Goldsmiths, bankers and kings.

[Jd755]

Reason for creating this thread:
Because there is proving to be a great deal available about this trinity and to continue it in its current place would dilute that threads purpose.

This, below, reads to me that Charles II deliberately or conveniently took out the goldsmiths guild as the proto bankers of Royalty. It confuses the hell out of me quite honestly as there are lots of players who share surnames and working out who did what and when is a nightmare.
However one has to start somewhere when it comes to figuring out where the two Charles's and James I were funded from.

From here Stop of the Exchequer (England)

In January 1672 Charles II issued a proclamation that suspended payment on tallies and Exchequer orders to pay, an action that became known as the Stop of the Exchequer.

So it would seem at first blush Charles had the goldsmiths over a barrel. The Treasury being a department of Royalty? Or a department of government?

The British treasury is called the Exchequer, because during the Middle Ages transactions with the British treasury took place in a room with tables covered by checkered cloth.

Shh! Don't tell the masons are behind everything crowd.

During the reign of Charles II the Exchequer discounted tallies and Exchequer orders to pay to goldsmith bankers, paying interest rates above 6 percent. Tallies were wooden sticks that represented a debt of the government and Exchequer orders to pay were paper orders that were replacing the wood tallies, which were a holdover from the Middle Ages.

So the goldsmiths seem to have been the men bringing in paper as a means of record. Its not a big leap to realise the paper orders were accompanied by a book of debit and credit recording these orders or it could be argued registering them. Credit and debit in essence and practice. No sign of Jewish or contental skullduggery yet.
The foundation of the paper debt instrument is clear.

The goldsmith bankers paid 6 percent interest on near-money accounts (deposits not readily available on demand, such as modern certificates of deposit) in order to raise funds for discounting tallies and paper orders from the government. Tallies and paper orders were similar to some present-day government bonds that are bought at a discount (an amount less than face value), and can be redeemed at face value at some maturity date in the future.

Maybe I'm naiive but that reads to me to be a damn good scam. Imagine paying a pound for a five pound note and hanging onto it for while then the bank will give you five pounds for it at a maturity date.
Of course that assumes the bank still exists and of course there is devaluing of the measure, the pound, to be considered whilst the bank takes the initial pound and invests it over and over again to be quid's in aka earned more than five pounds in the meantime so it can honour the note and just won't mention the profits.
If the investing goes south to the extent it cannot honour the note then there is always the default to come to the rescue.

The government pledged to redeem the tallies and paper orders in a rotating order.
When the goldsmith bankers had no more money to loan out, and were no longer able to discount tallies and paper orders, Charles stopped redemption of the tallies and paper orders already held by the goldsmiths.

So the tale so far is goldsmiths lent Charles money aka gold and silver coins in return for some future payment in gold and silver bullion and or coins with the paper order aka the note as evidence of the loan or the wooden tally stick as evidence.

God my brain hurts with this nonsense.

Its seems to be incestuous this goldsmith/king fandango. Both sides benefit until one side defaults. Its hard to see who holds influence over who, if indeed there was any influence. The king gave the goldsmiths their leverage and frankly it beggars belief that goldsmiths either didn't know this or sought to get out of the deal one way or the other. Perhaps for all their seeming cleverness and skill at working gold they lacked common sense.
Most likely though they feared loss of royal patronage and the connections that came with it so they took the risk.

When the goldsmith bankers had no more money to loan out, and were no longer able to discount tallies and paper orders, Charles stopped redemption of the tallies and paper orders already held by the goldsmiths.

This is the bit I don't get. Money is gold and silver coinage. Plate jewels, bullion were held in the goldsmiths vaults but such things are not money and once plate and melted down plate bullion or jewellery has gone for good.
So is it the flow of gold coin into kings treasury the exchequer and on into arisdtocratic hands etc the thing that delivers ruin to the goldsmiths and it was this realisation that led to the paper note debit credit system being invented?

And once again if gold was being used to buy gold how the hell does that work?

This Stop of the Exchequer initially caused a run on the goldsmith bankers and many were eventually ruined by this action. Later the government honored about half of its debt to the goldsmith bankers.

How?
Did the king aka government (they are the same damn thing despite all the nonsense) shake the aristocracy down who in turn shook the gentry down who in turn shook the lower class down?
Who was holding all the gold coin?

None of it makes sense.

However in the interest of the op premise to discover who was funding the kings one must press on.

The Stop of the Exchequer reminded people of the seizure of the mint in 1640 and created more doubt about government involvement in banking

It also cast a shadow on paper money, and postponed the development of an institution such as the Bank of England for another 20 years. The credibility of government money suffered a severe setback from this experience, and in England issuing paper money became the province of banks.

So the king/government shafts the goldsdmiths, royally shafts the goldsmiths, ruining some of them BUT at some time later the king/government pays the remaining goldsmiths half of its 'debt' to the goldsmiths but what with is anyone's guess.

Main point stands the king/government took out its backers and destroyed gold coinage as a store of funghible value which left a bad taste but still some sort of monetary asset was needed to replace the gold thus cresting the ideal solution paper debt notes.
Problem
Gold is essy to hang on to maintains its value is widely distributed.
Reaction
Crush the goldsdmiths and in the process the reputation of king/government as a safe pair of hands.
Solution
Invent and install paper debt notes.

Icing on the cake
Bank of England is invented all be it a few years on.

Doesn't seem to be any clearer who did what save finding out that goldsmiths financed the king/government Charles II until the Stop the Exchequer was invoked. Who financed him after that I know not but I'm certain the answer is within one or two of the twenty odd pages I currently have open, if I recover the will to look at any of them.

 

[Jd755]

This name Menasseh ben Israel was brought to my attention and there is a thread on it here Menasseh Ben Israel & His World

So off I goes and immediately run into issues.
Firstly there are two names, presumably for the same individual but who knows.
His name at birth was Manoel Dias Soeiro
His Hebrew name which he was given some years later, was Menasseh ben Israel.

Fine as far as it goes.
He also has two birthplaces Lisbon and Madeira.
First the evidence for Lisbon.

Manoel Dias Soeiro was born in Lisbon in 1604 into an outwardly Roman Catholic family that had been forced by the Inquisition to abandon its Jewish faith and practices.

From here Book Review: Menasseh ben Israel: Rabbi of Amsterdam

Evidence for Madeira

Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel, also known as Manoel Dias Soeiro, was born in 1604 on the island of Madeira.

From here Leaders – Portugees-Israëlietische Gemeente
And;

Menasseh was born on Madeira Island in 1604, with the name Manoel Dias Soeiro

Born a Marrano in Madeira, the scholar Menasseh Ben Israel is renowned as the founder of Hebrew typography in Holland

From here Center for Jewish Art

Is or was there a Lisbon on Madeira?
No.

From here 1657: The man who persuaded Cromwell to let Jews return to England dies

Menasseh was born and baptized Manoel Dias Soeiro in 1604 on Madeira, a Portuguese-owned island in the Atlantic, west of Morocco. His parents had fled there from Portugal a year earlier after his father, Gaspar Rodriguez Nunez, a converso Jew, understood that he faced arrest as a Judaizer - a Christian who was secretly observing Jewish customs.

If that isn't batshit crazy I don't know what is.
His parents who were Jewish pretending to be Christian, aka Roman Catholic, baptise their son in Roman Catholic church ceremony. Or were they actually Roman Catholics who didn't practice the rites of Catholicism and instead practised the rites of Judaism in secret except for baptism?

They had already fled the Inquisition so why bother hiding their Jewishness when on Madeira?
And how the hell can someone pretend to be of religion A but actually be religion B but not overtly so?
Would the god of Religion B get a bit pissed off that it wasn't being openly worshipped?
Would the god of Religion A not know they were pretenders and smite them from its rites and buildings?

As I said batshit crazy.
Moving on.

In 1610, the family moved again, this time to Amsterdam, where Jews had recently been granted permission to live openly, and Manoel and his brother were renamed Menasseh and Ephraim.

And the two sons got new names. Must have been a bugger for them. Growing up knowing one name then being given another once they arrived in Amsterdam. Talk about messing with kids noodles.

Menasseh studied with Rabbi Uzziel of Fez at Amsterdam’s Neveh Shalom Synagogue and showed great talent: He made his first public oration at age 15 and published his first book, a Hebrew grammar called “Safah Berurah,” at 17.

As you do.
Who would fund a 17 year olds book?
He was six or seven when he left Madeira and catholicism and was reinvented as a Jew in Amsterdam. Nine years later he is speaking in public and two years further on he is a book publisher.
Christ kids today need to up their game.

In 1626, Menasseh established the Netherlands’ first Hebrew printing press, which published books by himself and others.

Now aged 24, so seven years on from his last publishing endeavour, he sets up a printing press, wonder who printed his first book?
And what was he doing in the intervening seven years?
Was he even in Holland during those seven years?
Who funded him?

Despite his many vocations, Menasseh had a hard time supporting his wife, the former Rachel Abarbanel, and their three children, so in 1638, he resolved to seek his fortune in the Dutch colony in Brazil.

Oh no. Couldn't make his press and publications pay. But surely the Jews in Amsterdam would be sufficient in number to buy his books. Well apparently not as he was off to Brazil.

It is not known if he ever actually traveled to the New World but, in the meantime, the brothers Abraham and Isaac Pereira offered him the leadership of a new yeshiva, which enabled Menasseh to remain in Amsterdam

Who'd have guessed it. This down on his uppers book printer and publisher with a wife and three kids to support contemplating legging it to Brazil, of all places, is rescued at the eleventh hour by a pair of brothers. Why god alone knows.

Menasseh ben Israel was also a student of kabbala and, as such, subscribed to the Jewish mystical belief that the Messiah’s coming would be precipitated by the spreading of the Children of Israel to the far corners of the world.

Good grief another string to his non paying bow.

An encounter with the converso Portuguese Jewish traveler Antonio de Montezinos, who had been to the New World, convinced him that the native Americans who Montezinos met there were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

Now it goes beyond coincidence. Montezinos travelled in the New World, nothing more vague than New World is there?
Montezuma anyone?
Is it just me who sees the storyline?

Menassah must have been a bit gullible to fall for such a story told by man who had no way to prove what he said about the native Americans at least as far as I can find. He just told Menassah his story. No writing, no books, no Hebrew names, no mention of their worshipping rites etc. No letter from the Jews of America for the Jews of Europe.

Update found more info. Montezinos, Antonio de

In contemporary geographical terms, this left England – referred to in medieval Hebrew as “Ktzeh Ha’olam” (“end of the earth,” a term that appears in Deuteronomy 28) – from which Jews had been expelled in 1290, as the place Jews needed to reenter if the messianic age was to arrive.

Bollocks. So every known land save England had Jews within it?
Ireland, Wales and Scotland had Jewish men and women wandering about?
What about Australia or Switzerland or China or Russia or Chile etc etc or Fiji Bermuda, Iceland, Greenland etc. I'll lay odds Tibet and Mongolia were full of them.

Thus, in 1651, Menasseh sent his son, Samuel, and brother-in-law, David Abravanel Dormido, to England to seek to negotiate with the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, on the question of readmission.

Why not go himself?
Why not send his brother?
Was he top Jew in Amsterdam at this point?

Failing at that mission, Samuel urged Menasseh himself to come to London. Menasseh did so that year, and was therefore absent when Spinoza was banished from the Jewish community of Amsterdam in July 1656.

Dear god its painful to read. So on the request of his son who must have stayed in England after Cromwell told him "no Jews in England" or some such sent for his father who duly sailed for England and a 'word to the wise' with Cromwell who called a meeting, as you do.

At the urging of Menasseh, who dedicated the Latin edition of his book “Mikveh Israel” to the English Parliament, Cromwell convened the Whitehall Conference in December 1655 to discuss the question of the Jews’ readmission.

How many of the English aristocracy playing the roles of Member of Parliament could read bloody Latin?
How many of them disliked Jews?
How many wanted the Jews let in?
Why would the dedication of a book on Judaism, I presume, sway Cromwell enough to call a meeting?

I know people argue that the Jews finance everything but have yet to find any evidence of it, and stunts like this dedication are claimed to be obfuscation of their real mission but as stated above these men believed that to get the messiah to appear again they had to have Jews in every country and given Jews can play the role of a man of any other religion and their god has no issue with it, then why not send small teams of Jewish men undercover in whatever religion was on top in very land they knew of to all the lands of earth?
Surely that would trigger the second coming pretty damn quick.

Although the conference was unable to come to definitive agreement on the subject, and Cromwell chose not to push its participants on it, there was consensus that “there is no law against their [the Jews] coming,” which served as the wedge for just that to happen, and for permission being given to Jews to establish both a synagogue and a cemetery in London.

Thus once again planting their living and their dead in the green and pleasant land aka the end of the earth.

Menasseh barely lived to enjoy the privilege. He was in the Netherlands when he died, on this day in 1657, having accompanied the body of Samuel, his son, home for burial. Menasseh is buried in the Beth Haim cemetery in Oudekerk aan Amstel, outside Amsterdam.

Were I cynical I'd say how convenient. Surely he should have been buried in the brand new Jewish cemetery on the land he opened up to call his messiah into being. His single greatest achievement in his life. Apparently.
I guess the Jews back then were as lax as those of today and there must be lands of earth without a Jew upon them as the Messiah has yet to appear.


Edit add
Whilst looking for more on Antonio de Montezinos
I came across this https://www.gutenberg.org/files/62562/62562-h/62562-h.htm

The gigantic expulsions from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella had created a new Jewish Diaspora under conditions of the most thrilling romance. The Jewish martyrs “trekked” in their thousands to all the points of the compass, fringing the coasts of the Mediterranean with a new industrious population, founding colonies all over the xiiLevant as far as the Mesopotamian cradle of their race, penetrating even to Hindostan in the East, and throwing outposts on the track of Columbus towards the fabled west.

Given the Jew in every land is the pre-requiste to their Messiahs second coming I do wonder why they chose to congregate. Certainly this expulsion is claimed to have cast them far and wide if only they had the sense to kick on get a Jew or two in every land.
But they didn't.

The men and women who took up the pilgrim’s staff at the bidding of Torquemada could only go where Jews were tolerated, for they refused to bear false witness to their ancient religion. They left behind them in Spain and Portugal a less scrupulous contingent of their race—wealthy Jews who were disinclined to make sacrifices for the faith of their fathers, and who accepted the conditions of the Inquisition rather than abandon their rich plantations in Andalusia and their palaces in Saragossa, Toledo, and Seville.

Money and status being of more import than the Messiah?

However it appears enough of them did infiltrate countries of europe at least.

They embraced Christianity, but their conversion was only simulated, and for two centuries they preserved in secret their allegiance to Judaism. These Crypto-Jews, in their turn, gradually spread all over Europe, penetrating in their disguise into countries and towns and even guilds which the Church had jealously guarded against all heretical intrusion. It was chiefly through them that the modern Anglo-Jewish community was founded.

Still cannot see how any god would be happy with finding out its disciples were living a lie for a moment let alone a couple of centuries.

Sick of these tales now quite honestly. Its just stories told by men to give themselves control of other men using the authority of their own god as their justification.

As for matey in the new world. His proof or evidence, well there isn't anything but his oath.
Wish I was kidding but I'm not.
From here Montezinos, Antonio de

MONTEZINOS, ANTONIO DE (Aaron Levi; d. c. 1650), Marrano traveler. On a trip to South America during 1641–42, Montezinos discovered a group of natives in Ecuador who could recite the Shema and were acquainted with other Jewish rituals. He brought this news to Amsterdam in 1644, and the congregational authorities – *Manasseh Ben Israel among them – had him repeat his account under oath.

What value is the oath of a man living as a Catholic but practising Judaism?
And it gets dafter.

The assumption was that these natives were a remnant of the *ten lost tribes, of the tribes of Reuben and Levi according to Montezinos. He then left for Brazil where he died, reasserting on his deathbed the truth of his report.

Incredible. Manassah strives to set Jews free in england on the back of an assumption.
As George Carlin once said "in the bullshit department."

 

[Gladius]

This name Menasseh ben Israel was brought to my attention and there is a thread on it here Menasseh Ben Israel & His World

So off I goes and immediately run into issues.
Firstly there are two names, presumably for the same individual but who knows.
His name at birth was Manoel Dias Soeiro
His Hebrew name which he was given some years later, was Menasseh ben Israel.

The practice of dual naming was common in most Jewish communities from Portugal to Iran. In countries where Judaism was allowed, Jews used their Jewish names among themselves, and a local name to communicate with locals. It wasn't a secret, just a custom born out of reliance on locals for business. The locals were aware of it.

Inquisition forced Jews to hide their identity and outwardly practice Christianity. The inquisitors knew who the converted families are and kept an eye on them for decades later. The families would maintain the dual naming even under Inquisition.

If that isn't batshit crazy I don't know what is.
His parents who were Jewish pretending to be Christian, aka Roman Catholic, baptise their son in Roman Catholic church ceremony. Or were they actually Roman Catholics who didn't practice the rites of Catholicism and instead practised the rites of Judaism in secret except for baptism?

A common practice for most Jewish families who remained in Spain/Portugal after the Inquisition.

They had already fled the Inquisition so why bother hiding their Jewishness when on Madeira?

Madeira is a Portuguese territory so same rules apply.

And the two sons got new names. Must have been a bugger for them. Growing up knowing one name then being given another once they arrived in Amsterdam. Talk about messing with kids noodles.

The sons were always aware of their Jewish names, which they'd use only in-house between family. That's how it was for everyone.

He was six or seven when he left Madeira and catholicism and was reinvented as a Jew in Amsterdam.

He was 10. Not reinvented, simply an existing identity brought in the open.

How come he started to give speeches so young?
In the Jewish community there's a term "iluy", a smart student ahead of his time. Menashe was marked as iluy by his teacher, which means he was encouraged to speak publicly. It's common practice to let young "iluy" students to "preach" to the people in order to hone their skills.

Bollocks. So every known land save England had Jews within it?
Ireland, Wales and Scotland had Jewish men and women wandering about?
What about Australia or Switzerland or China or Russia or Chile etc etc or Fiji Bermuda, Iceland, Greenland etc. I'll lay odds Tibet and Mongolia were full of them.

You're overreacting to something quite miniscule.
- He refers to the whole island, not specifically England.
- There's no such requirement for Jews to be in every country in order to bring the Messiah. The translation here is literal and misses the point:
Jews often use the term "days of the Messiah" , "to bring the Messiah" in a figure of speech to describe good times. What he means is that if Jews were to return to England and gain influence, it would benefit the Jews in general.
Now it makes sense, doesn't it.

How many of the English aristocracy playing the roles of Member of Parliament could read bloody Latin?
How many of them disliked Jews?
How many wanted the Jews let in?
Why would the dedication of a book on Judaism, I presume, sway Cromwell enough to call a meeting?

The book he gave him, Mikveh Israel, is not a book about Judaism but a historical, chronological book that details the origin of names of lands and cities, as well as info about the new world. At the time there was an interesting contradiction where the powers that be disliked Jews, but were striving hard to copy their knowledge, which was mystical to them (especially Kabbalah), a bit like how Westeners began to craze over Eastern knowledge in the 60's.
Being gifted a rare 'scientific' book by a Jew with a dedicated translation would be considered unique at the time, probably wise diplomacy and ass kissing. Subtle, unlike just bribing someone with money.

these men believed that to get the messiah to appear again they had to have Jews in every country

As I mentioned earlier, they didn't, and there's no such belief.

What value is the oath of a man living as a Catholic but practising Judaism?

His family was forced to convert just a few years before his birth. The "Anusim" raised their children Jewish. He's not an "oathbreaker". You literally saw that he dropped the Christian act when he was 10 and moved to Amsterdam.
The same phenomemon happened in Iran in the late 1800s, a local Islamic radicalization forced Jews to go 'crypto' for 100 years. They maintained themselves by marrying their girls young, before a Muslim could offer to claim them.

Hope this was clarifying.
Personally I don't know what real importance this guy has, I'm just pointing out the technical issues here.

 

[Jd755]

Now it makes sense, doesn't it.

No. The fact it needs explaining speaks volumes. Sorry but England means England the country not the island whose name is Britain.

Being gifted a rare 'scientific' book by a Jew with a dedicated translatio

The book was dedicated to the Parliament. It was written in Latin. No mention of a translation.

There's no such requirement for Jews to be in every country in order to bring the Messiah. The translation here is literal and misses the point:

Really. The translator was lax. I could accept that if it was just that site however its on plenty more.
Again the fact explanation is required speaks volumes.

It was the desire to get the Jews back to the "end of the earth" that triggered the gifting of the book and his visit to Cromwell according to the article. The sites I linked to are with one exception, I think, Jewish. It seems odd that they would get so much wrong.

Perhaps its my ignorance of Jews Judaism and religion as a whole that makes my take on things 'too literal' perhaps its the nature of the Jew to confuse non Jews. Religion is all the same to me.
Different stories in differrent books about fantastic beings used to give men authority over other men to do whatever they want in their gods name.

His family was forced to convert just a few years before his birth. The "Anusim" raised their children Jewish

You are getting confused this man is who I am referring to, MONTEZINOS, ANTONIO DE (Aaron Levi; d. c. 1650.

He was 10

No he was not. Born 1604, either in Madeira or Lisbon take yer pick, moved to Amsterdam in 1610.

You literally saw that he dropped the Christian act when he was 10 and moved to Amsterdam.

That's what I am saying. Its duplicitous. I realise why they did what they did, they wanted to stay alive, who wouldn't? except the truly devout whose numbers must be low to say the least.
To believe they never slipped up in public nor were overheard in private over generations spanning decades if not hundreds of years is naive.
As is accepting all kids born into a Jewish family to remain Jewish and accepting Jews pretending to be Catholic never grassed other pretend Catholics up to the Catholic authorities out of spite or because they had been wronged somehow.
Kids play together, To expect one kid who has two names not to mention it to others he or she is playing with one of whom mentions it to parents who are not of the faith and might inform on them is equally naive.

Perhaps its common for those whose faith in their god is so weak they would rather pretend to be faithful to another god just to keep their heads on their shoulders and hope for better times I don't know.

I've never knowingly met a Jew. In truth the only people who mentioned their religion were a family of Christians, gospel hall people and christian fellowship people to be precise and they only did so because I had been asked by them to move my bonsai nursery to their garden centre and told me I couldn't sell buddhas or dragons as they would bring about a collapse in their business.
Once there I discoverrd they were rip off merchants and thought nothing of fleecing their customers, running insurance scams, diddling the tax and vat. Guess the Sunday service was enough to set them right with their god because by Sunday afternoon they were right back at it.

Whether that experience colours my take on faith and religion I don't know but there it is. But if you have to seek faith in a book, any book, you are following the word of man.

Personally I don't know what real importance this guy has, I'm just pointing out the technical issues here.

Reason for creating this thread:
Because there is proving to be a great deal available about this trinity and to continue it in its current place would dilute that threads purpose.

This name Menasseh ben Israel was brought to my attention

I know people argue that the Jews finance everything but have yet to find any evidence of it, and stunts like this dedication are claimed to be obfuscation of their real mission

From the thread on here about Celia's journey I linked right at the start of the op and in the first of these three quotes.

IThe Dutch financiers were exactly one and the same as those who financed Cromwell. Furthermore, by means of the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688, the Dutch William of Orange took the throne of England. Then the 'Bill of Rights' came along in the following year which stripped the monarchy of its power and transferred it to Parliament. Politics became a career and those few who had previously taken on the responsibility of government out of sense of duty, were lost forever. A bit later In 1694 the bank of England was established by a mysterious group of unknown ...people and the national debt was born - which we are still paying off today and will never finish paying off.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

 

[Jd755]

Note to contributors:
Do not turn this thread into an argument about jews. Thread title says it all.
I posted the post about that ben Israel chap because his name was brought up after a conversation in the Celia thread, linked twice above, about who was funding the royal family of england, the royal family of Holland and Cromwell which led to me discovering all sorts of connections I had little knowledge of and felt worth sharing on here.

Nobody explained or clarified my observations on Charles II. But Jews is a controversial trigger word that attracts defenders and attackers.
I made my position on religion clear in my reply to gladius.

Just so you know;
I will not be mentioning Jews from here on in in this thread UNLESS I find or am given evidence the stories of these men being the source of funding for the two King Charles and Cromwell pans out.

At present goldsmiths are in the frame primarily because Charles II ruined some of them. We will see where it goes from here.

Now back to the purpose of thus thread.
Catherine of Braganza (1638-1705) was the Portuguese wife of Charles II, King of England (1630-1685) from 1662-1685.

Apparently at that time brides came with a dowry. In short the woman, her status, he standing in society, her family connections were not enough. Love, beauty, honesty, virtue seem to have been as much side issue as the honesty, fidelity, appearance, love, of the man doing the 'marrying'.
Often in royal marriages the ruling royal in one country married a royal from the royal family of a foreign country.

Anyway in light of that what was this Portuguese ladies dowry?
Reason for asking it might shed some light on who was funding Charles II and possibly light also shed light on the taking down of the goldsmiths.

The part of the dowry that is published and discussed the most is the island of Bombay which was apparently under Portuguese rule. Charles is said to have immediately rented it out to the East India Company.
Must have caused some issues in Bombay itself amongst the Portuguese living there and ostensibly running the show for the benefit of the Portuguese royal family and the Portuguese merchants who were exporting Indian goods to Portugal and other European countries and their distribution networks and contacts.

There is also the tax position to consider. Today taxes go to Lisbon. Tomorrow they go to London. Unless the tax system was exactly the same save for the measure pound vs escudo there has to have been a hiatus in the tax system caused by Portugal no longer holding jurisdiction over Bombay and England having jurisdiction but no people of its own on the ground.
The Portuguese merchants were equally in limbo. They had no legal right to be trading to and from this now English jurisdiction so they would either have to cease trading or carry on as before and risk falling foul of English rules unenforceable as they would have been for months if not years.

Did the Portuguese who were physically in Bombay stop being Portuguese and became English on the day of handover of jurisdiction?
Its all very murky very dubious and no-one who looks into history seems to pay such things much heed.
Perhaps they do but their work is stopped by gatekeepers aka academic editors, professors and funders, who knows.

Bombay aside Catherine of Braganza's dowry contained another Portugeuse colony of Tangier. This one is all but ignored by historians as far as I can see. Perhaps its covered in Portuguese and Moroccan works but I am keeping to sources written in English for now unless it becomes clear from them there is a light shining on a funder worth further investigation.

I don't truthfully know anything of Tangier least of all why it would be given away in a dowry to a foreign king so I will look further into it. However what if anything else was in her dowry?

The attractiveness of Catherine to the English Crown was due in large part to the huge dowry which the Portuguese offered, alongside colonies including Bombay and Tangier, as part of the marriage treaty. That the vast majority of the dowry remained unpaid was a significant source of tension, and undoubtedly constrained Catherine’s ability to become a political actor in England

From here Catherine of Braganza

"Colonies including" note. So there were more of them. It cannot of all been control of foreign lands if the vast majority went unpaid. There must have been some sort of financial wealth be it gold, silver, jewells, notes etc involved.

On 23 June 1661 a marriage treaty agreeing upon the union of Charles II and Catherine of Braganza was signed. Catherine brought a dowry of £500,000, as well as Bombay, Tangier and the right of free trade with the Portuguese colonies, and also popularised tea-drinking in Britain.

From here The History Press | Charles II and Catherine of Braganza: A loveless marriage?

Now the right to free trade makes a lot of sense as it instantly puts English merchants and Portuguese merchants on an equal footing, assuming the latter gained reciprocal arrangements in English colonies.
The £500,000 figure seems a ball park guess at this stage. Perhaps this was the sum that went largely unpaid.
Where and for that matter how would Catherine's family obtain 500,000 gold coins of a foreign currency to give to King Charles?
Were English gold pounds useable as tender in foreign lands simply because of the volume of good they contained?
If so what about the other foreign countries gold coins?
Did the name of the coin matter nought it was just the gold itself that held an agreed value?
Or did the Portuguese offer amount to a portion of physical gold and a portion of debt paper?
Personally were I negotiating such a dowry it would be the physical gold that mattered the most not paper. It is a stretch to me at this point to read that most of it went unpaid without any kind of retribution or attempt to enforce payment by the king or his court.

The marriage treaty between the royal families included a dowry of sugar, plate and jewels to the value of 400,000 crowns, bills of exchange to double that amount, the rights to free trade with Brazil and the East Indies, and the cessions of Bombay and Tangiers.

From here Queen Catherine of Braganza

Very interesting. The £500,000 figure becomes 400,000 gold crowns.
So what was a gold crown?
Well its proved very tricky to find out as all search engines deliver up sites about dental crowns but here is one which has some information.
The Story of the English Crown Coin

Worth five shillings, it was more convenient than the first crown’s value of four shillings and sixpence, and following crowns kept this value for many years to come.
Aside from when Britain was under the reign of Mary, and then Mary and Phillip, gold crowns continued to be issued until 1662.

It wasn’t until 1662 that the last gold crown was minted – that of Charles II.

Hmm 1662 the year of Charles and Catherine's marriage where he was supposed to receive 400,000 gold crowns in her dowry the exact same year when the last ever English gold crowns were minted!
What's the chances?

Colour me stupid but surely these crowns be they English, Portuguese or any other countries coins should have accompanied Catherine on her journey to the wedding.

But where was the marriage, as a slight aside, covered here as once again confusion abounds.

King Charles II of England married Catherine, Infanta of Portugal, by proxy in Lisbon, on 23rd April 1662.

From here Queen Catherine of Braganza

Escorted by the earl of Sandwich, Catherine’s flotilla left Lisbon in a blaze of fireworks. The stormy voyage to England was much less enjoyable and Catherine’s welcome in her new country far from splendid. Charles II did not rush to Portsmouth to meet her and it was left to his brother, James, Duke of York, to welcome her formally. The king justified his lateness by the need to approve parliamentary legislation.

On 13th May she landed at Portsmouth. A few days later she was joined by the King and their marriage was given Protestant validity by the Bishop of London in a private service.

From here
Queen Catherine of Braganza

Must be a cock up on the part of the author on the Royal Surreys site.

Catherine had arrived at Portsmouth on the 14th of May 1662, where she stayed at the Governor’s House awaiting the King. Samuel Pepys, no stranger to Portsmouth in his stewardship of the Royal Navy, observed in his diary, “At night, all the bells of the town rung, and bonfires made for the joy of the Queen’s arrival, who came and landed at Portsmouth last night.”

The marriage between the newly restored King of England and the Portuguese Infanta took place in Portsmouth on the 21st of May 1662. As St Thomas’s, the parish church of Portsmouth, was still heavily damaged from the English Civil War, the only suitable venue for a royal wedding was the “Domus Dei”. The Domus Dei had once been the old medieval hospital of Portsmouth, which fortuitously survived the Reformation by becoming first a city armoury and later the chapel to the Governor’s House.

From here A very Royal Wedding - Charles II and Catherine of Braganza

Then again they may have married twice.

They were married in a Catholic ceremony at Portsmouth and later were married again at a grand ceremony in London in May 1662.

From here The History Press | Charles II and Catherine of Braganza: A loveless marriage?

Getting back to the dowry. Yet another take on its content.

Besides a considerable dowry of some 2 million Portuguese Crowns, England also gained the North African port of Tangiers, trading privileges in the East Indies, and the ports of Bombay, India.

From here A very Royal Wedding - Charles II and Catherine of Braganza

Bit of a leap there! 2 million Portuguese Crowns!!
Tangier seems to have been a bit of a poisoned chalice so too speak.

It was the troubled state of Tangiers, under constant threat from the Moors that led to the creation of the 2nd Regiment of Foot later the Queen's Royal (West Surrey) Regiment.

This force was to protect Tangiers’ strategic position at the entry to the Mediterranean for the next two decades and on its return to England, Charles II renamed it, “our dearest consort, the Queen’s Regiment.”

From here A very Royal Wedding - Charles II and Catherine of Braganza

That would suggest Tangier's benefit was its location. Certainly worth the creation and funding of a regiment to protect it..

So no matter how many crowns were promised or agreed to in the dowry negotiations it seems few if any were actually transferred. The singular gain I can see from this dowry in regards England the country is the free trade with Potugeuse colonies. I can find nothing of a reciprocal arrangement for Portuguese merchants with English colonies.

The crowns themselves were likely Portuguese Crowns so no matter what their actual number where did they come from?

Logic, scratch that, the story goes its men who make history so running with that I started investigating the Duke who became King of Portugal to see who was funding him.

John IV, also called (1630–40) João, 8o duque (8th duke) de Bragança, byname John the Fortunate, Portuguese João o Afortunado, (born March 18/19, 1604, Vila Viçosa, Port.—died Nov. 6, 1656, Lisbon), king of Portugal from 1640 as a result of the national revolution, or restoration, which ended 60 years of Spanish rule.

John, duke of Bragança, the wealthiest nobleman in Portugal, married Luisa de Guzmán, daughter of the Spanish duke of Medina Sidonia. The Bragança duchy, founded in 1461, was a collateral of the extinct royal House of Aviz; and, when the restorers of independence overthrew the Spanish governor on Dec. 1, 1640, they offered John the crown.

From here John IV | Restoration War, Portuguese Empire, Absolute Monarchy
So this chap acquired enough wealth whilst under Spanish rule to become the wealthiest nobleman in Portugal. It seems at first blush he would have held sufficient coin to use as a dowry for his daughter Catherine. Where from I have not been able to pin down.

Luisa de Guzman proved to be more ambitious and independent-minded than Olivares had imagined. Her husband was the largest landholder in Portugal and the nationalists' prime candidate to head a revolt against Spain.

From here Luisa de Guzman (1613–1666) | Encyclopedia.com

Land could conceivably be a long standing source of his wealth and doubtless the landholding brought with it contacts, ventures and opportunities to further grow that wealth.

Luisa Maria Francisca was born on October 31, 1613 and was the daughter of Juan Manuel Pérez de Guzman, 8th Duke of Medina Sidonia. Her mother was Juana Lorenza Gomez de Sandoval y la Cerda. The Dukes of Medina Sidonia are grandees of Spain. The dukedom is the oldest in the kingdom, first awarded by King Juan II of Castile in 1445. The family was once the most prominent in the Andalusian region.

And his wife's dowry, family connections etc was likely another.

Catarina de Bragança was born on 25 November 1638, two years before her father, João II, duke of Bragança, proclaimed himself king, becoming João IV of Portugal. An extended war with Spain was the result. (Interestingly, his claim was made through the female line, from his grandmother Catarina of Portugal, who had claimed the throne after the death of King Henrique of Portugal in 1580)

From here The Monstrous Regiment of Women

John likely inherited land, property, plate, gold, jewels through his family line as well.
To be honest not seeing any involvement of goldsmiths or bankers.

John was dead before the dowry was drawn up. It was Luisa ruling as regent who was in control of the throne of Portugal.

King John died in 1656 leaving his wife as regent for the young King Afonso.

From here Catherine of Braganza, daughter of John, Duke of Braganza

So we have Portugal now being ruled by a Portuguese regent who was born Spanish so it was she and her advisors who were negotiating the Portuguese side of the dowry discussion.

The marriage contract of Charles and Catherine was signed on 23 June 1661, England obtained Tangier in North Africa and the Seven islands of Bombay (in India), with trading privileges in Brazil and the East Indies, religious and commercial freedom in Portugal and two million Portuguese crowns (about £300,000), while in return Portugal obtained military and naval support against Spain and liberty of worship for Catherine. The couple were married by proxy in Lisbon, on 23rd April 1662.

More differing detail on the dowry content and marriage.

Now here is where it gets interesting, for me.

Luisa and John had seven children. Infante Teodósio, Prince of Brazil lived for 19 years and died before his father, Ana de Braganza died at birth, Infanta Joana, Princess of Beira lived for 18 years, Catarina of Portugal became Queen of England, Manuel of Portugal died at birth, Afonso VI of Portugal became King and lived until he was forty and Pedro II of Portugal was King for 23 years. Young Afonso suffered an illness at the age of three that paralyzed the left half of his body and also caused mental instability.

John was crowned King and the family moved to Lisbon. The Acclamation War, fought between Spain and Portugal lasted until 1668 and consisted of sporadic conflicts.

The struggling King Charles I of England recognized his crown and King John would never forget this validation of his status.

Luisa Maria Francisca of Guzman, Queen of Portugal

So here is a mention that connects Charles I his son Charles II with Catherine and her parents.
And again here.

Although the "war of Restoration" would not formally end until 1668, the infanta Catarina, as she was known after her father was proclaimed king of Portugal, became a desirable prospect in the marriage market. As early as 1644, he was negotiating with Charles I for the marriage of his daughter to the English king's eldest son, destined to follow his father on the throne.

The English Civil Wars disrupted whatever plans might have been concluded, however. Charles I was executed, his son Charles escaping to the continent.

From here The Monstrous Regiment of Women


Which makes me wonder why not flee Portugal to escape death by Parliament?
His father had previously recognised Johns claim to the throne of Portugal and Portugal as an independent country so to my mind even though Portugal was still Spanish in the eyes of the Spanish royal family and most of the other Royal Houses including Hollands it would still seem to me to be the safest place to go.
Instead he went to France initially then spent years in both the Dutch republic and the Spanish Netherlands.

Anyway.
Charles I was it seems in negotiation with John and Luisa to marry Prince Charles to Princess Catherine before Cromwell came to rule long before Prince Charles flight to Holland.
Does this mean that Charles I was seeking funding from John and Luisa via Catherine's dowry?
If he was then clearly he must have been strapped for cash, to quote a phrase. Certainly gaining wealth by dowry is more desirable, I would argue, than going through goldsmiths and or bankers or indeed any other form of loan. So from that perspective its free from strings, more or less, wealth and fewer people would have any form of hold over Charles and his son.

After the Portuguese king's death in 1656, the regency was left to the queen, and it was under Luisa María Francisca de Guzmán y Sandoval's regency that war with Spain ended and Portuguese independence ensured.

In order to strengthen ties with England, the dowager queen and regent of Portugal revived the marriage negotiations between the infanta and Charles, restored to the English throne in 1660. The English king knew the problems that marriage with a Catholic would cause--his mother, Henrietta Maria, was Catholic, her religion contributing to the many conflicts that precipitated the civil wars that led to her husband's deposition and execution--but, in need of money, Charles was eager for the huge dowry that would come with the Portuguese princess.

From here The Monstrous Regiment of Women

It would appear that Charles II was also strapped for cash and Luisa needed help in keeping Portugal independent from Spanish efforts to take it back, weak efforts though they seem to have been.

On November 6, 1656, John IV died. Incapacitated by gout and lethargy, he had increasingly allowed Luisa and her confessor, Father Daniel O'Daly, to establish royal policy and negotiate an alliance with France to protect Portugal from Spanish revenge. Luisa governed as regent because Alphonso VI was only ten when the king died.

Furthermore, illness had left the boy physically crippled and "mentally incapable" (in the words of a Portuguese historian), and the queen would have preferred Peter to inherit the throne. Nonetheless, the Braganzas had only recently gained the crown, and many advisers thought it important to proclaim Alphonso VI king

To guarantee France's help against Spanish aggression, Luisa hoped to marry her daughter Catherine to Louis XIV. When Spain and France signed the Peace of the Pyrenees in 1659, however, Louis decided to marry a Spanish princess, Marie Teresa of Spain (1638–1683), thereby blocking Luisa's plans.

Stopping here for now as my brain aches. I am intrigued by this father O' Daly character so the next post will begin with a look into him, assuming such a thing is possible as he might be a link of note so too speak.

 

[Jd755]

Father Daniel O'Daly
Everything quoted below comes from here https://www.bhsportugal.org/uploads/fotos_artigos/files/10_Father_ODaly_final.pdf
Unless otherwise quoted with link underneath.

Born in Kilsarkan near Castleisland, County Kerry in about 1595. The O'Dalys of Kilsarkan lost their extensive property in the Munster plantation when they were identified in the Inquisition of 1584 as being supporters of Gerald Fitzgerald, the Earl of Desmond, in his rebellion against Queen Elizabeth I.

I always see the title Father and fall into the conditioning idea of pious holy men of the cloth. I really shouldn't but there it is.
This bloke was born into landed gentry if not aristocracy.

The family was a family of bards which can be read about here.
Bardic Families - Irish Pedigrees

Due to religious persecution, Daniel O'Daly left Ireland as a youth and joined the Dominican Order in Spain, first at Lugo in the province of Galicia, where he adopted the name ‘Dominic’, which is why he is known in Portuguese as ‘Frei Domingos do Rosario’, under which title he most often appeared in European diplomacy.

What is it with all this name changing?
Rhetorical question.
Clearly he wasn't without status and contacts.

He completed his studies at Burgos. Following his ordination he taught a course of philosophy and theology at Bordeaux, then returned to Ireland for missionary work in the Emly diocese on the borders of Co. Limerick and Co. Tipperary as a ‘fugitive’ priest with no fixed abode. However soon he was to go back to the Continent in charge of the newly-founded college at Louvain in the Spanish Netherlands, where the Irish Dominican province was endeavouring to found a college for the Irish nation.

Spain thence to France then to, Ireland thence to the Spanish Netherlands. He certainly got about.

A visit to Madrid in 1629 on college business brought him to the notice of King Philip IV, who received him so favourably that he ventured to press upon the monarch the advisability of founding a college of the order in Lisbon, which was under Spanish rule. He had a brother, Denis, who enlisted in the Spanish army and eventually settled in Portugal.

And rubbed shoulders with Spanish royalty to boot.

With the assurance of financial stability from the King, he arrived in Lisbon in 1629, first to found a hospice for clerics returning to Ireland, and subsequently a seminary and college for Irish Dominican students.

Now ensconced in Lisbon, Portugal with the financial and influential backing from the Spanish king I venture to suggest this man had more strings to his bow than just priesthood. His priests garb buttoned over different roles. Diplomat, messenger, courier, spy are four that leap to mind.

In 1640, Portugal threw off the yoke of Spain and Father O'Daly, whose entire work and interest was now centred in Lisbon was loyal to the new monarchy.

So at this point he abandoned his regal Spanish support and threw his lot in with the new Portugeuse King John IV. Given all Philip had done for O'Daly its quite a surprise to read that. Still loyalty does seem to be a fickle mistress amongst many men during these restless times.

The new Queen, D. Luísa de Gusmão invited him to be her confessor and he won the confidence of the newly restored King, D. João IV de Bragança, who sent him on several diplomatic missions. He was sent as Ambassador to Louis XIV of France in 1655, remaining in Paris for over a year.

Hang on surely this lady and her husband would have been aware if not well aware of this blokes relationship with King Philip of Spain. And yet he was trusted to be dispatched on diplomatic missions. It beggars belief quite honestly that these Portuguese Monarchs would so readily trust this Irish priest who had the ear of Philip.
Not only that but he was trusted with Luisa's innermost secrets.
Didn't prevent him being sent abroad to France as a Portuguese Ambassador no less. I wonder what he got up to in France?

Prior to this mission he had already been employed on affairs of State during the secret negotiations between Charles I of England and Philip IV of Spain and in 1649 and had acted as the go-between between Charles Stuart (Charles II of England), then in exile in Jersey,

Now we can add Jersey to the places Prince Charles stayed at during his exile whilst the Commonwealth endured. Its staggering.
He knew Charles I as well as Philip IV and John V beside Prince Charles aka Charles II.
Here I reckon we are looking at a hidden in plain sight enabler to use the modern vernacular. He was working, for who is hard to establish, enabling things to happen in certain ways.
My guess at this point is either Philip IV or Luisa who let's not forget was born Spanish her father being the Duke of Medina Sedona perhaps both. He had connections yp the wazoo to Spain, Portugal, England and Frances royal families. Far more than any of the other characters examined to date.

1655, D. João IV sent Father O'Daly as envoy to the French regent, Anne of Austria, to negotiate financial and military help with her chief adviser, Cardinal Mazarin and try and conclude an alliance between the two countries.

Once again trusted to go to France this time as envoy not ambassador and negotiator on behalf of John IV of Portugal. In effect negotiating with a Cardinal with the authority of the King. As I said he is no ordinary priest. Not even remotely.

After D. João IV death in 1656, father O'Daly was recalled to Lisbon to act as chief adviser to the Regent, D. Luísa de Gusmão. His main diplomatic triumph was his successful negotiation of a marriage alliance between the newly restored King Charles II of England and Catherine of Braganza, the daughter of Queen Luisa and the late King.

Blimey. Here is an Irishman negotiating a dowry for the marriage of a Portuguese Princess and an English king. If ever there was a manipulator supreme, working not in the shadows but in plain sight (albeit inside his priesthood) Father Daniel O'Daly is his name.

For a truly Catholic take on this man go here CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Daniel O'Daly

And then I found this.
Rosario and Roche: A Credible Union

Around 1668, King Afonso of Portugal wrote to Charles II of England with a recommendation for John Roche, formerly assistant to Rosario O’Daly, to be given a post in the Queen’s Bedchamber.

To be clear King Afonoso is Charles II's brother in law. Rosario O'Daly is...I'm sure you worked it out.

Father Dominic of the Rosary

The following sketch of O’Daly was written by a nineteenth century Dominican father who placed O’Daly’s birth in Tralee:

Controversial. Two differing birthplaces for the same chap. Amazing how common this format is turning out to be.

Daniel O’Daly or, as he was better known, Father Dominic of the Rosary, was born in Tralee in the year 1595. He was descended from the ancient and noble family of the O’Dalys which had settled in Kerry early in the sixteenth century and on the maternal side from the illustrious family of the Geraldines, Earls of Desmond

Aristocracy not gentry. The aristocracy were legion in all areas involving any form of control of people and land.

He joined the Order of Preachers at an early age, made his solemn profession in Lucca, and completed his studies at Burgos, in Old Castile. He then read a very extensive course of studies in philosophy and theology at Bordeaux in Aquitaine after which he returned to Ireland. After his return he spent some time in his native Convent of Holy Cross, Tralee, and afterwards did missionary work in other parts of the country, as a commendatory letter of the Bishop of Emly testified.

O’Daly went to Louvain about this time, by order of the Irish Provincial, the Very Rev Father Nicholas Lynch, S.T.M. and taught with great distinction in the college lately erected there for the Irish Members of the Order.

Mirroring the first account of his life I went through with extra detail added.

In the year 1629, Dominic set out for Spain to arrange some matters connected with the College in Louvain. Having accomplished these matters with skill and success, and seeing that he enjoyed the favour and esteem of Philip III, King of Spain, to whom Portugal and Belgium were then subject, he formed the design of founding a convent in Lisbon for the members of the desolate and persecuted Irish Province of the Order.

Kingly connections just the difference in the kings Philip IV in the earlier account Philip III here. It seems the later died in 1622. Open mind and all that.

Through the interest and assistance of the most illustrious and Most Reverend Don Roderico de Cunha, Archbishop of Lisbon, of the Father Master Provincial of Portugal, who was then residing at the Convent of Saint Dominic at Lisbon, of Father Master John de Vascanellos, of Father Master Alvarez de Castro, and several other influential Members of the Portuguese Province of the Order, Dominic obtained possession, before the end of the year, of a small hospital in the Rua Nova de Almada (the new street of Almada).

He was joined in the work of establishing this little convent by three other Irish Dominicans, Father Peter Piercy, Father Matthew of the Cross, and Father Edward Nagle, and in a short time their numbers increased very much.

Much detail on the names of other men he was involved with.

In order that the members of the community might be more easily and speedily increased, Father Dominic sent the Venerable Father Arthur MacGeoghegan to Ireland, to receive Irish youths for this convent. He was, unfortunately, seized in London and cast into prison…. He was then hanged and while yet alive cut down, his body cut into quarters and his entrails cast into the fire. He died thus gloriously about the end of the year 1633.

Anyone interested in this Fathers death can read his story here.
De Processu Martyriali
It is interesting but I feel it lies outside the remit of the op.

Dominic received many honours during his lifetime …Charles II of England invited him by most affectionate and pressing letters to become confessor and spiritual adviser of his wife, Queen Catherine, daughter of John IV, King of Portugal.

Evidence of the esteem in which this man was held by royalty he encountered.

In the private archives of the Master General at Rome is the following:

The Reverend Father Dominic of the Rosary, an illustrious Professor in the University of Louvain, in Flanders, a very religious man of great discretion and mature wisdom, has been petitioned for by two bishops and one archbishop, that he may be made bishop of his native diocese of Ardfert and Aghadoe (Kerry) on account of his great prudence and zeal for religion.

After refusing so many bishoprics through his great humility, his charity, at length, compelled him to accept that of Coimbra which he had before refused….There was, however, a deeper design concealed behind their generosity; they knew that to the Bishop of Coimbra belonged the duty of presiding over the Royal Council, which honour they wished to confer on Dominic.

Who would not admire,’ says the good old chronicler, ‘the wisdom and good fortune of the man who merited such a privilege from the hands of those to whom he was a foreigner?’

Interesting words. No ordinary priest was he.

Whilst from here Ambassador Extraordinaire: Life of Daniel O’Daly 1595-1662 review

Daniel O’Daly (who became better known as Dominic of the Rosary), lived his adult life in the first half of the 1600s in Europe, moving with ease with royalty in several European courts, his diplomatic skills shaping and changing the course of history of several countries.

A trusted Confessor, this Irish Friar was described by a contemporary as “a most capable and intelligent man” who gained the confidence of Kings and Queens and continued to hold it until his death. Spiritual Director as well as advisor on domestic and state matters,

He was a theologian in the Irish college in Louvain “without influence and a stranger” when his superiors sent him to Spain in 1662 to get aid from the Spanish King. From there the “very tall, black man” who “speaks very big” was to be the beginnings of a career in diplomacy

Later, Daniel O’Daly would be in Portugal when it was rapidly assuming a position of political influence. He helped to maintain Portugal as an independent country. He was key to the alliance between England and Portugal, when after the death of Oliver Cromwell, in the Stuart Restoration, Charles II married the Portuguese princess Catherine de Braganca

(Fr O’Daly declined her requested to be chaplain to her suite).

He doesn't seem to want or welcome being restricted in his work.

he is remembered as Ireland’s first modern Ambassador. His career involves him in political events in Europe when, as MacCurtain describes, “the connection between Ireland and the continent was considerable and subtle”. When required he raised an army in Ireland.

And from here https://www.bhsportugal.org/anglo-portuguese-timeline/father-daniel-odaly-founded-corpo-santo

Known as Frei Domingos Rosário, O’Daly carried out considerable diplomatic activity, visiting various courts of continental Europe on behalf of the King. He also went to London and was received by Cromwell.

Wowza!!
This Irish priest met Charles I, Cromwell, Charles II, Philip IV, John IV, Louis XIV also queens and regents.

From here https://www.flickr.com/photos/feargal/5204619185
we get this.

Long before this, he had been employed on affairs of state, during the secret negotiations between Charles I. of England, and Philip IV. of Spain, and also in 1650, between Charles II. of England, then in exile, and Pope Innocent X.

The following extract from the Clarendon Papers (vol. II., p. 66) refers to the latter negotiations : "1650. June 24, Rome.

" Robert Meynell to Cottington and Hyde. Had the King gone to Ireland, no doubt the Pope would have .contrived some way for his assistance, but upon his treating with the Scots, the Pope presently made a stand. Daniel O'Dally, an Irish Dominican, has come to Rome with a commission from the Queen [of England] to treat with the Pope ; he was formerly at Rome, where he did many good offices for the late King [Charles I.] ; was with the present King at Jersey and came from him extremely satisfied," et

This man is definitely a hidden hand in plain sight.

 

[Deleted member 1432]

Just to muddy the waters a bit more, it's worth mentioning that Bards were originally a Druidic phenomena, i.e. pre-Chrisitian 'Pagan'. At the levels of society you are rummaging through the distinctions of apparent religious affiliation mean very little, if anything, being merely pieces in a chess game. Imo, O'Dallys lineage was the source of his influence, unless anyone can come up with another explanation.

 

[Jd755]

It appears that in religions there are "true believers" and "fair weather adherents" people who can run with the hares and the hands as it suits them in the moment.
This chap was of the latter type if his exploits are any guide. Perhaps the fair weather aderents are the majority and the true believers the minority. Could explain why religious houses were never very populous.