Monday, May 28, 2018

The Last Church of the Paraclete; the Jewish-Christian Baptists of Babylon

By the second half of 6th century, Chaghanian had become one of the strongest and most influential possessions of Northern Tokharistan. Local rulers – Chaghankhudates had established diplomatic, dynastic and religious ties with many states. Chaghanian was soon drawn into the Muslim sphere of influence but due to flexible state policies, maintained a concentrated power for near one hundred years more, so consequently abolished by Islamic powers in the last quarter of 8th century. Islam whence directed from Medina by Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr (632–34), had launched its series of conquests, and under the second caliph Umar (634–44), taking Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Persia furthermore.
It’s said by the time of the rise of Islam in the 7th Century, and from a singular major power centre, most rulers of Tokharistan (part of Kushan 1st-4th C., Hephthlites 4th-6th C., & Turkic Kaganate 6th-7th) were scions of western Turkic dynasties. The conquests of the Ptolemaic, Selucid, and Parthian Empires had originally beset the regions extremely prosperous ‘Bactrian empire’ - of one thousand cities. The Greeks of Bactria had been described as masters of the whole of modern-day Afghanistan, as well as the easternmost part of Iran and most of Pakistan. Apollodorus of Artemita recounted that more tribes were subdued by them than by Alexander, indeed the later Moghuls under Babur succeeded where he failed, in taking control over the Indian subcontinent. The regions Zoroastrian’s based in Khurasan for over one thousand years, practiced fire worship with special burial customs, and respectfully aside any other cults, as the official cult of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran. The culturally exclusive Tokharistan had been maintained as part of the eastern group of Indo-European languages called satem. Tokharian, the language spoken in the eastern part of Sinkiang, was Indo-European, but pertained to the kentum or western branch of this linguistic family (like Italo-Keltic and Germanic). Both the Iranian and Tokharian groups are familiar to the three other major regional lingual sets: Turkic, Sino-Tibetan, and Indian.
The Zoroastrianism religion central in Iran ceded its primacy to other faiths, especially Manichaeism in Transoxania (Modern Uzbekistan) and Buddhism in Sinkiang. Manichaeism was another dualistic religion founded by Mani (216–77) in Iraq, then a Persian possession, but subsequently all but extirpated in territories under Persian or Byzantine rule. The Prophet Mani, ‘Messenger of Light’, spoke the Semitic tongue related to Syriac, a later form of Aramaic. Transoxania and Sinkiang became the split-centre of Manichaeism, instilling foundational reforms with its Syriac alphabet, also adapted by the Sogdians later and becoming the Arabic script, crucially also Mongolian. To designate themselves, Egyptian and other Manichaeans preferred ‘church’ ( ἐκκλησία ), since they regarded their communities as veritable assemblies ( ἐκκλησίαι ) of saints. References to their church abound in Manichaean writings from all over the Roman Empire. Similarly as modern Christianity denotes, Mani’s followers identified as members of the holy church, children of the living kindred and children of God, as common epistolography. They promoted themselves collectively as the Church of the Paraclete and as such were described the Christians in the Dakhleh Oasis in Western Egypt (evidence discovered at the town site at Kellis proves the earliest known Christian liturgy is and a large fragment from the Acts of St. John found there; set by three small Kellis churches), where multi-faith communities were integral to the historical polytheist tradition.
Mani recounted that “Jesus chose his church in the west, but his church did not reach the east. Buddha chose his church in the east, and his choice did not reach the west”. Seeking to ensure his Church remain absolute and the figurative ‘last Church’, Mani stated;
“I arranged for my hope so that it reaches the west and is also carried to the east, and the sound of its preaching will be heard in every language and proclaimed in every town.” Successful by and by with Manichaean communities reaching as far as southern China, he was however ultimately not received by subsequent authorities of the State though after attaining permission to propagate his new syncretistic religion, within Shapur’s entourage (comitatus). Mani was imprisoned and executed, further galvanising his doctrine and becoming identified as Christ, though an acclaimed apostle to Jesus Christ. Having descended from the Baptismal traditions, the associative sects and coupled with Gnostic Christianity and Jewish Christianity, each forebode particular practice, virtues, prophets and writings, oft the cause of civil disturbance and escalating to heresy. In Rome this had invoked official anti-Christian legislation by Diocletian, eventually resulting in Constantine’s Nicene council. Mani uniquely had criticised the baptismal rituals after departing from the tradition in youth. He kept instead honor of the Sassanid Prophet Alchasaios with whom we identify with the Elcesaites. Such Jewish-Christian Baptists were known to have adapted the Kabbalah doctrines into ecclesial ritual, described in their revered book of Elchasai. Epiphanius of Salamis found the book in use among the Sampsæans, their descendants, and also among the Ossæns and many other Ebionite communities. Epiphanius accounted for the books strict code such as for Prayer, regarding congregation, the tabernacle, and Jerusalem, this and modern practices remain still in concerned differentiation of directives.
A History of Inner Asia ‘Soucek, Svatopluk’ 2000.
Manichaeism and Its Legacy 'Coyle, J. Kevin' 2009.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

Rome: Tetrarchy, the Nicene Council, & Orthodox Church

By 268, the Roman empire had split into three competing states: the Gallic Empire, including the Roman provinces of Gaul, Britannia and (briefly) Hispania; the Palmyrene Empire, including the eastern provinces of Syria Palaestina and Aegyptus; and the Italian-centered and independent Roman Empire, proper, between them. The situation of the Roman Empire had become dire in 235 AD, when emperor Severus Alexander was murdered by his own troops. By Roman Emperor Diocletian's claim to power in 293, the Crisis of the Third Century ended in recovery of the Roman Empire. After the deaths of Emperor Carus and his son Numerian on campaign in Persia, Diocletian, Carus’s Cavarly Commander, was proclaimed emperor. The title was also claimed by Carus' other surviving son, Carinus, who Diocletian defeated at the Battle of the Margus. 
The right of succession became a prevailing issue for Diocletian, whilst Rome was beset by continuous civil wars as competing factions in the military, senate, and other parties, all who put forward their favoured candidate for emperor. His priority reform was the empire's civil and military services and he reorganized the empire's provincial divisions. The Diocletianic Persecution (303–11) commenced in turn, as was the empire's last, largest, and bloodiest official persecution of Christianity, failing by design to eliminate Christianity. Diocletian’s four tetrarchs were successful in his time, as based themselves not at Rome but in other cities closer to the frontiers, it was mainly intended as headquarters for the defence of the empire at the borders. These centres were known as the tetrarchic capitals. Maintained by the Prefect of the City (praefectus urbis), a tradition founded by Romulus himself. Originally called the custos urbis (guardian of the city) the title meant to serve as the king’s chief lieutenant. Appointed by the king to serve for life, the custos urbis served concurrently as the Princeps Senatus. As the second highest office of state, the custos urbis was the king’s personal representative. In the absence of the king from the city, the custos urbis exercised all of his powers, which included the powers of convoking the Senate, the popular assemblies and the exercise of force in the event of an emergency. However, the imperium he possessed was only valid within the walls of Rome.

When the first Roman Emperor, Augustus (reigned 27 BC – 14 AD), transformed the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire in 27 BC, he reformed the office of Prefect at the suggestion of his minister and friend Maecenas. Again elevated into a magistracy, Augustus granted the praefectus urbi all the powers needed to maintain order within the city but even more so, to the ports of Ostia and the Portus Romanus, as well as a zone of one hundred Roman miles (c. 140 km) around the city. The Prefect was superintendent of all guilds and corporations (collegia), and held responsibility (via the praefectus annonae) for the city's welfare system.
A Prefect maintained direct authority through the cohortes urbanae, Rome’s police force (within independent prefecture - vigiles, praefectus vigilum). The Prefect needfully published the laws promulgated by the Emperor. Gradually, the judicial powers of the Prefect expanded. Eventually there was no appealing the Prefect’s sentencing, except to the Roman Emperor a reach over even all the governors of the Roman provinces. Originally the Prefect’s powers were exercised in conjunction with those of the quaestors, but by the 3rd century, the Prefect’s control was total.
In late Antiquity, the office of the Prefect gained freedom from the emperor's direct supervision as the Imperial court was removed from the city. The office was usually held by leading members of Italy's senatorial aristocracy, who remained largely pagan even after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity. Over the following thirty years, Christian holders were few. In such a capacity, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus played a prominent role in the controversy over the Altar of Victory in the late 4th century.
The urban prefecture survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and remained active under the Ostrogothic Kingdom and well after the Byzantine reconquest.

Each of the tetrarchs themselves often were at work within the province or eparchy, while delegating most of the administration to the hierarchic bureaucracy headed by his respective Pretorian Prefect, each supervising several Vicarii, the governor-generals in charge of the civil diocese. The four tetrarchic capitals of the time were Nicomedia in northwestern Asia Minor (modern Izmit in Turkey), a base for defence against invasion from the Balkans and Persia's Sassanids. Sirmium (modern Sremska Mitrovica in the Vojvodina region of modern Serbia, and near Belgrade, on the Danube border) was the capital of Galerius, the eastern Caesar; this was to become the Balkans-Danube prefecture Illyricum. Mediolanum (modern Milan, near the Alps) was the capital of Maximian, the western Augustus; his domain became "Italia et Africa", with only a short exterior border. Augusta Treverorum (modern Trier, in Germany) was the capital of Constantius Chlorus, the western Caesar, near the strategic Rhine border; it had been the capital of Gallic emperor Tetricus I. This quarter became the prefecture Galliae.
The tetrarchy lasted until c. 313, when internecine conflict eliminated most of the claimants to power, leaving Constantine in control of the western half of the empire, and Licinius in control of the eastern half.

Orthodox Nicene Christianity would become the essential to securitise central control at the capital, becoming the official state church of the Roman Empire under Constantine. On taking the Imperial office in 306, Constantine I restored Christians to full legal equality and returned property that had been confiscated during the persecution. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built ultimately on Constantine I’s orders at the purported site of Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem and became the holiest place in Christendom, and he is venerated naturally as a Saint. Constantine the son of Constantius I had of course traveled through Palestine at the right hand of Diocletian, and was present at the palace in Nicomedia in 303 and 305. Most notably during Constantine's tenure, he had the Old Saint Peter's Basilica built.

In 325, Constantine I convened the Council of Nicea, effectively the first Ecumenical Council (unless the Council of Jerusalem is so classified). The creed established and affirmed the doctrine that Jesus, the Son, was equal to God the Father, one with the Father, and of the same substance, or co-essential (homoousios in Greek). The Council condemned the teachings of Arius who they 
declared a heretic, for believing Jesus to be inferior to the Father.
While the Nicene council paved the way for the homoousian doctrine, there remained many closer to the Arian school who attempted to bypass the Christological debate by saying that Jesus was merely like (homoios in Greek) God the father, without speaking of substance (ousia). These non-Nicenes were frequently labeled as Arians (followers of Arius). Arius objected to Alexander's (the bishop of the time) apparent carelessness in blurring the distinction of nature between the Father and the Son by his emphasis on eternal generation. Alexander accused Arius of denying the divinity of the Son and also of being too 'Jewish' and 'Greek' in his thought. Both Arius and Alexander agreed only on rejecting Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Sabellian formulae. The Nicene Creed was created thus as a result of the extensive adoption of the doctrine of Arius far outside Alexandria, in order to clarify the key tenets of the Christian faith.
The Emperor Valens had favoured the group who used the homoios formula; this theology was prominent in much of the East and had under Constantius II gained a foothold in the West. Theodosius would however issue the Nicene Creed which was the interpretation that predominated in the West and was held by the important Alexandrian church. The differentiation was proof and the distinction of orthodox Christianity as Catholicism was mandated hence in ritualistic succession from Judaism.

Starting on 27 February 380, together with Gratian and Valentinian II, Theodosius issued the decree "Cunctos populos", the so-called "Edict of Thessalonica", recorded in the Codex Theodosianus xvi.1.2. This declared the Nicene Trinitarian Christianity to be the only legitimate imperial religion and the only one entitled to call itself Catholic. Other Christians he described as 'foolish madmen' and terminated official state support for them along with all traditional polytheist religions, practices and customs.
On 26 November 380 Theodosius expelled the non-Nicene bishop, Demophilus of Constantinople, and appointed Meletius patriarch of Antioch, and Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian Fathers as patriarch of Constantinople. In May 381, Theodosius summoned a new ecumenical council at Constantinople to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of Nicene orthodoxy. The council went on to define orthodoxy, including the mysterious Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, who, though equal to the Father, 'proceeded' from Him, whereas the Son was 'begotten' of Him. The council also condemned the Apollonarian and Macedonian heresies. From 389–392 the emperor promulgated the ‘Theodosian decrees’, instituting the ascendance of Catholic Church offices, and abolishing the last remaining expressions of prominent non-nicene Christianity with the pagan Roman religions (making the holy days into workdays).

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Francia Part 2: Charlemagne & the Papacy

Western Europe after the Carolingian’s ascension was a complex multi-culturalist society where unified rule was impossible before the polyglot communities. Whilst the reign of fear associated with military based rule had previously served to bind even those of different creed, it’s suppression was now the uniting force by still warrior chiefs, but apostolic transitional authority. This transactional value to state power would become popular, assuring bureaucracy based accord instead of military, where succession and transition is exposed. Intellectual and artistic stirrings throughout Latin Christendom would achieve reestablishment of contact with the classical and patristic past thereby; a crucial requirement in renewal and continuity in Christian society. The power divide traditionally inciting war was mortally bound thus, with the divine right bestowed upon the Carlolingian dynasty and security assured in return for the Papacy under Frankish protection. A diarchy had proved the strongest and safest means of control hereby, exercised between brothers such as Pepin and Carloman, dual rulers of France. Having continued their father Charles Martel’s work by supporting Saint Boniface, reforming the Frankish church, and evangelising the Saxons. In their earliest years in power in the Kingdom of France, Pepin III ruled in Neustria, Burgundy, and Provence, while the elder Carloman ruled Austrasia, Alemannia and Thuringia. Both were active in suppressing revolts led by the Bavarians, Aquitanians, Saxons, and the Alemanni. Pepin soon enough assumed total rule of France, and quelled his own half-brother Grifo's attempt to usurp power twice, along with Carloman's son, Drogo. When Pepin's son Charlemagne would assume power, it was after an undefeated reign.

The most illustrious ruler of the middle ages, Charlemagne (2 April 742 – 28 January 814) was crowned Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day at Rome's Old Street, Peter's Basilica. During a more tedious power struggle with his brother than Pepin his father endured, Charlemagne sort marriage with King Desiderius’s daughter (of the Lombard’s), to affix power in furthering peace for the Papacy’s territory. Though this was against the mandate of Pope Stephan III, as Charles was already married to Himiltrude. Pepin’s previous grant to the Papacy of the territory of central Italy, was in jeopardy however still, and due to the eastern powers centred in Constantinople. When Charlemagne’s father, Pepin had welcomed Pope Stephan to the Carolingian Royal Palace at Ponthion in 754, Pepin had acted to restore Papal lands taken by Aistulf in central Italy. Aistulf, the military ruler of the Lomabards had seized the imperial capital of Ravenna from the Papacy. In 755 and 756 Pepin, Charlemagne’s father entered Italy to vindicate Pope Stephan, and defeated Aistulf in the Alps, after an attempted siege on Rome. A mandate for peace was attained after Frankish forces pursued Aistulf’s army to and plundered his land around Pavia. Yet Aistulf proved ever troublesome continuing to taunt the Papacy with a second attempt on Rome also quelled again by the Franks in 756. The keys to a number of cities and territories in central Italy that had submitted to Papal authority were collected duly with the list of the cities involved, as described in the Confession of St. Peter.

Charlemagne’s primary military activity against the Saxons would compel him for 30 years, after which achieving the annexation of a large block of territory between the Rhine and the Elbe rivers. The period is stained by pillaging, broken truces, hostage taking, mass killings, deportation of rebellious Saxons, draconian measures to compel acceptance of Christianity, and occasional Frankish defeats. The Frisians, Saxon allies living along the North Sea east of the Rhine, were also forced into submission in turn. During this time Charlemagne attained sole authority over the Franks, with the death of his own brother and co-ruler of Francia, Carloman. The authority of the Holy See, in according Monarchy, and Ducal powers was contested however and crisis ensued after the death of Pope Paul I in 767. Desiderius had seized a priest named Philip from the Monastery of St. Vitus on the Esquiline Hill in Rome on Sunday, July 31, 768, and summarily appointed him Pope. This Antipope Philip was never recognised nor gained a significant following, thus returning to the monastery where he was never heard from or seen again, leaving the Papacy to appoint Pope Adrian I without contestation.

Afterwards (See Chronology of Carloman I) Charlemagne repudiated his wife and King Desiderius’s daughter, and married a beautiful Swabian. Furious, Desiderius's Lombard’s again marched on Rome after attacking Pope Adrian first and invading the Pentapolis. The embassies of Adrian and Desiderius met at Thionville and Charlemagne favoured the Pope; marching on the Lombard capital of Ticinum with his full Frankish force. Desiderius' son Adelchis was raising an army at Verona meanwhile, but the young prince fled to Constantinople to escape Charlemagne. The siege on Pavia was absolved when, in return for the lives of his soldiers and subjects, Desiderius surrendered and opened the gates, henceforth sent to exile at Corbie Abbey. On entry to Rome, Charlemagne had, and after a series of consolidated campaigns such as against the Lombard duchy of Benevento in southern Italy; defined the territory of Italy. Installing his second son to wife Hildegard, King Pippin from 781–810. Pippin would in turn vitally securitise relations with the Byzantines.

Charlemagne’s relations with the papacy, especially with Pope Adrian I, were good and brought him valuable support for his religious program and praise for his qualities as a Christian leader. The expanded Frankish presence in Italy and the Balkans intensified diplomatic encounters with the Eastern emperors, which strengthened the Frankish position with respect to the Eastern Roman Empire, weakened by internal dissension and threats by Muslims and Bulgars on its eastern and northern frontiers. Charlemagne also established friendly relations with the ʿAbbāsid caliph in Baghdad (Hārūn al-Rashīd), the Anglo-Saxon kings of Mercia and Northumbria, and the ruler of the Christian kingdom of Asturias in northwestern Spain. Charlemagne obtained the role as protector of Jerusalem furthermore. The Eastern Orthodox Church however would come to consider Charlemagne a heterodox for supporting the filioque (concerns generational advance of the Holy Spirit). Their disdain likewise was in recognition by the Bishop of Rome as a legitimate Roman Emperor, rather than the ‘basilissa’, Irene of Athens of the Eastern Roman Empire. These and more machinations led to the split of Rome and Constantinople in the Great Schism of 1054.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Anglo-Chinese; the Opium Wars & the Taiping Rebellion

When the Dutch first brought a small amount of Chinese black tea into Europe in 1640, it was 150 years before the trade peaked in Britain, averaging 26 million pounds of tea annually with an import duty tax of 100%. The wealth established by the East India Trading company under Major-General Robert Clive, was dependent on participation with the Qing. A disaster ensued hence after the Macartney Mission to China failed to attain a free trade agreement in 1793, and following the Amherst Mission in 1816 the British representatives to the Monarch of England succeeded to greatly offend the Chinese. The wanton demand for Silk, Porcelain, and tea from China throughout the Indian-British-Chinese trade-exchange would be the cause for war between East and West, thereafter manifest over the legalisation of Opium. Where the Chinese tributary system was in authority respected under the divinity of rulers, and the honour based system of exchange maintained a cultural prerogative, the division over oriental east and west was beset in Canton’s bed of nails. With evidence of China’s stockpiling of currency at the time and charges of counterfeit currency production en mass, the single Canton trading port system executed by the Cohong remains a contentious topic and distinct moral wedge between western market-liberalism and mercantilism.

In 1839 the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalise and tax opium, appointed viceroy Lin Zexu who confiscated 20,000 chests of opium (approximately 1210 tons or 2.66 million pounds) and without offering compensation blockaded foreign trade in Canton. The British responded with a strike on the Chinese fleet, devastating them with superior naval power. Commencing in late June 1840 the first part of the expeditionary force arrived in China aboard 15 barracks ships, four steam-powered gunboats and 25 smaller boats that reached the mouth of the Pearl River under the command of Commodore Bremer. Britain gained greatly as a result, claiming Hong Kong, and five open ports for trade. The power struggle continued, fuelled by the pursuit of liberalisation, when John Bowring was appointed British consul at Canton (today's Guangzhou). Bowring had an impressive array of credentials: honorary diplomas from universities in Holland and Italy, fellowships of the Linnaean Society of London and Paris, the Historical Institute of the Scandinavian and Icelandic Societies, the Royal Institute of the Netherlands, the Royal Society of Hungary, the Royal Society of Copenhagen, and of the Frisian and Athenian Societies. As superintendent of trade in China, he would see to the full implementation of the Nanking Treaty across another flare up of the Opium War for which he was largely blamed. Bowring would pay dearly for his administration, all occurring amid one of the bloodiest wars in human history, the undisputed bloodiest civil war and the largest conflict of the 1800’s, with casualties estimated conservatively between 20–70 million and peaking at 100 million, with millions more displaced.

Hostilities had began on January 1, 1851, when the Qing Green Standard Army (ethnic Han soldiers operating concurrently with the Manchu-Mongol-Han Eight Banner armies) launched an attack against the God Worshipping Society at the town of Jintian, Guangxi. Their leader Hong, had declared himself the Heavenly King of the Heavenly Kingdom of Peace (or Taiping Heavenly Kingdom “Taipings”). The Taipings escaped by marching north in September 1851 and on March 19, 1853, they captured the city of Nanjing where Hong declared his capital. A local irregular army called the Xiang Army, under the personal leadership of Zeng Guofan, became the main armed force fighting for the Qing against the Taiping. In 1856 the Taipings were weakened after infighting following an attempted coup led by the East King, Yang Xiuqing. During this time the Xiang Army managed to gradually retake much of Hubei and Jiangxi province. In May 1860 the Taiping defeated the imperial forces that had been besieging Nanjing since 1853, eliminating them from the region and opening the way for a successful invasion of southern Jiangsu and Zhejiang provinces, the wealthiest region of the Qing Empire. The Taiping rebels attempt to capture Shanghai in 1860, but the Qing’s government forces were aided by Western officers. Whilst the Taipings were preoccupied in Jiangsu, Zeng's forces followed the Yangzi River to capture Anqing on September 5, 1861.

After the prolonged siege and cut supply chain Hong died on June 1, 1864, with Nanjing falling 18 days later. Afterwards a small remainder of loyal Taiping forces continued to fight in northern Zhejiang, rallying behind Hong's teenage son Tianguifu, but after Tianguifu's capture on October 25, 1864, Taiping resistance was gradually pushed into the highlands of Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Fujian and finally Guangdong, where the last Taiping loyalist, Wang Haiyang, was defeated on January 29, 1866. Hong’s sect as a God worshipping society had originally sanctified the ‘Good Words to Admonish the Age’ by the Chinese preacher Liang Fa. Hong preached a mixture of communal Utopianism, Evangelism, and Christianity and under their auspices' he forbid Opium consumption, proclaimed sexual equality, segregated men and women, all whilst encouraging his followers to pay their assets into the communal treasury. Hong had originally struggled with the Imperial examination, and whilst in a delirious state dreamt that he visited Heaven discovering his celestial family was distinct from his earthly family, and included a heavenly father, mother, elder brother, sister-in-law, wife, and son. Although of difference to the confucian order of benign juxtaposition which he attempted to purge, his standard was to accept the certain measure of parallax, in heaven and earthly domains. In tradition to Taoism which has often been the Chinese state religion, itself was based on the indigenous religion of Bon shamanism and the authoritarian standard to application of medical process according metaphysical sense (Astrology, Feng Shui, and Martial Arts all incorporate this divinatory process). 

Sir John Bowring became Governor of Hong Kong and was instrumental to the formation in 1855 of the Board of Inspectors established under the Qing Customs House, operated by the British to gather statistics on trade on behalf of the Qing government and, later, as the Chinese Imperial Maritime Customs Service, to collect all customs duties. This vital reform brought an end to the corruption of government officials leading to the modernisation of China's international trade. Having concerns for the welfare of Chinese labourers ‘coolies’, who were being exported to Australia, California, Cuba and the West Indies, and in witness to the coolie revolt in Amoy, May 1852; Bowring tightened enforcement of the Passenger Act so as to improve coolie transportation conditions and ensure their voluntariness. He legislated for Chinese citizens in Hong Kong to serve as jurors in trials and become lawyers additionally. Amoung several further reformations to the city he succeeded to abolish monopolies and established the first ever bilingual English-Chinese law, "An Ordinance for licensing and regulating the sale of prepared opium" (Ordinance No. 2 of 1858).

In October 1856, a dispute broke out with the Canton vice-consul Ye over the Chinese crew of a small British-flagged trading vessel, the Arrow. Bowring saw the argument as an opportunity to wring from the Chinese the free access to Canton which had been promised in the Treaty of Nanking but so far denied. With the French joining the fight, 80 treaty ports were soon established in China, involving many foreign powers, who were granted rights to travel within China. A Qing-sponsored campaign of civil disruption however eventually succeeded to destabilise the British administration with an arsenic attack. The poisoning of 15 January 1857 in which 10 pounds of arsenic was mixed in the flour of the colony's principal bakery, poisoned hundreds, and killed Bowring's wife, debilitating him for at least a year. After being subject to scandal and criminal libel against the editor of the Daily Press, Yorick J Murrow, Bowring’s day’s in Hong Kong were numbered. Taking up the role of commissioner to Italy in 1861, and subsequently the appointment of minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary from the Hawaiian government to the courts of Europe, Sir Bowring would go on to negotiate treaties with Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain and Switzerland, all in addition to the title of Siam’s ambassador to the courts of Europe.

Monday, November 13, 2017

Islamic Politics and Religion (academic)

The holy wars engaged by Mohammed sought to expand territory, whilst not subsuming existing tribal religions under monotheism, rather capitalising on them with tax. Those thus considered heretics by others were obliged to peaceful surrender to Jihad, for concessions of liberty & security (historically Christians of Syria and Egypt, reaching from Spain to Pakistan were hence attracted to Islam). Slowly the degenerates would convert from these existing societies too, enriching Islamic credence with worker rights. Islam wasn’t immune to foreign influence however, and the Shi’is gained more influence than Sunni’s; from Iranians, Christians, Jewish, and Manichaean providences. 

The third generation after Mohammed saw massive conflict between Hossain and Hasan, who slaughtered his (martyred) brother and followers under orders of Umayyad caliph Yazid in 680. One of Hossain’s son’s survived however maintaining the Shi’i leadership (hence regarded infallible). Extremist policy then thus attributed to Sh’ites were incarnation, transmigration, and messianism, including the prophecy of the Mahdi “rightly guided one”. By rule of the Abbasids 749-1256, three divisions of Shi’ism became the Zaaidis or ‘fivers’, more similar to Sunni’s who don’t maintain infallibility of Imams. The seveners and twelvers are split on succession of the sixth Imam. Key to the rise of certain groups of the Seveners ‘Isma’ilis’ was assassination, and maintaining relative state communism; they, founding the Fatimid caliphate, which conquered Eqypt in 969, and took opposition in might to the Abbasids. The twelvers ‘Imamis’, alternatively conspired upon the Madhi’s prophecy to gain power (occultation). As combined force with the Abbasids, the Buyid dynasty 945-1055 maintained a capital at Baghdad. The Twelvers doctrine of Occultation was proposed by a wealthy Shi’is leader in the court of Baghdad. Sorting a way apparently to “avoid the consequences of the idea that the imam was both visible and infallible” (Pg 8.), which implied his orders superseded the Caliph. Effectually a compromise for the realities of Sunni power, at the time the Shi’is were relatively complacent, seeking compromise. (see Gibb’s). The divide in power evident to the Abbasids accorded by the doctrine of Occultation was determined between the Isma’ilis and attempts to undermine or overthrow the Abbasids, opposing the Sunni Abbasids and allies of the Twelvers. On the qualifications of power in interpreting the will of the twelfth Imam the Buyid’s never attempted to abolish the Caliphate or establish Twelver Shi’ism. The Greater Occultation would of course see to the establishment of Twelver Shi’ism as the state religion of Iran by 1501.

Until 1501 and the Safavid dynasty, as said and according Western Orientalist accounts of control, Shi’ism as local to Iran, was established where originally the majority of Iranians were Sunni (Pg 8). The national religious identity however, a following cause for conflict, is reduced in peaceful concession to the marriage of Imam Hosain with the Sasanian princess. Following the greater occultation, the Mujtahid as a relative academic source of authority came to control the distinctions between concessions evident in absence of the Imam, that of infallibility, asserted through legal qualification and ‘conservative control’ of the power of the Koran; they commanded a certain respect needed in the loss of divine instillment.

The mystical bend of Twelver Shi’ism was rapidly transforming into extremism. Particularly and exclusive to the western states of Turkey and Syria; the Hufuri’s who originated in Iran, posited letter-number symbolism called the Bektashi order, central to the later Ottoman Jannisaries. Along with the Safavids a united Sunni/Shi’ite appreciation had followed, by which militant occupation was compatible; and so gaining power over Tabriz in 1501. A renaissance in kind, of earliest Shi’is, following beliefs in reincarnation (with strong ties to the Mongols), they gained power through peasant revolts and nomadic ideology. Moderated later as a middle power, the Safavids developed a conservative doctrine despising their foundations with ‘anarchic’ tribal followers, and the ‘sufi’ ideal once synonomus with Safavids. Invoking subsequently a split between Ottoman Sunni and Anatolian tribes, with support from Ismael I; the split forced violent conflict with Sultan Selim impacting thousands of the Shi’i ‘fifth column’ at Anatolia, who attacked Ismael I the Shah of Iran and Safavid founder and leader, at Chaldiran 1514 furthermore, temporarily invading Tabriz and 'liberating' parts of Mesopotamia in the process.

Source: Keddie, N.R. & Richard, Y. 2003, Modern Iran: roots and results of revolution, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. 

Imam: a title of various Muslim leaders, especially of one succeeding Muhammad as leader of Shiite Islam.

Caliph: the chief Muslim civil and religious ruler, regarded as the successor of Muhammad. The caliph ruled in Baghdad until 1258 and then in Egypt until the Ottoman conquest of 1517; the title was then held by the Ottoman sultans until it was abolished in 1924 by Atatürk.

Mujtahid: a person accepted as an original authority in Islamic law. Such authorities continue to be recognized in the Shia tradition, but Sunni Muslims accord this status only to the great lawmakers of early Islam.

The Occultation has two distinct stages, the Lesser Occultation and the Greater Occultation. In the Lesser Occultation, the Hidden Imam continued to communicate with humanity through representatives. Since the Imam was the spiritual guide or light to the rest of humanity, the Lesser Occultation only removed the Imam's body from the world, not his spiritual guidance. However, under the threat of orthodox Muslims, the Hidden Imam entered the period of Greater Occultation which is still continuing. In the Greater Occultation, the Imam is still the spiritual guide and light of the world with one exception: there is no longer any direct communication between humanity and the Imam. The Occultation, then, is a profound spiritual tragedy for the world. It means that the spiritual guide to the earth, the gift of God to humanity, which, throughout the ages has lived, breathed, and conversed with humanity, is out of reach. The Imam is the center of light in the world; the Occultation is the extinguishing of that light for the rest of humanity. The Shi'a world view, then, is profoundly tragic and nostalgic. The Shi'ite longs for a return to a time when spiritual truth walked among us, a time when human perfection stood as an icon for all humans to emulate.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Christendom and the Religious State Divide

Armenia and Ethiopia were the first states in the world to officially proclaim Christianity as the state religion, dated to 333 AD, though which was first is debated. The branches of Oriental Orthodoxy had formally taken form and the transition accorded along an established trade route through Egypt as closely associated to the Coptic Church of which the Ethiopian Church remained an administrative part until 1959. Oriental Orthodox Christianity became the established church of the Ethiopian Axumite Kingdom under king Ezana in the 4th century when priesthood and the sacraments were brought for the first time through a Syrian Greek named Frumentius, known by the local population in Ethiopia as Abba Selama, Kesaté Birhan ("Father of Peace, Revealer of Light"). As a youth, Frumentius had been shipwrecked with his brother Aedesius on the Eritrean coast. The brothers managed to be brought to the Royal court, where they rose to positions of influence and baptised the Emperor Ezana. Ezana sent Frumentius to Alexandria to ask the Patriarch, St. Athanasius, to appoint a bishop for Ethiopia. Athanasius appointed Frumentius, who returned to Ethiopia as Bishop with the name of Abune Selma.

The Oriental Orthodox belief, has been traditionally, in the one perfectly unified Nature of Christ. That is, a complete union of the Divine and Human Natures into one singular nature which is self-evident. Opposed to the two Natures of Christ maintained by the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Chalcedonies Christians have considered Miaphysitism in general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine). On the contrary Dyophysitism that clearly distinguishes between person and nature, states that Christ is one person in two natures, and emphasises that the natures are without confusion, change, division, or separation. The conflict between these two belief systems stems from the prior practices in Nestorianism firstly which stressed the distinction between the divine and the human in Christ to such an extent that it appeared that two persons that were living in the same body. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus. Alternatively Eutychianism stressed the unity of Christ's nature to such an extent that Christ's divinity consumed his humanity as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar. Such was also condemned at the Council of Chalcedon.

Byzantine emperor Zeno in 482 made an unsuccessful attempt with his policy 'Henoticon' to reconcile the differences between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and the council's opponents on this matter, causing the Acacian schism which lasted thirty-five years from 484 to 519. The Schism had commenced when Pope Felix III of the years 483 to his death in 492, decreed both Zeno and Acacias the Patriarch of Constantinople remember the need to defend the faith without compromise, just as they all had always done so. At the time John Talaria, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was consigned to the Council of Chalcedon and refused to sign Emperor Zeno's Henoticon (which glossed over the Council of Chalcedon). Zeno thus expelled John and gave rulership to the Miaphysite Peter Mongus on the condition that he would sign Zeno's Henoticon, the Christological document he had prepared to reconcile the Miaphysities with the Dyophysities. Peter Mongus complied and was recognized by the Patriarchs of Antioch and Constantinople. When John, so exiled, arrived in Rome and reported on what was happening in the East, Pope Felix III summoned the Patriarch of Constantinople to Rome to be held accountable. The legates who delivered the Popes notice to Acacias were imprisoned in Constantinople upon arrival and forced to receive Communion from Acacius as part of a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other Miaphysites named in the diptychs. Pope Felix, having heard of this insult from the monks in Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates and deposed and excommunicated Acacias. Acacius replied in turn by striking Pope Felix's name from his diptychs. Only the Acoemeti in Constantinople stayed loyal to Rome. Acacias soon died in 489, and his successor, Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489–90), tried to reconcile himself with Rome, but refused to give up communion with Miaphysites and to omit Acacius's name in his diptychs. Zeno also died soon thereafter in 491, and his successor Anastasia's I (491–518), began by keeping the policy of the Henotikon, though himself a convinced Miaphysite.

for more on this by Jason Jowett 

Friday, May 22, 2015

Anglo-Saxony & Arthur Pendragon, King Arthur of Camelot

Britians favourite myth-history is of King Arthur son of Uther Pendragon and Igraine, who was the wife to Duke Gorlois of Cornwall. Arthur led England against the invading Anglo-Saxons 5th-6th century. 9th-century manuscripts by the Welsh cleric Nennius, record Arthurs twelve battles culminating in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, or Mount Badon, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Whilst the Anglo-Saxon period is denoted as the very period initiating ‘British’ history, only after the conflict settlements, and after the Norman conquest of 1066 were the Anglo-Saxons actually recognised and referred to alone as the creators of the English nation. Accounts of the Invasion of pre-Anglo-Saxon Roman-Briton refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus, Welsh: Emrys Wledig; called Aurelius Ambrosius who in the Historia Regum Britanniae and elsewhere, was the war leader of the Romano-British who won battle against the Anglo-Saxons. Ambrosius was still leading the Britons after this success, but is known to have described his battles as an "unexpected recovery of the island”. Gildas describes this period: "From that time, the citizens were sometimes victorious, sometimes the enemy, in order that the Lord, according to His wont, might try in this nation the Israel of to-day, whether it loves Him or not. This continued up to the year of the siege of Badon Hill (obsessionis Badonici montis), and of almost the last great slaughter inflicted upon the rascally crew. And this commences, a fact I know, as the forty-fourth year, with one month now elapsed; it is also the year of my birth". 
Bede accounted victory over the Saxons and Picts in a mountain valley to Saint Germanus, who he credits with curbing the threat of invasion for a full generation. However, these victories were overlooked wholly in further descriptions as invasions having been accomplished bloodlessly. It was presumed and often directed to a different occasion by, or from, the General though only if spontaneously assumed of rank. As from Badon if accepted at face value, St. Germanus's involvement would place a real battle around 430. Of those Saxons that went back to “their eastern home". Gildas calls the peace a "grievous divorce with the barbarians". The price of peace, Nick Higham argues, it is a better treaty for the Saxons, giving them the ability to receive tribute from people across the lowlands of Britain. A political treaty ensued by the Council of Leaders in Britain who agreed that some land in the east of southern Britain would be given to the Saxons on the basis of a treaty, a foedus, by which the Saxons would defend the Britons against attacks from the Picts and Scoti in exchange for food supplies. The most contemporaneous textual evidence is the Chronica Gallica of 452 which records for the year 441. The vision of the Anglo-Saxons exercising such extensive political and military power at an early date remains contested. The most developed vision of a continuation in sub-Roman Britain, with control over its own political and military destiny for well over a century, is that of Kenneth Dark, who suggests that the sub-Roman elite survived in culture, politics and military power up to c. 570. (Considering) By the year 400, southern Britain – that is Britain below Hadrian’s Wall – was a peripheral part of the Roman Empire in the west, occasionally lost to rebellion or invasion, but until then had always eventually been recovered. It was eventually around 410, that Britain was regarded beyond direct imperial control and termed “sub-Roman". These referrals of alien lineage regard of course a continual appraisal of migrations, likewise regarding necessitation of historical fact, with the Arthurian legend. There remains variant views over how many real migrants came to Britain on whole this period. Heinke Härke suggest that the figure is around 100,000, based on the molecular evidence, whereas archaeologists such as Christine Hills and Richard Hodges suggest the number is nearer 20,000.

By around 500 the Anglo-Saxon migrants were established in southern and eastern Britain, in a wholly peaceful accession from the likewise alien Romanish. A grave marked as the resting place of this very King Arthur, was discovered in Glastonbury 1191 and re-interred in 1278 by King Edward I and Queen Eleanor, remaining in the abbey until it was destroyed during the Dissolution in 1539. The abbey of Glastonbury is by the site of the famed Castle Camelot, as is popularly accepted and called the Tor. Within Avalon, lies a rich green land with innumerable fresh water springs and with safe distance to Wales to the West, to the Southern Coast, vast lengths to the North, and of course far from the South-east mainstay and entry into England. At this time its considerably possible that the castle there erected was ruled in the final part by King Arthur, the last of a dynasty of native Britons, and rulers of southern England and Wales (maybe Ireland too), a dynasty well established at the turn of the first millennium, whereby trade routes for Tin was said to reach Israel, a feat no doubt securing great wealth and prestige for the re-assimilated post-Atlantean society. Well aware of and able to manage rising tide waters and minor strait migrations, a trade route of camels across Africas Sahara would have been easily secured and well kept in secret for many a century. In fact the English Tin would have bought by trade a wealth of fabrics and spices from the far east to England, lending both creed and power of never known proportion to the Gaelic lords, those left under Rome to alien-age in Ireland. As the cross-cultural concentration shifted amidst Gaelic & Latin cultures in the new Anglo-Saxony, the first futhorc runic alphabet was initiated. Said to become popularized by the anglo-saxon settlers, only a few samples in short inscriptions have been preserved. The Latin influence consumed this largely deemed pagan cultural precedence, under the influence of Christian missionaries, a proto-english conversion attributable largely to Vikings. The concentration of English recordings during the time of the last Pendragon, were naturally concerned to reverence of a blacksmith, who forged the best swords; a champion weaponsmith by the name of Welund, according to the poem Deor. Tracing the origins back and to the Merovingian line Laurence Gardner an authority in antiquity wrote in his novel titled 'In the Realm of the Ring Lords' that "The Tuatha De Danann (or Dragon Lords of Anu)...[before settling in Ireland (from about 800 B.C.)]...were the...Black Sea princes of Scythia (now Ukrane). Like the original dynastic Pharaohs, they traced their descent from the great Pendragons of Mesopotamia; from them sprang the kingly lines of the Irish Bruithnigh and the Picts of Scotland’s Caledonia. In Wales they founded the Royal House of Gwynedd, while in Cornwall in the southwest of England, they were the sacred gentry known as Pict-Sidhe."

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Adaptation of the Norse Poem called VÖLUSPÂ.

The Viking were instrumental in early British history and after comparison with a few translations of Voluspa, having not read the originating language, I determined that for this adaptation it distinctly outlines a cultural episode between the Viking and what were termed  'black skinned race' (also Elves or Dwarfs). They probably having traveled to Turkey on horseback, considering the complexion of the middle eastern nations, and their proximity and likely trade partnership with Egypt, where Khememu resided; had encountered the cultural phenonemon. As the text is dated 12-13th Century near in the decline of the Vikings, its more probable the storytellers insisted upon this knowing as its historical importance in a treaty, that at last having leveled the cultural influence (along with accounting of the trade of weaponry & servile favor originally under Khememu influence). There is some substantial reconstruction of the account thus, butof the 'Prophesy' of the harp playing, future seeing red woman called Heidi, her visions (and the Vanir) told more or less exactly as was published by the Norroena Society in 1906 (an account pliable with intoxication under influence of psychedelic mushrooms). 
The monk whose work was obtained originally in Iceland, had the Norwegian translation. It's likely that without sexual experience he was unable to understand the complex insinuations present, that relates to genetic variety and the distinction between the blackest African race whose genetics, they surely realized weren't recessive at all, and with the necessity for active control measure in breeding against recessive factors to assure that Caucasian off-spring maintained the sought features such as blue eyes, a control also tandem to good military and commercial activity. 
The relay does detail the earliest Viking cultural memories, so the actual treaty and trade agreement was probably at the beginning of Viking history late 8th Century whence further technological treaties were formed and language, writing and storytelling converged. The structure of the 'poem' indicates it was likely originally a song, probably growing over use, & eventually inscribed. In fact its origin was potentially the end of the bronze age 1200 B.C. (when weaponry of Iron was claimed in England, Germany & Scandinavia from the East). The purer contextual references seems to be oppressed particularly because of the shame involved in inbreeding and the propagation of genetic disorders no doubt prolific in the stone age and being subverted into the bronze age. Where the exclusiveness of the recessive traits, were sought, against necessity to inter-mix in sustenance of a neutral and clean gene pool (contaminated in overt propagation by father-daughter or mother-son breeding), cross cultural activity with a foreign and dominant genetic race, was the crux of issue in family coherence and integrity.

1. In silence I pray for all sacred children, great and small, sons of Heimdall, that they will know my Valfather's deeds. Yet here they shall be recounted, in telling of Odins men.
2. The Jötunn remember those most early born, starting with the Giants rearing young with gifts of bread. By nine worlds I do remember this too as said; nine by the great central tree Yggdrasil, growing above and beneath the earth.
3. There was a time of old, when only Ymir dwelt, and not else sand nor sea, nor  salty waves, nor earth existed. Not heaven above, for 'twas a chaotic chasm; by not one blade of grass anywhere to be.
4. Even before Bur's sons raised up heaven's vault, and shaped Mithgarth, the sun shone only from the south warming the stones and the earth became green.
5. With the sun at the south, the sisters came to meet the horses, calling back on them as the Moon does  about the heavens path. The Suns high time was in dwelling, but the Moon knew no surprise by the stars in what power was possessed elsewhere.
6. Then by the Gods these heroes went to their seats in the assembly hall, before all the Holy gods, and made council. Until nights of the waxing and waning moon they came. Received more by names they came, until morn they were named, and until mid-day, afternoon and eve, whereby to they reckoned only of years gone by.
7. The Æsir met else on Ida's plain; they crafting altars in stead or temples highly constructed; their strength they proved too, by all things, and they  tried all, while they sat by their forges smithing precious things from  ore with their tongs and tools.
8. At tables still more played and joyous they were. To them was naught the want of gold, until they became drunken and set off with maidens as many as three, all powerful, from Jötunheim alike.
9. Then again went all the powers to their seats in the assembly hall, before all the Holy gods and thereon held council, about who should go next to the dwarven races created, from the sea-giant's blood and livid bones.
10. There was Môtsognir who encountered those created called the dwarfs, and Durin second; there in man's likeness that there were created many dwarfs from earth, Durin said true.
11. So said Nýi and Nidi, Nordri and Sudri, Austri and Vestri, Althiôf, Dvalin Nâr and Nâin, Niping, Dain, Bivör, Bavör, Bömbur, Nori, An and Anar, Ai, Miodvitnir,
12. Veig and Gandâlf, Vindâlf, Thrain, Thekk and Thorin, Thrôr, Vitr, and Litr, Nûr and Nýrâd, Regin and Râdsvid. Now of the dwarfs is soon enough rightly told by so.
13. As Fili, Kili, Fundin, Nali, Hepti, Vili, Hanar, Svior, Billing, Bruni, Bild, Bûri, Frâr, Hornbori, Fræg and Lôni, Aurvang, Iari, or Eikinskialdi.
14. Time 'tis of the dwarfs in Dvalin's band, known to the sons of men, to Lofar to reckon upon; those who came forth from the world's rockiest, foundation, to them were called the black elves of Iora's plains, come of Svartalfheim.
15. They came to Draupnir, and Dôlgthrasir, Hâr, Haugspori, Hlævang, Glôi, Skirvir, Virvir, Skafid, Ai, Alf and Yngvi, Eikinskialdi,
16. Fialar and Frosti, Finn and Ginnar, Heri, Höggstari, Hliôdôlf, Moin: by that above shall any so say while mortals live, the progeny of Lofars may also in account be.
17. From them there came three mighty and benevolent Æsir to the world from their own assembly renouned. They who were found on earth, nearly powerless, as Ask and Embla, devoid of destiny.
18. Spirit they possessed not, sense they had not, blood nor motive powers, nor goodly colour were more. Spirit gave Odin, sense gave Hoenir, blood gave Lodur, and goodly colour to know these of Svartalfheim.
19. I know to say true of a standing ash of Yggdrasils height, a lofty tree, laved with limpid water: thence come the dews into the dales that fall clean as pure; where ever it would stand, it becomes as green as over Urd's fountain.
20. Thence come maidens alike to meetest, and of much knowing was gain, as  of three from the very hall in one, or by which is under that tree watered by Urd now in height of the one, the second come more true and on a third forever. So were their laws established on tablets, in life allotted to the sons of men; and destinies departed.
21. Alone she sat left, and without, when came to her a ancient dreaded Æsir's prince; and in his eye she gazed awhile.
22. "Of what wouldst thou ask me? What temptest thou have of me? Odin! I know all, where thou thine eye didst sink in the pure well of Mim." Mim drinks mead each morn as from Valfather's pledge. Understand ye yet, or what she betrothed?
23. The chief of hosts gave her rings and necklace, useful discourse, and a divining spirit: wide and far she saw o'er every world in return.
24. She the Valkyriur saw from afar coming, ready to ride to the god's people: gifts she held like a shield, quivering second to none, then in comfort to Gunn, Hild Göndul, and Geirskögul. Now enumerated as Herian's own maidens, the Valkyriur, set more their stead for over the earth to ride easy.
25. She too so saving a war understood well how the first was three times done, Gullveig. She who they did as with lances pierced, and to the high one's hall her burn was heard in scream of the more living.
26. Heidi they called her, then born whithersoe'r she came, and as well-foreseeing was she. Wolves she tamed, magic arts she knew, magic arts practised; even was she the joy of evil people.
27. Then went the powers all to their seats in the assembly hall, before all the Holy gods and thereon held council. Whether the Æsir should  unite or avenge more  crimes just. All the gods received atonement either way.
28. Broken was the outer wall of the Æsir's burgh. The Vanir, foreseeing conflict, tramp o'er the plains. Odin cast [his spear], and mid the people hurled it: that as to bring the first warfare in all the world.
29. Then went the powers all to their judgment-seats, the all-holy gods, and thereon held council: who had all the air with evil mingled? or to the Jötun race Od's maid had given?
30. There alone was Thor with anger swollen. He seldom sits, when of the like he hears. Oaths are not held sacred; nor words, nor swearing, nor binding compacts reciprocally made.
31. She knows that Heimdall's horn is hidden under the heaven-bright holy tree. A river she sees flow, with foamy fall, from Valfather's pledge. Understand ye yet, or what?
32. East sat the crone, in Iârnvidir, and there reared up Fenrir's progeny: of all shall be one especially the moon's devourer, in a troll's semblance.
33. He is sated with the last breath of dying men; the god's seat he with red gore defiles: swart is the sunshine then for summers after; all weather turns to storm. Understand ye yet, or what?
34. There common on a height she sat, striking a harp, the giantess's watch, the joyous Egdir; by him crowed, in the bird-wood, worn of the bright red cock, at  Fialars height.
35. Crowed o'er the Æsir Gullinkambi which wakens heroes with the sire of hosts; but another crows beneath the earth, a soot-red cock, in the halls of Hel.
36. I saw of Baldr, the blood-stained god, Odin's son, the hidden fate. There stood grown up, high on the plain, slender and passing fair, the mistletoe.
37. From that shrub was made, as to me it seemed, a deadly, noxious dart. Hödr shot it forth; but Frigg bewailed, in Fensalir, Valhall's calamity. Understand ye yet, or what?
38. Bound she saw lying, under Hveralund, a monstrous form, to Loki like. There sits Sigyn, for her consort's sake, not right glad. Understand ye yet, or what?
39. Then the Vala knew the fatal bonds were twisting, most rigid, bonds from entrails made.
40. From the east a river falls, through venom dales, with mire and clods, Slîd is its name.
41. On the north there stood, on Nida-fells, a hall of gold, for Sindri's race; and another stood in Okôlnir, the Jötuns beer-hall which Brîmir hight.
42. She saw a hall standing, far from the sun, in Nâströnd; its doors are northward turned, venom-drops fall in through its apertures: entwined is that hall with serpents' backs.
43. She there saw wading the sluggish streams bloodthirsty men and perjurers, and him who the ear beguiles of another's wife. There Nidhögg sucks the corpses of the dead; the wolf tears men. Understand ye yet, or what?
44. Further forward I see, much can I say of Ragnarök and the gods' conflict.
45. Brothers shall fight, and slay each other; cousins shall kinship violate. The earth resounds, the giantesses flee; no man will another spare.
46. Hard is it in the world, great whoredom, an axe age, a sword age, shields shall be cloven, a wind age, a wolf age, ere the world sinks.
47. Mim's sons dance, but the central tree takes fire at the resounding Giallar-horn. Loud blows Heimdall, his horn is raised; Odin speaks with Mim's head.
48. Trembles Yggdrasil's ash yet standing; groans that aged tree, and the jötun is loosed. Loud bays Garm before the Gnupa-cave, his bonds he rends asunder; and the wolf runs.
49. Hrym steers from the east, the waters rise, the mundane snake is coiled in jötun-rage. The worm beats the water, and the eagle screams: the pale of beak tears carcases; Naglfar is loosed.
50. That ship fares from the east: come will Muspell's people o'er the sea, and Loki steers. The monster's kin goes all with the wolf; with them the brother is of Byleist on their course.
51. Surt from the south comes with flickering flame; shines from his sword the Val-gods' sun. The stony hills are dashed together, the giantesses totter; men tread the path of Hel, and heaven is cloven.
52. How is it with the Æsir? How with the Alfar? All Jötunheim resounds; the Æsir are in council. The dwarfs groan before their stony doors, the sages of the rocky walls. Understand ye yet, or what?
53. Then arises Hlîn's second grief, when Odin goes with the wolf to fight, and the bright slayer of Beli with Surt. Then will Frigg's beloved fall.
54. Then comes the great victor-sire's son, Vidar, to fight with the deadly beast. He with his hands will make his sword pierce to the heart of the giant's son: then avenges he his father.
55. Then comes the mighty son of Hlôdyn: (Odin's son goes with the monster to fight); Midgârd's Veor in his rage will slay the worm. Nine feet will go Fiörgyn's son, bowed by the serpent, who feared no foe. All men will their homes forsake.
56. The sun darkens, earth in ocean sinks, fall from heaven the bright stars, fire's breath assails the all-nourishing tree, towering fire plays against heaven itself.
57. She sees arise, a second time, earth from ocean, beauteously green, waterfalls descending; the eagle flying over, which in fell captures fish.
58. The Æsir meet on Ida's plain, and of the mighty earth-encircler speak, and there to memory call their mighty deeds, and the supreme god's ancient lore.
59. There shall again the wondrous golden tables in the grass be found, which in days of old had possessed the ruler of the gods, and Fiölnir's race.
60. Unsown shall the fields bring forth, all evil be amended; Baldr shall come; Hödr and Baldr, the heavenly gods, Hropt's glorious dwellings shall inhabit. Understand ye yet, or what?
61. Then can Hoenir choose his lot, and the two brothers' sons inhabit the spacious Vindheim. Understand ye yet, or what?
62. She a hall standing than the sun brighter, with gold bedecked, in Gimill: there shall be righteous people dwell, and for evermore happiness enjoy.
64. Then comes the mighty one to the great judgment, the powerful from above, who rules o'er all. He shall dooms pronounce, and strifes allay, establish holy peace forever.
65. There comes the dark dragon flying from beneath the glistening serpent, from Nida-fels. On his wings bears Nidhögg, flying o'er the plain, with a corpse. Now she will descend.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Friday, January 23, 2015

Neoliths: Pyramids, Stone circles & Atlantis

Greek philosopher Plato learned of Atlantis whilst in residence in Cairo. Today his accounts known by Timaeus, a Socratic dialogue, written in about 360 B.C. Egyptians were only one of few societies whose elite survived the great flood which destroyed Atlantis, and one of few who continued their architectural practices mastered since 20,000-30,000 years ago, (among certain other tribes on the Americas and in Cambodia). The loss to society after the immediate cataclysm stagnated with shameful oppression of the elite (the intelligent architects, astronomers, cartographers etc) world wide, of course to appropriate the majority of the social stratas at this time who were builders and farmers, herdsman and family holders (mothers) in new territories.
It was after a meteorite impact in the ice cap, and sudden release of huge plumes of steam into the atmosphere (resulting in continuos rain for 40 days according to biblical sources) along with the ice retreat, giving out considerable water, such that the sea level rose suddenly, dramatically. It had consumed probably 95% of occupied Atlantic coastal territories instantly along with likely a murderous killing trend by desperate survivors ensuing in part after tsunamis amid rapid sea level rising. As much of earths population at the same time reduced (if not from hailing brimstone immediately) and the great astronomy based masonic tradition evident worldwide such as stonehenge suffered. Evidence from Orkney in the north of Scotland has suggested the most recent tidal surge which displaced societies across the Lock of Stenness occurred around the year 6000 BCE, pre-dating the Neolithic settlement at the Ness of Brogan.
In Egypt its likely the Great Pyramids were built as a consideration in firmament of sacred traditions long before held, and likely with the help of deified Thoth, son of Thotme, who was said to be born in a distant country to the west with its main city by the sea called Keor. This land possessed volcanos and the city had a low mountain or large hill in the centre. This land is sometimes referred to as an Island of Flame. (Book of the Dead, Hymn of Rameses IV and Pyramid Texts) Like Poseidon ("the earthshaker"), Thoth is sometimes called "cleaver of the earth" (Papyrus of Ani, Chapter LXI) The myth of Atlantis referred to those kingdoms lost to the water, and Egyptian traditions prospered by embracing the very best (likely with plentiful animal stock to receive everyone, as the Sahara was until then fertile savannah). Although its told in Timaeus that ‘men of Atlantis (subjugated) parts of Libya within the columns of Heracles as far as Egypt, and of Europe as far as Tyrrhenia.’ For this region where now the mountains of Atlas were divided, was probably the home of the fittest Homo Sapien tribes who had eradicated the last of the Neanderthal there (Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred sometime between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago), spanning from the Moroccan spice hills and mineral rich Atlas highland (including Spain), to the tropical Canary Islands (all a larger land mass).
At the time between 12,980 and 11,600 the temperatures were 20˚ less on average, where the lands for living in the tropical band spanned closer proximity to the equator and between the tropical meridians a variation was much sharper. Glacial north and south of course receded from the snowball earth originally and most of Europe, Africa, Australia and Asian weather was likely too extreme for any development more than nomadic, or semi-permanent settlement until the global temperatures mean stabilisation still common today at around 8,500 BC. Australian records of course show intelligent development up to 30,000 years ago in cave paintings. Babylonian sources describe the enlightened Anunaki, responsible for a blossoming (coming down) technological era, in which we still reside in the early 21st Century. It's quite likely these colonists which saved resource technology from Atlantis were highlanders to the plains of Shinar, wherein they intermingled at times, and interbred. The decentive attribution of these precursor societies to modern Sumeria, as split between Atlanteans and Aboriginee could otherwise refer to the whiteness of the Atlanteans and perhaps alternatively or as well as their breeding habits in missionary position (theoretical relations with the rising sun and a prayer for motherhood by the woman so betrothed, under weight and issued during the sexual event).
As the highly intellectualised astronomer building traditions of the displaced people worldwide declined and of pyramid traditions mostly known as Japanese, SE Asian-Indonesian and American (where great complexes including pyramids reportedly, exist underwater), these remain comparable to the standing stone traditions of the now British isle, but then a continent of far greater size, including druidic traditions as far south as Portugals Sintra.

People of the ''Magdalenian'' culture living in the popularised ''Atlantean'' period are known to hunt  large herds of bison, reindeer, and wild horses which roamed southern Europe then (with traps, snares and spears). With a semi-settled lifestyle, thought to utilise winter tents opposed to regular occupancy under rock outcrops & caves in summer. “The great increase in art and decorative forms indicates the Magdalenians had leisure time. They also experienced a population explosion, living in riverside villages of 400 to 600 persons; it has been estimated that the population of France increased from about 15,000 persons in Solutrean times to over 50,000 in Magdalenian times,” - Encyclopedia Britannica
The map above is set to post flood geography, but as said, there was no English Channel then, and the way to the Iberian peninsular & Atlas Mountains which met the Canary islands (Atlantis) was walkable from England (around the Pyrenees). Also the Mediterranean was massively smaller, including in territory probably 'all the islands' (dominantly changing the Greek landscape). The strait of Gibraltar was then nothing more than a mountainous river, hence the myth of the Pillar of Hercules, relating to the exodus myth as well, regarding the ability of the strong to traverse the gap during low tides on foot, and then swim, until finally impossible due to significant sea level rising.

Though considering that the Sphinx is estimated to be considerably older than the Great Pyramids, it's understandable that the same society who built it, were those who settled primarily into modern day Cairo. Regarding the Khem society, having the understanding that the Sphinx was originally a Lion, later re-carved into a Sphinx, the likelihood is that it was a monument established at the frontier of the south between societies. Those typically appreciating and respectful to the southern tribes and residents of the Mediterranean, may have formed the border with such a landmark, in tribute of the strength of those living with such a powerful animal, potentially those known originally as Khems. See More likely of course is... (9/3/2017) the matter of interpreting a lions monument to primeval african travellers/migrants. In fact if they were heading north skirting the desert and on the western side of the nile river, they would find the settlement of Cairo. However originally those travelling north on the east side of the nile were predictably looking for passage to India, through the levant. Water markings on the Sphinxes body convey that as a partially subsumed lion, to relay a welcome as a sign of prosperity, if the lion was the major attraction of an aqueduct supplied monument, the signification to visitors was that it's a false journey across the river, which of course is riddled with crocodiles. Either way in fact, the travellers either are unwelcome to stumble upon original Cairo, probably bringing trouble in turn, or to cross the river specifically to leave or enter Cairo, both signifying insurgence of one form or another. Original Cairo a vital settlement and first reached on route south along the nile, maintained the lion monument to assure immigrants, as a place to welcome the awe inspiring Khememu, and where you could quench your thirst free from dangers at rivers edge. 

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Introduction of 'a treatise on the astrolabe' (adaption)

Geoffrey Chaucer, 1391

My son, I’ve perceived your great ability to learn science, so consider yourself gifted now for I will teach you of that what is within the numbers and proportions. Consider I pray for you, alone then and afterwards in your special way, as having learnt these certain special evidences of the treaties of the astrolabe. 
As a philosopher once said "he wraps him up in his friendship, with that but which condescends to the rightful praise of his friend”, therefore in as much as I know the latitude of oxford, upon which, by meditation on a technique told now, I propose to teach you a certain number of conclusions (appertaining to the same instrument). 
I myself see for certain in this, these causes for a conclusions foremost. The first cause is to trust well that all the conclusions that are discovered, or else possibly might be, in so noble an instrument as is this astrolabe, are unknown in part to any mortal man in this region, as how so I do suppose of the same such conclusions. Another cause is that even a soothing grace said by anyone will be for some a conclusion that by all things performed at her behest, is something about them that’s too hard to conceive.

By this treaties, divided in 5 parts, I will show what is known in the full light and rules of naked English words, which in Latin you cannot know fully, my son. Never the less suffice to say that these true conclusions in english as well sufficed for reason with the noble clerks of the Greeks. These very same conclusions were said in greek mind you, and to Arabians in arabic, and to Jews in hebrew, and to the latin folk of Italy. Which Latin folk had first said thereof, out of all the other diverse languages, and written of them in their own tongue, that is also said alike in Latin, I don’t know. God would that in all these languages and in many more ways than these, know that we do conclude to sufficiently learn and teach by diverse rules, and as rightly diverse as paths that lead diverse folk the right way to Rom. 

Now will I pray concretely that every person that reads or hears this will discretely excuse my rude editing, and superfluous use of words. The reason being for any heavy sentences (and lack of structural form), is only for a standard of a curious child in learning, and lest he forget it all at once.

Lo behold to show more than this in the light of day, that is which my english says true in conclusion on these mater, and not only but to serve as truth in future with as many a subtile conclusions as forthrightly possible. So will been shown either in latin or in any further communication of this treaties of the astrolabe, I can say thankfully. For I pray so that God saves the King, who is lord of this language, and that in all that his faith bears in obedience, in every degree more and less. So consider well that I am no  compiler of the labour of old astrologies, mere set to usurp the labours, as have worked hard to translate a lot into english for this doctrine, and like a sword only more shall I shear ones envies.

Prima pars.  The first part of this treaties shall state the figures and the members of the astrolabe. With this alone you shall have greater knowing of the instrument.
Secunda pars. The second part shall teach the practical workings of the aforesaid conclusions about this small and portable instrument called the astrolabe, as far fetched and narrow as they may be. For well does every astrologer know that the smallest fractions can be shown in this instrument, as are needed in the most subtle tables calculated for any cause.
Tertia pars. -The third part shall contend diverse tables of longitudes and latitudes of stars fixed for the astrolabe, tables of the declination's of the sun, tables of longitudes of cites and towns, and tables as well for the governance of a clock. All as so to find the altitude of a meridian and many other notable conclusion known by the calendar after the revered efforts of clerks, Friar J. Somes and Friar N. Lenne.
Quarta pars. -The fourth part shall describe in theory a declaration of the causal motion of the celestial bodies. The fourth part will show a table of the motion of the moon from hour to hour every day and in every sign too, called the almanac. This table follows with a law sufficient to teach you as well the manor of the operation of this all, so in conclusion as to know yourself in detail how the astrolabe shows the moon arising on the horizon by the set latitudes, and by its degree of the zodiac, and more so the arising of any of the planets on the elliptical line.

Quinta pars. -The fifth part shall be an introduction, after the statutes of medicine, for which thou must learn a great part of the general rules of theory in astrology. In which fifth part shalt thou find tables of equations of houses after the latitude of Oxford, and tables of dignities of planets, and other interesting things, that by God we would vouch safely by and to say for your maiden mother too, I behest.

(work in progress...)

Friday, January 16, 2015

Adaption of 'the true law of free monarchies'

On the Reciprocal and mutual duty of a free King and unto his natural Subjects.

As there is not any other thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next to the knowledge of their God; as is the right knowledge of their allegiance, and according to the form of government established among them. Especially so in a Monarchy by which form of government, as resembling the Divinity, approaches nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon (unity being the perfection of all things). So hath the ignorants, and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude blinded by them, who think themselves able to teach and instruct in ignorance; procured painful rebellion within our good Commonwealth, and heaped heavy calamities upon the parts while threatening any other with utter destruction.

In good fortune unlawful rebellions have often times failed against royalty long gone and as such endowing the misery, and iniquities of the time. Naught hath by way of practice those strengthened many in their error. Albeit there cannot be a more deceivable argument, then to judge ay the justness of the cause by the event thereof; as hereafter shall be proved more at length.

Among others, no Commonwealth that ever hath been since the beginning, hath had greater need of the true knowledge of this ground, then this our so long disordered, and distracted Commonwealth hath. The misunderstanding hereof being the only spring, from whence have flowed so many endless calamities, miseries, and confusions, as is better felt by many, then the cause thereof well known, and deeply considered. The natural zeal therefore, that I bear to this my native country, with the great pity I have to see the so-long disturbance thereof for lack of the true knowledge of this ground (as I have said before) hath compelled me at last to break silence, and to discharge my conscience to you my dear country men herein, that knowing the ground from whence these your many endless troubles have proceeded, as well as you have already too-long tasted the bitter fruits thereof, you may by knowledge, and eschewing of the cause escape, and divert the lamentable effects that ever necessarily follow there upon.

I have chosen only to set down in this short treatise, the true grounds of the mutual duty, and allegiance between a free and absolute Monarch, and his people; not to trouble your patience with answering the contrary propositions, which some have not been ashamed to set down in writ (to the poisoning of infinite number of simple souls, and their own perpetual, and well deserved infamy). Nay for by the answering of them truly, I so could not have eschewed whiles to pick, and bite well salty their persons; which would rather have born contentiousness then sound instruction of the truth. That all said is which I protest to Him that is the searcher of all hearts, and is the only mark that arch-angel Michael may strike at herein.

First then, I will set down the true grounds, Of which I’ve constructed from the Scriptures (since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity). From next is drawn of the fundamental laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest to our hearts must concern us truly. Thirdly from the law of Nature, by any similitudes drawn out of the same natural truth told virtues. So I will conclude thus after in answering to the most weighty objection that can be imagined.
The Princes duty to his subjects is so clearly set down in many places of the Scriptures, and so openly confessed by all the good Princes, according to their oath in their Coronation, as not requiring recollection of term in perspective, so I shall quickly recount of how Kings are called Gods.
The prophetical King David, the bible states, sat upon Gods throne on the earth, and we have the administration of such to accredit unto him and the Hebrews of Canaan. Their office was to administer justice and judgement to the people, and such King David is told therein of saying ‘To advance the good, and punish the evil’ as he likewise did.
As also known he said ‘To establish good Laws to his people, and procure obedience to the same as any good Kings of Judah’, ‘To procure the peace of the people’, ‘To decide all controversies that can arise among them”, even as Solomon so infamously did. 
‘To be the Minister of God for the wealth of them that do good’, and ‘As the minister of God, to take vengeance upon them that do evil’, and finally ‘As a good Pastor, to go out and in before his people, that the peoples peace may be procured’.

Therefore so such as is said by the coronation of our own Kings, as well as of every christian Monarch, they give their Oath to:
▴ Maintain the religion presently professed within their country, according to their laws, whereby it is established, and to punish all those that should press to alter, or disturb the profession thereof.

▴ Maintain all the allowable and good Laws made by their predecessors. To see them put in execution, and the breakers and violators thereof, to be punished, according to the tenor of the same.

▴ Maintain the whole country, and every state therein, in all their ancient privileges and liberties, as well against all foreign enemies, as among themselves.

So shortly to procure the wealth and flourishing of his people, not only in maintaining and putting to execution the old loveable laws of the country, and by establishing of new (as necessity and evil manors will require) but by all other means possible to foresee and prevent all dangers, that are likely to fall upon them. So then to maintain concord, wealth, and civility among them, just as a loving Father, and careful watchman, caring for them more then for himself. He is knowing himself to be ordained for them, while they not for him and therefore countable alone to that great God, who made him powerful. Even upon the peril of his soul to procure the wealth of both souls and bodies, as far as in him lie, of all them that are committed to his command and charge, he will act. This oath in as much ceremonially bonded by coronation, is the clearest, most civil, and fundamental law, whereby the Kings office is properly defined as a Order by the Divine Right.
By the law of nature the King becomes a natural Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation. As the Father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and virtuous government of his children, even so is the King bound to care for all his subjects. As all the toil and pain that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profit and wealth; so ought the Prince to do towards his people. As the kindly father ought to foresee all inconvenience and dangers that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard of his own person press to prevent the same; so ought the King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction upon any of his children that offends, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pity, as long as there is any hope of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges that offend in that measure. Shortly said, as the Fathers chief joy ought to be in procuring his childrens welfare, rejoicing at their wealth, sorrowing and pitying at their evil, to hazard for their safety, travel for their rest, wake for their sleep, and in a word, to think that his earthly felicity and life stands and lives more in them, nor in himself; so ought a good Prince think of his people.

As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and allegiance that the Lieges owe to their King. The ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandment to hear the peoples voice in choosing and anointing them a King. Because that place of Scriptures being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have inserted herein the very words of the text.

9 Now therefore hearken to their voice: howbeit yet testify unto them, and show them the manor of the King, that shall reign over them.
10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of a King and of him.
11 So he said, this shall be the manor of the King that shall reign over you. He will take your sons, and appoint them to his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall rule before their chariot.
12 Also, he will make of them his captains over thousands, and alike captains over fifties. Then to work his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war and the things that serve for chariots.
13 He will also take your daughters, and make them apothecaries, and cooks, and bakers.
14 He will take from your fields, and your vineyards, and of your olives, and give them to his servants.
15 He will take a tenth of your seed, and of your Vineyards grapes, and give these to his Eunuchs, and to his servants as well.
16 He will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the chief of your young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work.
17 He will take a tenth of your sheep which shall be his.
18 You shall cry out at that day, because of your King, whom ye have chosen, and the Lord God will not hear you that day.
19 Lo the people would not hear the voice of Samuel, but did say alas Nay, but there shall be a King for us.
20 We also will be like all other Nations, and our King shall judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.

That these words, and discourses of Samuel were dited by Gods Spirit, it needs no further probation, but that it is a place of Scripture; since the whole Scripture is dited by that inspiration, as Paul said, which ground no good Christian will, or dare deny. Whereupon it must necessarily follow, that these speeches proceeded not from any ambition in Samuel, as one loath to quite the reins that he so long had ruled, and therefore desirous, by making odious the government of a King, to dissuade the people from their farther importunate craving of one. For, as the text proves it plainly, he then convened them to give them a resolute grant of their demand, as God by his own mouth commanded him, saying: Hearken to the voice of the people, and to press to dissuade them from that, which he then came to grant unto them, were a thing very impertinent in a wise man; much more in the Prophet of the most high God. Likewise, it well appeared in all the course of his life after, that his so long refusing of their suite before came not of any ambition in him: which he well proud in praying, and as it were importuning God for the wealth of Saul. Yea, after God had declared his reprobation unto him, yet he desisted not, while God himself was wrath at his praying, and discharged his fathers suit in that errand. And that these words of Samuel were not uttered as a prophecy of Saul their first Kings defection, it well appears, as well because we hear no mention made in the Scripture of his tyrannic oppression, (which, if it had been, would not have been left unpainted out therein, as well as his other faults were, as in a true mirror of all the Kings behaviours, whom it describes) as likewise in respect that Saul was chosen by God for his virtue, and meet qualities to govern his people: whereas his defection sprung after-hand from the corruption of his own nature, and not through any default in God, whom they that think so, would make as a step-father to his people, in making wilfully a chaise of the unmeetest for governing them, since the election of that King lay absolutely and immediately in Gods hand.
By the contrary it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intolerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as ye have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hasty seeking of a King; so beware ye fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be. For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may you no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. Therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and you only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshow you, as with the finger of God, which lie not in you to take off.
So will you consider the very words of the text in order, as they are set down, it shall plainly declare the obedience that the people owe to their King in all respects; First, God commands Samuel to do two things, the one, to grant the people their suit in giving them a king. The other, to forewarn them, what some kings will do unto them, that they may not thereafter in their grudging and murmuring say, when they shall feel the snares here fore-spoken. We would never have had a king of God, in case when we craved him, that he had let us know how we would have been used by him, as so now we find but over-late. This is meant more by these words; Now therefore hearken unto their voice, howbeit yet testify unto them, and show them the manor of the King that shall rule over them. Next, would Samuel do in execution of this commandment of God, so he likewise does two things.
First, he declares unto them, what points of justice and equity their king will break in his behaviour unto them. Then next he extinguishes their hope, that weary as they will, they shall not have leave to shake off that yoke, which God through their importunity hath laid upon to them. The points of equity that the King shall enforce in them, are expressed in these words:

11 He will take your sons, and appoint them to his Chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his Chariot. 12 Also he will make them his captains over thousands, and captains over fillies, and to care his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make instruments of war, and the things that serve for his chariots.
13 He will also take your daughters, and make them Apothecaries, and Cooks, and Bakers.
The points of Justice, that he shall break unto them, are expressed in these words:
14 He will take of your fields, and your vineyards, and your best Olive, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give it to his Eunuchs and to his servants, and also the tenth of your sheep.

As if he would say; The best and noblest of your blood shall be compelled in slavish and servile offices to serve him. Not content of his own patrimony, will make up a rent to his own use out of your best lands, vineyards, orchards, and store of cattle. So as inverting the Law of nature, and office of a King, your persons and the persons of your posterity, together with your lands, and all that you possess shall serve his private uses, and inordinate appetite.
As unto the next point (which is his fore-warning them, that, weary as they will, they shall not have leave to shake off the yoke, which God thoroughly in their importunity hath laid upon them) it is expressed in these words:

18 And you shall cry out at that day, because of your King whom you have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you at that day.

As he would say; When you shall find these things in proof that now I fore-warn you of, although you shall grudge and murmur, yet it shall not be lawful to you to cast it off, in respect it is not only the ordinance of God, but also your selves that have chosen him unto you, thereby renouncing for ever all privileges, by your willing consent out of your hands, whereby in any time hereafter you would claim, and call back unto your selves again that power, which God shall not permit you to do. For further taking away of all excuse, and retraction of this their contract, after their consent to under-lie this yoke with all the burthens that he hath declared unto them, he cranes their answer, and in consent to his proposition (which appears by their answer) as it is expressed in these words:

19 Nay, but there shall be a King over us.
20 And we also will be like all other nations, and our king shall judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.

As if they would have said; All your speeches and hard conditions shall not scare us but we will take the good and evil of it upon us and we will be content to bear whatsoever burthen it shall please our King to lay upon us as well as other nations do. For the good we will get of him in fighting our battles, we will more patiently bear any burden that shall please him to lay on us.
Now then, since the erection of this Kingdom and Monarchy among the Jews, and the law thereof may, and ought to be a pattern to all Christian and well founded Monarchies, as being founded by God himself, who by his oracle, and out of his own mouth gave the law thereof; What liberty can broiling spirits, and rebellious minds claim justly to against any Christian Monarch? Since they can claim to no greater liberty on their part, nor the people of God might have done, and no greater tyranny was ever executed by any Prince or tyrant, whom they can object, nor was here fore-warned to the people of God, (and yet all rebellion countermanded unto them) if tyrannising over mens persons, sons, daughters and servants; redacting noble houses, and men, and women of noble blood, to slavish and servile offices; and extortion, and spoil of their lands and goods to the princes own private use and commodity, and of his courtiers, and servants, may it be called a tyranny?

[James continues to argue from scripture that God forbids rebellion against a lawful king, no matter how evil or tyrannical he may be.]

[James next discusses the historical origins of the Scottish monarchy. Here he argues that monarchy preceded the establishment of the legislature. He also argues a King is above the law—that a lawful monarch may make laws for his subjects, but that his subjects cannot make laws binding on a King.]

And the agreement of the Law of nature in this our ground with the Laws and constitutions of God, and man, already alleged, will by two similitudes easily appear. The King towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children, and to a head of a body composed of diners members. For as fathers, the good Princes, and Magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselves to their subjects. And for all other well ruled Commonwealths, the stile of Pater patriae was ever, and is commonly used to Kings. The proper office of a King towards his Subjects, agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body, and all members thereof. For from the head, being the seat of Judgement, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding, and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body, so does the King for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head, and the execution according "hereunto belongs to the rest of the members, every one according to their office: so is it betwixt a wise Prince, and his people. As the lodgement coming from the head may not only employ the members, every one in their own office as long as they are able for it; but likewise in case any of them be affected with any infirmity must care and provide for their remedy, in-case it be curable, and if otherwise, gar cut them off for fear of infecting of the rest: even so is it betwixt the Prince, and his people. As there is ever hope of curing any diseased member by the direction of the head, as long as it is whole; but by the contrary, if it be troubled, all the members are partakers of that Paine, so is it betwixt the Prince and his people. Now first for the fathers part (whose natural love to his children I described in the first part of this my discourse, speaking of the duty that Kings owe to their Subjects) consider, I pray you what duty his children owe to him, and whether upon any pretext whatsoever, it will not be thought monstrous and unnatural to his sons, to rise up against him, to control him at their appetite, and when they think good to slay him, or cut him off, and adopt to themselves any other they please in his room. Or can any presence of wickedness or rigour on his part be a just excuse for his children to put hand into him? Although we see by the course of nature, that love used to descend more then to ascend, in case it were true, that the father hated and wronged the children never so much, will any man, endued with the least spoke of reason, think it lawful for them to meet him with the line? Yea, suppose the father were furiously following his sons with a drawn sword, as if it lawful for them to turn and strike again, or make any resistance but by flight.
I think surely, if there were no more but the example of brute beasts and unreasonable creatures, it may serve well enough to qualify and prove this my argument. We read often the pity that the Storks have to their old and decayed parents: And generally wee know, that there are many sorts of beasts and fowls, that with violence and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their young ones from them, how soon they perceive them to be able to fend themselves; but wee never read or heard of any resistance on their part, except among the vipers; which proves such persons, as ought to be reasonable creatures, and yet unnaturally follow this example, to be endued with their viperous nature.
So for the similitude of the head and the body, it may very well fall out that the head will be forced to cut off some rotten member (as I have already said) to keep the rest of the body in integrity. Though what state the body can be in, if the head, for any infirmity that can fall to it, be cut off, I leave it to the readers judgement.

So as (to conclude this part) if the children may upon any pretext that can be imagined, lawfully rise up against their Father, cut him off, and choose any other whom they please in his room; and if the body for the wealth of it, may for any infirmities that can be in the head, strike it off, then I cannot deny that the people may rebel, control, and displace, or cut off their king at their own pleasure, and upon respects moving them. Whether these similitudes represent better the office of a King, or the offices of Masters or Deacons of crafts, or Doctors in Physics (which jolly comparisons are used by such writers as maintain the contrary proposition) I leave it also to the discretion.
In case any doubts might arise in any part of this treatise, I will (according to my promise) with the solution of four principal and most weighty doubts, that the adversaries may object, conclude this discourse. First it is cast up by diners, that employ their pennies upon apologies for rebellions and treasons, that every man is borne to carry such a natural zeal and duty to his commonwealth, as to his mother; that seeing it so rent and deadly wounded, as whiles it will be by wicked and tyrannous Kings, good Citizens will be forced, for the natural zeal and duty they owe to their own native country, to put their hand to work for freeing their commonwealth from such a pest.
Whereunto I give two answers: First, it is a sure Axiom in Theology, that evil should not be done, that good may come of it: The wickedness therefore of the King can never make them that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his Judges. If it be not lawful to a private man to revenge his private injury upon his private adversary (since God hath only given the sword to the Magistrate) how much less is it lawful to the people, or any part of them (who all are but private men, the authority being always with the Magistrate, as I have already proud) to take upon them the use of the sword, whom to it belongs not, against the public Magistrate, whom to only it belongs.

Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and colour) they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion shall procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for. For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous, but the commonwealth will be kept in better order, notwithstanding thereof, by him, then it can be by his way-taking. For first, all sudden mutations are perilous in commonwealths, hope being thereby given to all bare men to set up themselves and fly with other mens feathers, the reins being loosed to all the insolences that disordered people can commit by hope of impunity, because of the looseness of all things.
And next, it is certain that a king can never be so monstrously vicious, but he will generally favour justice, and maintain some order, except in the particulars, wherein his inordinate lusts and passions cary him away; where by the contrary, no King being, nothing is unlawful to none. As so the old opinion of the Philosophers proves true, that better it is to line in a Commonwealth, where nothing is lawful, then where all things are lawful to all men; the Commonwealth at that time resembling an undanted young horse that hath casten his rider: For as the divine Poet Dv BARTAS saith, Better it were to stiffer some disorder in the estate, arid some spots in the Commonwealth, then in pretending to reform, utterly to overthrow the Republic.

The second objection they ground upon the curse that hangs over the common-wealth, where a wicked king reign: and, say they, there cannot be a more acceptable deed in the sight of God, nor more dutiful to their commonwealth, then to free the country of such a curse, and vindicate to them their liberty, which is natural to all creatures to crane.

Whereunto for answer, I grant indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people, and a plague for their sins: but that it is lawful to them to shake off that curse at their own hand, which God hath laid on them, that I deny, and may so do justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a curse to the people of God, as was plainly fore-spoken and threatened unto them in the prophecy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian Church in his time? And yet Jeremy and Paul (as you have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them, but heartily to pray for their welfare. It is certain then (as I have already by the Law of God sufficiently proved) that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lines, are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of that heavy curse. As for vindicating to themselves their own liberty, what lawful power have they to revoke to themselves again those privileges, which by their own consent before were so fully put out of their hands? For if a Prince cannot justly bring back again to himself the privileges once bestowed by him or his predecessors upon any state or rank of his subjects; how much less may the subjects reave out of the princes hand that superiority, which he and his Predecessors have so long brooked over them?

The unhappy iniquities of the time, which hath oft times given over good success to their treasonable attempts, furnish them the ground of their third objection: For, say they, the fortunate success that God hath so oft given to such enterprises, proves plainly by the practice, that God favoured the justness of their quarrel.
To the which I answer, that it is true indeed, that all the success of battles, as well as other worldly things, lie only in Gods hand: And therefore it is that in the Scripture he takes to himself the style of God of Hosts. But upon that general to conclude, that he ever gives victory to the just quarrel, would prove the Philistines, and common other neighbour enemies of the people of God to have often times had the just quarrel against the people of God, in respect of the many victories they obtained against them. And by that same argument they had also just quarrel against the Ark of God: For they want it in the field, and kept it long prisoner in their country. As likewise by all good Writers, as well Theologies, as other, the Duels and singular combats are disallowed; which are only made upon presence, that GOD will kith thereby the justice of the quarrel: For we must consider that the innocent party is not innocent before God: And therefore God will make oft times them that have the wrong side revenged justly his quarrel; and when he hath done, cast his scourge in the fire; as he oft times did to his own people, stirring up and strengthening their enemies, while they were humbled in his sight, and then delivered them in their hands. So God, as the great Judge may justly punish his Deputy, and for his rebellion against him, stir up his rebels to meet him with the like: And when it is done, the part of the instrument is no better then the devils part is in tempting and torturing such as God commit to him as his hangman to do: Therefore, as I said in the beginning, it is oft times a very deceivable argument, to judge of the cause by the event.
And the last objection is grounded upon the mutual pact and ad-stipulation (as they call it) between the King and his people, at the time of his coronation: For there, say they, there is a mutual pact, and contract bound up, and sworn between the king, and the people: Whereupon it follows, that if the one part of the contract or the Indent be broken upon the Kings side, the people are no longer bound to keep their part of it, but are thereby freed of their oath: For (say they) a contract between two parties, of all Law frees the one party, if the other break unto him.

As to this contract allege made at the coronation of a King, although I deny any such contract to be made then, especially containing such a clause irritant as they allege; yet I confess, that a king at his coronation, or at the entry to his kingdom, willingly promise to his people, to discharge honourably and truly the office given him by God over them. Presuming that thereafter he break his promise unto them never so inexcusable; the question is, who should be judge of the break, giving unto them, this contract were made unto them never so sicker, according to their allegiance. I think no man that hath but the smallest entrance into the civil Law, will doubt that of all Law, either civil or municipal of any nation, a contract cannot be thought broken by the one party, and so the other likewise to be freed thereof, except that first a lawful trial and cognition be had by the ordinary Judge of the breakers thereof. Or else every man may be both party and Judge in his own cause; which is absurd once to be thought. Now in this contract (I say) between the King and his people, God is doubtless the only Judge, both because to him only the king must make count of his administration (as is oft said before) as likewise by the oath in the coronation, God is made judge and revenger of the breakers. For in his presence, as only judge of oaths, all oaths ought to be made. Then since God is the only judge between the two parties contractors, the cognition and revenge must only appertain to him. It follows therefore of necessity, that God must first give sentence upon the King that break, before the people can think themselves freed of their oath. What justice then is it, that the party shall be both judge and party, usurping upon himself the office of God, may by this argument easily appear. So shall it lie in the hands of headless multitude, when they please to weary off subjection, to cast off the yoke of government that God oath laid upon them, to judge and punish him, whom-by they should be judged and punished; and in that case, wherein by their violence they kythe themselves to be most passionate parties, to use the office of an ungracious Judge or Arbiter? Nay, to speak truly of that case, as it stands between the King and his people, none of them ought to judge of the others break.
Considering rightly the two parties at the time of their mutual promise, the King is the one party, and the whole people in one body are the other party. And therefore since it is certain, that a king, in case so it should fall out, that his people in one body had rebelled against him, he should not in that case, as thinking himself free of his promise and oath, become an utter enemy, and practice the wreak of his whole people and native country: although he ought justly to punish the principal authors and bellows of that universal rebellion. How much less then ought the people (that are always subject unto him, and naked of all authority on their part) press to judge and overthrow him? Otherwise the people, as the one party contractors, shall no sooner challenge the king as breaker, but he as soon shall judge them as breakers: so as the victors making the tyners the traitors (as our proverb is) the party shall aye become both judge and party in his own particular, as I have already said.

And it is here likewise to be noted, that the duty and allegiance, which the people swears to their prince, is not only bound to themselves, but likewise to their lawful heirs and posterity, the lineal succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, and happily continued in diners Christian common-wealths: So as no objection either of heresy, or whatsoever private statute or law may free the people from their oath-gluing to their King, and his succession, established by the old fundamental laws of the Kingdom: For, as he is their heritable over-lord, and so by birth; not by any right in the coronation, comes to his crown; it is a like unlawful (the crown ever standing full) to displace him that succeed thereto, as to elect the former: For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heir entreaty in his place: And so to refuse him, or intrude another, is not to horde out uncoming in, but to expel and put out their righteous King. And I trust at this time whole France acknowledge the superstitious rebellion of the liguers, who upon presence of heresy, by force of arms held so long out, to the great desolation of their whole country, their native and righteous King from possessing of his own crown and natural Kingdom.
Not that by all this former discourse of mine, and apology for Kings, I mean that whatsoever errors and intolerable abominations a sovereign prince commit, he ought to escape all punishment, as if thereby the world were only ordained for Kings, and they without control to turn it upside down at their pleasure: but by the contrary, by remitting them to God (who is their only ordinary Judge) I remit them to the sorest and sharpest school master that can be devised for them: for the further a King is preferred by God above all other ranks and degrees of men, and the higher that his seat is about theirs, the greater is his obligation to his maker. Therefore in case he forgets himself (his unthankfulness being in the same measure of height) the sadder and sharper will his correction be; and according to the greatness of the height he is in, the weight of his fall will recompense the same. For the further that any person is obliged to God, his offence becomes and grows so much the greater, then it would be in any other. Joves thunder-claps light often and sorer upon the high & stately cakes, then on the low and supple willow his: and the highest bench is sliddriest to sit upon. Neither is it ever heard that any king forgets himself towards God, or in his vocation; but God with the greatness of the plague revenges the greatness of his ingratitude: Neither think I by the force and argument of this my discourse so to persuade the people, that none will hereafter be raised up, and rebel against wicked Princes. But remitting to the justice and providence of God to stir up such scourges as pleases him, for punishment of wicked Kings (who made the very vermin and filthy dust of the earth to bridle the insolence of proud Pharaoh) my only purpose and intention in this treatise is to persuade, as far as lie in me, by these sure and infallible grounds, all such good Christian readers, as bear not only the naked name of a Christian, but kith the fruits thereof in their daily form of life, to keep their hearts and hands free from such monstrous and unnatural rebellions, whensoever the wickedness of a Prince shall procure the same at Gods hands: that, when it shall please God to cast such scourges of princes, and instruments of his fury in the fire, you may stand up with clean hands, and unspotted consciences, having proved your selves in all your actions true Christians toward God, and dutiful subjects towards your King, having remitted the judgement and punishment of all his wrongs to him, whom to only of right it appertain.
But craving at God, and hoping that God shall continue his blessing with us in not sending such fearful desolation, I heartily wish our Kings behaviour so to be, and continue among us, as our God in earth, and loving Father, endued with such properties as I described a King in the first part of this Treatise. And that ye (my dear countrymen, and charitable readers) may press by all means to procure the prosperity and welfare of your King; that as he must on the one part thine all his earthly felicity and happiness grounded upon your wealth, caring more for himself for your sake then for his own, thinking himself only ordained for your wealth; such holy and happy emulation may arise between him and you, as his care for your quietness, and your care for his honour and preservation, may in all your actions daily strive together, that the Land may think themselves blessed with such a King, and the King may think himself most happy in ruling over so loving and obedient subjects.

- King James I of England, King of England, Ireland, Scotland & France

Most Popular

Carolingian dynasty


Pippin of Landen

Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia under the Merovingian king Dagobert I from 623 to 629. Also mayor for Sigebert III from 639 until his own death. Pippin (also called the Elder) was lord of a great part of Brabant. He became the governor of Austrasia too when Theodebert II King of that country was defeated by Theodoric II. King of Burgundy, In 613. Through the marriage of his daughter Begga to Ansegisel, a son of Arnulf of Metz, the clans of the Pippinids and the Arnulfings were united, giving rise to Carolingians.


Bega or Beggue, means the Shining. Born around 620 she died 17 December 692, 693 or 695, daughter of the Frankish mayor of the palace Pepin of Landen. Begga is after the death of her husband Ansegisel, taken pilgrimage to Rome, she is said to have built seven chapels in association with the seven main churches of Rome, starting with the Benedictine monastery at Nevelles.


Grimoald (616–657), was the Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia from 643 to 656. He convinced the childless King (Sigebert III) to adopt his son, named Childebert at his baptism. Sigebert eventually had an heir, Dagobert II, but Grimoald feared the fate of his own dynasty and exiled the young Dagobert to either an Irish monastery or the Cathedral school of Poitiers. Upon Sigebert’s death, probably in 651, Grimoald put his son on the throne who Clovis II eventually captured and executed in 657. Grimoald was deposed and executed by the King of Neustria, reuniting the Kingdom of the Franks.


Arnulf of Metz

Arnold (English) was a Frankish bishop of Metz (582–640) and advisor to the Merovingian court of Austrasia; retired to the Abbey of Remiremont around 628 (a hermitage at a mountain site in the Vosges). Arnulf gave distinguished service under Theudebert II. He distinguished himself both as a military commander and in the civil administration; at one time he had under his care six distinct provinces. Arnulf was married to Doda in 596. Originating to the Arnulfing line as sourced to Zerah, King David, and Joseph of Arimathea.


(d. 662 or 679) Served King Sigbert III of Austrasia (634-656) as a duke (Latin dux, a military leader) and domesticus. He was killed sometime before 679, slain in a feud by his enemy Gundewin but there are two differing accounts of his death, the other being his death was a hunting accident. Through his son Pepin, Ansegisel's descendants became Frankish kings and ruled the Carolingian Empire.

Chlodulf of Metz

In 657, Chlodulf (d. 696 or 697) became bishop of Metz until 697, the third successor of his father, he held that office for 40 years. During this time he richly decorated the cathedral St. Stephen while in close contact with his sister-in-law Saint Gertrude of Nivelles.

Pepin of Herstal

Frankish statesman and military leader who de facto ruled Francia as the Mayor of the Palace from 680 until death (635-714). Pepin subsequently embarked on several wars to expand his power. He united all the Frankish realms by the conquest of Neustria and Burgundy in 687. In foreign conflicts, Pepin increased the power of the Franks by his subjugation of the Alemanni, the Frisians, and the Franconians. He also began the process of evangelisation of Germany. Around 670, Pepin had married Plectrude, who had inherited substantial estates in the Moselle region.

Grimoald II

Mayor of the Palace of Neustria from 695 (d. 714). He was the second son of Pepin of Heristal and Plectrude. He married Theudesinda (or Theodelinda), daughter of Radbod, King of the Frisians. While en route to visit the tomb of Saint Lambert at Liège, he was assassinated by a certain Rangar, in the employ of his father-in-law. His sons carried on a fight to be recognised as Pepin of Heristal's true heirs, since Grimoald predeceased his father and his bastard half-brother Charles Martel usurped the lands and offices of their father.

Drogo of Champagne

Duke of Champagne by appointment of his father in 690 and duke of Burgundy from the death of Nordebert in 697. He was the mayor of the palace of Burgundy from 695. He married Anstrude, the daughter of Ansflede and Waratton, the former mayor of the palace of Neustria and Burgundy, and also the widow of the mayor of the palace Berthar and they had four sons. Drogo predeceased his father and left the duchy of Champagne to his second-eldest son Arnulf, as the first born Hugh had entered a monastery. Drogo is buried in Metz in Saint-Pierre-aux-Nonnains.


Mayor of the Palace of Neustria, briefly unopposed in 714 until Ragenfrid was acclaimed in Neustria and Charles Martel in Austrasia (d. 741). Plectrude tried to have him recognised by his grandfather as the legitimate heir to all the Pippinid lands, instead of the illegitimate Charles Martel. His grandmother surrendered on his behalf in 716 to Chilperic II of Neustria and Ragenfrid.


Charles Martel

Frankish statesman and military leader who, as Duke and Prince of the Franks and Mayor of the Palace, was de facto ruler of Francia from 718 until his death (686–741). He restored centralised government in Francia and began the series of military campaigns that re-established the Franks as the undisputed masters of all Gaul. In foreign wars, Martel subjugated Bavaria, Alemannia, and Frisia, vanquished the pagan Saxons, and halted the Islamic advance into Western Europe at the Battle of Tours. Martel was a great patron of Saint Boniface and made the first attempt at reconciliation between the Papacy and the Franks. The Pope wished him to become the defender of the Holy See and offered him the Roman consulship which Martel refused. "the Hero of the Age," & "Champion of the Cross against the Crescent."


(716– 17 August 754) was instrumental in consolidating their power at the expense of the ruling Merovingian Kings of the Franks. Called "the first of a new type of saintly king,” he withdrew from public life in 747 to take up the monastic habit; "more interested in religious devotion than royal power, who frequently appeared in the following three centuries and who was an indication of the growing impact of Christian piety on Germanic society”. Gaining support of the Anglo-Saxon

missionary Winfrid (later Saint Boniface), the so-called "Apostle of the Germans,” whom he charged with restructuring the church in Austrasia; Carloman was instrumental in convening the Concilium Germanicum in 742, the first major synod of the Catholic Church to be held in the eastern regions of the Frankish Kingdom. After repeated armed revolts and rebellions, Carloman in 746 convened an assembly of the Alemanni magnates at Cannstatt and then had most of the magnates, numbering in the thousands, arrested and executed for high treason in the Blood Court at Cannstatt.

Pepin the Short

King of the Franks from 751 until his death (714–768). The younger son of the Frankish prince Charles Martel he received ecclesiastical education from the monks of St. Denis. He reformed the legislation of the Franks and continued the ecclesiastical reforms of Boniface. Pepin also intervened in favour of the Papacy of Stephen II against the Lombards in Italy. He was able to secure several cities, which he then gave to the Pope as part of the Donation of Pepin. This formed the legal basis for the Papal States in the Middle Ages. The Byzantines, keen to make good relations with the growing power of the Frankish empire, gave Pepin the title of Patricius. In wars of expansion, Pepin conquered Septimania from the Islamic Ummayads, and subjugated the southern realms by repeatedly defeating Waifer of Aquitaine and his Basque troops, after which the Basque and Aquitanian lords saw no option but to pledge loyalty to the Franks. Pepin was, however, troubled by the relentless revolts of the Saxons and the Bavarians.

Carloman I

King of the Franks from 768 until his death in 771 (b.751). He was the second surviving son of Pepin the Short and Bertrada of Laon and was a younger brother of Charlemagne. Carloman's reign proved short and troublesome. The brothers shared possession of Aquitaine, which broke into rebellion upon the death of Pepin the Short; when Charlemagne in 769 led an army into Aquitaine to put down the revolt, Carloman led his own army there to assist, before quarrelling with his brother at Moncontour, near Poitiers, and withdrawing, troops and all. This, it had been suggested, was an attempt to undermine Charlemagne's power, since the rebellion threatened the latter's rule; Charlemagne, however, crushed the rebels, whilst Carloman's behaviour had simply damaged his own standing amongst the Franks. Carloman's position was never strong and he had been left without allies. He attempted to use his brother's alliance with the Lombards to his own advantage in Rome, offering his support against the Lombards to Stephen III and entering into secret negotiations with the Primicerius, Christopher, whose position had also been left seriously isolated by the Franco-Lombard rapprochement; but after the violent murder of Christopher by Desiderius, Stephen III chose to give his support to the Lombards and Charlemagne. Carloman's position was rescued, however, by Charlemagne's sudden repudiation of his Lombard wife, Desiderius' daughter. Desiderius, outraged and humiliated, appears to have made some sort of alliance with Carloman following this, in opposition to Charlemagne and the Papacy, which took the opportunity to declare itself against the Lombards. Carloman died on 4 December 771 while he and his brother Charlemagne were close to outright war.


Charles the Great (742–814), Latin: Carolus or Karolus Magnus, French: Charles Le Grand or Charlemagne, German: Karl der Große, Italian: Carlo Magno or Carlomagno or Charles I, was the King of the Franks from 768, the King of Italy from 774, and from 800 the first Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. Charlemagne died in 814, having ruled as emperor for just over thirteen years.

Louis the Pious

Louis the Pious (778 – 20 June 840), also called the Fair, and the Debonaire; was the King of Aquitaine from 781. He was also King of the Franks and co-Emperor (as Louis I) with his father, Charlemagne, from 813. As the only surviving adult son of Charlemagne and Hildegard, he became the sole ruler of the Franks after his father's death in 814, a position which he held until his death, save for the period 833–34, during which he was deposed. In the 830s his empire was torn by civil war between his sons, only exacerbated by Louis's attempts to include his son Charles by his second wife in the succession plans. Though his reign ended on a high note, with order largely restored to his empire, it was followed by three years of civil war.

Lothair I

Lotharius (795 – 29 September 855) was the Emperor of the Romans (817–855), co-ruling with his father until 840, and the King of Bavaria (815–817), Italy (818–855) and Middle Francia (840–855). The territory of Lorraine (Lothringen in German) is named after him. During Lothair's early life, was probably passed at the court of his grandfather Charlemagne. Lothair was sent to govern Bavaria in 815. He first comes to historical attention in 817, when Louis the Pious drew up his Ordinatio Imperii. In this, Louis designated Lothair as his principal heir and ordered that Lothair would be the overlord of Louis' younger sons Pippin of Aquitaine and Louis the German, as well as his nephew Bernard of Italy. Lothair would also inherit their lands if they were to die childless. Lothair was then crowned joint emperor by his father at Aachen. At the same time, Aquitaine and Bavaria were granted to his brothers Pippin and Louis, respectively, as subsidiary kingdoms. Following the murder of Bernard by Louis the Pious, Lothair also received the Kingdom of Italy. In 821, Lothair married Ermengarde (d. 851), daughter of Hugh the Count of Tours.

Charles the Bald

Born on 13 June 823 in Frankfurt, The two years of Charles's reign were 875–877. The three brothers continued the system of "confraternal government", meeting repeatedly with one another, at Koblenz (848), at Meerssen (851), and at Attigny (854). Charles had to struggle against repeated rebellions in Aquitaine and against the Bretons. Led by their chiefs Nomenoë and Erispoë, who defeated the King at the Battle of Ballon (845) and the Battle of Jengland (851), the Bretons were successful in obtaining a de facto independence. Charles also fought against the Vikings, who devastated the country of the north, the valleys of the Seine and Loire, and even up to the borders of Aquitaine.

Louis the Stammerer

Louis le Bègue 1 November 846 – 10 April 879 was the King of Aquitaine and later King of West Francia. He was the eldest son of Charles the Bald and Ermentrude of Orléans. He succeeded his younger brother in Aquitaine in 866 and his father in West Francia in 877, though he was never crowned Emperor. Described "a simple and sweet man, a lover of peace, justice, and religion”, In 878, he gave the countries of Barcelona, Girona, and Besalú to Wilfred the Hairy. His final act was to march against the Vikings a campaign he died during.

Charles III

(17 September 879 – 7 October 929), called the Simple or the Straightforward (from the Latin Carolus Simplex), was the King of Western Francia from 898 until 922 and the King of Lotharingia from 911 until 919–23. the third and posthumous son of Louis the Stammerer by his second wife, Adelaide of Paris. In 893 Charles was crowned but didn’t become the official monarch until the death of Odo in 898. In 911, a group of Vikings led by Rollo besieged Paris and Chartres. After a victory near Chartres on 26 August, Charles decided to negotiate with Rollo, resulting in the Treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte. For the Vikings' loyalty, they were granted all the land between the river Epte and the sea, as well as Brittany, which at the time was an independent country which France had unsuccessfully tried to conquer. Rollo also agreed to be baptised and to marry Charles' daughter, Gisela.

The nobles, completely exasperated with Charles' policies and especially his favouritism of count Hagano had him deposed in 922 as the Franks revolted raising a Norman army in return during 923 he was defeated on 15 June near Soissons by Robert of Neustria, who however died in the battle. Charles was captured and imprisoned in a castle at Péronne under the guard of Herbert II of Vermandois where he died. Robert's son-in-law Rudolph of Burgundy was elected to succeed him. In 925 the Lotharingians were subsumed into the Kingdom of Germany.

Louis of Lower Lorraine

Last legitimate Carolingian, (c. 980 – after 1012) second son of Charles of Lorraine's three sons and the eldest by his second marriage to Adelaide, the daughter of a vassal of Hugh Capet. Unlike his elder brother Otto, Duke of Lower Lorraine (970–1012) , who inherited their father's duchy of Lower Lorraine; Louis went with his father to France, where Charles fought for the French throne. They both were imprisoned, through the perfidy of Adalberon, Bishop of Laon, by Hugh at Orléans in 991, when Louis was still a child. His father died in prison in or by 993, but Louis was released. It was asserted by Ferdinand Lot that Louis's life after 995 or 1000 was completely unknown, but more recent research has shed some light upon it. It was William IV of Aquitaine who sheltered Louis afterwards, from 1005 until 1012. He opened the Palace of Poitiers to him and treated him as royalty, regarding him as the true heir to the French throne. Louis even subscribed a charter of William's as Lodoici filii Karoli regis. Young Louis drifted, eventually to be utilised by Robert II, Archbishop of Rouen, who was plotting against the Capetians. Louis was imprisoned again, permanently, this time at Sens, where he died.

Paternal Descendants Listing. Generations unto Elizabeth I of England

1. CLODIUS the Long-Haired King of the Salian Franks at Tournai (428 – 448 AD) – Also called Chlodion(Born c395 AD – Died 448 AD at Vicus Helena) He was killed by the Roman commander Flavius Aetius. Clodius was married (c415 AD) to ILDEGONDE of Cologne, the daughter of Marcomir II, King of the Franks at Cologne and his wife Ildegonde of Lombardy, the daughter of Agelmund, King of Lombardy (c380 – 410 AD). Clodius and Queen Ildegonde were the parents of,

2. CHILDEBERT of Cologne King of the Riprarian Franks at Cologne (448 – 483 AD) (Born c425 – Died 483 AD) Childebert was married (c450 AD) to AMALABERGA N (Born c435 – Died before 483 AD), the daughter of Chlodwig, a Frankish chieftain from Cologne. Childebert and Queen Amalaberga were the parents of,

3. SIGEBERT the Lame King of Cologne (483 AD – 509) (Born c452 AD – Murdered in 509 whilst hunting in the forest of Buchau) King Sigebert was murdered by his son Cloderic at the instigation of his kinsman, Clovis I, King of the Salian Franks. Sigebert was married (c470 AD) to THEUDELINDE of Burgundy (Born c455 AD – Died before 509), the daughter of Godesgesil, King of Burgundy (474 AD – 504) and his wife Theudelinde of the Salian Franks, the daughter of Clodius ‘the Long-Haired, King of the Salian Franks at Tournai (428 – 448 AD) Sigebert the Lame and Queen Theudelinde were the parents of,

4. CLODERIC the Parracide Merovingian King of Cologne (509) (Born c473 AD – Murdered 509 at Cologne) He was killed by agents of King Clovis I who had encouraged Cloderic to murder his father Sigebert, for which crime Clovis had him killed. Cloderic was married (c490 – c495 AD) to N of Bavaria, the daughter of Theodo I, Duke of Bavaria and his wife Reginpurga N, and sister to Agilulf. Cloderic and his unnamed queen were the parents of,

5. MUNDERIC of Cologne Merovingian prince of Cologne and Lord of Vitry-en-Perthois (Born c495 – Killed 532) He was executed after leading an unsuccessful rebellion against Theuderic I of Austrasia. Munderic was married (c525) to ARTEMIA of Geneva (Born c510 – Died after 532), the daughter of Bishop Florentinus of Geneva and his wife Artemia. She was the sister of Sacerdos, Archbishop of Lyons, and was of the family of St Gregory, Bishop of Tours. Munderic and Artemia were the parents of,

6. BODEGISEL I Duke in Provence (Born c518 – Died 581) He was the brother of St Gondulf (died 607), Bishop of Tongres. Bodesgesil I was married (before 550) to PALATINA of Troyes (Bron c530 – Died after 562), who was praised by the poet Venantius Fortunatus, the daughter of Gallomagnus, Bishop of Troyes (573 and 581 – 583) Bodesgesil and Palatina were the parents of,

7. BODEGISEL II Duke (dux) of Austrasia and Governor of Aquitaine (Born c550 – Murdered 588 at Carthage in Africa, whilst returning from an embassy to Constantinople) Bodesgesil was married (c580) to ODA of Alemannia (Born c565 – Died 634) later foundress of the abbey of Hamage, near Huy, on the Meuse river), daughter of Leutfrid, Duke of Alemannia and Swabia (553 – 587). As a widow Duchess Oda founded the Abbey of Hamage near Huy on the Meuse River, where she became a nun. Bodesgesil II and Duchess Oda were the parents of,

8. DODA of Austrasia – Also called Oda (Born c587 – Died after 629 at the Abbey of Treves, Austrasia) Buried within the cloister there Doda became the wife (c600 – c605) of ARNULF, Margrave of Scheldt and later Bishop of Metz (611) (Born after Aug 13, 582 – Died Aug 16, 641, at Remiremont in Lorraine), the son of Arnoald I, Margrave of Scheldt and his second wife Blithilde of Austrasia, the daughter of Theudebald, King of Austrasia (547 – 555) Doda and Arnulf separated in order to embrace the religious life, and she became a nun at the Abbey of Treves, taking the religious name of Clotilda. Doda and Arnulf were the parents of,

9. ANISEGAL of Scheldt Merovingian Mayor of Austrasia (632) (Born 612 – Died 662) He was accidentally killed whilst hunting Anisegal was married (c640) to BEGA of Landen (Born 615 – Died Dec 17, 693 at Andenne in Austrasia), the daughter of Pepin I of Landen, Duke (Mayor) of Austrasia, by his wife Iduberga of Aquitaine, the daughter of Grimoald of Austrasia, Duke of Aquitaine and Itta of Gascony. Anisegal and Bega of Landen were the parents of,

10. PEPIN II of Heristal Duke of Austrasia (Born 645 – Died Dec 16, 714) He was married (c675) to Plectrude of Austrasia (Born c659 – Died after 718 in Cologne, and was buried there), the daughter of Count Hugobert of Austrasia and his wife Irmina of Liege, the granddaughter of Dagobert I, King of Neustria and Austrasia (629 – 639). Pepin II had a concubine ALPHAIDA (Alpais) (Born c670 – Died Sept, c720 as a nun at Judoque in Brabant), the daughter of Childebrand who served as a councilor to the Merovingian kings and his wife Emma (Imma). Pepin II and Alphaida were the parents of,

11. CHARLES MARTEL Duke of Austrasia (737 – 741) (Born 690 – Died Oct 22, 741, at Querzy-sur-Oise) Charles was married firstly (c705,) to ROTRUDE of Haspengau (Hesbaye) (Born c690 – Died 724), the daughter of Lantbert II, Count of Haspengau and his wife Chrodelinde of Neustria, the daughter of Theuderic III, King of Neustria (675 – 690) Charles was marrieds secondly (725) to Suanachilde of Bavaria (Born 707 – Died after 755, as a nun at the Abbey of St Marie at Chelles, near Paris), the daughter of Tassilo II, Duke of Bavaria (715 – c720) and his wife Imma of Alemannia. Charles and Duchess Rotrude were the parents of,

12. PEPIN III King of the Franks (751 – 768) (Born 715 – Died Sept 24, 768 at Jupille) Buried within the Abbey of St Denis at Rheims, near Paris Pepin III was married (c740) to BERTRADA of Laon (Born c725 – Died July 12, 783 at the Palace of Choisy at Annecy), the daughter of Carobert, Count of Laon and his wife Bertrada of Neustria, the daughter of Theuderic III, King of Neustria. Pepin III and Queen Bertrada were the parents of,

13. CHARLEMAGNE King (768 – 814) and first Emperor of the Franks (800 – 814) (Born April 2, 746, at Ingelheim, near Mainz – Died Jan 28, 814, at Aachen) Buried at Aachen Charlemagne was married thirdly (771) to HILDEGARDE of Vinzgau (Born 757 – Died April 30, 783 at the Abbey of Kaufingen, Thionville), the daughter of Gerold I, Count of Vinzgau and Kraichagu, and Prefect of Bavaria by his wife Emma of Alemannia, the daughter of Nebi (Hnabi), Duke of Alemannia. Charlemagne and Queen Hildegarde were the parents of,

14. LOUIS I the Pious King of Aquitaine and Emperor of the Franks (814 – 840) (Born Aug, 778, at the villa of Chasseneuil, near Agenois – Died June 20, 840, at the Palace of Ingelheim, near Mainz) Louis was married firstly (794 at Orleans) to Ermengarde of Hesbaye (Born c780 – Died Oct 3, 818, at Angers in Anjou), the daughter of Ingelramnus, Count and Duke of Hesbayne (Haspengau) and his wife Rotrude, probably the daughter of Thurincbert, Count of Breisgau. Emperor Louis married secondly (Feb, 819) to JUDITH of Altdorf (Born 805 – Died 843 at Tours) the daughter of Welf II, Count of Altdorf and Swabia and his wife Heilwig of Engern, the daughter of Bruno II, Count of Engern. Louis I and Empress Judith were the parents of,

15. GISELA of Neustria Imperial Princess (Born 820 – Died after July 1, 874) Buried in the Abbey of St Calixtus at Cysoing Gisela was married (836) to EBERHARD, Duke of Friuli (Born c805 – Died 866, and buried within the Abbey of St Calixtus), the son of Unruoch of Ternois, Duke of Friuli and his wife Ingeltrude of Paris, the daughter of Leuthard of Paris, Count of Fezensac. Gisela and Duke Eberhard were the parents of,

16. INGELTRUDE of Friuli (Born c839 – Died after July 1, 874) Buried within the Abbey of St Calixtus at Cysoing Ingeltrude was married (c853) to HENRY of Grabfeldgau (Born c830 – Died Aug 28, 886 outside Paris, being killed in battle, and was buried within the Abbey of St Medard at Soissons), Duke of Franconia and Austrasia, Margrave of Nordmark and Count in the Saalgau, the son of Poppo I, Count of Grabfeldgau and Saalgau. Duchess Ingeltrude and Duke Henry were the parents of,

17. HEDWIG of Grabfeldgau (Born c854 – Died Dec 24, 903) Buried within the Abbey of Gandersheim, near Goslar Hedwig was married (869) to OTTO I the Illustrious (Born 836 – Died Nov 30, 912, and buried within the Abbey of Gandersheim), Duke of Saxony (880 – 912), the son of Luidolf, Duke of Saxony and his wife Oda of Franconia, the daughter of Billung I of Franconia, Count of Thuringia and his wife Aeda of Neustria, the granddaughter of the Emperor Charlemagne. Duchess Hedwig and Otto were the parents of,

18. HENRY I the Fowler Henry I, Duke of Saxony (912 – 936) and Holy Roman Emperor (919 – 936) (Born 876, at Memleben – Died July 12, 936, at Memleben) Buried within the Basilica of St Servatius within the Abbey of Quedlinburg Henry was married firstly (905) to Hathburga of Merseburg (Born c877 – Died after 909), the widow of NN (an unidentified nobleman), and the daughter of Count Erwin of Merseburg. Hathburga had apparently taken vows as a nun at the Abbey of Altenburg when Prince Henry married her. Bishop Sigismund of Halberstadt denounced the marriage as unlawful, and the church forced the couple to separate (909). Their only child Thankmar was considered illegitimate and thus rendered ineligible to wear the Imperial crown. Henry then remarried secondly (911, at the Abbey of Nordhausen, Saxony) to MATHILDA of Westphalia (Born 897 – Died March 14, 968, at the Abbey of Quedlinburg, near Halberstadt in Germany, and was interred within the Basilica of St Servatius at Quedlinburg), the daughter of Theodoric, Count of Westphalia and Ringelheim and his wife Reginlinda of Friesland, the daughter of Godfrey of Friesland, King of Haithabu. Emperor Henry and Empress Mathilda were the parents of,

19. GERBERGA of Saxony (Born 913 at Abbey of Nordhausen, Saxony – Died May 5, 984, at Rheims, Marne) Buried within the Chapel of St Remi in the Abbey of St Denis at Rheims Gerberga was married firstly (929) to GISELBERT (Born 890 – Died Oct 2, 939, at Echternach), Duke of Lorraine (928 – 939) and Lay Abbot of Echternach in Luxemburg (915 – 939), the son of Rainer I of Hainault, Duke of Lorraine (900 – 916) and his second wife Alberada of Mons, the daughter of Count Adalbert (Albert) of Mons. Duchess Gerberga was married secondly (939) to Louis IV (Born Sept 10, 921 at Laon, Aisne – Died Sept 10, 954 at Rheims, Marne, and buried within the Chapel of St Remi in the Abbey of St Denis at Rheims), King of France (936 – 954), the son of Charles III the Simple, King of France (893 – 922) and his second wife Otgifa of England, the daughter of Edward the Elder, King of England (899 – 924). Gerberga and Giselbert of Lorraine were the parents of,

20. ALBERADA of Lorraine (Born c930 – Died March 15, 973) Alberada was married (before 947) to RAINALD of Roucy (Born c920 – Died May 10, 967, and was buried within the Abbey of St Remi at Rheims), the son of Ragnvald, a Norse invader who settled in Burgundy. Alberada and Count Rainald were the parents of,

21. ERMENTRUDE of Roucy (Born c954 – Died March 8, 1005) Eremntrude was married firstly (c970) to Alberic II (Born c935 – Died 980), Count of Macon (965 – 980), the son of Lietaud II, Count of Macon (945 – 965) and his first wife Ermengarde of Chalons. Ermentrude then became the first wife (982) of OTTO I WILLIAM of Burgundy (Born c961 – Died Oct 21, 1026, and was buried within the Abbey of St Benigne at Dijon), King of Lombardy and Count of Macon (Born c961 – Died 1026), the son of Adalbert of Ivrea, King of Lombardy and his wife Gerberga of Chalons (later the wife of Duke Eudes of Burgundy). Queen Ermentrude and Otto William were the parents of,

22. RAINALD I of Burgundy Count of Burgundy and Macon (1026 – 1057) (Born c990 – Died Sept 4, 1057) Rainald was married firstly (1016) to ADELIZA of Normandy (Born 1000 at Rouen – Died after July 1, 1037), the eldest daughter of Richard II, Duke of Normandy (996 – 1026) and his first wife Judith of Rennes, the daughter of Conan I the Red, Duke of Brittany. Rainald I and Countess Adeliza were the parents of,

23. WILLIAM II the Great of Burgundy Count of Burgundy and Macon (1057 – 1087) (Born c1024 – Died Nov 12, 1087) – Nicknamed Tete-Hardi William was married (c1150) to STEPHANIE of Metz (Born c1035 – Died 1109), the heiress of the county of Longwy, daughter of Adalbert III of Metz, Duke of Upper Alsace and Count of Longwy, and his wife Clemencia of Foix, the daughter of Bernard Roger of Bigorre, Count of Foix. William II and Countess Stephanie were the parents of,

24. ERMENTRUDE of Burgundy (Born c1055 – Died after March 8, 1105) Ermentrude became the wife (before 1070) of THIERRY II (Born c1045 – Died Jan 2, 1105), Count of Bar and Montbeliard (c1076 – 1105), the son of Louis II, Count of Bar and Montbeliard, and his wife Sophia of Bar, heiress of the county of Bar, the daughter of Frederick II, Duke of Upper Lorraine and Count of Bar and his wife Matilda of Swabia, the daughter of Hermann II, Duke of Swabia (997 – 1003). Countess Ermentrude and Thierry II were the parents of,

25. RAINALD I of Bar Count of Bar-le-Duc and Mousson (1026 – 1050) (Born c1090 – Died June 24, 1150) He founded the Abbey of Rieval and the Priory of Moncon Rainald was married firstly (c1108) to GISELA of Lorraine (Born c1090 – Died c1126), the daughter of Gerhard I of Lorraine, Count of Vaudement by his wife Hedwig of Egisheim, the daughter of Gerard III, Count of Egisheim. Rainald was married secondly (c1127) to NN, the widow of Rainald, Count of Toul, whose identity remains unknown. Rainald I and Countess Gisela were the parents of,

26. RAINALD II of Bar Count of Bar (1150 – 1170) (Born c1115 – Died July 25, 1170) Rainald was married (1155) to Agnes of Champagne (Born c1138 – Died Aug 7, 1207), the daughter of Theobald II, Count of Champagne (V of Blois-Chatres) and his wife Matilda of Carinthia, the daughter of Engelbert II, Duke of Carinthia and his wife Uta of Passau, the daughter of Ulrich, Count of Passau. Rainald II and Countess Agnes were the parents of,

27. THEOBALD I of Bar Count of Bar (1170 – 1214) and of Briey and Luxemburg (Born 1158 – Died Feb 2, 1214) Buried within the Abbey of St Michael Theobald was married firstly (c1174) to Adelaide of Looz (Laurette) (Born c1150 – Died c1184), the widow of Gilles, Count of Clermont, and the daughter of Louis I, Count of Looz, and his wife Agnes of Metz, the daughter of Volmar V, Count of Metz. Theobald married secondly (c1185) to ISABELLE of Bar (Ermesent) (Born c1158 – Died c1192), the widow of Anseau II, Seigneur of Trainel, and the daughter of Guy, Count of Bar-sur-Saone and his wife Peronelle de Chacenay, the daughter of Ansery de Chacenay, Baron de Chacenay of Champagne. Theobald was married thirdly (1193) to Ermesinde of Luxembourg (Born July, 1186 – Died May 9, 1246) sovereign Countess of Luxemburg and Namur, the daughter of Henry IV the Blind, Count of Luxembourg-Namur and his second wife Agnes of Gueldres, the daughter of Henry II, Count of Gueldres and Zutphen and his wife Agnes von Arnstein. Countess Ermesinde remarried to Waleran IV, Count of Limburg. Theobald and his second wife Countess Isabelle were the parents of,

28. HENRY II of Bar Count of Bar (1214 – 1239) and Count of Luxemburg and Namur (Born c1188 – Died Nov 13, 1239 at Gaza, Palestine, being killed in battle) Henry was married (1219) to PHILIPPA of Dreux (Born 1192 – Died March 17, 1242), heiress of the seigneurie of Toucy, the daughter of Robert II, Count of Dreux and his second wife Yolande of Coucy, the daughter of Raoul I of Marle, Seigneur of Coucy and his first wife Agnes of Hainault, the daughter of Baldwin IV, Count of Hainault. Henry II and Countess Philippa were the parents of,

29. THEOBALD II of Bar Count of Bar (1239 – 1297) (Born c1221 – Died 1297) Theobald was married firstly (c1245) to Jeanne of Dampierre (Born c1227 – Died c1275), the widow of Hugh III, Count of Rethel, and daughter of Margaret, Countess of Hainault and Flanders, by her second husband, William II, Count of Dampierre. Theobald was married secondly (c1278) to JEANNE of Toucy (Born c1261 – Died c1317), the daughter of Jean I, Vicount of Toucy and his wife Emma de Laval, the daughter of Guy VI, Seigneur de Laval. Theobald II and Jeanne of Toucy were the parents of,

30. ISABELLA of Bar (Born c1280 – Died c1320) Isabella was married (before 1300) to GUY of Flanders (Born c1275 – Died 1338), Lord of Termonde, the son of William of Flanders, Lord of Termonde and his wife Alice of Clermont, the daughter of Raoul, Count of Clermont. Guy was the grandson of Count Guy of Flanders (1229 – 1305). Isabella and Guy were the parents of,

31. ALIX of Flanders (Born c1310 – Died 1346) Alix was married (c1326) to JEAN I (Born c1305 – Died 1364), Count of Luxembourg-Ligny-Roussy, the son of Waleran II, Count of Luxembourg-Ligny and his wife Guiotte de Hautbourdin, the daughter of Jean VI de Hautbourdin, Seigneur de Lille and his wife Beatrice of Clermont, the daughter of Simon II, Count of Clermont. Alix and Jean I were the parents of,

32. GUY VI of Luxembourg-Ligny Count of Luxemburg-Ligny (1364 – 1371) and Chatelain of Lille in Flanders (Born c1329 – Killed 1371, at the battle of Baesewilder) Guy was married (c1354) to MATILDA of Chatillon (Born c1330 – Died 1378), sovereign Countess of St Pol, the only child and heiress of John I of Luxembourg, Count of St Pol and his wife Jeanne de Fiennes, the daughter of Jean, Seigneur de Fiennes, and sister of Robert ‘Moreau’ de Fiennes, Constable of France (died c1385) Guy VI and Countess Matilda were the parents of,

33. JEAN II of Luxembourg Count of St Pol (1378 – 1397) and Seigneur de Beaurevoir (Born c1356 – Died 1397) He was married (c1379) to MARGEURITE d’Enghien (Born c1362 – Died 1393), the daughter of Louis d’Enghien, Count of Brienne, and his wife Isabella, Countess of Brienne and Leece, the daughter of Walter V, Duke of Athens and Count of Brienne. Jean II and Countess Margeurite were the parents of,

34. PIERRE I of Luxembourg Count of St Pol (1415 – 1433) (Born c1380 – Died 1433) He was married (c1405) to MAGARET del Balzo (Born c1390 – Died 1469), the daughter of Francesco del Balzo (des Baux), Duke of Andria and his second wife Sueva di Orsini (Justina), the daughter of Nicholas di Orsini, Count di Nola and Senator of Rome. Pierre and Countess Margaret were the parents of,

35. JACQUETTA of Luxembourg (Born 1416 – Died May 30, 1472) Jacquetta was married firstly (April 20, 1433, at Therouanne) as his second wife, to John Plantagenet, Prince of England, Duke of Bedford (Born June 30, 1389 – Died Sept 14, 1435 at Rouen, France), the son of Henry IV, King of England (1399 – 1413) and his first wife Lady Mary de Bohun, the younger daughter and co-heiress of Humphrey de Bohun, 7th Earl of Hereford and Essex. Duchess Jacquetta was married secondly (secretly) (before March 23, 1436) to Sir RICHARD WOODVILLE (born c1405, executed by the Lancastrians at Kenilworth, Aug 12, 1469, after the battle of Edgecot), the first Earl of Rivers, the son of Richard Woodville of the Mote in Maidstone, Kent, and his wife Mary Bedleygate. Duchess Jacquetta and Richard Woodville were the parents of,

36. LADY ELIZABETH WOODVILLE (Born 1437 at Grafton Regis, Northamptonshire – Died June 7, 1492, at Bermondsey Abbey, London) Buried within St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire Elizabeth was married firstly (c1452) to Sir John Grey of Groby (Born 1432 – Killed by the Yorkists 1461), the son of Sir Edward Grey of Groby, 7th Baron Ferrers, and his wife Elizabeth, Baroness Ferrers, the daughter and heiress of William, 6th Baroness Ferrers. Elizabeth was married secondly (secretly) (May 1, 1464, at the manor of Grafton Regis) to EDWARD IV 9Born April 28, 1442, at Rouen in Normandy – Died April 9, 1483, at Westminster Palace in London, and was buried in St George’s Chapel at Windsor) King of England (1461 – 1483), the son of Richard, Duke of York and his wife Lady Cecilia Neville, the daughter of Sir Ralph Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland. Queen Elizabeth and Edward IV were the parents of,

37. ELIZABETH of York Princess of England (Born Feb 11, 1465, at Westminster Palace, London – Died in childbirth (Feb 11, 1503, at the Tower of London) Buried within Westminster Abbey, London Elizabeth was married (Jan 18, 1486, at Westminster Abbey, London) to HENRY VII (Born Jan 28, 1457, at Pembroke Castle in Wales – Died April 21, 1509, at Richmond Palace, Surrey, and was buried within Westminster Abbey), King of England (1485 – 1509), the only son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond, by his wife Lady Margaret Beaufort, the only child and heiress of John Beaufort, first Duke of Somerset and his wife Margaret de Beauchamp (later wife of Lionel, 6th Baron Wells), the widow of Sir Oliver St John, of Bletsoe in Bedfordshire, and daughter of John de Beauchamp, 3rd Baron Beauchamp of Bletsoe. Queen Elizabeth and Henry VII were the parents of,

38. HENRY VIII of England King of England (1509 – 1547) (Born June 28, 1491, at Greenwich Palace, Kent – Died Jan 28, 1547, at Whitehall Palace, London) Buried within St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle in Berkshire) Henry VIII was married many times and bore a single son with Queen Jane Seymur, who died from child birth complications. Henry VIII and Jane Seymour were the parents of;

39. Edward VI (12 October 1537 – 6 July 1553) born at Hampton Court Palace in Midlesex, King of England and Ireland from 28 January 1547 until his death in 1553. The last King of the Tudor dynasty Edward died at the age of 15 at Greenwich Palace on 6 July, from a suspected tumor of the lung.

40. MARY I of England Queen regnant of England July 1553– Nov 1558 (Born 18 February 1516 at the Palace of Placentia in Greenwich, Died 17 November 1558). Daughter of Henry VIII and Queen Catherine of Aragon. Married to Philip of Spain, who was Prince Consort, son of Charles V and Infanta Isabella of Portugal. Mary had no heirs and over religious difference seized the Throne from Lady Jane Grey, who was pronounced successor by Edward upon his death, only holding title for 9 days. Mary was Buried 14 December 1558 Westminster Abbey, London.

41. ELIZABETH I of England Elizabeth Tudor, Queen regnant of England (1558 – 1603) (Born Sept 7, 1533, at Greenwich Palace, Kent – Died March 24, 1603, at Richmond Palace, Surrey. Daughter of Henry VIII and Queen Anne Boleyn. Buried within Westminster Abbey, London Remained unmarried until death which brought the Tudor Dynasty to an end(1485 – 1603).

Sermon of Christ at the Lake Genezareth

Sermon of Christ at the Lake Genezareth