Reginald VelJohnson (born Reginald Johnson; August 16, 1952) is an American actor. He is best known for playing police officer characters, such as Carl Winslow on the sitcom Family Matters, which ran from 1989 to 1998, and LAPD Sergeant Al Powell in the films Die Hard and Die Hard 2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_VelJohnson
The Carolingian dynasty (/ˌkærəˈlɪndʒiən/ KARR-ə-LIN-jee-ən;[1] known variously as the Carlovingians, Carolingus, Carolings, Karolinger or Karlings) was a Frankish noble family named after Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne, descendants of the Arnulfing and Pippinid clans of the 7th century AD.[2] The dynasty consolidated its power in the 8th century, eventually making the offices of mayor of the palace and dux et princeps Francorum hereditary, and becoming the de facto rulers of the Franks as the real powers behind the Merovingian throne. In 751 the Merovingian dynasty which had ruled the Franks was overthrown with the consent of the Papacy and the aristocracy, and Pepin the Short, son of Martel, was crowned King of the Franks. The Carolingian dynasty reached its peak in 800 with the crowning of Charlemagne as the first Emperor of the Romans in the West in over three centuries. Nearly every monarch of France from Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious till the penultimate monarch of France Louis Philippe have been his descendants. His death in 814 began an extended period of fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire and decline that would eventually lead to the evolution of the Kingdom of France and the Holy Roman Empire.
Name
The Carolingian dynasty takes its name from Carolus, the Latinised name of multiple Frankish kings including Charlemagne and Charles Martel.[3] The name originates from a common Germanic word, rendered in Old High German as Karl or Kerl,[4] meaning 'man', 'husband', or 'freeman'.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_dynasty
Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II; Polish: Jan Paweł II; Italian: Giovanni Paolo II; born Karol Józef Wojtyła, Polish: [ˈkarɔl ˈjuzɛv vɔjˈtɨwa];[b] 18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 1978 until his death in 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II
Vel (Tamil: வேல், lit. 'Vēl') is a divine spear associated with Murugan, the Hindu god of war.[1]
Significance
According to Shaiva tradition, the goddess Parvati presented the Vel to her son Murugan, as an embodiment of her shakti, in order to vanquish the asura Surapadman. According to the Skanda Purana, in the war between Murugan and Surapadman, Murugan used the vel to defeat all the forces of Surapadman.[2] When a complete defeat for Surapadman was imminent, the asura transformed himself into a huge mango tree to evade detection by Murugan. Not fooled by asura's trick, Murugan hurled his vel and split the mango tree into two halves, one becoming a rooster (Tamil: சேவல், lit. 'Cēval'), and the other a peacock (Tamil: மயில், lit. 'Mayil'). Henceforth, the peacock became his vahana or mount, and the rooster became the emblem on his battle flag.[3]
Vel, as a symbol of divinity, is an object of worship in the temples dedicated to Murugan. The annual Thaipusam festival celebrates the occasion when Murugan received the divine vel from his mother.[4] During this festival, some of the devotees pierce their skin, tongue or cheeks with vel skewers while they undertake a procession towards the Murugan temple.
Adi-vel is a major festival observed in Sri Lanka by Tamil Hindus in the month of July/August, known as Adi.[5] The festival take place cities such as Katharagama and Colombo.[6]
The alternative interpretation of vel is that it is a symbol of wisdom/knowledge. It symbolically shows that wisdom/knowledge should be sharp as in the vel's tip, as broad and tall as the javelin. Only such wisdom is supposed to be able to destroy the darkness of ignorance.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vel
vita (n.)
plural vitae, Latin, literally "life," from PIE root *gwei- "to live."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/vita
THE CONFLICT: PRIORY OF SION VERSUS KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
Secret societies by virtue of their very secrecy have often kept historians at bay, and the historians, reluctant to confess their ignorance, prefer to diminish the consequence of their subject. Freemasonry.. is of vital importance to any social, psychological, cultural or political history of eighteenth-century Europe, and even to the founding of the United States; but most history books don't even mention it. It is almost as if an implicit policy obtained: If something cannot be exhaustively documented, it must be irrelevant and thereby not worth discussing I at all. Investigators of the Holy Grail1 Freemasonry, French and English, as we know it today, finds its loots in two organizations of the Middle Ages - the Priory of Sion and the Order of the Knights Templar. What follows is the fascinating, if sometimes complicated and obscure history, of how these two modern, anti-Christian secular secret societies - English and French Freemasonry - developed from two groups that themselves had roots in the occult. We will see how the Priory of Sion desired to rule the world from the throne of David in Jerusalem through its counterfeit Jewish Merovingian bloodline, and how its own creation, the Knights Templar, moved beyond its role as police and protector of Sion to financial masters of medieval Europe. We will trace the alliance of Sion and the Templars, their dispute over the discovery of Solomon's treasures, and the terrible intrigues which followed that led to the undoing of the Templars in their struggle over wealth, power, and politics. We will reveal the beliefs of these two groups: that Jesus fathered children by Mary Magdalene; that a spiritual god of good (Satan) battles a material god of evil; that Lucifer, not Jesus, deserves worship; that a "Spear of Destiny" (later sought and possessed by Hitler) allows the holder to rule the world. We will also present data about the whereabouts of King Solomon's wealth, the plan to one day return it to Jerusalem, and reveal that the ultimate goal of these two groups is world government, and that their descendants, English and French Freemasonry, desire the same.
The Historical Trail: The Priory of Sion and the Holy Grail
In 1982 and 1986 three secular revisionist authors, Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln published Holy Blood, Holy Grail followed by The Messianic Legacy. These two books dramatically reveal a secret order structured in the manner of Freemasonry, and founded in Europe twelve centuries before the Grand Lodge was officially formed in 1717. This order protects both the Holy Grail and the Merovingian bloodline, which bloodline carried Mystery Babylon into the Catholic Church in 496 A.D. The Holy Grail, of course, is the so-called cup from which Jesus drank at the Last Supper. The Merovingians, owners of the Holy Grail, teach that Jesus fathered children by Mary Magdalene. The Merovingians claim to be the offspring of that "holy" union, and as such, assert they are Jews of the Davidic line. In Revelation 17:3-5 the apostle John describes a vision, which Rev. J. R. Church in Guardians of the Grail believes is fulfilled in the Grail legend. The Whore of Babylon is holding in her hand a golden cup full of blasphemy. Church believes the cup is the blasphemous Holy Grail Another element of the Grail legend is the spear supposed to have pierced the side of Jesus, also known as the Spear of Longinus or the Spear of Destiny. Whoever possesses this spear, so the legend goes, will rule the world. The Merovingians, whose descendants are the Habsburg pretenders to the Austrian throne today, are in possession of the spear. It is on display in the Habsburg museum in Vienna, Austria~ No one, however, knows the location of the Holy Grail. At least no one is telling. Although heretical, this secret society should not be discounted, for it is alive and well today. In fact, in 1956, an Order calling itself the Prieure de Sion, or Priory of Sion, registered itself publicly for the first time with the French government. (Sion is French for Zion.) It is from this Order that the legend of the Holy Grail originated five centuries after Christ's death. Rev. Church remarks of this organization:
This mysterious group is presently made up of over 9,000 men, including Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, and Moslems. The members of this secret sect should be considered unfaithful to their respective beliefs, for in reality they are neither Christian nor Catholic, they are neither Jew nor Moslem. Their doctrine sidesteps the basic tenets of those beliefs and replaces them with the teachings of their greatest prophet - whom they believe to be Buddha.2
From this secret order J. R. Church believes will come the Anti-Christ, for he writes, "Their ultimate goal is world government! "3
Scarlet and the Beast
by John Daniel
https://ia803001.us.archive.org/28/items/ScarletAndTheBeastJohnDaniel1995/Scarlet%20and%20the%20Beast,%20John%20Daniel%20(1995).pdf
Devī (/ˈdeɪvi/;[1] Sanskrit: देवी) is the Sanskrit word for 'goddess'; the masculine form is deva. Devi and deva mean 'heavenly, divine, anything of excellence', and are also gender-specific terms for a deity in Hinduism.
The concept and reverence for goddesses appears in the Vedas, which were composed around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, they did not play a vital role in that era.[2] Goddesses such as Durga, Kali, Lakshmi, Parvati, Radha, Saraswati and Sita have continued to be revered in the modern era.[2] The medieval era Puranas witness a major expansion in mythology and literature associated with Devi, with texts such as the Devi Mahatmya, wherein she manifests as the ultimate truth and supreme power. She has inspired the Shaktism tradition of Hinduism. Further, Devi is viewed as central in the Hindu traditions of Shaktism and Shaivism.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devi
Kamala Devi Harris[b] (born October 20, 1964) is an American politician and attorney who has been the 49th and current vice president of the United States since 2021, serving under President Joe Biden. Harris is the Democratic Party's nominee for president in the 2024 election. As a woman of Afro-Jamaican and Tamil Indian descent, she is the first woman, first Black American, and first Asian American to hold each of the offices of the vice president, attorney general of California, and San Francisco district attorney. Additionally, from 2017 to 2021 she represented California in the United States Senate. She is the highest-ranking female official in U.S. history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
"Tzel" (צֵל) is the Hebrew word for "shadow," but it’s more than just a dark shape cast by light—it carries also a deep spiritual significance, often symbolizing protection, divine presence, and refuge in the Bible.
Why It Matters:
"Tzel" appears in important biblical contexts, such as in Psalm 91:1: "He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty." This imagery of tzel is often used in scripture to describe God's own character—He offers shade, shelter, and protection to all people.
Fun Fact:
In the desert, the Israelites were led by a cloud—essentially a "shadow" from God—providing protection from the harsh sun. In Numbers 14:9, Joshua tells the Israelites that the Canaanites are defenseless because their "shade" (tzel) has been removed, leaving them without divine protection.
But tzel also has another meaning. Jacob wrestles with his own shadow—his inner struggles—before resolving his conflict with Esau, reminding us that true transformation often comes from confronting our inner selves.
What About You?:
Can you think of a time when you felt like you were in a "tzel"—a moment when you experienced protection or comfort during a difficult time? Or perhaps a moment when you wrestled with your own "shadow"?
https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/creation-and-torah-stories/the-story-of-our-hebrew-fathers-ii-isaac-and-jacob?via=eb03b8d&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IBC_lead_standalone_content_biblical-word-tzel-list-3_2024-10-25#eb03b8d
Shadow government Look up shadow government in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Not to be confused with Shadow Cabinet. Shadow government may refer to: Government An opposition grouping in a parliamentary system that mimics the structure of the actual government, in particular its cabinet (see Shadow Cabinet) A term for plans for an emergency government that takes over in the event of a disaster, see continuity of government A government-in-exile Shadow government (conspiracy), a conspiracy theory of a secret government"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_government
Protocol 15: When the King of Israel sets upon his sacred head the crown offered him by Europe he will become patriarch of the world.
Twelve royal families in Europe today have Grail blood flowing through their veins. Two of them carry the title of "King of Jerusalem:" Otto von Habsburg, Pretender to the Austrian throne, and Juan Carlos, King of Spain.
Scarlet and the Beast
by John Daniel
https://ia803001.us.archive.org/28/items/ScarletAndTheBeastJohnDaniel1995/Scarlet%20and%20the%20Beast,%20John%20Daniel%20(1995).pdf
Odo (French: Eudes; c. 857 – 1 January 898) was the elected King of West Francia from 888 to 898. He was the first king from the Robertian dynasty, the parent house of the House of Capet. Before assuming the kingship, Odo was the count of Paris.[2] His reign marked the definitive separation of West Francia from the Carolingian Empire, which would never be reunited.
Family and inheritance
Odo was the eldest son of Robert the Strong, Duke of the Franks, Margrave of Neustria, and Count of Anjou and Adelaide of Tours.[3][a] After his father's death at the Battle of Brissarthe in 866, Odo inherited the Margraviate of Neustria. Odo lost this title in 868 when King Charles the Bald appointed Hugh the Abbot to the title. Odo regained it following the death of Hugh in 886. After 882 he was the count of Paris. Odo was also the lay abbot of St. Martin of Tours.[5][6]
In 882 or 883 Odo married Théodrate of Troyes.[7] The eleventh-century chronicler Adémar de Chabannes wrote that they had a son, Arnoul (c.882–898)[citation needed], who died shortly after his father. Guy is named as one of the couple's children in an Alan I's charter dated 28 August 903, but genealogist Christian Settipani has argued that the document is false.[8] The genealogical work Europäische Stammtafeln refers to Raoul as a son of Odo by Théodrate, but its primary source is not known.
Reign
For his skill and bravery in resisting the attacks of Vikings during the 885–886 Siege of Paris, Odo was chosen by the western Frankish nobles to be their king following the overthrow of Emperor Charles the Fat.[9] He was crowned at Compiègne in February 888 by Walter, Archbishop of Sens.[10]
Odo continued to battle against the Vikings and defeated them at Montfaucon, but was soon involved in a struggle with powerful Frankish nobles who supported the claim of Charles the Simple to the throne.[9][11]
In 890 Odo granted special privileges to the County of Manresa in Osona.[12] Because of its position on the front line against the Moorish aggression, Manresa was given the right to build towers of defence known as manresanas or manresanes. This privilege was responsible for giving Manresa its unique character, distinct from the rest of Osona, for the next two centuries.[citation needed]
To gain prestige and support, Odo paid homage to East Francia's King Arnulf in 888.[13][14] Despite this, in 894 Arnulf declared his support for Charles the Simple, and after a conflict which lasted three years, Odo was compelled to come to terms with his rival and surrender a district north of the Seine to him.[9] Odo died in La Fère on 1 January 898.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_of_France
Robert I (11 July 1274 – 7 June 1329), popularly known as Robert the Bruce (Scottish Gaelic: Raibeart am Brusach), was King of Scots from 1306 to his death in 1329.[1] Robert led Scotland during the First War of Scottish Independence against England. He fought successfully during his reign to restore Scotland to an independent kingdom and is regarded in Scotland as a national hero.
Robert was a fourth-great-grandson of King David I, and his grandfather, Robert de Brus, 5th Lord of Annandale, was one of the claimants to the Scottish throne during the "Great Cause".[1]
As Earl of Carrick, Robert the Bruce supported his family's claim to the Scottish throne and took part in William Wallace's revolt against Edward I of England. Appointed in 1298 as a Guardian of Scotland alongside his chief rival for the throne, John Comyn of Badenoch, and William Lamberton, Bishop of St Andrews, Robert resigned in 1300 because of his quarrels with Comyn and the apparently imminent restoration of John Balliol to the Scottish throne. After submitting to Edward I in 1302 and returning to "the king's peace", Robert inherited his family's claim to the Scottish throne upon his father's death.
Bruce's involvement in John Comyn's murder in February 1306 led to his excommunication by Pope Clement V (although he received absolution from Robert Wishart, Bishop of Glasgow). Bruce moved quickly to seize the throne, and was crowned king of Scots on 25 March 1306. Edward I's forces defeated Robert in the Battle of Methven, forcing him to flee into hiding, before re-emerging in 1307 to defeat an English army at Loudoun Hill and wage a highly successful guerrilla war against the English.
Robert I defeated his other opponents, destroying their strongholds and devastating their lands, and in 1309 held his first parliament. A series of military victories between 1310 and 1314 won him control of much of Scotland, and at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, Robert defeated a much larger English army under Edward II of England, confirming the re-establishment of an independent Scottish kingdom. The battle marked a significant turning point, with Robert's armies now free to launch devastating raids throughout northern England, while he also expanded the war against England by sending armies to invade Ireland, and appealed to the Irish to rise against Edward II's rule.
Despite Bannockburn and the capture of the final English stronghold at Berwick in 1318, Edward II refused to renounce his claim to the overlordship of Scotland. In 1320, the Scottish nobility submitted the Declaration of Arbroath to Pope John XXII, declaring Robert as their rightful monarch and asserting Scotland's status as an independent kingdom.
In 1324, the Pope recognised Robert I as king of an independent Scotland, and in 1326, the Franco-Scottish alliance was renewed in the Treaty of Corbeil. In 1327, the English deposed Edward II in favour of his son, Edward III, and peace was concluded between Scotland and England with the Treaty of Edinburgh–Northampton in 1328, by which Edward III renounced all claims to sovereignty over Scotland.
Robert I died in June 1329 and was succeeded by his son, David II. Robert's body is buried in Dunfermline Abbey, while his heart was interred in Melrose Abbey, and his internal organs embalmed and placed in St Serf's Church, Dumbarton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_the_Bruce
Die Hard is a 1988 American action film directed by John McTiernan and written by Jeb Stuart and Steven E. de Souza based on the 1979 novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. It stars Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Alexander Godunov, and Bonnie Bedelia, with Reginald VelJohnson, William Atherton, Paul Gleason, and Hart Bochner in supporting roles. Die Hard follows New York City police detective John McClane (Willis) who is caught up in a terrorist takeover of a Los Angeles skyscraper while visiting his estranged wife.
Plot
On Christmas Eve, New York City Police Department (NYPD) Detective John McClane arrives in Los Angeles, hoping to reconcile with his estranged wife, Holly, at a party held by her employer, the Nakatomi Corporation. He is driven to Nakatomi Plaza by a limo driver, Argyle, who offers to wait for McClane in the garage. While McClane washes himself, the tower is seized by the German radical Hans Gruber and his heavily armed team, including Karl and Theo. Everyone in the tower is taken hostage except for McClane, who slips away, and Argyle, who remains oblivious to events.
Gruber is posing as a terrorist to steal the $640 million in untraceable bearer bonds in the building's vault.[a] He kills executive Joseph Takagi after failing to extract the access code from him and tasks Theo with breaking into the vault. The terrorists are alerted to McClane's presence, and one of them, Tony, is sent after him. McClane kills Tony and takes his weapon and radio, which he uses to contact the skeptical Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Sergeant Al Powell is sent to investigate. Meanwhile, McClane kills more terrorists and recovers their bag of C-4 and detonators. Realizing Powell is about to leave, having found nothing amiss, McClane drops a terrorist's corpse onto his car. After Powell calls for backup, a SWAT team attempts to storm the building but is counterattacked by the terrorists. McClane throws some C-4 down an elevator shaft, causing an explosion that kills some of the terrorists and ends the counterattack.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Hard
Pope John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus II; Polish: Jan Paweł II; Italian: Giovanni Paolo II; born Karol Józef Wojtyła, Polish: [ˈkarɔl ˈjuzɛv vɔjˈtɨwa];[b] 18 May 1920 – 2 April 2005) was head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State from 1978 until his death in 2005.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II
Peter Hans Kolvenbach SJ (30 November 1928 – 26 November 2016) was a Dutch Jesuit priest and professor who was the 29th superior general of the Society of Jesus, the largest male Catholic religious order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hans_Kolvenbach
The September 11 attacks, commonly known as 9/11,[f] were four coordinated Islamist terrorist suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaeda against the United States in 2001. On that morning, 19 terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners scheduled to travel from the East Coast to California. The hijackers crashed the first two planes into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and aimed the next two flights toward targets in or near Washington, D.C., in an attack on the nation's capital. The third team succeeded in striking the Pentagon, the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Defense in Arlington County, Virginia, while the fourth plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania during a passenger revolt. The September 11 attacks killed 2,977 people, making it the deadliest terrorist attack in history. In response to the attacks, the United States waged the multi-decade global war on terror to eliminate hostile groups deemed terrorist organizations, as well as the foreign governments purported to support them, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and several other countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
SACROS LATERAN ECCLES
OMNIUM URBIS ET ORBIS
ECCLESIARUM MATER
ET CAPUT
English Translation:
HOLY LATERAN CHURCH,
MOTHER AND HEAD
OF ALL CHURCHES
Basilica of St. John Lateran
The Main or East Façade
https://catholic-resources.org/Photos/Rome-Churches.htm
It is hypothesized that the name comes either from Latin caput, meaning "head", and means "chief" or "head of state".
https://homework.study.com/explanation/how-did-hugh-capet-get-his-name.html
The House of Capet (French: Maison capétienne) ruled the Kingdom of France from 987 to 1328. It was the most senior line of the Capetian dynasty – itself a derivative dynasty from the Robertians and the Karlings.
The direct line of the House of Capet came to an end in 1328, when the three sons of Philip IV (reigned 1285–1314) all failed to produce surviving male heirs to the French throne. With the death of Charles IV (reigned 1322–1328), the throne passed to the House of Valois, descended from a younger brother of Philip IV.
Royal power would pass on, in 1589, to another Capetian branch, the House of Bourbon, descended from the youngest son of Louis IX (reigned 1226–1270). From 1830 on it would go to a Bourbon cadet branch, the House of Orléans, always remaining in the hands of agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet himself a descendant of Charlemagne, except for the 10-year reign of Emperor Napoleon.
Names
The House of Capet (French: Maison capétienne) were also called the Direct Capetians (Capétiens directs), the House of France (la maison de France), or simply the Capets. Historians in the 19th century came to apply the name "Capetian" to both the ruling house of France and to the wider-spread male-line descendants of Hugh Capet (c. 939 – 996). Contemporaries did not use the name "Capetian" (see House of France). The Capets were sometimes called "the Third Race of Kings" (following the Merovingians and the Carolingians). The name "Capet" derives from the nickname (of uncertain meaning) given to Hugh, the first Capetian king.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Capet
Henry II (5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189), also known as Henry Fitzempress and Henry Curtmantle,[2] was King of England from 1154 until his death in 1189. During his reign he controlled England, substantial parts of Wales and Ireland, and much of France (including Normandy, Anjou, and Aquitaine), an area that altogether was later called the Angevin Empire, and also held power over Scotland and the Duchy of Brittany.
Henry became politically and militarily involved by the age of fourteen in the efforts of his mother, Matilda (daughter of Henry I of England), to claim the English throne, at that time held by Matilda's cousin Stephen of Blois. Henry's father, Geoffrey, made him Duke of Normandy in 1150, and upon Geoffrey's death in 1151, Henry inherited Anjou, Maine and Touraine. His marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine brought him control of the Duchy of Aquitaine. Thus, he controlled most of France. Henry's military expedition to England in 1153 resulted in King Stephen agreeing, by the Treaty of Wallingford, to leave England to Henry, and he inherited the kingdom at Stephen's death a year later. Henry was an energetic and ruthless ruler, driven by a desire to restore the royal lands and prerogatives of his grandfather Henry I. During the early years of his reign Henry restored the royal administration in England, which had almost collapsed during Stephen's reign, and re-established hegemony over Wales. Henry's desire to control the English Church led to conflict with his former friend Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This controversy lasted for much of the 1160s and resulted in Becket's murder in 1170. Soon after his accession Henry came into conflict with Louis VII of France, his feudal overlord, and the two rulers fought, over several decades, what has been termed a "cold war". Henry expanded his empire at Louis's expense, taking Brittany and pushing east into central France and south into Toulouse; despite numerous peace conferences and treaties, no lasting agreement was reached.
Henry and Eleanor had eight children. Three of their sons would rule as king, though Henry the Young King only as co-ruler rather than sole monarch, as he predeceased his father. As his sons grew up, Henry struggled to find ways to satisfy their desires for land and immediate power, and tensions rose over the future inheritance of the empire, encouraged by Louis VII and his son Philip II, who ascended to the French throne in 1180. In 1173 Henry's heir apparent, "Young Henry", rebelled against his father; he was joined by his brothers Richard and Geoffrey and by their mother. Several European states allied themselves with the rebels, and the Great Revolt was only defeated by Henry's vigorous military action and talented local commanders, many of them "new men" appointed for their loyalty and administrative skills. Young Henry and Geoffrey led another revolt in 1183, during which Young Henry died of dysentery. Geoffrey died in 1186. The Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland provided lands for Henry's youngest son, John. By 1189, Philip swayed Richard to his side, leading to a final rebellion. Decisively defeated by Philip and Richard and suffering from a bleeding ulcer, Henry retreated to Chinon Castle in Anjou. He died soon afterwards and was succeeded by his son Richard I.
Henry's empire quickly collapsed during the reign of his son John (who succeeded Richard in 1199), but many of the changes Henry introduced during his lengthy rule had long-term consequences. Henry's legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for the English Common Law, while his intervention in Brittany, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland shaped the development of their societies, histories, and governmental systems. Historical interpretations of Henry's reign have changed considerably over time. Contemporary chroniclers such as Gerald of Wales and William of Newburgh, though sometimes unfavourable, generally laud his achievements. In the 18th century, scholars argued that Henry was a driving force in the creation of a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain. During the Victorian expansion of the British Empire, historians were keenly interested in the formation of Henry's own empire, but they also criticised certain aspects of his private life and treatment of Becket.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_II_of_England
Alan fitz Flaad (c. 1060 – after 1120) was a Breton knight, probably recruited as a mercenary by Henry I of England in his conflicts with his brothers.[1] After Henry became King of England, Alan became an assiduous courtier and obtained large estates in Norfolk, Sussex, Shropshire, and elsewhere in the Midlands, including the feudal barony and castle of Oswestry in Shropshire.[2][3][4] His duties included supervision of the Welsh border.[5] He is now noted as the progenitor of the FitzAlan family, the Earls of Arundel (1267–1580), and the House of Stuart,[6] although his family connections were long a matter of conjecture and controversy.
Career
Arrival in England
Flaad and his son Alan had come to the favourable notice of King Henry I of England who, soon after his accession, brought Flaad and Alan to England. Eyton, consistently following the theory of the Scottish origins of the Stewarts, thought this was because he was part of the entourage of the Queen, Matilda of Scotland,[7] Round pointed out that Henry had been besieged in Mont-Saint-Michel during his struggle with his brothers,[1] an event which probably occurred in 1091. He is known to have recruited Breton troops at that time and, after his surrender, left the scene via the adjoining regions of Brittany, where Dol is situated. This is a likely explanation for the Bretons in the military retinue he brought to England after the death of William Rufus.
Alan's career in England can be traced largely through his presence as a witness to charters granted by the king during his travels in the first decade or more of his reign. Some of his activities were traced by Eyton, and his researches overlap with William Farrer's calendar of Henry I travel. All of the business in which he took part was ecclesiastical, involving grants, sometimes disputed, to churches and monasteries.
Appearances at court
Alan appeared in Henry I's company at least as early as September 1101, probably at a court held in Windsor Castle,[8] when he witnessed important grants to Norwich Cathedral, confirming its foundation and various endowments.[9][10] Next, he appeared with the king at Canterbury in 1103,[11] where he witnessed the grant of a market to the nuns of Malling Abbey and land acquisitions by Rochester Cathedral, then in the process of rebuilding.[12]
Later that year,[13] or early in the next,[14] Alan was with the king in the New Forest, where the business concerned Andover Priory, a daughter house of the great Benedictine Abbey of Saint-Florent de Saumur.[15] He was probably selected deliberately for this meeting because of his family's close connections with Saumur Abbey: one of his uncles was a monk there.[16] William Rufus had decreed that all chapels in the parish of Andover church should be handed over to the monks or destroyed.[17] One problem at issue revolved around the Foxcote chapel, which was evidently being defended from destruction or annexation by Edward de Foscote, a local landowner. Another seems to have been the administration of justice in the monastic estates.[18] Wihenoc, a monk of St Florent, had initiated an action against the reeve of Andover to have these issues clarified and resolved. Alan Fitz Flaad was called upon to witness a compromise, although Foxcote was among the properties confirmed to the priory by Pope Eugenius III in 1146.[19]
In the autumn of 1105, Alan was called to York to witness confirmation of Ralph Paynel's transfer of his refounded Holy Trinity Priory in York to Marmoutier Abbey, Tours[20][21] and his many endowments of the priory itself.[22][23] At some point, he also witnessed the Roger de Nonant's gift of the church at Totnes and various tithes to the Abbey of Ss Sergius and Bacchus at Angers, a gift earmarked as being for the souls of the royal family.[24]
In May 1110, Alan was at court at Windsor again to witness the king's settlement of a property dispute between Hervey le Breton, Bishop of Ely, and Ranulph Flambard, Bishop of Durham, resolved in favour of the former.[25]
Probably only later did he appear as a witness to a royal command issued to Richard de Belmeis I, the Bishop of London and the king's viceroy in Shropshire, to see that justice was done in the case of a disputed prebend at Morville.[26][27] The collegiate church there had been dissolved and replaced with a priory attached to Shrewsbury Abbey[28] and it seems that the son of one of the prebendaries was resisting the loss of what he regarded as his patrimony. Alan is listed among a group of Shropshire magnates, including Corbets and a Peverel, meeting perhaps during Henry I's 1114 military expedition into Wales. Johnson and Cronne tentatively place the meeting at Holdgate Castle in Shropshire. Eyton dates the event earlier, around the time of a royal expedition to Shropshire in 1109.[29] Whatever the date, it shows Alan as an important member of the Shropshire landowning class.
Territorial magnate
Alan's rapid ascent to wealth and power was a symptom of troubled times. The abortive revolt of Robert de Belleme in 1102 had torn apart the Anglo-Norman system of governing the Welsh Marches. With other Breton friends, Alan had been given forfeited lands in Norfolk and Shropshire, including some which had previously belonged to Robert de Belleme himself.[30] Robert had proved a threat to Henry in both the Welsh Marches and in Normandy, so the king was determined to insert reliable supporters to counterbalance or replace his network of supporters. Alan received more land as he proved his worth. A large portfolio of lands in Shropshire and around Peppering, near Arundel in Sussex, was taken from the holdings of Rainald de Bailleul,[31] ancestor of the House of Balliol, which was also later to provide a king of Scotland. These were lands granted to Rainald by William the Conqueror in recognition of his role as Sheriff of Shropshire. There is no evidence that Rainald or his successor, Hugh, were rebels, and it seems that their lands came to Alan as a consequence of his elevation to the shrievalty of the county. He also gained a stake in the very large estates of Ernulf de Hesdin by marriage to his daughter, Avelina.[32]
Religious grants and foundations
Alan was actively involved in a number of grants to religious institutions. One of the grants to Norwich Cathedral that he witnessed in 1101 concerned advowson of the church at Langham, Norfolk, which "had been Alan's", along with the tithes. It is possible this was a donation by himself.[8] At some point unknown he gave the manor of Eaton near Norwich, to Norwich Cathedral, a gift the king promised "to confirm when Alan comes to my court."[33][34] It is unclear whether this implied the king doubted the existence or the authenticity of the monks' charter:[35] it certainly implies that Alan's attendance at court was to be expected. He also made considerable grants of land to Castle Acre Priory,[36] which lay on the boundary of his Norfolk honour of Mileham.[37]
However, his most important grants in Norfolk were to Sporle Priory, another Benedictine house subject to St Florent de Saumur, which he founded.[38] He gave to the monks of St Florent the church at Sporle, its tithes, a man's landholding, a ploughland in Sporle and another in Mileham, firewood and building timber, and pasture for sheep.[39] The Liber Albus of St Florent mentions that one of the monks present when Alan made the gift was Wihenoc, who initiated the action at Andover.[40] Sporle was later endowed with property in Norfolk villages, including Great and Little Palgrave, where the priory had the church,[19] Great Dunham, Hunstanton and Holme-next-the-Sea.[13]
Alan acquired Upton Magna, the manor in Shropshire on which Haughmond Abbey was later built, as part of the group of estates that had belonged to earlier sheriffs.[41] A note at the beginning of the abbey's cartulary dates the foundation to 1100 but attributes it to Alan's son, William Fitz Alan,[42] which is impossible, as he was not yet born.[43] The existence of a religious community at Haughmond is not definitely attested before a grant of a fishery to what was still a priory by William, around 1135.[44] While Eyton assumed that William was the founder, although at a later date than suggested by the introductory note on the cartulary, the Victoria County History account leaves open the possibility that a small semi-eremitic community existed earlier at Haughmond under Alan's protection, without leaving a written trace.[31]
Alan probably gave many small grants of land or property rights. He gave land at his manor of Stretton-on-Dunsmore in Warwickshire to Burton Abbey.[45] He granted the tithes from his demesne at Burton on Trent to the monks of Léhon in Brittany, where there was a priory subject to the Abbey of Marmoutier: this is known from its confirmation some decades later by his grandson, Alan fitz Jordan.[46] Alan fitz Jordan also confirmed his grandfather's grant to Marmoutier of property at Cuguen,[47] in Brittany, and confirmed or restored Alan fitz Flaad's gift of a mill at Burton to Sele Priory, a small Sussex monastery subordinate to St Florent de Saumur.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_fitz_Flaad
NINETEEN
HOUSE OF THE UNICORNS
THE UNION OF CROWNS
Scotland’s Royal House of Stewart arose from a marital union of the hereditary lines of Jesus and his brother James — springing from the Merovingians’ own source on the one hand, and from the Celtic Kings of Britain on the other. The Stewarts emerged, therefore, as a truly unique Grail dynasty and have long been known as the ‘House of Unicorns’. We have already seen that the ‘Horn’ of the Unicorn was equivalent to the ‘Blade’ in Grail lore, and both were represented by the male symbol A. Along with the Davidic Lion of Judah and the Franco-Judaic fleur-de-lys, the Desposynic Unicorn was incorporated in the Royal Arms of Scotland. The Unicorn was considered to correspond to the virile Jesus, and was related to the anointing (Messianic) imagery of Psalm (sacred song) 92:10. The mystic beast was among the foremost symbols of the Albigensian Cathars, who were so hideously persecuted by the Inquisition. In medieval legend the Unicorn was always associated with fertility and healing, and Renaissance tapestries portray his head in the lap of the Bride. This alludes to the ancient ritual text of the Sacred Marriage (the Hieros Gamos), ‘The king goes with lifted head to the holy lap,’’ as originally expressed in the poetic rite of old Sumerian Mesopotamia — the land of Noah and Abraham. The Cathars believed that only the Christine horn of the Unicorn could purify the false doctrines that flowed from the Roman Church, and in this regard the revered creature was often portrayed with his horn dipped into a stream or a fountain. Other depictions show the Unicorn trapped within an enclosed garden — confined, but very much alive. The seven tapestry panels of la Dame a la Licorne at the Cluny Museum in Paris were originally from medieval Lyon. The seven Flemish Hunt of the Unicorn panels in the cloisters of the Metropolitan Museum, New York, come from 16th-century Languedoc, and show the Unicorn being chased and persecuted. When captured, he is sacrificed, but is then seen alive and well in the garden of the Bride. This is a direct replication of the story of Jesus. The mythological symbolismy of the Unicorn was central to the so-called heresies of Provence that were so brutally condemned by the Church. It was by no chance that the fabulous beast of the Grail bloodline found his place as guardian of the Lion in the Arms of Scotland, along with the early Christian sign of male and female unity (A + V = X) — the well-known Saltire, popularly identified as the cross of St Andrew. When Robert II Stewart (grandson of Robert the Bruce) founded the Scottish Royal House in 1371, the succession was entailed on his heirs in the Scots Parliament. The Plantagenet Houses of York and Lancaster subsequently battled for dominion in England, but lost out to the Tudors. In France, the Valois dynasty fought constant wars against rival claimants, and were succeeded by the Bourbons. But through all of this the Stewarts maintained their uninterrupted dynastic position. Before the High Stewards became Kings of Scots, their family branches were well positioned in terms of noble status, and as time progressed they acquired titles in Lorne, Innermeath, Atholl, Lennox, Doune, Moray and elsewhere. By the late 16th century the name Stewart had become Stuart in the royal line, a change that occurred by way of French association through the Stewart Seigneurs d’Aubignie and Mary Queen of Scots’ first marriage to the Dauphin. Following the childless death of Elizabeth Tudor of England, the Scottish and English Crowns were united in 1603. James VI of Scots was the great-grandson of James IV, and Henry VIII's sister Margaret. He was therefore deemed to be Elizabeth's closest living relative, and was invited to succeed. In fact, England had a suitable heir to the throne in Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, by descent from Henry VII's daughter Mary. Nevertheless, although many were happy enough to recognize a legitimate parallel succession from Henry VII, others were far from content that the King of Scots had become King of England. They did not object to the crowns being united, but they would have preferred a reverse situation, so that an English monarch governed Scotland. As a result, one of history’s greatest political conspiracies was set against James and the Stuart kings. When James VI of Scots arrived in London to become also James I of England, he was confronted by two immediate problems. The first was related to religion. Both Scotland and England were established as Protestant nations, but James had experienced a Presbyterian upbringing whereas England was Anglican. The second difficulty was that the Westminster administration was wholly English, and Scots born before James’s 1603 accession were debarred from government office.
After many failed attempts to gain control of Scotland, the English Parliament had discovered a strategic route to Scottish possession — one that may well have been devised before James was invited to succeed. Once James was settled on the united thrones, a solution to the longstanding ambition was in place: (a) future Kings of Britain would remain based in London, thereby restricting Scottish influence even in the affairs of Scotland; (b) Westminster could eventually dissolve the traditional Scottish Three Estates Parliament; (c) at an appropriate time, the Stuarts could be discredited and deposed, and (d) a puppet monarch of Westminster’s own choosing could then replace the Scottish succession. The perceived outcome of this strategy would be Scotland’s overall subjection to English rule - an ambition which had prevailed since the Plantagenet days of Edward I. And that is precisely what happened from 1688 when King James VII (II) was usurped and sent into exile by Church and parliamentary conspirators. Earlier, in 1560, the austere Presbyterian Kirk (regulated by elders rather than bishops) had become the National Church of Scotland. South of the border, the Anglican Church had existed since Elizabeth I authorized the Thirty-Nine Articles of the English doctrine in 1563. So when the Stuarts succeeded as overall monarchs of Britain, they were expected to uphold two major Churches, each without offence to the other. It was an impossible task — particularly since the king was supposed to be Head of the Church of England. In order to achieve a compromise, the Stuarts founded the Scottish Episcopal Church, which introduced a like structure of Protestant bishops in parallel with the Anglican equivalent. But the kings then had a third Church to uphold, and this made things even more difficult. Over and above this, there was another complication. In addition to being Kings of Britain, the Stuarts were also Kings of Ireland (the Irish Free State was not established until 1921), and therefore had responsibilities towards the Irish people, who were traditionally Catholic. Elizabeth I had ruled without much parliamentary consultation, and had put the crown into considerable debt. King James was in consequence obliged to implement higher taxation. However, in approving this measure, Parliament insisted that he could not rule in the autocratic Elizabethan style. In fact they put forward a series of restrictions which left the King with hardly any individual powers at all. James responded, declaring that by Scots tradition he was not answerable to Parliament but to God and the nation. It was his duty, he maintained, to uphold Scotland’s Written Constitution on behalf of the people, and to take constitutional stands against Parliament and the Church if and when the need arose. But unlike Scotland, England had no Written Constitution (as is still the case), and the people had nothing to protect their rights and liberties. All that existed was a feudal tradition which vested the power of the land in the wealthy upper classes. Throughout the Stuart era, religious differences between rival factions of the Christian Church were very much to the fore. In enforcing the Acts of Uniformity in respect of the Book of Common Prayer, James V1 (I) upset the Catholics and prompted the Gunpowder Plot. Conversely, in introducing his Authorized Version of the Bible, he caused the Protestants to assert that he was siding with Rome. There was no way in which the Stuart king could satisfy the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians and the Catholics without being thoroughly tolerant of them all. The problem was that the Anglican Parliament did not react well to such toleration, especially when it was extended to include Jews as well.
When James’s son Charles I acceded to the throne, his immediate concern was the discriminatory nature of the Westminster Parliament. The ministers were so wrapped up in religious and territorial wrangling that they had forgotten all about managing the country. Charles therefore dissolved the troublesome Parliament in 1629 and instituted his own new administration. By so doing he gained considerable popularity; he also managed to balance the national budget for the first time in centuries. Within six years he was more favourably accepted than any monarch since Henry VII (1485- 1509) — but as the dogmatic Puritans rose to power, so Charles's reign collapsed. The high-minded doctrines of the Anglican bishops had become thoroughly disliked by large sectors of the community. Not surprisingly, the people were quick to follow instead their local Puritan preachers who denounced the episcopacy altogether. King Charles did all he could to salvage the Anglican reputation, but succeeded only in alienating marty potential supporters. During the ongoing struggle with Spain, Charles allied himself with France by marrying Henri IV’s daughter, Henrietta Maria, and this upset both the Anglican Church and the Puritans, for Henrietta Maria was a Catholic. CIVIL WAR After eleven years of self-sufficiency, Charles was obliged to recall his Parliament in 1640. This followed severe problems with the Scottish Kirk, whose nonepiscopal elders had been offended by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s attempt to enforce the Anglican Prayer Book in Presbyterian Scotland. At Westminster the Puritan ministers promptly impeached Archbishop Laud for treason, and he was subsequently beheaded along with King Charles’s deputy, Viscount Strafford. The Puritans then set about abolishing the King’s council of the Star Chamber, and drew up the ‘Grand Remonstrance’ —a list of complaints against the King himself. Having smoothed over the Scottish problem, Charles was then confronted by further troubles the following year in Ireland. There the Catholics were reacting violently against the presence of British Protestants who were being encouraged to migrate in their thousands to Ulster. King Charles endeavoured to raise an army to quell the insurgency, but Parliament refused him the finance, thinking that Charles might turn his army upon themselves. Then in 1642, when Charles tried to arrest five MPs for obstructive behaviour, the gates of London were locked firmly against him — and the result was civil war. In Nottingham the King mustered a force of Royalist Cavaliers, while Oliver Cromwell — an ambitious country MP—assumed command of the Parliamentary forces. His cavalry met the Royalists at Edgehill, but the battle ended indecisively. Unlike the colourful Cavaliers, the Westminster party were indeed puritanical, especially with their severely short haircuts which caused them to be dubbed ‘Roundheads’. Cromwell's breast-plated troopers were given the nickname ‘Ironsides’.’ Following Edgehill, the Roundheads established the Solemn League and Covenant with the Scottish Kirk: they promised to introduce Presbyterianism into England if the Kirk would supply additional soldiers. This, along with a fee of £30,000 a month (equivalent to around £2,000,000 a month in today’s terms), was sufficient to win the Kirk’s support —and it was as a direct result that Cromwell defeated the Royalists at Marston Moor in 1644. In the following year, Parliament's New Model Army defeated Charles again at Naseby. Only at this stage, however, did the Kirk’s soldiers discover the true nature of their fellow Puritans. They had previously seen them simply as other non-episcopal Protestants, akin to their own Presbyterian society, but now their eyes were opened. It was reported that the Roundheads slaughtered all the Irish women found in the Royalist camp after the Battle of Naseby, and they mutilated the English women with knives. They took the Scotsmen prisoners, gouged out their eyes, cut off their ears, and nailed down their tongues. In the South, people had supported the Puritan cause in large numbers, but now this seemingly temperate sect was seen in a new light as an army of fanatical persecutors — to rival the savage Catholic Inquisitors of the ‘Holy Office’. These same Puritan fanatics were soon destined to pursue their own erstwhile supporters with a vengeance, in their effort to root out witches and sorcerers! It was only a matter of time before King Charles was forced to surrender, and in 1646 he was handed into Parliamentary custody at Newark. Later the same year he began negotiations with the sorely embarrassed Presbyterian Kirk. The elders recognized that in siding with the Puritans they had actively assisted in the downfall of their own royal dynasty (unlike the Scots Episcopalians who had stayed loyal to the Crown). But it was too late to make amends, and although a Scots army was despatched against Cromwell, he defeated it at Preston in August 1648. Early in the following year, King Charles I was tried at Westminster Hall, and beheaded in Whitehall on 30 January 1649. The Puritan army thereafter swept through Ireland, killing thousands of innocent citizens — an atrocity for which the unfortunate English people as a whole were blamed. With no king to consider, Parliament established an interim period of ‘Commonwealth’, and in 1650 Cromwell defeated the late king’s son, Charles, Prince of Wales, at Dunbar. Irrespective of this, the Scots crowned Charles II at Scone on 1 January 1651, and he faced Cromwell's troops again at Worcester. He lost once more, however, but managed to escape to France. Some two years later, in 1653, Oliver Cromwell terminated both his Parliament and the Commonwealth. Appointing himself ‘Lord Protector’, he then ruled by military force alone, and his Protectorate was far more severe than any regime that had ever gone before. At his order, the Anglican Prayer Book was forbidden, along with any form of celebration at Christmas or Easter. Property was sequestrated, education was constrained, and freedom of speech was terminated. Adultery was punished by death, and single mothers were imprisoned. Sports and entertainment were pronounced blasphemous, inns were closed, meetings were prohibited, and punitive fines were imposed at will by the soldiers. Those who dared to pray at all prayed for ‘a speedy return to the protection of the Common Law’. When Oliver Cromwell died in 1658, his despotic legacy fell to his son Richard. Fortunately, he was not possessed of his father’s ambition, with the result that it was not long before Charles II was invited back to his kingdoms. The ‘Restoration’ of Charles Stuart to the throne thus occurred in 1660, eleven years after the execution of his father. Charles proved to be a skilful and popular king. He reformed the Anglican Church, and maintained a society wherein all religious denominations were equally accepted. Yet despite these achievements, the Anglican politicians and clergy pursued their imperious course. No matter what the king thought, they had no intention of showing any forbearance towards other religious persuasions, particularly not to the Jews or the Catholics. Moreover, because Charles was married to the Portuguese Catherine of Braganza, they insisted that he must have leanings toward the Church of Rome. Parliament therefore passed the restrictive 1673 and 1678 Test Acts, precluding anyone other than Anglicans from holding governmental or public office."
page 397-406
Bloodline of The Holy Grail by Laurence Gardiner
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zsH4O_ls0IgWEYXLXWCo7I3IUi32FJhq/view?usp=sharing
The Monument to the Royal Stuarts is a memorial in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican City State. It commemorates the last three members of the Royal House of Stuart: James Francis Edward Stuart ("the Old Pretender", d. 1766), his elder son Charles Edward Stuart ("the Young Pretender" or "Bonnie Prince Charlie", d. 1788), and his younger son, Henry Benedict Stuart ("the Cardinal Duke of York", d. 1807). The Jacobites recognised these three as kings of England, Scotland and Ireland.
The marble monument is by Antonio Canova (1757–1822), the most celebrated Italian sculptor of his day. It was erected in 1819.
Description
The monument takes the form of a truncated obelisk. It carries bas relief profile portraits of the three exiled princes, and the following inscription:
IACOBO·III
IACOBI·II·MAGNAE·BRIT·REGIS·FILIO
KAROLO·EDVARDO
ET·HENRICO·DECANO·PATRVM·CARDINALIVM
IACOBI·III·FILIIS
REGIAE·STIRPIS·STVARDIAE·POSTREMIS
ANNO·M·DCCC·XIX
("To James III, son of King James II of Great Britain, to Charles Edward and to Henry, Dean of the Cardinal Fathers, sons of James III, the last of the Royal House of Stuart. 1819")
Below the inscription are two weeping angels, symbolising the lost hopes of the exiled Stuarts.
The monument to the Royal Stuarts was originally commissioned by Monsignor Angelo Cesarini, executor of the estate of Henry Benedict Stuart. Among the subscribers, curiously, was King George IV, who (once the Jacobite threat to his throne had ended with the death of Cardinal Stuart in 1807) was an admirer of the Stuart legend.[1]
The monument stands towards the back of the basilica in the left aisle opposite the door from which people coming down the spiral staircase from the dome and roof exit. It is frequently adorned with flowers by Jacobite romantics.
Burials
The monument is, strictly speaking, a cenotaph, not a tomb. The three Stuarts are buried in the crypt below the basilica. James Francis Edward Stuart was buried here at his death in 1766. When Charles Edward Stuart died in 1788, he was buried in the Basilica of St Peter Apostle in Frascati. When his brother Henry Benedict Stuart died in 1807, both brothers were laid to rest next to their father in the crypt of St. Peter's. Three separate tombstones were erected on the site.
Until 1938 the bodies of the three Stuarts were buried where the tomb of Pius XI now stands. In that year the bodies were moved slightly further east on the left side of the crypt, to make room for Pius's tomb. In 1939 a single sarcophagus was erected over the three graves. On top of the sarcophagus is a bronze pillow on which is placed a bronze crown. On the front of the sarcophagus is the same inscription quoted above.
Other monuments
Opposite the monument to the Royal Stuarts in St. Peter's Basilica is a monument to Maria Clementina Sobieska, wife of James Francis Edward Stuart and mother of Charles Edward Stuart and Henry Benedict Stuart. Its inscription reads:
MARIA CLEMENTINA M. BRITANN.
FRANC. ET HIBERN. REGINA
("Maria Clementina, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland"[a])
Queen Christina of Sweden, the only other monarch with a memorial in the church, also lies entombed in the crypt below the basilica, with the Royal Stuarts. She abdicated her throne in 1654 to convert to Catholicism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_to_the_Royal_Stuarts
The Crowns of America
So often one hears politicians quoting the British Constitution as if it actually exists by way of adocumentary privilege — but it does not. It is simply an accumulation of old customs and precedents concerning parliamentary sanctions, together with a number of specific laws defining certain aspects. Since Scotland's 1320 Declaration of Arbroath was nullified by England's Treaty of Union in 1707, the oldest Written Constitution now in force is that of the United States of America. It was adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and effected in 1789. In that same year began the French Revolution, which abolished feudalism and ‘absolute’ monarchy in France, thereby influencing politics in much of Europe. In close to 200 years since the Revolution, France and other European States (with Britain as a noticeable exception) have adopted Written Constitutions to protect the rights and liberties of individuals — but who champions these Constitutions on behalf of the people? A popular alternative to absolute monarchy or dictatorship has been found in Republicanism. The Republic of the United States was created primarily to free the emergent nation from the despotism of Britain’s House of Hanover. Yet its citizens tend still to be fascinated by the concept of monarchy. No matter how Republican the spirit, the need for a central symbol remains. Neither a flag nor a president can fulfil this unifying role, for by virtue of the ‘party system’ presidents are always politically motivated. Republicanism was devised on the principle of fraternal status, yet an ideally classless society can never exist in an environment that promotes displays of eminence and superiority by degrees of wealth and possession. For the most part, those responsible for the United States’ morally inspired Constitution were Rosicrucians and Freemasons, notable characters such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Charles Thompson. The last, who designed the Great Seal of the United States of America, was a member of Franklin’s American Philosophical Society — a counterpart of Britain’s Invisible College. The imagery of the Seal is directly related to alchemical tradition, inherited from the allegory of the ancient Egyptian Therapeutate. The eagle, the olive branch, the arrows, and the pentagrams are all occult symbols of opposites: good and evil, male and female, war and peace, darkness and light. On the reverse (as repeated on the dollar bill) is the truncated pyramid, indicating the loss of the Old Wisdom, severed and forced underground by the Church establishment. But above this are the rays of ever-hopeful light, incorporating the ‘all-seeing eye’, used as a symbol during the French Revolution.
In establishing their Republic, the Americans could still not escape the ideal of a parallel monarchy — a central focus of non-political, patriotic attachment. George Washington was actually offered kingship, but declined because he had no immediately qualifying heritage. Instead he turned to the Royal House of Stuart. In November 1782 four Americans arrived at the San Clemente Palazzo in Florence, the residence of Charles III Stuart in exile. They were Mr Galloway of Maryland, two brothers named Sylvester from Pennsylvania, and Mr Fish, a lawyer from New York. They were taken to Charles Edward by his secretary, John Stewart. Also present was the Hon Charles Hervey-Townshend (later Britain’s ambassador to The Hague) and the Prince's future wife, Marguerite, Comtesse de Massillan. The interview — which revolved around the contemporary transatlantic dilemma — is doctimented in the US Senate archives and in the Manorwater Papers. Writers such as Sir Compton Mackenzie and Sir Charles Petrie have also described the occasion when Charles Edward Stuart was invited to become ‘King of the Americans’. Some years earlier, Charles had been similarly approached by the men of Boston, but once the War of Independence was over George Washington sent his own envoys. It would have been a great irony for the House of Hanover to lose the North American colonies to the Stuarts. But Charles declined the offer for a number of reasons, not the least of which was his lack of a legitimate male heir at the time. He knew that without a due successor the United States could easily fall to Hanover again at his death, thereby defeating the whole Independence effort. Since those days, many other radical events have taken place: the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, two major World Wars, and a host of changes as countries have swapped one style of government for another. Meanwhile, civil and international disputes continue just as they did in the Middle Ages. They are motivated by trade, politics, religion, and whatever other banners are flown to justify the constant struggle for territorial and economic control. The Holy Roman Empire has disappeared, the German Reichs have failed, and the British Empire has collapsed. The Russian Empire fell to Communism, which has itself been disgraced and crumbled to ruin, while Capitalism teeters on the very brink of acceptability. With the Cold War now ended, America faces a new threat to her superpower status from the Pacific countries. In the meantime, the nations of Europe band together in what was once a seemingly well conceived economic community, but which is already suffering from the same pressures of individual custom and national sovereignty that beset the Holy Roman Empire. Whether nations are governed by military-style regimes or elected parliaments, by autocrats or democrats, and whether formally described as monarchist, socialist or republican, the net product is always the same: the few control the fate of the many. In situations of dictatorship this is a natural experience — but it should not be the case in a democratic institution based on the principle of majority vote. True democracy is government by the people for the people, in either direct or representative form, ignoring class distinctions and tolerating minority views. The American Constitution sets out an ideal for this form of democracy ... but, in line with other nations, there is always a large sector of the community that is not represented by the party in power. Because presidents and prime ministers are politically tied, and because political parties take their respective turns at individual helms, the inevitable result is a lack of continuity for the nations concerned. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but there is no reliable ongoing institution to champion the civil rights and liberties of people in such conditions of ever-changing leadership. Britain does, at least, retain a monarchy, but it is a politically constrained monarchy, and as such is ineffectual in performing its role as guardian of the nation. The United States, unlike Britain, has a Written Constitution — but has no one with the power to uphold its principles against successive governments who determinedly pursue their own politically vested interests. Is there an answer to the anomaly — an answer that could bring not just a ray of hope but a shining light for the future? There certainly is, but its energy relies on those in governmental service appreciating their roles as ‘representatives’ of society rather than presuming to stand at the head of society. Alongside the political administration, an appointed Constitutional champion would be empowered to keep check on any potential disparities and infringements of the Constitution that might occur. This can be achieved in the manner first envisaged by George Washington and the American Fathers. Their original plan was for a democratic Parliament combined with a working Constitutional Monarchy bound not to Parliament or the Church but to the people and their Written Constitution. In such an environment, sovereignty would ultimately rest with the people, while the monarch (as an operative Guardian of the Realm) would pledge an ‘Oath of Fealty to the Nation’ — not the reverse, as in Britain’s case, whereby the nation pays homage to the sovereignty of Parliament and the monarchy. The unfulfilled ambition of the American Fathers was that government ministers should be elected by the majority vote of the people, but that their actions be directed within the boundaries of the Constitution. Because that Constitution belongs to the people, its champion — as George Washington perceived — should be a monarch whose obligation is not to politics or religion but to the sovereign nation. Through the natural system of heredity (being born and bred to the task), such a Constitutional guardian would provide an ‘ongoing continuity’ of public representation through successive governments. In this regard both monarchs and ministers would be servants of the Constitution on behalf of the Community of the Realm. Such a concept of moral government lies at the very heart of the Grail Code, and it remains within the bounds of possibility for every civilized Nation State. A leading British politician recently claimed that it was not his job to be popular! Not so—a popular minister is a trusted minister, and holding a deserved electoral trust facilitates the democratic process. No minister can honestly expound an ideal of equality in society when that minister is deemed to possess some form of prior lordship over society. Class structure is always decided from above, never from below. It is therefore for those on self-made pedestals to be seen to kick them aside in the interests of harmony and unity. Jesus was not in the least humbled when he washed his Apostles’ feet; he was raised to the realm of a true Grail King — the realm of equality and princely service. This is the eternal ‘Precept of the Sangréal’, and it is expressed in Grail lore with the utmost clarity: only by asking ‘Whom does the Grail serve?’ will the wound of the Fisher King be healed, and the Wasteland returned to fertility.
pages 438-443 "The Sangreal Today"
Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Laurence Gardner
British Israelism (also called Anglo-Israelism) is a pseudo-historical[1][2] belief that the people of Great Britain are "genetically, racially, and linguistically the direct descendants" of the Ten Lost Tribes of ancient Israel.[3] With roots in the 16th century, British Israelism was inspired by several 19th century English writings such as John Wilson's 1840 Our Israelitish Origin.[4] From the 1870s onward, numerous independent British Israelite organizations were set up throughout the British Empire as well as in the United States; as of the early 21st century, a number of these organizations are still active. In the United States, the idea gave rise to the Christian Identity movement.
The central tenets of British Israelism have been refuted by archaeological,[5] ethnological,[6] genetic,[7]: 181 and linguistic research.[8][9]: 33–34
History
Earliest recorded expressions
According to Brackney (2012) and Fine (2015), the French Huguenot magistrate M. le Loyer's The Ten Lost Tribes, published in 1590, provided one of the earliest expressions of the belief that the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Scandinavian, Germanic, and associated peoples are the direct descendants of the Old Testament Israelites.[3][10]: 176 Anglo-Israelism has also been attributed to King James VI and I (1566–1625),[10] who is reported to have believed he was the King of Israel.[3] Adriaan van Schrieck (1560–1621), who influenced Henry Spelman (1562–1641) and John Sadler (1615–74), wrote in the early 17th century about his ideas on the origins of the Celtic and Saxon peoples. In 1649, Sadler published Rights of the Kingdom,[11] "which argues for an 'Israelite genealogy for the British people'".[10]: 176
Aspects of British Israelism and its influences have also been traced to Richard Brothers, who published A Revealed Knowledge of the Prophecies and Times in 1794,[12]: 1 John Wilson's Our Israelitish Origin (1844),[12]: 6-9 and John Pym Yeatman's The Shemetic Origin of the Nations of Western Europe (1879).[13] : 211
Foundation
British Israelism arose in England, then spread to the United States.[14]: 52–65 Its adherents cite various supposedly-medieval manuscripts to claim an older origin, but British Israelism appeared as a distinct movement in the early 1880s:
Although scattered British Israel societies are known to have existed as early as 1872, there was at first no real move to develop an organization beyond the small groups of believers which had arisen spontaneously. The beginnings of the movement as an identifiable religious force can, therefore, be more accurately placed in the 1880s, when the circumstances of the time were particularly propitious for the appearance of a movement so imperialistically-orientated.[15]
The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British Government in 1917 during the First World War announcing its support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population. The declaration was contained in a letter dated 2 November 1917 from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The text of the declaration was published in the press on 9 November 1917.
Immediately following Britain's declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, it began to consider the future of Palestine. Within two months a memorandum was circulated to the War Cabinet by a Zionist member, Herbert Samuel, proposing the support of Zionist ambitions in order to enlist the support of Jews in the wider war. A committee was established in April 1915 by British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to determine their policy towards the Ottoman Empire including Palestine. Asquith, who had favoured post-war reform of the Ottoman Empire, resigned in December 1916; his replacement David Lloyd George favoured partition of the Empire. The first negotiations between the British and the Zionists took place at a conference on 7 February 1917 that included Sir Mark Sykes and the Zionist leadership. Subsequent discussions led to Balfour's request, on 19 June, that Rothschild and Chaim Weizmann submit a draft of a public declaration. Further drafts were discussed by the British Cabinet during September and October, with input from Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews but with no representation from the local population in Palestine.
By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate, with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of a revolution with Bolsheviks taking over the government. A stalemate in southern Palestine was broken by the Battle of Beersheba on 31 October 1917. The release of the final declaration was authorised on 31 October; the preceding Cabinet discussion had referenced perceived propaganda benefits amongst the worldwide Jewish community for the Allied war effort.
The opening words of the declaration represented the first public expression of support for Zionism by a major political power. The term "national home" had no precedent in international law, and was intentionally vague as to whether a Jewish state was contemplated. The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words "in Palestine" meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by "stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands". The declaration called for safeguarding the civil and religious rights for the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population, and also the rights and political status of the Jewish communities in other countries outside of Palestine. The British government acknowledged in 1939 that the local population's wishes and interests should have been taken into account, and recognised in 2017 that the declaration should have called for the protection of the Palestinian Arabs' political rights.
The declaration had many long-lasting consequences. It greatly increased popular support for Zionism within Jewish communities worldwide, and became a core component of the British Mandate for Palestine, the founding document of Mandatory Palestine. It indirectly led to the emergence of the State of Israel and is considered a principal cause of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict, often described as the world's most intractable. Controversy remains over a number of areas, such as whether the declaration contradicted earlier promises the British made to the Sharif of Mecca in the McMahon–Hussein correspondence.
The Rothschild family (/ˈrɒθ(s)tʃaɪld/ ROTH(S)-chylde German: [ˈʁoːt.ʃɪlt]) is a wealthy Ashkenazi Jewish noble banking family originally from Frankfurt that rose to prominence with Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744–1812), a court factor to the German Landgraves of Hesse-Kassel in the Free City of Frankfurt, Holy Roman Empire, who established his banking business in the 1760s.[2] Unlike most previous court factors, Rothschild managed to bequeath his wealth and established an international banking family through his five sons,[3] who established businesses in Paris, Frankfurt, London, Vienna, and Naples. The family was elevated to noble rank in the Holy Roman Empire and the United Kingdom.[4][5] The family's documented history starts in 16th century Frankfurt; its name is derived from the family house, Rothschild, built by Isaak Elchanan Bacharach in Frankfurt in 1567.
The elk (pl.: elk or elks; Cervus canadensis), or wapiti, is the second largest species within the deer family, Cervidae, and one of the largest terrestrial mammals in its native range of North America and Central and East Asia. The word "elk" originally referred to the European variety of the moose, Alces alces, but was transferred to Cervus canadensis by North American colonists.
A hart is a male red deer, synonymous with stag and used in contrast to the female hind; its use may now be considered mostly poetic or archaic. The word comes from Middle English hert, from Old English heorot; compare Frisian hart, Dutch hert, German Hirsch, and Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish hjort, all meaning "deer". Heorot is given as the name of Hrothgar's mead hall in the Old English epic Beowulf.
"When his grandson, Naftali Hirz left the "House at the Red Shield" in 1664 and moved to the Hinterpfann (a tenement in the back of a house at the northern end of the Judengasse), he took the name Rothschild with him."
The Family ‹ Rothschild Name & Arms :: The Rothschild Archive
"From Middle High German hirz, from Old High German hiruz, from Proto-West Germanic *herut, from Proto-Germanic *herutaz. Compare Dutch hert, English hart."
Hirsch - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
"The word “Hirz” has its origins in Arabic and is often used to refer to a fortified or protected place. In its broader sense, it represents a location or space that is enclosed and fortified, offering a sense of safety and protection to those inside."
What is Islamic Hirz and Amulet? - MyRings Boutique
"Herzl is a beautiful boy's name of Yiddish origin. Borrowed from the name Hirsh, Herzl means “deer,” making it a special way to dote on your little one's delicate nature."
Herzl - Baby Name Meaning, Origin and Popularity (
thebump.com)
"The ancestral home of the Herzl family is in the German province of Bavaria. Herzl is a German nickname surname. Such names came from eke-names, or added names, that described their initial bearer through reference to a physical characteristic or other attribute. It is a name for a kindhearted or stalwart individual, and is derived from the German word herz, which means heart."
Herzl Name Meaning, Family History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms (
houseofnames.com)
"Old English heorte "heart (hollow muscular organ that circulates blood); breast, soul, spirit, will, desire; courage; mind, intellect," from Proto-Germanic *hertan- (source also of Old Saxon herta, Old Frisian herte, Old Norse hjarta, Dutch hart, Old High German herza, German Herz, Gothic hairto), from PIE root *kerd- "heart.""
heart | Etymology, origin and meaning of heart by etymonline
c) Finish with a profound act of reverence to God, as Ignatius did so many times
in this same place. Make an interior (and perhaps even exterior!) reverence.
Maybe you feel like praying an Our Father, meditating on each word, as Ignatius
taught us to do. Or pray a Hail Mary to the Virgin of Montserrat whom Ignatius
could glimpse through the bushes that covered the grotto. Or recite Psalm 42,
represented artistically in the mosaic on the floor of the Cave: “As a DEER longs for
flowing streams.”
– Or it might even be enough to read the Utopia of Ignatius of Loyola, the
Principle and Foundation [SpEx 23], found at the start of his Spiritual
Exercises. You might feel yourself far from what your lips are enunciating,
but enjoy this sense of “utopian freedom
[666] 6. 1On the side of the superior general, what will aid toward this union of hearts are the qualities of his person [G], to be treated in Part IX [723-25], with which he will perform his office, 2which is to be for all the members a head from which the influence required for the end sought by the Society ought to descend to them all. 3It is thus from the general as head that all authority of the provincials should flow, from the provincials that of the local superiors, and from the local superiors that of the individual members. 4And from this same head, or at least by his commission and approval, should likewise come the appointing of missions. And the same should apply to communicating the graces of the Society. 5For the more the subjects are dependent upon their superiors, the better will the love, obedience, and union among them be preserved."
The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms
"6. The delegates commit to working with the schools to enhance the way parents and families are invited into our education and formation." The Rio Papers International Congress for Jesuit Education Delegates Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 2017
"The Union Générale.
Meanwhile the Nationalist and Reactionary parties in France desired to counterbalance the "Semitic" influence of the Rothschilds by establishing a banking concern which should be essentially Catholic. Accordingly in 1876 the Union Générale was founded with a capital of 4,000,000 francs, increased to 25,000, 000 fraces in 1878 under the direction of a certain Bontoux. After various vicissitudes, graphically described by Zola in his novel "L'Argent," the Union failed, and brought many of the Catholic nobility of France to ruin, leaving the Rothschilds still more absolutely the undisputed leaders of French finance, but leaving also a legacy of hatred which had much influence on the growth of the anti-Semitic movement in France. Something analogous occurred in England when the century-long competition of the Barings and the Rothschilds culminated in the failure of the former in 1893; but in this case the Rothschilds came to the rescue of their rivals and prevented a universal financial catastrophe. It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Roths-childs that at the present time the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.
Of recent years the Rothschilds have consistently refused to have anything to do with loans to Russia, owing to the anti-Jewish legislation of that empire, though on one occasion the members of the Paris house joined in a loan to demonstrate their patriotism as Frenchmen."
ROTHSCHILD - JewishEncyclopedia.com
The House of Windsor is a British royal house, and currently the reigning house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. The royal house's name was inspired by the historic Windsor Castle estate. Since it was founded on 17 July 1917, there have been five British monarchs of the House of Windsor: George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and Charles III. The children and male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip also genealogically belong to the House of Oldenburg[1] since Philip was by birth a member of the Glücksburg branch of that house.[2]
The monarch is head of state of fifteen sovereign states. These are the United Kingdom, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu. As well as these separate monarchies, there are also three Crown Dependencies, fourteen British Overseas Territories, two associated states of New Zealand, and one territory.
History
In 1701, succession to the throne was given to Sophia of Hanover, who was born into the House of Wittelsbach, married into the House of Hanover, and was a granddaughter of James VI and I of the House of Stuart. Succession was passed to her son who became George I in 1714, marking the start of a long ruling period by the Hanoverian royal house. Eventually in 1901, a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy with the accession of King Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor, taking its name from the royal residence in Berkshire.[3]
King Edward VII and, in turn, his son, George V, were members of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha branch of the House of Wettin by virtue of their descent from Albert, Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria, the last British monarch from the House of Hanover. High anti-German sentiment amongst the people of the British Empire during the First World War[4] reached a peak in March 1917, when the Gotha G.IV, a heavy aircraft capable of crossing the English Channel, began bombing London directly and became a household name. In the same year, on 15 March, King George's first cousin Emperor Nicholas II of Russia was forced to abdicate, which raised the spectre of the eventual abolition of all the monarchies in Europe. The king and his family were finally persuaded to abandon all titles held under the German Crown and to change German titles and house names to anglicised versions. Hence, on 17 July 1917, a royal proclamation issued by George V declared:
Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor....[5]
The name had a long association with monarchy in Britain, through the town of Windsor, Berkshire, and Windsor Castle; the link is alluded to in the Round Tower of Windsor Castle being the basis of the badge of the House of Windsor. It was suggested by Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham.[6] Upon hearing that his cousin had changed the name of the British royal house to Windsor and in reference to Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor, German Emperor Wilhelm II remarked jokingly that he planned to see "The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha".[7]
George V also restricted the use of British princely titles to his nearest relations,[8] and in 1919, he stripped three of his German relations of their British titles and styles under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.[9]
The children and male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip also genealogically belong to the House of Oldenburg[10] since Philip was by birth a member of the Glücksburg branch of that house.[2]
John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute KG PC FSA Scot (/bjuːt/; 25 May 1713 – 10 March 1792), styled Lord Mount Stuart between 1713 and 1723, was a British nobleman who served as the Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1762 to 1763 under King George III. He became the first Tory to hold the position and was arguably the last important royal favourite in British politics. He was the first prime minister from Scotland following the Acts of Union in 1707. He was also elected as the first president of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland when it was founded in 1780.
Early life
Family
He was born in Parliament Close, near to St Giles Cathedral on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh on 25 May 1713, the son of James Stuart, 2nd Earl of Bute, and his wife, Lady Anne Campbell.[1] He attended Eton College from 1724 to 1730.[2] He went on to study civil law at the Universities of Groningen (1730–1732) and Leiden (1732–1734) in the Netherlands,[3][4] graduating from the latter with a degree in civil law.[5]
A close relative of the Clan Campbell (his mother was a daughter of the 1st Duke of Argyll), Bute succeeded to the Earldom of Bute (named after the Isle of Bute) upon the death of his father in 1723. He was brought up thereafter by his maternal uncles, the 2nd Duke of Argyll and Archibald Campbell, 3rd Duke of Argyll, 1st and only Earl of Ilay. In August 1735, he eloped with Mary Wortley Montagu, whose parents Sir Edward and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu were slow to consent to the marriage.[6]
Political career
Rise to prominence
In 1737, he was elected a Scottish representative peer; despite being in London in December of that year, he did not participate in deliberations in the House of Lords.[6] Because of his support for Argyll against Walpole, he was not re-elected in 1741.[7] For the next several years he retired to his estates in Scotland to manage his affairs and indulge his interest in botany.
In 1745, Bute moved to Twickenham, Middlesex where his family rented a house for forty-five pounds per annum.[8] He met Frederick, Prince of Wales, in 1747 at the Egham Races and became a close friend.[9]
After the Prince's death in 1751, Bute was appointed tutor to Prince George, the new Prince of Wales (later George III).[10]
Bute arranged for the Prince and his brother Prince Edward to follow a course of lectures on natural philosophy by the itinerant lecturer Stephen Demainbray. This led to an interest in natural philosophy on the part of the young prince and may have led to George III's collection of natural philosophical instruments.
Bute furthermore became close to Prince Frederick's widow, Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, the Dowager Princess of Wales, and it was rumoured that the couple were having an affair. Indeed, one of the Prince of Wales's associates, John Horne Tooke, published a scandalous pamphlet alluding to the liaison, but the rumours were almost certainly untrue, since Bute held sincere religious beliefs against adultery and, by all indications, appeared happily married.
In 1780, Bute was elected as the first President of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.[11]
Prime Minister (1760-1763)
Appointment
Because of the influence he had over his pupil, Bute expected to rise quickly to political power following George's accession to the throne in 1760, but his plans were premature. It would first be necessary to remove both the incumbent prime minister (the Duke of Newcastle) and arguably the even more powerful Secretary of State for the Southern Department (William Pitt the Elder).[12] The Government of the day, buoyed by recent successes in the Seven Years' War, was popular, however, and did well at the general election which, as was customary at the time, took place on the accession of the new monarch.[13]
Supported by the King, Bute manoeuvred himself into power by first allying himself with Newcastle against Pitt over the latter's desire to declare war on Spain. Once thwarted in his designs against Spain by Bute and Newcastle, Pitt resigned his post as Secretary of State for the Southern Department. Next, Bute forced Newcastle's resignation as prime minister when he found himself in a small minority within the government over the level of funding and direction of the Seven Years' War.[14] Re-elected as a Scottish representative peer in 1760, Bute was appointed the de facto prime minister after the resignations of Pitt and Newcastle, thus ending a long period of Whig dominance. [citation needed]
The Anglo-Prussian Alliance, which was established in 1756 was dissolved in 1762. Frederick the Great accused Bute of a plot to destroy the Prussian monarchy.[15]
Bute's premiership was notable for the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris (1763) which concluded the Seven Years' War. In so doing, Bute had to soften his previous stance in relation to concessions given to France in that he agreed that the important fisheries in Newfoundland be returned to France without Britain's possession of Guadeloupe in return.[16]
After peace was concluded, Bute and the King decided that Britain's military expenditure should not exceed its prewar levels, but they thought a large presence was necessary in America to deal with the French and Spanish threat. They therefore charged the colonists for the increased military levels, thus catalysing the resistance to taxes which led to the American Revolution.[17] Bute also introduced a cider tax of four shillings per hogshead in 1763 to help finance the Seven Years' War.[10]
The journalist John Wilkes published a newspaper, The North Briton, in which both Bute and the Dowager Princess of Wales were savagely satirised. Bute resigned as prime minister shortly afterwards, although he remained in the House of Lords as a Scottish representative peer until 1780.
Post-premiership
For the remainder of his life, Bute remained at his estate in Hampshire, where he built himself a mansion called High Cliff near Christchurch.[18] From there he continued his pursuit of botany and became a major literary and artistic patron. Among his beneficiaries were Samuel Johnson, Tobias Smollett, Robert Adam, William Robertson and John Hill. He also gave considerably to the Scottish universities.
He financed Alberto Fortis's travels into Dalmatia. His botanical work culminated in the publication of Botanical Tables Containing the Families of British Plants in 1785. Even after his retirement, Bute was accused by many Americans in the years leading up to the American Revolutionary War as having an undue corrupting influence over the British government.[19]
He died at his home in South Audley Street, Grosvenor Square, Westminster, from complications of a fall suffered while staying at Highcliffe, and was buried at Rothesay on the Isle of Bute.[18]
Legacy
The flowering plant genera Butea and Stewartia are named after him.[20]
In 1761, Bute was appointed Ranger of Richmond Park by King George III, a post he held until his death; Bute Avenue in Petersham near the park is named after him.[21]
According to historian John Naish, the 18th-century expression "Jack Boot" meaning a stupid person originated as disparagement of Stuart's performance as prime minister.[22]
Stuart Island (British Columbia) is named for Stuart.
Luton Hoo
Bute purchased Luton Hoo, or Luton Park, from Francis Herne MP in 1763 for the sum of £94,700.[23] Recognising that the existing buildings were unsuitable, Bute commissioned the neoclassical architect Robert Adam to oversee the redesign of the estate house.[24]
Initial designs were unsatisfactory and, coupled with the sale of Bute House, Adams submitted new designs for a larger complex, which Bute further adjusted to include five book rooms and seven water closets.[24] The building also housed an extensive art collection, particularly paintings of the Dutch and Flemish schools. A fire in March 1771 "did considerable damage" according to contemporary reports.[25] The project was completed by 1773 but not according to the full plan, the second phase of which was abandoned.[26]
Death
He died on 10 March 1792, from a fall he had a year and a half prior. He fell 30 feet (9.1 m) down cliffs in Hampshire while collecting plants.[27] He died in his mansion on South Audley Street off Grosvenor Square.[1]
CARAFA-CANTELMO-STUART
Eldest ancestor Teodoro Caracciolo/Caraziolus (+ 976) possessed many properties in the area of Naples. He is possibly of byzantine origin. He is the ancestor of the two still existent Caracciolo families (Rosso and Pisquizi) and the Carafa family, as one branche called themselves Caracciolo Carafa and later only Carafa. Vincenzo Carafa, lord of Castelvetere and Roccella (+ 1526) was created Conte di Grotteria on 19-10-1496. His son Giovanni Battista Carafa, 2.Conte di Grotteria (+ 1552) was created Marchese di Castelvetere on 5-6-1530. He married Lucrezia Borgia dei Principi di Squillace, a niece of Pope Alessandro VI. Their grandson Don Fabrizio Carafa, 3.Marchese di Castelvetere (+ 1629) was created Principe di Roccella on 24-3-1594 and a Reichsfürst (Principe del Sacro Romano Impero) on 16-8-1622. Don Vincenzo Carafa, 6.Principe di Roccella (1660-1726) married Donna Ippolita Cantelmo-Stuart dei Principi di Pettorano e Duchi di Popoli, thus uniting the two famly names.
Pope Alexander VI[Note 2] (born Rodrigo de Borja;[Note 3] 1 January 1431 – 18 August 1503) (epithet: Valentinus ("The Valencian"))[6] was head of the Catholic Church and ruler of the Papal States from 11 August 1492 until his death in 1503. Born into the prominent Borgia family in Xàtiva in the Kingdom of Valencia under the Crown of Aragon (now Spain), Rodrigo studied law at the University of Bologna. He was ordained deacon and made a cardinal in 1456 after the election of his uncle as Pope Callixtus III, and a year later he became vice-chancellor of the Catholic Church. He proceeded to serve in the Curia under the next four popes, acquiring significant influence and wealth in the process. In 1492, Rodrigo was elected pope, taking the name Alexander VI.
Alexander's papal bulls of 1493 confirmed or reconfirmed the rights of the Spanish crown in the New World following the finds of Christopher Columbus in 1492. During the second Italian war, Alexander VI supported his son Cesare Borgia as a condottiero for the French king. The scope of his foreign policy was to gain the most advantageous terms for his family.[7][8]
Alexander is one of the most controversial of the Renaissance popes, partly because he acknowledged fathering several children by his mistresses. As a result, his Italianized Valencian surname, Borgia, became a byword for libertinism and nepotism, which are traditionally considered as characterizing his pontificate.
Francis Borgia SJ (Valencian: Francesc de Borja; Spanish: Francisco de Borja; 28 October 1510 – 30 September 1572) was a Spanish Jesuit priest. The great-grandson of both Pope Alexander VI and King Ferdinand II of Aragon, he was Duke of Gandía and a grandee of Spain. After the death of his wife, Borgia renounced his titles and became a priest in the Society of Jesus, later serving as its third superior general. He was canonized on 20 June 1670 by Pope Clement X.
Political Pawn or Machiavellian Villain?
No single portrait of Lucrezia Borgia captures her contradictory nature more than an allegorical painting by Titian that hangs in the Borghese Gallery in Rome. The painting shows Lucrezia on one edge of a small pool, a naked Venus on the other, and a small cupid between them. The allegory is intended to represent sacred love (Lucrezia) and profane love (Venus). Such is the historical paradox of Lucrezia Borgia.
Pope Paul V (Latin: Paulus V; Italian: Paolo V) (17 September 1550 – 28 January 1621), born Camillo Borghese, was head of the Catholic Church and ruler of the Papal States from 16 May 1605 to his death, in January 1621. In 1611, he honored Galileo Galilei as a member of the papal Accademia dei Lincei and supported his discoveries.[2] In 1616, Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Robert Bellarmine to inform Galileo that the Copernican theory could not be taught as fact, but Bellarmine's certificate allowed Galileo to continue his studies in search for evidence and use the geocentric model as a theoretical device. That same year Paul V assured Galileo that he was safe from persecution so long as he, the Pope, should live. Bellarmine's certificate was used by Galileo for his defense at the trial of 1633.[3]
Trained in jurisprudence, Borghese was made Cardinal-Priest of Sant'Eusebio and the Cardinal Vicar of Rome by Pope Clement VIII. He was elected as Pope in 1605, following the death of Pope Leo XI. Pope Paul V was known for being stern and unyielding, defending the privileges of the Church. He met with Galileo Galilei in 1616 and was involved in the controversy over heliocentrism. He canonized and beatified several individuals during his papacy and created 60 cardinals in ten consistories.
His insistence on ecclesiastical jurisdiction led to conflicts with secular governments, notably with Venice, which resulted in an interdict on the city in 1606. This disagreement was eventually mediated by France and Spain in 1607. Pope Paul V's diplomacy also strained relations with England, as his actions were perceived as undermining moderate Catholics in the country.
In Rome, he financed the completion of St. Peter's Basilica, improved the Vatican Library, and restored the ancient Roman aqueduct Aqua Traiana. Pope Paul V established the Banco di Santo Spirito in 1605 and is also known for fostering the rise of the Borghese family through nepotism. He died on 28 January 1621, after suffering from a series of strokes and was succeeded by Pope Gregory XV.
Pope Francis (Latin: Franciscus; Italian: Francesco; Spanish: Francisco; born Jorge Mario Bergoglio;[b] 17 December 1936) is head of the Catholic Church and sovereign of the Vatican City State. He is the first pope to be a member of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuit Order), the first from the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere, and the first born or raised outside Europe since the 8th-century papacy of the Syrian pope Gregory III.
Born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bergoglio worked for a time as a bouncer and a janitor as a young man before training to be a chemist and working as a technician in a food science laboratory. After recovering from a severe illness of pneumonia and cysts, he was inspired to join the Jesuits in 1958. He was ordained a Catholic priest in 1969, and from 1973 to 1979 was the Jesuit provincial superior in Argentina. He became the archbishop of Buenos Aires in 1998 and was created a cardinal in 2001 by Pope John Paul II. He led the Argentine Church during the December 2001 riots in Argentina. The administrations of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner considered him to be a political rival.
Following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on 28 February 2013, a papal conclave elected Bergoglio as his successor on 13 March. He chose Francis as his papal name in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi. Throughout his public life, Francis has been noted for his humility, emphasis on God's mercy, international visibility as pope, concern for the poor, and commitment to interreligious dialogue. He is credited with having a less formal approach to the papacy than his predecessors, for instance choosing to reside in the Domus Sanctae Marthae guesthouse rather than in the papal apartments of the Apostolic Palace used by previous popes.[2]
After the other Orders of Chivalry which could grant knighthood and damehood ended, in 1587 AD (Spain), 1789 AD (Portugal) and 1929 AD (Germany), surviving Templars continued Templar missions through the Franciscan Sacred Order, Franciscan Vatican Order, Ancient Celtic Churches, and Rosicrucian Mystical Order.
However, none of these remaining institutions of Templar survival were Orders of Chivalry, and thus could not grant knighthood or damehood.
Also, only the Sacred Order of Saint Francis of Assisi in England (since 1212 AD) preserved and carried the rights of Templar Sovereign Succession, through the rare and unique “Templar Lines” of Apostolic Succession.
Therefore, from 2007-2013, the Franciscan Sacred Order completed the original plan from Saint Bernard, by reunification with surviving cultural and chivalric Templars from Ancient Celtic and Rosicrucian branches of the Old Catholic Churches, to restore and reestablish the Templar Order to full legitimacy.
King Charles III's coronation to feature shards of "True Cross" gifted by Pope Francis
By Haley Ott
April 21, 2023 / 4:24 AM EDT / CBS News
Pope Francis has given King Charles III two shards of wood that the Vatican says are from the "True Cross" on which Jesus Christ was crucified, to be included in the British monarch's upcoming coronation ceremony. The shards will be incorporated into a new cross that will lead the coronation procession on May 6.
The new cross, which was a gift from then-Prince Charles to the Church in Wales, a branch of the Anglican Church, to mark its centenary in 2020, has been made from reclaimed wood, recycled silver and Welsh slate, the Reuters news agency reported. The two small shards donated by Pope Francis have been shaped into a cross and incorporated behind a gemstone.
King Charles III's coronation: What to know for the centuries-old ceremony
"I can confirm that the fragments of the relic of the True Cross were donated by the Holy See in early April, through the Apostolic Nunciature, to His Majesty King Charles III, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, as an ecumenical gesture on the occasion of the centenary of the Anglican Church in Wales," the Holy See press office said Thursday.
King Charles III's coronation: What to know for the centuries-old ceremony
After the coronation, the cross will return to Wales, where it will be shared between the Anglican and Catholic churches there, Reuters reported.
"Its design speaks to our Christian faith, our heritage, our resources and our commitment to sustainability," Andrew John, the Anglican Archbishop of Wales, said, according to Reuters. "We are delighted too that its first use will be to guide their majesties into Westminster Abbey at the Coronation Service."
"It will be lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one of the religious order jeg. a Jesuit, to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread atrocious accusations against himself or his religion," is the rule given by the Jesuit Francis Amicus. Clement XIV was in their eyes such a calumniator. Indeed, as we have read, the Jesuit oath states, "I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard (a dagger) or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank. dignity, or authority of the person or persons...." That would include 'popicide'! Several historians have opined that the poison given to Pope Clement XIV was administered by one of his regular guests or a servant. And it is a fact that every week the pope met with his Jesuit confessor.
Even to this day, of those who have access to the pope, the Jesuits are always the best positioned. The Jesuits know all the secrets of the popes and have the most intimate access to the Roman pontiffs. Indeed, some of the Pope's closest advisors are Jesuits. Further, it is a requirement that the pope's confessor must be a Jesuit. Jean Lacouture's work Jesuits: A Multibiography confirms that Pope Paul VI (Cardinal Montini) had as his confessor a Jesuit priest. And the Jesuit Cardinal Paolo Dezza, with whom the Pope is said to have had "almost daily meetings," tells us that the "White Pope" has private "monthly face-to- face meetings" with the "Black Pope."" This quote is verbatim.
Nor were these weekly meetings a peculiarity of Paul VT's papacy "The Pope's confessor, an ordinary priest, must be a Jesuit: he must
25 Charles Newdigate, Glimps of the Great Secret Society, op. cit., p. 40: and Wylie, History of Protestantism, op. cit.
26 R. W. Thompson, Footprints of the Jesuits, op. cit., pp. 224-227. 27 Francis Amicus, Cursus Theologici, Tomus v., Duaci, 1642, Disp. 36,
Sect. 5, n. 118.
28 Jean Lacouture, Jesuits: A Multibiography, op. cit., p. 463, para. 1. See also, p. 444 (Pope Pius XII also having Jesuit Father Robert Leiber. as his confessor). Only a Jesuit can be the Pope's confessor: p. 445.
252
Order out of Chaos: the Jesuits, Their rise, fall...Audacious Return the Vatican once a week at a fixed time, and he alone may absolve the Pope of his sins. In fact, Cardinal Dezza was confessor to two Popes- Paul VI and John Paul I-both of whom 'chose him as confessor.
10
The reader may be surprised to learn that there have been several such Papal assassinations, and attempts at assassinations. Malachi Martin, the former Jesuit professor and Vatican insider, says that the tensions between Paul VI and the Jesuit General was so high that the Pontill was thinking about "dissolving the Company a second time." He was not to live to execute any such plans. In 1970, Pope Paul VI was almost stabbed to death by Benjamin Mendoza y Amor Flores. Malachi Martin writes: "Had it not been for that still collar and the speed of Paul's private secretary, Monsignore Macchi, who caught Mendoza's arm and slowed its force, Paul VI would have been killed. As it was, he was wounded slightly on both sides of the neck." Then, on July 14, 1978, for no apparent reason, Paul VI fell into unconsciousness for four hours and died soon after of a massive heart attack. It would be remiss of me not to point out that almost every pope who has sought to dissolve the Jesuits has had an untimely and sudden demise.
Likewise, Paul VI's successor Pope John Paul I inherited a financial scandal involving the Jesuits, the Vatican Bank and its American director, Bishop Paul Marcinkus. John Paul I decided to act: he went to bed with a copy of his speech about his plans to either terminate or reorganize the Jesuits. He was found dead by his housekeeper the following morning." In an earlier age so untimely a death might have stirred deep suspicions. Time magazine, October 9, 1978, notes: "If this were the time of the Borgias," said a young teacher in Rome, "there'd be talk that John Paul was poisoned."
29 Nino Lo Bello, The Vatican Empire, (New York: Trident Press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 1968), p. 78. Nino Lo Bello was the author of ten books, including the New York Times bestsellers. The Vatican Empire, Vatican U.S.A., European Detours, The Vatican Papers, and Nino Lo Bello's Guide to the Vatican. For eight years, he was Italian correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune and served as special correspondent to the International Herald Tribune for more than a
quarter-century.
30 Malachi Martin, The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), p. 401; see also his comments on pp. 231-233 regarding the murder of
Pope Sixtus V in 1590.
31
Martin, The Jesuits, The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the
Roman Catholic Church, op. cit., p. 44.
253
CODEWORD BARBELON
Three years later, on May 13, 1981, the successor to John Paul I, "ope John Paul II, was struck by two bullets from the semiautomatic istol of hitman Mehmet Ali Agca. Three weeks prior to the ssassination attempt John Paul II had a meeting with six of the most owerful cardinals in the Vatican and was in deadlock talks with the esuit General. The topic? The forced resignation of the Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe!" John Paul had written a letter to Father General Arrupe, insisting on appointing the 80 year old Jesuit Cardinal Paolo Dezza as his personal delegate to the Jesuits, with power to govern the Society of Jesus. After the failed attempt on his life John Paul II withdrew his demands, and lived a long life-unlike Pope Clement XIV.
Not long thereafter the attempted assassination of John Paul II by Mehmet Ali, May 1981, the Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe" made this marvellous admission: "The Company is feared everywhere.... The people say, "These Jesuits are wily! And so powerful!****
Returning to the suppression. For all its "comprehensive" and bold declarations, Pope Clement's decree of 1773 proved only partially successful and palpably shortlived. After Clement's suspicious and untimely death, Cardinal Braschi was elected Pope Pius VI, on February 15, 1775. The successor to the unfortunate Clement XIV was no less in fear of the Jesuits. A former pupil of the Society of Jesus, he knew their wrath. Almost immediately he sought to secure the release of Fr. Ricci, the Jesuit General, and his assistants from the prison in Castel San Angelo. But Charles III. King of Spain, insisted on their detention. Moreover, the Jesuits were never suppressed in Russia or Germany. Pius VI, seeing the fate of his predecessors, colluded with Frederick II of Prussia to "saving the Jesuits." On March 12, 1783. Pius VI "approved" the maintenance of the Jesuits in Russia.
138
32 Malachi Martin, The Jesuits..., op, cit., pp. 79-80, 94.
33 Pedro Arrupe (1907-1991) "the 28th Superior General". For nearly 20
years, he was the central figure in the renewal of the Society after Vatican Council II. From the Basque country of Spain, he put his medical training on hold to join the Jesuits. He was expelled from Spain in 1932, along with all the Jesuits by the Spanish government. 34 Jean Lacouture, Jesuits: A Multibiography, op. cit., p. 472; Alain. Woodrow, Les Jesuits (Paris: Jean-Claude Lattés, 1984), p. 267. 35 Lacouture, Jesuits: A Multibiography, op. cit., p. 305.
36 Histoire religieuse, politique et litteraire de la Compagnie de Jesus, op
cit, p. 485.
254
"Order Out of Chaos: The Jesuits, Their Rise, Fall, And Audacious Return"
Codeword Barbelon book One
by P.D. Stuart
Isaiah 1
1599 Geneva Bible
Isaiah
1 2 Isaiah reproveth the Jews of their ingratitude and stubbornness, that neither for benefits nor punishments would amend. 11 He showed why their sacrifices are rejected, and wherein God’s true service standeth. 24 He prophesieth of the destruction of Jerusalem, 25 and of the restitution thereof.
1 A [a]vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz, which he saw [b]concerning Judah and Jerusalem, in the days of [c]Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah Kings of Judah.
2 Hear, O [d]heavens, and hearken, O earth: for the Lord hath said, I have nourished and brought up [e]children, but they have rebelled against me.
3 The [f]ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel hath not known: my people hath not understood.
4 Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity: a [g]seed of the wicked, corrupt children: they have forsaken the Lord: they have provoked the [h]Holy one of Israel to anger: they are gone backward.
5 Wherefore should ye be [i]smitten anymore? for ye fall away more and more: the whole [j]head is sick, and the whole heart is heavy.
6 From the [k]sole of the foot unto the head, there is nothing whole therein, but wounds and swelling, and sores full of corruption: they have not been wrapped, [l]nor bound up nor mollified with oil.
7 Your land is waste: your cities are burnt with fire: strangers devour your land in your presence, and it is desolate like the overthrow of [m]strangers.
8 And the daughter of [n]Zion shall remain like a cottage in a vineyard, like a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, and like a besieged city.
9 Except the Lord of hosts [o]had reserved unto us even a small remnant, we should have been [p]as Sodom, and should have been like unto Gomorrah.
10 Hear the word of the Lord, O [q]princes of Sodom: hearken unto the Law of our God, O people of Gomorrah.
11 What have I to do with the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord? I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and of the fat of fed beasts: and I [r]desire not the blood of bullocks, nor of lambs, nor of goats.
12 When ye come to appear before me, who required this of your hands to tread in my courts?
13 Bring no more oblations, [s]in vain: incense is an abomination unto me: I cannot suffer your new moons, nor Sabbath, nor solemn days (it is iniquity) nor solemn assemblies.
14 My soul hateth your [t]new moons and your appointed feasts: they are a burden unto me: I am weary to bear them.
15 And when you shall stretch out your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: and though ye make many prayers, I will not hear: for your hands are full [u]of blood.
16 [v]Wash you, make you clean, take away the evil of your works from before mine eyes: cease to do evil.
17 Learn to [w]do well: seek judgment, relieve the oppressed: judge the fatherless, and defend the widow.
18 Come now, [x]and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins were as crimson, they shall be made [y]white as snow: though they were red like scarlet, they shall be as wool,
19 If ye [z]consent and obey, ye shall eat the good things of the land.
20 But if ye refuse and be rebellious, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.
21 How is the [aa]faithful city become an harlot? it was full of judgment, and justice lodged therein, but now [ab]they are murderers.
22 Thy [ac]silver is become dross: thy wine is mixed with water.
23 Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of [ad]thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the widow’s cause come before them.
24 Therefore saith the Lord God of hosts, the [ae]Mighty one of Israel, Ah, I will [af]ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies.
25 Then I will turn mine hand upon thee, and burn out thy dross, till it [ag]be pure, and take away all thy tin.
26 [ah]And I will restore thy Judges as at the first, and thy counselors as at the beginning: afterward shalt thou be called a city of righteousness, and a faithful city.
27 Zion shall be redeemed in judgment, and they that return in her, in [ai]justice.
28 And the [aj]destruction of the transgressors and of the sinners shall be together: and they that forsake the Lord, shall be consumed.
29 For they shall be confounded for the [ak]oaks, which ye have desired, and ye shall be ashamed of the gardens that ye have chosen,
30 For ye shall be as an oak, whose leaf fadeth: and as a garden that hath no water.
31 And the strong shall be as [al]tow, and the maker thereof as a spark: and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them.
Footnotes
Isaiah 1:1 That is, a revelation or prophecy, which was one of the two means whereby God declared himself to his servants in old time, as Num. 12:6, and therefore the Prophets were called Seers, 1 Sam. 9:9.
Isaiah 1:1 Isaiah was chiefly sent to Judah and Jerusalem, but not only: for in this book are prophecies concerning other nations also.
Isaiah 1:1 Called also Azariah, 2 Kings 15:1, of these Kings, read 2 Kings 14–21, and 2 Chron. 25–33.
Isaiah 1:2 Because men were obstinate and insensible, he calleth to the dumb creatures, which were more prompt to obey God’s word, as Deut. 32:1.
Isaiah 1:2 He declareth his great mercy toward the Jews forasmuch as he chose them above all other nations to be his people and children, as Deut. 10:15.
Isaiah 1:3 The most dull and brute beasts do more acknowledge their duty toward their masters, than my people do toward me, of whom they have received benefits without comparison.
Isaiah 1:4 They were not only wicked as were their fathers, but utterly corrupt, and by their evil example infected others.
Isaiah 1:4 That is, him that sanctifieth Israel.
Isaiah 1:5 What availeth it to seek to amend you by punishment, seeing the more I correct you, the more ye rebel?
Isaiah 1:5 By naming the chief parts of the body, he signifieth that there was no part of the whole body of the Jews free from his rods.
Isaiah 1:6 Every part of the body as well the least as the chiefest, was plagued.
Isaiah 1:6 Their plagues were so grievous, that they were incurable, and yet they would not repent.
Isaiah 1:7 Meaning, of them that dwell far off, which because they look for no advantage of that which remaineth destroy all before them.
Isaiah 1:8 That is, Jerusalem.
Isaiah 1:9 Because that he will ever have a Church to call upon his Name.
Isaiah 1:9 That is, all destroyed.
Isaiah 1:10 Ye that for your vices deserved all to be destroyed, as they of Sodom, save that God of his mercy reserved a little number, Lam. 3:22.
Isaiah 1:11 Although God commanded these sacrifices for a time, as aids and exercises of their faith: yet because the people had not faith nor repentance, God detesteth them, Ps. 50:13; Jer. 6:20; Amos 5:22; Mic. 6:7.
Isaiah 1:13 Without faith and repentance.
Isaiah 1:14 Your sacrifices offered in the new moons and feasts: he condemneth hereby hypocrites, which think to please God with ceremonies, and they themselves are void of faith and mercy.
Isaiah 1:15 He showeth that where men be given to avarice, deceit, cruelty and extortion, which is meant by blood, there God will show his anger, and not accept them, though they seem never so holy, as Isa. 59:3.
Isaiah 1:16 By this outward washing, he meaneth the spiritual: exhorting the Jews to repent and amend their lives.
Isaiah 1:17 This kind of reasoning by the second Table, the Scriptures use in many places against the hypocrites, who pretend most holiness and religion in word, but when the charity and love toward their brethren should appear, they declare that they have neither faith nor religion.
Isaiah 1:18 To know if I do accuse you without cause.
Isaiah 1:18 Lest sinners should pretend any rigor on God’s part, he only willeth them to be pure in heart, and he will forgive all their sins, were they never so many or great.
Isaiah 1:19 He showeth that whatsoever adversity man endureth, it ought to be attributed to his own incredulity and disobedience.
Isaiah 1:21 That is, Jerusalem, which had promised fidelity unto me, as a wife to her husband.
Isaiah 1:21 Given to covetousness and extortion, which he signified before by blood, verse 15.
Isaiah 1:22 Whatsoever was pure in thee before, is now corrupt, though thou have an outward show.
Isaiah 1:23 That is, they maintain the wicked and the extortioners: and not only do not punish them, but are themselves such.
Isaiah 1:24 When God will show himself merciful to his Church, he calleth himself, The Holy one of Israel, but when he hath to do with his enemies, he is called Mighty, as against whom no power is able to resist.
Isaiah 1:24 I will take vengeance of mine adversaries the Jews, and so satisfy my desire by punishing them. Which thing yet he doeth with a grief, because of his Covenant.
Isaiah 1:25 Lest the faithful among them should be overcome with his threatening, he addeth this consolation.
Isaiah 1:26 It is only the work of God to purify the heart of man, which thing he doeth because of his promise, made concerning the salvation of his Church.
Isaiah 1:27 By justice is meant God’s faithful promise, which is the cause of the deliverance of his Church.
Isaiah 1:28 The wicked shall not be partakers of God’s promise, Ps. 92:9.
Isaiah 1:29 That is, the trees and pleasant places, where ye commit idolatry, which was forbidden, Deut. 16:22.
Isaiah 1:31 The false god, wherein ye put your confidence, shall be consumed as easily as a piece of tow.
Comments
Post a Comment