PDA

View Full Version : Interesting research on King John Plantegenet and the Anjou's



Kristin
29th June 2012, 00:24
I found what this girl stumbled upon to be very interesting indeed. All but one of our US presidents are related to King John... perhaps not a very nice person historically speaking, I might add. Here's her video and a little information on King John beyond the Hollywood Robin Hood legends.

Anyone doubt the existence of a royal blood line? Out of the mouths of babes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGrbJ4_jcc8


King John
King John was born in 1167 and died in 1216. Like William I, King John is one of the more controversial monarchs of Medieval England and is most associated with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

John was born on Christmas Eve, the youngest son of Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. As a child, John tended to be overshadowed by is older brother Richard. Like his father, John developed a reputation for violent rages which lead to him foaming at the mouth. Henry left no land to John when he died so John was given the nick-name John Lackland. In 1189, all of Henry's territory went to his oldest son, Richard I, better known as Richard the Lionheart.

In 1191, Richard left England to embark on the Third Crusade. He left John in charge of the country. John's reputation as a leader had been severely dented as far back as 1185 when Henry II sent him to Ireland to rule. John proved to be a disaster and within six months he was sent home.

In 1192, Richard was imprisoned by Duke Leopold of Austria as he returned from the Crusades. John tried to seize the crown from his brother but failed. In 1194, when Richard finally returned to England, John was forgiven by his brother.

In 1199, Richard was killed in France and John became the king of England. His reign started in an unfortunate way. In 1202, John's nephew, Arthur of Brittany, was murdered. Many in Brittany believed that John was responsible for his murder and they rebelled against John. In 1204, John's army was defeated in Brittany and John had no choice but to retreat. His military standing among the nobles fell and he was given a new nickname - John Softsword. The defeat in north France was a major blow for John and a costly one. To pay for the defeat, John increased taxes which was not popular with anybody other than John and his treasurers.

John also succeeded in falling out with the pope in 1207. John quarreled with the pope over who should be Archbishop of Canterbury. The pope excommunicated John and put England under a Church law that stated that no christening or marriage would be legal until the time the pope said that they would be. Church law said that only christened people could get to Heaven while children born out of marriage were doomed to Hell. This placed people in England under a terrible strain and they blamed one person for this - John.

In 1213, John had to give in and surrender the spiritual well-being of the whole country to the pope. However, the pope never fully trusted John and in 1214, the pope proclaimed that anybody who tried to overthrow John would be legally entitled to do so. In the same year, John lost another battle to the French at Bouvines. This defeat resulted in England losing all her possessions in France. This was too much for the powerful barons in England. In 1214, they rebelled.

John was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215. This guaranteed the people of England rights that the king could not go back on. In 1216, John tried to go back on the Magna Carta but this only provoked the barons into declaring war on him. By 1216, John was ill. During the war, he suffered from dysentery. He also lost all of his treasure when he tried to take a shortcut across a stretch of water in the Wash, Lincolnshire. As the tide rose faster than he expected, his baggage train was engulfed. Just a few days later, John died and was succeeded by Henry III.

Despite the obvious failings of John, there is still some evidence that he was not as bad as some have tried to make him out to be since his death. It certainly was not uncommon for kings to have their names tarnished when they were not alive to defend themselves!

The picture of a monster, put forward by Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris must be rejected forever. John had the administrative ability of a great ruler but, from the moment he began to rule, rivals and traitors tried to cheat him out of his inheritance. As he wrestled with one problem, more enemies sprang upon his back.
William Stubbs written in 1873.



John had potential for great success. He had intelligence, administrative ability and he was good at planning military campaigns. However, too many personality flaws held him back.
R. Turner written in 1994



John was a tyrant. He was a wicked ruler who did not behave like a king. He was greedy and took as much money as he could from his people. Hell is too good for a horrible person like him.
Matthew Paris, C13th chronicler

From the Heart,
Wormhole

¤=[Post Update]=¤

A little more on King John if one is interested:


John (24 December 1166 – 18/19 October 1216), also known as John Lackland (Old French: Johan sanz Terre),[1] was King of England from 6 April 1199 until his death. During John's reign, England lost the duchy of Normandy to King Philip II of France, which resulted in the collapse of most of the Angevin Empire and contributed to the subsequent growth in power of the Capetian dynasty during the 13th century. The baronial revolt at the end of John's reign led to the signing of the Magna Carta, a document often considered to be an early step in the evolution of the constitution of the United Kingdom.
John, the youngest of five sons of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, was at first not expected to inherit significant lands. Following the failed rebellion of his elder brothers between 1173 and 1174, however, John became Henry's favourite child. He was appointed the Lord of Ireland in 1177 and given lands in England and on the continent. John's elder brothers William, Henry and Geoffrey died young; by the time Richard I became king in 1189, John was a potential heir to the throne. John unsuccessfully attempted a rebellion against Richard's royal administrators whilst his brother was participating in the Third Crusade. Despite this, after Richard died in 1199, John was proclaimed king of England, and came to an agreement with Philip II of France to recognise John's possession of the continental Angevin lands at the peace treaty of Le Goulet in 1200.
When war with France broke out again in 1202, John achieved early victories, but shortages of military resources and his treatment of Norman, Breton and Anjou nobles resulted in the collapse of his empire in northern France in 1204. John spent much of the next decade attempting to regain these lands, raising huge revenues, reforming his armed forces and rebuilding continental alliances. John's judicial reforms had a lasting, positive impact on the English common law system, as well as providing an additional source of revenue. An argument with Pope Innocent III led to John's excommunication in 1209, a dispute finally settled by the king in 1213. John's attempt to defeat Philip in 1214 failed due to the French victory over John's allies at the battle of Bouvines. When he returned to England, John faced a rebellion by many of his barons, who were unhappy with his fiscal policies and his treatment of many of England's most powerful nobles. Although both John and the barons agreed to the Magna Carta peace treaty in 1215, neither side complied with its conditions. Civil war broke out shortly afterwards, with the barons aided by Louis of France. It soon descended into a stalemate. John died of dysentery contracted whilst on campaign in eastern England during late 1216; supporters of his son Henry III went on to achieve victory over Louis and the rebel barons the following year.
Contemporary chroniclers were mostly critical of John's performance as king, and his reign has since been the subject of significant debate and periodic revision by historians from the 16th century onwards. Historian Jim Bradbury has summarised the contemporary historical opinion of John's positive qualities, observing that John is today usually considered a "hard-working administrator, an able man, an able general".[2] Nonetheless, modern historians agree that he also had many faults as king, including what historian Ralph Turner describes as "distasteful, even dangerous personality traits", such as pettiness, spitefulness and cruelty.[3] These negative qualities provided extensive material for fiction writers in the Victorian era, and John remains a recurring character within Western popular culture, primarily as a villain in films and stories depicting the Robin Hood legends.

-Worm

Alan
29th June 2012, 00:55
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?23425-12-yr-Girl-Discovers-ALL-U.S.-Presidents-Except-One-Related-to-One-British-King

Kristin
29th June 2012, 00:56
Silver King John Pennies and a brief of the economy during his reign. Note the symbology on the first silver pennies minted in Dublin.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Penny_john.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/03/John_Penny.jpg

Economy


A silver King John penny, amongst the first to be struck in Dublin
Main article: Economy of England in the Middle Ages
One of John's principal challenges was acquiring the large sums of money needed for his proposed campaigns to reclaim Normandy.[94] The Angevin kings had three main sources of income available to them, namely revenue from their personal lands, or demesne; money raised through their rights as a feudal lord; and revenue from taxation. Revenue from the royal demesne was inflexible and had been diminishing slowly since the Norman conquest. Matters were not helped by Richard's sale of many royal properties in 1189, and taxation played a much smaller role in royal income than in later centuries. English kings had widespread feudal rights which could be used to generate income, including the scutage system, in which feudal military service was avoided by a cash payment to the king. He derived income from fines, court fees and the sale of charters and other privileges.[95] John intensified his efforts to maximise all possible sources of income, to the extent that he has been described as "avaricious, miserly, extortionate and moneyminded".[96] John also used revenue generation as a way of exerting political control over the barons: debts owed to the crown by the king's favoured supporters might be forgiven; collection of those owed by enemies was more stringently enforced.


A silver King John penny
The result was a sequence of innovative but unpopular financial measures.[nb 8] John levied scutage payments eleven times in his seventeen years as king, as compared to eleven times in total during the reign of the preceding three monarchs.[98] In many cases these were levied in the absence of any actual military campaign, which ran counter to the original idea that scutage was an alternative to actual military service.[98] John maximised his right to demand relief payments when estates and castles were inherited, sometimes charging enormous sums, beyond barons' abilities to pay.[98] Building on the successful sale of sheriff appointments in 1194, John initiated a new round of appointments, with the new incumbents making back their investment through increased fines and penalties, particularly in the forests.[99] Another innovation of Richard's, increased charges levied on widows who wished to remain single, was expanded under John.[99] John continued to sell charters for new towns, including the planned town of Liverpool, and charters were sold for markets across the kingdom and in Gascony.[100][nb 9] The king introduced new taxes and extended existing ones. The Jews, who held a vulnerable position in medieval England, protected only by the king, were subject to huge taxes; £44,000 was extracted from the community by the tallage of 1210; much of it was passed on to the Christian debtors of Jewish moneylenders.[99][nb 10] John created a new tax on income and movable goods in 1207 – effectively a version of a modern income tax – that produced £60,000; he created a new set of import and export duties payable directly to the crown.[102] John found that these measures enabled to him to raise further resources through the confiscation of the lands of barons who could not pay or refused to pay.[103]
At the start of John's reign there was a sudden change in prices, as bad harvests and high demand for food resulted in much higher prices for grain and animals. This inflationary pressure was to continue for the rest of the 13th century and had long-term economic consequences for England.[104] The resulting social pressures were complicated by bursts of deflation that resulted from John's military campaigns.[105] It was usual at the time for the king to collect taxes in silver, which was then re-minted into new coins; these coins would then be put in barrels and sent to royal castles around the country, to be used to hire mercenaries or to meet other costs.[106] At those times when John was preparing for campaigns in Normandy, for example, huge quantities of silver had to be withdrawn from the economy and stored for months, which unintentionally resulted in periods during which silver coins were simply hard to come by, commercial credit difficult to acquire and deflationary pressure placed on the economy. The result was political unrest across the country.[107] John attempted to address some of the problems with the English currency in 1204 and 1205 by carrying out a radical overhaul of the coinage, improving its quality and consistency.[108]

From the Heart,
Wormhole

Kristin
29th June 2012, 01:02
Thanks for the thread link... we'll merge the two into one happy family.

Kristin
29th June 2012, 01:42
So i'm thinking to myself... you know we are all related. then i think to myself isn't it interesting that King John... this specific monarch is related to all of the presidents, save one. What are the chances of that by itself... i really do not know. So I start to research English folklore and as it so happens... and I'm not making it up... well, read for yourselves. i'm just the messenger giving you links to folklore.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kMTYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=Folklore+about+king+john+being+a+werewolf&source=bl&ots=Z8jHzBTAcm&sig=978_-EKOfBaeoCaXU0dBoPogEpc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7gTtT_vyJPO00AGwoJnUDQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AIcSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=Folklore+about+king+john+being+a+werewolf&source=bl&ots=edIi4gffKS&sig=KhkWcYv9nVDkCvoiXLToCRtO_Mg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7gTtT_vyJPO00AGwoJnUDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kristin
29th June 2012, 01:52
Here's another little gem:


The Rebellion of Arthur of Britanny

True to his policy of causing dissension amongst the Angevins, Phillip Augustus recognised Arthur's claim in May 1200 Treaty of Le Goulet. In attempt to take Anjou and Maine, the teenage Arthur of Brittany besieged his octagenarian grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, at Mirabeau. Eleanor sent an urgent message for aid to her son John and succeeded in drawing out the negotiations for as long as possible. John responded with uncharacteristic speed and came to her rescue, in the process taking both Arthur and Hugh prisoner. Arthur was imprisoned at Falaise Castle in Normandy.

King John attempted to make peace with his young nephew, on a visit to Rouen in 1203, he promised Arthur honours if he would separate himself from Phillip Augustus and adopt his uncle's cause. Arthur, proud, indignant and unbowed by his imprisonment, responded by demanding his rightful inheritance and unwisely warned John that he would never give him a moments peace for the rest of his life.

John "much troubled", responded by ordered him to be blinded and castrated, an order which Hubert de Burgh, Arthur's custodian, refused to carry out. By late 1203 rumours were circulating that the young Duke was dead. Phillip, seeing an opportunity to create further trouble, demanded that Arthur be produced. It appears that by this time Arthur was already dead, said to have been killed by John himself in a drunken rage. A contemporary chronicler states 'After King John had captured Arthur and kept him alive in prison in the castle of Rouen....When John was drunk and possessed by the devil, he slew (Arthur) with his own hand and tying a heavy stone to the body, cast it into the Seine.'

John also imprisoned Arthur's sister, Eleanor, known as the Fair Maid of Brittany. She was to remain a prisoner for the rest of her life. She died in 1241, during the long reign of John's son, Henry III.

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_3.htm

Kristin
29th June 2012, 02:07
A book from Hawksbury readers:

Prince of Darkness by Jean Plaidy
"The untimely death of Richard Coeur de Lion left his nephew Arthur and his younger brother John in contest for the throne of England. Reluctantly the barons chose John and their choice brought years of evil upon the realm. His unbridled sensuality, his fierce and terrible temper, his cruelty, idleness and injustice made King John hated and feared. Men came to believe that the House of Anjou was tainted by the devil's blood, that the loathsome monarch was himself Evil Incarnate, the very Prince of Darkness...
He was king by divine right only."

Well, I didn't expect to find all of this... I just thought the connection to one monarch was interesting. I got a little more then I showed up at the front door for. For you consideration. I myself am going to think about all of this for a while.

From the Heart,
Wormhole

Kristin
30th June 2012, 14:29
First I'm going to change my tittle as this thread has taken on a different meaning.

Second: Here is a snip-it from an interesting article. I will include the link.

The Veres were dukes of Anjou and counts of Angiers (not to mention earls of Oxford for centuries). According to the website below, the Veres were related to the Plantagenets of Anjou:
"The Plantagenets were themselves a junior branch of the House of Anjou, whose senior branch was the House of Vere [whose] ancestry was jointly Pictish and Merovingian descending from the ancient Grail House of Scythia"
(http://watch.pair.com/false-christ.html).

This information, I think, derives more from the claims made by some Veres than from historical records, and when in my right mind do I believe what a dragon says? Yet in this case, I'll give the claims the benefit of the doubt and see where they lead.

Now a citizen of Anjou is an "Angevin," a term very near to "Yngvi/Ingaevone," and this alongside associations with Angiers (modern Angers, just north of Anjou) coincides with the so-called Anglo-Norman roots of the Veres. However, it's possible that Anjou was not founded by Veres, and moreover I've yet to learn where the clan entered the Anglo bloodline. My suspicions are at Roslin, Scotland, where the Angles controlled territory about the time that some Pictish Veres jumped the sea to Anjou.

Prior to knowing nothing of the Veres, my feelers had indicated that the modern Crichton family, for a few reasons including that their ancient name was "Kreitton," were either the founders of the historic Cruithne (or "Cruithin"), or a major Cruithne tribe devoted to Cruithne heritage. I found that both the Crichtons and the Veres depict themselves with green dragons, perhaps due to the Vere root being in royal Picts who were themselves rooted in the Cruithne. And so it is that I connect the two families very closely, each being a candidate for putting forth the False Prophet (this doesn't make everyone in those families evil or of the devil, of course).

See below what Nicholas de Vere has made public, he being the Sovereign Grand Master of the "Imperial and Royal Dragon Court and Order," and author of "The Dragon Legacy." Note that his "gods" were merely into witchcraft as their most-cherished occupation, and for that reason his ilk are to be viewed as children who have yet to grow up and make the right choices in life:
"From the age of seven onwards my father told me about our ancestry, an ancestry steeped in royal blood and most significantly of all, in what is termed Royal Witchcraft...[oh what a nice daddy to start teaching his son all the low-down at such a tender age]
"I trace my [Vere] lineage back in an unbroken bloodline to the imperial prince Milo de Vere, Count of Anjou in 740 A.D., son of Princess Milouziana of the Scythians. She was recorded throughout France as being the Elven, Dragon Princess of the Scottish Picts, and her Grandson, Milo II [son of Milo de Vere], derived his Merovingian descent through his father's marital alliance with the imperial house of Charlene...

"In brief, the recorded Dragon lineage starts with the Annunaki [children of Anu, supreme god of Sumeria] and descends through the proto-Scythians, the Sumerians in one branch and the early Egyptians in another; the Phoenicians, the Mittani, back to the Scythians again through marital alliance, along to the "Tuatha de Danann" and the Fir Bolg; down through their Arch-Druidic, Priest-Princely families, to the Royal Picts of Scotland and the high kings of the Horse Lords of Dal Riada; through to the Elven dynasty of Pendragon and Avallon del Acqs, and down to a few pure bred families today."

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/mykingdom.html

The full and rather well researched article that included this link is found here. I will end this post with a conclusion that I think is worthy of reading.
http://www.tribwatch.com/interestink.htm


Why all the emphasis on Godfrey de Bouillon and so little emphasis on the bloodline of Fulk V? After all, the son of Fulk V was Geoffrey IV Plantagenet, count of Anjou. And Fulk had married a Sinclair when he married the daughter of Henry I, for that king was from Rollo St. Clair. The son of Geoffrey Plantagenet was Henry II of England, and this branch of the dragon line sat on the throne of England for a long time to come. Extremist Rosicrucians infiltrated this dynasty deeply in the court of Henry VIII, and they set up a counterfeit church of Christ, the Anglican Church, en route to forming their New Atlantis.

The Anglicans then tried to set up a rulership over Jerusalem, and succeeded (in 1842) for a stretch to the point of officially seating their own people as Bishops of Jerusalem. There is evidence that they were in the meantime allied in this quest with Rothschild Illuminatists in both Britain and Germany, who used the same hexagram symbol for themselves that the David-and-Solomon team of Khazars had used centuries earlier. That symbol is now the Israeli flag.

Doesn't something about all this stink? Even a Freemasonic-like thinker, who welcomes the New World Order now being formed under Merovingian features, was able to grasp the following:
"This dual current, being associated with both the Heavenly and the Infernal, with both Jesus and Jehovah, Satan and Lucifer, is something that has marked the history of the Merovingian dynasty, as well as all of the other Grail families, and the entire Grail story itself. It is at the heart of the secret spiritual doctrine symbolized by the Grail. This symbolism hits you immediately when you walk in the door of the church at Rennes-le Chateau and see those opposing statues of the demon Asmodeus and Jesus Christ staring at the same black and white chequered floor, which itself symbolizes the balance of good and evil."
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/merovingian-twyman.htm

If Ingelger was a Vere, ditto the Fulks, and ditto the Plantagenet dynasty, meaning that Nicholas de Vere is telling the truth when connecting the Veres to the mysterious name, Plantagenet. But was he telling the truth when claiming the Veres to be of a senior branch at Anjou? I don't know, but egotism will certainly make such a statement.

And when do I ever believe that a dragon necessarily speaks the truth? This is the reason that the Veres, and other devotees of the dragon, will never achieve power over the globe for any meaningful duration, for peoples will not tolerate liars forever, and the kingdom built on lies crumbles. Those who keep secrets are by that alone proven liars, and it's no surprise if liars claim to be truthful, for what profit would lying be if no one believed the liar?

Nicholas de Vere claims that "Vere" means "verita" = "truth." Rather, our Bible tells the truth when it says that the dragon will "throw truth to the ground" (Daniel 8:12).

From the Heart,
Wormhole

modwiz
30th June 2012, 14:53
So i'm thinking to myself... you know we are all related. then i think to myself isn't it interesting that King John... this specific monarch is related to all of the presidents, save one. What are the chances of that by itself... i really do not know. So I start to research English folklore and as it so happens... and I'm not making it up... well, read for yourselves. i'm just the messenger giving you links to folklore.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=kMTYAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=Folklore+about+king+john+being+a+werewolf&source=bl&ots=Z8jHzBTAcm&sig=978_-EKOfBaeoCaXU0dBoPogEpc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7gTtT_vyJPO00AGwoJnUDQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AIcSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA261&lpg=PA261&dq=Folklore+about+king+john+being+a+werewolf&source=bl&ots=edIi4gffKS&sig=KhkWcYv9nVDkCvoiXLToCRtO_Mg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7gTtT_vyJPO00AGwoJnUDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=false

It seems the sociopath gene is maintaining its strength thoughout the generations.

Kristin
30th June 2012, 17:30
I've also noted that there has been a certain amount of a disinformation campaign extending even into the 1990's trying to credit King John for being a good ruler... history clearly states otherwise. Implementation of taxes to enable war mongering, possible satanism, and obvious child molestation... remember is wife was only 9-12 years old when he married her... all documented. The line of Anjou also extended to Joan of Ark, a virgin who was influenced greatly and used for war purposes by the Anjou family... it goes on and on. Joan of Ark and the visions she had ended up in her being brought to trial and burned at the stake as a witch who was consorting with the devil. Perfectly played. Use the virgin and then pin it on her.

Kristin
30th June 2012, 17:40
Now I looked into Van Buren, the only president who was not in this blood line and noted several things... he lived to 79 years old and died of asthma, and also he was instrumental in putting the US natives into reservations and began the Trail of Tears. I have no doubt that under the circumstances he was doing the work of the Bloodline Cabal... why get rid of him? He was also a confirmed mason, though history can not reveal to what degree.