The title Duke of Richmond is named after Richmond and its surrounding district of Richmondshire, and has been created several times in the Peerage of England for members of the royal Tudor and Stuart families. The current lineage and title was created in 1675 for Charles Lennox, the illegitimate son of King Charles II of England and a Breton noblewoman called Louise de Kérouaille. King Charles II first secures a strong dynastic alliance by marrying Catherine of Braganza, a shy, plain Portuguese princess who probably loved her handsome husband; and although she brought Charles II great wealth, she never give him a son he had intended to have. Charles acknowledged at least 12 illegitimate children by various mistresses. As illegitimate children were excluded from succession to the throne, he was succeeded by his brother James.
Charles Lennox, House of Stuart 1675-1723 - son (illegitimate) of Charles II and Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth
The amazing concessions they were able to secure from Charles II through control of letters patent and monopoly charters happened somewhere within the time frame between 1680 and 1684, but by then little James Beauclerk was dead; he was alleged to have died in 1680. His death is attributed to a leg infection but considering the circumstances around concessions being extorted from King Charles II, the murder of James Beauclerk makes more sense. It would be even more insightful to learn specifically how this child died re: a type of sexual murder in some vile way. King Charles II asked the question concerning this extortion, which Abel Danger has been asking of the US military chiefs, the UK military chiefs, the New Zealand and Australian military chiefs, quo warrant, by whose authority?
King Charles asked this question of the principals and leaders of the City Livery Companies. In 1684, Charles II revoked Livery Company charters under writ of Quo Warranto! Since King Charles was not given a satisfactory answer, so he apparently confiscated all of the assets of the City Livery Companies in 1684. He then reissued some of these patents that had historically gone back five-hundred or six-hundred years which granted monopolies on important and vey lucrative trade routes. When Charles II did this, he essentially threw down a gauntlet in front of the City and Guild Livery Companies (Worshipful Companies) which these companies have subsequently avenged over hundreds of years ever since including the events surrounding the attack on America on September 11, 2001.
Is it possible that King Charles II's bastard son, James Beauclerk (1671–1680), was kept hostage in Paris by agents of Louise de Kérouaille so that French spies and Livery Company freemen could extort the King for letters patent and monopoly charters?
"The granting of charters provided regulatory powers to the Livery Companies, who used them to control their trades and membership, which in turn afforded the Crown some stability in its dealings with the City. However the Crown also frequently used its grant of charters to raise money to fill its own coffers and to exert its control over the City and its Livery Companies. Thus when in 1684 Charles II decided to bring the City of London under his direct control, he ordered a surrender of its Charters, together with those of the Livery Companies, under a writ of Quo Warranto; and then issued new charters of his own.
The Saddlers' Company received its replacement Charter in 1684. This was abrogated after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the 1607 Charter of James I was reinstated as the governing charter of the Company, until Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II granted her Charter to the Company in 1995.
Struggle for Survival
The 19th century saw the Saddlers' Company wane in both influence and membership. Along with the Corporation and other Livery Companies, much of this period was spent in fending off attempts by radical reformers and liberal administrations to abolish the ancient institutions of the City of London, on the grounds that they were based on privilege and made no contribution to the community as a whole.
It was, as Wellington said of Waterloo, a damned close-run thing. Much credit for the survival of the Livery companies as a whole is owed to Sir Richmond Cotton, Master of the Saddlers' Company in 1880 and a subsequent Mayor of the City of London. However it did inspire the Livery Companies to become more outward looking and become involved in projects such as the formation of the City & Guilds of London Institute and the Northampton Institute (now City University)."
It can now possibly be demonstrated, that the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, the Worshipful Company of International Bankers and the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, took this power (letters patent and charters) back from the king and Britain's colonies including the United States, and returned them to the City of London.
Now, getting back to Louise de Kérouaille, she was probably in all likelihood in the pay of the French, perhaps just as Miriam Clegg might be in the pay of the Spanish or the European Union today. Louise de Kérouaille, a baby-faced French noblewoman, may have been sent to Charles II's court as a spy. Charles II's well documented and other great love, and Louise de Kérouaille's rival, was Nell Gwyn (ancestor of Samantha Cameron), who was a stage actress who had ridden from the streets of London to become the king's favorite and a hero of the working class. If there was a rivalry between Louise de Kérouaille and Nell Gwyn, the kidnapping and murder of James Beauclerk would make sense in the context of this intrigue, especially if Louise was a spy for the French.
Is it possible that King Charles II's bastard son, James Beauclerk (1671–1680), was kept hostage in Paris by agents of Louise de Kérouaille so that French spies and Livery Company freemen could extort the King for letters patent and monopoly charters?
"The granting of charters provided regulatory powers to the Livery Companies, who used them to control their trades and membership, which in turn afforded the Crown some stability in its dealings with the City. However the Crown also frequently used its grant of charters to raise money to fill its own coffers and to exert its control over the City and its Livery Companies. Thus when in 1684 Charles II decided to bring the City of London under his direct control, he ordered a surrender of its Charters, together with those of the Livery Companies, under a writ of Quo Warranto; and then issued new charters of his own.
The Saddlers' Company received its replacement Charter in 1684. This was abrogated after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the 1607 Charter of James I was reinstated as the governing charter of the Company, until Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II granted her Charter to the Company in 1995.
Struggle for Survival
The 19th century saw the Saddlers' Company wane in both influence and membership. Along with the Corporation and other Livery Companies, much of this period was spent in fending off attempts by radical reformers and liberal administrations to abolish the ancient institutions of the City of London, on the grounds that they were based on privilege and made no contribution to the community as a whole.
J R Springett & Son, 353 High Street, Chatham, Kent. (This photograph, taken sometime before 1905, is reproduced with the permission of the surviving descendants of John Richard Springett)
It can now possibly be demonstrated, that the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators, the Worshipful Company of International Bankers and the Worshipful Company of Information Technologists, took this power (letters patent and charters) back from the king and Britain's colonies including the United States, and returned them to the City of London.
Louise de Kérouaille, lover of King Charles II, rival to Nell Gwyn and mother of Charles Lennox, the illegitimate son of Charles II, and spy for the French (she is ancestress of both wives of The Prince of Wales: Diana, Princess of Wales, as well as The Duchess of Cornwall)
James Beauclerk (1671-1680 was the illegitimate son of King Charles II and Nell Gwyn) with his brother Charles
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.