Showing posts with label Samuel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel. Show all posts

Friday, January 16, 2015

Adaption of 'the true law of free monarchies'

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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






Most Popular

Carolingian dynasty

Pippinids


Pippin of Landen

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


Begga

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


Grimoald

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


Arnulfings

Arnulf of Metz

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


Ansegisel

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


Chlodulf of Metz

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


Pepin of Herstal

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


Grimoald II

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


Drogo of Champagne

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


Theudoald

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


Carolingians

Charles Martel

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


Carloman

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

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


Pepin the Short

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


Carloman I

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


Charlemagne

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


Louis the Pious

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


Lothair I

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


Charles the Bald

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


Louis the Stammerer

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


Charles III

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

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


Louis of Lower Lorraine


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

Paternal Descendants Listing. Generations unto Elizabeth I of England


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sermon of Christ at the Lake Genezareth

Sermon of Christ at the Lake Genezareth

Edgar Barclay's Stonehenge, 1891

Edgar Barclay's Stonehenge, 1891

C.Verrusson's Haghia Sophia

C.Verrusson's Haghia Sophia

Utimuni the Zulu nephew of Chaka

Utimuni the Zulu nephew of Chaka

Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives by Edward Lear

Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives by Edward Lear

Laconian bronze banqueter 530-500 BCE. Dodona British Museum

Laconian bronze banqueter 530-500 BCE. Dodona British Museum

The Battle of Oroi-Jalatu

The Battle of Oroi-Jalatu