Carolingian dynasty and the Order of the Garter

[Firestarter]

Maurits of Nassau forced his brother, Frederik Hendrik, to marry so he could inherit his titles. Frederik Hendrik quickly married Amalia of Solms-Braunfels in 1625. Frederik Hendrik became stadthouder (city holder) after Maurits’ dead and Knight of the Garter (KG) in 1627.
His illegitimate son by Margaretha Catharina Bruyns, Frederick Nassau de Zuylestein, had already been born in 1624. This son later became the governor of the young Willem III of Orange for 7 years.

Frederik Hendrik was involved in many local sieges and captures against the Dutch population.
For most of this time the Dutch Republic was allied with France “against” Spain, including the 1635 treaty under which Frederik Hendrik could continue waging wars even if the assembly of Holland refused finance.
But in his last years Frederik Hendrik made a separate peace deal with Spain: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederick-Henry
(http://archive.is/f7wDX)


When Pensionary of the States Johan de Witt (no KG) was the most powerful politician in the Republic, something had to be done…
The Dutch had received French support during the 1665-1667 Second Anglo-Dutch War.

The Dutch Republic opened talks with Charles II of England, KG in 1638, which led to the Triple Alliance in 1668, between England, the Netherlands and Sweden.
Then in 1671, the English Royal Navy attacked a Dutch merchant convoy in the Channel.

See King Charles II of England in Garter robes, ca. 1685.


In May 1672, France invaded the Netherlands, which started the Franco-Dutch War that lasted to 1678.
The French invasion was used to make Willem III of Orange (KG in 1653, who later became King William III of England, Scotland and Ireland) Stadthouder of the Netherlands (in 1672)!

France had the support of England and Sweden, while the Dutch Provinces were supported by Spain, the Holy Roman Empire and Denmark. Denmark and Sweden were supposedly archenemies, while Sweden maintained good diplomatic relations with England and France.
King Christian V of Denmark and Norway, who supported the Dutch Provinces, had become a KG in 1662.
King Charles XI of Sweden, who supported France, had become a KG in 1668.

In August 1673, Dutch naval forces defeated an Anglo-French fleet at Texel and captured Nieuw Amsterdam (a.k.a. New York City), and England made peace with the Republic in the February 1674 Treaty of Westminster.
Later in December 1674, Sweden attacked Brandenburg-Prussia; this was followed by Swedish involvement in the 1675–1679 Scanian War and the Swedish-Brandenburg War against the armies of Brandenburg, some minor German principalities and the Danish Army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Dutch_War

[Firestarter]

When Pensionary of the States Johan de Witt (no KG) was the most powerful politician in the Republic, something had to be done…

I’ve looked into Johan de Witt and found some interesting information that shows that at the time not only the Netherlands was a republic, but also for some 11 years, England was a republic without a Royal head of state.

In 1649, King Charles I was executed, after he was blamed for the decade of bloodshed in civil wars and the High Court of Justice sentenced him for high treason “against the realm of England”.
Charles denied the legality of the court and pleaded:

I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority … I do stand more for the liberty of my people, than any here that come to be my pretended judges…

King Charles’ death warrant was signed by 59 commissioners; the third signatory was Oliver Cromwell, who then became “Lord Protector” of the Commonwealth Republic.
The House of Commons now abolished the monarchy, on the grounds that it was "unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous to the liberty, safety and public interest of the people" and also the House of Lords as "it is useless and dangerous to the people of England".
Lands owned by the royal family and the church were sold and the money was used to pay the parliamentary soldiers.

I don’t see Cromwell as some sort of “hero” though. He wasn’t a fan of democracy in any way, and after Oliver died in 1658, his son Richard Cromwell became the second lord protector (which looks similar to the Crown Prince inheriting the crown of his father, King)


In 1652, the Commonwealth won the English Civil War against the royalists, with its navy blockading the royalist fleet of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland, in Lisbon; KG in 1642 and grandson of William the Silent.
During the English Civil War, Dutch stadthouder Frederik Hendrik gave major financial support to King Charles I of England. As a consequence, Oliver Cromwell considered the House of Orange as an enemy.
In 1656, Charles II turned to Spain for support to reclaim “his” throne, and an alliance was made.

When Frederik Hendrik died, his son Willem II of Orange became stadthouder (city holder) in 1647, but the States of Holland asked Cromwell for support against Willem II.
When Willem II died in 1650, the States of Holland didn’t need Cromwell's support against the Orange bastards anymore.

The Hague was still the residence of the widow of Willem II, Charles I's daughter Mary Henrietta Stuart. The Hague became a gathering place for English Royalist bulwark and was an Orangist stronghold. The English delegation members could only go on the streets under armed escort, for fear of being assaulted by Royalists or large Orangist mobs in the pay of the Royalists.
The English delegation propsed Cromwell’s plan to divide the world into 2 spheres of influence: the Dutch could control Africa and Asia and would help the English in conquering both Americas from the Spanish. The Dutch Provinces didn’t want to join the Commonwealth under any circumstances.

In May 1652, the First Anglo-Dutch war started in the English Channel near Dover between the fleets of General at Sea Robert Blake for the Commonwealth and Dutch Lieutenant-Admiral Maarten Tromp. The Dutch gained control of the Channel, the North Sea, and the Mediterranean, with English ships blockaded in port.
Cromwell was exasperated that two Protestant republics were fighting and convinced the Rump Parliament to make secret peace contacts with the Dutch. In February 1653, Adriaan Pauw sent a letter from the States of Holland in response indicating their desire to reach a peace agreement.

Cromwell again proposed Dutch assistance in the conquest of Spanish America, but this (again) was rejected. Then Cromwell proposed that all Royalists had to be expelled and that the Dutch should abandon Denmark in its war against Sweden, this was also unacceptable to the Dutch. In the end Cromwell gave in.
On 15 April 1654 peace was declared with the signing of the Treaty of Westminster. The treaty had a secret annex, the Act of Seclusion, forbidding the Dutch to ever appoint the son of Willem II, the 4-year-old Willem III grandson of the beheaded Charles I, as Stadthouder. It is not clear whether this secret clause was inserted on demand by Cromwell or the leading Dutch States party politicians, notably the new State Pensionary Johan de Witt and his uncle Cornelis de Graeff.

It took until 1660, when Charles II (son of Charles I) became King of England, and the English Monarchy was restored. When he ascended to the throne the Act of Seclusion was rescinded, but De Witt still refused to allow Willem III of Orange to be appointed stadthouder or captain-general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Dutch_War


At the time, Charles II with his new Covenanter allies continued to fight against the Commonwealth English Republic in (more) civil wars.
In 1649–50, Cromwell led a Parliamentary invasion of Ireland.
Cromwell's army eventually crushed the Royalist army in Scotland under the command of David Leslie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_ ... e_Kingdoms


Oliver Cromwell died suddenly in 1658…
The sickness which eventually killed Cromwell reportedly began at the end of July 1658. From then until 3 September Cromwell suffered 5 bouts of illness, interspersed by interludes of apparent recovery. Cromwell suffered from recurrent bouts of fever, sweating, hot and cold “fits”, pain in his stomach, back and elsewhere, vomiting and diarrhoea.

The fifth and final bout of illness began on 2 September and he died at around 3pm on 3 September.
By common consensus, malaria killed Cromwell.

In 2000, the American Professor H.F. McMains argued that Cromwell had been deliberately poisoned in the summer 1658, initially with antimony, then with mercury, and finally finished off with a lethal dose of arsenic administered on 2 September.
McMains also highlights the (deliberately?) vague and inconclusive nature of the autopsy report of the Royalist George Bate.
McMains concludes that the evidence suggests that Cromwell was poisoned by Bate, assisted by Thomas Clarges and the future bishops of London and Worcester.

In 1961, the corpse of the late Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell was hung in chains at Tyburn and then beheaded: http://www.olivercromwell.org/wordpress/?page_id=1757
(http://archive.is/vsEAn)


While mainstream history falsifiers call the idea that Cromwell was murdered an insane “conspiracy theory”, there is no denying that Johan de Witt and his brother Cornelis were brutally murdered on 20 Augustus 1672 and their bodies mutilated.


Ronald Prud’homme has argued that Willem III conspired to have de brothers De Witt murdered.

On 21 June 1672, in The Hague Johan de Witt was stabbed, which seriously injured Johan de Witt, who had to remain in bed to recover until 1 August.
On 29 June, Willem III was appointed Stadthouder by the States of Holland.
On 4 August 1672, Johan de Witt resigned as State Pensionary and Willem III personally made sure that this wasn’t “with honours”.

On 23 July, Willem Tichelaar, asked Cornelis de Witt for help to murder Willem III and then accused De Witt of offering him 30.000 guilders to murder Willem III. After filing charges, Cornelis de Witt was arrested, who in turn accused Tichelaar of asking him to participate in killing Willem III and Tichelaar was also arrested.

On 17 August 1672, eyewitnesses saw Willem III talking at the Valkhuis with 2 confidants, Willem Adriaan van Nassau-Odijk and Frederik van Nassau-Zuilenstein (both relatives of Willem III).
On 20 August, eyewitness Adriaen Copmoijer saw Nassau-Odijk, Nassau-Zuilenstein and Admiral Cornelis Tromp meeting at De Beuckelaer inn near the Gevangenpoort, where Cornelis de Witt was held captive. Tromp was embittered at Johan de Witt because Michiel de Ruyter was chosen as commander of the Dutch fleet instead of him. Those 3 were conspiring to have the brothers De Witt killed.

On 20 August, Tichelaar was acquitted and Cornelis de Witt was banned from the Netherlands for life. Johan de Witt was asked to pick his brother up after his release.
At the time several pamphlets were spread throughout The Hague, while the released Tichelaar was calling for the head of De Witt because he conspired to kill poor Willem III.

While the Gevangenpoort was defended by the cavalry, a false rumour was spread that farmers from the Westland and Delft were going to plunder The Hague. Willem III refused to send troops.
When Count De Tilly was ordered to take the cavalry away to defend The Hague, he knew that the brothers De Witt were “dead men walking”.
Their place was taken by Orangists, who had been given enough to drink at De Beuckelaer, refused to defend the brothers De Witt against the angry mob that included Willem Tichelaar.
After the murder, parts of their bodies were cut out and eaten by the mob and fed to the dogs.

None of the murderers were sentenced to jail. Cornelis Tromp was invited by Willem III only 2 days after the murder.
Several of the murderers – Willem Tichelaar, Johan Kievit, Johan van Banchem, Hendrick Verhoeff - later were rewarded by Willem III, by money and/or a job (in Dutch): https://historiek.net/moord-op-gebroede ... eid/21743/
(http://archive.is/WSRHO)
(in Dutch) https://anemaa.home.xs4all.nl/ges/onder ... _moord.htm
(http://web.archive.org/web/201905311740 ... _moord.htm)

Here’s a (bad) English translation on the murder of the brothers De Witt: https://www.dagvantoen.nl/politieke-moo ... t/?lang=en

[Firestarter]

The 17th century was a time of many, many wars, both between countries and civil wars. Many of these wars were staged by using Protestant and Catholic “Christians” fighting against each other.
At this time the House of Habsburg were the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire and Spain, while the Kings of the Holy Roman Empire, Spain or France weren’t Knights of the Garter...


In 1685, James (KG in 1642) became King James II of England and Ireland and James VII of Scotland.
In 1688, Stadthouder Willem III of Orange Nassau (KG in 1653) invaded England in what was later dubbed the Glorious Revolution to take the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1689. Supposedly this invasion took place to depose James as he was Catholic.
Willem was the husband and cousin of James’ daughter Mary, the couple later became King William III and Queen Mary II. Even if you believe the official tale, it’s not quite clear why the husband of the Queen would be called “King” instead of Prince…

Now another civil war, called Williamite war, was staged in Ireland, between the Protestant Williamites fighting for James’ daughter Mary and her husband Willem and the Catholic Jacobites fighting for deposed King James (Jacobus is the Latin name for James).
Dutch general De Ginkell advocated a cautious approach and attempted to end Jacobite resistance by a peace settlement.

It was decided through the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 between the Jacobite forces and the Williamite forces that took place across the River Boyne close to the town of Drogheda, and resulted in a victory for William.
What makes the official story seem absurd is that both sides were controlled by the Order of the Garter…

James’ illegitimate son James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick (KG in 1688) was a Jacobite commander.

William's commander-in-chief was Frederic Herman de Schomberg, 1st Duke of Schomberg (KG in 1689), killed in 1690 (aged 74).
Schomberg’s forces were decimated by pestilence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williamite_War_in_Ireland


The Battle of the Boyne took place on 1 July 1690; in it the Williamites defeated the Jacobite forces of James.
Two days before the battle an Anglo-Dutch fleet were defeated by the French at the Battle of Beachy Head.

The infantry for the Williamites came from the Netherlands (6000) and Denmark (7000), supplied by Prince George of Denmark (KG in 1684), husband of later British Queen Anne, younger sister of Queen Mary II. The Danish infantry was commanded by General Ernst von Tettau
There was also a large contingent of French Huguenot troops (3000), exiled from France because of being Protestants, fighting with the Williamites.
The Williamite forces of around 36,000 men were well trained and equipped with the latest flintlock muskets.

The 23,500 Jacobite forces were mostly peasants who had been pressed into service, without experience that were hastily trained and poorly equipped, most of them with only farm implements like scythes for weapons. The peasants were reinforced by 6,000 French troops.
The Jacobite infantry that actually had firearms were only equipped with obsolete matchlock muskets, so the outcome was very predictable.

Not only had William more and better troops, but also 8 times as much artillery as James: https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Boyne
(http://archive.is/Z8QZz)


For some reason, the Danish infantry is missing from the Wikipedia story of Prince George. They insinuate that he was some sort of enemy of King William III (Dutch Stadthouder Willem III).
Prince George was forewarned of Willem’s 5 November 1688 invasion by the Danish envoy in London, Frederick Gersdorff.

George accompanied King James' troops to Salisbury in mid-November, but on 24 November George deserted him and sided with Willem (at his own expense).
In early April 1689, (now) King William naturalised George as an English subject, and created him Duke of Cumberland, Earl of Kendal and Baron of Okingham (Wokingham).

Wikipedia also insinuates that William didn’t pay George the promised interest and compensation, but admits that he WAS paid in 1700.

After Mary and William died without offspring, James’ other daughter, Anne, became Queen, but this time her husband remained only “Prince” George: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_George_of_Denmark

In 2000, the American Professor H.F. McMains argued that Cromwell had been deliberately poisoned in the summer 1658, initially with antimony, then with mercury, and finally finished off with a lethal dose of arsenic administered on 2 September.

H.F. McMains – The death of Oliver Cromwell (2000): https://books.google.nl/books?id=YqofBg ... ll&f=false

[Firestarter]

Another civil war was staged in Scotland by the Order of the Garter between Catholic Jacobites and the Protestant army of King George II of Great Britain.
The Battle of Culloden was the final confrontation of the Jacobite rising of 1745.

In 1714, Queen Anne, the last monarch of the House of Stuart, died without living children.
Anne was succeeded George I (KG in 1701) of the House of Hanover, who was a descendant of the Stuarts through his maternal grandmother, Elizabeth, daughter of King James VI and I.

Charles Edward Stuart “Bonnie Prince Charlie” raised an army of mostly Scottish clansmen with smaller units of Irish and Englishmen.
Charles Stuart’s Jacobite forces first fought in England and then returned to Scotland, where they were pursued by an army of Hanoverian forces commanded by Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland (KG in 1730).

On 30 January 1746, the Duke of Cumberland arrived in Scotland to take command of the government forces. Cumberland decided to wait out the winter, while his army was increased with 6,000 Hessian troops, led by the Catholic (!) son-in-law of King George II of Great Britain, Prince Frederick of Hesse (KG in 1741).

On 16 April 1746, the Jacobite forces were defeated in a “battle” of only an hour, in the Scottish Highlands at Culloden. The conflict was the last pitched battle fought on British soil.
Between 1,500 and 2,000 Jacobites were killed or wounded, compared to only some 300 government soldiers. Prince William Augustus became nicknamed “Butcher Cumberland”, because he killed all the Jacobites he could.

While the Hanoverian forces were well-armed, the Jacobites were poorly armed; many were armed only with swords, Lochaber axes, pitchforks and scythes.
After Culloden, Cumberland reported that only 190 broadswords were recovered from the battlefield, of the more that 1,500 Jacobites killed, so less than one seventh (possibly less than 1 in 10) carried a sword.

Charles ignored the advice of General Lord George Murray and chose to fight on flat, open, marshy ground, so that his forces would be exposed to superior government firepower.
The terrain at Culloden was chosen so the larger government army would have an even bigger advantage.

Knight of the Garter – Hanoverians
John Montagu, 2nd Duke of Montagu (KG in 1718) raised a cavalry regiment known as Montagu's Carabineers, which was disbanded after the Battle of Culloden.

Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle (KG in 1718) had rallied all the southern militias and regular forces against the Jacobites who withdrew to northern Scotland.
He was PM from 1757 to 1762.
In 1747, the Duke of Newcastle was involved in organising a coup to put Willem IV of Orange (KG in 1733) in power in the Netherlands, so he could continue the war with the French.

Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond, (KG in 1726) served under the Duke of Cumberland as Lieutenant-General in the British Army.

Illegitimate son of King Charles II, William Cavendish, 3rd Duke of Devonshire (KG in 1733), raised a militia unit in support of the King against the Jacobites known as the Derbyshire Blues.

Evelyn Pierrepont, 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull (KG in 1741), raised a regiment called "Kingston's light horse", which distinguished itself at the Battle of Culloden and got the rank of general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden


It looks like the “independent” Wikipedia has deleted some important information. Usually this is done to hide some terrible scandal…

In Wikipedia’s List of Knights and Ladies of the Garter, both the “Old Pretender” James Francis Edward Stuart, who the Jacobites were supposedly fighting for to install as King, and his son the “Young Pretender” Charles Edward Stuart (a.k.a. Bonnie Prince Charlie) are missing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K ... the_Garter


Drew Maloney (a.k.a. Prince Arthur of Davidicke.com) also checked the Knights of the Garter in the book “The Knights of the Garter 1348 – 1939” by E.H. Fellowes, in which both James Francis and his son Charles Edward Stuart are missing!
Here’s the PDF by Maloney, one of the very few that has attempted an investigation of the Most Noble Order of the Garter: https://pubastrology.files.wordpress.co ... r-v2_3.pdf


That these Knights of the Garter that supposedly fought against the King, are missing from the official list of Garter Knight, seems to confirm that they were really covert government agents fighting against the Jacobites.


The personal Wikipedia page of the “Old Pretender” James Francis Edward Stuart confirms that he was a Knight of the Garter (installed in 1692): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Fra ... ard_Stuart


The “Young Pretender” Bonnie Prince Charlie is also not listed as a Knight of the Garter in his personal Wikipedia page.
That he was a KG shows from several pictures with Garter star and sash, and his coat of arms at the Palazzo di San Clemente in Florence.


Charlie wasn’t even captured at Culloden (he would have been easily noticed wouldn’t he?) and took the French frigate L'Heureux, arriving in France in September.
Charlie reportedly only once returned to the British Isles, for a secret visit to London: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Edward_Stuart


The following Wikipedia page confirms that Charles Edward Stuart became a Knight of the Garter in 1722, when he was only 1 years old (less than a week before his second birthday): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_peerage


Many of these Knights of the Garter were also freemasons…


It has also been suggested that Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington (KG in 1730), despite being “a pillar of the Hanoverian establishment”, covertly and treasonably engaged in Jacobite activities: http://archive.is/3DmKr

See Richard Boyle, 3rd Earl of Burlington, who’s best known for Masonic art, with Garter star and sash.

[Firestarter]

In 2000, the American Professor H.F. McMains argued that Cromwell had been deliberately poisoned in the summer 1658, initially with antimony, then with mercury, and finally finished off with a lethal dose of arsenic administered on 2 September.

See H.F. McMains – The death of Oliver Cromwell (2000): https://books.google.nl/books?id=YqofBg ... ll&f=false


Between 1400 and 1415, the Glyndŵr Rising, Welsh Revolt or Last War of Independence was staged against the Welsh. Where the Welsh folk “hero” Owain Glyndŵr (or Owen Glendower) fought with Kingdom of England against the people of Wales.

Owain Glyndŵr was born around 1359 to a prosperous landed family and the last native Welshman called “Prince of Wales”, from 1400 until his death (?). Glyndŵr was educated as a lawyer.
The sister of Owain Glyndŵr’s mother had a sister, Marged ferch Tomas, who married Tudur ap Goronwy (later Tudor).

In 1384, Glyndŵr entered the English king's military service.
In August 1385, Glyndŵr served King Richard II (who became King and Knight of the Garter, KG, when he was only 10, in 1377,) under the command of John of Gaunt (KG in 1361, a son of King Edward III of England, uncle of Richard II).

In March 1387, Owain was fighting under Richard FitzAlan, 4th Earl of Arundel (KG in 1386), defeating a Franco-Spanish-Flemish fleet in the English Channel off the coast of Kent.

In December 1387, Glyndŵr possibly served as a squire to Henry Bolingbroke (later King Henry IV of England, deposing Richard II, KG in 1377, son of John of Gaunt), at the sharp Battle of Radcot Bridge.

In the late 1390s, a series of events were staged to make Owain the leader of a “rebellion”, supposedly against the King of England, but in reality against Welsh “rebels”.
According to Wikipedia, the “revolt” began as an argument with Owain Glyndŵr's English neighbour (Baron Grey).

In 1400, Henry IV appointed Henry "Hotspur" Percy (KG in 1388) to bring Wales to order.
As early as 1401, Hotspur was possibly in secret negotiations with Owain in reaching a settlement.

In 1402, Owain captured his arch enemy, Reginald Grey (or Reynald), 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthyn. Richard Grey, 4th Baron Grey of Codnor (KG in 1404) was appointed to make sure he was released. From 1403 to 1407, Richard Grey was justice of South Wales.

In June 1402, Owain's forces defeated an army led by Sir Edmund Mortimer, the uncle of the Earl of March, at Bryn Glas in central Wales. Mortimer was also captured. Glyndŵr forced Mortimer to marry his daughter, Catrin ferch Owain Glyndŵr, on 30 November 1402.
Mortimer died in battle in 1409.

In 1403, Henry of Monmouth (future King Henry V of England, KG in 1399) attacked and burned Owain's homes.
On 10 July 1403, Hotspur challenged his cousin Henry's right to the throne and. Henry of Monmouth (aged only 16), fought against Hotspur, who was killed in the battle before Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland, 4th Baron Percy, King of Mann (KG in 1399).
In February 1405, agreed on the "Tripartite Indenture" with Edmund Mortimer and Henry Percy.

While nominally there was a peace treaty between Wales and England, in 1406 Henry of Monmouth started an economic blockade of Wales.

In 1412, Owain captured and ransomed a leading Welsh supporter of King Henry's, Dafydd Gam ("Crooked David").
Nothing certain is known of Owain after 1412.
But not much is known on 1388 to the late 1390s either …

In 1413, Henry V was crowned King of England, who offered Royal Pardons to the leaders of the Welsh “revolt”. In 1415 Henry V even offered a Pardon to Owain, as he prepared for war with France.
King Henry V was also in negotiations with Owain's son, Maredudd ab Owain Glyndŵr. It took until 1421 before he finally accepted the Royal Pardon.

In 1415 Adam of Usk, a former supporter of Glyndŵr, wrote that he “died, and was buried by his followers in the darkness of night" (did he really?).
The Welsh rebellion was finally quelled in 1415 after much bloodshed on both sides, many prominent Welsh families were ruined and full English rule was returned to Wales. Maybe that was the whole purpose or maybe it was to get rid of Hotspur Percy and Mortimer?

Many prominent English families are descended from Glyndŵr, including the De Vere family, successive holders of the title Earl of Oxford, and the Cavendish family (Dukes of Devonshire), which suggests that he was really fighting against the Welsh people on the side of the British Royals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glynd%C5%B5r_Rising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owain_Glynd%C5%B5r
https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/artic ... nd%C5%B5r/

[Firestarter]

In 1455, the Order of the Garter staged another civil war in England, the “War of the Roses” between the Houses of Tudor and York, which lasted until 1487.

In 1453, King Henry VI of England (also King of France but not in the list of Knights of the Garter?!?) suffered from several bouts of complete insanity.

In 1455, Henry VI was challenged by Edward IV and Richard III (KG in 1466) of the House of York.
Henry VI was married to Margaret of Anjou (who was a Lady of the Garter, but not in the list of Knights of the Garter?!?)

Henry VI was supported by the House of Lancaster and the Kingdoms of Scotland and France, and:

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, 6th Earl of Stafford (KG in 1429).
John Talbot, 2nd Earl of Shrewsbury (KG in 1457).
James Butler, 5th Earl of Ormond, 1st Earl of Wiltshire (KG in 1459).
Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford, Earl of Pembroke (KG in 1461).

Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland (KG in 1474).
John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford (KG in 1486).
Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon (KG in 1494).


In 1461, Henry VI was deposed as King of England by Edward IV (not in the list of Knights of the Garter?!?).


Henry VI and Richard III (king in 1483-1485) were supported by the Duchy of Burgundy, and:

Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York (KG in 1433).
John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk (KG in 1452).
William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings (KG in 1462).

Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy (KG in 1470).
John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk (KG in 1472).
Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell (KG in 1483).


The following Knights of the Garter fought for both sides (“switched” sides)…

William Neville, 1st Earl of Kent (KG in 1440, whose mother was the legitimised daughter of John of Gaunt).

Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick (KG in 1461).
John Neville, 1st Marques of Montagu (KG in 1462, younger brother of Richard Neville).
See John Neville’s quartered coat of arms, who took for his crest “a griffin issuing from a ducal crown”; his coat of arms was the Neville “Gules a saltiire argent” with a label “gobong argent and azure crescent” (the gobong is a “border, pale, bend, or other ordinary made up, the first of one row and the second of two rows of squares, consisting of metals and colours alternately” silver and azure.


George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence (KG in 1461, brother of kings Edward IV and Richard III), who was of the House of York. After he switched sides, he was executed for treason in 1478.


In 1485, King Henry VII became the first Tudor King of England (also not in the list of Knights of the Garter?!?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

[Firestarter]

The Distinguished Order of the Golden Fleece (Spanish: Insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro; German: Orden vom Goldenen Vlies) is a Catholic order of chivalry founded in Bruges by Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy in 1430 to celebrate his marriage to Isabella of Portugal.
In 1812, before Duke Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) defeated Knight of the Golden Fleece (!) Napoleon at Waterloo, he became the first “protestant” Knight of the Golden Fleece (he also became a KG in 1813).

See Duke Wellington with decorations of the: Order of the Garter (Star on his left breast); Order of the Golden Fleece; Russian Order of St George; Order of Maria Theresa; Military Order of St Ferdinand; Order of the Sword; Order of the Tower and Sword.

In 1805, not only French Emperor Napoleon I, but also his brothers Joseph Bonaparte (King of Naples and Spain) and Louis Bonaparte (King of Holland) were installed as Knight of the Golden Fleece!
See Joseph Bonaparte, wearing the jewel of the Order of the Golden Fleece.


In 1809, Napoleon created the Order of the Three Golden Fleeces, in view of his sovereignty over Austria, Spain and Burgundy. This was opposed by King Joseph I of Spain and no appointments to the new order were made.
After Bourbon rule was restored in 1813, King Ferdinand revoked the knighthoods of the 3 Bonapartes.

In the 18th century, there became 2 Orders of the Golden Fleece – a Spanish and an Austrian one.

Awarded by the King of Spain and the Head of the (Austrian) House of Habsburg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_ ... den_Fleece


The grandmaster of the Order of the Golden Fleece has mostly been of the House of Habsburg.
From 1438 until 1806 (except for 1742–1745) the head of the House of Habsburg was also Holy Roman Emperor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg


Here’s the (full?) list of Knights of the Golden Fleece.

In 1555, William “the silent” of Orange became a knight of the Golden Fleece;
In 1599, Philip William of Orange, son of William the Silent, was also knighted.

In 1850, Emperor Napoleon III (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) became a knight of the Golden Fleece (he was of course also a Knight of the Garter since 1855);
In 1856, Napoleon III’s son, Prince Imperial Napoleon, also became a knight of the Golden Fleece.

Knights of the Golden Fleece have included most Catholic kings and queens heads of states in Europe and also Protestant monarchs.
In 1924, Prince Hendrik of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, husband of Dutch Queen Wilhelmina (a Lady of the Garter) was installed as knight of the Golden Fleece: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K ... den_Fleece


The story of the Golden Fleece appears to come from Greek mythology. It resembles the story of Theseus and the Minotaur.
It’s the tale of the hero Jason and his crew of Argonauts, who are sent for a quest for the fleece by King Pelias. The Greek story dates from the time of Homer (eighth century BC).

Jason took about 50 Argonauts – including Hercules, Orpheus, and Castor and Pollux - from Greece on his ship the Argo to Colchis were the Fleece was kept.
On arrival in Colchis Jason demanded the Golden Fleece of king Aetes, who granted his request, provided he would tame the bulls and kill the dragon that guarded it, and sow his teeth in the ground.

Medea, the king’s daughter, helped Jason because she had a crush on him…
Medea's charm had made his shield impregnable. Jason forced both bulls to plough the land, even though they raged furiously and breathed out fire.
Jason was accompanied by Theseus, who held the helmet with the dragon's teeth that were sown in the ground.

The Argonauts shouted loudly for Jason's victory but King Aetes wouldn’t allow them to leave peaceably with the Golden Fleece as promised.
Medea clasped Jason's hand and told him: "The Golden Fleece, the time has come when you must pluck the Golden Fleece off the oak in the grove of Ares".

Jason found the Golden Fleece hanging from a great oak tree that looked like a cloud filled with the light of the rising sun. As he approached he heard a dreadful hiss and then he saw the deadly serpent (dragon) guarding Golden Fleece, coiled around the tree.
Medea dropped on her knees before it, and began to chant her Magic Song, which made the serpent sank to the ground. Its dreadful jaws were still open and threatened Jason. Medea, with a newly cut spray of juniper dipped in a mystic brew, touched its deadly eyes. Then the serpent's jaws closed and its eyes became deadened.

Jason took the Golden Fleece. As he raised it, its brightness appeared to make a flame on his face.
After Jason and his Argonauts left, Aetes ordered his son Absyrtus to pursue them; but Medea slew him.

Jason and his companions returned home with the high prized Golden Fleece, depicted on an Apulian red-figure calyx krater, c. 340–330 BC.


Then Jason abandoned Medea for Creusa, daughter to king Creon of Corinth. Medea, out of revenge, murdered the 2 children which she had borne him before his eyes.
Medea also killed Creusa and her family: https://www.heritage-history.com/index. ... ry=winning
(http://archive.is/qFcet)

[Firestarter]

Another interesting British chivalric order is the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, founded on 28 April 1818 by the (later) King George IV.
The Order is (only) the sixth-most senior British Order.

It was originally awarded to "natives” of the Ionian Islands and Malta and for other subjects of His Majesty or Mediterranean territories acquired in the Napoleonic Wars.
In 1864, the Ionian Islands became part of Greece and in 1868 the Order was revised to reward those who “hold high and confidential offices within Her Majesty's colonial possessions, and in reward for services rendered to the Crown in relation to the foreign affairs of the Empire”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_ ... _St_George


In 2010, the Dutch Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, for his wonderful work for the British Crown as Secretary-General of NATO from 2004 to 2009, became an honorary Knight in the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaap_de_Hoop_Scheffer


What makes this more interesting is that it (again) involves St. George, while St. Michael refers to fighting a dragon in the Bible.

Revelation 12:7 (KJV)
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Another (French) chivalric is the Order of Saint Michael; founded in 1469 by Louis XI of France with membership initially limited to 35 Knights.


See Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, c. 1564, who was both a Knight of the Order of Saint Michael and the Order of the Garter.


See the French Kings that were knights of both the Order of the Garter and the Order of Saint Michael.
François Ier, KG#292 in 1527
Henri II, KG#326 in 1551
Charles IX, KG #348 in 1564
Henri III, KG #361 in 1575
Henri IV, KG#374 in 1590
Louis XVIII, KG #642 in 1814
Charles X, KG #659 in 1825


That there is such a long time - between 1590 and 1814 – for French Kings to be installed in the Order of the Garter, could be because during this time the wars between Protestants and Catholics were staged.

The following were also knights in both the Order of the Garter and the Order of St Michael.
Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk (KG #268)
Edward VI of England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Michael

[Firestarter]

David Livingstone has a new book, website out. While I find it frustrating that the links I posted to his old website (Conspiracyschool.com) were taken offline, his new book is a decent collection of information…
I’ve just read the 17 chapters of Volume 1 of his new book Ordo ab chao. In my opinion Chapter 5 on the Haplogroup R1a is the most interesting. Maybe I’ll post more later from the following 6 volumes of his book (according to Livingstone himself compiled after 30 years of “research”).

Haplogroup R1a, a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup, plays a prominent role in the debate about the origins of the Aryans, which is distributed in Eurasia, from Scandinavia and Central Europe to southern Siberia and South Asia.
Haplogroup R1 is further divided into sub-haplogroups R1b (the most common haplogroup in Western Europe) and R1a (found in Poland, Northern India and the Balkans, in particular the Altai Mountains of north-western Mongolia).

R1a links the heritage of Alexander the Great with the supposed Lost Tribes of Israel and Gog and Magog.
R1a is most prevalent in East Europe, West Asia, South Asia and Central Asia. Its probable origin is one of these regions.

The sub-sub-haplogroup R1a1a appears to originate from the Ukraine, Central Asia or West Asia.
R1a1 is found all over East Europe (in Armenia, Georgia and Poland in particular). Population groups with R1a1 migrated north-west to Scandinavia (Finland particularly) and later to Scotland.
South Asian populations also have high concentrations of R1a1a, in particular among the West Bengal Brahmin caste of India.


The Scythians, commonly associated with the Lost Tribes of Israel, were the originators of the haplogroup R-M17 (a.k.a. R1a1).
Sub-sub-haplogroup R1a1a was found at high rates among Ashkenazi Turks (a.k.a. Khazars) in Israel and in about half of Ashkenazi Levites (particularly among the Pashtuns of Afghanistan).

Ancient Jewish sources describe that the 10 “lost” tribes of Israel, were really the Scythians (located in Southern Russia and Central Asia). Josephus and others have also identified the Scythians as the descendants of Gog and Magog.
According to the ancient Jewish historian Josephus:

… the Ten Tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, whose numbers cannot be estimated.

In Assyrian annals, Scythians first appear as Ishkuzai, for which the modern term is “Ashkenazi”. The supposed descendants of Ashkenaz, the son of Magog’s brother Gomer of the Tanach (Old Testament).
This shows that Ashkenazi Jews are (related to) Aryans…

Some claim that the Khazars were really from Armenian origin. Some historical sources connect Armenia with the biblical Ashkenaz. Armenians sometimes refer to themselves as “the Ashkenazi nation”. According to this theory, the genealogy in Genesis 10:3 extends to the populations west of the Volga.
Some Jews equate Ashkenaz with Armenia: https://ordoabchao.ca/volume-one/gog-magog
(http://archive.is/vAR2F)


For more on the German Nazi Thule Society and its definition of Scythian, Aryans: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 1340#p5016


For more on how the definition of the Jewish race was changed from the Tanach (Old Testament) to the New Testament: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =23&t=1376

[notmartha]

The Scythians, commonly associated with the Lost Tribes of Israel, were the originators of the haplogroup R-M17 (a.k.a. R1a1).
Sub-sub-haplogroup R1a1a was found at high rates among Ashkenazi Turks (a.k.a. Khazars) in Israel and in about half of Ashkenazi Levites (particularly among the Pashtuns of Afghanistan).

Ancient Jewish sources describe that the 10 “lost” tribes of Israel, were really the Scythians (located in Southern Russia and Central Asia). Josephus and others have also identified the Scythians as the descendants of Gog and Magog.
According to the ancient Jewish historian Josephus: … the Ten Tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, whose numbers cannot be estimated.

Who commonly associates the Scythians with the Lost Tribes of Israel?
What is an Ashkenazi Levite?
What "Ancient Jewish sources" say the lost 10 tribes of Israel were Scythians?

Gog and Magog are not Israelites. I'm missing the connection...

More on the Ashkenazi here: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =23&t=1375

Easton's Bible Dictionary, Matthew George Easton, 1897

Gog
(1.) A Reubenite (1Ch 5:4), the father of Shimei.
(2.) The name of the leader of the hostile party described in Ezek 38, Ezek 39, as coming from the "north country" and assailing the people of Israel to their own destruction. This prophecy has been regarded as fulfilled in the conflicts of the Maccabees with Antiochus, the invasion and overthrow of the Chaldeans, and the temporary successes and destined overthrow of the Turks. But "all these interpretations are unsatisfactory and inadequate. The vision respecting Gog and Magog in the Apocalypse (Rev 20:8) is in substance a reannouncement of this prophecy of Ezekiel. But while Ezekiel contemplates the great conflict in a more general light as what was certainly to be connected with the times of the Messiah, and should come then to its last decisive issues, John, on the other hand, writing from the commencement of the Messiah's times, describes there the last struggles and victories of the cause of Christ. In both cases alike the vision describes the final workings of the world's evil and its results in connection with the kingdom of God, only the starting-point is placed further in advance in the one case than in the other."
It has been supposed to be the name of a district in the wild north-east steppes of Central Asia, north of the Hindu-Kush, now a part of Turkestan, a region about 2,000 miles north-east of Nineveh.

Magog
Region of Gog, the second of the "sons" of Japheth (Gen 10:2; 1Ch 1:5). In Ezekiel (Ezek 38:2; Ezek 39:6) it is the name of a nation, probably some Scythian or Tartar tribe descended from Japheth. They are described as skilled horsemen, and expert in the use of the bow. The Latin father Jerome says that this word denotes "Scythian nations, fierce and innumerable, who live beyond the Caucasus and the Lake Maeotis, and near the Caspian Sea, and spread out even onward to India." Perhaps the name "represents the Assyrian Mat Gugi, or 'country of Gugu,' the Gyges of the Greeks" (Sayce's Races).

Smith’s Bible Dictionary, William Smith, 1884

Magog Ma'gog (region of Gog). In Gene 10:2 Magog appears as the second son of Japheth; in Ezek 38:2; 39:1, 6 it appears as a country or people of which Gog was the prince. The notices of Magog would lead us to fix a northern locality: it is expressly stated by Ezekiel that "he was to come up from the sides of the north," Ezek 39:2 from a country adjacent to that of Togarmah or Armenia, ch. 38:6 and not far from "the isles" or maritime regions of Europe. Ezek 39:6 The people of Magog further appear as having a force of cavalry, Ezek 38:15 and as armed with the bow. Ezek 39:3 From the above data, may conclude that Magog represents the important race of the Scythians.

Parsons Bible Atlas, 1993

Magog
Term employed only five times in the Bible, but significant because of its use in the well-known prophetic passages of Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 20. In the register of nations in Genesis 10:2 (1 Chronicles 1:5), Magog was listed among the sons of Japheth, identifying both an individual and the nation that came forth from him. In Ezekiel and Revelation, Magog came to refer either to a land, a people, or both.
Magog is not mentioned in the contemporary literature of biblical times. Therefore a definition must come primarily from the witness of Scripture, though writers from later times have given additional clues for the identification of the word. Magog was first identified biblically as a son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2; 1 Chronicles 1:5) along with Tubal and Meshech (cf. Ezekiel 38:2). Ezekiel 38:2 associated Magog with the person Gog, indicating that Magog was the land (along with Tubal and Meshech) over which Gog ruled. Ezekiel 39:6 uses the term Magog to speak of the people of the land of Magog. Ezekiel 38-39 present an invasion of Israel in the latter days (cf. Ezekiel 38:8, 12, 16) by Gog and his people from the land of Magog, along with peoples from every corner of the known world (cf. Ezekiel 38:5-6).
Some believe that “Gog” is only a variant form of “Magog.” Others identify Magog with Lydia because they equate Gog with Gyges (Gugu), king of Lydia. However, support for such identification is not strong.
Revelation 20:8 depicts Gog and Magog as invading the land of Israel with a great company of nations from every part of the world. It certainly appears that Ezekiel and Revelation had the same event of the latter days in mind. Revelation 20:8 can be understood to identify Gog as Satan and Magog as invading peoples who come with Satan. Some see “Gog and Magog” in Revelation 20:8 as a symbol of a future great battle at the end of the millennium which is similar to the invasion in Ezekiel 38-39, but the terms themselves are not identified specifically. Some see Magog in Revelation 20 as another person along with Gog.
Extrabiblical writings give additional clues. Josephus (Antiq. I.6.1) equated Magog with the Scythians of the n who lived in the area of present-day Turkey and s Russia.

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, 1832

Gog and Magog. The name Gog occurs as the name of a prince, in Ezekiel 38:2-3,16,18, 39:1,11. "He is an invader of the land of Israel, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal," Ezekiel 38:2. Magog is also mentioned in Ezekiel 38:2, "the land of Magog;" and in Ezekiel 39:6, "I will send a fire on Magog." As the terms are used in the Old Testament, the representation would seem to be that Gog was the king of a people called Magog. The signification of the names is unknown, and consequently nothing can be determined about the meaning of this passage from that source. Nor is there much known about the people who are referred to by Ezekiel. His representation would seem to be, that a great and powerful people, dwelling in the extreme recesses of the north, (Ezekiel 38:15, 39:2,) would invade the Holy Land after the return from the exile, Ezekiel 38:8-12. it is commonly supposed that they were Scythians, residing between the Caspian and Euxine Seas, or in the region of Mount Caucasus. Thus Josephus (Ant. i. 6, 3) has dropped the Hebrew word Magog, and rendered it by σκυθαι-Scythians; and so does Jerome. Suidas renders it περσαι-Persians; but this does not materially vary the view, since the word Scythians among the ancient writers is a collective word to denote all the north-eastern, unknown, barbarous tribes. Among the Hebrews, the name Magog also would seem to denote all the unknown barbarous tribes about the Caucasian mountains. The fact that the names Gog and Magog are in Ezekiel associated with Meshech and Tubal seems to determine the locality of these people, for those two countries lie between the Euxine and Caspian Seas, or at the southeast extremity of the Euxine Sea.-Rosenmuller, Bib. Geog. i., p. 240. The people of that region were, it seems, a terror to Middle Asia, in the same manner as the Scythians were to the Greeks and Romans. Intercourse with such distant and savage nations was scarcely possible in ancient times; and hence, from their numbers and strength, they were regarded with great terror, just as the Scythians were regarded by the ancient Greeks and Romans, and as the Tartars were in the Middle Ages. In this manner they became an appropriate symbol of rude and savage people; of enemies fierce and warlike; of foes to be dreaded; and as such they were referred to by both Ezekiel and John. It has been made a question whether Ezekiel and John do not refer to the same period, but it is not necessary to consider that question here. All that is needful to be understood is, that John means to say that at the time referred to there would be formidable enemies of the church who might be compared with the dreaded dwellers in the land of Magog; or, that after this long period of millennial tranquillity and peace there would be a state of things which might be properly compared with the invasion of the Holy Land by the dreaded barbarians of Magog or Scythia. It is not necessary to suppose that any particular country is referred to, or that there would be any one portion of the earth which the gospel would not reach, and which would be still barbarous, heathen, and savage; all that is necessary to be supposed is, that though religion would generally prevail, human nature would remain essentially corrupt and unchanged; and that, therefore, from causes which are not stated, there might yet be a fearful apostasy, and a somewhat general prevalence of iniquity. This would be nothing more than has occurred after the most favoured times in the church, and nothing more than human nature would exhibit at any time, if all restraints were withdrawn, and men were suffered to act out their native feelings. Why this will be permitted; what causes will bring it about; what subordinate agencies will be employed, is not said, and conjecture would be vain. The reader who wishes more information in regard to Gog and Magog may consult Professor Stuart on this book, vol. ii. pp. 364-368, and the authorities there referred to. Compare especially Rosenmuller on Ezekiel 38:2. See also Sale's Koran, Pre. Dis. % 4, and the Koran itself, Sura xviii. 94, and xxi. 95.

The Scroll of Bush, indicating he was considered Gog of Magog by Rabbi Adin Steinzaltz, High Priest of the Sanhedrin, Rabbi Haim Richman, Chief Rabbi of the Holy Temple and Dr. Gadi Eschel, Chief Representative of The New Jewish Congress:









See more:
http://www.templeinstitute.org/megillat-bush.htm
https://www.texemarrs.com/042008/gog_ma ... f_bush.htm

Ezekiel 38:1-4 (KJV)

1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,
3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords: