Labels
- Bishops
- Chant
- Children
- Clerical abuse
- Conservative critics of the EF
- Correctio Filialis
- FIUV Position Papers
- Fashion
- Freemasonry
- Historical and Liturgical Issues
- Islam
- Liberal critics of the EF
- Marriage & Divorce
- Masculinity
- New Age
- Patriarchy
- Pilgrimages
- Pope Francis
- Pro-Life
- Reform of the Reform
- Young people
Wednesday, April 29, 2026
Walsingham Pilgrimage: call for singers
Tuesday, April 28, 2026
Farewell to the Hereditary Peers
I have a high regard for democracy, because unless it is unusually
corrupt, it makes possible the eviction of unpopular ruling parties without
bloodshed, and that counts for a lot. Democratic institutions are regarded as
having legitimacy, and elected officials who promised particular things when
campaigning for votes are regarded as having a “mandate” to implement them.
These are good things which help political systems to function and to overcome
all kinds of challenges. But this all works because of the western political
tradition, which attributes legitimacy to these things. This tradition
is reasonable, but it is not necessary. Things could be done in
different ways, and in different times and places they have been done in
different ways.
The Homeric tradition regards a warrior elite as having the mandate to rule: perhaps it makes sense that those prepared to die for their community should rule it, and it may make for an efficient and just political system. Other communities, living in other circumstances, may focus on a religious elite, or an intellectually, culturally, or economically preponderant class of one kind or another, as natural rulers. If it works for them, it is not for us to criticise it.
The hereditary principle is characteristic of a pre-modern
political system, but if it was reasonable then, there is no sense in which it
is in principle wrong now. The test of its legitimacy, in fact, is the degree
to which it is part of the political tradition of a community. The hereditary
House of Lords has been part of Britain’s, and England’s, political system for
at least 800 years, so the case for it is pretty conclusive.
Monday, April 20, 2026
Book launch for biography of Michael Davies: photos

LMS Spring Latin Course: photos
Friday, April 17, 2026
Oxford Pilgrimage 2026
Thursday, April 16, 2026
Review of Michael Davies biography, and other recent work
in pre-industrial Catholic societies. As I write, 'Perhaps a society creates the dissidents that it deserves.'
Michael Davies (1936-2004) was from the 1970s until his
death the foremost lay advocate of the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM). His books,
particularly the trilogy Cranmer’s Godly Order, Pope John’s Council, and
Pope Paul’s New Mass, were an enormous influence on a generation of
Catholics attached to the TLM, and set the terms of the debate. He rejected the
extreme claims made by some, that the reformed Mass was invalid or that recent
popes were not real popes, and when he died he was praised by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger. Nevertheless his support for the Traditional Mass and the
traditional teachings of the Church were uncompromising.
Leo Darroch’s biography starts with Davies’ early life. He was born into a Protestant family with Welsh roots, and attended a Grammar school. Instead of doing National Service he joined the regular Army, and served in Malaya. Back in civilian life he became a Catholic, married Maria Milosh, a Yugoslavian teacher who had been studying in England, and became a teacher himself. The young Davies had a growing family and was devout, conscientious, and intelligent, but those who met him in the 1960s would have had little reason to imagine that he would devote the second half of his life to writing, speaking, and campaigning about the Church’s teaching and liturgy, with unrelenting industry and very little earthly reward. It is interesting to ask what radicalised him.








