Alton Towers, Sir Francis Bacon and the Rosicrucians

MJF, we do not use those sessions, ever, as we cannot vouch for them as original and they may contain deliberately inserted misinformation. Also, there are legal reasons not to do so. Please do not use them again.
Ok. I hadn't realised that this was such a sensitive subject. Having read them, they do seem to contain a lot of material which is useful to this particular quest, so it is a shame that Laura has not yet found the time to annotate them and post them, as it leaves quite a gap in the transcript material. However, I will heed your warning.
I think Trent can have multiple meanings other than the river and the trident.

The number 3 reminded me of the Medusa 3x11 puzzle, 11 being knowledge and 3 being Gemini man concerned only with non spiritual stuff, as hinted by the Cs. Baphomet, the inversion of it is wisdom, holding the trent which might symbolize hieros gamos, sacred marriage between man and wisdom.

In addition, trent might refer to the triple goddess, Kore. Perhaps the Kore mentioned by the Cs was the triple goddess incarnated, an actual divinity.

On another note, "nephelim" consists of "ne" meaning not and "phelim" meaning forever good in Celtic.
You introduce some interesting points here. We have already looked at the possible meanings of "Trent" on this thread. I did consider the possibility that it might be referring to the city of Trent in Italy, which as you point out means "Tridentum" or trident, a three pronged spear carried by the likes of Neptune, the Roman god of the sea. Is it possible that Celtic migrants helped to found the Italian city of Trent and used a name they brought with them from the Humber area in Britain? Afterall, the Romans claimed they were descended from Trojan refugees and the C's have said that Troy was in England. The fact that there are hills overlooking Rome that are called 'the Alban Hills' might support this idea, given that Albion was the name the Romans gave to Britain and Alba or Alban was the old name of Scotland.​

It is interesting that you also link the Trent to the triple goddess Kore. I have previously linked Kore to the British goddess Brig and to Brigid, a triple goddess in Ireland, whose name was borne by the Celtic Briganti tribe who occupied the Humber Estuary area and the land straddling the River Trent in England. I have also linked Kore to the Egyptian Hagar and Princess Meritaten, Akhenaten's daughter, so on this basis it seems possible that she was an incarnate being who subsequently was deified.

I had not realised that "Nephilim" means "not forever good" in Celtic, so thank you for pointing this out. The C's themselves pointed out that: "When it comes to the Nephilim, references all point to a unified source". I am guessing that this unified source is perhaps chapter 6 of the Book of Genesis that states:

"And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart".

This might explain why giants became linked with wickedness. There is also the story of the Watchers in the apocryphal book of Enoch but this was lost to the western world until the 19th century so is less likely to have been the unified source the C's had in mind. Giants have also been linked with stone circles and other ancient monuments (Baalbek springs to mind as does Easter Island) so there was much more to them than the legend of huge lumbering monsters who had a taste for human flesh (think Jack and the Beanstalk).​

Indeed, when it comes to covenants, it might be worth recalling that the Watchers (fallen angels) entered into a covenant reputedly on Mount Hermon, which today spraddles the border between Syria and Lebanon. See Mount Hermon - Wikipedia.

Mount Hermon's name has been related to the Semitic root ḥrm, which means "taboo" or "consecrated", and the Arabic term al-ḥaram, which means "sacred enclosure".

In the apocryphal Book of Enoch, Mount Hermon is the place where the Watcher class of fallen angels descended to Earth. They swear upon the mountain that they would take wives among the daughters of men and take mutual imprecation for their sin. There is a sacred building made of hewn blocks of stone on the summit of Mount Hermon. Known as Qasr Antar, it is the highest temple of the ancient world and was documented by Sir Charles Warren in 1869. An inscription on a limestone stele recovered by Warren from Qasr Antar was translated by George Nickelsburg to read "According to the command of the greatest a(nd) Holy God, those who take an oath (proceed) from here." Nickelsburg connected the inscription with the oath taken by the angels under Semjaza who took an oath together, bound by a curse, in order to take human wives in the Book of Enoch (1 Enoch 6:6). Hermon was said to have become known as "the mountain of oath" by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau. The name of God was supposed to be a Hellenized version of Baʿal or Hadad and Nickelsburg connected it with the place name of Baal-Hermon (Lord of Hermon) and the deity given by Enoch as "The Great Holy One".

In Deuteronomy 3:8-3:9 and Joshua 12:1 and 13:11, Mount Hermon is depicted as the northern boundary of the Amorite kingdom, which following the conquest by Joshua was awarded to the half-tribe of Manasseh east of the River Jordan. As we have already noted, the Old Testament provides accounts of giants who still occupied this region at that time.

I doubt though that this is the place where the Nordic Covenant the C's spoke of was entered into but I put it out there in case anyone may have a view on it. It also makes me think of the Gods of Olympus who were challenged in battle by the giant Titans of Greek mythology. Is there a possible connection between these two legends?​
The story of the kidnapping plus background info on Jack and Cecil can be found in Amazing Grace notably in chapter two and three.

I wasn't aware you didn't read this yet.
I read Amazing Grace quite a while ago and I am afraid that as I get older my memory is just not as good as it was. Besides the transcripts, I have been dipping into quite a lot of Laura's earlier writings of late, which in total represent a fairly large collection of works. Hence, I was relying on someone like your goodself to pin it down for me, which you have kindly done.
Ok. I hadn't realised that this was such a sensitive subject. Having read them, they do seem to contain a lot of material which is useful to this particular quest, so it is a shame that Laura has not yet found the time to annotate them and post them, as it leaves quite a gap in the transcript material. However, I will heed your warning.
All the transcripts are here: 📚 Cassiopaean Session Transcripts by date
The Augustinian Cannons of Notre Dame de Sion

I have mentioned before that the main premise behind Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln’s book – The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was to demonstrate the existence of a great secret, which entailed the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene continuing on through the Merovingian Kings of France and into the royal families of Europe. As we now know, Pierre Plantard in collaboration with Gerard de Sede fabricated the existence of the secret society they called the ‘Prieure de Sion’ (Priory of Sion) and led Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln along in what turned out to be a wild goose chase. In doing so, the authors themselves became unwitting partners in this misinformation spinning exercise. Laura herself gives an account of this in her series ‘The Grail Quest and The Destiny of Man’*.​


However, as I have said before, this does not invalidate the considerable research that the three authors did when writing The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and their follow-up books, some of which information I have quoted in earlier articles. As I have previously said, the authors may have unwittingly uncovered a greater mystery in the same way that the TV writers and producers of Alternative 3 did. Indeed, when looking at some of the names that Plantard and de Sede gave as Masters of the Priory of Sion, Laura noted how a number of them appeared to be people connected with alchemy, including Nicolas Flamel, Robert Fludd, Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. In J. Valentin Andrea, you also have someone who is connected to the 17th century Rosicrucians. When you connect this finding with the part that Nicolas Poussin’s painting of the Shepherds of Arcadia plays in the mystery of Rennes-le-Château, then the Rosicrucian connection becomes even stronger. In some ways, you could argue that the fictional Priory of Sion may well be just a smokescreen for the Rosicrucians.

Although no one can discover a society going by the name of the Priory of Sion outside of Plantard and de Sede’s fabricated documentation, there was most definitely an organisation that went by the name of the Order of Sion. As Laura has noted:

After Jerusalem fell to Godfroi de Bouillon in 1099, an abbey devoted to Notre Dame du Mont de Sion was built on the hill of Sion to the south of Jerusalem; it is referred to in later documents and figures in several views of the city. A Father Vincent, writing in 1698, (notice that this is over 500 years after) says:

There were in Jerusalem during the Crusades… knights attached to the Abbey of Notre Dame de Sion who took the name of Chevaliers de l’Order de Notre Dame de Sion.

R. Rohricht, in his Regesta regni Hierosolymitani (Roll of the kings of Jerusalem), written in 1893 (over 800 years after the fact) cites two charters: one of 1116 by Arnaldus, prior of Notre Dame de Sion, and one of 1125, in which Arnaldus’s name appears with that of Hugues Payen, the first Grand Master of the Temple. The existence of the Abbey of Sion, at least until 1281, is attested to by E.-G. Rey in a paper in the proceedings of the French National Society of Antiquaries (1887), which lists the abbots who administered the abbey’s property in Palestine.

All of these “proofs” were dug up by Lincoln et al, after great exertions to discover the validity of the claims of Pierre Plantard. But, these VERY LATE documents are the ONLY historical documentation of the possible existence of a Prieure de Sion. Everything else that refers to such an organization finds its origin in those highly suspect “publications” deposited in the Bibliotheque Nationale that all seem to lead back to a single source – possibly Pierre Plantard himself – and handily brought to Lincoln’s attention by Gerard de Sede.

The Abbey of Notre Dame de Sion was built on the ruins of an old Byzantine basilica, which may have dated from the fourth century and was called ‘the Mother of all Churches’. According to one chronicler, writing in 1172, it was extremely well fortified, with its own walls, towers and battlements. Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln wondered whether the occupants of the Abbey could have been the Order of Sion. They noted that the knights and monks who occupied the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, also installed by Godfroi de Bouillon, were formed into an official and duly constituted order – the ‘Order of the Holy Sepulchre’. The authors speculated that the same principle might have applied to the occupants of the Abbey. They seemed to find confirmation that this was the case in a leading 19th century expert on the subject who indicated that the Abbey was occupied by a chapter of Augustinian cannons who were charged with serving the sanctuaries under the direction of an abbot. The community assumed the name of ‘Sainte-Marie du Mont Syon et du Saint-Esprit’ [Holy Mary of Mount Sion and of the Holy Ghost]. The other name they took was Chevaliers de l’Order de Notre Dame de Sion [Knights of the Order of Our Lady of Sion]. What the authors could not discover though was whether or not the Order had been formed earlier or had taken its name from the place it was founded (like the Cistercian monks from Citeaux and the Carmelite friars from Mt. Carmel).

Hence, we now see a definite connection with St Augustine, whose cannons would occupy the Abbey of Notre Dame de Sion from 1100 AD onwards. As for evidence connecting the Order of Our Lady of Sion with the Priory of Sion, the authors had considered the ‘Prieure documents’ supplied by Gerard de Sede, which had implied this was the case and they themselves did find some evidence to suggest, albeit vaguely and obliquely, that this may have been the case.

It would seem that in 1070 AD, twenty nine years before the First Crusade, a band of monks, from Calabria in southern Italy, arrived in the vicinity of the Ardennes Forest, which was part of Godfroi de Bouillon’s domains. On their arrival in the Ardennes, the Calabrian monks obtained the patronage of Mathilde de Toscane, Duchesse of Lorraine and the aunt of Godfroi de Bouillon (in effect his foster mother). Mathilde gave the monks a tract of land at Orval where they established an abbey. However, they did not remain in Orval for very long. By 1108 they had mysteriously disappeared and no record of their whereabouts survives. Tradition maintains that they returned to Calabria. Interestingly, Orval by 1131 became a fiefdom of St Bernard of Clairvaux - the Cistercian Abbot who drew up the Templars’ Rule and had a close relationship with the fledgling Order.

Things then got a bit murky when the authors considered de Sede’s suggestion that one of the members of this mysterious band of monks was none other than Peter the Hermit who in 1995 along with Pope Urban II preached the need for a crusade, a holy war, to reclaim Christ’s Holy Sepulchre and the Holy Land from the Muslim infidel. Today Peter the Hermit is regarded as one of the chief instigators of the crusades. Peter the Hermit - Wikipedia. It has also been alleged that Peter the Hermit was the personal tutor of Godfroi de Bouillon but I can find no evidence that supports this contention. However, Peter the Hermit would eventually end up in Jerusalem after the Crusader’s conquest and must no doubt have met with Godfroi given his fame and acclaim at that time.

Quoting Wikipedia: In 1099 Peter appears as the treasurer of the alms at the siege of Arqa, and as leader of the supplicatory processions around the walls of Jerusalem before it fell, and later within Jerusalem, which preceded the Crusaders' surprising victory at the Battle of Ascalon (August 1099). At the end of 1099, Peter went to Latakia, and sailed thence for the West. From this time he disappears from the historical record. Albert of Aix records that he died in 1131, as prior of the Augustinian church of the Holy Sepulchre which he had founded in France. However, others argue that it was actually in Flanders at Neufmoustier near Huy in Belgium, or Huy itself, which may have been his home town. His tomb is in the Neufmoustier Abbey (an Augustinian Abbey dedicated to the Holy Sepulchre and Saint John the Baptist), so it is presumed that this was his Abbey but in another tradition the nearby Solières Abbey (a Cistercian Convent) claims that it was his foundation. So we see that Peter the Hermit had associations with the Augustinian order and the abbey where he is apparently buried is dedicated to St John the Baptist, a saint the Templars also venerated.

We also know that Abbé Bérenger Saunière acquired three paintings one of which was of Saint Anthony the Hermit. Saint Anthony (c. 12 January 251 – 17 January 356), was one of the most famous of the Desert Fathers of Egypt and is considered one of the founders of Christian monasticism. Anthony the Great - Wikipedia. He is also known as the ‘Father of All Monks’. He is often erroneously considered the first Christian monk, but as his biography and other sources make clear, there were many ascetics before him. Anthony was, however, among the first known to go into the wilderness (about AD 270), which seems to have contributed to his renown. Accounts of Anthony enduring supernatural temptation during his sojourn in the Eastern Desert of Egypt inspired the often-repeated subject of the temptation of St. Anthony in Western art and literature. It is the painting of this name by David Teniers that would feature in the Rennes-le-Château mystery. Could Saint Anthony the Hermit therefore have been a smokescreen for Peter the Hermit, who helped to launch the First Crusade that would see Jerusalem fall into the hands of the Crusaders? Laura has also commented that Saint Anthony seems to have replaced St Augustine somewhere along the way in this mystery. Could this have been a deliberate misdirection on someone’s part?

Although we must treat with the utmost suspicion anything that Gerard de Sede provided, or cooked-up, within the Priory of Sion dossier of secrets or the so called hidden parchments found at the church in Rennes-le-Château, there was an interesting reference to St Anthony made in one of the deciphered parchments:​

Shepherdess. No temptation. That Poussin, Teniers hold the key: Peace 681. By the Cross and this Horse of God, I complete – or destroy – This daemon of the Guardian of Noon. Blue Apples.

Whatever the motives of the creator of this cipher (probably de Sede himself) there are some interesting references appearing within it, some of which have been touched on in the Cassiopaean transcripts. For example, the reference to “Blue Apples” may link to Kore and “Horse of God” may relate to “Chevalier” or “knight”, which although it may be a reference to the Templars, it could also relate to Poseidon, the Greek god of the sea, who is sometimes depicted as a horse and whose shadow is supposed to be seen in Poussin’s painting of the Shepherds of Arcadia.

Returning to the mysterious band of monks from Calabria who vanished from Orval, the authors speculated whether they might have established themselves in Jerusalem, perhaps in the Abbey of Notre Dame de Sion, which had been built by the year 1108 AD. With no documentary evidence to substantiate this, the authors looked to fragments of circumstantial evidence to support their hypothesis. They noted that when Godfroi de Bouillon embarked for the Holy Land, he is known to have been accompanied by an entourage of anonymous figures who acted as advisors and administrators – effectively like a modern general staff. This in itself is not unusual for a prominent figure heading an army as Godfroi was. In addition, it was not unusual in those days to include clerics such as friars or monks in one’s entourage, since they were amongst the few educated and literate men of the age, who could read and write letters and keep a chronicle of events. Christopher Columbus and Cortez had Dominican friars accompanying them on their respective voyages of exploration and conquest. The authors noted though that there were three other armies who set out for the Holy Land at the same time, each commanded by an illustrious and influential western potentate. If the Crusade succeeded, any one of these four military leaders could have been selected to occupy the throne of Jerusalem. However, the authors suggest that Godfroi knew in advance that it would be him, since he alone of the four commanders renounced all his fiefdoms and sold all his goods with a view to remaining in the Holy Land for the rest of his life.

In 1099, immediately after the capture of Jersualem, a group of anonymous figures convened together in a secret conclave. The identity of this group has eluded all historical inquiry – although Guillaume de Tyre, writing three quarters of century later, reports that the most important of them was a ‘certain bishop from Calabria’. In any case, the purpose of the meeting was quite clear – to elect a king of Jerusalem. Although Raymond, the Count of Tolouse would appear to have had a persuasive claim, the mysterious and obviously influential electors promptly offered the throne to Godfroi de Bouillon. With uncharacteristic modesty, he declined the throne accepting instead the title of ‘Defender of the Holy Sepulchre’, a king in all but name. When he died in 1100, his brother Baudouin did not hesitate in accepting the name as well. The authors wondered if the mysterious conclave which elected Godfroi may have been the monks from Orval, including perhaps Peter the Hermit who was in the Holy Land at that time and enjoyed considerable authority. If true, it would certainly attest to the Order of Sions’s power – a power which seemingly even included the right to confer thrones. Needless to say, this is pure speculation on the part of the three authors but the link with Calabria does certainly appear interesting.

In their footnotes, the authors, using William of Tyre as their main source, point out that the unnamed bishop from Calabria was friend of a man called Arnulf, a very minor ecclesiastic, who, with the help of this bishop, was later elected the first Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. This would suggest that this bishop had a lot of influence on the ground in the newly conquered Holy Land. They also mentioned a very strange group that had survived from the earlier People’s Crusade led by Peter the Hermit that were called the ‘Tafurs’. Of this group there was an inner college presided over by a king of the Tafurs. What is odd is that contemporary chronicles present this king of the Tafurs as a man that even the princes of the crusades approached with humility - even reverence. Indeed, it was this King Tafur who was said to have performed the coronation of Godfroi de Bouillon. He was also said to be associated with Peter the Hermit. This made the authors wonder whether this inner group and the king were the representatives from Calabria.

The Priory dossier of secrets also alleged that King Baudoin I in 1117 (when he was virtually on his deathbed) was obliged to negotiate the constitution of the Order of the Temple at the site of St. Léonard of Acre, which was then made public the following year. The authors own research revealed that St. Léonard of Acre was one of the fiefs of the Order of Sion. Although they could not find out why Baudoin was obliged to negotiate the Templars’ constitution, the implication was that the Order of Sion was powerful enough to pressure, if not coerce, Baudoin into doing their bidding. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the authors had found hard evidence to show that the Templars had existed, at least in embryonic form, for at least four years prior to their generally accepted date of founding in 1118. The authors speculated that the Knights Templar could have been active, albeit in an ex officio capacity, long before 1118 – as, say, a military entourage or administrative arm of the Order of Sion, housed in its fortified Abbey.

It is worth pointing out that the authors at this stage had already begun to “discern a web of intricate, elusive and provocative connections, the shadowy vestiges perhaps of some ambitious design.” When considering the above players and events together and linking them with the actions of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and his Cistercians, the Count of Champagne and André de Montbard, St, Bernard’s uncle and an alleged member of the Order of Sion who joined with Hugues de Payen in founding the Templars, it looked to the three authors that they were dealing with a plan of some sort, conceived and engineered by some human agency and not something that was random or coincidental. They naturally wondered whether that agency was the Order of Sion. Taking a step back here, whilst also taking into account that the authors had been guided to some extent by Gerard de Sede’s Priory dossier secrets, one has to consider that even if the Order of Sion had not been the active agency in guiding these events, there would certainly appear to have been a conspiracy operating behind the scenes orchestrating the establishment of the Templars.

It would appear that the Order of Sion then remained based solely in the Holy Land in their Abbey on the outskirts of Jerusalem until 1152. However, on his return from the Second Crusade, Louis VII of France is said to have brought back with him ninety-five members of the Order of Sion. There is no explanation in what capacity these members attended on the king or why he extended his bounty to them. However, if the Order of Sion was the real power behind the Templars this would certainly explain things, since King Louis was heavily indebted to the Templars at that time both for money and military support. Supposedly sixty-two members of the Order were installed at the large priory of St. Samson at Orleans, which King Louis had donated to them and seven knights were then reportedly incorporated into the fighting ranks of the Knights Templar. As to the remaining twenty-six members, two groups of thirteen each (MJF: a significant number to the Illuminati) are said to have entered the small Priory of the Mount of Sion, situated at St. Jean le Blanc on the outskirts of Orleans. The authors were subsequently able to authenticate this since the charters by which King Louis installed the Order of Sion at Orleans still exist. The originals and copies can be viewed in the municipal archives at Orleans and there is also a papal Bull dated 1178 from Pope Alexander III, which officially confirms the Order of Sion’s possessions. These possessions attest to the Order’s wealth, power and influence at this stage. This includes large tracts of land in France, Spain, Sicily, Lombardy and Calabria in Italy, as well as their holdings in the Holy Land. In fact, until the Second World War, the archives in Orleans held no fewer than twenty charters specifically citing the Order of Sion. However, during the bombing of the city in 1940 all but three of these original charters disappeared (MJF: how convenient!).​


In spite of the underlying suspicion of fraudulent creation where the Priory of Sion dossier of secrets is concerned, there is supporting evidence to prove that there was in the 12th century a genuine order that went by the name of the Priory of Sion and like the Templars (and the Cistercians whose foundation preceded the 12th century) they quickly established considerable wealth and significant property holdings in Western Europe and the Holy Land. It is hard to understand why this was so at this distance in time. This leads one to ask whether it may be that they had discovered something, or some items, of immense importance that they could leverage off to build a power base. Furthermore, one needs to ask whether the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar were established in accordance with a plan that pre-dated the First Crusade. Finally, one could ask whether a heavily fortified Abbey was built on the outskirts of Jerusalem, on a hill whose name has overt biblical significance, in order to house and guard something of major importance – perhaps the very reason why the two orders were created in the first place. Could that something possibly have been the Holy Grail and other Old Testament artefacts?​
The Cord around the Waist

I would also take this chance to raise an interesting point that arises from something Laura asked the C’s, which related to the cord worn around the waste by members of secret societies. This came from the Session dated June 20, 1998:

Q: So, there is a 'table' involved... hmmm... alright, now: for a long time I have been curious about the reason for the wearing of the cord around the waist, against the skin, that is a symbol of many secret societies. What was the meaning of the cord around the waist?

A: Balance.

Q: How can a cord symbolize balance?

A: Body magnetic field.

Q: I don't see how that relates to wearing a cord around the waist? Are you saying it balanced the body's magnetic field, or was supposed to?

A: Symbolism.

Q: There's gotta be something else to this cord around the waist... it was some big symbolic thing and it relates to the wearing of the Masonic apron... (C) Maybe it's a symbol of the larger garment? (L) Any comments?

A: No need for any.

I have raised this point now since it will become relevant when looking at the origins of modern freemasonry that grew allegedly out of the Knights Templars who survived in Scotland post the Order’s dissolution. The cord around the waist is worn not only by the likes of the Freemasons but by Catholic monks, cannons and friars such as the Augustinians, Benedictines, Dominicans and Carmelites to name but a few. Indeed, until recent times it was worn by all Catholic priests when celebrating the Mass. However, the origins of this practice may pre-date Christian monasticism (as established by hermits such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers) and link with the earlier Jewish monastic-like sect known as the Essenes. In truth, this practice may even date back further in time to the Druids. In many ways, in spite of the distance in time, these different groups dressed in much the same manner, often in garments looking like a monk’s habit or sometimes a cowl or hooded cloak. It should be noted that the Cistercians, Augustinians, Carmelites and the Templars all wore white habits or cloaks as did the Essenes.​

The Carmelites

Apart from the Augustinian cannons who formed the Order of Sion, another monastic group that established itself in the Holy Land at around the same time, ministering to Christian pilgrims, was the order of discalced friars today known as the Carmelites or White Friars. They were first established on Mount Carmel in Palestine, hence their name. However, they eventually had to abandon their original monastery on Mount Carmel when the Crusaders were driven out of the Holy Land by the Saracens. Why may they be relevant here? Well I came across an interesting article by modern day American Rosicrucians (AMORC) called ‘The Essene Lineage in California: Carmelites and Rosicrucians at Carmel in 1602’, which suggests that the Carmelites joined a voyage to California in the early 17th century (about the same time frame as the Alchemists who voyaged to Oak Island on the eastern seaboard) with a group of Rosicrucians to form the first carmel (monastery) and the first Rosicrucian lodge respectively in California. It struck me on reading the article that these two groups made for strange bedfellows given their histories. The link made in the article between the two groups though was to the Essenes of Judea. I am sharing this article (see attachment) because the Essenes are very much part of this mystery and at some stage we need to tackle how they fit into the picture.

As the Article explains, during the 12th century, the hermits, monks and mystics who lived and worked on Mount Carmel formalised their community as the Carmelite Order of the Catholic Church. The Article goes on to say that they were preserving a clear continuity with the Essene traditions, including mystical prayer, vegetarianism, the common holding of property, simplicity of life and manual labour to support the community. I should point out that these attributes broadly apply to all Catholic monastic orders, save perhaps for vegetarianism. It intrigues me though that H Spencer Lewis, who is quoted in the article, should link the Rosicrucians to the Essene tradition as well. There are those that argue the modern Rosicrucians of today have no historic link or continuity with the 16th century Rosicrucians. However, the article is clearly describing the activities of early 17th century Rosicrucians, whatever may be the provenance of today’s Rosicrucians. Essentially, Spencer Lewis saw the Roscirucians and Carmelites as two strains of the one Essene heritage.

Quoting from Wikipedia - Historical records about the Carmel’s origin remain very uncertain, but it was probably founded in the 12th century on Mount Carmel. Berthold of Calabria has traditionally been associated with the founding of the order, but few clear records of early Carmelite history have survived. Some accounts hold that in 1185 Berthold came to Mount Carmel, built a small chapel there and gathered a community of hermits who would live at his side in imitation of the prophet Elijah. This community may have given rise to the Order of the Carmelites but this is not supported by evidence and is discounted by historians of the Order. Berthold lived out his days on Mount Carmel, ruling the community he had founded for forty-five years until his death in 1195. The Carmelite Order is one of the few, if not the only, monastic order not to refer to a charismatic founder, but to a prophet of the Old Testament: Elijah and his disciple Elisha are considered by the Carmelites as the spiritual fathers of the order. Tradition also indicates the presence on Mount Carmel of a series of Jewish and then Christian hermits who lived, prayed and taught in these caves used by Elijah and Elisha. These caves of Mount Carmel have nevertheless, as archaeological data attests, served as a place of habitat and worship in many eras, without guaranteeing historical continuity, especially in a specific cult. This is how the first Christian hermits (at the origin of the founding of the order), settled in the caves of Mount Carmel to pray to God. Before the presence of the Carmelites, in the 6th century Byzantine monks had built a monastery dedicated to St. Elijah in a valley just a few kilometers south of the present monastery. This was destroyed in 614 by the Persians. Around 1150, a Greek monk from Calabria established a community of about ten members among the ruins of the ancient Byzantine monastery which he rebuilt and renamed Saint Elijah. It is interesting that this monk should come from Calabria, although some argue that ‘Calabrian’ as used here is just a euphemism for ‘westerner’.

In the article, reference is made to the fact that the range of mountains in which Mount Carmel is located has been considered sacred since at least 1500 BC, according to geographical lists found at the Temple Complex at Karnak, which therefore places this recognition of their sacredness in the same timeframe as Abraham/Moses and Akhenaten. There would also seem to have been an Essene Community (the Nazoreans) established at Mt. Carmel with a Temple and a school. The article states that excavations in 1958 revealed what is now accepted (by who?) as the altar of the prophet Elijah who reputedly lived and worked around 900 BC. The Rosicrucian writer H. Spencer Lewis views Elijah as having been an Essene, as was John the Baptist, who is linked with the Essene community at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1946/47. I also find it intriguing that Pythagores, the Greek philosopher and mathematician apparently visited Mt. Carmel around 535 BC and studied there on his way to Egypt before establishing his school at Croton in southeast Italy. He seems to have shared many attributes with the Essenes, including their mode of dress (white robes), long hair, vegetarianism and non-violence to living creatures. When you consider the Essenes, Pythagores (who established his own mystery school), the Carmelites and Templars are we looking at a continuing tradition of a ‘Great White Brotherhood’ that also may have included the earlier Druids? It should also be noted that like the Druids, the Essenes were considered as being masters in the art of physical and mystical healing. Christian monks and nuns would continue this same tradition in the Christian age, where monasteries and convents would often act as hospitals (infirmaries) to their local communities.

So we see a mountain that has been regarded as holy for over 3,500 years and is subsequently linked with the prophet Elijah or Elias. In the Old Testament Elijah defended the worship of the Hebrew God over that of the Canaanite deity Baal. God performed many miracles through Elijah, including resurrection, bringing fire down from the sky, and entering heaven alive "by fire". He is also portrayed as leading a school of prophets known as "the sons of the prophets". According to accounts in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, Elijah appeared with Moses during the Transfiguration of Jesus. Elijah is also connected to Mt. Carmel in the famous test that he set for the prophets of Baal (see Elijah - Wikipedia). We also see that Elijah is revered as the spiritual Father and traditional founder of the Carmelite Order.

We should keep all this in mind when looking more closely at the Essenes but I would not have guessed before reading this article at their possible link to the Rosicrucians.​


  • The Essene Lineage in California.pdf
    446.3 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
The cord around the waist is worn not only by the likes of the Freemasons but by Catholic monks, cannons and friars such as the Augustinians, Benedictines, Dominicans and Carmelites to name but a few. Indeed, until recent times it was worn by all Catholic priests when celebrating the Mass. However, the origins of this practice may pre-date Christian monasticism (as established by hermits such as St Anthony and the Desert Fathers) and link with the earlier Jewish monastic-like sect known as the Essenes. In truth, this practice may even date back further in time to the Druids. In many ways, in spite of the distance in time, these different groups dressed in much the same manner, often in garments looking like a monk’s habit or sometimes a cowl or hooded cloak. It should be noted that the Cistercians, Augustinians, Carmelites and the Templars all wore white habits or cloaks as did the Essenes.​
I did some googling and learned a lot. Thank you for the impetus to do that. Learning is fun...!

As far as I understand it, the cord around the waist is a symbolic umbilical cord signifying some sort of a re-birth in and attachment to the order of which the wearer is a member. This goes for all variants in a similar way. And there are many, as you already stated. Even military.

Sash - Wikipedia
Girdle - Wikipedia
Cincture - Wikipedia
Fascia (sash) - Wikipedia
Kushti - Wikipedia
Why do men, especially Hindus, tie a thread around their waist? - Quora
You had me seriously on the back foot for a while, MJF. :huh: I had to google it to understand that you meant canons (with single 'n').

Canons regular - Wikipedia
Canon (priest) - Wikipedia
Augustinians - Wikipedia
Augustinian Canons | Roman Catholic order

Found another typo here Peter the Hermit who in 1995 along with Pope Urban II. It should read 1095.
Well spotted. When it comes to Canons I appear to have been 'firing off' on the wrong foot. As for "1995", I guess I am overdue a trip to the opticians.
I did some googling and learned a lot. Thank you for the impetus to do that. Learning is fun...!

As far as I understand it, the cord around the waist is a symbolic umbilical cord signifying some sort of a re-birth in and attachment to the order of which the wearer is a member. This goes for all variants in a similar way. And there are many, as you already stated. Even military.

Sash - Wikipedia
Girdle - Wikipedia
Cincture - Wikipedia
Fascia (sash) - Wikipedia
Kushti - Wikipedia
Why do men, especially Hindus, tie a thread around their waist? - Quora
Yes, I am sure it does have these other connotations too, as you correctly point out. So thank you for bringing this up. However, I was going with the C's idea of 'balance' since it links with the Freemasons, which is where I think Laura was coming from with her reference to secret societies. Although I linked this piece to the Carmelite friars and the Rosicrucians with their unexpected connections, I also wish to draw attention to the Freemason's alleged roots in the Knights Templar, who were a religious order with there own priests, who would have worn the cord around the waist when saying Mass and perhaps generally as many monastics do. If you are not aware, the Freemasons use the plumbline device to express this same concept of perfect balance. If they are truly successors to the Knights Templar, this might explain why. I am hoping soon to do a follow-up post which suggests links between the Templars, Rosicrucians and the Freemasons via Scotland, with a surprise twist the C's may have been alluding to by the use of a particular expression.

Phillip Gardner and Gary Osborn also discussed this concept of balance in their book 'The Shining Ones' too. They proposed the idea of a wandering shamanic priesthood that over a period of many thousands of years had in different guises infused the principles and esoteric knowledge of the Shining Ones into diverse cultures post the Deluge. Hence, this might explain why the custom of wearing a cord around the waist is so widespread. If anyone is particularly knowledgeable about the Druids, it would be good to find out if this was a common practice of their's as well. The Essenes may also have adopted the same practice but I still need to determine this.​
It is not Germaine

The C’s have on a few occasions used the term “it was not germaine” in the transcripts. Laura noted that this was not the usual spelling of the word “germane” (meaning appropriate or relevant) and took it to be a clue.​

Q: You guys are TOO MUCH! Next: Cayce remarked in one of his vague dissertations - and for those who accuse the C's of being vague, they ought to read Cayce, since he was a MASTER of vague! He could talk for pages and say NOTHING! - anyway he said that there were a lot of Atlanteans incarnating between the years 1909 and 1930. He described them as having strong minds and emotions as well as an 'engorgement' of carnal influences, self-indulgence and high technical ability. He also warned that there was the possibility repeating the errors of the past. Now, these are the people who have set up the world as we have it today. My question is: are we facing a replay of the Atlantean situation, in karmic terms?

A: Well, these cycles do replay from an energy standpoint, but there is always the opportunity to learn and thusly, to advance. Was not his proclamation for those born between 1909 and 1930?? And, if so, what is the significance of when it was delivered, if the orientation was one of the "present" tense?

Q: So, it was possible that he was referring to the Hitler, WWII situation.

A: Or just not referring to those of a later "date" because it was not germaine? {Seems to be a deliberate misspelling of “germane”)

In another session, Laura enquired why the C’s used this odd spelling of “germane”.

Session 12 December 1998:

Q: Well, while we are on the subject of spelling, you DO use unusual spelling from time to time, though normally you are very good spellers. What rules direct your spelling since it is not always according to modern usage?

A: No rules, just clues, as allways.

Q: Does this refer also to the way you spell 'germain'? When you say 'it is not germain,' you spell it differently from the way someone would spell it if just saying that something is not relevant.

A: Tis French, as in clue to be.

The first thing to note is that the C’s are saying this is a French term and is a clue for the future. However, they also use the word “Tis”, which is old English for “this is”, suggesting an English or British connection. I subsequently noted that King James II of Great Britain and Ireland, after he had been deposed by his daughter Mary and son-in-law William of Orange established his court in exile at Saint Germains near to Paris. Perhaps this is what the C’s had in mind since you have a French location linked to a British monarch.

The name “Germain” is also connected with the famous alchemist and gentleman fraudster known as Count Saint-Germain, who was one of the strangest and most enigmatic of men in modern history. However, before looking further at the Count, I would like to look at a possible reason why King James may have settled at Saint Germains. Is there a clue in the name?

My cue for starting this thread came from something Laura had said in the recent thread on the death of Prince Phillip. Here is the relevant extract:
Session 5 September 1998

Q: (A) Now this supernova that is supposed to explode soon,
will it be soon in the sense of our SEEING it, that is the
arrival of the light from this, or soon in the
instantaneous sense?
A: Optically.
Q: (L) So, this supernova must have already occurred?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) And where did this supernova take place?
A: No dice, baby!
Q: (L) What clue can I follow to determine which star it is?
A: Instincts.
Q: (A) But, if it already occurred, then this means that the
instantaneous effects have already been felt, even if it
was lesser than the optical effects. It must have been
recorded by anomalous changes in genes? (L) Is that true?
A: Close.
Q: (L) So what, in the records, should we be looking for?
A: Sign of struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained
activities of Royal Blood Lines.

Q: (L) In other words, the usurpation of the blood lines?
A: Close

Session 99-12-04

Q: I have two last questions: at one point you said to note the "struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines." Now, of course, I made the remark about usurpation of a throne, but later I realized that we don't really know what the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines really are. They don't necessarily have to do with a secular position, they could be a function. What are the pre-ordained activities of royal bloodlines?
A: Control.
Q: Control of what? People?
A: Close.
Q: Control of the reality in some sense?
A: Not as close.
Q: Control as in STS domination?
A: Yes.
Q: Are there any other pre-ordained activities?
A: Need there be?
Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.
Q: What sign am I looking for? Struggle out of sequence... a rebellion that breaks out... a particular cycle to these events... a period of time?
A: You need to review.

Laura: So, we can suppose that these so-called "royal bloodlines" are something put in place by STS controllers and that the control "extends off-planet" in some way.

Note my last question carefully:

Q: Okay, "struggle out of sequence." Loss of control? The royal bloodlines lose control?
A: Only when energies build prior to completion of cycle.

The response indicates that I'm onto something here.

Royal bloodlines come and go. Someone not of "royal lineage" can rise up and take over and create a new "royal lineage" that may last for a time, and then go under when another one rises up. I suppose such are the cycles mentioned above, in some sense. There are many such cycles in history where rebellion against the ruling powers overthrows them and then, later, a new "ruling power" comes along. Or, in fact, the new ruling power is responsible for overthrowing the previous ruling power. In other words, there does not appear to be any truly consistent, long-lasting, apparent "royal bloodline." However, they do all seem to want to connect themselves to the previous bloodline somehow or other, either by marriage or the creation of myths. The Greeks, and then the Romans, connected themselves back to the ruling powers of a previous age by asserting that the first was descended from the Greeks who defeated Troy, and the second that they were descended from the Trojans. There are other examples in Mesopotamian and Egyptian histories. And of course, there are many examples in our more recent history since the fall of Rome. The British claim to be descended from the Trojans via the Romans, in fact. It's a topic that requires some study in order to form any conclusions about what, exactly, the Cs might have meant.

The bottom line is this: yes, there are apparently various types of "bloodlines"; we certainly learned enough about that reading David Reich's book about genetics (and other related texts), but in the end, all of them are connected to each other in some way so I don't think there is any real "royal bloodline" that anyone can point to. I suppose, if human beings were treated like livestock, they could be bred up to have stronger tendencies of this or that, and perhaps, via 4D influence, some of that actually happens. That might create a sort of "royal bloodline" with connections off-planet. If you manipulate the genes, you can manipulate what the soul can "marry" with in some way.

But, what I am getting to is this: the current British royal family really only has the most tenuous connection to previous dynasties and there are many breaks in the chain of genetic transmission. If you do enough genealogy, you see this plainly. You will also see, by studying history, that the British royal family has almost nothing in the way of power at all.”

Subsequently, I suggested that the “struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities of Royal Blood Lines” may have been when the Stuarts were deposed, first by the execution of King Charles I by Oliver Cromwell and then by the forced abdication of his son, James II, by William of Orange and William’s British supporters (who included the Earl of Shrewsbury whose descendants would later build Alton Towers). Laura agreed with me that this could have been what the C’s were referring to but we should still note that it is a struggle out of sequence with pre-ordained activities. What could those pre-ordained activities be?​

The Stuarts and Freemasonry

For many reading this post, the deposing of an obscure British king in 1688 may seem to have little relevance to our present day. However, the C’s mentioned pre-ordained activities of royal blood lines and, where the Stuarts were concerned, this may indicate their leading role in promoting Freemasonry and through it the ‘Age of Reason’. Whether you may be aware of it or not, Freemasonry has played a huge part in shaping our present world. Freemasons played a key role in the French Revolution, the American War of Independence and subsequent establishment of the USA, and in the Russian Bolshevik Revolution to name but a few momentous events in modern history where royal bloodlines could be viewed as having lost control. It should be noted that most, if not all, of the Freemasons involved in those events were members of Scottish Rite Freemasonic lodges or derivates thereof, as opposed to the English York Rite that came into being under the Hanoverian kings.

The Stuarts were a Scottish family, although as we have seen they were also descended from the Allens from France. They also had a connection to the English throne through Margaret Tudor, King Henry VIII’s older sister. When James I headed south of the border to assume the throne of England upon Queen Elizabeth I’s death in 1603, he brought with him Scottish Rite Freemasonry. When it came to the 17th century Masonic movement, the Stuarts were considered the princes of Freemasonry. In effect, they had charge of the movement and its rituals and were the custodians of its arcane knowledge. Hence, when James II was toppled from his throne and went into exile in France, Freemasonry as it was practised at that time went with him. When the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, died, and was replaced by George I, who established the current reigning Hanoverian dynasty, the Freemasons of England had quite literally to reinvent Freemasonry, since James II had taken all the ritual books and Masonic devices with him into exile and his Jacobite Masonic supporters in England destroyed what was left in order to prevent them falling into the hands of the Hanoverians.

Once again you may ask - why is this important? Well the answer relates to the history of Freemasonry as a modern form of mystery school and to Rosicrucianism. To help here, I would like to draw on the work of Laurence Gardner who, as a Freemason himself, wrote the book ‘The Shadow of Solomon – The Lost Secrets of the Freemasons Revealed’. I read this book many years ago but have been re-reading it recently in light of what the C’s have had to say about Masonic ritual. Gardner is an expert on genealogy, especially that of the Stuarts, and Masonic history and is a leading Scottish Antiquarian. He has written books on the Bloodline of the Holy Grail, Lost secrets of the Sacred Ark and the Magdalene Legacy amongst others. When it comes to the quest, Laura herself has said on more than one occasion that all roads seem to lead back to Scotland and this is where modern Freemasonry would appear to have begun.

Before moving on to Gardner’s book, I would like to draw attention to why Freemasonry may be a major part of the key to this mystery. We know that people like Francis Bacon, Nicolas Poussin and others mentioned in this thread may have been Freemasons and/or Rosicrucians. However, apart from the C’s telling Laura she needed to look more into Masonic rituals, the C’s also gave a major hint as to the relevance of Freemasonry to this quest in the session dated 12 December 1998:​

Q: Now, I was preparing these genealogies to print for Christmas and, while waiting for them to print, I wondered who would be last if one started at the present and worked backward... not specifically in terms of time, but in terms of generations. I wondered WHO the tree would end with. Well, it ended with the Frankish King Clovis. So, I wondered about your use of the term 'cloverdale,' and how it might relate to Clovis. Is it a deliberate or accidental connection?

A: Your quest is your own. We do not "steer." We supply the mortar, you are the Masoness.

Q: Well, I don't know how to take that! I mean, the Masons could be the most evil organization in existence! BRH thinks so.

A: Such judgements miss the point, if there are keys stored within the envelope.

The reference to “We do not steer” might be a reference to “Nautonnier” (old French for helmsman or navigator), the term used in the Priory of Sion documentation to denote the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion. This expression might therefore lend credence to the existence of a real Priory of Sion or may perhaps be intended to point us to the Freemasons and the Rosicrucians (who the Priory of Sion may be a screen for). Describing Laura as a ‘Masoness’ and then saying there are keys stored within the ‘Masonic’ envelope is very suggestive and warrants our looking into the history and belief system of the Freemasons.​

The Early History of Freemasonry

Gardner spends a lot of time in the early part of his book making it clear that the Freemasonry that emerged in 18th century Hanoverian England was a very different beast from the one it had been under the Stuarts.

Gardner points out that Freemasonry was very much a part of Scottish tradition and James VI of Scotland had been initiated into Masonry at the lodge of Scone in 1601, two years before his arrival as James I in England. His son and Grandson, Charles I and Charles II respectively, were also both patrons of Freemasonry. It is on record that the first Freemason to be installed south of the Scottish border was the statesman Sir Robert Moray who was initiated in Newcastle in 1641. This does not, however, qualify as an English initiation since Sir Robert Moray was a Scot and the lodge he was initiated at was a travelling branch of the Lodge of Edinburgh. Elias Ashmole, the antiquarian and founder of the Ashmolean Museum (and a practising alchemist), was initiated into Freemasonry at Warrington, Lancashire in October 1646 and is officially regarded as the first English home grown Freemason. Hence, it is clearly incorrect to claim that Freemasonry was inaugurated in England when four gentlemen’s tavern clubs amalgamated to form a Grand Lodge in 1717. Gardner therefore argues that it is beyond dispute that Freemasonry of a ‘speculative’ style (as opposed to the ‘operative’ Freemasonry of the old Stone Masons’ guilds and lodges) came into England from Scotland when the two crowns of England and Scotland were united in 1603. However, what this speculative form of Freemasonry entailed by way of secrets was then lost when James II fled to France and English Freemasonry had to reinvent its rituals and practices under the Hanoverian kings.

When King James was deposed in December 1688, the Scots in general were most displeased at the loss of their dynastic monarchy and in July 1689 came the First Jacobite Uprising when Viscount Graham of Claverhouse led a force of Highland Scots against William’s forces at the Battle of Killiecrankie, near Perth. The Scots charge was successful but Claverhouse was killed and his forces were defeated at the Battle of Dunkeld a few weeks later. However, an intriguing fact was brought to light by the Benedictine Abbot Dom Augustin Calmet (1672-1757) when he recorded that when Viscount Claverhouse fell at Killiecrankie, he was wearing the Grand Prior’s cross and sash of the Knights Templar, which according to most modern sources ceased to exist in 1307.

But what of Freemasonry’s origins in Scotland? Gardner tells of how, when Jacques de Mollay, the last Templar Grand Master, learned of Phillipe IV’s plans to arrest all the Templars, he arranged for the Templar treasure in Paris to be smuggled out of France on eighteen Templar galleys based at the port of La Rochelle. Most of the ships sailed to Scotland but some went to Portugal. In Scotland, the papal Bull disestablishing the Templars was ineffective since King Robert the Bruce and the whole Scottish nation had been excommunicated due to Robert taking up arms against Edward II of England (Phillipe’s son-in-law). We need to note that King David I (1124-53) of Scotland had long ago struck up an alliance with the Templars of Hugues de Payens (the first Grand Master). King David and his sister Mary were attached by marriage to the Flemish Knight Godefroi Saint Omer of the House of Boulogne, who was Hugues second in command. According to Gardner, there were also direct family ties by marriage between King David, Hugue de Payens and the early Crusader Kings of Jerusalem. It should also be noted that at the time David acceded to the Scottish throne, the traditional Celtic church in Scotland was ailing financially, so to help it survive it was brought under the umbrella of the Cistercian Order. At length all the old Celtic abbeys of Scotland came under Cistercian ownership. In 1128 Hugues de Payen established a seat for the Templar Order on the South Esk. King David also granted Hugues and his knights the lands of Ballantradoch by the Firth of Forth (now the village of Temple).

Following the Templar Fleet’s arrival in Scotland, fifty or so French Templar knights settled in Scotland’s Mull of Kintyre (yes the same one that Paul McCartney sang about). According to Gardner, on the 23 June 1313, realising that their Grand Master, Jacques de Molay, was soon to be executed, the Knights applied the provisions of the Order’s revised constitution of 1307 to appoint a Knight named Pièrre d’Aumont to be their Scottish Grand Master. On the nearby island of Islay, and at Kilmartin on the mainland you can still find Templar graves and some of their distinctive tombstone slabs depict the occupants as Knight Officers of the Templar Fleet. Gardner then claims that under the auspices of King Robert the Bruce and his excommunicated clergy, the Order was restructured into a church, with its own hierarchy independent of Rome. It had priests, abbots and even bishops but no cardinals. In the meantime, the military side of the Order began to prepare the Scottish troops for war against the English using the hit-and-run warfare tactics the Templars had used in the Crusades. Templar gold was also used to pay for weapons to be manufactured in Ireland.

Although in 1309 Bishop Lamberton of St. Andrews was under orders from Pope Clement V to expose all the Templars in Scotland, he struck a contrary deal with the Templars at Holyrood House whereby they would receive sanctuary in Scotland in return for arms and military expertise. The eventual result was the Scottish victory at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314 only three months after Jacques de Molay’s execution. After that, the Templar Knights were appointed as the Royal Bodyguard and established as Official Guardians of the Palace. In fairness, it should be stated that mainstream historians challenge the idea of the Templars intervening at the Battle of Bannockburn on behalf of the Scots and claim that it is simply a romantic legend created by Freemasons and others in later centuries. However, keeping with Gardner’s account, considerable tracts of land were subsequently granted to the Order especially around the Lothians and Aberdeen as well as properties in the Western regions of Ayr, Lorn and Argyll. It was shortly after this that the term ‘free mason’ (frère maçon) entered the language.

In 1317, since many Knights had died at Bannockburn and their ranks were depleted, it was thought advisable to recruit Scottish Companions into the Order. The King of the Scots was installed as the hereditary Sovereign Grand Master and from that time onwards, which ever descendant king held the office, he was to be known as Prince (Count) St Germain. Robert the Bruce then constituted a new Order called the Elder Brethren of the Rosy Cross. When the papal edict of excommunication of the Scots was lifted in 1323 and Robert the Bruce was recognised as King of the Scots, it was then assumed by historians that the Knights Templar in Scotland had been disbanded but, according to Gardner, the Bruce had merely contrived to manage the Order under a new title. Gardner then claims that under Templar directed influence the Scottish national banking system evolved from the Order’s financial experience in Europe and the Middle East, assisted by significant gold reserves found in Scottish soil – another reason why Plantagenet English kings were so keen to gain dominion over Scotland.

In time the Templars would intermarry with Scottish noble families and Freemasonry would take root through these families including the Stuarts. Gardner states that the prevailing Royal Order associated with the Rosy Cross in Scotland was that of the Heredom (Holy Mount) of Killwinning, Ayreshire – possibly founded by King David I – for which James Stewart* 5th High Steward (died 1309) had been a Grand Master. It is for this reason that Freemasonry’s current side degree, Knight of the Rosy Cross, is said to stem from that constitution. – although it does so only in theory.​

* The Stewarts would later intermarry into the Bruce family and change their name to Stuart once they assumed the throne.

The legitimate Rosicrucian Grand Mastership of St. Germain was inherent in the 1688 exile of Stuart Household Orders to France. King James II subsequently constituted the Noble Order of the Guard of St. Germain in Paris on 18th June 1692. The Heredom of Killwinning and the Knight of the Rosy Cross exist today within the Royal Order of Scotland. Although the Order incongruously made its first public appearance at an ale house in London in 1730, a charter was eventually granted for an affiliated lodge at the Hague, although this was implemented instead in Edinburgh in 1753. It subsequently became the Grand Lodge of the Order in July 1776. The King of Scots was henceforth deemed to be the hereditary Grand Master and his seat (draped in a purple robe and bearing a replica of the crown of James IV of Scotland) has since been held vacant at all meetings.

If this is true, the question arises, therefore, why Count St. Germain in the 18th century assumed a name and title that rightfully belonged to the Stuart Princes - James and Charles Edward respectively - as the legitimate claimants to the throne of Scotland? This is even more confused by the fact that there is good reason to believe that the strange and colourful individual who went by the name Count Saint-Germain was in fact a Jacobite spy acting for Bonny Prince Charlie who would get himself arrested in London but amazingly talk his way out of prison. In the capacity of an agent, could the Count have been involved in another even more portentous event that took place on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean in 1776 at the same time the Grand Lodge of the Royal Order of Scotland was formally being established? Just who was the man who called himself the Count Saint-Germain?​

Continued in Part 2
Part 2 of ‘It is not Germaine’

The Comte de Saint-Germain

I am taking the liberty of posting a piece Laura did on the Count Saint-Germain, as it gives a good background account of this mysterious figure, who for all his shady dealings was a genuine alchemist who could transmute base metals into gold. Like John Dee, another alchemist, Saint-Germain was almost certainly an active spy but the question we need to ask is - for whom did he spy?​

In November of that year [1745], one Frenchman was arrested and accused of having pro-Jacobite letters in his possession. He became very indignant and claimed that the correspondence had been “planted” on him. Considering the mood of the time, it is quite surprising that he was believed and released!

Horace Walpole, English author and Member of Parliament, wrote a letter about this incident to Sir Horace Mann on December 9, 1745 saying:

“The other day they seized an odd man who goes by the name of Count Saint-Germain. He has been here these two years, and will not tell who he is or whence, but professes that he does not go by his right name. He sings and plays on the violin wonderfully, is mad and not very sensible.” [MJF: Could he have cultivated this image of being an eccentric, a French version of the Scarlet Pimpernel, in order to lull people into believing he was just a suave talking buffoon?]

This is one of the few “authentic” comments about one of the most mysterious characters of the 18th century available.

Another acquaintance of the “Count Saint-Germain, Count Warnstedt, described Saint-Germain as “The completest charlatan, fool, rattle-pate, windbag and swindler.”

Yet, his last patron said that Saint-Germain was “perhaps one of the greatest sages who ever lived.”

Clearly this was one of those people you either love or hate!

Saint-Germain first comes to our attention in the fashionable circles of Vienna in about 1740, where he made a stir by flaunting the fashion of the day by wearing black all the time! Everybody else was into bright colors, satins and laces, ornate patterns and designs; and along comes Saint-Germain with his somber black outfits set off by glittering diamonds on his fingers, shoe buckles, and snuff box! What an attention getter! If you want to stand out in a roomful of robins, cardinals and bluejays, just be a blackbird! He also had the habit of carrying handfuls of loose diamonds in his pockets instead of cash!

So, there he is, garnering attention to himself in this bizarre way, and naturally he makes the acquaintance of the local leaders of fashion, Counts Zabor and Lobkowitz who introduce him to the French Marshal de Belle Isle. Well, it seems that the Marshal was seriously under-the-weather, but his illness is not recorded so we can’t evaluate the claims that Saing-Germain cured him, but nevertheless, the Marshal was so gratefull he took Saint-Germain to Paris with him and set him up with apartments and a laboratory.

The details of the Count’s life in Paris are pretty well known, and it is there that the rumors began. There is an account by a “Countess de B___” (a nom de plume, it seems, so we have to hold the information somewhat suspect), who wrote in her memoirs, Chroniques de l’oeil de boeuf, that, when she met the Count at a soiree given by the aged Countess von Georgy, whose late husband had been Ambassador to Venice in the 1670’s, that the old Countess remembered Sain-Germain from her days in Venice. So, the old girl asked the Count if his father had been there at the time. He replied no, but HE had!

Well, the man that Countess von Georgy had known was at least 45 years old THEN, at least 50 years ago, which appeared to be the age of the man standing before her! The Count smiled and said: “I am very old.”

“But then you must be nearly 100 years old,” the Countess exclaimed.

“That is not impossible,” the Count replied. He then related some details that convinced the old lady that it was really him she knew in Venice.

The Countess exclaimed: “I am already convinced. You are a most extraordinary man, a devil!”

“For pity’s sake!” cried Saint-Germain in a loud voice heard all around the room. “No such names!” And he began to tremble all over and left the room immediately.

A pretty dramatic introduction to society, don’t you think? But, was it real, or the ploy of a very clever con artist? Did he deliberately choose to adopt the name of someone long dead, about whom he may have already known a great deal, and then did he set out to deceive and con in a manner well known to us in the present time?

In any event, that was the beginning of the “legend,” and many more stories of a simlar nature spread through society like wildfire. Saint-Germain apparently fed the fires with hints that he had known the “Holy Family” intimately and had been invited to the marriage feast at Cana where Jesus turned water into wine, and dropped casually the remark that he “had always known that Christ would meet a bad end.” According to him, he had been very fond of Anne, the mother of the Virgin Mary, and had even proposed her canonization at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325! What a guy!

Pretty soon the Count had Louis XV and his mistress, Madame de Pompadour, eating out of his hand, and it certainly COULD be true that he was a French spy in England when he was arrested there, because he later did handle some sticky business for the credulous king of France.

In 1760, Louis sent Saint-Germain to the Hague as his personal representative to arrange a loan with Austria that was supposed to help finance the SevenYears’ war against England. But, while in Holland, the Count had a falling out with his friend Casanova, who was also a diplomat at the Hague. Casanova tried hard to discredit Saint-Germain in public, but without success. One has to wonder just what it was that Casanova discovered or came to think about Saint-Germain at this time.

In any event, Saint-Germain was making other enemies. One of these enemies was the Duc de Choiseul, King Louis’ Foreign Minister. The Duc discovered that Saint-Germain had been scoping out the possibilities of arranging a peace between England and France. Now, that doesn’t sound like a bad plan at all, but the Duc managed to convince the King that this was a dire betrayal, and the Count had to flee to England and then back to Holland.

In Holland, the Count lived under the name Count Surmont, and he worked to raise money to set up laboratories in which he made paint and dyes and engaged in his alchemical experiments. By all accounts, he was successful in SOME sense, because he disappeared from Holland with 100,000 guilders!

He next shows up in Belgium as the “Marquis de Monferrat. He set up another laboratory with “other people’s money” before disappearing again.

For a number of years, Saint-Germain’s activities continued to be reported from various parts or Europe and, in 1768 he popped up in the court of Catherine the Great. Turkey had just declared war on Russia, and Saint-Germain promoted himself as a valuable diplomat because of his status as an “insider” in French politics. Pretty soon he was the adviser of Count Alexei Orlov, head of the Russian Imperial Forces. Orlov made him a high-ranking officer of the Russian Army and Saint-Germain acquired an English alias, “General Welldone.”

His successes in Russia could have enabled him to retire on his laurels, but he didn’t. In 1774 he appeared in Nuremberg seeking money from the Margrave of Brandenburg, Charles Alexander. His ostensible alias at this point (apparently he was no longer satisfied with being either a Count or a Marquis) was Prince Rakoczy of Transylvania!

Naturally, the Margrave of Brandenburg was impressed when Count Orlov visited Nuremburg on a state visit and embraced “the Prince” warmly. But later, when the Margrave did a little investigating, he discovered that the REAL Prince Rakoczy was indubitably dead and that this counterfeit Prince was, in fact, only Count Saint-Germain!

Saint-Germain did not deny the charges, but apparently he felt that it was now time to move on.

The Duc de Choiseul, Saint-Germain’s old enemy, had claimed that the Count was in the employ of Frederick the Great. But, that was probably not true because, at this point, Saint-Germain wrote to Fredricerick begging for patronage. Frederick ignored him which is peculiar if he HAD been in the employ of Prussian king.

But, never to be discouraged, as any good con man, Saint-Germain went to Leipzig and presented himself to Prince Frederick Augustus of Brunswick as a Freemason of the fourth grade!

Now, Frederick Augustus was the Grand Master of the Prussian Masonic Lodges, so this was REALLY a stupid move on the part of Saint-Germain! But, it is true of the pattern of all con men… their egos eventually prove to be their downfall! The Prince challenged Saint-Germain because he did not know the secret signals and sent him away as a fraud.

In 1779, Saint-Germain was an old man in his 60’s who continued to claim to be vastly older. He must have learned to subdue his ego somewhat because, at Eckenforde in Schleswig, Germany, he was able to charm Prince Charles of Hesse-Cassel. At this point, part of his scam included being a mystic, for he is recorded as having told Prince Charles:

“Be the torch of the world. If your light is that only of a planet, you will be as nothing in the sight of God. I reserve for you a splendour, of which the solar glory is a shadow. You shall guide the course of the stars, and those who rule Empires shall be guided by you.”

Sounds rather like the build-up to another con job!

On February 27, 1784, Saint-Germain died at Prince Charles’ home on Eckenforde. He was buried locally and the Prince erected a stone that said:

He who called himself the Comte de Saint-Germain and Welldone of whom there is no other information, has been buried in this church.

And then, the Prince burned all of the Count’s papers “lest they be misinterpreted.”

Supposedly there is evidence that the Count did NOT die, and many occultists claim he is still alive for these past two centuries!

The mystery of Saint-Germain is mostly due to the uncertaintly surrounding his origins. One source says that he was born in 1710 in San Germano, son of a tax collector. Eliphas Levi, the 19th century occultist said that Saint-Germain was born in Lentmeritz in Bohemia, and was the bastard son of a nobleman who was also a Rosicrucian.

It is known that he had a genuine gift for languages and could speak French, German, English, Dutch and Russian fluently. He also claimed that he was fluent in Chinese, Hindu and Persian, but there was no one about to test him on those. And, we note that Horace Walpole said that he was a wonderful violinist and singer and painter, though none of his purported art has been known to survive. Supposedly, he was able to paint jewels that glittered in a very lifelike way.

There is also a great deal of evidence that Saint-Germain was an expert jeweller – he claimed to have studied the art with the Shah of Persia! In any event, he is reported to have repaired a flawed diamond for Louis XV, who was very pleased with the result.

Saint-Germain also had an extensive knowledge of chemistry in all its branches at the time, and the many laboratories that he set up with borrowed money were all designed to produce brighter and better pigments and dyes and also for alchemical studies.

Then, there was his reputation as a healer. Not only did he cure the Marshal de Belle Isle, he also cured a friend of Madame de Pompadour of mushroom poisoning.

Saint-Germain NEVER ate in company, which was obviously part of his plan to focus attention on himself. He could sit at a table where everyone else was gorging on the most amazing array of delectable dishes, and eat and drink nothing. Casanova wrote:

Instead of eating, he talked from the beginning of the meal to the end, and I followed his example in one respect as I did not eat, but listened to him with the greatest attention. It may safely be said that as a conversationalist he was unequalled.

Colin Wilson, author of The Occult, thought that Saint-Germain must have been a vegetarian.

So, in the end, the REAL mystery, aside from his origins, but the two may be connected, is WHERE did Saint-Germain get all his specialized knowledge?

Of course, as we have noted here, not all who met Saint-Germain were impressed by his talents. Casanova was entertained by him, but nevertheless thought that he was a fraud and a charlatan. He wrote:

This extraordinary man, intended by nature to be the king of impostors and quacks, would say in an easy, assured manner that he was three hundred years old, that he knew the secret of the Universal Medicine, that he possessed a mastery over nature, that he could melt diamonds, professing himself capable of forming, out of 10 or 12 small diamonds, one of the finest water… All this, he said, was a mere trifle to him. Notwithstanding his boastings, his bare-faced lies, and his manifold eccentricities, I cannot say I found him offensive. In spite of my knowledge of what he was and in spite of my own feelings, I thought him an astonishing man…”

Count Alvensleben, a Prussian Ambassador to the Court at Dresden, wrote in 1777:

He is a highly gifted man with a very alert mind, but completely without judgement, and he has only gained his singular reputation by the lowest and basest flattery of which a man is capable, as well as by his outstanding eloquence, especially if one lets oneself be carried away by the fervour and the enthusiasm with which he can express himself. Inordinate vanity is the mainspring driving his whole mechanism.

But, in the case of the Count Saint-Germain, we have a little problem: just which of the stories are really about him? It seems that Berthold Volz, in the 1920’s, did some deep research on the subject and discovered, or so it is claimed, that the Duc de Choiseul, who was overwhelmingly jealous of the Count, hired a look-alike imposter to go about as the Count, exaggerating and playing the fool in order to place the Count in a bad light. Or is this just another story designed to perpetuate the legend?

Supposedly, Saint-Germain foretold the outbreak of the French Revolution to Marie Antoinette who purportedly wrote in her diary that she regretted that she did not heed his advice. I haven’t seen it, so can’t vouch for it. But, in my opinion, it wouldn’t be too hard a thing to predict, considering the political climate of the time!

It was said that Saint-Germain appeared in Wilhelmsbad in 1785, a year after he was supposed to have died, and he was accompanied by the magician Cagliostro, the hypnotist Anton Mesmer, and the “unknown philosopher,” Louis Claude de St. Martin.

Then he was alleged to have gone to Sweden in 1789 to warn King Gustavus III of danger. Next he visited his friend, diarist Mademoiselle d’Adhemar, who said he still looked like he was only 46 years old! Apparently, he told her that she would see him five more times, and she claimed this was, in fact, the case. Supposedly the last visit was the night before the murder of the Duc de Berri in 1820.

Napoleon III ordered a commission to investigate the life and actvities of Saint-Germain, but the findings were destroyed in a fire at the Hotel de Ville in Paris in 1871 – which many people think is beyond coincidence. My thought would be that the only reason to destroy such a report would be if it had proved the Count to be a fraud. The fact is, the legend lives on without this report… therefore, it is likely that the report would have made some difference in the legend, such as putting it to rest as a fraud. Had it been helpful to the legend, it would not have changed what is already the case, which is that people believe that Saint-Germain was something of a supernatural being. Thus, its destruction, if engineered, must only have been to protect the status quo.

One of the next threads ot the legend was gathered into the hands of Helena Blavatsky who claimed that Saint-Germain was one of the “hidden masters” along with Christ, Buddha, Appollonius of Tyana, Christian Rosencreutz, Francis Bacon and others. A group of Theosophists travelled to Paris after WWII where they were told they would meet the Count; he never showed up.

And, finally, in 1972, a Frenchman named Richard Chanfray was interviewed on French television. He claimed to be Saint-Germain and, supposedly, in front of television cameras, transmuted lead into gold on a camp stove!

But, all of the confusion surrounding the subject prompted me to ask the Cassiopaeans a few questions:

Q: (L) What is the “philosophers stone?”
A: Idea center.
Q: (L) How can this idea center be accessed?
A: Many ways: meditation is the best.
Q: (L) Is there any visual image of the philosopher’s stone that one could use to access it in meditation?
A: Yes. Diamond or prism.
Q: (L) Was there or is there such a thing as a literal, physical, philosopher’s stone that can transmute lead into gold?
A: No.
Q: (L) Was anybody ever able to transmute lead into gold by any means?
A: Everybody is able.
Q: (L) How?
A: You must discover this yourself.
Q: (L) Is this knowledge written down somewhere on the planet?
A: Yes, but it will be easier in 4th level.
Q: (L) Comte St.Germain claimed to be able to transmute lead into gold. Was this true?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) He also claimed to have discovered the secret of eternal youth, was this true?
A: No.
Q: (L) Did he die like everybody else at the regular age?
A: Yes.

But that still leaves us with a mystery. What do we do with “yes, he could transmute lead into gold,” and “everybody is able” though the “philosopher’s stone” is not necessary, and no, Saint-Germain is not still alive?”

Laura evidently took the view that Saint-Germain was just a talented conman although a genuine alchemist. However, could he have been concealing another more serious role behind this façade? Was he in reality a clever, calculating spy and agent provocateur? Clearly, he seems to have acted on behalf of King Louis XV of France but he also seems to have played the role of agent for others including the Jacobite supporters of Bonnie Prince Charlie. The fact he was a genuine alchemist makes me think he may have had a relationship with the enclave of alchemists in the Pyrenees who were involved with the Oak Island mystery. He may also have been a Rosicrucian agent, given his links with the Jacobites and his use of the name Count Saint-Germain, which, as we learned before, rightly belonged to the hereditary holder of the throne of Scotland.​

I attach for perusal an article from the Cosmic Convergence Group called “Illuminism, Freemasonry and the Great White Brotherhood – The New Atlantis: Sir Francis Bacon”. THE NEW ATLANTIS: Master Plan Of The Ages | Cosmic Convergence: 2012 and Beyond

I have held this article back until now since it touches on so many themes that we have looked at in this thread including, inter alia, John Dee, Sir Francis Bacon, the Rosicrucians, the USA as the New Atlantis, Shakespeare, the Court of Queen Elizabeth, alchemy, the Illuminati, Atlantean reincarnation and even the Great White Brotherhood. I would recommend reading it in its entirety since it does attempt to draw much of this together into a comprehensive explanation for today’s New World Order, the world we now live in. It even ends with Edgar Cayce and his prediction that Russia (the new Athenians) will be the hope of the world – something the C’s have hinted at in the role Vladimir Putin is currently playing in opposing the globalist forces of the New World Order (NWO).

There is much I disagree with in the article. First, the C’s have negated the idea of Francis Bacon being Queen Elizabeth I’s secret son. Secondly, I don’t think John Dee was the antithesis of Francis Bacon and created a counter empire strategy opposing Bacon’s ‘New Atlantis’dream. In my view, Dee was a well meaning man who did propose the establishment of a British Empire but this was a plan he sold to Queen Elizabeth and her Court in order to garner interest in his own schemes to create a scientific body such as the Royal Society that would eventually be realised in the following century after his death. Yes Dee was a spy for the Queen (not a spymaster in comparison to Bacon) but at heart he was a scientist and natural philosopher, not a statesman such as Francis Bacon who would go on to become Lord Chancellor of England under King James. Dee never wielded any real power and this can be demonstrated by the fact that he never achieved high office, wealth or noble rank, unlike Bacon. Yes he was influential as a thinker and advisor to the Queen but he never attained the advisory position that would allow him to manipulate the monarch in the way that William Cecil (Lord Burghley) or Sir Francis Bacon did. Moreover, he was not a permanent fixture at Court in the way that Cecil and Bacon were. He did not like courting as he described it, he was happier with his books. Third, it is extremely doubtful that he had anything to do with the tempest that destroyed the Spanish Armada. He was not even in England at the time. So all in all, I think the writer has picked the wrong target in John Dee. If anything, I believe, as many Ancient Alien theorists do, that STS extraterrestrial forces had more to do with the storms that wrecked the Armada as part of their long term strategy to establish the NWO. This long term planning may also explain George Washington’s spectacular reversal of fortunes at Valley Forge during the American War of Independence, where ET forces may have intervened again. See George Washington's Vision. These angels seem to crop up everywhere!​

That being said, I think the most interesting aspect of the article is the role the writer assigns to the Comte de Saint-Germain in helping to instigate the signing of the US Declaration of Independence. Here is what the article says about this incident:

Regarded as the Father of the American Republic, St. Germain was quite well known in all the capitals of 17th century Europe. Fluent in many of the European languages of his day, he proved himself to be a highly skilled diplomat whose peerless statecraft often arrived at the perfect time. Many of his diplomatic efforts were designed to ensure that the fledgling 13 Colonies of North America would be supported in every way possible. In these many acts of statesmanship St. Germain has been compared to Sir Francis Bacon, whose life’s mission was to see a utopian society established in the New World.

Throughout his life, Francis Bacon’s fondest hope was the creation of a Utopia across the Atlantic, the realization of his “New Atlantis” in the form of a society of free men, governed by sages and scientists, in which his Freemasonic and Rosicrucian principles would govern the social, political and economic life of the new nation. It was for this reason why, as Lord Chancellor, he took such an active interest in the colonization of America, and why he sent his son to Virginia as one of the early colonists. For it was in America, through the pen of Thomas Paine and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, as well as through the revolutionary activities of his many Rosicrucian-Freemasonic followers, most prominent among whom were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, that he hoped to create a new nation dedicated to his political philosophy.

In his Secret Destiny of America, Manly Hall, Bacon’s most understanding modern scholar, refers to the appearance in America, prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, of a mysterious Rosicrucian philosopher [Saint Germain], a strict vegetarian who ate only foods that grew above the ground, who was a friend and teacher of Franklin and Washington and who seemed to have played an important role in the founding of the new republic. Why most historians failed to mention him is a puzzle, for that he existed is a certainty.

He was known as the “Professor.” Together with Franklin and Washington, he was a member of the committee selected by the Continental Congress in 1775 to create a design for the American Flag. The design he made was accepted by the committee and given to Betsy Ross to execute into the first model.

A year later, on July 4, 1776, this mysterious stranger, whose name nobody knew, suddenly appeared in Independence Hall and delivered a stirring address to the fearful men there gathered, who were wondering whether they should risk their lives as traitors by affixing their names to the memorable document which Thomas Jefferson wrote and of whose ideals Francis Bacon, founder of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, was the true originator.

Where Sir Francis Bacon is considered the founder of the Rosicrucians, as well as the modern form of Freemasonry, it is Saint Germain who utilized both groups to accelerate considerably the causes of scientific advancement and universal brotherhood. He was generally known in his day, especially throughout the various royal courts of 18th century Europe, to be a master alchemist and brilliant philosopher, virtuoso musician and consummate artist, accomplished statesman and expert diplomat. Because of St. Germain’s impressive command of the occult sciences, particularly alchemy, he was known to produce all sorts of priceless gemstones and precious metals, sometimes on demand.

So was Count Saint-Germain the Professor whose speech electrified the Continental Congress?

"It was during the, evening of July 4, 1776, that the second of these mysterious episodes occurred. In the old State House in Philadelphia, a group of men were gathered for the momentous task of severing the tie between the old country and the new. It was a grave moment, and not a few of those present feared that their lives would be the forfeit for their audacity. In the midst of the debate a fierce voice rang out. The debaters stopped and turned to look upon the stranger. Who was this man who had suddenly appeared in their midst and had transfixed them with his oratory? They had never seen him before, none knew when he had entered; but his tall form and pale face filled them with awe. His voice ringing with a holy zeal, the stranger stirred them to their very souls. His closing words rang. through the building, 'God has given America to be free!' As the stranger sank into a chair exhausted, a wild enthusiasm burst forth. Name after name was placed upon the parchment: the Declaration of Independence was signed. But where was the man who had precipitated the accomplishment of this immortal task—who had lifted for a moment the veil from the eyes of the assemblage and revealed to them a part at least of the great purpose for which the, new nation was conceived? He had disappeared, nor was he ever seen or his identity established. This episode parallels others of a similar kind recorded by ancient historians attendant upon the founding of every new nation. Are they coincidence, or do they indicate that the divine wisdom of the ancient mysteries still is present in the world, serving mankind as it did of old?"

It would seem impossible now to identify who this old man was but Saint-Germain was by that time an elderly man, although still young enough to have made the voyage to America. He already had history as an agent for the Jacobites and King Louis XV of France. He also had a tendency to suddenly pop up out of nowhere. He was multilingual and a talented speaker. As an alchemist he may also have been a Rosicrucian. He may already have met and become acquainted with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, who would both go on missions to France after 1776. Was he therefore Manly P Hall’s (a distinguished Masonic scholar) mysterious vegetarian, Rosicrucian philosopher who was a friend and teacher of Franklin and Washington? Who knows but the writer also makes a link with Atlantean reincarnation and with Edgar Cayce that makes me wonder if this might have been what the C’s were trying to convey to us when they said the following:

Q: You guys are TOO MUCH! Next: Cayce remarked in one of his vague dissertations - and for those who accuse the C's of being vague, they ought to read Cayce, since he was a MASTER of vague! He could talk for pages and say NOTHING! - anyway he said that there were a lot of Atlanteans incarnating between the years 1909 and 1930. He described them as having strong minds and emotions as well as an 'engorgement' of carnal influences, self-indulgence and high technical ability. He also warned that there was the possibility repeating the errors of the past. Now, these are the people who have set up the world as we have it today. My question is: are we facing a replay of the Atlantean situation, in karmic terms?

A: Well, these cycles do replay from an energy standpoint, but there is always the opportunity to learn and thusly, to advance. Was not his proclamation for those born between 1909 and 1930?? And, if so, what is the significance of when it was delivered, if the orientation was one of the "present" tense?

Q: So, it was possible that he was referring to the Hitler, WWII situation.

A: Or just not referring to those of a later "date" because it was not germaine? {Seems to be a deliberate misspelling of “germane”)

Let me know what you think.​
... I attach for perusal an article from the Cosmic Convergence Group called “Illuminism, Freemasonry and the Great White Brotherhood – The New Atlantis: Sir Francis Bacon”. THE NEW ATLANTIS: Master Plan Of The Ages | Cosmic Convergence: 2012 and Beyond
There is much I disagree with in the article. ... I don’t think John Dee was the antithesis of Francis Bacon and created a counter empire strategy opposing Bacon’s ‘New Atlantis’dream. In my view, Dee was a well meaning man who did propose the establishment of a British Empire but this was a plan he sold to Queen Elizabeth and her Court in order to garner interest in his own schemes to create a scientific body such as the Royal Society that would eventually be realised in the following century after his death. Yes Dee was a spy for the Queen (not a spymaster in comparison to Bacon) but at heart he was a scientist and natural philosopher, not a statesman such as Francis Bacon who would go on to become Lord Chancellor of England under King James. Dee never wielded any real power and this can be demonstrated by the fact that he never achieved high office, wealth or noble rank, unlike Bacon. Yes he was influential as a thinker and advisor to the Queen but he never attained the advisory position that would allow him to manipulate the monarch in the way that William Cecil (Lord Burghley) or Sir Francis Bacon did. Moreover, he was not a permanent fixture at Court in the way that Cecil and Bacon were. He did not like courting as he described it, he was happier with his books. Third, it is extremely doubtful that he had anything to do with the tempest that destroyed the Spanish Armada. He was not even in England at the time. So all in all, I think the writer has picked the wrong target in John Dee.​

Here is the conclusion of France Yates from "The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age":


When Dee returned to England in 1589, he was at first received by the queen, but his old position at the centre of the Elizabethan
world was not restored. During his absence, the Armada victory of 1588 had occurred, and this, one would think, might have been seen as the triumph on the seas of the patriotic movement in which Dee had had so large a share. On the other hand, the Earl of Leicester’s movement for landward extension of the Elizabethan ethos in his military expedition to the Netherlands in 1586 had failed; his nephew Philip Sidney lost his life in that expedition; and the whole enterprise was checked by the queen who withdrew Leicester from his command in disgrace.Leicester never got over this; he quietly died in 1588. Thus Leicester and the Sidney circle, Dee’s supporters in the old days, were no longer there except for some survivors, such as Edward Dyer, Sidney’s closest friend, who had been in touch with Dee and Kelley in their recent adventures.

Shunned and isolated, Dee was also confronted with a growing witch-hunt against him. The cry of ‘conjuror’ had always been sporadically raised but in the old days the queen and Leicester had protected his studies. Now the enemies were
increasingly vocal. Dee felt obliged to defend himself in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, printed in 1604 but written


It is illustrated with a woodcut which shows Dee kneeling on the cushion of hope, humility, and patience with his head raised in prayer to the cloudy heavens wherein can be seen the ear, eye, and avenging sword of God. Opposite to him is the many-headed monster of lying tongues and unkind rumour, its heads malevolently turned in his direction. He earnestly assures the archbishop that all his studies have been directed towards searching out the truth of God, that they are holy studies, not diabolical as his enemies falsely assert. From his youth up it has pleased the Almighty

to insinuate into my hart, an insatiable zeale, and desire to knowe his truth: And in him, and by him, incessantly to seeke,
and listen after the same; by the true philosophical method and harmony: proceeding and ascending . . . gradatim, from things
visible, to consider of things inuisible; from thinges bodily, to conceiue of thinges spirituall: from thinges transitorie, and
momentarie, to meditate of things permanent: by thinges mortall . . . to have some perceiuerance of immortality. And to con-
clude, most briefeley, by the most meruailous frame of the whole world, philosophically viewed, and circumspectly wayed,
numbred, and measured . . . most faithfully to loue, honor, and glorifie alwaies, the Framer and Creator thereof.

One hears in these words the voice of the pious author of the Mathematical Preface, rising with number through the three
worlds. But the admired Dee of other days, mentor of Elizabethan poets, must now defend himself from being a black
conjuror of devils.
The implications of the angel-conjuring side of Dee’s doctrine had come out more prominently during his continental mission;
probably rumours of this, and of Jesuit opposition to it, had reached England. Elizabeth and her advisers, always nervous of
committing themselves to the rash projects of enthusiasts, would now be understandably nervous of Dee. Elizabeth had with-
drawn her support from Leicester’s continental enterprise; Leicester and Sidney were both dead. No wonder that Dee’s
position in England was very different from what it had been before his continental journey and that many people might now
refuse to believe that the famous mathematician was a Christian Cabalist, and not a conjuror of devils.

Of Dee’s three periods, the first one, the successful one, has been the most explored. We are all now familiar with the idea
that John Dee, dismissed in the Victorian age as a ridiculous charlatan, was immensely in fl uential in the Elizabethan age, an
in fluence which is far from being, as yet, fully assessed or understood. Of the second period, the period of the continental mis-
sion, we are beginning to know a good deal more than formerly, enough to realise that it had some very large religious or reform-
ing scope, and that its in fl uence long persisted in ways difficult to decipher. The third period, the period of failure verging on per-
secution of this once so admired and important fi gure, has been the least studied of all. What I now say about it must be pro-
visional, awaiting further much-needed research. For the third period is most essential for the understanding of Dee as a whole.
Dee was very poor after his return and in great anxiety as to how to provide a living for his wife and family. A former friend
with whom he was, apparently, still in contact was Sir Walter Raleigh, with whom Dee dined at Durham House on 9 October

Raleigh, however, was himself out of favour, and would be unlikely to be able to help him to a position. At last, in 1596,
he was madewarden of a college in Manchester, whither he moved with his wife and family. It was an uncomfortable place
and he had di ffi culty with the fellows of the college. In fact the Manchester appointment seems to have been something like a
semi-banishment where he was, for reasons not quite clear, unhappy.
One of his activities when at Manchester was to act as adviser about cases of witchcraft and demonic possession. He had books
on these subjects in his Manchester library which he lent toenquirers investigating such cases. One of the books which he
thus lent was the De praestigiis daemonum by Weyer, the friend of Agrippa, in which it is argued that witchcraft is a delusion,
witches being only poor, melancholy old women. Another book which Dee lent was the Malleus male ficarum, a work which is very
positive as to the reality of witches.
It would seem strange that the conjuring suspicions against Dee should have taken the form of turning him into an expert on
demonology to be consulted in trials, but such seems to have been the case.
The reality of witches and witchcraft was being forcibly maintained in these years by no less a person than the King of
Scotland, soon to succeed Queen Elizabeth as James I. In his Daemonologie (1587), James is profoundly shocked by the
‘damnable error’ of those who, like Weyer, deny the reality of witchcraft. He refers the reader to Bodin’s Démonomanie where he
will find many examples of witchcraft collected with great diligence. And for particulars about the black arts the reader should
consult ‘the fourth book of Cornelius Agrippa’. This was the spurious fourth book of the De occulta philosophia which James
accepted as genuine (Weyer had said that it was not by Agrippa).
James has much more to say about ‘the Divel’s school’ which thinks to climb to knowledge of things to come ‘mounting from
degree to degree on the slippery scale of curiosity’, believing that circles and conjurations tied to the words of God will raise

This is clearly ‘practical Cabala’ interpreted as a black art, a fruit of that tree of forbidden knowledge of which Adam
was commanded not to eat. James’s work, if read in Manchester, would not have helped Dee’s reputation.
Dee appears to have been away from Manchester from 1598 to1600; eventually he returned to his old house at Mortlake, living
there in great poverty, though still partially in touch with ‘great persons’.
The accession of James I in 1603 boded little good for the reputed conjuror. Nevertheless Dee made desperate appeals to the new monarch. In a printed pamphlet, dated 5 June 1604, John Dee appeals to the king asking that those who call him a conjuror should be brought to trial:
‘Some impudent and
malicious forraine enemie or English traytor . . . hath affirmed your Maiesties Suppliant to be a Conjuror belonging to the most Honorable Priuie Counsell of your Maiesties most famous
last predecessor. . . .’

Note that Dee suspects foreigners or traitors of fomenting the rumours against him, and that he hints that such rumours might implicate the late queen and her council. All was in vain. Dee was not cleared. He died in great poverty at Mortlake in 1608.

The last act of Dee’s extraordinary story is the most impressive of them all. The descendant of British kings, creator (or one of the creators) of the British imperial legend, the leader of the Elizabethan Renaissance, the mentor of Philip Sidney, the prophet of some far-reaching religious movement, dies, an old man, in bitter neglect and extreme poverty.

I am not interested here in the sensationalism which has gathered round Dee’s story and which has tended to obscure his real significance. That significance, as I see it, is the presentation in the life and work of one man of the phenomenon of the disap-
pearance of the Renaissance in the late sixteenth century in clouds of demonic rumour. What happened in Dee’s lifetime to
his ‘Renaissance Neoplatonism’ was happening all over Europe as the Renaissance went down in the darkness of the witch-hunts. Giordano Bruno in England in the 1580s had helped to inspire the ‘Sidney circle’ and the Elizabethan poetic Renaissance.
Giordano Bruno in 1600 was burned at the stake in Rome as a sorcerer. Dee’s fate in England in his third period presents a similar extraordinary contrast with his brilliant first, or ‘Renaissance’, period.

The Hermetic–Cabalist movement failed as a movement ofreligious reform, and that failure involved the suppression of
the Renaissance Neoplatonism which had nourished it. The Renaissance magus turned into Faust.
Top Bottom