Sion, Switzerland

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 3:17 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

Godfrey or Geoffrey? (His illegitimate half-brother). Geoffrey has living descendants, as do Godfrey's two full brothers, Baudouin and Eustache (me among them, but probably everyone else here too).

Clarification:

There is evidence that Eustace II had 'offspring outwith his marriage to Ida of Bouillon. The best documented case is Geoffrey, son of Count Eustace ....by 1085 this Geoffrey had married Beatrice, daughter of Geoffrey I de Mandeville ....they had a son William of Boulogne ......There is a Gaufridus or Goisfridus who appears in England as a son of Count Eustace, and father of William who was identified by Davis and Whitwell with Eustaces better known son Godfrey de Bouillon'.
from: The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Dynastic History 1099-1125 (Unit for Prosopographical Research, Linacre College, Oxford, 2000), Appendix A, pp159-160

This is rejected by other historians.
Presumably, if Davis and whitwell are right, William of Boulogne would be a son of Godfrey?
However the argument is immaterial, because most reject it and give good reason (mistranslation of english and latin names etc).

The only problem with Davis' and Whitwell's hypothesis is that Geoffrey of Carshalton (Gaufridus/Goisfrdus) settled in England, wasn't the Count of Bouillon (which was half-brother Godfrey's maternal rather than paternal inheritance), didn't go on to become ruler of Jerusalem, and died much later than 1100.

bergeredearcadie wrote:

me among them

Why do people have to keep banging the point home about their ancestry? ; )
Is it like an inferiority complex or something?
Its not important, and also, most of these so called noble families with their traits, and their greed, and their superiority are NOT examples of what makes a good human being ; )

:mrgreen:

Well, excuse me! :lol:

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 3:20 pm

Serendipity wrote:

I would suggest, anyone who has ancestry that is relevant to the story should share what they know. I think family members would have the most interest and probably be able to dig up the most obscure clues because they would more readily recognize them.

I happen to think that knowing who you are is very important, and thinking your ancestors have no influence on you now is just not logical...we carry their traits; physical and spiritual.

YEAH.

TCP

Eginolf · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 5:48 pm

... or even Enrique de Trastámara. :lol:

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 5:49 pm

ok lets move on :mrgreen:

Rene Anjou
a huge list of titles, including: Count of Bar, Provence, Piedmont and Guise, Duke of Calabria, Anjou, and Lorraine, and King of Hungary, Naples, and Sicily, Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinia, and Jerusalem, the last being titular, inherited from his ancestor, Godfroi de Bouillon through the House of Lorraine.

I guess the word ancestor is all right instead of descendant

but I noticed
Looks like the title King of Jerusalem has three houses using that title in this day and age

House of Hapsburg=Lorraine(Austria)
Archduke Karl of Austria, Prince Imperial of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary
Bourbon(Spain)
Juan Carlos (baptized as Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias is the reigning King of Spain
House of Bourbon two sicilies (Rome)
Prince Charles of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro (born 24 February 1963) is one of two claimants to the headship of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies.

did I miss anybody

You have three houses wanting that title

must be important to be a King of Jerusalem

bergeredearcadie · **Joined:** 07 Nov 2006 11:57 pm **Posts:** 3856

really just don't know what to make of this statement.

Well, you're american.

Americans want to be attached to all sorts of noble blood relations.

And, ancestry does not account for much for most people. Sure, an interest in where they came from, yes ... but really - the only ancestors that show we are all the same is when ancient humans migrated out of Africa.

We are all from the same family, even if some people dont like that notion.

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 6:08 pm

Roger wrote:

Gee, I hope not! Imagine Gaston Phoebus on the forum!

He will be...! :wink:

TCP

crimson_dove · **Joined:** 25 Jul 2008 2:43 pm **Posts:** 1468

bergeredearcadie wrote:

really just don't know what to make of this statement.

Well, you're american.

Americans want to be attached to all sorts of noble blood relations.

And, ancestry does not account for much for most people. Sure, an interest in where they came from, yes ... but really - the only ancestors that show we are all the same is when ancient humans migrated out of Africa.

We are all from the same family, even if some people dont like that notion.

indeed!

wonderful migratory map here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mito ... haplogroup

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 6:45 pm

is this bloodline thing important?
to me its not
but is it important to these Royals
I would say there have been many wars fought over these titles

Why would the title King of Jerusalem be important?

The Lord has sworn: Isaiah 37:35 For I will defend this city (Jerusalem) to save it for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

roscoe · **Joined:** 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm **Posts:** 6952

Roger wrote:

Quote:

Sure, an interest in where they came from, yes ...

Well, it depends on the family, of course. In some families, one is imbued with a sense of "the continuum" of history and the responsibilities of "noblesse oblige". It's an anachronism, really, but it still exists as an odd rarity.

Not that odd actually.

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Number 24.

Quote:

1. I’ll now discuss the method of fully confirming the dynastic roots of King David.

2. This method of confirmation will also serve as a basis for directing the education and thought of all humanity, and is based on the conservative conduct of our learned elders in managing the affairs of the world.

3. Certain members of the descendants of David will select and prepare the kings and their heirs. They will be selected, not by right of heritage, but by their eminent capabilities. They will be inducted into the most secret mysteries of political methods and schemes of government, although they will not be given specific knowledge of the secrets. The purpose of this mode of action is demonstrate to everyone that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art...

4. To those who are selected, they will only be taught the practical application of the plans (which I described earlier) by comparing the experiences of many centuries, and by making careful observations on all the politico-economic moves and social sciences. In other words, they will study the substance of all the laws which have been unshakably established by nature herself for the regulation of the relations of humanity.

5. Direct heirs will often be prevented from ascending to the throne if, during their time of training, they exhibit frivolity, softness or other qualities that are the ruin of authority. Such qualities render them incapable of governing and are dangerous for kingly office.

6. Only those who are unconditionally capable of firm, direct rule will receive the reins of rule from our learned elders, even if they are this way to the point of cruelty.

7. In case of falling sick with weakness of will or other form of incapacity, kings must by law hand over the reins of rule to new and capable hands.

8. The king's plan of action for the current moment, and all the more so for the future, will be unknown, even to those who are called his closest counselors.

King of the Jews

9. Only the king and the three who sponsored him will know what is coming.

10. The king will be seen as person of unbending will who is master of himself and of humanity. All will see his position and rise to power as though it were fate with its mysterious ways. None will know what the king wishes to attain by his plans, and therefore none will dare to stand across an unknown path.

11. The mental abilities of the king must be sufficient to deal with the plans of the government. For this reason he will not be permitted to ascend to the throne until after an examination of his mind by our learned elders.

12. In order that the people may know and love their king, it is necessary for him to converse in the market-places with his people. This brings the government and the people together as a combined force – two groups which were previously divided by the terror which was brought by us against the people.

13. It was necessary for us to use this terror to bring the forces of the people and their government under our influence.

14. The king of the Jews must not be at the mercy of his passions, and especially of his senses: on no side of his character must he allow brute instincts to overpower his mind. Sensuality, worse than anything else, disorganizes the capacities of the mind and clearness of views. It distracts thoughts to the worst and most brutal side of human activity.

15. The supreme lord of the entire world, in the form of the holy seed of David, represents the prop of humanity. He must sacrifice all personal inclinations and be devoted to his people.

16. Our supreme lord must be an example of perfection.

Signed by the elders of Sion of the 33rd degree.

This is not in any way Jewish.

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 7:01 pm

lovuian wrote:

ok lets move on :mrgreen:

Rene Anjou
a huge list of titles, including: Count of Bar, Provence, Piedmont and Guise, Duke of Calabria, Anjou, and Lorraine, and King of Hungary, Naples, and Sicily, Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinia, and Jerusalem, the last being titular, inherited from his ancestor, Godfroi de Bouillon through the House of Lorraine.

100% FALSE.

René's claim was based on an odd configuration of conflicting "adoptions" on both sides of his family - Anjou (Third House) and Aragon. It was based on the claims of the Second House of Anjou (which was not René's family) which weren't based in blood descent at all, but by purchase (Charles I of Naples and Sicily bought the claim from Marie of Antioch in 1277).

The Lorraine claim (now Habsburg-Lorraine) derives from René's acquisition of the soi-disant claim in 1435, left to him in the will of his "adoptive mother", Queen Joan II of Naples, the last heiress of the Second House of Anjou.

Bloodlines and birth order played no role in this quirky arrangement. Since 1277 the title "King of Jerusalem" was tied to the Crown of Naples by Papal decree, ergo whoever held that crown was also the titular ruler of Jerusalem. However, the Crown of Naples changed ruling dynasties many times, often through conquest. In fact René's hold on the Neapolitan crown itself was ephemeral, he had a claim but he lost the territory to Aragon shortly after acquiring it.

And again, Godfroi de Bouillon had no descendants. He was succeeded by his brother Baudouin I in 1100 who died in 1118. The crown should have gone to their brother Eustache, but it was usurped by Baudouin du Bourg (Baudouin II) while Eustache was en route to claim it. Godfroi and Baudouin were the only two rulers of Jerusalem from the House of Boulogne; subsequent rulers were not their descendants.

lovuian wrote:

but I noticed
Looks like the title King of Jerusalem has three houses using that title in this day and age

House of Hapsburg=Lorraine(Austria)
Archduke Karl of Austria, Prince Imperial of Austria, Prince Royal of Hungary
Bourbon(Spain)
Juan Carlos (baptized as Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor María de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias is the reigning King of Spain
House of Bourbon two sicilies (Rome)
Prince Charles of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro (born 24 February 1963) is one of two claimants to the headship of the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies.

did I miss anybody

You have three houses wanting that title

must be important to be a King of Jerusalem

You left out the Savoy claim (disputed today between the Duke of Savoy, his cousin the Duke of Aosta, and - oddly enough - Patrick Guinness of the Guinness beer dynasty), the French claim (disputed between the Duke of Anjou and the Comte de Paris), and the Brienne claim (Prince Charles de Ligne-La Trémoïlle).

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 7:11 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

Well, you're american.

Americans want to be attached to all sorts of noble blood relations.

Most Americans couldn't give a flying fig, actually. Most Americans, in fact, can't identify their eight great-grandparents.

bergeredearcadie wrote:

And, ancestry does not account for much for most people. Sure, an interest in where they came from, yes ... but really - the only ancestors that show we are all the same is when ancient humans migrated out of Africa.

We are all from the same family, even if some people dont like that notion.

One doesn't even have to go back that far. Our "Most Recent Common Ancestor" (MCRA) is probably only two to three thousand years old.

I guess you keep missing the part where I mention that a famous ancestor of mine is most likely the ancestor of everyone on this list, so if you're insinuating that I'm lording bragging rights, I'm not. If that interests others in looking into their genealogies, great. if not, that's fine too.

TCP

lovuian · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 7:49 pm

So TCP
your opinion knocks out the Haspburg Lorraine family

Quote:

You left out the Savoy claim (disputed today between the Duke of Savoy, his cousin the Duke of Aosta, and - oddly enough - Patrick Guinness of the Guinness beer dynasty), the French claim (disputed between the Duke of Anjou and the Comte de Paris), and the Brienne claim (Prince Charles de Ligne-La Trémoïlle).

TCP

So many families want that title King of Jerusalem

Jerusalem and Mount Zion as His permanent dwelling place:

Psalms 48:1-14 Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised in the city of our God, in the mountain of his holiness.Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth, is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King. God is known in her palaces for a refuge. For, lo, the kings were assembled, they passed by together. They saw it, and so they marvelled; they were troubled, and hasted away. Fear took hold upon them there, and pain, as of a woman in travail. Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish with an east wind. As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God: God will establish it for ever. Selah.

We have thought of thy lovingkindness, O God, in the midst of thy temple. According to thy name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth: thy right hand is full of righteousness. Let mount Zion rejoice, let the daughters of Judah be glad, because of thy judgments. Walk about Zion, and go round about her: tell the towers thereof. Mark ye well her bulwarks, consider her palaces; that ye may tell it to the generation following. For this God is our God forever and ever: he will be our guide even unto death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Jerusalem

So if its a big deal to be King of Jerusalem
Big enough deal for people to pay for documents on lineage or charters?
But TCP you bring up a excellent point ...some of these claims are not just by bloodline
some are based on Papal decrees and land claims and other houses handing over their claims to another

Now according to the Old Testament ...its not always the bloodline that wins ...such as Esau and Jacob
Esau was first but he sold his kingship for a bowl of soup

so tricks do count
Certain members of the descendants of David will select and prepare the kings and their heirs. They will be selected, not by right of heritage, but by their eminent capabilities. They will be inducted into the most secret mysteries of political methods and schemes of government, although they will not be given specific knowledge of the secrets. The purpose of this mode of action is demonstrate to everyone that government cannot be entrusted to those who have not been inducted into the secret places of its art...

so we get it straight

lets look at it
definition of descendant
# Lineal descendant, a blood relative in the direct line of descent
# Collateral descendant, a relative descended from a brother or sister of an ancestor
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).

So if Jesus had brothers and sisters would they be collateral descendants?
I understand Godfrey
son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne and Ida of Lorraine
had no recorded issue
and his BROTHER
BaldwinI
and then his Cousin
Baldwin II
Baldwin was called a cousin of the brothers Eustace III of Boulogne, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Baldwin of Boulogne, but the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
but he was elected to the title

So the King of Jerusalem
could be elected or through family or decreed by the Pope

when the End Times comes or the New World order
will God check into the paperwork :roll:

of who is the real King of Jerusalem
Door number One Hapsburg Lorraine Door Number two Bourbon or Door Number three Bourbon Two Sicillies

and we can add more doors

bergeredearcadie · **Joined:** 07 Nov 2006 11:57 pm **Posts:** 3856

Why would the title King of Jerusalem be important?

Who says it is important?

The Old Testament is a collection of tribal folk legends and memories.

And i suspect that Jerusalem is only important in the West because of the religion the West adopted and the history that links it to the Middle East.

I doubt much that the Chinese are interested in a King of Jerusalem ; )

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 8:36 pm

lovuian wrote:

So TCP
your opinion knocks out the Haspburg Lorraine family

It isn't a matter of my opinion, Lov - it's a simple statement of factual accuracy. The Habsburg-Lorraine claim begins with René d'Anjou, who acquired it by testamentary cession from someone whose ancestor purchased it. Do these conditions make that claim any less valid? That's not for me to say. It simply means that the claim has not been handed down by blood descent from Godfroi de Bouillon or his brother Baudouin.

lovuian wrote:

So many families want that title King of Jerusalem

Bragging rights, I'm sure.

lovuian wrote:

So if its a big deal to be King of Jerusalem
Big enough deal for people to pay for documents on lineage or charters?

Apparently so, since that's exactly what happened.

lovuian wrote:

But TCP you bring up a excellent point ...some of these claims are not just by bloodline
some are based on Papal decrees and land claims and other houses handing over their claims to another

Yep.

lovuian wrote:

Now according to the Old Testament ...its not always the bloodline that wins ...such as Esau and Jacob
Esau was first but he sold his kingship for a bowl of soup

Well, look at Zerah and Pharez...

lovuian wrote:

so tricks do count

Apparently so, when the stakes are high.

so we get it straight

lovuian wrote:

lets look at it
definition of descendant
# Lineal descendant, a blood relative in the direct line of descent
# Collateral descendant, a relative descended from a brother or sister of an ancestor
An ancestor is a parent or (recursively) the parent of an ancestor (i.e., a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent, and so forth).

Essentially.

A "lineal descendant" is one who descends "in line" from a parent. In other words, I am not my uncle's lineal descendant - his children are.

A "collateral descendant" descends from a "co-lateral" line. I am my uncle's collateral descendant; my uncle's children are my father's collateral descendants.

An important point must be made here, however - when examining historical claims to titles and land and such, "collateral heirs" are only considered when there are no "lineal heirs". In other words, these claims pass from parent to child unless there is no child, in which case they pass to "collateral" siblings, nephews/nieces, or cousins. So when there are documentary mentions of "collateral descendants" or "collateral heirs", the implication is that there are no "lineal" descendants or heirs.

lovuian wrote:

So if Jesus had brothers and sisters would they be collateral descendants?

Their lineal descendants would be Jesus' collateral descendants. Siblings are not considered descendants because they're of the same generation.

lovuian wrote:

I understand Godfrey
son of Eustace II, Count of Boulogne and Ida of Lorraine
had no recorded issue
and his BROTHER
BaldwinI
and then his Cousin
Baldwin II
Baldwin was called a cousin of the brothers Eustace III of Boulogne, Godfrey of Bouillon, and Baldwin of Boulogne, but the exact manner in which they are related has never been discovered.
but he was elected to the title

CORRECT. (VAM, start blowing up the balloons)

lovuian wrote:

So the King of Jerusalem
could be elected or through family or decreed by the Pope

Yes. Remember, Godfroi himself was elected as ruler of Jerusalem (he refused to take the title of king) only after two others had been chosen by the knights and turned it down. They also elected his brother Baudouin I. Baudouin, however, intended to make the crown hereditary in his family. Because he died without sons, his older brother Eustace was next in line, and actually set out for Jerusalem to be crowned. By the time he reached...Salerno, was it?...to board a ship, the word came back that the knights had chosen Baudouin du Bourg, the Count of Edessa, as their new king instead. Chroniclers attempted to create the impression that Baudouin du Bourg was a cousin of Baudouin I and thus he was a "collateral" heir, however the details of this relationship are elusive and most historians today discount it.

lovuian wrote:

when the End Times comes or the New World order
will God check into the paperwork :roll:

of who is the real King of Jerusalem
Door number One Hapsburg Lorraine Door Number two Bourbon or Door Number three Bourbon Two Sicillies

and we can add more doors

[/quote]

I say give it to Patrick Guinness - Black-n-Tans for everyone!

TCP

bergeredearcadie · **Joined:** 07 Nov 2006 11:57 pm **Posts:** 3856

By the time he reached...Salerno, was it?...to board a ship, the word came back that the knights had chosen Baudouin du Bourg, the Count of Edessa, as their new king instead.

I never could understand why Eustace just gave up and went back home.
Why didnt he go and claim the title himself?
He had enough support.

TCP · **Posted:** 20 Aug 2010 10:28 pm

bergeredearcadie wrote:

By the time he reached...Salerno, was it?...to board a ship, the word came back that the knights had chosen Baudouin du Bourg, the Count of Edessa, as their new king instead.

I never could understand why Eustace just gave up and went back home.
Why didnt he go and claim the title himself?
He had enough support.

Because he didn't want it. He left the comfort of Boulogne out of a sense of obligation; he was relieved that the knights deprived him of it.

TCP

lovuian · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2010 1:57 am

The Divine Right of Kings is a European political and religious doctrine of political absolutism
It states that a monarch owes his rule to the will of God, not to the will of his subjects, parliament, the aristocracy or any other competing authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.

Its symbolism remains in the coronations of the British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy. It is further evidenced by efforts to trace the genealogy of European monarchs to King David of the Old Testament, in the apparent belief that it legitimizes the rule of the present monarch. The king or queen of the United Kingdom is the last monarch still to undergo such a ceremony,

It is the reason why the British Royal Family's motto is Dieu Et Mon Droit (God and my [birth] Right - i.e. I rule with God's blessing).

In the Epistle to the Romans, chapter 13, Paul wrote that earthly rulers, even though they may not be Christians, have been appointed by God to their places of power for the purpose of punishing evildoers.

it is interesting that royalty likes to take the genealogies all the way to David ...by doing this they show their connection
to the Holy family...who were in the tribe of David or in some cases tribe of Benjamin

even today the Royal genealogies like to go back to King David

I'm surprised Queen Elizabeth hasn't tried for the Queen of Jerusalem

Thanks TCP
and everybody

lovuian · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2010 4:10 pm

Is the technical term for
King of Jerusalem politically correct title is
Christian Protector of Jerusalem for Christian "Heritage".

who needs Jerusalem when you have Sion :wink:

Sion vaudemont
Village of Vaudémont where there stood for five or six centuries the fortress of the local counts, the ancestors of the sovereign dukes of Lorraine and, therefore, by virtue of the marriage in 1736 of the empress Marie-Thérèse with Duke François became the ancestors of the imperial family of the Habsburg-Lorraine family

In the Gallo-Roman times and probably before that, the actual site where the shrine stands was occupied by a pagan shrine dedicated to the Celtic goddess, Rosmerta, the goddess of commerce, as well as to Mercury. A number of ancient remains bear testimony to this. The first Christian remains are a funerary inscription which speaks of the resurrection and is dated to the fifth century. From this, we can conclude that, at this time, the pagan shrine had become Christian.

The name Sion is, therefore, not linked to Sion-Jerusalem, but rather to the pagan pagus seiuntensis, village of Saintois or of Sion, mentioned already by the end of the sixth century.

So there is this interchange between Pagan and Judeo/Christian which is reflected by places like Chartres where they built over a pagan site.

This small church benefited greatly because of the devotion of the counts of Vaudémont, then of the dukes of Lorraine. Between 1320 and 1330, Count Henri III built what is the actual choir of the basilica. The ancient statue of Our Lady, a Virgin nursing her baby, dates from the fourteenth century as well. Already from this time, Sion was the national shrine of Lorraine which, at the time, was an independent territory. It also attracted popular devotion. Its history tells of many miracles.

http://www.omiworld.org/DizionarioStori ... &Voce=1607
In 1393, Ferri de Vaudemont establishes a Confraternity of Our Lady of Sion in Nancy (the Lorraine, near Sion-Vaudemont). Its relationship to the earlier Order of Sion is unknown. If and when this order ceased to exist, I am unaware.

from steve's link
[url]In 1393, Ferri de Vaudemont establishes a Confraternity of Our Lady of Sion in Nancy (the Lorraine, near Sion-Vaudemont). Its relationship to the earlier Order of Sion is unknown. If and when this order ceased to exist, I am unaware.[/url]

So you could see how King of Jerusalem title
would play to the legend

Legend has that Anjou were descended from Ann the Jew daughter of Joseph Arithmethea who carried the Davidic Bloodline

Rene Anjou's daughter Yolande de Bar
was a possible 10th Nautonier of the Priory after her father Rene Anjou

http://www.gatorprowl.com/da_vinci_code.htm

Hugo Furst · **Posted:** 21 Aug 2010 6:06 pm

Tim. after I read this quote of yers...

One doesn't even have to go back that far. Our "Most Recent Common Ancestor" (MCRA) is probably only two to three thousand years old.

I guess you keep missing the part where I mention that a famous ancestor of mine is most likely the ancestor of everyone on this list, so if you're insinuating that I'm lording bragging rights, I'm not. If that interests others in looking into their genealogies, great. if not, that's fine too.

I presume that famous ancestor is Brian Boru, who shagged his way into every family + clan in Ireland and these copious offspring shagged their way into every aristocratic UK family, and their offspring were dealt out all over the EU area way back when.

Its nice to know we share a common ancestor Tim. The House of Connaugh Kings has a very legit claim to the UK throne, that's why ireland was forced to renounce all of its aristocracy and their claims, as the price of that country bein' recognized as a free State.

Who knows, I may end up on the UK throne after all. its in my genes.

Paula brought up an interesting mitochondrial DNA link that is really fascinating. It goes along with Tim's mention of a more recent common DNA ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)

This 'X' group are the Phoenicians of olde, that sailed to Ireland. This 'X' group also migrated to North +South America, actually provides some credibility to Joseph Smith of Mormon fame and his Angel Moroni and the Golden Tablets. How could an itinerant freemason huckster like Smith have such advanced DNA knowledge like this?

I am lookin' for more concrete ties 'tween Druze + Druids of that way bygone era. My start point is the way Mike Tsarion claims Civilization originated in ireland and made its way east. These Phoenicians brought back Druidic concepts to Phoenicia.

lovuian · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 4:06 am

from Steves article
Although never identifying itself as an order of "Sion", an organization formed by the priestly Brothers Baillard, Eugene Michel Vintras (otherwise known as "Elias the Artist", whose mentor was a Madam Bouche who lived near St. Sulpice and went by "Sister Salome"), and the Abbe Joseph Boullan known as the Church of Carmel tried to create a syncretistic Celtic-Christian pilgrimage center at Sion-Vaudemont in the 1850s. This was written about by Lorraine author Maurice Barres in La Colline Inspiree .

By 1848, the Church of Carmel was condemned by the pope and in 1851, Vintras was accused of homosexuality, conducting black masses in the nude....etc...
At that time, he had already followers in England and Belgium, and they had set up “religious houses” at St. Odile in Alsace and at Sion-Vaudemont in Lorraine.

Vintras befriended Joseph-Antoine Boullan (1824-1893), a defrocked priest and also a supporter of the Naundorff claim. Boullan became the successor of Vintras in Lyon, outwardly maintaining pious practices, but conducting satanic rituals in secret. Boullan would soon become the most famous satanist of the 19th century. He claimed to be a “Missionary of the Holy Blood”, the reincarnated St. John the Baptist.

Read more: http://socyberty.com/history/black-magi ... z0xOhgP25l

From Steve's post

A charter, dating from 1396, pertains to a specific confraternity based on the mountain, the Confraternity of Chevaliers de Sion - which reputedly traced its origin to the old abbey on Mount Sion just outside Jerusalem. By the 15th century, however, Sion-Vaudémont seems to have lost some of its significance. Iolande restored to it something of its former glory. Her son, René, subsequently became duke of Lorraine. On his parents instructions he was educated in Florence, thus becoming well versed in the esoteric tradition and orientation of the academies. His tutor was Georges Antoine Vespucci, one of Botticelli's chief patrons and sponsors.

Read more: http://socyberty.com/history/black-magi ... z0xOhMzfVr

this was a topic talked about
http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2260

Great info from Steve rain and roscoe

I want to elaborate a bit on Rosemerthe
how she is so important in this story and her cult was Sion Vaudemont

lovuian · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 4:33 am

rosemerthe comes up in much of the imagery of the Republic
and as the goddess of Fortune

I just did a bit of a article on her symbolism

I found the cornucopia

Poussin does a story about the magic horn of Almathea
http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/15468-the-nurture-of-jupiter-nicolas-poussin.html
Its about how Almathea raises Zeus by feeding him goats milk

of which Zeus breaks the horn of the goat
but he gives her a magic horn (cornucopia) which satisfies all who drink or eat from it

the Holy Grail is the cup of grace that never runs dry

the theme keeps recurring
Bourdon has a Bachanalia

she shows up in that

she shows up usually as a couple to Bacchus or Dionysius or Hermes
bourdon was familiar with Poussin's work

I noticed she was a major theme for the French Revolution
She was Fortune
Schama points her out as a symbol

Is she the symbol for the cult of Sion?
In ancient times she was

TCP · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 6:26 am

Hugo Furst wrote:

I presume that famous ancestor is Brian Boru, who shagged his way into every family + clan in Ireland and these copious offspring shagged their way into every aristocratic UK family, and their offspring were dealt out all over the EU area way back when.

Then your presumption would be incorrect as I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

TCP

Thorstein · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 6:06 pm

TCP · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 6:44 pm

lovuian wrote:

it is interesting that royalty likes to take the genealogies all the way to David ...by doing this they show their connection
to the Holy family...who were in the tribe of David or in some cases tribe of Benjamin

even today the Royal genealogies like to go back to King David

I believe you would be very hard pressed to find a single European royal house that treats the idea with any seriousness at all (except, perhaps, the Bagrations of Armenia and Georgia).

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 23 Aug 2010 6:47 pm

lovuian wrote:

rosemerthe comes up in much of the imagery of the Republic
and as the goddess of Fortune

No, she does not. The revolutionary Republic embraced classical Roman themes, not Gallo-Celtic. You are seeing Fortuna and thinking "Rosmerta", but that's your own agenda at work.

TCP

Arcadia Discussion Zone

Sion, Switzerland

Who is online