on the Scottish arms symbolises Huntingdon and the earliest Kings of Alba fought under the Red Dragon of the Britons. The liturgy praises St Mungo as the ‘glory of Cambria’. The obsession with the Wars of Independence is absurd. Scotland won these wars and in 1603 took over England not the other way around. On the other hand it seems the injustice of Edward I’s ambitions created the artificial sense of otherness between north and south among the one British people (rather as the Reformation did east-west for Ireland) which to this day feeds the illusion of four nations where in fact, on the deepest level, there is but one.

If Archbishop Vigano is correct, the battle being fought in the United States of America is not so much political as cosmic: the holy and the fallen angels, that is, who at all times are in conflict over the souls and cities of men, are fighting, he believes, with particular intensity now and in that land.  The mantle of prophecy seems to be upon him; at least, I know of no one of comparable rank who is currently telling so much truth.  When he speaks, for example, of the convergence of a ‘deep State’ and a ‘deep Church’ – or, as we might say, of the synergy of the two beasts of Apocalypse 13 – he is surely pointing to an obvious fact.

Yet I wonder whether the United States of America might not turn out to be the ‘great eagle’ of Apocalypse 12.  It is curious how lacking is a consensus on the meaning of that symbol.  It designates, after all, something of the first importance: a power, apparently not God or Christ, which delivers the Church from the fury of the enemy so that she may survive in solitude.  Fr Herman Kramer, in his long commentary on the Apocalypse, points out that the symbol seems to allude to the Book of Ezekiel, where in chapter XVII Babylon and Egypt are represented as two eagles: the symbol, then, denotes a sovereign power distinct from God’s people.   It is not an apostate power, since apostasy is stigmatised in Scripture by some opprobrious image, such as that of the harlot, not represented by a magnificent bird.  Fr Kramer writes: “The great eagle, therefore, as a nation, has never been Catholic […] This eagle will protect and shelter the Church during the reign of the Beast.”  In particular, it will protect her against the river which comes forth from the mouth of the serpent, a river which in Scriptural terms, seems to represent slander and other evil speech.

This prophetic image fits the United States well.  The European powers have all been Catholic, and the countries that have been included in their several empires may be said to have participated, even if sometimes guiltlessly, in their apostasy.  That leaves hardly anywhere in the world, apart from China, Japan and the United States.  It does not seem likely at the moment that either of the first two countries will become the ally of the Church against the enemy, and both of them have had governments which have martyred the faithful.  America, on the other hand, though never formally Catholic, has been marked from the start, in the persons of many of its citizens, by a reverence for the bible and by a sincere desire to follow Christ.  It has even adopted the eagle as its national emblem.  What the ‘two wings’ might be, by which the eagle gives flight to the Woman, I do not know.  If they represent the forces by which a nation is set in motion, perhaps they are the people and the executive; or else, if suggestion lacks symmetry, two cohorts of the people.  In any case we should no doubt take ++Vigano’s advice and pray for America.


Remember, O Lord, our most devout and faithful Emperor Charles, whom you have set to rule on the earth. Crown him with a weapon of truth, a weapon of good will; let your shadow fall upon his head in the day of war; strengthen his arm, exalt his right-hand, establish his empire; subdue beneath him all barbarous nations that desire to make war; grant him deep and enduring peace; speak good things to his heart for your Church and for all your people; so that by his tranquility we may lead quiet and peaceful lives, in all piety and purity.

This video is dispiriting. Is it capable (reasonably) of an interpretation according to which Amy Coney Barrett has not renounced the Faith? The text of the U.S. Constitution was not written to favour the Catholic Faith. Any respect in which it may do so is accidental to the intentions of its framers. As far as I can tell (and I am entirely open to correction) the text of the US Constitution does not conflict with Natural Law. In virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1783) the thirteen colonies became “free sovereign and Independent States”. They therefore possessed the right to replace the authority hitherto exercised by the Crown of Great Britain with the government created by the constitution of 1787. Having been legitimately enacted in an indifferent matter (governmental form) without conflict with Natural Law this text ought to be interpreted by judges according to it’s literal sense (the plain meaning of the words when written). Presumably, it would be possible to interpret the document disingenuously so as to favour the Catholic Faith in a way contrary to the plain meaning of the words when written. For example, one might interpret ‘religion’ to refer exclusively to Catholicism. To eschew such disingenuous interpretations is entirely legitimate. If the U.S.A. is one day to fulfil ‘the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ’ it must be through honest and legal means. That is, this duty should be fulfilled through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution not through a transitory control of Congress and the Presidency (contrary to the 1st Amendment and prudence) and certainly not through judicial activism. If this is all Mrs Barrett means, that she would not interpret the U.S. Constitution disingenuously so as to favour the Catholic Faith in a way contrary to the plain meaning of the words when written, then she has not made any undertakings incompatible with the Faith. Let us hope that this is what she meant.