PART 1

The Bels-Belle-Balliol Members of our Lineage were for centuries: in Flanders, the right arms of the Counts of Flanders. In Spain, the right arms of the Counts of Barcelona, later the Kings of Aragon. In Normandy, the right arms of the dukes and in Scotland the right arms (to some extend) of the Kings of England. All were either baronobis, Barons, Lords, Knights, Châtelains, Magistrates, Attorney-at-law, Bailiff or any of them together!

• The Bels of Gonthière, of La Croix, of L’Ormier and of Oosthove, lords of Clorbus, remained «in place» from 1543 until 1677 when the estates went over to Jean-Baptiste François Lievens (Bailiff of Mouscron) who married Antoinette Claire de Bels, sole heiress of the Seigneuries, by lack of male offspring. The Fief of Oosthove belonged to the Balliols (van Belle) of Doulieu (Marshal of Flanders) before it went over to the Bels. How and when this happened is unclear.

That was for about 143 years and 517 years for Oosthove.

• The Balliol of Eecke (Oostove) and Steenvoorde remained “in place” from anno 1380 until 1604, when the estates were sold to don Pedro de Valencia (x Marie de Bailleul).

That was for 224 years.

• The Balliol from Balliol (Flanders) remained “in place” from anno 980 until 1295 when the estates were sold to the Count of Flanders, Guy of Dampierre (1224-1305).

That was for 315 years.

• The Balliol branch of the Kings of Scotland remained “in place” since their arrival in Normandy, probably before 1035 until 1368, when the estates in Scotland were surrendered by Thomas of Balliol to his brother-in-law, William, Earl of Douglas. Thomas had no issue. Line extinct.

That was for about 333 years.

The Bels of Flanders remained in Flanders key cities (Bruges, Gent, Kortrijk) at least since the year 843 when the Baron Knight Hrvotland Bels (*ab 820) was quoted in a text relative to the Treaty of Verdun. Modern historians push back his ancestors to the year 415, at the time of the first settlements of the Sicambri (Later Merovingians). Another Knight Bels appeared in 1014 in Vacarisses, 30 km northwest of Barcelona and much later in 1240 with Lambert le Bels de Paskendale (Flanders).

Recent studies showed that the Bels most probably integrated the Roman institutions after the Salian-Franks (proto-Merovingians) lost the battle (286 CE), engaged by the Roman Emperor Maximian (250-310). As we have seen already, these people became Roman subjects called "auxiliari" or "foederati" in accordance with the Roman law that, since the emperor Caracalla´s edict, in 212 CE, extended the Roman citizenship to every free person in the empire. In West Europe, they settled in the Roman provinces of Germania Inferior and Belgica.

More recent historical discoveries, which we will examine in detail later, have made it possible to date this integration of the Bels to 60 BCE. This is a theoretical date which, for reasons of caution, we no longer mention in the official documents of our Order of Dynastic Knighthood, so as not to arouse sterile and endless controversy. This date has been replaced by the term "multisecular cognationes".

The Bels, together with a few other very ancient Flemish lineages, entered the Roman Administration Schools. After the fall of the Roman Empire, they joined as “Leudes” the Merovingian Court. Later, under the Carolingians, they kept their “Office Holders” (baronobis) position as “Vassi”. Idem under the Capetian Dynasty. Later again, they joined the courts of the Counts of Flanders, of the Counts of Barcelona, of the Dukes of Normandy, etc.

That was, in 2023, at least 2083 years for the ancestors of the Bels of Flanders and about 778 years for Lambert le Bels de Paskendale.

• The Balliol (van Belle) of Doulieu, Steenkerke, Dampierre (with Oosthove), hereditary Marshal of Flanders, remained “in place” from about 1160 until about 1570, when the estates went to Jean d´Estourmel, Sire of Vendeville x Anne de Bailleul, heiress of the Seigneuries by lack of male descendants. Line extinct. The ship of Doulieu was an old Banner of Flanders that belonged, for several centuries, to the Belle/Bailleul.

That was for about 410 years.

• The Bels of Albi and of the France-Spain border region remained “in place” long before the time of the Crusades against the Cathars, about 1225. Actually, since the time they were assigned (Abt. 879) to the court of the Count of Barcelona Wilfredo “el Velloso” (*845 +897) who married Winidilde of Flanders. (*860). There was an assault on the Bels´ castle in Albi, in 1312.

That was for about 432 years.

• The Belle (van) of Ypres, remained “in place” from anno 1015 until 1464 when Wallerand Belle (Avoué Hospice Belle in 1464) disappeared.

That was for about 449 years.

The Bels-Belle-Balliol were instrumental (stronger synonym than “influential”) in many places in Europe and in the Middle East. They had an influence on most of the crowned heads of Europe, the noble and patriarchal families and even the popes, be they in the Vatican or Avignon.

This was even true in the XXth century when Ms Liliane Baels, married in Brussels, on 6 December 1940, the King of Belgium, Leopold III (1901-1983) from Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha. The Princess of Réthy, of feudal nobility, was born in London, of Belgian parents, on 28 November 1916, and died near Brussels in her castle of Argenteuil, on 7 June 2002. Her father, lawyer of education, was governor of occidental Flanders!

The Belle family, for instance, significantly influenced the political, social, and cultural landscape of Ypres and Flanders over several centuries. Their roles as castellans, crusaders, and philanthropists underscore their importance in the region's history. The Bels-Belle and the Balliol will have, in this Essay, several pages dedicated to them.

I read for instance in a study on the origin of the name Bailey:

“In Normandy, France, we find the name Bailey first mentioned, as early as 1052 CE in the form of Bailleul”.

• Wrong: Bailleul was at that time written either in Latin or in Diets but not in French.

“At that time Simon, son of Arnould de Gramines, was the representative of the Bailleuls”.

• Wrong: Simon of Balliol was indeed the representative of the “Balliol” but belonged to the Lineage of the Balliol of Flanders and not from Normandy! In addition, he may have been a real “Balliol”, the son of Arnold and not the son of Arnould de Gramines, who is supposed to have usurped the name “Balliol”. Simon was Châtelain of Belle (Balliol), married the daughter of Geoffroy, Lord de Mervalle, who brought to her husband the lands of Wiersem and Flammeringhem.

“His sons, or perhaps his grandsons, Albert and Baudouin de Bailleul are on the list of Flemish Knights who took active part in the First Crusade to the Holy Land”.

The author:

• Either assumes that they went from Normandy to Flanders what is, of course, a gigantic historical non-sense.
• Or he does not make, or want (sic) to make, the relation between the Lineage of the Balliol of Flanders and the one of Normandy!

However, the author’s saying, being in the track of the historical establishment set up by Mr Vosgier and Mr Blanchard, had nothing to fear. His non-sense version was considered as true. Maybe there was not even a conspiracy. He knew may be no better.

The misleading was so widespread and deep-rooted among scholars that the famous Flemish Historian Dr E. Warlop, a world-leading historian on medieval history, to avoid strong and endless historical resistance and polemic, did not even mention the Balliols of England and of Scotland in his masterwork “The Flemish Nobility”. In vol. Iii, he printed a long pedigree of the Flemish Balliols but avoided very carefully to point out any English and Scottish connections to the Lineage!

I know from several visits to Dr E. Warlop, years ago in Kortrijk (Flanders), that he is faithful to the fact that all the Balliols originated from Flanders.

Independent historical studies accumulating, it became more and more evident that the Balliol of England and of Scotland had to belong to the powerful early medieval Lineage of the Balliol of Flanders. The main reason is, for centuries, countless very strong historical links have been established and confirmed between the Balliol of Normandy, of England, of Scotland and their «older cousins» of Flanders. However, not a single historical link has ever been established with whatever a Balliol family, not to speak about a Balliol Lineage, originated “in” Normandy!

The historian F. Bayley took a firm position on this matter. He wrote in his book “The Bailleul of Flanders” that there is absolutely no doubt that the Balliol of Scotland and of Normandy belonged to the Balliol of Flanders. (Ed. Spottiswoode. London. 1881).

Why, after the publication of his book, did historians not become suspicious about Mr Vosgier´s theory?

There was a time span of about … a century, between Mr Vosgier´s and Mr de Belleval´s versions (that was based on Mr Vosgier´s work). A century is a very long time during which Mr Vosgier´s assertions took root and became part of our “Classical Historical Knowledge” accepted as true!

But there was a time span of only … 15 years, between the publication of Mr de Belleval, and the totally different and brand-new theory on the subject proposed by Mr F. Bayley. Why the matter was not more closely investigated remains another mystery.

“… Increasingly modern historians conclude that the assertion, that was considered true for centuries, willing that the Balliols of Scotland originated from Bailleul (Somme, France), is historically very wrong. Mr Vosgier, an 18P^th century French writer, grounded that theory that was blindly taken over by Mr Blanchard, by Mr René de Belleval (1866) and by subsequent writers and historians…”. Citation out of this Essay by Robert Adelsohn Bels.

Dr E. Warlop was also the man who confirmed, among other things, the Lineage links I discovered between the Bels-Belle (de-van) and the Balliol (Bailleul de-van) families. Confirmation that allowed me to write my “Essai sur l´origine des patronymes...”, in anno 1988, and that was sent to several family Members, via the Bajulus (small publication of the Ordo Balliolensis). In anno 1996, one of the first versions of the Essay was officially deposed in the National Library of Belgium (Albertine, Brussels).

The only connection the Balliol of Scotland may have with Normandy is when some regained the country, where their ancestors were at home “at the time” of William the Conqueror, although coming, in earlier times, from Flanders.

It is not at all likely that some Balliols were identified in different places called Bailleul, in France as in some other places in Europe and Middle East, as we will see later in this document. However, that does not permit us at all to state „officially“, that they originated from one of these places!

The first trace we have from a place called Balliol (in Vimeu) comes from a document of the Abbey of Fontenelle (Saint Wandrille). The document, dated anno 695-697, was emanating from the Merovingian King Childebert III (de Balliolo in pago Tellau).

Another Balliol was found in a document, dated anno 734. This concerned Bailleul next to Hallencourt (Balliolum in pago Uimnau).

But these two localities were very far away, in time, from the Balliol city of French-Flanders that was already known in the Roman time!

Some Balliol family members, arriving in Normandy, may have decided to settle in places that had, by coincidence, the same name as theirs. Arnoldus Grameninis, when he settled down in the city of Balliol, in anno 960, took over its toponym as patronymic.

But how are the probabilities that such a place existed and waited for settlers, who got the same toponymic name, to show up? Did the Balliol, in Normandy, settled in a place that had a toponym identical to their patronymic or did they settle down anywhere and gave that place their patronymic… As they did in Barnard Castle and as the Bels, Baille (also Bayle) and the Belle did in the south of France and north Spain?

They must have had very good reasons for acting like that but whatever they were, they may remain unknown forever! One thing is sure: in there lays the source of the huge confusion that reigned, for centuries, among medieval historians as far as the Balliol Lineage is concerned.

In this context is there not something more hiding behind the fact that:

• The Balliols of Flanders were lords of Bailleul (Balliol) and of Dampierre, both in Flanders (Dampierre, before the Count of Flanders, Guy of Dampierre, became Lord of it around anno 1270) and
• The Balliols “in” Normandy were lords of Bailleul (Balliol) and of Dompierre, both in Normandy?

Is this not like a wink to historians of the future? If not, what are then the probabilities that such happenings happen by pure chance? What about a hypothetical Andrew family that should become lords of Andrew and of Make (both in Flanders) and some other Andrews becoming lords of Andrew and of Moke (both in Normandy)? All this keeping in mind that both Andrews were of feudal nobility, belonged to a rich and powerful Lineage, that both were the right arms of the Counts of Flanders and of the Dukes of Normandy and that some Andrews in England and in Scotland (who came over from Normandy) were still lords of estates in Flanders. The question is posed.

I quote here a passage out of «Scottish Ha­zard. Scotland - Flanders Links» sent to me in May 1996 by Gentedame Geneviève Bailleul, de Gonfreville l'Orcher (France. Normandy).

« There are several places named Bailleul in France and many people have sought terri­torial corroboration for the family's origins form among them.

Normandy was the inevitable favourite, and the French 18th century writer, Vosgier, who settled on the small Norman town of Bailleul, two miles from Argen­tan, was widely followed for a time. He changed his mind, and his later suggestion, Bailleul-en-Vimeu, was taken up in a biography, "Jean de Bailleul, roi d'Ecosse et Sire de Bailleul-en-Vimeu" written in 1866 by René de Belleval. His work is no­wa­days accepted as proof that this Bailleul, some five miles south of Abbeville, was the original birthplace of the Scottish Balliols who had moved into that coun­try from Teesdale.

However, the assumption is wrong. Apart from other considerations, at the time of the Con­quest, Abbeville was the capital of Ponthieu and the domicile of its Count, and neither Vosgier nor de Bellavel seem to have pondered the problems of alle­giance which su­ch residence-in-chief would produce.

Several 11th and 12th century charters survive, signed by Members of the Bailleul family which give conclusive proof that their home at the relevant dates was another Bailleul, this one near Hazebrouck in the present-day the depart­ment “du Nord” of France, but then, of course, in Flanders.

All the charters were propounded by the counts of Flanders, and it is obvious from their contents that men of the Bailleul family were Members of the Flemish count´s court. The subject-matter ranges from the foundation of the Abbey of Saint-Sauveur at Ham, near Bethune, approved by Robert Ist of Flanders in 1093 and witnessed by Baldewin VII of Flanders in 1116, replacing for the burghers of Ypres "Le duel judiciaire et les épreuves du fer et de l'eau" by an oath of allegiance. This charter - still in the archi­ves at Ypres - was witnessed by Baldewin de Bailleul, probably Bernard's eldest son, whose heirs inherited the family's estates in Flanders...

It appears certain that Guy de Bailleul was present at the Battle of Hastings thou­gh, since he fought under the banner of Count Eustace of Boulogne, he would not be lis­ted on the Battle Abbey Roll. Nor does he figure in Doomsday Book, and it would be reasonable to assume that he was one of those killed in the battle.

PART 2

Evidence from north-east England after Doomsday, and Flemish charter evidence (printed by F. Vercauteren in "Actes des Comtes de Flandre") both show that he left sons, Guy and Bernard.

• Guy was given (by William Rufus) the barony of Bywell in Northumberland and extensive lands in Teesdale. (Ca. 12 miles from Newcastle).
• Bernard took over the Flemish estates held by his father.

In the early years of the 12th century, just as Guy and Bernard had divided between them the English and Flemish estates, on Guy's death in England wi­thout direct heirs, another of Bernard's sons, also named Bernard, left Flanders holding to his brother Baldwin, and himself took over his uncle Guy's lands in north-east England and (by now) in Northamptonshire.

There may have been a “certain” internationalism about the Balliols. A Flemish family charter of about 1130, quoted by J. H Round (Calendar of Documents Pre­served in France), leaving bequests to the Abbey at Cluny, names properties all over France. At some time during the mid-12th century, they may have wished to move away from a Flanders in whose contemporaneous troubles they had be­come embarrassingly in­volved, to the Abbeville estates to which their name became at­tached. Or was the at­tachment due to the installation there (some would call it imprisonment) by Philip the Fair (Philippe le Bel) of France, in 1301, of John Balliol, one-time King of Scotland? ».

Although History is an empirical science, it is based on facts! Most of them reported to us by, let us hope, “not too non-objective” chroniclers!

If it is evident that theories must be adapted to fit some facts, it "should" be even more evident that facts never must adapt to fit some theories. This evident "evidence" is however frequently and "intentionally forgotten" by historians. Facts at hand are the only objective beacons of Humanity’s history. Only facts can precisely translate the physiognomy of people where each can draw with security to illuminate his conscience and his knowledge. They are the only books that never lie!

Modern historians and genealogists have encountered huge identification problems with our Lineage. The complexity, as said, is such that we are not permitted to write about most Middle Ages´ historical happenings, being them in Flanders, France, Byzantium, Normandy, England, Scotland or during some Crusades to the Holy Land and to Albi (France), without taking into account the fact that they all involved either the “Bels”, the “Belle” or the “Balliol” families who belonged to one and the same Lineage!

To make things even worse, these families used repetitively, for centuries, the same Christian names such as: Edouard, Bernard, John, Hughes, etc. Balduinus, for instance, is a name that is found in different branches of the Lineage, for centuries and in different places! Even the numbering of their members could not solve the problem. What makes indeed the difference between a Balduinus IV from another Balduinus IV, if we know that their patronymic “of Belle, of Balliol, Belle (de-van) and other forms such as, de Besle”, were synonymous and that they were different persons from one and the same Lineage?

Even worse! In ancient Flanders, no less than twelve different families had the homonym Balliol. Although not so notorious as the Balliol from Belle (Balliol) Douxlieu and Eecke, they all belonged to the same Lineage.

However, two families have nothing to do with the real Balliols of ancient times. They were the Balliols issued from Arnoldus Grameninis, who became in 960, responsible for the defence of the city of Balliol against the Norman intruders. Much later, in the year 1578, appeared another Balliol, when a certain Jean Grandin was ennobled and permitted to take the name of Bailleul. His son, called Julien “du” Bailleul, had himself a son called Julien “du” Bailleul, whose name became, in 1635, “des Bailleuls”, in the parish of St. Cir (unknown).

I do not know how this “du” Bailleul patronymic will evolve, but I do know that it will very seriously increase the identification problems we already face with the two other “Balliols”. Will this patronymic also mutate from “du Bailleul” to “de Bailleul”? In that case, we will have a third identification problem. These Balliols have nothing to do with the ancient Balliol Lineage of the city of Balliol (Belle), linked to the Bels and Belle.

How to know, when reported in texts after the XVIth century, from which Balliols one is referring to?

Will the texts refer to the real ancient Balliol family (from Belle), to the heirs of Arnoldus Grameninis who took over, in 960, the toponymic “Balliol” (Belle), or to the heirs of this newcomer, Jean Grandin?

After all, did the ancient Balliols not enter History with Arnould Grameninis? This might be a possibility, because it is symptomatic that no other mention of a Balliol family has ever been found prior to the year 960! At least, I did not.

In that case, the Bels and the Belle families must have had their own far more ancient history, as we will see later. What does not dismiss ipso facto the origin of the patronymic of Bels and Belle being issued from the city of Balliol (Belle). Got it?

I found an interesting parallel to what most probably happened in Balliol with the Balliols. It concerns the Family of Colard van der Clyte (+1404 or +1407). He is the first to have change his patronymic into the “de Comines” or “van Comen”. This happened after his wedding with the heiress of this Seigniory. Later, Philippe de Comines will abandon all references to the name “de la Clyte” after he sold, before 1450, this Seignory to the family Zadelaers.

We know that the “de Comines” already existed since at least the Xth Century and we found them for centuries next to the Balliol of Scotland. They were, after the Balliol family, the most powerful of Scotland. So, the “de Comines” could never descend from this Colard van der Clyte.

In this case, it is quite evident because we found “de Gramines” anterior to them. But that also complicates the case when a “de Comines” is reported for instance in 1450. Who is he? What is his ascendence? From the old and real de Comines of from the “van de Clyte” who took the name in about 1400?

The problem is the same for the Balliols. Is a Balliol issued in 1400 of the old Balliol Lineage, who went to Scotland with Wilhelm the Conqueror, or is he descendent of this Arnould de Gramines who changed his name?

The problem with the Gramines is easier to solve because we found old traces of them, far anterior of the “van de Clyte”. For the Balliol, it is far more complicated because nothing is known of them before the year 960. Only that their name was synonym of Belle and van Belle (in Diest). They have therefore existed before the year 960, but their traces seem to be lost in the midst of ages.

Are all the Balliols heirs of this Arnould de Gramines whose line most probably extinct after 1 or two generations, as advanced by some medievists? In that case, the appearance of the Balliol-de Gramines was just a short interlude in the overall Balliol lineage history. On can see how complicate the case is to discern who was what, where and when!

I found in Geneanet (A Genealogical portal on the Internet) a very serious study done by Mr. Michel van Hoegaerden, on the Genealogy of the Balliols (Bailleuls). He found some Balliols anterior to the year 960 and so, quite evidently, not linked to the Anould de Gramines story. I contacted him on 23 April 2020 under the following terms:

“…Dear Mr. Michel.

Could I possibly contact you by telephone? It would be far easier than to explain everything on paper! Thank you for transmitting me your telephone number and at what time it would the most convenient to call you. I am living in Germany. Je parle aussi francais, Ik spreek ook vlaams (Nederlands) and, Ich spreche auch Deutsch. All the best to you…”. I am still waiting for an answer!

All these happenings are the main reasons for the big confusion in the history of our Lineages. Only a very extensive, careful, time consuming and expensive study of the very old sources and documents, will permit us to have a more precise view of what happened, to whom, when and where.

When dealing with big lineages of the Middle Ages, one may never forget some other important factors.

For instance, the number of people living in the various cities we are dealing with. Permanent loss of lives due to the incessant wars, and catastrophic epidemics that spread, for centuries, all over Europe, reduced drastically the number of populations. Before anno 1100, only a few cities located north of the Alps, had more than 3000 souls. That gives us an idea of the population of the cities of Belle and Ypres in the Xth century when they were “taken over” by the Balliols.

An historian called “Varnewijk” wrote, in old Flemish, based upon older Sources:

“Rond 400, Tot dat barbarsche volk, de Hunnen en de Vandaelen, begonden tegen room de wapens op the haelen die door het vier en zwaerd vernielden ´t gansche land, ´t kan wezen dat the plaets van Bell ook weird gebrand, want ´t werd dan al verwoest, veel menschen dood geslage… want, zoo Varnewyck uyt oude schryvers toond, lag vlaender hondert jaer verlaeten onbewoond…”.

In English:

“… About the year 400, the barbarian people, the Huns and the Vandals, started to raise the arms against Rome and destroyed, by fire and Sword, the whole country (Flanders). It may be that the city of Belle was also burned down because everything was destroyed, many people were mortally wounded… because, as quoted by Varnewyck from ancient writers, was Flanders abandoned and inhabited for hundred years…”. See also page 282.

That Flanders was really “abandoned and inhabited for hundred year” is very improbable (at least the Merovingians were there together with the “van Boonen”, the “Bels-Belle” and other very old lineages). However, the statement describes very well the very low population’s density of the country resulting precisely from these barbarians and murdering intrusions.

A few centuries later, same deal! But this time the Barbarians came from the north; they were called the: The Normans. Their frequent devastating and savage invasions again reduced severely the density of Flanders’s population.

There were, in anno 1200 (some 240 years after the taking over of the city of Belle, in anno 960), in whole Europe (that was a region ranging from Portugal to Byzantium and from London to Palermo) only 21 very large cities, counting between 20,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. (Constantinople counted more than 100.000 inhabitants. Florence and Venice approached the 100.000, Paris was about 80.000 and London 20.000).

The largest cities:

Seven were in Italy:                              Florence, Venice, Milan, Genoa, etc.

Four were in Flanders (Belgium):         Bruges, Ypres, Ghent, and Brussels.

Four were in Spain:                              Barcelona, Seville, Cordova, Grenada.

Three were in France:                          Paris, Douai, Toulouse.

One was in England:                            London.

One was in Byzantium:                         Constantinople.

One was in Germany:                          Cologne (Köln).

One was in the Czech Republic:          Prague.

Records show that Ypres, which was considered a large city, counted 15.000 people just before the big famine of Flanders that occurred between anno 1315 and 1317. The calamity, which killed in Ypres some 3.000 people, was to be followed by six other ones, all in the XIVth century!

And to make things even worse, another huge catastrophe was waiting patiently to hit the lucky survivors: The Black Death of 1348 that ravaged Europe until 1350.

This mortal disease killed, in some cities, more than 50% of their inhabitants. The population of England was, according to reliable assessments, about 4.000.000 inhabitants before the Black Death. The recovering was slow since that country counted in 1377 only 2.200.000 inhabitants. The population of France that counted, half a century before the Black Death (1348), about 12 million people, dropped by 4 million people. Flanders and Germany had, all together, a population of no more than 13 million people!

All the areas in black on the map were totally unknown. Seas were timidly explored. In other words, the late Middle Age world history was written on happenings that occurred in these small green areas. Before the Crusades, our knowledge of the world was even more restricted. They opened us a huge window on Minor Asia and Asia.

After the description:

“In Flanders were the most old-established and the most impressive industrial concentrations. There was also, in the XIII^th century, the most complex hierarchy and the most marked economic and social differences of the Middle Ages”.

We better realise why only members of important families, with serious weights in the economic, politic and religious affairs of a country, county, region or city, and glued to each other by different strong links (vassalage, wedding, nobility, patriarchal, knighthood, politics, estates and other possessions) could travel where and when they wanted and had also the financial means to pay for it!

There were in those times, in Europe, quite a lot of international gatherings for whatever reasons. Here follows an example out of an ancient chronicle called: “The Chronicles of Hainaut” (B), written in 1196, in Latin, by Gislebert de Mons (Hainaut, Belgium) to show how huge the number of Knights sometimes was at these comings together:

“In 1184, the Count of Hainaut (Belgium) set out for Mainz (Germany) to the „Hoftag“ fest held by the Emperor of the Roman Empire, Friederich Barbarossa. Together with the proficient and elegant men Eustach the Younger de Roeulx (B), Osto de Trazegnies (B), Walter de Wargnies (B), Nicholas de Barbençon (B), Reiner de Trith, Hugo de Croix, Almann de Prouvy, Polius de Villers, Godfrid de Esch (a castle in the Ardennes), Nicholas Mönch, Walter d´Esch, Walter van Steenkerque (Flanders) and the brother of the Count, Heinrich, who was recently knighted. They wear silk urchins.

Via the cities of Namur (B), Liège (B), Aachen (D) and Koblenz (D), the Count reached Mainz the day before Pentecost (19.5) with a big and respectable team, loaded much silver-dishes and other presents and with magnificently dressed servants. Many nobles from the Country of Luxembourg also accompanied the Count of Hainaut.

During the coronation fest held by the emperor on May 20, the mightiest Princes claimed the right to carry the federal sword. These were namely:

• The Duke Friedrich of Bohemia who appeared at the „Hoftag“ with 2.000 knights.
• The Palatinate-Count Konrad with Rhine, the emperor's own brother, who came with 1.000 and more knights.
• The Country-Count (Landgrave) Ludwig III from Thuringia, a brave man and nephew of the emperor who came with 1000 or more knights.
• The new Duke of Saxony Bernhard IV, who came with 700 knights.
• The Archdukeld V, from Austria, a proficient and generous knight, who came with 500 knights.

But the Emperor had the Count of Hainaut (Belgium) to carry his sword, and nobody contradicted because:

• He was a man of grand prestige all over the world,
• He was at the „Hoftag“ for the first time and
• He had, among princes and other nobles present, high-level relatives.

On Monday and Tuesday (21 and 22 May) after diner, the emperor-sons organized a show-tournament. Roughly, 20.000 Knights or more took part in it as well as the emperor himself. It was a tournament without sharp arms; the Knights proudly carried their blazons, lances, and banners without pushing or blowing. The Count of Hainaut was once more honoured by serving the emperor at this tournament. He was allowed to carry the emperor’s lance.”

PART 3

Common people were serfs. The Medieval Society was tripartite: Church, Nobility and Peasants.  The Feudal Hierarchy was as such: the king, the dukes, and the counts. Then came the nobles and the clergy, followed by the freemen, the vilains and the tenants, the Main-mortables (people whose property reverted to the lord after their death) and the serfs.

Serfs were “physically” attached to the estates or soils belonging to their Lords. If an estate was sold, they were sold with it! It was therefore unthinkable for a serf to leave his lord's lands to settle in another seigneury, and even less so to leave the region to settle in Normandy, for example.

It would have been impossible for such a person to go unnoticed where he settled. Ditto for him to fraudulently take or use the patronymic of the lord of the domain he deserted, not to mention his coat of arms. She could have illegally and temporarily appropriated the coat of arms, but it wouldn't have taken long for the crime to surface. One lord's herald knows the coats of arms of the other lords and knights. Moreover, the serf's general demeanor would quickly draw attention to who he really is and who he claims to be. There were habits and customs of which he knew absolutely nothing, and which would have betrayed him in the very short term.

“… In Germanic society, an individual could not exist outside the community, and the isolated man was doomed. The most fearful of punishments was to exclude a man from the familial or tribal group and make him a wanderer (wargus)…” (Source Pierre Riché).

Supporting this assertion is the very important “Density of the Population Factor”. During the Carolingian epoch, in Flanders between Ypres and Boulogne (Bonen in Diets, called Bononia by the Romans and Bona “plank floor” in old Germanic), one should remember that there were only about 34 inhabitants per square kilometre! More to the north of Flanders the population dropped to 20 inhabitants and was only between 9 to 12 inhabitants per kmP^2P, in the environs of Lille (Rijssel in Diets). The Mosel Valley counted only four inhabitants per kmP². On 1 January 2011, Flanders counted 462 inhabitants per kmP^2P. Sources: Pierre Riché.

Here an original text in French concerning the Flemish city of Fauquembergues, dated May 1222, and the translation of paragraphs 3 and 5 concerning the come and go from people at that time it that city...

Moi, Guillaume, châtelain de Saint-Omer et Ysmène, mon épouse, faisons savoir à ceux qui entendront et verront ces lettres ce qui suit :

1. Considérant l´incendie total de toute notre ville de Fauquembergues, nous concédons généreusement aux gens de cette ville de ne plus exiger d´eux, ni de leurs héritiers, ni taille, ni demande quelconque.
2. Compatissant à leur misère et à leur pitoyable infortune, nous les absolvons de toute injustice et loi inique et nous engageons, nous et nos héritiers, à ne plus les poursuivre en justice.
3. Pour tous les étrangers ou leurs parents qui viendraient s´installer à Fauquemberghes et qui y demeureraient quelques temps, nous accordons à eux et à leurs héritiers toute liberté.
4. A eux et à leurs héritiers, nous accordons un endroit sur le marché ( ?) et de demeurer dans la même situation que nos prédécesseurs avaient accordée à leurs ancêtres.
5. Nous concédons à tous, la liberté d´aller et de venir au marché de Fauquembergues qui se tient le jeudi …
6. Nous et nos héritiers, nous nous engageons par serment et actes sacrés à observer toutes ces conventions.
7. En l´an du Seigneur 1222.

Translation of paragraphs 3 and 5.

3. For all strangers or their parents who would come to settle in Fauquemberghes and that would stay some times there, we grant to them and to their heirs all liberty.

5. We concede to all, the liberty to go and to come to the market of Fauquembergues that is held the Thursday…

This text confirms what is written above:

1. The lords of cities/villages were very aware of who came to settle in their city. In some circumstances, as detailed here above, the strangers and their parents were … granted to stay… some times!
2. The fact that the Lord of Fauquembergue… conceded to all the liberty to go and to come to the city market on Thursday’s… understands explicitly that, in normal time, this liberty did not exist!

The blazon of every single family was known all over Europe and the Middle East. In first instances, by members of these different families (in order to recognise the Knights on the battlefields) but also by officers called “Herald of weapons”. Each city had his own officer, as did the big Knight Orders created in the Holy Land.

In addition, one may not forget the distance factor. To cover unnoticed long distances in day light, serfs had to travel very fast. How were their chances without horses they did not have? If they wanted to travel under cover, at night or to take the risks of going through the hazardous huge forests, they would encounter other problems such as getting lost, running out of food, be attacked by animals or brigands, etc.

All these to emphasise that if we encounter, in Normandy, some Balliols who played, as we have seen, since their arrival in the Duchy, very important roles, they never could be usurpers!

Only members of a powerful and of a very rich family could settle over there and built, in every one of their four vast estates (Bailleul, Hornoy, Dompierre and Hélicourt), a castle. The Castle of Bailleul, for instance, was placed on the highest elevation of the village and was the seat of a Châtelenie that was one of the biggest fiefs of Vimeu and all Ponthieu because no less than 32 ships depended upon them.

If the Balliols, in Normandy, came from “nowhere”:

• Where did they get all the money to build their castles and to buy these vast domains?
• How could they fool the Duke of Normandy and other big Lineages, by using a patronymic and a blazon that did not belong to them?
• How did they manage to get the needed diplomatic relations that require, some important families, decades if not centuries to build up?
• How did they get the needed authorisations to settle in Normandy from a Duke who may have had all reasons on earth to see, in the sudden arrival of these perfectly unknown “powerful” strangers, future destabilising elements of his authority? Could these strangers not even go so far as to build a state into his state? Something like what happened with the Counts of Flanders and the Kings of France!

The Dukes of Normandy had, always, kept very close ties with some Seigneurial families from Flanders, being it for political, commercial, economical, scientific, or financial reasons. Was Flanders not one of the two poles of the Middle Age world, together with Florence (Italy)?

France counted during the XIth century, four very powerful Dukes (Aquitaine, Normandie, Bourgogne, and Bretagne) and about one hundred Counts. Three of them (Champagne, Toulouse, and Flanders) were of the same importance as the dukes.

However, there was another link of paramount importance between some Lineages: The family link. And this despite the murder, anno 942, instigated by Arnould Ist le Vieux (also the Great) Count of Flanders, to Guillaume Ist Duke of Normandy.

The following non-exhaustive list (excluding the Balliols) serves only as an example:

• Adélaïde (Adèle) de Vermandois (°anno 908, fa. Herbert II Count de Vermandois x Hildebrante de Neustria), married in 934, in France, Arnould Ist Count of Flanders. fs. of Baudouin II Count of Flanders x Elstrude, Princess of England. Arnould Ist was born about 890. Adèle was Arnould's Ist second wife.
• Rollon, (Robert), of who sprang the Dukes of Normandy x Grisela, fa. of Charles, King of France.
• In 860, Balduinus I, the first Count of Flanders x Judith, also a daughter of King Charles.
• Guillaume (William) the Conqueror x (anno 1053) Mathilda (Maud) fa. Balduinus V, Count of Flanders. French history texts uniformly indicate that the headstrong Flemish woman would have nothing to do with an adulterated. Guillaume is said to have galloped all the way to Lille, entered Mathilde's room, and tamed her by beating her with his stirrups, tearing her robe to shreds in the process. After that, Mathilde is said to have enthusiastically consented to become the Duchess of Normandy. Mathilde and William were devoted to each other and there is no evidence to suggest that William had any mistress (what was in those times, as in our, an extremely serious challenge). According to Debrett's "Kings and Queens of Great Britain", no illegitimate children have ever been convincingly shown. The Pope approved the marriage in the year 1059. Guillaume (+1087) is buried at the Abbey of Saint‑Étienne in Caen, France, in accordance with his wishes.
• Hugh Capet (King of France) married his son Robert to Susanna, widow of Arnould's II Count of Flanders (+987 and buried in Ghent). Flanders came temporarily under the Capetians´ control.
• In 1047, Hildegarde, Duchesse of Alsace, fa. of the Count von Eguisheim, married Frederic von Buren (+1094). This marriage gave birth to the Dynasty of the Hohenstaufen. Their children were: Frederic I^st von Staufen, Duke of Alsace, and Duke of Suaben, Othon, Bishop of Strasburg, Louis, Palatinate Count, Guillaume, Conrad, and Adelaide. It is the Lineage of the Emperor Frederick von Schwaben called Barbarossa.
• In 1055, Balduinus VI Count of Flanders and Margrave of Antwerp, becomes the first Count of Flanders and of Hainaut by his marriage with Richilde, heiress of Hainaut who was no one else than another daughter of the Count of Eguisheim. Therefore, were the Lineages of the Counts of Flanders and of the Balliols linked, via the Counts of Hainaut, to the Dynasty of the Hohenstaufen. Richilde´s first marriage was with Herman de Mons.

This particular link made an unexpected reappearance on the 14th October 2003 when I made contact, in Bamberg (Germany), for historical research and data exchanges, with a representative of the Hohenstaufen Dynasty, his S.R.H the Fürst Henri Fromm von Hohenstaufen und Derneck (Sovereign House of Schwaben).

Right, a picture of S.R.H Fürst (Prince) Henri From von Hohenstaufen und Derneck, a big and imposing stature, entirely conform with the description of his illustrious ancestor, the Emperor Friedrich I^stBarbarossa.

Fürst Henri, who died several years later, may well have been the last heir of the powerful Dynasty of the Hohenstaufen, in Germany, to which belonged the historical well-known Holy Roman Emperor, Friedrich Ist von Schwaben (called Barbarossa 1122-1190). Friederich Ist was crowned on 9th March 1152, in Aachen (D), on the throne of Emperor Charlemagne.

In May 2019, I received the Nobility Charta and the Nobility Cross from His Excellency Frater Thaddäus Freiherr von Lison, Grand Prior of Germany of the Order of St. Stanislas. This elevation in the nobility is the consequence of the highest distinction one may receive from the Order of St. Stanislas: The “Grand Cross with Star. Class 1” (Register No 3810/2012 du 16 Juin 2012. Wiesbaden. Germany).

“…The Grand Cross with Star. Class 1, has been given to His Highness Frater Robert Adelsohn Bels, Sire de L‘Ormier, Doctor honoris causa and Grand Master of the Ordo Balliolensis, in recognition of his ever friendly relations and amicable gestures toward our Order, his immense commitment and devotion for the cause of the traditional Chivalry and for his outstanding success with respect to the numerous and various European Knight Orders encouraging them to acting jointly for the greater good of the chivalric ideal. His Serene Highness, Frater Robert, is a nobleman representing his Family Dynasty and his Sovereign Order with grandeur in any circumstance and is for us all a living example how to convert the highest chivalric standards into modern life and live up to them every day with dignity and determination…”. Source: Charta by the Grand Master of the Order of St. Stanislas, Monsignor Jan Zbigniew hrabia Potocki. 2012.

“Entsprechend der Königlichen Tradition sind die Personen, die mit dem Großkreuz Class 1 ausgezeichnet wurden in den Adelstand erhoben. Das steht in der Verfassung des Heiligen Stanislas Orden als Historische Willensbezeichnung des letzten polnischen Königs..”.

“According to the royal tradition the persons who were awarded the Grand Cross Class1 are raised to the peerage. This is in the constitution of the Holy Stanislas Order as a Historical designation of will of the last Polish king”.

Left to right: Mgr. Fra. Robert Adelsohn Bels, Ordinis Balliolensis and

Mgr. Fra. Jan Zbigniew Potocki, Order of St. Stanislas´ Grand Master. Wiesbaden. Anno 2012.

On the documents of May 2019, I was surprised to read that Frater Thaddäus is also the Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Imperial House of the Hohenstaufen, with seat in Italy. So did the Imperial House of the Hohenstaufen leave Germany, to settle in Italy. H.E the Ambassador will arrange a meeting with the head of the House.

Before a meeting can be arranged, Fra. Thaddäus send the abridged text (translated from German) that follows, to the head of the Hohenstaufen Dynasty, now residing in Italy, to have his Royal and Imperial Highness to confirm the given titles, in 2003 and 2004 in Germany:

• Doctor Honoris Causa.  From the “Dynastie und Souveränes Haus von Hohenstaufen. Dekret 0315-2003. Bamberg (D).
• Ritter Offizier im Souverain Grand Ordre de Marie, Reine des Cœurs. Ritterorden des Geschlechtes des Fürsten zu Dernek. Souveränes Haus von Schwaben. Dekret 03/11/04 Kaiserliches Oberstes Gericht. §21/1310. Bamberg (D).

Part 4

Armorial of the Grand Chapter

Ordo Sancti Stanislai

Ennobling patent

Robert Adelsohn Bels, Sire de Lormier et Belcastel, Drs.h.c.

Born 19.07.1946 in Leers-Nord as son of Robert, Valère Bels and

Suzanne Valcke.

Chevalier of the Order of St. Stanislas Class I (G.C.St.S.)

conferred by the Grand Master

Jan Zbigniew Count Potocki on 16.06.2012 in Wiesbaden who awarded him a Coat of Arms as Chevalier of the Order of St. Stanislaus, which is registered in the register of nobility of the Armorial of the Order of St. Stanislas as patent No. 51/03/16.

This act is in conformity with the Constitution of the Order, point III, of 7 May 1765, given by King Stanislaw August Poniatowski, and as a Polish tradition practiced by its continuators in Congress Poland during the period of the "Duchy of Warsaw" and written into the Constitution of the Order of Saint Stanislas of 2 September 1829 under point II. 20, as well as with the amendments adopted and decreed at the General Assembly in Cincinnati on 1 March 1999.

Point C (IV) speaks of the resumption of the practice at the time when the Grand Masters were the Tsars of Russia, so that the award of the First Class of the Order (the Grand Cross with Star in Gold) corresponds to the elevation of the knight to the nobility, and he has the right to bear the Coat of Arms of this Order.

By decree issued in Krakau on 10th March 2016.

From left to right, Mgr. Fra. Robert Adelsohn Bels. B^nobis. S.E. Fra. Thaddäus Freiherr von Lison. B^on. Grand Prior of Germany of the Order of St. Stanislas and Ambassador Plenipotentiary of the Royal and Imperial House of the Hohenstaufen Dynasty and S.E. Fra. Heiko Bels. B^nobis. Knights of Dynastic Orders traditionally wear the red cape! Picture by courtesy of VIP Photo-Videographer Fabian Otto. Frankfurt am Main (Germany) and the Order of St. Stanislas. Fra. Heiko Bels received the Silver Star of the Order of St. Stanislas in Monaco, anno 2019.

LETTER TO THE CHIEF OF THE HOUSE OF HOHENSTAUFEN

Hofheim-Wallau, August 12, 2019

HRIH Prince Franz von Hohenstaufen

Chief of the house of Hohenstaufen

Via ….

I-00048 Roma. Italy.

Subject: Sovereign Grand Order of Mary, Queen of Hearts.

Your Imperial and Royal Highness!

I have had the honour of being appointed as your ambassador to the House of Hohenstaufen in Germany since 2009, and I carry this responsible position with respect and dignity for your and your family’s well-being.

Please allow me to come to you with a question that I would like to ask in favour of a particularly valuable friend - Fra. Robert Adelsohn Bels, Sire de L’Ormier et de Belcastel-et Buc, baronobis noblesse féodale, Drs. H.c., Grand Master of the dynastic Order of his family, Ordo Balliolensis, whose sovereign house Balliol exists since the year 960.

He is a fantastic representative of the knighthood and knows how to live and accept the traditional values ​​in modern times like no other. He is also a privileged and good friend of the current Grand Master of the Temple Order in Paris.

On the initiative of a representative of your family, HRH Henri Karl Fromm von Hohenstaufen, Prince of Derneck, this gentleman received an honorary doctorate from the St. Lukas Academy in Antwerp / Belgium in 2003 and in 2004 the rank of Knight Officer in the Sovereign Grand Order of Mary, Queen of Hearts, from which he held the office of Grand Prior. Photocopies of the two documents I attach to this letter. Unfortunately, Prince Henri died several years ago, as inquiries in Bamberg revealed, where he spent the rest of his life.

Searches and Internet search for this Order Mary Queen of Hearts have given me no information, as well as my Confrater Robert Adelsohn. Therefore, I allow myself to address your Imperial Highness and ask for clarification regarding this Order. Is it possibly an Order of the House Hohenstaufen or something similar?

Please have the goodness to answer these questions and possibly in a favourable case, by a letter from your hand to authenticate the validity of the appointment certificate of the Order and thus to authenticate the act of Prince Henri von Hohenstaufen and legitimize it. Concerning the honorary doctorate, I will turn to the St. Luke Academy myself.

For your esteemed attention and possible enlightenment, I can thank you in advance and remain loyal servants to your Imperial and Royal Highness.

With the utmost respect and kind regards. Thaddäus Freiherr von Lison

Grand Prior of the St. Stanislaus Order in Germany

and your ambassador in Germany.

I am particularly honoured by these titles that I am an admirer of the Hohenstaufen Emperor’s attitudes towards the Pope, the education, science, and the social order of his time. As an example: Frederic II of the Holy Empire (1194-1250) once taught to create a “College for the Elites” dispossessing the outrageous feudal lords from their privileges.

Once Charlemagne became the supreme ruler, his first political action was to stop the interference of the Church into his Empire affairs. He wrote the pope Eugene III^d in unequivocal terms that his Empire has been given to him by God himself and not by the Church.

During the Third Crusade to the Holy Land, on the 10th of June 1190, the emperor drowned, while crossing the river Saleph (Göksu, Soht Anatoly), in Turkey. Another historical version wants him to have died from a Heart stroke while he was taking a bath, also in Saleph and on the same day!

This “inner-relationship” between the most instrumental Lineages of Europe such as:

the Merovingians, the Carolingians, the Capetians, the Byzantine Emperors, the Kings of France, the Counts of Flanders, the Dukes of Normandy, the Lords of Balliol, the Counts of Hainaut, the Counts of Eguisheim, the Counts of Alsace, the Emperors of Hohenstaufen, the Kings House of the Wittelsbacher, the Princes of Orange, the Kings of England, the Kings of Scotland, the Dukes of Lotharingia via the “van Bonen” (de Boulogne), the Saint-Omer, the Pynkeni, the Harcourt, the Coucy, the Montmorency, etc., is precisely what other important individuals and/or families did not have.

As seen previously, an author wrote: “There may have been a certain internationalism about the Bels, Belle and Balliols”. I would like to modify this sentence by removing its strong suggestive uncertainty and vague definition induced by the words: «There may have been a certain…». According to the facts, the following phraseology: «There was a strong if not an astonishing internationalism about the Bels, Belle and Balliols » would better reflect the historical facts and reality!

Some families of those times were, however, very active in daily life matters of Normandy and of England. It is a fact that what occupied them brought them, in one way or the other, in contact with the duke. There was a kind of impersonal links such as those that exist, nowadays, between our Ministers and their King or President. These links allowed these people to reach the duke’s “external sphere of interaction”, but only that one! This was the case for important families/lineages of Normandy and Flanders such as the: Ascelin, Crepin, d`Aunou, de Brecez, de Saint-Ouen, de Tancarville, Giffard, le Flamand, etc.

The duke’s “internal sphere of interaction” was only reserved to his own family, to very close relatives and to a few individuals belonging to old and well-known befriended Lineages, called “Leudes” at the Merovingians times and “Vassi” at the Carolingian times. Here are some of them, Bels, Belle and Balliol not included:

• The “de Mortain” for, Count Robert de Mortain (de Mortagne), was Duke William´s half-brother.
• The “de Meules et du Sap” via Godfry, Count of Brionne and Eu, who was the son of Richard Ist Duke of Normandy. Balduinus, Godfry´s grandson, fled (ca. anno 1038) after the murder of his father Gilbert, with his brother Richard to the court of Balduinus, Count of Flanders, where they remained until 1053, when the marriage of the Duke William to Mathilda, the daughter of Balduinus, Count of Flanders, occurred.
• The “Aumale” via Enguerrand, Count of Ponthieu, who married Adelaide, sister, or half-sister of Duke William. Enguerand +1053, Adelaide married Lambert, Count of Lens, and brother of Eustache II Count of Boulogne. Lambert +1055, Adelaide married Eudes, Count of Champagnes.
• The “le Sénéchal”, via the marriage of Eudo (Eudes), Sire de la Haie with Muriel, fa. of Herluin de Conteville, and Arlette, the mother of the Conqueror.
• The “de Blois”, via Stephan (English royal House of Blois), grandson of William Ist through his daughter Adela.
• The “Turold” via alliances of both families.

Another befriended Lineage was the Dapifer (Rye), via Hubert de Rie, who saved, in 1047, the Duke´s life from conspirators coming from the Cotentin (area in Normandy). Later, he was entrusted for a lonely and very perilous journey to England. He had the dangerous undertaking to inform Edward the Confessor about the Duke William’s claims to the English crown, etc.

Considering all these facts, we have only one reasonable historical conclusion to draw out of them:

The Balliols of Normandy came from Flanders

and therefore, belonged the Lineage of the Balliols of Flanders!

Another hint that these Balliol came from Flanders is the lack of information, we find otherwise in abundance, for the Norman families and even for Flemish families. Very old documents mention the most ancient families/lineages of Normandy, such as the: Aumale, d´Angerville, d´Aulnay, des Briards, d´Escalles, d´Harcourt, Erard, le Normand, (or de Moreton), Ridel, but nothing about the Balliols.

A confirmation of my thesis can be read in a publication of the English Heritage (printed 1988, in England, for Her Majesty’s Stationery Office). It quotes:

“… John II Balliol by this act came to possess his own ancestral lands in England and Picardy (Flanders), the ship of Galloway and the Honour of Huntingdon. He became one of the wealthiest men in Britain”.

And, in a reprint dated 2005:

“…The land on which Barnard Castle was built had been given to the Church in the ninth century, but by the eleventh century had been forcibly taken by the Earls of Northumberland. The land reverted to the Crown at the end of the eleventh century after William II crushed a rebellion by the Earl, and in 1095 the King granted the land to Guy de Baliol, a loyal supporter from Picardy (Flanders), in today´s north-western France...”. Historical part by Katy Kenyon.

Picardy was the region situated north of the forest region of Senlis and of Valois (France). It belonged to the County of Flanders sphere of influence before it was taken over by the French, in 1477.

Lineage identification.

One should remember that it was virtually impossible for anyone to fraud the Coats of Arms belonging to another family. At that time, Family and/or Lineage ties were so strong and so narrow that any usurpation should have been discovered at once, with unforeseen consequences!

Therefore, if we find some Bels families (Flanders) and Bell (England) dealing the same Coats of Arms as the Belle (van) (Flanders) we may no longer assume that they belonged to the same Lineage. It is certainty.

• Idem for the Balliol, later called Bailleul, from all over Europe and the Middle East.
• Idem for the Bels (Limburg, early XVIth century) and for the Bels (Holland, late XVIth century) who belonged to the Bels (Flanders, early XIVth century) who in turn belonged to the Belle (van).

And what about the MacMillan (linked to the Bell) whose blazon is practically the one of the Counts of Flanders with three stars (synonym for bells) added?

Research is under way to link the Bels families of Germany, mainly concentrated in the Eastern part of the Country, to the Bels of Flanders.

The exclusive position of our Lineage whose influence was so powerful that they played, for centuries, the main roles in the administration (Marshals, Municipal magistrates, High Attorney-at-law, Judges, Lowers, Feudal lords, lords, Châtelains, Banner Knights, Knights) of cities such as Belle, Ypres, Thérouanne, Saint-Omer, Bruges, Ghent, Kortrijk, Doulieu, Eecke, etc., only to speak of Flanders.

Some were officially recognised as gifted diplomats when it came to handle with : Popes, the Church, crowned families such as the Duke of Normandy, Kings of France, Kings of England, Kings of Scotland, Kings of Italy, Emperors of Byzance, Emperors of Germany, etc.) and other powerful rulers such as the Counts of Vermandois, of Ponthieu, of Beauvais, of Valois, of Champagne, of Blois, etc., not to speak about their relations with the Duchy of Lorraine.

Conventional Agreement.

Since members of this fabulous Lineage are still among us today and considering the rights on privacy, we decided to go no further with the Chronological Abridgment than until the end of the XVIIth century. That means that hundreds of names and happenings, after the XVIIth century, have been voluntarily withheld. One exception has been made for some people of the Lineage involved in our Dynastic Knight Order “Ordo Balliolensis” and for the Princess of Réthy whose evident public involvements allow us to mention them “publicly”.

Members of the Lineage interested in these hundreds of people from after the XVIIth century will have no difficulties to find them since genealogical and historical studies go as far as the XIVth century for the Bels of Kortrijk (Flanders), the XVIth century for the Beyls of Kortrijk (Flanders) and for the Bels of Brustem (Limburg). The Belle (van-de) and Balliol of Flanders even go back to the Xth century (e.g. the study done by Baroness van de Werve de Schilde), etc.

Request to historians.

Historians and/or members of our Lineage are requested to send us copies of archives of the Lineage they may have in their possession or to give us their comments on our work. Since our research is not subsidised, that means that it is done on a benevolent level, the data members would eventually transmit us have to be free of any costs, except for the postal expenses. Thank you beforehand.

NB: In case of data transmission, we will process it and the result may or may not appear in our publications, with or without mentioning any sources or references. This is the price we must pay to present a “Short” History of our Lineage!