# Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot



## Fawkes (Nov 28, 2021)

Hello, I am new here, and this is my first thread, so if I am unwittingly straying from the rules, please do not hesitate to remind me. To give credit where credit is due, this topic was originally suggested by "Will Scarlet", on  "*The Betrayal of Albion (Part 4): The Great Fire of London" thread, where he said - *

"The Gunpowder Plot, or 'Jesuit Conspiracy' as it was also known, involved a Jesuit Priest, Father Henry Garnet. The purpose of the plot from a catholic point of view, was to put a catholic monarch on the throne. The narrative of the plot is full of inconsistencies, for example, eye-witnesses stated that the barrels removed from under the Houses of Parliament were filled with soil, not gunpowder. Also, the ridiculous account of a heavily tortured Father Garnet's escape from the Tower belong in a Marvel comic.

So, the Gunpowder Plot could easily have been an early 'false-flag' event, designed to increase anti-catholic sentiment and justify their continued persecution. It could also have involved catholic 'patsies.' However, whilst the Jesuits were definitely involved in scenario described previously, their involvement in the 'false-flag' one is not so clear, but given what we know about them, not beyond the realms of possibility. (Now that we have @Fawkes as a member, perhaps we can get to the bottom of it )"

I then replied - "It would perhaps be better if you started an entirely new thread on this Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot topic, as what I have to say will take up a lot of space. At first I hesitated to bring this up, but since you started it, what I have to say is no wilder than some of the other theories that I have seen proposed on this site, so far. For now, just let me say that yes, centuries ago in England the surname of my family was Fawkes, though I do not go by that designation now, and that I am a distant relative of an English Fowkes, originally Fawkes family, that has claimed for generations that they are of the bloodline of Guy Fawkes, but that the family records were destroyed after his execution as a traitor."

So, after some encouragement, here I am!

Let us start with the basics- "Guy"(regular, ordinary fellow) "Fawkes" (Faux, false, fake). Were Guy Fawkes and the other conspirators actually government agents and/or patsies, and "Guy Fawkes" a "fake guy", using the fake name "John Johnson" when caught, to further leave untraceable bread crumbs? Of course, if Guy and the other condemned plotters were allowed to escape, who took their places for their grisly public demise? Were other condemned prisoners drugged and substituted, not really knowing what was going on?

I am just speaking for myself here, and most certainly can be wrong, but, as I surmised above, another condemned prisoner could have substituted for Guy on his "execution" date. "Guy" was the last one to be "executed" that day, the other three prisoners ahead of him were probably too terrified or concerned about their own immediately impending grisly, horrible fates to notice him closely (they were dragged separately on hurdles to the execution site), and Guy was supposed to have been sick and tortured anyway, presumably causing some alteration in his appearance. He was a stranger in London, the common people witnessing his execution wouldn't have known "Guy Fawkes/John Johnson", they were just there for the "show". This prisoner may have been drugged so as not to talk too much, and was quickly executed before he could, at any rate, suffering a broken neck before the following, more excruciating part of the sentence, could be carried out upon him.

 Robert Catesby was the actual instigator of the plot, and yet most of the posthumous attention seems to center on Guy, because he was in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time, and he is even an internationally recognized masked hero now (popularized by the film "V for Vendetta") to the anti-establishment. Were Robert and fellow conspirator Thomas Percy (who supposedly leased the cellar underneath Parliament) double crossed by Fawkes (who was pretending to be Percy's servant "John Johnson"), or by someone even much higher up? As a Scottish "transplant", King James was looking to bolster his popularity with the English people, and could have used Roman Catholics and Jesuits as a scapegoat (or controlled opposition) to achieve that end, and also as a subtle warning not to mess with him.

Also concerning Robert Catesby and Thomas Percy, in favor of their being allowed to escape, the story that they both were both killed with the same single shot does seem fantastic. Could this be the first "magic bullet" theory, which centuries later occurred in another November "conspiracy theory", the assassination of President John F. Kennedy?

By now you are probably tired of listening to me only, so please allow me to post an article from last year, on the eve of Guy Fawkes Day, that starts off with a summary of The Gunpowder Plot, which leads into "Government malfeasance and deception" -  ‘Remember Remember the 5th of November…’

Robert Catesby, the official leader of the Gunpowder Plot, was involved in the Essex Rebellion to overthrow the predecessor of King James, Queen Elizabeth I, but was released and fined heavily for his part in it (he should have been executed for treason, but was spared due to the intercession for clemency by Secretary of State Robert Cecil). If Catesby then eventually became a tool of the government, he was effectively silenced by his being shot (or allowed to escape) when the arresting posse caught up with him.
Also, the Gunpowder Plot conspirator brothers, Christopher (Kit) and John (Jack) Wright, were supposed to have gone to school with Guy Fawkes, and both were also involved in the Essex Rebellion with Catesby. Christopher is believed to have used the alias "Anthony Dutton". Both of them were also killed (or escaped) along with Robert Catesby. The whole history of "Guy Fawkes" may have been fabricated and publicized to the common people between the time of his "arrest" on November 5, and his "execution" on the following January 31, a period of almost 3 months, all to the favor of King James, which of course was the intention in the first place.
Thomas Percy, the fourth and final plotter to be apprehended and killed (or allowed to escape) did not take part in the Essex Rebellion (however, his kinsman Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland, was the brother-in-law of Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, the leader of the Essex Rebellion, and Essex intervened for the release of Thomas Percy from a Scottish skirmish killing charge, with Thomas Percy later aiding Essex in a conspiracy against the Scottish warden of the middle marches), but as far back as 1591 had married Martha Wright, sister to Christopher and John. By 1605 the couple were estranged, and his wife and daughter were living on an annuity funded by Lord Monteagle, who received the mysterious letter warning him not to attend Parliament, which he took to Robert Cecil, who then took it to King James (coincidence, or was Monteagle a conduit?). All of the other "conspirators" were arrested and dead (or switched for other prisoners) by the end of January, 1606. "Dead men tell no tales".
This seems to be somewhat overlooked in connection with the Gunpowder Plot, but Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, the presumed father of King James, was alleged to have been killed as the result of a "Gunpowder Plot" himself, which may have increased the anxiety and overreaction of his son about assassination plots against his own life, perhaps leading him to create his own "plot", to flush out possible conspirators. James may well have come up with the idea of a "Guy Fawkes" (phony fall guy) himself.
Fawkes/Percy connection - *"In 1588 Denis Bainbridge bought the Percy lands in Scotton; his stepfather, Walter Pulleyn (from what appears to be a secondary source, Guy Fawkes is supposed to have married a Maria Pulleyn of Scotton in 1590, and as I mentioned before, Guy is supposed to have living male line descendants today, but NOT using the "Fawkes" surname spelling, although there are plenty of other "Fawkes" around), lived at the Old Hall. Denis married Edith Fawkes (the widowed mother of Guy) after 1587 (the death of his first wife) and may have rebuilt Percy House for her, or restored it, including the Fawkes shield in the plaster ceiling. Guy Fawkes therefore had links with his mother's home in Scotton, as well as his stepfather's family at Old Hall." *THE OLD MANOR HOUSE, Scotton - 1150317 | Historic England
The following is from an "Anonymous" named (very clever and appropriate pseudonym!) contributor to the Miles Mathis site (I repeat, this is NOT by Miles Mathis himself) -

"To start, we learn the following of Thomas Percy, one of the chief conspirators in the plot: On 9 June (1605, less than 5 months before the attempt to blow up King James and Parliament), Percy's patron, the Earl of Northumberland, appointed him to the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms, a mounted troop of 50 bodyguards to the King. In other words, one of the conspirators was one of James I’s personal bodyguards and a protege of this very powerful Earl. He also happened to have the same surname as that very powerful Earl. The Earls and Dukes of Northumberland were. . . Percys. That should raise all sorts of alarm bells in your head. As convenient a movie trope as it is to have a bodyguard be a double agent, it doesn’t happen in real life. Bodyguards are the most rigorously vetted employees in the world, and the same was true back then. Even less believable is who appointed Thomas – his kinsman Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, who had a reputation as a Catholic sympathizer and who James I was specifically warned about prior to his ascension to the throne as a possible covert enemy, along with Henry Brooke and Sir Walter Raleigh. Together they were called the “diabolical triplicity”. Brooke and Raleigh led the Main Plot against James I before the Gunpowder Plot, and both were imprisoned in the Tower of London. Percy, on the other hand, was promoted to James I’s Privy Council. So after finding out that two of the three suspected “diabolical” enemies to the throne were precisely that – enemies – you decide to invite the third into your inner ring? You’ll say this was a case of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer, but James I made Percy the captain of the royal bodyguards. You don’t put a suspected enemy in charge of your bodyguards, nor do you let him appoint his nephew (My Note - actually his second cousin, once removed, according to the Wikipedia article of Thomas Percy) among the guard. And there is certainly no chance Thomas Percy could have carried out these clandestine operations, right under the king’s nose.
Equally incredible is this next bit of fiction: On 25 March 1605 Percy also obtained the lease for the undercroft directly underneath the first-floor House of Lords. It was into this room that the plotters moved 36 barrels of gunpowder from Catesby's lodgings on the opposite side of the River Thames. We are supposed to believe that there were rooms available for anyone to rent just beneath where the country’s most important politicians met on a regular basis? That’s like saying there are apartments for rent under the U.S. Capitol building, and not only that, but these apartments are not under any kind of surveillance".


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 28, 2021)

@Fawkes Great stuff, many thanks. I'd be interested to see a summary giving your best guess at what really occurred.



Fawkes said:


> Let us start with the basics- "Guy"(regular, ordinary fellow) "Fawkes" (Faux, false, fake).



His name was Guido Fawkes though wasn't it? If I remember correctly, he was known in York. In fact there's a pub in the city that's famous for being his birthplace and a meeting place for the conspirators.

"This charming old inn is the reputed birthplace of a man who is still burned on bonfires 400 years after his death. Guy Fawkes arrived in the world in 1570 and was baptised at St Michael le Belfrey church in York. He was born into Protestantism but his mother’s second marriage was to a Catholic and it is likely that this event prompted her son’s conversion as well.

"The young Fawkes became a soldier. Like many other Catholics seeking military experience he went to fight in the Low Countries for Spain against Dutch Protestants. There he gained valuable experience in munitions and it is partly because of these skills that he was recruited by the plotters. Having been out of the country for several years Fawkes was also relatively unknown in London, meaning he could move freely in the city without arousing too much suspicion." Source

Could be a load of old flannel though, of course.



Fawkes said:


> Guy Fawkes is supposed to have married a Maria Pulleyn of Scotton in 1590



Many years ago, Andrew Collins of 'The Black Alchemist' and Ancient Aliens fame, gifted an old book to my brother. It was a novel based upon the Plot, but a romantic one featuring a love affair between Fawkes and a woman. During the tale many unknown and surprising details were given regarding the Plot itself. Unfortunately, Felix has lost the book, bit I might be able to trace the title.

Also, another imperfect memory, Bonfire Night wasn't celebrated in England until many years after the event. It's possible that the true celebration now familiar on the 5th November is actually commemorating The Glorious Revolution:

"On November 5th, 1688, William Prince of Orange, King of the Netherlands, puppet of the Jewish bankers, invaded England." Source


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 28, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Great stuff, many thanks. I'd be interested to see a summary giving your best guess at what really occurred.


Thank You So Much! I still have a bit more to post from "Anonymous", as I only stopped to go to bed (lol). Remember I first told you that I needed a new thread, as I had a lot to write?   What I am trying to do, as far as Guy is concerned with the Plot, is to present several options for a reader to choose from, and then that reader could comment upon his choice, as you are doing. Yes, I have my own personal conclusion about Guy and said Plot, which I shall eventually disclose.


Will Scarlet said:


> His name was Guido Fawkes though wasn't it? If I remember correctly, he was known in York. In fact there's a pub in the city that's famous for being his birthplace and a meeting place for the conspirators.
> 
> "This charming old inn is the reputed birthplace of a man who is still burned on bonfires 400 years after his death.


It is a perfect name for word play by someone else, wishing to remain "Anonymous". I agree, York is his REPUTED birthplace, just as Santa Claus lives in the North Pole, has "substitutes" for him everywhere, and is tracked on his visits around the world every Christmas Eve. We want a certain segment of the population to believe that also, don't we, and I for one am not spilling the beans about him, because I love the Christmas Season. If the "other" 99+% of the population can manage to perpetrate that story, could "The Firm" (for want of a better term) manage to perpetrate a story about Big Bad Guy the Villain, with their superior intelligence resources of substitutes and record forging?
One thing I have noticed, is that the average person (if this person even goes so far as to think about it), seems to believe that "The Firm" has only the same limited resources to utilize as that same average person. In other words, we tend to judge other people using our own personal standards, which can lead to error, and is a common problem of our human species. Would not "The Firm" have access to hidden knowledge of the ages, and perhaps be using technology, cloning, androids, etc., in secret, long before anyone else was publicly aware of these developments?
Thus, it could possibly be quite easy for them to have substitutes anywhere else they chose, and for whatever purpose, because, unlike the vast majority of earthly inhabitants, who live in the "Matrix", they think and act "outside of the box". If no one believes it, that is just what they want, anyway. As far as "academic sources" go for verification, it appears that lately, some people are starting to get wise to "fake news" and "alternative facts", as well as to what is programmed into us by the TV screen. OK, so much for my "Philosophy 101" intro, as I am digressing from my own thread topic! 



Will Scarlet said:


> Having been out of the country for several years Fawkes was also relatively unknown in London


Exactly one of the points I made for a possible substitution of him there, in a public spectacle of his "execution".


Will Scarlet said:


> Many years ago, Andrew Collins of 'The Black Alchemist' and Ancient Aliens fame, gifted an old book to my brother. It was a novel based upon the Plot, but a romantic one featuring a love affair between Fawkes and a woman. During the tale many unknown and surprising details were given regarding the Plot itself. Unfortunately, Felix has lost the book, bit I might be able to trace the title.


Your brother's name is Felix, how "fortunate"! Do you mean this, I am familiar with it too.  Guy Fawkes (novel) - Wikipedia Very intriguing, with another "made up" personality (?) as the love interest of Guy. Later on, I shall present a third choice of female companionship for Guy, if he truly existed.


Will Scarlet said:


> It's possible that the true celebration now familiar on the 5th November is actually commemorating The Glorious Revolution:


Good catch, I have noticed that "coincidence" also!

Stay tuned, more to come when I get my notes organized!


Fawkes said:


> Stay tuned, more to come when I get my notes organized!


I am trying to figure out how to continue this the "right" way. I have more information from the "Anonymous" article on Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, so perhaps the best way is to just post it, and then anyone interested can comment on it, including myself-

"We continue with the theater: On Saturday 26 October (1605), at his house in Hoxton, [William Parker, 4th Baron] Monteagle received an anonymous letter that warned him to stay away from Parliament. Uncertain of its meaning, he delivered it to Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury. Cecil was already aware of certain stirrings, although he did not then know the exact nature of the plot or who exactly was involved. Instead of informing the king immediately, he decided to wait and watch what happened. More nonsense. Cecil was James I’s most trusted advisor and called him “my little beagle”, referring to his stature (he was barely 5 feet tall, indicating his Jewish ancestry, since he descends from Goldsmiths) but also probably a veiled reference to Cecil’s role as a prototypical head of Intelligence. A close reading of Cecil’s biography makes it clear he was the MI6 director of his time. As such, he wouldn’t have risked his reputation by withholding information about an impending terrorist act. The fact that he was already aware of “certain stirrings” makes it more absurd that the conspirators were able to smuggle 36 barrels of explosives beneath the House of Lords. That place would have been crawling with security agents.

For this and other reasons, several historians have claimed that Cecil was secretly orchestrating the whole plot. In fact, this is one of the first things his Wikipedia page mentions about him. But these accusations are concealing the full truth. Yes, Cecil was in on the plot, but not as a plot – as a hoax. He was never trying to blow up the House of Lords, and neither was Percy, Fawkes, or any others. The whole thing was faked from the ground up. Evidence of this is the fact that Cecil was already involved in uncovering plots before this one, including the Main Plot already mentioned. The problem there is that Henry Brooke, mastermind of the plot, was Cecil’s brother-in-law. We are told that Cecil had his own brother-in-law arrested and executed. A far simpler reading is that both Cecil and Brooke were playing their parts in a family-run project. That’s the only way to explain how these guys got 36 barrels of gunpowder to begin with, since the government held a monopoly on gunpowder production and carefully guarded its stores. Stealing a single barrel would have been a major feat, to say nothing of 36. You could say that this is proof there was a government insider on the job – like Cecil – but you’d still be missing the point. Like people who claim 9/11 was an inside job, but then sell the terrorists and the hijacking as real. But none of it was real. There were never hijacked planes, and there were never 36 barrels of gunpowder beneath the House of Lords.

Back to Wikipedia:  …the prosecution claimed that …the conspirators were digging a tunnel beneath Parliament. This may have been a government fabrication, as no evidence for the existence of a tunnel was presented by the prosecution, and no trace of one has ever been found… Logistically, digging a tunnel would have proved extremely difficult, especially as none of the conspirators had any experience of mining. If the story is true, by 6 December…the conspirators were busy tunnelling from their rented house to the House of Lords. They ceased their efforts when, during tunnelling, they heard a noise from above. The noise turned out to be the then tenant's widow, who was clearing out the undercroft directly beneath the House of Lords—the room where the plotters eventually stored the gunpowder.

Again, none of this scans. Why would the prosecution claim the defendants were trying to tunnel their way through to the undercroft, but then fail to provide any evidence? For one, a baseless claim would have seriously undercut their argument. But more importantly, it was a totally unnecessary claim since they had (allegedly) already caught Fawkes red-handed with 36 barrels of gunpowder underneath the House of Lords. What other evidence did they need for a conviction? This whole tunneling business is just evidence that they sold one version of the story for many years until later researchers disproved it, so they had to come up with a second story that didn’t require tunneling. In other words, we’re seeing the layers of lies that have been papered on over the years to try and keep the edifice from completely falling apart.

It is also significant that the anonymous letter was sent to the Baron of Monteagle. It turns out his mother was a Stanley. You’re about to see why that’s so significant. Also, his wife Elizabeth’s maiden name was Tresham, and her grandparents were John Tresham and Eleanor Catesby. Two of the key conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot were Francis Tresham and Robert Catesby. So they were relatives of the man who outed them! In fact, Monteagle married Robert Catesby’s first cousin, and Catesby was the ringleader of the whole plot. As usual, they fail to tell you that this event was all in the family. Monteagle’s lineage also includes Nevilles, Beauforts, and Harringtons, linking him many times over to Fawkes, as we’re about to see.

Fawkes’ parents are given as Edward Fawkes and Edith, nee “Blake or Jackson”. Already we have a red flag, which is that the historians can’t tell us his mother’s maiden name. It’s always the maternal lines that are scrubbed or fudged, because that’s usually where the Jewish ancestry is hiding. In this case, though, Fawkes’ own surname is a giveaway. More on that later. Edward was Edith’s first of two husbands. Her second was Dionysius Bainbridge Slingsby. How’s that for an aristocratic name? Dionysius’ father was Sir Henry Slingsby, a Member of Parliament. Around this time the Slingsbys were marrying with the Stapleton baronets and the Ingrams, Viscounts Irvine. Dionysius’ mother Frances was a Vavasour, who were Lords and baronets, related around this time to the Manners, Earls of Rutland and the Middletons. Further back they are related to the Gascoignes, Lords of Gawthorpe. Incidentally, Middleton links us to the modern-day Kate, and the Baron Monteagle (surname Parker) links us to Prince Charles’ wife Camilla Parker Bowles. It’s 400 years later and England is still being strung along by the same cast of characters.

So far we are only looking at Fawkes’ stepfather, so supposedly Guy is of no relation to these peerage families. But at the very least, we know that Fawkes’ mother was not some plebian with an untraceable genealogy. Her second husband was a peer and Parliamentarian, and those types never marry nobodies. So you can bet Edith’s genealogy is being intentionally hidden.

Regardless, we can link Fawkes to the peerage through his grandfather, Sir William Fawkes. He was Registrar of the Exchequer Court of the Archbishop of York. Guy Fawkes’ father also worked for the Archbishop of York as a lawyer. It should strike you as unusual that the son of a prominent lawyer under the employ of one of the highest Protestant religious offices in the country would end up becoming a Catholic terrorist. It is admitted Fawkes was raised Protestant, though they try to sell his conversion to Catholicism due to the influence of his stepfather, Slingsby.

Wikipedia mentions that Fawkes’ grandmother Ellen Harrington was “the daughter of a prominent merchant, who served as Lord Mayor of York in 1536.” They fail to give you his name, but it turns out to be Sir William Harrington, a descendent of the Nevilles and Molyneux, whose contemporary relatives included Ashtons, Standishes, Norrises, Leycesters, Lumleys, Hultons, Talbots, Treshams, Radcliffes, and Stanleys. These were the Stanleys of Hooton, close kin to the Earls of Derby. As it turns out, Sir William Stanley of Hooton was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot but was exonerated by Cecil. This is a major clue to unwinding the event, since Fawkes was a close cousin of Sir William Stanley and actually served under him while a soldier in the Spanish Netherlands. Yet somehow Stanley skated while Fawkes was executed? This explains why Wikipedia fails to mention that Fawkes was related to Stanley, because they want you off his scent. To know that the Stanleys were involved in the plot, and that Fawkes was related to them, changes your whole perspective on the event. Why? Because the Stanleys were at the very top of the British peerage at this point. As Miles has shown, they had taken the Crown through Henry VII a century earlier under the Tudor pseudonym. The Stanleys/Tudors originated with the Komnenes, cyrpto-Jewish Byzantine Emperors. Remember, the Gunpowder Plot was all about blowing up the House of Lords, including James I, who was a Stanley/Tudor. So the protagonists and antagonists of the Gunpowder Plot were both Stanleys. Not at all suspicious, right?

It’s worth looking at the name Fawkes a little more closely, since their lineage doesn’t go back very far, yet we find them connected to the highest levels of the peerage. Where did they come from? At geni.com someone has posted a coat of arms bearing the name Faux. That gets us closer to the truth, as you’ll see. At thepeerage.com, we don’t get any Fawkes before the 1700s, which is strange since we know Guy’s grandfather was knighted. Nevertheless, we find a Walter Ramsden Beaumont Fawkes in the mid-1700s whose father strangely is not a Fawkes, but a Hawksworth. These Hawksworths were earlier baronets, though they also seem to enter the peerage out of nowhere.

One obvious possibility is that Fawkes was a Fox, as in martyrologist John Foxe. Miles has already shown that Foxe was an agent for the Stanleys/Tudors. The Foxes of the peerage became Fox-Strangways, Earls of Ilchester. They were based in southern England, while the Fawkes were from the northern Yorkshire region, so there’s no immediate geographical link.

I was about to give up my search into the Fawkes’ roots when I noticed this: [Jesuit priest Henry] Garnet and Catesby met for a third time on 24 July 1605, at the house of the wealthy catholic Anne Vaux. If you’re tempted to read her name as French (“Voe”), don’t. This is England, so it would have been pronounced “Vox”. See where this is going? To the left of this sentence on the Wikipedia page is a drawing of the undercroft with the following caption: William Capon's map of Parliament clearly labels the undercroft used by “Guy Vaux” to store the gunpowder. Wikipedia is giving us a huge clue here. Without ever explicitly linking Anne and Guy, they’re telling us who the Fawkes really are. They were Vaux. Anne was the daughter of William Vaux, 3rd Baron Vaux of Harrowden. They admit she was related to Francis Tresham, and we already saw that Fawkes was a Tresham. The Barons Vaux (originally de Vaux) were related to the Nevilles, and Fawkes was also a Neville. All this suggests Fawkes = Vaux. More evidence in this direction is that the Vauxhall district of London was named after Falkes de Breauté. Pepys referred it as “Fox Hall” in his diary, suggesting my first hunch was correct, too. Fawkes = Vaux = Fox.

Miles: we may assume it also equals Vox, as in Vox Day, the website Vox.com, etc.

So, where did these Fawkes/Vaux originate? Check out this genealogical research by a present-day Faux, who drops a big clue: The name Falc and variants first arrived with the Normans. The best source is “A Dictionary of English Surnames” by Reaney. He notes that the following surnames are equivalent: Fawke, Fawkes, Fawcus, Faux, Falck, Falco, Falk, Falkous, Falkus, Faulkes, Faulks, Fake, and Fakes. All mean falcon or falcon’s son (with the “s” added). To that list we can also add Faulkner, as in William. Remember that the Normans were really Phoenicians. That’s why we find the earliest Falkes/Fawkes of England being known for a notorious Phoenician trade: Thus the Falke family at some early date were master ship builders, and some (descendants of Alexander Falke of Aldeburgh for example) may have built ships such as the Pelican at Aldeburgh (near Worlingham) for Sir Francis Drake. As the author notes, Falk is also a common Ashkenazic surname in Germany. This means Guy Fawkes was exactly who we suspected him to be: a ranking Phoenician/Jew. This Jewish connection brings Fawkes’ red hair into relevance, since Fox is often an anglicization of the German/Jewish Fuchs, a surname often given to people with red hair (according to contemporary accounts, Guy Fawkes had red hair). Which of course links us right back to Miles' last paper, where he showed that (Konrad) Adenauer's maternal grandmother was a Fuchs.

Wikipedia also tells us that the de Vaux were an “old Norman noble family”, the “old” likely signifying that they go back further than the Normans, to the Phoenicians. Wikipedia also traces the de Vaux forward to Scotland and Ireland, where they became Vances and Vasses. (Think Lt. J. Paul Vance of the Sandy Hook hoax.) The clans Ross and Munro descend from the de Vaux. (Think President Monroe and Chief John Ross). The Munro baronets were closely related to the highest peers of Scotland, including Stewarts, Campbells, Keiths, Gordons, and Kennedys.
The meaning of falcon also tells us just how old the Falkes/Vaux lineage is. See Horus, the falcon-headed deity of ancient Egypt. The name Horus comes from the ancient Egyptian word for falcon and is believed to have originally meant “one who is above”. It is also etymologically linked to the Semitic verb “to see”, so it makes sense that the Eye of Horus is actually the eye of a falcon. The Phoenicians later picked up on the falcon deity motif. You’ll say I can’t have my cake and eat it, too – Fawkes must either point to falcon/Phoenician or fox/Jewish. But this is how these elite families choose their names; everything is a double (or triple) entendre. Everything is wordplay to them, including the similarity between Fawkes the French faux, meaning fake. In fact, that may have been the primary reason Guy was chosen for this project. Plus, we don't have to choose between the Jews and Phoenicians: they are the same people.
We can link Fawkes to the Percys through his stepfather Slingsby, whose relative Sir Henry Slingsby married a Mary Percy around 1580. Her grandfather was the 4th Earl of Northumberland and her great-grandparents were a Spencer and a Beaufort. Yes, same Beauforts that employed the Fawkes at Knaresborough. This also pretty much blows the lid off the fiction about Guy’s stepfather influencing him to become a Catholic, since his stepfather was related to the Beauforts, who were Stanleys/Tudors. The name Spencer links Fawkes and Percy to Catesby, who descends from the Spencers.
We can link Fawkes to Sir Thomas Knyvett, the man who searched under the House of Lords and discovered Fawkes. Knyvett’s brother-in-law was a Vavasour. We can also use the Vavasours to link Fawkes to Sir William Wade, the Lieutenant of the Tower of London and Chief Examiner of the Jesuits who oversaw Fawkes’ alleged torture, since Wade’s great-grandmother was a Vavasour.
Speaking of the Tower of London, there were apparently two very different quarters of the Tower, since while Fawkes was supposedly being tortured in some dark dungeon there, Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland – who you’ll recall was implicated in the plot and also confined to the Tower – was enjoying a very different experience:
Northumberland made himself comfortable in the Tower of London. He had spacious apartments in the Martin Tower, which he redecorated and refurbished. He was attended by 20 servants, some of whom he lodged on Tower Hill. He spent £50 per year on books and grew a considerable library. He had his own covered bowling alley and access to facilities for tennis and fencing. He regularly met scholars whom he patronized, including Thomas Harriot, Walter Warner and Robert Hues, who were known as the “Earl of Northumberland's Magi.” Together with Sir Walter Raleigh, who had preceded Northumberland to the Tower with a death sentence hanging over him, they discussed advanced scientific ideas and smoked tobacco.
It seems the Tower of London is not what we think it is. It sounds more like a resort than a prison, just like today’s prisons for the wealthy. If they even spend any time there at all, it’s just an extended vacation, with everything but golf.
We have linked almost everyone involved in the Gunpowder Plot to each other, including Fawkes, Catesby, Percy, Tresham, Knyvett, Wade, the Baron of Monteagle, and James I. We can also bring in Robert Cecil, since he was related to Norrises, as was Fawkes. Also, Cecil’s sister married a de Vere, Earl of Oxford. The de Veres were related to the Vavasours at this time, which links us to Fawkes’ stepfather and Wade above. Best of all, Cecil’s niece Elizabeth de Vere married…William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby. Shocker, another Stanley relative tied to this event! Now you see why I say the Stanleys were the lynchpins to this whole hoax. You’ll say this doesn’t proven anything, since all prominent people back then were related. But that’s the point, isn’t it? If they’re all related, we shouldn’t expect to find them hatching plots to indiscriminately blow up government buildings along with entire city blocks of London. They’d be liable to kill several relatives and allies. This is never how power struggles work among the higher ranks; they have far subtler and more effective means at their disposal. If a terrorist plot like this really was attempted, it should have been from the peasant class, who had reason to indiscriminately target all aristocrats.

This is what Guy Fakes and the Gunpowder Plot is all about. It’s about replacing real revolution with endless fake versions of it, hoping you will become too confused or tired or disenchanted to do anything. Contrary to what V for Vendetta or Fight Club or The Matrix or Marvel Comics tells you, being a revolutionary never involves blowing up buildings or hacking computers or sowing chaos. It never requires you to read Aleister Crowley or buy bitcoin or get a sex change. All these things keep you trapped inside the labyrinth. All that is required is to open your eyes and walk out of it."

Whew!, I think that's about enough for now, don't you? My comments on this "Anonymous" article will come later, and of course all other comments are more than welcome here too.


Fawkes said:


> Fawkes’ parents are given as Edward Fawkes and Edith, nee “Blake or Jackson”. But at the very least, we know that Fawkes’ mother was not some plebian with an untraceable genealogy. Her second husband was a peer and Parliamentarian, and those types never marry nobodies. So you can bet Edith’s genealogy is being intentionally hidden.


If Edith, the mother of Guy, was truly a Jackson of Yorkshire (circumstantial evidence seems to indicate this), another distinguished Jackson family of Yorkshire, that married into the Frobisher family (descended from the Plantagenets/Fulks, and also from Ros and Vaux, like the Manners family. The Manners family, Earls and later Dukes of Rutland, were descendants and heirs of both the Ros and Vaux families. Thomas Manners, 1st Earl of Rutland, inherited a claim to England through his grandmother Princess Anne Plantagenet [sister of Kings Edward IV and Richard III], but did not pursue it. )  Martin Frobisher - Wikipedia, included the cavalier Sir Anthony Jackson, private secretary to a "favorite" of King James, George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham Anthony Jackson (soldier) - Wikipedia, and President Andrew Jackson. So yes, Edith had distinguished relatives also.


Fawkes said:


> Edward was Edith’s first of two husbands. Her second was Dionysius Bainbridge Slingsby. How’s that for an aristocratic name?


This is really mixed up information, so please bear with me as I try to straighten it out.
"Dionysius Bainbridge Slingsby" is an erroneous Internet entry for *Dionysius* *(Dennis)* *Bainbridge, who married Edith Fawkes, mother of Guy. He is a Bainbridge, not a Slingsby. However, through his mother, Frances Vavasour, he was the first cousin, once removed, of a later Frances Vavasour, who married the Sir Henry Slingsby that "Anonymous" mentioned in his article. *Dionysius Bainbridge (aft.1551-bef.1623) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree Frances (Vavasour) Slingsby (abt.1562-1611) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree

To add to the confusion, the stepfather of *Dionysius* *(Dennis)* *Bainbridge was Walter Pullen *Walter Pullen Esq (abt.1505-bef.1580) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree*, who married first a grandaunt of Sir Henry Slingsby, and the mother of Dionysius Bainbridge, Frances Vavasour *Frances (Vavasour) Pullen (abt.1525-bef.1609) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree* , was first married to Anthony Fawkes, supposedly the second cousin of Edward Fawkes, father of Guy, so these families are all mixed up together anyway. *

In addition to the above, I also found out that the stepfather of Guy's stepfather *Dionysius* *(Dennis)* *Bainbridge**, Walter Pullen, was the grandfather of Mary (Maria) Pulleyn, supposed to be the "wife" of Guy, whom he married in 1590, and the mother of his son Thomas, supposedly born in 1591.  Also in 1591, conspirator Thomas Percy had married Martha Wright, sister to conspirators Christopher and John, the schoolmates of Guy Fawkes.*


Fawkes said:


> Wikipedia is giving us a huge clue here. Without ever explicitly linking Anne and Guy, they’re telling us who the Fawkes really are. They were Vaux.


*Regarding a possible relationship between Anne Vaux and Guy Fawkes, it appears to have been conjectured by early historians, but then ridiculed later on - 

"Some earlier historians have mistakenly conjectured the Vaux women of Harrowden were related to Guy (aka Guido) Fawkes, but that is not true; they were far more prominent in Midland society than the soldier caught red-handed in the cellar below the House of Lords. The confusion comes in the pronunciation of the name Vaux, which rhymes with Fawkes, and therefore sounds like 'vox'. Also, the well-known recusant Anne Vaux's Italianate cursive displayed 'V's that look very much like 'f's, just as Elizabeth Tudor's written 's' appears as an 'f.' The speculation that aristocratic Anne had taken Fawkes's name is utterly absurd. Almost everyone living in the Midlands knew Anne Vaux. She would not have given Guido Fawkes a second glance."  *The Undaunted Eliza Roper, Dowager Lady Vaux of Harrowden



Fawkes said:


> Thus the Falke family at some early date were master ship builders, and some (descendants of Alexander Falke of Aldeburgh for example) may have built ships such as the Pelican at Aldeburgh (near Worlingham) for Sir Francis Drake.


Below, an excerpt from an article describing Fawkes shippers and merchants in Bishop's (now King's) Lynn, Norfolk (Primarily Norfolk and also Suffolk is where the Norman Vaux settled after the Conquest, also notice the naming of NorFOLK and SufFOLK [where Aldeburgh is also]). During the 14th century, Lynn ranked as England's most important port. -

_"Members of the Fawkes family had been burgesses of Lynn since the very beginning of the 14th century, and had used the port for their business, exporting forage and grain to Zeeland and Norway."

Later on, within the district of King's Lynn and West Norfolk, we have the ffolkes baronets of Hillington ffolkes baronets . 7 1/2 miles north of King's Lynn is Sandringham, where is found a royal residence of Queen Elizabeth II and her family, also where Princess Diana was born _Sandringham, Norfolk.
















​



























​











Fawkes said:


> The meaning of falcon also tells us just how old the Falkes/Vaux lineage is.


The original Count Fulk I of Anjou was a "Red Falcon", and had a son "Guy" - Fulk I, Count of Anjou - Wikipedia

The Fawkes/Fowkes are also royal, through the "Antichrist" Rose (Rosicrucian) Line, including the Fulks/Foulques Counts of Anjou (plus a King of Jerusalem), who were the original Plantagenet royal dynasty (whose line goes down to King James also), claimed to be descended from the Eastern Roman Emperor "Phocas" dynasty (also from the "Angelos" dynasty, with "Anjou" a possible derivation, and other dynastic Byzantine intermarriages, such as with the Komnenes). The preceding information comes from another "anonymous" Internet poster, who refuses to give his real name or allow email contact with him, as he fears reprisals. I have no choice but to accept his identity restrictions.

Using information from an avant-garde royal researcher, which so far is private, not in the public domain (Yes, I must tell you for now that this is "anonymous" information, thus fitting to the subject of "Guy"), I am told that the "real" Guy Fawkes, of the Gunpowder Plot Hoax, was King James himself, at the top of the food chain of command, who had the most to gain from that hoax. The buck stops there. Details still need to be worked out, and may never be fully discovered, as "The Firm" covers up their tracks extremely well, but it looks as though a "Guy Fawkes" alternate identity was officially invented by King James, and grafted on to the official Fawkes family records (the private family records were probably replaced or destroyed), as being executed as a traitor, without marrying or having issue, so his descendants would not be traced. The body of the executed "substitute" was of course quartered, and what the carrion did not tear apart was left to rot. All of the noble families mentioned in this report were indeed related to "Guy"(royalty), and used as royal henchmen. Throughout history, "Faux" and its derivations has been used as a fake code name for royalty. Using other identities, this family has either inherited the throne, or been a standby to inherit it, in case an older relative leaves no issue. Of course no one outside of "The Firm" is expected to know or believe this, and by now, who really cares? By comparison, the aforementioned Kennedy "assassination" took place "only" 58 years ago, and no one has ever gotten to the bottom of that either. Do you really think that you are supposed to?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 29, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> This is what Guy Fakes and the Gunpowder Plot is all about. It’s about replacing real revolution with endless fake versions of it, hoping you will become too confused or tired or disenchanted to do anything. Contrary to what V for Vendetta or Fight Club or The Matrix or Marvel Comics tells you, being a revolutionary never involves blowing up buildings or hacking computers or sowing chaos. It never requires you to read Aleister Crowley or buy bitcoin or get a sex change. All these things keep you trapped inside the labyrinth. All that is required is to open your eyes and walk out of it.


My family walked out of it long before I was born, how about yours?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 29, 2021)

Wow, deluge.  I do admire the way you keep replying to yourself, by the way.

I'm going to be honest - I haven't had time to read everything yet, but that's certainly not due to a lack of interest.



Fawkes said:


> Your brother's name is Felix, how "fortunate"! Do you mean this, I am familiar with it too. Guy Fawkes (novel) - Wikipedia Very intriguing, with another "made up" personality (?) as the love interest of Guy.



Felix as in Felix Noille, the author of the original thread you posted in. It was his username when he was a member here, not his real name.

Yes, that's the novel I was referring to. I also remember reading John Gerard’s 1897 book, 'What was the Gunpowder Plot?' that's covered in the link you gave, but it was more years ago than I care to recall.



Fawkes said:


> …the prosecution claimed that …the conspirators were digging a tunnel beneath Parliament.



I never could fathom how it would be possible to dig a tunnel right beside a river because as soon as you got below the waterline it would flood.

Have to be honest again - I'm not a fan of Miles Mathis.

For Vaux to become Fox is a bit of a stretch, imo. People of the time would perhaps pronounce it as 'Vowks' if they read it from a document, but if they heard it spoken as 'Voe' it doesn't sound like Fox at all... to me anyway.

Will (not Will, but will... Will will) refrain from commenting more until I've (he's) caught up.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 29, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Wow, deluge.
> 
> 
> Will Scarlet said:
> ...


HaHa, I gave you fair warning of what was to come, if I started a thread here, didn't I?
Perhaps I should have chosen "Hamlet" as my username instead!


Will Scarlet said:


> Have to be honest again - I'm not a fan of Miles Mathis.


Have to repeat myself again - Miles did not write this, but a guest on his site. I tried to make that plain, as I am well aware of the feelings against him, and wanted to give his contributor a chance to be heard out.


Will Scarlet said:


> For Vaux to become Fox is a bit of a stretch, imo


For me too, but note that what that contributor said is true - "More evidence in this direction is that the Vauxhall district of London was named after Falkes de Breauté. Pepys referred it as “Fox Hall” in his diary, suggesting my first hunch was correct, too. Fawkes = Vaux = Fox."


Will Scarlet said:


> Will (not Will, but will... Will will) refrain from commenting more until I've (he's) caught up.


No problem, where there's a "Will" there's a way! 


Fawkes said:


> All this suggests Fawkes = Vaux. More evidence in this direction is that the Vauxhall district of London was named after Falkes de Breauté. Pepys referred it as “Fox Hall” in his diary, suggesting my first hunch was correct, too. Fawkes = Vaux = Fox.


Actually, all evidence connecting Vauxhall instead to Guy Fawkes and his widow "Jane" ( John Nichols in his _History of Lambeth Parish_ conjectures that she was the widow of Guy Fawkes) was destroyed, whether deliberately or not -
"VAUXHALL  GARDENS,
The  oldest  existing  place  of  public  amusement  in  the  metropolis,  is named  from  its  site  in  the  manor  of  Fulke's  Hall,  or  Faukeshall,  from Fulke  de  Breaute,  its  possessor  temp.  King  John.  The  manor-house, subsequently  called  Copped  or  Copt  Hall  was  the  prison-house  of  Arabella  Stuart (first cousin of King James I).  The  tradition  that  it  belonged  to  Guido  or  Guy  Fawkes only  rests  upon  the  coincidence  of  names.  The  estate,  in  the  manors  of Lambeth  and  Kennington,  belonged  to  the  family  of  Fauxe,  or  Vaux,  in the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  1.;  and  in  1615  it  was  held  by  Jane Vaux  widow,  erroneously  supposed  the  relict  of  Guy  Fawkes.  The  conspirators,  however,  hired  a  house  at  Lambeth  for  storing  their  powder, &c.,  in  1604,  which  has  strengthened  the  tradition :  this  house  was  burnt down  by  accident  in  1635;  its  site  is  uncertain."

Curiosities of London John Timbs, 1867, page 745


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 30, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Guy Fawkes (novel) - Wikipedia Very intriguing, with another "made up" personality (?) as the love interest of Guy. Later on, I shall present a third choice of female companionship for Guy, if he truly existed.


So we have "Viviana Radcliffe", of the Guy Fawkes novel, and "Maria Pulleyn", who may very well have been "made up", and inserted into the public records as "wives" of Guy, not to mention Anne and Jane Vaux, who appear to be real persons, though, so far. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that Guy Fawkes himself was also made up, and inserted into the public records, too, by the real "Guy Fawkes" of the Gunpowder Plot, King James I, using his very formidable Cecil intelligence network? "Vauxhall" was actually owned by the English Royal Family at one time, could any subsequent Fawkes/Faux/Fake owners have been just "fronts" for them?


Fawkes said:


> Using information from an avant-garde royal researcher, which so far is private, not in the public domain


Using more information from him, he thinks that another identity of James I/Guy Fawkes was actually Archduke Charles of Austria (26 September 1565 – 23 May 1566), who being a much younger son, with no foreseeable hope of succeeding his "father" Maximilian II as the Hapsburg Holy Roman Emperor, was officially "born again" as James I on June 19, 1566, 27 days after the "decease" of Archduke Charles. He also thinks that James was the actual son of Don Juan of Austria, the first cousin of Maximilian II, and "natural" son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (thus, Archduke Charles/James/Guy "Fake" Fawkes would have been originally named after his grandfather, and grafted to a nephew's line of Charles V).
The legitimate son of Charles V, Philip II, was also King of England for a time, through his marriage to Queen Mary, so this notion of a grandson to Charles V, James I, reigning as King of England, may not be so strange as it appears at first glance. James actually considered himself to be the Emperor Augustus Caesar of England, Scotland, and Ireland, although unfortunately for him, Parliament did not agree!
As you can see, that avant-garde royal researcher believes that these elite families were much more closely related than officially recorded, and that they were capable of exchanging royal identities quite easily (for them), in order to maintain a "pure" royal bloodline of "The Firm". A "Guy" named "Fawkes/Faux" was royal code, as a "fake" name for royalty, conceived, or should I say "plotted", by King James I.
You may have observed that, despite the ominous title of "The Gunpowder Plot", no one attending Parliament was actually harmed by it. James was also a fan of good theater!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 1, 2021)

OK, well I've caught up. My head is still spinning.



Fawkes said:


> where there's a "Will" there's a way!



Or, as my Dad used to say: "Where there's a Will there's relations." It seems that in Guy Fawkes' case he was related to most of Western Europe.



Fawkes said:


> Miles did not write this, but a guest on his site. I tried to make that plain, as I am well aware of the feelings against him, and wanted to give his contributor a chance to be heard out.



OK, but Mr Anonymous wrote it from a solid Mathesian perspective...



Fawkes said:


> To know that the Stanleys were involved in the plot, and that Fawkes was related to them, changes your whole perspective on the event. Why? Because the Stanleys were at the very top of the British peerage at this point. As Miles has shown, they had taken the Crown through Henry VII a century earlier under the Tudor pseudonym.





Fawkes said:


> Remember that the Normans were really Phoenicians.





Fawkes said:


> This means Guy Fawkes was exactly who we suspected him to be: a ranking Phoenician/Jew.



Or should that be 'exactly who we wanted him to be'?

It's worth mentioning that the period under discussion is during the 'Middle Period of  the 'Great Eviction' when officially there were no Jews in England  jew  due to the fact that they had all been kicked out in 1240 and wouldn't be readmitted until Cromwell let them back in 1665, coincidental with The Great Plague, swiftly followed by The Great Fire.



Fawkes said:


> "Vauxhall" was actually owned by the English Royal Family at one time



Trust me - no member of the Royal Family would ever been seen dead driving a Fauxkin Vauxhall.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 1, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> OK, but Mr Anonymous wrote it from a solid Mathesian perspective...


Clever wordplay there! Yes, "Anonymous" did write it that way, but I personally enjoyed separating "the wheat from the chaff" in his article, as I thought that he made some valid points. 


Will Scarlet said:


> Or should that be 'exactly who we wanted him to be'?


Yes, I personally consider the Phoenician/Jew allegations as "chaff", however, the Stanleys were an important family at that time, even in line for the throne - Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby - Wikipedia


Will Scarlet said:


> Trust me - no member of the Royal Family would ever been seen dead driving a Fauxkin Vauxhall.


 I should have been more specific as to the time period that the royal family took over Vauxhall directly - "Falkes de Breauté's lands reverted to the de Redvers family after his death in 1226.[9] In 1293, South Lambeth and the manor of "la Sale Faukes" passed, probably by trickery, to King Edward I,[9] who purchased several de Redvers lands (including the Lordship of the Isle of Wight) from Isabel de Forz, 8th Countess of Devon (1237-1293), sister and heiress of Baldwin de Redvers, 7th Earl of Devon (1236-1262), shortly before her death.[10] In 1317 King Edward II granted the manor of Vauxhall, Surrey, to Sir Roger d'Amory for his "good services" at the Battle of Bannockburn." Vauxhall - Wikipedia


----------



## Grumpy Owl (Dec 4, 2021)

Great read, and a lot to take in, so will probably have go through again. 

Just as an aside, and I don't mean to take this off-topic, but it popped into my head after seeing all these names and the derivations of 'Fawkes', that the capital of the Falkland Islands is Stanley, not sure if this is relevant or not, but I just found it curious. 

As for whether Guy Fawkes ever actually existed, well yes I like the idea of "guy faux" = false/artificial person.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumpy Owl said:


> Great read, and a lot to take in, so will probably have go through again.


It looks like I "overwhelmed" everyone with my first thread! (lol)



Grumpy Owl said:


> Just as an aside, and I don't mean to take this off-topic, but it popped into my head after seeing all these names and the derivations of 'Fawkes', that the capital of the Falkland Islands is Stanley, not sure if this is relevant or not, but I just found it curious.


Good catch, that is very intriguing to me! "Stanley" was indeed named for a member of that prominent English Stanley family Edward Smith-Stanley, 14th Earl of Derby - Wikipedia

"Falkland" was named for *Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland - Wikipedia, whose great-grandfather Henry Cary Henry Cary, 1st Viscount Falkland - Wikipedia was created Viscount Falkland in the Scottish peerage in 1620, by King James I (Guy Fawkes?). *

"As for whether Guy Fawkes ever actually existed, well yes I like the idea of "guy faux" = false/artificial person."
According to confidential information from an avant-garde royal researcher, which has never been published in this manner, James/Guy was the founder of the elite royal family ("The Firm") of today, and the true "Great King of the World" (historically, he did consider himself to be the Augustus Caesar of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and later the British Empire were called the "empire (s) on which the sun never sets", the latter still being technically accurate as of 2021[2], however, Parliament did not go along with this "Caesar" designation for James), but the Fawkes (who used public royal names) later walked away from The Firm, disgusted by the infighting, and are today just regular "guys", living in obscurity. If no one believes this, that is just fine with them, I merely present this story as a possibly interesting curiosity.


----------



## Grumpy Owl (Dec 4, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Also, another imperfect memory, Bonfire Night wasn't celebrated in England until many years after the event. It's possible that the true celebration now familiar on the 5th November is actually commemorating The Glorious Revolution:
> 
> "On November 5th, 1688, William Prince of Orange, King of the Netherlands, puppet of the Jewish bankers, invaded England." Source


Until this day, I have never been able to fathom why people are encouraged to 'celebrate' someone who made a failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament, by setting off fireworks and lighting bonfires on a specific date. And what exactly is it that people are supposed to be 'celebrating'? The fact that he tried, or the fact that he was foiled? (The fact that many people will set off fireworks daily for a two to three week period surrounding the 5th November would suggest that many people just do it for 'a laugh' and don't realise what potential ritual they are playing along with)

I suppose it would have been a different story if he (Guy Fawkes) had been successful.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 4, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Also, another imperfect memory, Bonfire Night wasn't celebrated in England until many years after the event. It's possible that the true celebration now familiar on the 5th November is actually commemorating The Glorious Revolution:
> 
> "On November 5th, 1688, William Prince of Orange, King of the Netherlands, puppet of the Jewish bankers, invaded England."
> 
> ...


Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia
Gunpowder Plot in popular culture - Wikipedia


----------



## Grumpy Owl (Dec 4, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia
> Gunpowder Plot in popular culture - Wikipedia


It was more of a 'rhetorical question' if anything, I'm sure we're all aware of the 'official narrative', or at least some people are!

I just feel there is more of a 'ritualistic' approach to this than has ever been let on - some people take great pleasure is setting off loud fireworks and having large bonfires, which in turn just serves to annoy other people and stirs up a level of resentment and hatred amongst neighbours.

And yet many people carry out this 'ritual' every year, while giving little thought to what it is they're doing.

It does make you think.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 4, 2021)

Grumpy Owl said:


> I just feel there is more of a 'ritualistic' approach to this than has ever been let on


I hesitate to mention this, but since you asked, according to the website of a "tribulation watcher", who calls himself "John" (I cannot communicate with him about this, as he has taken his email address offline, fearing retribution), the English Folkes/Fulks/Faux royal family is the Antichrist line, going back in time (again, under different names) to the Flavian Roman Emperors Vespasian and his son Titus, who conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, besides being two of the seven heads (a third head is Emperor Domitian, son of Vespasian and brother of Titus) of the Beast of Revelation, which of course would make them the Antichrist family. They were also supposed to be originally involved in Mother Goddess worship, hence the "ritualistic" approach you mentioned?


----------



## Safranek (Dec 4, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> the English Folkes/Fulks/Faux royal family is the Antichrist line, going back in time (again, under different names) to the Flavian Roman Emperors Vespasian and his son Titus, who conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, besides being two of the seven heads (a third head is Emperor Domitian, son of Vespasian and brother of Titus) of the Beast of Revelation, which of course would make them the Antichrist family.


I don't find this far-fetched at all, since the destruction of the former civilization and the falsification of history likely lies in that direction.



Fawkes said:


> They were also supposed to be originally involved in Mother Goddess worship


The key word there is 'supposed'. The 'Romans' brought a patriarchal world system into place entirely replacing the Mother Goddess culture preceding them, so I find that part highly unlikely.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 4, 2021)

Safranek said:


> The key word there is 'supposed'. The 'Romans' brought a patriarchal world system into place entirely replacing the Mother Goddess culture preceding them, so I find that part highly unlikely.


I meant that they were Mother Goddess worshippers long before this family became Roman Emperors, as they also became actors/chameleons, playing many parts. If you are familiar with the works of Joseph Atwill and Ralph Ellis, the Flavians, according to them, created the Roman Catholic Christian religion with a "Christ" (Caesar/God) figure and a celibate "Pope" (Pontifex Maximus). However, even they retained a Virgin Mary/Mary Magdalene Mother/Wife Goddess element in the new religion. The avant-garde royal genealogist/historian believes that the paternal grandfather of Vespasian was actually Julius Caesar, also a proto-Christ figure, an elected "Pontifex Maximus", and later deified, who nevertheless, historically, made much of his claim to be a very distant descendant of the Goddess Venus/Aphrodite, as political propaganda for public consumption. On the other hand, John the Tribulation Watcher, with his "orthodox" Christian religious interpretation, considers ancient Mother Goddess worship to have been Antichrist behavior, in line with that family. So was male/female deity worship/veneration both sides of the same coin, created by the same elite family at different times and places for said public consumption?
Going back to the example of Julius Caesar, the "Roman" Great King of the World, was not his most famous liaison with Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt (a perfect candidate for the Great Queen of the World), and their progeny Caesarion, future heir to the Great Kingship? Yes, Caesar's adopted son Octavian became the Roman Emperor Augustus, but suppose Octavian had received Rome as a "consolation prize", with Caesarion faking his early demise, and actually ruling as Great King using aliases, as the avant-garde royal researcher has surmised. In other words, for the Elite "Breakaway Civilization", it wasn't just about Rome or a patriarchal world system, it was about the most eligible ruling royal bloodline through a "Great Mother", as well as a "Great Father". Using this royal yardstick, Octavian, though older, definitely ranked second behind Caesarion in terms of royal blood, and would not have dared to have actually murdered Caesarion, in defiance of his family, it was just another act. The same with Julius Caesar, who was predicted to become King in the East, and found a New World Order, but for his "assassination". His killing was staged, and he became just that. To get back on topic, the execution of Guy Fawkes was faked too, and James I became the Great King of the World. Same family, same performance, like a broken record, in more ways than one.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 5, 2021)

Grumpy Owl said:


> I just feel there is more of a 'ritualistic' approach to this than has ever been let on


"Another celebration involving fireworks, the five-day Hindu festival of Diwali (normally observed between mid-October and November), in 2010 began on 5 November. This led _The Independent_ to comment on the similarities between the two, its reporter Kevin Rawlinson wondering "which fireworks will burn brightest". [67]" Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia
"*Diwali* (English: /dɪˈwɑːliː/; *Deepavali* (IAST: _dīpāvalī_) or *Divali*; related to *Jain Diwali*, *Bandi Chhor Divas*, *Tihar*, *Swanti*, *Sohrai* and *Bandna*) is a festival of lights and one of the major festivals celebrated by Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and some Buddhists, notably Newar Buddhists.[8] The festival usually lasts five days and is celebrated during the Hindu lunisolar month Kartika (between mid-October and mid-November).[9][10][11] One of the most popular festivals of Hinduism, Diwali symbolizes the spiritual "victory of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance".[12][13][14][15] The festival is widely associated with Lakshmi, goddess of prosperity," Diwali - Wikipedia
"Lakshmi is venerated as a principle aspect of the Mother goddess." Lakshmi - Wikipedia
Comments by the avant-garde royal researcher on The Gunpowder Plot, Guy Fawkes, and King James I - 
"The House of Commons came to see Guy Fawkes as more of a hero than an villain, because his matter-of-fact profession was the removal of Scots from England.  The very name of Fawkes symbolized loyalist/royalist, and James had brought disgrace upon that name. The blame game quickly shifted away from Fawkes to the Jesuits.  They were also an easy target.
The Gunpowder Plot was a type of terrorist act, and one that James had perpetuated upon both Parliament and inveterate Catholics.  James got away with it mainly because no one dared accuse him (apart from the immediate royal family).  It's debatable whether anything useful was achieved by it (even from the standpoint of the court), and it probably only cemented his reputation as a "fool." Sir Anthony Weldon claimed that James had been termed "the wisest fool in Christendom", an epithet associated with his character ever since. [3]


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 5, 2021)

I find the concept of the Anti-Christ family er... interesting. This assumes that at some point the Anti-Christ became incarnate, presumably that would have to be after the birth of Christ, otherwise people would be constantly asking "Anti-who?" Does the theory claim that the Beast of Revelation incarnated each of its seven heads and thus gave rise to the Anti-Christ family? However, if this was the case then how could they be involved in Goddess Worship prior to becoming the Anti-Christ family? Perhaps they were Goddess Worshippers who became demonically possessed, each by a head of the Beast of Revelation, but then that would mean that they weren't able to pass on their Anti-Christness to their descendants as it wouldn't be in their genetic makeup - if that's actually the way that such personality disorders work.

I'm not taking the p*ss here, I am genuinely interested.



Fawkes said:


> Christian religious interpretation, considers ancient Mother Goddess worship to have been Antichrist behavior, in line with that family.



OK, but that would apply to 99% of the entire pre-Christian world. This is just the standard Christian demonisation of pagan belief systems routine. Are we sure that The Anti-Christ Family (sounds like an old black and white US TV series... diddly-duh, clap-clap, diddly-duh etc.) weren't simply continuing their pre-Christian 'pagan' beliefs and were therefore being slandered, liabled and demonised by Christian officials?



Fawkes said:


> In other words, for the Elite "Breakaway Civilization", it wasn't just about Rome or a patriarchal world system, it was about the most eligible ruling royal bloodline through a "Great Mother", as well as a "Great Father".



Did I miss something? Where did that come from? Again, this sounds like the way the system worked in pre-Christian times.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 5, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Does the theory claim that the Beast of Revelation incarnated each of its seven heads and thus gave rise to the Anti-Christ family?


From memory, my understanding of the theory (from the perspective of "John" the tribulation watcher, not me) is that the early Roman Emperors were against Christ (or persecuted his early Christian apostles/ followers), and seven of them lived around this time frame, thus SYMBOLICALLY seven of them represented the seven heads. From memory, I believe that Nero was one also, but Vespasian/Titus/Domitian were the closest "nuclear family" group, and Domitian was supposed to have personally persecuted John, the author of Revelation, eventually banishing him to the island of Patmos, where he wrote it John of Patmos - Wikipedia . Ah, here is an article about it that I just found Seven Roman Emperors. As you can see, they are being selective about the seven Emperors, and there are other interpretations of the "seven heads". The Fulks Counts of Anjou descended from a legendary figure called Tertullus, and "John"(the tribulation watcher, he may have chosen this name from John of Patmos) has pushed this Tertullus way back in time as the ancestor of Roman Emperor Vespasian. Tertullus, in turn (again according to John), is supposed to be related to a high priestess "pagan" Goddess worshipper. In John's opinion, Goddess worship is against Christian beliefs. Here is what I mean, John thinks these Artemis worshippers are relatives of Vespasian, as a "Tertullus" married into this family - Plancia Magna - Wikipedia Also, Patmos itself, where the original John wrote Revelation, was supposed to be the island founded by Artemis, whom he was trying to replace with the worship of Christ. Patmos - Wikipedia


Will Scarlet said:


> OK, but that would apply to 99% of the entire pre-Christian world. This is just the standard Christian demonisation of pagan belief systems routine. Are we sure that The Anti-Christ Family (sounds like an old black and white US TV series... diddly-duh, clap-clap, diddly-duh etc.) weren't simply continuing their pre-Christian 'pagan' beliefs and were therefore being slandered, liabled and demonised by Christian officials?


Exactly. John the tribulation watcher appears, in my opinion, to be a "standard", fundamentalist Christian (I don't know if he would consider himself an "official", just a believer). Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, I cannot communicate with or question him about his beliefs, as he deleted his email address.


Will Scarlet said:


> Did I miss something? Where did that come from? Again, this sounds like the way the system worked in pre-Christian times.


Again, you are right, and it continued to work that way among the Elite family throughout the "Christian" era, regardless of what belief systems the other 99+% of the population held. This family are actors on the world stage, helping to create world religions in the first place, and besides having Roman Emperors, also Popes controlling religion from their close relatives. I don't know if you have heard of him, but "Roman Piso" is big on this aspect of that Elite royalty. This is an old article, and some of the links don't work anymore, but it may give you a general idea of the Roman Piso theory. A Checklist: Specific Items Related to the Synthesis of Christianity


Will Scarlet said:


> I find the concept of the Anti-Christ family er... interesting. This assumes that at some point the Anti-Christ became incarnate, presumably that would have to be after the birth of Christ, otherwise people would be constantly asking "Anti-who?"


John the tribulation watcher believes that the Antichrist is yet to come from this family, in the future. He will not try to name him yet, but his latest idea is that he will be revealed after the 2024 Presidential election, and that the Tribulation is connected to the arrival of comet Apophis on Friday the 13th of April, 2029. Just for fun, I have personally noticed that April 13th is the supposed birthdate of Guy Fawkes, occurring 459 years before that!
John also believes that Dr. FAUCI is a spokesperson for the Antichrist line, and that he too ultimately descends from the Fulks Counts of Anjou. 


Various medieval legends also made the Fulks Counts of Anjou, the original Plantagenets, of the devil's race. Here is one version (yes, another long-winded explanation to blow your mind!  ) -


"The House of Anjou, or Angevins, were a family of Frankish origin descended from a ninth-century noble name Ingelger (supposed to be the "son" of Tertullus), who were Counts of Anjou since 870 (Ingelger's son, Fulk I, the Red Falcon, Count of Anjou, actually had a son named GUY. As I had previously posted from the "Anonymous" Guy Fawkes article, "The meaning of falcon also tells us just how old the Falkes/Vaux lineage is. See Horus, the falcon-headed deity of ancient Egypt. The name Horus comes from the ancient Egyptian word for falcon and is believed to have originally meant “one who is above”. It is also etymologically linked to the Semitic verb “to see”, so it makes sense that the Eye of Horus is actually the eye of a falcon." Guy Fawkes had a falcon crest on his Fawkes coat of arms). The Angevin monarchs also never shied away from their supposedly supernatural origins, said to have been descended from a demon.






Even King Richard the Lionheart was reputedly fond of saying that his whole family “came from the devil and would return to the devil” as a result of their connection to the Demon Countess of Anjou. So, who was this Countess? Well, as always with legends, there is more than one version but all of them contain a beautiful woman named Melusine.





One story gives Melusine’s background, the tale beginning with her mother, Pressyne. It was in the time of the crusades when, Elynas, King of the Alba (Scotland), went hunting one days and came across a beautiful lady in the forest. Elynas fell in love instantly and persuaded Pressyne to marry him but she only agreed on the promise—for there is often a hard and fatal condition attached to the pairing of any mortal to fay creature—that he must not enter her chamber when she birthed or bathed their children. He agreed and she eventually gave birth to triplets but when he forgot his vow, and entered her chamber while she was bathing, Pressyne left the kingdom with her three daughters and went to the lost isle of Avalon.

On their fifteenth birthday, the eldest daughter, Melusine, asked why they lived on the island. Upon given the answer, she vowed revenge to her father, and she and her sisters, Melior and Palatyne, locked Elynas inside the heart of a mountain. When Pressyne learned what the daughters had done, she became enraged and punished them, Melusine condemned to take the form of a serpent from the waist down every Saturday night.

This next version names the Count of Anjou as Black Fulk, (while yet another names his father, Geoffroy Greymantle) but legend differs as to where Fulk met Melusine. Some say that it was in a forest whilst out hunting, others trace it to the crusades in the Holy Lands. Regardless, he returned to Anjou having married the beautiful Moorish girl. It is said the wicked temper and high-vaulting ambition of Melusine’s true father (he, being the Devil and not Elynas) was passed down throughout the generations, inherited by the Counts of Anjou and subsequently, the Plantagenet kings. Remember, the Black Prince, son of Edward III, was known to possess such a temper, and some said it only flared once he stepped upon French soil!

Melusine was everything Fulk could have hoped for in a countess. She was beautiful, charming and accomplished, a strong and efficient mistress of her household and a loyal and attentive wife. Over the years, she bore him three fine sons. There was just one slight problem in that she had an aversion to attending Mass, and when he could get her in church, she slipped out prior to the moment when the Host was transformed.

Now Fulk, was not much put out by this behaviour, but he was curious, so the next time Melusine attended, he had his knights bar the chapel door. As the climax of the Mass approached, Melusine became more and more agitated, looking for an escape. When the consecrated Host was presented before her, she gave a great scream, and assuming her true form, sprouted wings and flew out of the chapel with one of her sons in each hand, never to be seen again. The remaining son, for whom she did not have a hand free, went on to sire the subsequent line of Counts of Anjou, and Plantagenet kings."

As far as trying to reconcile my thread with the "stolen history" theories of this site, which is new to me, all I can say for now is that both John the tribulation watcher, and the avant-garde royal researcher, don't mention it, except that the latter believes the ancient Egyptian dynasties occurred later than "historically" recorded, and admits that he finds it hard to trace the ancestry of the royal Elite back through the "Dark Ages". However, both believe that the Fulks Counts of Anjou actually descend back in time through the Byzantine (Eastern Greek) Emperors, and thus eventually to the early Western Roman Emperors, through this unrecorded (nonexistent?) period of time.


----------



## luddite (Dec 6, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> It’s always the maternal lines that are scrubbed or fudged, because that’s usually where the Jewish ancestry is hiding.


I hadn't joined those doors before. Thank you. 


Fawkes said:


> Fawkes/Fowkes are also royal, through the "Antichrist" Rose (Rosicrucian) Line,


Anymore info on that? 



Will Scarlet said:


> worth mentioning that the period under discussion is during the 'Middle Period of the 'Great Eviction' when officially there were no Jews in England  jew  due to the fact that they had all been kicked out in 1240 and wouldn't be readmitted until Cromwell let them back in 1665, coincidental with The Great Plague, swiftly followed by The Great Fire.


These coincidence follow an all too obvious pattern. Rats bring plague.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 6, 2021)

luddite said:


> Anymore info on that?


It was "John" the tribulation watcher who made that claim, and he does not take messages, but I believe he could be referring to the Fawkes=Falko/Fulko name mixture going all the way back to ancient Egypt and the Elite royal family of the Pharaoh God/Kings. "As I had previously posted from the "Anonymous" Guy Fawkes article, "The meaning of falcon also tells us just how old the Falkes/Vaux lineage is. See Horus, the falcon-headed deity of ancient Egypt Horus - Wikipedia. The name Horus comes from the ancient Egyptian word for falcon and is believed to have originally meant “one who is above”. It is also etymologically linked to the Semitic verb “to see”, so it makes sense that the Eye of Horus is actually the eye of a falcon." Guy Fawkes had a falcon crest on his Fawkes coat of arms, and the first Fulk Count of Anjou (the Counts of Anjou were the original Plantagenets) was called "Fulk the Red", i.e., "Red Falcon", one of whose sons was GUY -  Fulk I, Count of Anjou - Wikipedia
The Pyramid Texts (c. 2400–2300 BC) describe the nature of the pharaoh in different characters as both Horus and Osiris. The pharaoh as Horus in life became the pharaoh as Osiris in death, where he was united with the other gods. New incarnations of Horus succeeded the deceased pharaoh on earth in the form of new pharaohs.[11] According to its traditional history, AMORC (*Ancient and Mystical Order Rosæ Crucis)* traces its origin to _Mystery Schools_ established in Egypt during the joint reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III and Hatshepsut, about 1500 BCE.[10] They united the priesthoods of Egypt into a single order under the leadership of Hatshepsut's Vizier, Hapuseneb.[11] Each Temple had its associated _Per Ankh_ (House of Life) where the Mysteries were handed down.[12] In uniting the priesthoods, the _Per Ankhu_ were also united. Those schools were formed to probe into "the mysteries of life" – in other words, natural phenomena, and initiatic spirituality.[13] AMORC also claims that among their most esteemed pupils were Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) and his wife Nefertiti.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 6, 2021)

@Fawkes OK, so what I'm hearing is all very familiar stuff to me and it's all pretty standard if you step outside of the Christian 'box'. By that I mean these 'legends' are always corrupted and 'demonised' by some bishop and his scribes to be portrayed as the work of the devil/satan/lucifer. There are many practically identical 'legends'.

Have you ever considered that the Franks/Normans and the Romans were actually one and the same? The Normans had veritable story factories connected to their 'royal' palaces. For example, Chrétien de Troyes was from one such factory and he worked for Marie of Champagne who was responsible for introducing the 'courtly romance' theme into the Arthurian legends. Perhaps these story factories pumped out all the Roman Empire drama, which was practically identical to the Norman Empire, both Testaments and plenty of vain royal twaddle to give the aristocrats a legitimacy back to once incarnate gods and goddesses? After all, that's hardly a concept exclusive to Christianity. They used exactly the same packaging for Jesus Christ - an incarnate god - because that's what the market expected. It was obviously the Christians who invented and applied the term "The Anti-Christ Family', they didn't call themselves that I suppose. Not forgetting the evidence that the NT was written in France - France - Biblical Israel

...I'm no nearer making sense of Guy Fawkes and The Gunpowder Plot tbh.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Have you ever considered that the Franks/Normans and the Romans were actually one and the same?


Not before I joined this site, I shall have to investigate it more here, Thank You.



Will Scarlet said:


> I'm no nearer making sense of Guy Fawkes and The Gunpowder Plot tbh.


This is my own opinion from all of this information, in a nutshell - (1) King James/Guy Fawkes was a native Scottish King, now with English subjects, some of whom mistrusted him as a "foreigner". The assassination "Plot" against him, which he masterminded, was an attempt to gain sympathy for him from those malcontented subjects. (2) The "Plot", and its aftermath of gruesome public executions, was also a warning to the real enemies of James/Guy, as to what would happen to them if they dared to conspire against him.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 6, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Not before I joined this site, I shall have to investigate it more here, Thank You.
> 
> 
> This is my own opinion from all of this information, in a nutshell - (1) King James/Guy Fawkes was a native Scottish King, now with English subjects, some of whom mistrusted him as a "foreigner". The assassination "Plot" against him, which he masterminded, was an attempt to gain sympathy for him from those malcontented subjects. (2) The "Plot", and its aftermath of gruesome public executions, was also a warning to the real enemies of James/Guy, as to what would happen to them if they dared to conspire against him.



OK thanks for that. So you discount the Protestant / Catholic (Jesuit) element altogether then?


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> "The Anti-Christ Family'


Just a reminder that 'anti-' could very well be 'ante-', meaning _before_ in Latin, not _against_. That means the AntiChrist obviously precedes the arrival of Christ who starts the 'new era', and is obviously 'evil' since doesn't know Christ because preceding his arrival.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> So you discount the Protestant / Catholic (Jesuit) element altogether then?


No, as the avant-garde royal researcher considers the royal elites to be responsible for creating all of the Protestant / Catholic (Jesuit) elements in the first place. The Jesuits were double agents, controlled opposition and a buffer for King James/Guy Fawkes. As stated earlier, "[Jesuit priest Henry] Garnet and Catesby met for a third time on 24 July 1605, at the house of the wealthy catholic Anne Vaux.  William Capon's map of Parliament clearly labels the undercroft used by “Guy Vaux” to store the gunpowder. Wikipedia is giving us a huge clue here. Without ever explicitly linking Anne and Guy, they’re telling us who the Fawkes really are. They were Vaux."

Henry Garnet Henry Garnet - Wikipedia was born and raised in Heanor, Derbyshire, where a branch of the Fawkes/Fouke family also lived (Anne Vaux much later moved to Stanley Grange, only half a dozen miles away, and founded a school for boys from Catholic noble families), and after moving to London "often dined with Sir John Popham, who as Lord Chief Justice was to preside over the trial of the Gunpowder Plotters, men whose association with Garnet would eventually prove so fateful." In addition, Popham was related to the Poles, whom both John the tribulation watcher and the avant-garde royal researcher have as allied to the Fawkes/Folkes family, using various forms of that Pole surname also.

By the way, I certainly would be overwhelmed by this "deluge" of information myself, if I were reading it all for the first time, and I certainly admire your perseverance and patience in trying to digest it all. For what it may be worth, it took me a long time to gather this from the different researchers I have mentioned. Of course this is only my interpretation of their information, and as I am trying to display it on a public forum, readers such as yourself may come up with better answers and suggestions than myself. This, in turn, aids my personal research further, so I am grateful for any constructive criticism in that regard.


Will Scarlet said:


> OK, so what I'm hearing is all very familiar stuff to me and it's all pretty standard if you step outside of the Christian 'box'. By that I mean these 'legends' are always corrupted and 'demonised' by some bishop and his scribes to be portrayed as the work of the devil/satan/lucifer. There are many practically identical 'legends'.


Very true, I do agree, but in this case we have an actual member of that family,  King Richard the Lionheart, who certainly was no "bishop" or "scribe", admitting quite freely that his family came from the "devil" and would return to him. He was also very proud of being the great-grandson of Fulk V, Count of Anjou and Crusader King of Jerusalem. Part of the reason that he himself went on Crusade was that he was hoping to emulate Fulk and become King of Jerusalem himself. Richard even had two natural sons named "Fulk" and "Philippe de Faulconbridge". Joan de St. Pol


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 6, 2021)

I'm certainly not going to disagree with your interpretations as to what happened and I really appreciate you sharing all of your findings and the various speculations. However, I have had an unresolved issue with the whole affair for many years now - kind of 'unfinished business'.

I think there's even more to the whole issue "than are dreamt of in your philosophy" so to speak. For me it's James' mother who's key to the more subtle hidden aspects. I mentioned this in the The Great Storm, The Black Alchemist & Toxic Ley Lines thread. In the book by Andrew Collins, called 'The Seventh Sword' (1991), Mary Queen of Scots features as being the key figure in a secret organisation referred to as Meonia. The book contains a great deal of information, a certain amount of which is chaff that needs to be separated from the wheat. As I said, this was all many years ago and unfortunately my brother has since loaned the book to someone and never got it back. Over the years (30 actually), one changes ones mind about things many times and one sees things in new and different ways, then one remembers having read something once, but one has only one's vague memories and, as one doesn't have the book for one to refer too, one is buggered. That's what happened. I 'know' that the key to all of the antics of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods is somewhere in that book. The Meonia faction was involved in a secret struggle with another group.

Another member, @FarewellAngelina had also read the book, but couldn't remember much more than me. He managed to source another copy though, but unfortunately he seems to have abandoned the forum.

I am immersed in another project at the moment, but I'm going to put 'The Seventh Sword' on my Christmas list and hopefully resolve the unresolved issues next year. So, I will reserve my own judgement on Mr Fawkes and the Plot until after I've read the book... and probably found out that I was completely mistaken.

I have some images relating to the Plot and Guy Fawkes somewhere - not photographs of course. I'll see if I can find them.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> However, I have had an unresolved issue with the whole affair for many years now - kind of 'unfinished business'.


Thank You Kindly, I would love to see whatever you have to offer on this subject. Just to blow your mind further, the avant-garde royal researcher believes that James/Guy was grafted on to Mary as her son (he says this happened quite often among royals), and was actually the biological son of the "Virgin Queen" Elizabeth, who was actually the "Great Queen of the World", and thus James/Guy became the "Great King of the World" due to her.



Will Scarlet said:


> The Meonia faction was involved in a secret struggle with another group.


From The green stone, page 1

_"the chief minister Robert Cecil, had requested that Robert Catesby should be taken alive, as it was believed that he was in possession of a sacred relic which was a green jade gemstone called the meonia stone._​_The belief was that it was once set in Excalibur and historically had belonged to Mary queen of scots, who was the last legitimate catholic heir to the throne, after her death it was believed that the next heir should possess the stone._​_Cecil wished to destroy the stone so that it could not be used as a rallying symbol, but Catesby was shot dead and the location of the stone was lost."_​
"another group" would have to be the faction headed by King James/Guy Fawkes, as Robert Cecil was his Number One government director. This would also make sense if James/Guy were truly the ambitious Great King of the World biological son of Great Virgin Queen of the World Elizabeth, and not Mary Queen of Scots.

So far, I see nothing to indicate that Robert Catesby, Lady Gertrude Wintour, or Humphrey Packington had any right to the meonia stone (if it really existed, and I truly hope you find out), based upon kinship to Mary Queen of Scots. Even as a stepson and cousin, James/Guy was much more closely related to Mary (and entitled to the stone under that said kinship condition) than any of those nonroyals.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> "another group" would have to be the faction headed by King James/Guy Fawkes, as Robert Cecil was his Number One government director.



The thick plotens...


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Dec 8, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I'm certainly not going to disagree with your interpretations as to what happened and I really appreciate you sharing all of your findings and the various speculations. However, I have had an unresolved issue with the whole affair for many years now - kind of 'unfinished business'.
> 
> I think there's even more to the whole issue "than are dreamt of in your philosophy" so to speak. For me it's James' mother who's key to the more subtle hidden aspects. I mentioned this in the The Great Storm, The Black Alchemist & Toxic Ley Lines thread. In the book by Andrew Collins, called 'The Seventh Sword' (1991), Mary Queen of Scots features as being the key figure in a secret organisation referred to as Meonia. The book contains a great deal of information, a certain amount of which is chaff that needs to be separated from the wheat. As I said, this was all many years ago and unfortunately my brother has since loaned the book to someone and never got it back. Over the years (30 actually), one changes ones mind about things many times and one sees things in new and different ways, then one remembers having read something once, but one has only one's vague memories and, as one doesn't have the book for one to refer too, one is buggered. That's what happened. I 'know' that the key to all of the antics of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods is somewhere in that book. The Meonia faction was involved in a secret struggle with another group.
> 
> ...


I have not abndon


Will Scarlet said:


> I'm certainly not going to disagree with your interpretations as to what happened and I really appreciate you sharing all of your findings and the various speculations. However, I have had an unresolved issue with the whole affair for many years now - kind of 'unfinished business'.
> 
> I think there's even more to the whole issue "than are dreamt of in your philosophy" so to speak. For me it's James' mother who's key to the more subtle hidden aspects. I mentioned this in the The Great Storm, The Black Alchemist & Toxic Ley Lines thread. In the book by Andrew Collins, called 'The Seventh Sword' (1991), Mary Queen of Scots features as being the key figure in a secret organisation referred to as Meonia. The book contains a great deal of information, a certain amount of which is chaff that needs to be separated from the wheat. As I said, this was all many years ago and unfortunately my brother has since loaned the book to someone and never got it back. Over the years (30 actually), one changes ones mind about things many times and one sees things in new and different ways, then one remembers having read something once, but one has only one's vague memories and, as one doesn't have the book for one to refer too, one is buggered. That's what happened. I 'know' that the key to all of the antics of the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods is somewhere in that book. The Meonia faction was involved in a secret struggle with another group.
> 
> ...


Alas, I have not abandoned this forum Will - personal matters get in the way sometimes. With extreme synchronicity I can declare that I have just finished reading 'The Seventh Sword'. Took me months because I don't read quickly - too much detail missed otherwise. Plus I usually have about four books on the go at any one time.

 The other group were 'the Wheel' with connections in the Netherlands - the Orange bunch. The whole book made more sense this time around bearing in mind the stolen history angle .

One thing really struck me about the psychic questing angle - the ley lines and other ancient sites and their connections to the natural "power grid" of the land . Telluric currents. 

Maybe those mud floods were a result of misuse of that grid . Those cities and their buildings destroyed themselves perhaps. 

Should Santa not arrive because you have been naughty I could lend you my copy should you wish. 

This is my fourth laptop since I began questioning everything. It's a dear do and time consuming having to set everything right.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 8, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> The thick plotens...


In view of the royal connections of this subject, I believe that you just committed a "silver" spoonerism! 


FarewellAngelina said:


> The other group were 'the Wheel' with connections in the Netherlands - the Orange bunch.


Ah, Thank You, the "Orange bunch" who overthrew the grandson of James I, James II. In that case, James I might be on the side of Meonia, as he is the nearest relative of Mary Queen of Scots. The mystery, to me, would be why didn't Mary give the stone to her heir James in the first place. Did she give it to Robert Catesby to hold for James, and Catesby then double-crossed him, which is why James sent Cecil after Catesby? May I ask if King James is mentioned in connection with this stone, in "The Seventh Sword"?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 9, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> I have not abandoned this forum Will



Excellent news! 



FarewellAngelina said:


> Should Santa not arrive because you have been naughty I could lend you my copy should you wish.
> 
> This is my fourth laptop since I began questioning everything. It's a dear do and time consuming having to set everything right.



I might take you up on that, many thanks for the offer. Btw, I have just lost 2 flat-screen TVs within a month, not as frustrating, but a bloody expensive game.



FarewellAngelina said:


> The other group were 'the Wheel' with connections in the Netherlands - the Orange bunch. The whole book made more sense this time around bearing in mind the stolen history angle .



I remember the name now. Yes, that's exactly what I'm hoping for the next time around.


Fawkes said:


> James I might be on the side of Meonia, as he is the nearest relative of Mary Queen of Scots.



I'm liking the sound of that much more, it seems to gel. Mary was a huge threat to Elizabeth I and had to be locked away.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Dec 9, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> In view of the royal connections of this subject, I believe that you just committed a "silver" spoonerism!
> 
> Ah, Thank You, the "Orange bunch" who overthrew the grandson of James I, James II. In that case, James I might be on the side of Meonia, as he is the nearest relative of Mary Queen of Scots. The mystery, to me, would be why didn't Mary give the stone to her heir James in the first place. Did she give it to Robert Catesby to hold for James, and Catesby then double-crossed him, which is why James sent Cecil after Catesby? May I ask if King James is mentioned in connection with this stone, in "The Seventh Sword"?


King James is certainly mentioned in "The Seventh Sword" but not really in connection with the stone as I recall.

Mary's son James never really knew her from what I gather . She was imprisoned in various castles around England for the last nineteen years of her life. James ascended to the throne of Scotland at the age of ten assuming full control at the age of twenty. This part is history as we were taught at school.

The book gives information , gained psychically, that 15 yr old Catesby visited Mary imprisoned in a Staffordshire castle accompanied by uncle George Wyntour in 1585 where the greenstone was passed to Catesby .

The book also mentions the historic fact ( if such a thing exists) that Mary's mother was the Mary of Guise , French and from the Guise-Lorraine family with an interest in returning a catholic to the Monarchy. This family gets a fair few mentions in the book.

Hope this is relevant and gives you another line of research . 

When I was a bonny wee laddie growing up in Scotland we went guising around Halloween - trick or treating as as it is now known. Is that a link to Guido/Guy I now wonder?


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 9, 2021)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The book gives information , gained psychically, that 15 yr old Catesby visited Mary imprisoned in a Staffordshire castle accompanied by uncle George Wyntour in 1585 where the greenstone was passed to Catesby .


First of all, Thank You for your information. "information, gained psychically" sends up a red flag to me, and why on earth would Mary entrust such a precious stone to a 15 year old boy, who wasn't even related to her? I personally find it very doubtful that someone that age would be allowed to visit her in the first place, unless it was her son James. What connection is this boy Robert Catesby supposed to have to Mary, besides being Roman Catholic, that she would trust him so much? I doubt that in real life she ever heard of him, let alone met him, as he was only a teenager when she was executed.

I do find it interesting that Cateby's father William, in 1581, had been tried in Star Chamber alongside William Vaux, 3rd Baron Vaux of Harrowden, which shows a Guy Fawkes/Vaux connection, as the daughter of Baron Vaux, Anne Vaux, was accused of associating with and aiding Guy and the other Gunpowder Plotters. Also, another relation of Catesby, Sir Francis Throckmorton, had been executed in 1584 for his involvement in a plot to free Mary, Queen of Scots., so I doubt any Roman Catholic Catesby kin of his would be allowed to visit Mary, for security reasons, if nothing else. Speaking of Mary of Guise, her nephew, and her daughter Mary's first cousin, Henry I, Duke of Guise, was to have led an invasion of England as part of this Throckmorton Plot.

Nevertheless, it sounds like a very interesting book, with some nuggets of information to be gained from it. Also, it is intriguing how Halloween and Guy Fawkes Day/Night seem to have elements in common.


Will Scarlet said:


> I'm liking the sound of that much more, it seems to gel. Mary was a huge threat to Elizabeth I and had to be locked away.





FarewellAngelina said:


> Hope this is relevant and gives you another line of research .


Actually, if kinship counts, and one wants to try to tie together all of the previous strands mentioned, Elizabeth, the daughter of King James (whom the Gunpowder Plotters wanted to make Queen), briefly did became Queen of Bohemia, with a "Rosicrucian" court. The Rosicrucians were involved with the Philosophers' Stone, and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus. 
"Between 1604 and 1616, the secret (Rosicrucian) brotherhood released three manifestos in Germany. The pamphlets called upon the educated and influential to unite to bring about a reformation of the educational, moral, and scientific establishments of Europe.

The manifestos also shared some startling assertions, among them:

1. The end of the world was near, but those who had become enlightened by the new reformation would be initiated into a higher consciousness.

2. New stars that had appeared in the constellations of Cygnus (the Swan) and Serpentarius predicted the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church. Note- 
*"A Star is Born*

It was reported in the news recently (January 2017) that astronomers are fairly certain that a new and very bright “star” will appear in the constellation Cygnus (the Swan) sometime around the year 2022. (i) It is believed by some that the appearance of this new star could have repercussions of Biblical proportions!"

3. The Illumined Father Christian Rosenkreuz had divined the secret code that God placed in the universe in the beginning of time.

4. The transmutation of base metals into gold and precious gems is a natural miracle that has been revealed to such magi as Christian Rosenkreuz.

5. The Rosicrucian Fellowship has wealth to distribute, but it does not wish a single coin from anyone."

The rival House of Orange (the Wheel) offered Elizabeth and her family sanctuary after their defeat and fall from the Bohemian throne, also (in order to try and get the Green Stone from her?). Elizabeth eventually wound up back in England (with the Green Stone?). 



Fawkes said:


> Anne Vaux, was accused of associating with and aiding Guy and the other Gunpowder Plotters.


"prior to the ‘original’ seven (swords) cast in the eighteenth century there was meant to be the sword fashioned in 1604 (apparently using a blade found in the tomb of Gwevaraugh herself) by Anne Vaux. This is the sword originally placed in the bridge at the Knight’s Pool and found by James Adams (one of the Victorian Meonians) in 1872, then lost aboard the ill-fated Treneglos off the coast of Ireland (I think) in 1883. One of the Victorian copies was then placed back at Knight’s Pool by E.V.V. Wheeler in 1885." "as I understand it the ORIGINAl Meonia swords were cast back in 1772 by jacobite supporters of Charles Edward Stewert (great-great-grandson of King James I) either in France or Italy , some of which made there way into England .A second batch was cast around 1879 and it was these swords that Mary Heaths meonia group used" Topic: SWORDS OF MEONIA | psychicQuesting.com A great-grandmother of Mary Heath was a Talbot, and a George Talbot, 6th Earl of Shrewsbury, was the keeper of Mary Queen of Scots.


----------



## Safranek (Dec 9, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> The Rosicrucians were involved with the Philosophers' Stone, and the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus.


Not to go off topic but I had a hunch a long time ago that the Rosicrucians possessed old information regarding the ancient world and that they were initially the good guys. I bought their book 'The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception' at the time and read it. Its a long book with many chapters about the different phases of creation. I think I will re-read it again with new eyes.



Will Scarlet said:


> Over the years (30 actually), one changes ones mind about things many times and one sees things in new and different ways, then one remembers having read something once, but one has only one's vague memories and, as one doesn't have the book for one to refer too, one is buggered.


This is indeed the case, but I still have the book.

------------------------------------------------

I'm looking forward to all your additional research to see if you can come up with a consensus regarding the most likely sequence of events or if the matter stays mostly unresolved.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 10, 2021)

Safranek said:


> I'm looking forward to all your additional research to see if you can come up with a consensus regarding the most likely sequence of events or if the matter stays mostly unresolved.


Thank You for your comments, you are very kind. I certainly don't think I know everything about this topic, despite being a "Fawkes" , and welcome any dissenting viewpoints that add knowledge to this subject. My personal opinion, at this moment in time, is the most obvious clue the "Gunpowder Plot" was fake is simply that it never actually happened, with an invented "Guy Fawkes/John Johnson" character becoming a "Halloweenish" national bogeyman, as propaganda to gain sympathy for the "foreign" Scottish King James I, now also ruling England.
As far as a Rosicrucian connection goes, we have also have an "underground stream", from at least the time of Queen Elizabeth, with Francis Bacon (a candidate for "William Shakespeare", and also for a hidden son of "The Virgin Queen" Elizabeth) and John Dee, among others, as leading lights of this movement. The "Green Stone" perhaps was symbolic, and not literally a stone, for as mentioned before, we have the Philosophers' Stone, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, and even the Holy Grail has been represented as a stone, not a literal cup, which could mean that esoteric symbolism was being used here, as in the case of the presumed existence of Christian Rosenkreuz. Could "his" allegorical "_Chymical Wedding", published in 1616, also be referring to the actual 1613 Valentine's Day wedding of the daughter of James I, Elizabeth Stuart, to Frederick V of the Palatinate, where even she was described as England's "rarest GEM"? 
We also have an "official" genealogical descent here, from Mary Queen of Scots (original possessor of the Green Stone?) - King James I - Elizabeth Stuart, so the "Holy Grail" stone/cup can also represent a special bloodline. _


Will Scarlet said:


> I'm liking the sound of that much more, it seems to gel. Mary was a huge threat to Elizabeth I and had to be locked away.





FarewellAngelina said:


> 15 yr old Catesby visited Mary imprisoned in a Staffordshire castle accompanied by uncle George Wyntour in 1585 where the greenstone was passed to Catesby .



Again, Thank You both, and I have a question. If this Green Stone was so powerful, and Mary had it, why didn't she use it herself to break out of prison, instead of entrusting it to an unrelated boy named Robert Catesby?
Also, despite having possessed the Green Stone himself for about 20 years, it seems to have done Catesby (and his later Gunpowder Plot conspirators) no good either. Could this "green stone" actually be a "red herring"?


----------



## Safranek (Dec 10, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Could this "green stone" actually be a "red herring"?


That was my first subconscious thought when I read about it up above.  Even if true, the 'power' of such stones can only be harnessed by those who HAVE power to begin with (sages, magi, etc.).


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 10, 2021)

Can't stop, will reply more later, but had to mention that Mary QoS was known as 'The Swan' (I think I recall from the book.)  Also Andrew Collins went on to write books focusing on Cygnus.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 10, 2021)

The Green Stone was also found at a place called The Swan's Neck, which was part of a river I think.



Fawkes said:


> "information, gained psychically" sends up a red flag to me, and why on earth would Mary entrust such a precious stone to a 15 year old boy, who wasn't even related to her? I personally find it very doubtful that someone that age would be allowed to visit her in the first place, unless it was her son James. What connection is this boy Robert Catesby supposed to have to Mary, besides being Roman Catholic, that she would trust him so much? I doubt that in real life she ever heard of him, let alone met him, as he was only a teenager when she was executed.



Personally, I'm OK with Information gained psychically, after all, they did recover the swords from some pretty obscure locations using psychic information. It's no different to non-psychic information really, there's good psychic information and there's also bad. That's why I spoke earlier about sorting out the 'wheat from the chaff'.

It may seem unlikely that Catesby had any connection to Mary and that she had never even heard of him, but it is impossible? I don't remember the plot, but I'm sure there must have been a more detailed explanation.

"_Mary possessed the Meonia Stone, wearing it on a ring, before passing it on to a young Robert Catesby (1573-1605), the leader of the Gunpowder Plot. Apparently, *he had been taken to see her with his father Sir William Catesby,* himself a recusant, when she was imprisoned at Tutbury Castle, in the neighbouring county of Staffordshire, just two years before his execution._" Source

(Posthumous execution, I suppose that means, as he was shot, buried, exhumed and then decapitated.) That makes the date of the meeting 1603. Trouble is...

"*William Catesby Knt. (1547 - 1598)*" Source

Robert Catesby's father had been dead for 5 years when he took his son to visit Mary. However, Robert Catesby would have been 31-ish years old in 1603, (as he was born around 1572,) rather than a 15 year old boy.



Fawkes said:


> a blade found in the tomb of Gwevaraugh herself) by Anne Vaux.



Where is Gwevaraugh / Gwenhwyfar / Guinevere buried? They claim to have found King Arthur's tomb in Glastonbury Abbey, but that was a sham. Besides, there were 3 Guineveres according to the Welsh Triads and all of them were Fae - Gwenhwyfar = White Phantom or White Fairy.

I'm also very suspicious of the Rosicrucians.



Fawkes said:


> "Between 1604 and 1616, the secret (Rosicrucian) brotherhood released three manifestos in Germany.



Not very secret then. 

The transmutation of base metals into gold is, or should be, an allegory for the transmutation of the human soul, rather than a natural financial miracle, imo. Fulcanelli would call this Kabala (Jewish deception) rather than Cabala.

Anyway, I must apologise. I want to try and avoid spouting off before I've re-read the book.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 10, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> That makes the date of the meeting 1603. Trouble is...


Mary Queen of Scots had been decapitated 16 years before this! 


Will Scarlet said:


> Anyway, I must apologise. I want to try and avoid spouting off before I've re-read the book.


No apologies necessary, I enjoy reading whatever you have to say, yea or nay (pardon the "poetry").


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 10, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Mary Queen of Scots had been decapitated 16 years before this!
> 
> No apologies necessary, I enjoy reading whatever you have to say, yea or nay (pardon the "poetry").



Ah-ha! So this all took place in Hades. Robert Catesby went on a quest to The Otherworld to get the Green Stone. This all makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 10, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Ah-ha! So this all took place in Hades. Robert Catesby went on a quest to The Otherworld to get the Green Stone. This all makes perfect sense now.


 However, if Queen Elizabeth was really the mother of King James/Guy Fawkes, as the avant-garde royal researcher claims, and she gave the green stone to James before SHE passed away in 1603, James could have given it to his "England's rarest GEM" daughter Elizabeth (where have I heard that name before, was she named after her biological Grandmother?), on the occasion of her "Chymical (Rosicrucian) Wedding" on Valentine's Day, 1613. This explanation isn't any weirder than that "Seventh Sword" stuff you dug up! 


Will Scarlet said:


> Where is Gwevaraugh / Gwenhwyfar / Guinevere buried? They claim to have found King Arthur's tomb in Glastonbury Abbey, but that was a sham. Besides, there were 3 Guineveres according to the Welsh Triads and all of them were Fae - Gwenhwyfar = White Phantom or White Fairy.


She's supposed to be with Arthur at Glastonbury Abbey. ???


Will Scarlet said:


> I'm also very suspicious of the Rosicrucians.


You may be right about that, here's what I posted earlier on this thread, the next to last paragraph of Page 1, Post #3 - "The Fawkes/Fowkes are also royal, through the "Antichrist" Rose (Rosicrucian) Line, including the Fulks/Foulques Counts of Anjou (plus a King of Jerusalem), who were the original Plantagenet royal dynasty (whose line goes down to King James/Guy Fawkes also), claimed to be descended from the Eastern Roman Emperor "Phocas" dynasty (also from the "Angelos" dynasty, with "Anjou" a possible derivation, and other dynastic Byzantine intermarriages, such as with the Komnenes). The preceding information comes from another "anonymous" Internet poster, who is a "Tribulation Watcher", and refuses to give his real name or allow email contact with him, as he fears reprisals."
The royal Fawkes/Fulks line, whose symbol was the falcon, goes back to the Pharaohs and their families of ancient Egypt, who according to tradition founded the Rosicrucian Order about 1500 BC. The Pharaohs were believed to be incarnations of Horus, who among many other functions was the god of kingship and the sky, represented with a FALCON head, and new incarnations of Horus succeeded the deceased pharaoh on earth in the form of new pharaohs.
Also from Post #3, "The meaning of falcon also tells us just how old the Falkes/Vaux lineage is. The name Horus comes from the ancient Egyptian word for falcon and is believed to have originally meant “one who is above”, so it makes sense that the Eye of Horus is actually the eye of a falcon. This is how these elite families choose their names; everything is a double (or triple) entendre. Everything is wordplay to them, including the similarity between Fawkes and the French faux, meaning fake." They used many different names as aliases, so that they could not be traced.


Will Scarlet said:


> Not very secret then.


I believe they were referring to the authors of those manifestos. 



Will Scarlet said:


> The transmutation of base metals into gold is, or should be, an allegory for the transmutation of the human soul, rather than a natural financial miracle, imo


It is. The true believers would read between the lines and know this, with the "financial miracles" only for the elite sponsors of the Rosicrucians, like the Faux (fakes), IMO.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 11, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> This explanation isn't any weirder than that "Seventh Sword" stuff you dug up!



I like it as much 



Fawkes said:


> She's supposed to be with Arthur at Glastonbury Abbey. ???



Depends if you believe that was genuine or a huge publicity stunt and another attempt to justify someone's 'right to rule' by linking them to Arthur.

Gerald of Wales, royal clerk and scholar of King Henry II, wrote 'De instructione principis' about 1191,

"Gerald explains that Arthur’s body was discovered at Glastonbury Abbey, in southwestern England, between two stone pyramids. He writes that the body the monks found was:

"buried deep in the earth in a hollow oak and indicated by wonderful, almost miraculous, signs, and it was brought into the church with honour and deposited becomingly in a marble tomb. Here too a leaden cross, placed under a stone, not above it as is the custom in our days, but rather fixed below, which I have seen, for I have touched these letters carved there, not raised or projecting but turned inwards towards the stone, contained: ‘Here lies buried the glorious king Arthur and Guinevere his second wife in the Isle of Avalon.’" _Source_





Source (_ibid_.)​
Gerald also described Arthur's remains as being those of a giant.

"After the exhumation in 1191, the remains of Arthur and Guinevere were placed in a tomb in the abbey church. This was the tomb which was opened in 1278 for the visit of King Edward I and Queen Eleanor. The abbey chroniclers state that this was located “in the choir, before the high altar”. The tomb was described by the antiquary John Leland when he visited Glastonbury in the 1530s. According to Leland, the tomb was of black marble with four lions at its base, a crucifix at the head and an image of Arthur carved in relief at the foot." _Source_

Thanks to Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, Glastonbury Abbey was reduced to a ruin by the 1540s. So, not much chance for Ann Vaux (1562 - 1637) to find a blade in Guinevere's tomb. _Unless... _she did it by Psychic Questing!_ _


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 11, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Thanks to Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries, Glastonbury Abbey was reduced to a ruin by the 1540s. So, not much chance for Ann Vaux (1562 - 1637) to find a blade in Guinevere's tomb. _Unless... _she did it by Psychic Questing!__


We must read what had I previously posted on this subject carefully ......  


Fawkes said:


> the sword fashioned in 1604 (apparently using a blade found in the tomb of Gwevaraugh herself) by Anne Vaux


In other words, this can mean Anne had the sword fashioned USING a blade found in the tomb of Gwevaraugh, wherever that was, and whenever it was found by someone, and given to Anne. She did not necessarily find that blade herself, but had access to it. It is intriguing that her father, Baron William Vaux, in 1581 had been tried in Star Chamber alongside Sir William Catesby, the father of Robert Catesby, for harbouring the Jesuit Edmund Campion. Anne herself was also accused and rumored to be associated with Guy Fawkes/James I and the other fake Gunpowder Plotters.


Will Scarlet said:


> Depends if you believe that was genuine or a huge publicity stunt and another attempt to justify someone's 'right to rule' by linking them to Arthur.
> 
> Gerald of Wales, royal clerk and scholar of King Henry II, wrote 'De instructione principis' about 1191,


Ah, from memory, I seem to recall that King Henry II was personally involved in this, claiming to be descended from King Arthur! He was a "Fawkes", of course, being the male line grandson of Fulk V, Count of Anjou and King of Jerusalem. I also remember that Henry too was offered the Kingship of Jerusalem, but turned it down, preferring to rule his Angevin Empire. However, his cousins (by grandfather Fulk's second marriage) had a claim to that Jerusalem Kingdom, and King Fulk was also associated with the Templars there.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 12, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> We must read what had I previously posted on this subject carefully ......



Sorry, you are right, I made the assumption it was the lady herself.



Fawkes said:


> Ah, from memory, I seem to recall that King Henry II was personally involved in this, claiming to be descended from King Arthur!



Quite so. He was having trouble with the Welsh and thought that the Arthur trick would placate them.


The general consensus seems to be that the Gunpowder Plot was a 'false-flag' event as no one has spoken in favour of the official version. I wonder if there would be any value in examining the fallout from the Plot in more detail. You have already mentioned that James wished to increase his popularity, but what were the actual effects of the Plot? Who benefited and who lost out? Was there a problem, reaction, solution scenario going on?

One effect has already been mentioned  - Bonfire Night, or 'Gunpowder Treason Day'. The official story claims that bonfires were lit on the very same day that the Plot was thwarted in thanksgiving and celebration that the King had survived. In January the following year the government passed the Observance of 5th November Act 1605, whereby church ministers were "required to hold a special service of Thanksgiving annually on 5 November, during which the text of the Act was to be read out loud. Everyone was required to attend, and to remain orderly throughout the service."

During this special service everyone was obliged to sit through a long diatribe, the flavour of which can be judged by the following preamble:

"many malignant and devilish Papists, Jesuits, and Seminary Priests, much envying and fearing, conspired most horribly, when the King's most excellent Majesty, the Queen, the Prince, and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, should have been assembled in the Upper House of Parliament upon the Fifth Day of November in the Year of our Lord One thousand six hundred and five, suddenly to have blown up the said whole House with Gunpowder : An Invention so inhuman, barbarous and cruel, as the like was never before heard of..." _Source_

It's pure anti-catholic brainwashing and it's also worth reading the full Wikipedia entry.

"an effigy-burning habit started in 1625 when Charles I married a Catholic, inspiring the immolation of papal images." _Source _

"Following Charles I's execution in 1649, the country's new republican regime remained undecided on how to treat 5 November. Unlike the old system of religious feasts and State anniversaries, it survived, but as a celebration of parliamentary government and Protestantism, and not of monarchy. Commonly the day was still marked by bonfires and miniature explosives, but formal celebrations resumed only with the Restoration, when Charles II became king. Courtiers, High Anglicans and Tories followed the official line, that the event marked God's preservation of the English throne, but generally the celebrations became more diverse. By 1670 London apprentices had turned 5 November into a fire festival, attacking not only popery but also "sobriety and good order" demanding money from coach occupants for alcohol and bonfires." _Source_

That would be the *City of London* apprentices btw.

"Attempts by the government to tone down Gunpowder Treason Day celebrations were, however, largely unsuccessful, and some reacted to a ban on bonfires in London (born from a fear of more burnings of the pope's effigy) by placing candles in their windows, "as a witness against Catholicism". When James was deposed in 1688 by William of Orange—who, *importantly*, landed in England on 5 November—the day's events turned also to the celebration of freedom and religion, with elements of anti-Jacobitism. While the earlier ban on bonfires was politically motivated, a ban on fireworks was maintained for safety reasons, "much mischief having been done by squibs". _Source ibid._

By 1790 the previous night of the 4th November had become known as 'Mischief Night.' The Gunpowder Plot had all but been forgotten and the Act was repealed in 1859. 'Mobs' would use it as an excuse for revenge on official figures and a policeman was killed in 1864.

'While the use of bonfires to mark the occasion was most likely taken from the ancient practice of lighting celebratory bonfires, the idea that the commemoration of 5 November 1605 ever originated from anything other than the safety of James I is, according to David Cressy, "speculative nonsense"' _Source ibid._

Speculative nonsense my asp. Samhain anyone? 

So, that was one effect of the Plot - much burning of Catholic effigies, which is hardly surprising really as they were the patsies or culprits or fall-guys.



Fawkes said:


> If you are familiar with the works of Joseph Atwill and Ralph Ellis, the Flavians, according to them, created the Roman Catholic Christian religion with a "Christ" (Caesar/God) figure and a celibate "Pope" (Pontifex Maximus).



Do they mention who was behind the creation of Protestantism?


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 12, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Do they mention who was behind the creation of Protestantism?


From memory, in a later book, Ralph Ellis mentions the HOUSE OF ORANGE, which he says is descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, because Mary Magdalene took their offspring to Provence, and their descendant, after the Merovingian dynasty, was *William of Gellone* (c. 755 – 28 May 812 or 814), the medieval *William of Orange. *


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 13, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> From memory, in a later book, Ralph Ellis mentions the HOUSE OF ORANGE, which he says is descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, because Mary Magdalene took their offspring to Provence, and their descendant, after the Merovingian dynasty, was *William of Gellone* (c. 755 – 28 May 812 or 814), the medieval *William of Orange. *



Interesting. From the same neck-of-the-woods there's also this The Betrayal of Albion Part 5


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 14, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Interesting. From the same neck-of-the-woods there's also this The Betrayal of Albion Part 5


Yes, what your brother wrote about is the same House of Orange Ralph Ellis is talking about, but they obviously come to different conclusions, as quoted from a review of the book Ellis wrote, below. At this moment in time, I would have to agree that the House of Orange was just controlled opposition for the James/Fawkes dynasty, as William was the great-grandson of King James I/Guy Fawkes, as was his wife Mary, and they were first cousins.  

"Ralph Ellis follows the trail of mythology and reveals compelling circumstantial evidence that Mary Magdalene did travel to France, and that her presence there has left its mark on the history of the region. Ralph then presents further information suggesting that the legacy of Mary Magdalene in Provence was bequeathed upon the city of Orange in southern France - the city that was central to the Royal Dutch House of Orange, and thus central to the entire Reformation and Enlightenment movement. The book then goes on to explore the Orange Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, the twin religious reforms that created the modern rational and technical world that we live in today."
Amazon.com

From the excerpts I have read, it looks as though Ellis is tying in the Magdalene to the original Orange in Provence (Lower Burgundy), as an ancestress of the Merovingians and also William of Gellone after them, who was the original William of Orange. The earlier Baux family members of Provence (supposed to be Vaux/Fawkes ancestors) are supposed to have helped him fight the Saracens, and one of them is believed to have married a daughter of his. William the Silent of Nassau (who married Baux descendants), inherited Orange from his childless cousin, a descendant of the last female Baux of that Orange line, and was the great-grandfather of the English King William of Orange. The Baux are some of the ancestors of, among other present royal families, the Houses of Monaco (the heir to that throne is "Marquis of Baux"), Belgium, Liechtenstein (that eventual heir is also the future Jacobite English pretender), Windsor, the Pretender King of France, the late Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, married to late Bilderberger founder Prince Bernhard, and both the Savoy heir of Italy and the rival Pretender. However, the Baux themselves seem to disappear into the woodwork, perhaps intentionally, and what did the sixteen points around the Star of Bethlehem symbolize on the Baux coat of arms, was it really the Star of Bethlehem guiding their supposed ancestor Balthazar to Jesus and eventually on to Provence, or the sixteen pointed "Vergina Sun", representing Helios? Vergina Sun - Wikipedia

The late Richard Stanley, of the "Postflaviana" website, had commented,
"The Dutch House of Orange, via William, briefly ascended to the English crown, and today it is associated with such as the Bilderbergers. It's origin in Burgundy is within the confines of ancient Sabaudia (now Burgundy, the Haute Savoy, and the Italian Piedmont), which I believe is one region where the Sabines relocated north to during the breakup of western imperial Rome. Mussolini's Fascists paid homage to this with their creation of the model city of Sabaudia, replete with tiles of Savoy Blue. Sabaudia also is home to a typical Templar round 'baptistry'.
Besides the fruit, the orange is a nice allusion to ancient sun worship."


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 14, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> So you discount the Protestant / Catholic (Jesuit) element altogether then?


I was looking among my old correspondence with the avant-garde royal researcher, and found this explanation - 

"What I'm finding is that most of the top royal males were taking a turn at being Pope, so any report of a rift between the church and state is "greatly exaggerated."  It doesn't appear that even the Jesuits were a "rogue" group, but just another entity under control of the Great King.  We would have to determine under which Popes the Jesuits were most virulent and see if that maps to any crackdown by the Great King against wayward princes.  Also, real power continues to have been invested in the Great Queen, so we might expect that she had her own "police force" within the Catholic Church, such as the Jesuits to keep all of her "boys" in line.  The Jesuits probably also filled the role of the "Goths" or the "Huns," i.e., a specter of fear to keep everyone on best behavior.  Every sheep needs a wolf in their life (haha), so yes the royal family created them too!"


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 14, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> The preceding information comes from another "anonymous" Internet poster, who is a "Tribulation Watcher", and refuses to give his real name or allow email contact with him, as he fears reprisals.


Andreu Marfull is the only person that comes to my mind who consistently claims the Anjou being covert Angelos. And...

... the Komnenos being the Habsburgs
The struggle Angelus (Anjou) – Laskaris Komnenos (Habsburg) for the control of the Roman Empire


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 14, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Andreu Marfull is the only person that comes to my mind who consistently claims the Anjou being covert Angelos. And...
> 
> ... the Komnenos being the Habsburgs


This is very interesting, I shall have to check that out! The avant-garde royal researcher claims that the Habsburgs are actually a branch of the Fulks of Anjou/Plantagenets, and thus they BOTH have royal Phocas/Angelos/Komnenos Byzantine ancestry, being two sides of the same coin in the Elite royal family. Here are some quotes by him on the subject of the "Fawkes" name-

"From what I can tell it was a fairly unusual surname, but also highly significant.  Count Fulk (Old French _Foulque) _of Anjou was the founder of the Angevin/Plantagenet dynasty in England.  So the name Guy Fawkes was probably signaling that King James was also founding a new dynasty (the Stuart). ["John" the Tribulation Watcher also connected the Stuarts to the Fulks, although both of these researchers work independently, and are not aware of each other, to the best of my knowledge].
The pseudonym "John Johnson" [used by Guy Fawkes] also points to John of Spain/Austria [he believes that John of Spain/Austria, a Habsburg, was the real father of King James/Guy Fawkes] and the latest in a sequence of "Johns" that rejuvenated the throne with their virility.  The previous John of Austria was the father of Ferdinand I, who restored fertility to the royal house.  There was even a later John of Austria that was put forward as a means to revive the Spanish Habsburg throne of Carlos II.
It's also very much of interest that the name Guy was not a typical English given name, either.  It seems to be borrowed from French and/or English and had the meaning of "leader/guide."  So, when combined with Fawkes there is another level of encoding!  Again, members of the court spoke English, French, Italian, etc. and could parse names like this very easily.

 One variant of the name is also Fake/Fakes, which would have similarly cued those within the royal court that the Gunpowder Plot was being staged (i.e., don't interfere with it). I've been also trying to connect the French name Foix or deFoix. It was Germaine. [Marfull mentions her also!]  But, the other Foix also seems significant.

The first Count Fulk of Anjou was specifically called "The Red Falcon" [Guy Fawkes had a falcon crest on his coat of arms]. He was contemporary with a Byzantine magnate called Leo Phokas.  This Leo led an unsuccessful coup for the Byzantine throne which we must now suspect was successful in some other sense, probably because it enabled the presumed commoner Romanos Lekapenos  to take the throne [the father of Romanos was named Theophylact the Unbearable, and John the Tribulation Watcher connects the name "Theophylact" to "Fulk". Also, a later Fulk Count of Anjou was known as "le Rechin", variously supposed to mean "quarreler", "rude", "sullen", "surly" and "heroic", and was noted to be a man with many reprehensible, even scandalous, habits"]. Leo Phokas was made into something of a comical figure after his plot failed. Sound familiar?? [Of course he means the Gunpowder Plot of the much later Guy Fawkes, with Guy being made a figure of scorn and ridicule every November 5]. The Byzantine family name Phokas is quite interesting in itself. An earlier Phokas had also staged a coup against Emperor Maurice, but was himself deposed by Heraclius! Things are never as they appear. For all we know Phocas was the biological father of Heraclius (the Younger) and an elaborate coup was staged for Heraclius to come to the throne [using information from John the Tribulation Watcher, I can connect Heraclius, through his second marriage to his own niece Martina, with the original Fulks Counts of Anjou. More fun and games, all in the Family!]".


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 15, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> We would have to determine under which Popes the Jesuits were most virulent



or the least virulent, as per the official line...

"_July 21, 1773, Pope Clement XIV dissolved the order completely. It had already been abolished in France and Spain. Clement refused to condemn the Society but merely noted he was making an administrative move for the peace of the church.

"By emphasizing missions and education, the Jesuits from the first exerted influence beyond their numbers. Not that their numbers remained small. Even before Ignatius' death the Society had almost a thousand members. In time it became the largest Roman Catholic order. Jesuits became known as the schoolmasters of Europe and were prominent as confessors to kings and emperors. They made advances in science.

"Their influence was resented. Partly this was their own fault. The Jesuits developed a system of logic and morality called casuistry which offered loopholes for all sorts of wrongdoing. In France, Blaise Pascal wrote his blistering Provincial Letters to expose alleged Jesuitical abuses. Elsewhere, Jesuitical controversies over rites, their theological disputes, and their close adherence to Rome made them many foes.

"Because Jesuits took their orders from no local authority but only the popes and their own generals, they were viewed with suspicion as foreign agents.

" In 1814 the Society was restored_." _Source_

Also, let's not forget about the founder of the Jesuits:

_"Ignacio De Loyola was born in the Basque province of Guipuzcoa, Spain. His parents were Marranos and at the time of his birth the family was very wealthy. As a young man he became a member of the Jewish Illuminati Order in Spain [WS: Los Alumbrados]. As a cover for his crypto-Jewish activities, he became very active as a Roman Catholic… In 1539 he had moved to Rome where he founded the ‘Jesuit Order’. 

“Ignatius Loyola devised an elaborate spy system, so that no one in the order was safe. If there was any opposition, death would come swiftly. The Jesuit order not only became a destructive arm of the Roman Catholic Church; it also developed into a secret intelligence service. While the Popes relied more and more on the Jesuits, they were unaware that the hardcore leadership were Jewish and that these Jews held membership in the Illuminati Order which despised and hated the Roman Catholic Church._” _Source_

Personally, I seriously doubt the last sentence.


Anyway, regarding the after-effects of the Gunpowder Hoax or Foax even, it would appear that its greatest achievement was increased Catholic persecution in England, so who benefited from that?

Also, further information regarding Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland, the one who had his own bowling alley in the Tower.

"His father died [1585], an apparent suicide, in the Tower of London, where he was being questioned about his allegedly treasonable dealings with Mary Queen of Scots. [Both he and his father were Protestants.]

_"When it became clear that the Protestant James VI of Scotland was likely to succeed Elizabeth, Northumberland sent his cousin Thomas Percy, a recent Catholic convert, on a secret mission to James's court three times in 1602. He said that English Catholics would accept James as king if he reduced the persecution of Catholics." __Source_

James replied with "loosely worded assurances of religious tolerance" which were all BS of course. Henry Percy had a house in Sussex, called Petworth House. I visited there on a few occasions back in the 80s. There he had what's called his 'Chemistry Laboratory', but it is blatantly obvious that it was an Alchemist's workshop. In fact Henry Percy was known as 'The Wizard Earl'.

_"This theory of the "diabolical triplicity" rested on innuendo, about the *occult interests* supposedly cultivated by the intellectual circles led by Percy and Raleigh, and possibly on the traitorous intent suggested only by rumours from the 1580s that Percy would marry Arbella Stuart, the next heir to the throne after the King and his offspring." (ibid.)_

He didn't end up marrying her btw. Here we see 'occult interests' that could be related to 'Meonia' or 'The Wheel'.

_"The Earl of Northumberland was suspected of misprision (having knowledge of the plot but not notifying the authorities). However, the Star Chamber did not have sufficient evidence to convict him of misprision and was unable to disprove his claim that he planned to be present at the fatal meeting of Parliament. They had to resort to more minor charges including his appointment of Thomas Percy to the Gentlemen Pensioners, of which Northumberland was captain, without the king's permission and without Percy taking the Oath of Supremacy. Northumberland was sent to the Tower of London at the king's pleasure and remained there for almost 16 years. He was also fined £30,000, equivalent to £6,700,000 in 2020, but in 1613, the king accepted £11,000 in final payment." (ibid.)_

Ker-ching! If it was all a foax and Henry Percy was actually in on it, then he was the only survivor of the original plotters. Far from being handsomely rewarded for his part in the foax, it actually cost him dearly. In fact, if he knew it was all a foax then he was a liability who should be either permanently silenced or kept very very happy. Whilst it may be considered that living the life of Riley in the Tower was 'keeping him happy', the financial penalty must have been crippling. This to me is odd, but could easily be the result of lies in the 'official' records or some kind of extortion ...maybe.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 15, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Personally, I seriously doubt the last sentence.


Ditto


Will Scarlet said:


> Whilst it may be considered that living the life of Riley in the Tower was 'keeping him happy', the financial penalty must have been crippling. This to me is odd, but could easily be the result of lies in the 'official' records or some kind of extortion ...maybe.


Also notice that Henry Percy's son Algernon married Anne Cecil, the granddaughter of his chief accuser, Robert Cecil! Anne's sister Catherine married Philip Sydney, the future 3rd Earl of Leicester, a grandson of Henry Percy. The father of those two sisters, William Cecil, married their mother, Catherine Howard, who was from the most prominent Roman Catholic family in England! IMHO, being "imprisoned" in the Tower was actually a reward for Henry (and a cover), putting him close to the center of the real power! He didn't need money as a reward, he was already one of the wealthiest peers in England, so they pretended to "fine" him. See what an "act" this all is?
The Jesuits were scapegoats for James, per their oath to the Pope, who was Paul V at the time of the Gunpowder Plot. According to the avant-garde royal researcher, Pope Paul V was actually an alias for the real father of King James/Guy Fawkes, who was "officially" Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, himself "murdered" in a previous "Gunpowder Plot", at the tender age of 20! Basically, James/Guy was just repeating a royal script! 
To quote the avant-garde royal researcher on James/Guy following royal tradition, "James was clearly making Catholics the scapegoats in place of the Jews in the reign of Henry III. In short, we have James clinging to the old ways of honoring royal tradition (even when it was counterproductive) and claiming the divine right to never be held responsible for anything, no matter how diabolical! As the first king of the Stewart Dynasty and a relative "newbie" to pulling off royal shenanigans he was bungling things very badly.
At least some of his foibles can be attributed to the need to emulate certain predecessors, such as Henry III.  But the carelessness of James was also evident, such as in not ensuring the safety of key collaborators in the Powder Plot, particularly Thomas Percy and Robert Catesby.  It would have been even more reprehensible if James had in fact double-crossed the surviving plotters, i.e., by not giving them a last minute reprieve, or by not having actual criminals die in their places.
The Gunpowder Plot did create a deterrent to anyone who remotely considered harming the king.  However, it was far more significant as an expression of the Fawkes/Fulk tradition.  It reconfirmed the legitimacy of his election to the aristocracy, and placed the founding of the Stewart Dynasty on par with the Angevin/Plantagenet, with the character of Guy Fawkes and what he represented in terms of the founding of a new dynasty (ala Count Fulk) and in securing the throne of King James (using a staged assassination attempt). This would lead into the seeming contradiction that Guy Fawkes was actually treated more as a hero than villain and that his name lived on and became highly respected.  Guy Fawkes is almost pure theater!" MY NOTE - "V for Vendetta" comics and film immediately comes to my mind, plus the use of the Guy Fawkes mask in the worldwide "Anonymous" movement.



Will Scarlet said:


> rumours from the 1580s that Percy would marry Arbella Stuart, the next heir to the throne after the King and his offspring." (ibid.)





Will Scarlet said:


> He didn't end up marrying her btw.


According to one of your sources, _Arbella: England's Lost Queen_, Percy had once been rumoured to BE HER HUSBAND (page 374).


Will Scarlet said:


> Here we see 'occult interests' that could be related to 'Meonia' or 'The Wheel'.


I agree, most definitely! It could go either way, as another of Henry Percy's grandsons, Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney, is now best remembered as one of the Immortal Seven who drafted the Invitation to William of Orange (and was later described as "THE great WHEEL on which the Revolution rolled"), which led to the November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day), 1688 Glorious Revolution and subsequent deposition of James II of England.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 16, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> See what an "act" this all is?



Well, yes, it's all very 'incestuous'. In fact, I remember coming up against the same kind of things many years ago when I was first looking it to it - just when you think you have it clear in your head who the good guys are, you find out that they're also the bad guys.

I have to admit that whenever I read the title of "avant-garde royal researcher," it makes me smile and I wonder if there's also an art nouveau one as well.  

One thing that puzzles me though is that if it was all a foax and all of the 'conspirators' were in on it, then they were in fact actually just lending their names to the script rather than actually doing anything real. They were all allegedly from renowned and influential catholic families, which was the prime qualification for participation and yet they knew that their involvement would result in much heavier persecution for themselves and all catholics. Having said that, I certainly don't dismiss the avante-garde narrative. It makes more sense to me than you can know.



Fawkes said:


> Percy had once been rumoured to BE HER HUSBAND



I'd forgotten that. I was quoting from one of Felix's posts.



Fawkes said:


> Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney, is now best remembered as one of the Immortal Seven who drafted the Invitation to William of Orange (and was later described as "THE great WHEEL on which the Revolution rolled"), which led to the November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day), 1688 Glorious Revolution and subsequent deposition of James II of England.



Now that really is interesting.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 16, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> In fact, I remember coming up against the same kind of things many years ago when I was first looking it to it - just when you think you have it clear in your head who the good guys are, you find out that they're also the bad guys.


Exactly!



Will Scarlet said:


> I have to admit that whenever I read the title of "avant-garde royal researcher," it makes me smile and I wonder if there's also an art nouveau one as well.


You will laugh even more if I tell you his real surname, "Pope". He tells me that he has no royal or Fawkes ancestry, thus he can remain impartial in his royal research.


Will Scarlet said:


> Having said that, I certainly don't dismiss the avante-garde narrative. It makes more sense to me than you can know.


That is very intriguing! What I am getting from the "Pope".is that "Roman Catholic", "Protestant", etc. were merely labels, as the royal elite family created all religions as "opium of the people". What really counted was your loyalty to the family, or "The Firm", as Queen Elizabeth likes to say, never mind what your public profile was. Like Guy Fawkes, the other conspirators may have been much more closely related to the royal family and James than the history books tell us.


Will Scarlet said:


> Now that really is interesting.


I thought you'd like that! 


Will Scarlet said:


> Well, yes, it's all very 'incestuous'.


Indeed it is, all the way back to the Horus "Falcon" Rose (Rosicrucian) Line Egyptian Pharaohs, who married their own sisters. Later on, The Firm hid such shenanigans, with the Habsburgs being about the only royal family that "publicly" practiced keeping the family bloodline "pure", into comparatively recent times (the Rothschilds were doing this too, and the "Pope" has them as a secret branch of the royal family), but of course the other royal family members also did this behind the scenes, besides swapping wives, children, identities, etc., to further weld them together, extend their dominion, and confound the uninitiated. The "Pope" has a question mark next to the names of Algernon Percy and his father-in-law William Cecil, meaning that there is a possibility that these two may actually have been the biological sons of James/Guy, grafted on to Henry Percy and Robert Cecil as sons, and thus binding them even closer to James/Guy. This is why I find it not at all unlikely that Henry could have been secretly married to Arbella Stuart, the cousin of James/Guy, for a time. To show that this is not all speculation, though it seems unusual to the average layperson, even in the Biblical Gospel of Matthew, you have the royal genealogy of "Jesus", that is believed to involve some grafting and naming alterations. One must remember that The Firm came above all the artificial distinctions (to them) of identities, religion, politics, etc. Prince Harry (whose own actual paternity has been subject to gossip) is the latest example of a royal not being able to accommodate himself to the demands of The Firm's lifestyle, and thereby walking away to America. This is certainly not the first time that this has happened.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 17, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> One must remember that The Firm came above all the artificial distinctions (to them) of identities, religion, politics, etc.



Indeed. It's sometimes difficult to keep sight of that. Strangely enough, when my brother rewrote  The Betrayal of Albion Part 2 he likened the Normans and their bunch of elite 'mates' to the Mafia. They even conquered Sicily, don't forget.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 17, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Strangely enough, when my brother rewrote The Betrayal of Albion Part 2 he likened the Normans and their bunch of elite 'mates' to the Mafia. They even conquered Sicily, don't forget.


That's precisely what I mean, as far as organization goes. No criticism of your brother meant, but I personally don't use that word, because of its connotations with one specific ethnic group, which, again, limits and labels my particular meaning. I somewhat jokingly call them "The Firm", or "The Elite", trying to find a universal term for this royal family throughout the ages, as it IS "sometimes difficult to keep sight of that."


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 21, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> One must remember that The Firm came above all the artificial distinctions (to them) of identities, religion, politics, etc.


King James I, besides creating a new Stuart/Jacobite dynasty for The Firm in England, also created a new cultural identity through "Guy Fawkes", which endures even now, with "Guy Fawkes Day/Bonfire Night", the "V for Vendetta" comics and movie, and the international "Anonymous" movement, utilizing the Guy Fawkes mask. Talk about "explosive" repercussions, from an "explosion" that never happened!


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 24, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> They even conquered Sicily, don't forget.


When Guy Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish on the Continent, he was known as "Guido", an Italian form of Guy. There is even a British right-wing political website run by blogger Paul Staines called "Guido Fawkes".


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 25, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> When Guy Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish on the Continent, he was known as "Guido", an Italian form of Guy.



 OK, so was that actually James I on his grand tour then? 'Guido' is also a Spanish Christian name.

Merry Yuletide greetings btw.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 25, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> OK, so was that actually James I on his grand tour then?


Good suggestion, unless James was utilizing a substitute/double.


Will Scarlet said:


> 'Guido' is also a Spanish Christian name.


True, I was using "by 1603 had been recommended for a captaincy. That year, he travelled to Spain to seek support for a Catholic rebellion in England. He used the occasion to adopt the Italian version of his name, Guido" Guy Fawkes - Wikipedia


Will Scarlet said:


> Merry Yuletide greetings btw.


Thank You, and same to "Yule"!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 26, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> He used the occasion to adopt the Italian version of his name, Guido



If that's the case, then I wonder how it is that only about 10% of people know his name was actually Guido at the time of the Plot? If he hadn't been called Guy for 2 years then why is the name Guy Fawkes remembered and not Guido Fawkes? I mean, Guy wasn't a particularly common name back then afaik, it being Norman / French. Also, why wasn't it subject to the same Englishisation as Guillaume which became William? By rights Guido should have become Wido, (weirdo?) Even today in Spain when they want to spell Windows phonetically it's 'Guindos'.

"guy (n.1)
"small rope, chain, wire," 1620s, nautical; *earlier "leader" (mid-14c.)*, from Old French guie "a guide," also "a crane, derrick," from guier, from Frankish *witan "show the way" or a similar Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *witanan "to look after, guard, ascribe to, reproach" (source also of German weisen "to show, point out," Old English witan "to reproach," wite "fine, penalty"), from PIE root *weid- "* [WS: WIDO?]* to see." Or from a related word in North Sea Germanic." _Source_

So did Guy Fawkes mean the Leader of the Faux?

"guy verb (2)
guyed; guying; guys
Definition of guy... 
transitive verb: *to make fun of : RIDICULE*" _Source _

Anyway guys, let's not forget that the 5th November is Samhain, the Time of the Dead, the cusp between the light of summer and the dark of winter. It's also regarded as the Spiritual New Year by certain ...guys and gals.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 27, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> If he hadn't been called Guy for 2 years then why is the name Guy Fawkes remembered and not Guido Fawkes?


Because he called himself "Guido" ON THE CONTINENT, but was back in England for the Gunpowder Plot, where he is commonly known as "Guy".


Will Scarlet said:


> So did Guy Fawkes mean the Leader of the Faux?


As King James I, he most certainly was! The "Pope" royal researcher told me that "Faux" is a "fake" name for royalty, according to the royal code that he cracked. I am most impressed with your erudition on the subject of name meanings, but you must remember, the Elite don't follow "your" standard dictionary definitions, they follow THEIR own rules of THEIR royal "code". They would probably love to see you wallow into and get mixed up by all of these different meanings of "Guido", as part of their policy of "divide and conquer" for you, as part of the "Matrix". 


Will Scarlet said:


> Anyway guys, let's not forget that the 5th November is Samhain, the Time of the Dead, the cusp between the light of summer and the dark of winter. It's also regarded as the Spiritual New Year by certain ...guys and gals.


Good Point, this dating could tie in with James/Guy creating a new "dynasty" for England around that time of year, leading the emerging British Empire from darkness into a new "light", with James/Guy as the "Augustus Caesar" of this kingdom (historically, this is how James thought of himself regarding his leadership of England, Scotland, and Ireland). Author James Shapiro even tied in the Gunpowder Plot to Shakespeare and "The Year of Lear" (the name of his book) following it. The "Pope" even thinks that the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot was an American version of Guy Fawkes and The Gunpowder Plot. "Remember, Remember", that the Nov. 3 Presidential Election led up to this, very close to Gunpowder Plot/ Guy Fawkes Day (both occurred on a Tuesday), and of course the results weren't officially projected until Nov. 7, the date Guy Fawkes began to "confess" in 1605.


----------



## Fawkes (Dec 28, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> earlier "leader" (mid-14c.)


Most definitely!


Will Scarlet said:


> Guy wasn't a particularly common name back then


Exactly, it was not "common", but secretly "royal".


Will Scarlet said:


> By rights Guido should have become Wido


Correct again - "Latinized form of Wido" Source - Meaning, origin and history of the name Guido It is also stated there that a name day for Guido is November 4 in Italy, the Eve of the Guy Fawkes Day. Coincidence?


Fawkes said:


> They would probably love to see you wallow into and get mixed up by all of these different meanings of "Guido"


Just as I am doing to you ("Guillaume which became William") above, see what I mean? By the way, you might love to know that November 5 is also a Christian feast day for

All Jesuit Saints and Blesseds 
Guy Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot has been tied into the Past and Present, and can even be tied into the Future. On Friday the 13th of April (supposedly the birthday of Guy Fawkes), 2029, the comet Apophis is supposed to pass by Earth. According to John the Tribulation Watcher, the Antichrist Fulks family may be tied into this occurrence. John believes that Apophis may actually hit the Earth (what an "explosive" Fawkes event that would be!).


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 12, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Because he called himself "Guido" ON THE CONTINENT, but was back in England for the Gunpowder Plot, where he is commonly known as "Guy".



Is there any evidence that he was commonly known as Guy when he was Gunpowder Plotting in England? Why does he sign himself Guido and not Guy when he was in the Tower of London?






Top: Signature of "Guido" on his confession under torture, very faint and shaky.
Bottom: Signature of "Guido Fawkes" on a further confession 8 days after being tortured.
(Public domain)





"A contemporary engraving of the conspirators. The Dutch artist probably never actually saw or met any of the conspirators, but it has become a popular representation nonetheless."
Crispijn van de Passe the Elder, (Public domain via Wikimedia)​Please note: 'Guido' not 'Guy' in the above engraving.

Here's a weird one...





"_Doctor Dee resuscitating Guy Fawkes_"
George Cruickshank (1792-1878)
(Public Domain)





Fauks and Satan 1641
(Public domain)​All part of the demonisation (of Fawkes and Dee)





"An older portrait of Guy Fawkes (1570–1606) from an unknown year by an unknown artist."
Unknown author, Public domain, via Unknown Wikimedia Commons​Dig him up again in 1867 and make him Irish...





"The Fenaian Guy Fawkes. Note: Anti-Irish propaganda from Punch magazine, published on December 28, 1867. Similar cartoon done in 1871 by USA cartoonist Nast"
Punch, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons





Guy Fawkes interrogated by James I (or himself if you prefer ) and his council in the King's bedchamber, from Illustrations of English and Scottish History Volume I (1884).
William Ralston (1848-1911), Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons​So, it seems like he was 'Guido' before his execution and 'Guy' forever after.


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 12, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Is there any evidence that he was commonly known as Guy when he was Gunpowder Plotting in England?


The examination and torture of Guy Fawkes - On History


Will Scarlet said:


> Guy Fawkes interrogated by James I (or himself if you prefer )


Notice the "mirror image" effect. 

King James composed a list of questions to be put to "John Johnson"(the alias of Fawkes), including "_as to what he is_, For I can never yet hear of any man that knows him".  Truth in plain sight, if Fawkes was James himself!



Will Scarlet said:


> "_Doctor Dee resuscitating Guy Fawkes_"
> George Cruickshank (1792-1878)


Cruickshank illustrated the novel "Guy Fawkes" , which contains some embellishments about Fawkes and Dee - Guy Fawkes (novel) - Wikipedia


Will Scarlet said:


> So, it seems like he was 'Guido' before his execution and 'Guy' forever after.


The parish register of his alleged christening reads "Guye fawxe, sone to Edward fawxe, the xvj day of aprile".





Is there a particular reason why you are promoting "Guido" over "Guy"? "Guido" does appear to be his personal choice later on in life, but, as you observed, "Guy" is what he eventually became known to posterity as, which is what he was "officially" named from his very beginning.


Will Scarlet said:


> Fauks and Satan 1641


An unintended(?) allusion to a Fulks Counts of Anjou ancestor of Fauks/James marrying Melusine, the daughter of Satan. Per Post #20 on this thread, "Even King Richard the Lionheart was reputedly fond of saying that his whole family “came from the devil and would return to the devil” as a result of their connection to the Demon Countess of Anjou" .

Also, here is the next to last verse that was printed below that illustration, in modern English spelling - "To Israels blessed Shepherds endless glory". I can see this as ISRAEL, the new name given by the angel of the Lord to the Patriarch JACOB, and JAMES (a variant of Jacob) as the first JACOBITE King of England, the "Shepherd" of his subjects, who later authorized the "King James" version of the Bible for them. The staging of the "Guy Fawkes/Gunpowder Plot" was later publicized as a success for him!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 13, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> The examination and torture of Guy Fawkes - On History



Which begins on the 5th November 1605 by which time all the plotting was over and done with. 



Fawkes said:


> Notice the "mirror image" effect.



Fawkes' 'tash goes up at the ends and his hair is different, so no, I don't notice any mirror effect.



Fawkes said:


> Cruickshank illustrated the novel "Guy Fawkes" , which contains some embellishments about Fawkes and Dee - Guy Fawkes (novel) - Wikipedia



I know, that's where the illustration came from.



Fawkes said:


> Is there a particular reason why you are promoting "Guido" over "Guy"?



No, or maybe there is, but nevertheless it beats posting in any of the other crap that's on this forum.


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 13, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> Fawkes' 'tash goes up at the ends and his hair is different, so no, I don't notice any mirror effect.


Perhaps I should have been more specific, the way James and Fawkes are positioned makes it LOOK as though they are gazing into each other's reflection, as their faces appear about evenly at eye level to each other.



Will Scarlet said:


> nevertheless it beats posting in any of the other crap that's on this forum.


 This "Guy" (not "Guido") Thanks You for the compliment, though I doubt that anyone else "Will"! 


Fawkes said:


> The parish register of his alleged christening reads "Guye fawxe, sone to Edward fawxe, the xvj day of aprile".


Again, truth in plain sight, "fake" (fawxe/faux) "guy(e)".


----------



## Silveryou (Jan 14, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Again, truth in plain sight, "fake" (fawxe/faux) "guy(e)".


Guido Fasullo (or Falso) in Italian


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 14, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> Guido Fasullo (or Falso) in Italian


Thank You for that information, I looked "Falso" up - Falso Name Meaning & Falso Family History at Ancestry.com®


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 15, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> This "Guy" (not "Guido") Thanks You for the compliment, though I doubt that anyone else "Will"!



I was having a bad day 

OK, so Guy Fawkes' execution was a public affair. Therefore, can we assume that someone got executed and it obviously wasn't King James? Furthermore, whoever it was required assistance to climb the ladder to reach the noose because they were still suffering from previous torture. Whoever it was also launched themselves from said ladder with the noose around their neck in order to break their own neck and thus avoid being alive whilst having their privates cut off and burnt in front of them, then being beheaded and then quartered. No doubt there are different versions of that story though.

According to 'Torture and the Common Law' by Danny Freidman, 2009, torture was illegal under England's common law and also forbidden by the Magna Carta. Confessions obtained under torture were also inadmissible. The problem was that the monarch and his Privy Council and their agents - jailers and torturers - were all exempt from prosecution. Therefore, by virtue of the extraordinary power of the Crown in times of emergency, the monarch could apply or request a torture warrant from the Privy Council and be fairly certain that he would get one as indeed was the case in relation to Guy Fawkes.

This became more and more difficult as time went by until it was completely outlawed, but that came too late for Guy Fawkes, of course. In 1615 when Francis Bacon was Attorney-General to James I, he reminded James that:

"By the laws of England no man is bound to accuse himself. In the highest cases of treasons, torture is used for discovery, and not for evidence."

So, in the case of The Gunpowder Plot - the highest case of treason - both torture and confessions signed under duress were employed and Fawkes and his co-defendants Robert and Thomas Wintour (Winter), John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates and Sir Everard Digby were put on trial before a special commission in Westminster Hall.

They were accused of:

"First, To deprive the King of his Crown.
Secondly, To murder the King, the Queen, and the Prince.
Thirdly, To stir Rebellion and Sedition in the Kingdom.
Fourthly, To bring a miserable Destruction amongst the Subjects.
Fifthly, To change, alter, and subvert the Religion here established.
Sixthly, To ruinate the State of the Commonwealth, and to bring in Strangers to invade it." 27 January 1606 - The trial of the Gunpowder Conspirators - The Tudor Society

Weirdly though, they all pleaded "Not Guilty." However, they all acknowledged their own confessions which were then read to the jury. No mention of torture was made during the trial.

Were these all fictitious people? Were they stooges? Were they actors? Was Guido Fawkes actually James I? I have no idea.

The thing about Guido vs Guy is for me an unnecessary complication if it was all a hoax. Furthermore, the accusation of "To ruinate the State of the Commonwealth, and to bring in Strangers to invade it" seems to have never been exploited. Given that Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish in Italy he could have easily been portrayed as a Spanish agent and a legitimate cause for war with Spain, but instead the whole affair was marketed as a national Jesuit/Catholic conspiracy. It's all very odd.

One last bombshell. The name John Johnson links to what's known as 'The York Legend' in masonic circles. The 'Legend' part is a clear indication that the masons don't want you to believe any of it. It relates to a Grand Lodge that was active in York Minster during the Fawkes period and even further back beyond Templar times. I'll leave that for another time though.

Some interesting links:

Extract from the examination of ‘John Johnson’, 5th November 1605

Proclamation for the arrest of Thomas Percy, 5th November 1605

Thomas Wintour’s Confession, 23rd of November 1605

Examination of Guido Fawkes ...Guido not Guy


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 15, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> By the laws of England no man is bound to accuse himself.
> 
> 
> Will Scarlet said:
> ...





Will Scarlet said:


> Weirdly though, they all pleaded "Not Guilty."


Looks like they didn't have to accuse themselves, according to the laws of England, and the "torture" may have been fictional.


Will Scarlet said:


> Were these all fictitious people? Were they stooges? Were they actors? Was Guido Fawkes actually James I?





Will Scarlet said:


> The thing about Guido vs Guy is for me an unnecessary complication if it was all a hoax.


Perhaps the actor was "Guido", but "Guy" was the King. Yes, it complicates things, probably so that the public could not get to the truth of the matter. The other conspirators were real people, promised leniency for their roles, but it is still not clear if James double-crossed them in the end. That may explain why "Guido" was executed last, if all of the other "plotters" before him were betrayed and actually executed.


Will Scarlet said:


> The name John Johnson links to what's known as 'The York Legend' in masonic circles.


I understand the York connection to Fawkes, but not how the "name John Johnson" links to the legend.



Will Scarlet said:


> Given that Fawkes was fighting for the Spanish in Italy he could have easily been portrayed as a Spanish agent and a legitimate cause for war with Spain, but instead the whole affair was marketed as a national Jesuit/Catholic conspiracy.


Looks like increasing the popularity of Scottish James, amongst his English subjects at home, by the thwarting of a "plot", was the primary concern here, at the time. 



Will Scarlet said:


> OK, so Guy Fawkes' execution was a public affair. Therefore, can we assume that someone got executed and it obviously wasn't King James? Furthermore, whoever it was required assistance to climb the ladder to reach the noose because they were still suffering from previous torture.


An "Anonymous" (pun intended, to the public) condemned prisoner would have been executed. He may have been drugged, instead of tortured, which would have accounted for his unsteadiness on the ladder.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 16, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> He may have been drugged, instead of tortured, which would have accounted for his unsteadiness on the ladder.



And yet he could climb higher than necessary and launch himself off the ladder...?



Fawkes said:


> I understand the York connection to Fawkes, but not how the "name John Johnson" links to the legend.



I need some time to rummage through old notes and books, but all will be revealed. 



Fawkes said:


> The other conspirators were real people, promised leniency for their roles, but it is still not clear if James double-crossed them in the end



Do you propose that being hanged, drawn and quartered was part of the deal he made with them?


There is something I am struggling with and I sincerely apologise if it¡s my own stupidity that's the cause. It's the surname business. If Fawkes and all its derivations mean 'false' or 'fake' then how can anyone claim descendency from  him if he didn't exist? How can there still be people with the surname Fawkes - are they all fictitious as well? The name Fawkes didn't begin with Guy Fawkes, I don't think... did it? If someone has the surname Green, does it mean that they are descended from someone who was actually green? The vast majority of people don't get a choice about their surname, they are born into it whatever it happens to mean.

So, this is what I don't understand. Was Guy Fawkes chosen because his name happened to be Fawkes, Faulks, Vaux etc., or was he invented and given the name Fawkes? Were all the other conspirators also invented, but given the names of prominent catholic families? In which case who were all the poor buggers that got arrested, tortured, put on trial, then hanged, drawn and quartered with their (recognisable?) heads and other body parts put on public display until they rotted (which was considered the final stage of death in those times)? 

If there was any 'deal' then it was obviously made with the Jesuits:

"John Gerard managed to flee from England, with the financial support of Elizabeth *Vaux*, and died a natural death in 1637 at the English College in Rome. Oswald Tesmond [JESUIT] also escaped. He fled to Calais pretending to be an owner of a cargo-load of dead pigs. He died in Naples in 1636."
27 January 1606 - The trial of the Gunpowder Conspirators - The Tudor Society


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 16, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> And yet he could climb higher than necessary and launch himself off the ladder...?


From his Wikipedia article, "Weakened by torture and AIDED BY THE HANGMAN, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck." The hangman helped kill the prisoner, one way or another.


Will Scarlet said:


> Do you propose that being hanged, drawn and quartered was part of the deal he made with them?


No, they thought they were being released and rewarded, but may have been executed instead, hence the double-cross.


Will Scarlet said:


> Was Guy Fawkes chosen because his name happened to be Fawkes, Faulks, Vaux etc., or was he invented and given the name Fawkes? Were all the other conspirators also invented, but given the names of prominent catholic families?


Going by what the royal researcher told me, Guy himself was invented ("Fake Guy" was a royal code name), James was real, and people do descend from him even today. Many other people also descend from common ancestors with variations of the "Fawkes" surname, but they are not royally descended from James. The other conspirators were real, and thought they were going to be set free and rewarded, as noted above. Also, as I have noted before, "Guy" was the last to be executed, after all of the other conspirators were dead or dying from horrible torture, so there was no one to identify him positively. 


Will Scarlet said:


> If there was any 'deal' then it was obviously made with the Jesuits:


Yes, I believe you mean ANNE Vaux was also arrested for show and ultimately released, after aiding certain Jesuits.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 17, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> From his Wikipedia article, "Weakened by torture and AIDED BY THE HANGMAN, Fawkes began to climb the ladder to the noose, but either through jumping to his death or climbing too high so the rope was incorrectly set, he managed to avoid the agony of the latter part of his execution by breaking his neck." The hangman helped kill the prisoner, one way or another



No mention of drugs in that article though.



Fawkes said:


> No, they thought they were being released and rewarded, but may have been executed instead, hence the double-cross.



and yet you said the double-cross wasn't clear.



Fawkes said:


> "Fake Guy"



As in 'Fake Person'? That specific use of the word 'guy' is far more modern surely.



Fawkes said:


> James was real, and people do descend from him even today.



So those who claim to be descended from Guy Fawkes - the "Fake Guy" - are actually descended from James I. Is that what you mean?



Fawkes said:


> The other conspirators were real, and thought they were going to be set free and rewarded, as noted above. Also, as I have noted before, "Guy" was the last to be executed, after all of the other conspirators were dead or dying from horrible torture, so there was no one to identify him positively.



I'm so sorry to make you keep repeating things you have "noted before" - I must be terribly stupid. So the other real conspirators didn't notice that Guy Fawkes was actually James I when they were meeting to conspire... or they did, but they were all 'in on it'... or they never met to conspire at all. When those remaining alive were arrested and then put on trial, no one noticed that Guy Fawkes was actually sitting where James I should be or maybe James was missing from the trial because he was disguised as the tortured Guy Fawkes? When they were all sentenced to execution none of them realised they had been double-crossed? If they didn't realise it at that point then when they were being "dragged separately on hurdles to the execution site" it must have dawned on them and yet not one of them spilled the beans in their final words.

Guy Fawkes was executed last as you "noted before," but he witnessed the other executions and yet the others never saw him?



Fawkes said:


> Yes, I believe you mean ANNE Vaux was also arrested for show and ultimately released, after aiding certain Jesuits.



Not me, it's a quote from 27 January 1606 - The trial of the Gunpowder Conspirators - The Tudor Society


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 17, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> No mention of drugs in that article though.


The drugging, if it occurred, was not meant to be publicly known.


Will Scarlet said:


> and yet you said the double-cross wasn't clear.


Yes, the royal researcher isn't sure if they were double-crossed, or set free after the trial, with other condemned prisoners executed in their place.


Will Scarlet said:


> As in 'Fake Person'? That specific use of the word 'guy' is far more modern surely.


"Guy the Fake" if you prefer. The royals had their own code words with double meanings, which were not intended for their subjects to understand, as it was meant to be kept a secret from them. You are understandably thinking that the royals think the same way that you do, which they do not. They delight in public acting and creating puzzles.


Will Scarlet said:


> So those who claim to be descended from Guy Fawkes - the "Fake Guy" - are actually descended from James I. Is that what you mean?


Yes.


Will Scarlet said:


> it must have dawned on them and yet not one of them spilled the beans in their final words.


Unless they were drugged too, or already condemned prisoners were substituted for them, this part is not clear yet. Also, could their families have been threatened if they did not cooperate?


Will Scarlet said:


> no one noticed that Guy Fawkes was actually sitting where James I should be


A secret half-brother of James played "Guy" all of the time, according to the royal researcher. "Guy" had supposedly been on the Continent for about a dozen years before this, so no one knew him in London, and he could get away with playing Percy's servant "John Johnson". Records in England before that about Guy could have been "fake"(pun intended) news created by Cecil and his agents, it is not like today where every little detail can be checked out on the internet and investigated by the media. Even now, do you believe that everything on the internet and that the media tells you is true? Who controls these "sources", the public or the Elite? I certainly do not doubt your sincerity and integrity in asking these questions, but do you really think that TPTB left an easy trail for us to discover and follow? The full details may never be known, as was intended by them.


Will Scarlet said:


> Guy Fawkes was executed last as you "noted before," but he witnessed the other executions and yet the others never saw him?


If they were all actually other condemned prisoners it didn't matter. Only three of the "conspirators" were publicly executed before Guy on that day, all the rest were either killed or released before this. We have no photographs of how close they were standing next to each other at the execution site, of course, or if they even were. The composite etching of their execution has one already being quartered, and the second hanging, before the third and fourth conspirators even arrive there. I have not seen any accounts that they spoke to each other, and of course they had other things on their mind anyway at the moment. I have read on another site that the condemned prisoner exchanged for "Fawkes" was beaten about the face also as part of the torture, so that he would not be recognized. As the "star" attraction, he would have been saved for last, of course (after the preceding three were out of the way?).


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jan 18, 2022)

It seems this thread is just an "echo chamber" for the royal researcher and not really getting anywhere. Have you noted James' secret half-brother before? If so then I missed it.

Should I be addressing you as "Your Royal Highness" now then? 

James was a very unpopular king. The Scots mistrusted him because he was English, the English because he was Scottish and the son of a catholic queen. The Irish weren't allowed an opinion, they just got colonised by the 'Plantations' of Scots, English and French. The Church must have been horrified that he was a homosexual - a factor that influenced decisions he made and the alliances he formed. It should be noted that he didn't actually write The King James Bible, he merely gave his name to it. It was a project proposed and fulfilled by the Puritans. He gave Great Britain its unofficial flag though - the Union Jack - so named because he preferred the French version of his name, "Jaques," but James never became a popular king.

It wasn't so much that he was unpopular with the people, rather it was the English Parliament who he made his enemy - just about all of it. He survived two plots against him during the first year of his reign in England (as probably noted before somewhere,) which took place before the Gunpowder Plot. In 1604 he negotiated a peace treaty with Spain and brought the long-running Anglo-Spanish war to an end. As we all know, there are always 'certain parties' whose interests are best served by prolonging wars as far as possible. He had powerful enemies.

I'm not in any position to declare that any of the theories presented in this thread so far are impossible, far from it, I wish only to get as near to what really happened as the information will allow. What I struggle with is understanding the logic behind James I organising another plot against himself so that it could be thwarted again. It's like reinforcing just how unpopular you really are. Clearly the first two plots did nothing to increase his popularity so why would yet another one make any difference? In fact, it could be expected that it would make him even more unpopular - especially with members of Parliament at Westminster who could easily consider him a liability who is too dangerous to be around.

The actual conspiracy behind the Gunpowder Plot had the means of rekindling war with Spain built into it - Guy Fawkes' previously serving as a Spanish soldier and the accusation that the aim of the plot was to "ruinate the State of the Commonwealth, and to bring in Strangers to invade it." Why would James do this shortly after he had gone to some considerable effort to negotiate peace with Spain?

The actual Gunpowder Plot had nothing to do with gunpowder or blowing anything up, that much seems to be clear from eye-witness accounts of dirt in the barrels and the extreme difficulty of obtaining and handling such a huge quantity of a controlled substance, plus the tunnelling nonsense. So, what was its purpose if not to increase James' popularity?

Another war with Spain seems a likely candidate and the fact that this didn't happen shows that the conspiracy behind the plot failed. Also to allow Parliament to seriously curb James' 'divine right of kings' megalomania could easily be another factor. The Jesuit involvement and escape must also be a consideration.

The 'Seventh Sword' material and the John Johnson link to the Grand Lodge of All England in York (which is quite 'avant-garde' anyway) may shed further light, but I'm not in a position to elaborate on any of that at this time due to health reasons.


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 18, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> It seems this thread is just an "echo chamber" for the royal researcher and not really getting anywhere.


It seems to me as though you are "echoing" with another "bad day". The reason I keep bringing up the royal researcher is so that no one will think that I am making all of this up out of thin air. It may please you to know that he does not know I am doing this, as he himself has told me that no one believes him, which is why I omit his real name. I started this thread because it pleases me, not anyone else, though as I have stated before, your comments are greatly enjoyed and appreciated. It may also please you to know that the royal researcher agrees that James made a huge public relations blunder (and against the advice of the other royals to boot) in concocting this plot, for in spite of his intentions, he did indeed become more unpopular. However, as the RR (echo) stated to me, James was also secretly the Great King of the World, and the other royal family members, including his relatives in Spain, grudgingly went along with his playacting, knowing that the true results would not be what James expected.


Will Scarlet said:


> The 'Seventh Sword' material and the John Johnson link to the Grand Lodge of All England in York (which is quite 'avant-garde' anyway) may shed further light, but I'm not in a position to elaborate on any of that at this time due to health reasons.


Again, I sincerely hope that you are feeling better in the future and are able to share this. 
. 


Will Scarlet said:


> Also to allow Parliament to seriously curb James' 'divine right of kings' megalomania could easily be another factor.


 You and RR exactly agree about "James' 'divine right of kings' megalomania", and that this plotting attempt to enforce it failed with Parliament also.



Will Scarlet said:


> Have you noted James' secret half-brother before? If so then I missed it.


No, I have not, I was debating on an opportune moment to mention it, but I knew about this all along.


Will Scarlet said:


> Should I be addressing you as "Your Royal Highness" now then?


"We are not amused" 



Will Scarlet said:


> The Jesuit involvement and escape must also be a consideration.


According to RR, the Jesuits, despite their scapegoat public reputation in England, were probably secret enforcers for the royal family, in case anyone got out of line and refused to obey. The Popes themselves were secretly a branch of the royal family.


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 19, 2022)

Will Scarlet said:


> the John Johnson link to the Grand Lodge of All England in York


For what it may be worth, the Grand Master of the _Grand Lodge of All England Meeting at York in _1733 was John Johnson, Esq.. M.D. Grand Lodge of All England - Wikipedia


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 20, 2022)

Just found the listing of a May 30, 1639 will for a "Sampson Fawks" of Dunchurch, Warwickshire. What is intriguing is that the "Lion Inn" that was there is now the "Guy Fawkes House", connected to the Gunpowder Plotters. Dunchurch - Wikipedia Just by coincidence, Sampson would have been contemporary with Guy, if he had lived a normal lifespan of 60-70 years.
"Sampson" is an unusual first name for a Fawks, and the only other "Samson" I have found is connected to this very rich contemporary English "Folkes" family. I am not saying that they are related to either Guy or myself, though - Boss of 300-year-old global business empire  in feud with his sister


----------



## Blackdiamond (Jan 20, 2022)

Fawkes said:


> Just found the listing of a May 30, 1639 will for a "Sampson Fawks" of Dunchurch, Warwickshire. What is intriguing is that the "Lion Inn" that was there is now the "Guy Fawkes House", connected to the Gunpowder Plotters. Dunchurch - Wikipedia Just by coincidence, Sampson would have been contemporary with Guy, if he had lived a normal lifespan of 60-70 years.
> "Sampson" is an unusual first name for a Fawks, and the only other "Samson" I have found is connected to this very rich contemporary English "Folkes" family. I am not saying that they are related to either Guy or myself, though - Boss of 300-year-old global business empire  in feud with his sister



Those look very related to the Redshield's, typical facial features.  Do you believe they are related or even the same family? dont know the proper english word for it. 
If you have acces to something like a family library one could look for shared / split off companys etc.


----------



## Fawkes (Jan 20, 2022)

Blackdiamond said:


> Those look very related to the Redshield's, typical facial features.


I thought the same too, but figured I might be imagining things.


Blackdiamond said:


> Do you believe they are related or even the same family?


Since you asked, another "source" of mine, that I believe I have mentioned earlier on this thread, "John" the Tribulation Watcher, believes that the Antichrist Folkes family has used cover names, in order to disguise itself throughout the centuries and remain "relatively" (pun intended) obscure, such as Rothschild and Stewart surnamed branches. My other source, the royal researcher, also mentions Rothschild and Stewart identities for some of these Folkes/Fawkes.
A "Samson" Rothschild, son of a "Falk" Rothschild, who ADOPTED that surname. Samson Rothschild (1802-1877) - Mémorial Find a....

Another "Samson Rothschild", whose father was a fourth cousin of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the founding father of the Rothschild banking dynasty. Samson (Schimschon) Rothschild


----------

