HYPOTHESIS ON KING JOHN II BALLIOL WHEREABOUTS

AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM THE TOWER OF LONDON IN 1296.

 

Forgetting deliberately the fanciful theories given out on this topic, I was forced to develop my own ones. Although it is “only” a hypothesis of work, it is nevertheless based on the observation of a constancy that emerges from the study of old documents, all along the thousand year history of our Lineage.

 

Speculating upon probable Lineage links, we discovered a highly interesting one: The Flanders Lineage of the “van Bonen” (Diets language) or “de Boulogne” (Boulogne-sur-Mer, in French). In fact, I did not think about this link until Lady Ingrid Schröck-Heil told me to have a closer look at it.

 

This close link between the Balliol and the de Boulogne had, among other, two origins:

1. The geographical proximities of their ships.
2. Their common historical adventures.

1. The geographical proximity of the ships is verified by the distances that separate the one of the Balliol to the one of the “van Bonen”. These are:

• 52km for the Balliol ship of Saint-Omer to the one of “van Bonen”.
• 85km for the main Balliol ship, the one of Balliol (Belle) to the one of “van Bonen”.
• 88km for the ship of Douxlieu to the one of “van Bonen”.

The ship of the “van Valkenberghe” Lineage, linked to the Balliol by the wedding of Gertrui van Valkenberghe with Arnoldius Grameninis (father of our Lineage), was only 54km away from Boulogne. Idem for the ship of the “de Guines” Lineage linked to the Balliol by the wedding of Christine de Guines with Salomon Belle, who was only 27km away from Boulogne.

2. The common historical adventures are verified:

• The Lineage of the “van Bonen” being a Flemish one, shared with some other major Lineages of Flanders, the very animated history of this prestigious County and of its rulers, the Counts of Flanders.
• The Balliol and the “van Bonen” must have had privileged links due to the high proximity of their ships.
• The Earl of Bonen, Eustachius II embarked in 1066, together with other Balliol lords, for the battle of Hastings, on the side of the Duke of Normandy. They both got big estates in England. (See note at the end of this chapter).
• Godefroid of Bouillon, the commander in chief of the 1st Crusade to the Holy Land (Baron’s Crusade 1096-1099), was none other than the eldest son of the Earl Eustachius II van Bonen. Lords of our Lineage also participated in this Crusade (lords Balduinus I^st and Albert Balliol) and in subsequent ones.
• During the First Crusade, Godefroid took command over the Lotharingians and the Germans. The French were driven by Hugues of Vermandois, brother of the King of France, Philippe Ist. The Flemish rode under the standard of Count Robert of Flanders. The Normans were led by Robert II Curthose (who also refused, after Godefroid, the crown of Jerusalem). The French of southern France raised clouds of dusts while following Raymond, Count of Toulouse and of Provence. Bohémond of Tarante and Tancred directed the Norman of Italy and Sicily.

 

It is interesting to note that contrary to what one would expect, the Balliols Lords of the First Crusade did not accompany Robert of Flanders, their Count, but Godefroid van Bonen. This highly significant detail passed totally unnoticed to me until I discovered it after reviewing and analysing more closely my historical database.

                                                             

Was it not easier for our lords to join the Flemish army, flanking their own Count, instead of travelling 3 years with German lords and knights they did not know nor understand and whose mentalities were quite different than theirs?

 

Why start such an adventurous and perilous journey under the banner of Godefroid de Bouillon? Their very unusual decision must have been very seriously motivated.

 

Some interesting historical details: Two Belgian Knights from Tournai (Tornacum, in Latin, a town that was part of the Marquisate of Flanders in anno 1095 and that moved later just outside Flanders south-eastern borders, less than 15km), Lethalde and his brother Englebert, were the first to force the northeast angle defence (Golgotha side) of Jerusalem on July 15, 1099. Godefroid of Bouillon and his brother Eustache III immediately followed them. The first standard planted on the walls of Jerusalem was that of Tancrède of Hauteville, the nephew of Bohémond. Tancrède will become the principality of Antiochus.

 

The family name of the two brothers who the first reached the ramparts was d´Estourmel (Source. Le Doulieu, dulci locus Beatae Mariae). Godefroid of Bouillon gave to Gaston d´Estourmel a beautiful relic of the True Cross. The name Gaston is however different from the two other names mentioned above: Liétaud and Engilbert!

 

Some other historians report the synonym names: “…Litold and Gilbert de Tournai, from Flanders...” Ref: A History of the Crusades. Vol I. by Steven Runciman.

 

Remember the d´Estourmel Lineage will inherit, some 500 years later, through marriage to the last heiress of the title, the hereditary title of Marshal of Flanders. Title and estates went to Jean d´Estourmel, Sire of Vendeville x Anne de Bailleul, heiress of the Seigneuries by lack of male descendants. (See about 1570).

 

Godefroid refusing the Kingdom of Jerusalem for himself handed it over to his brother, Balduinus Ist van Bonen. So, the “van Bonen” Lineage became Kings of Jerusalem. Sharing both a common destiny with the Balliol: The acquisition and the loss of a Kingdom by Flemish.

 

The main international adventures of the heirs of both Lineages present some similarities:

 

• The Balliol were found in Normandy, England, Scotland, and the Middle East.
• The “van Bonen” were found at the same time and at the same places except Scotland.
• Both spread out for several thousand kilometers from two small geographical spots, in Flanders, separated by less than 85km.

 

Another similarity or common destiny: wherever the adventurous spirit of their heirs brought them, the core of both Lineages always remained in Flanders.

 

Countless similar relations can be found. As an example, the links that tied two chieftain’s families of Galloway during the XIVth century: The Balliol and the Comyns. The first family was at home in its ship of Balliol. The second in its ship of Comen (Comines, Flanders). Both ships were distant only by 23 km.

 

Godefroid of Bouillon, fs. Eustachius van Bonen, was Duke of Lower-Lotharingia. An area completely out of business from the historical course of Flanders and its main protagonists: Normandy, France, England, and Scotland. The Duchy of Lower-Lotharingia was part of the Roman German Empire that once extended from Flanders (B) to 100km west of Cracov (Pol) and from the southern part of Denmark (De) down to some 100 km south of Rome (I).

 

Some historians wrote that King John II Balliol was allowed to retire to his family estates in Picardy (Flanders). This hypothesis is, in my humble opinion, a much too easy way to botch the case. I forward the hypothesis that he did not leave England for that region although he might have stranded there! King John II Balliol had several very good reasons not to settle in Flanders. The main reason was to spare his Lineage and, en passant, the one of the Count of Flanders, many diplomatic problems.

 

Flanders had already its share of problems: The steady political pressure of France, which wanted to annex it to the Kingdom and England that was its main economic partner but at the same, the French hereditary enemy. Habile diplomat, King John II Balliol, as well as members from our Dynastic Lineages, was all aware that his eventual settlement in Flanders might endanger the precarious and fragile balance of power between Flanders, France, and England.

 

King John II Balliol settling in France, in one of the kings of England’s territories, would have had the same effect! The political situation of Flanders at the time of King John’s moving out of England was a real political imbroglio:

 

• In 1292. France was against England. Flanders pays the bill.
• In 1294. Flanders and England were against France. Engagement of England’s Crown Prince Edward II to Filipina de Dampierre, fa. of the Count of Flanders.
• In 1295. Scotland and France were against England. King John Balliol signed the Auld Alliance Treaty.
• In 1296. England was against Scotland.
• In 1297. Flanders and England were against France. The Count of Flanders signed an Alliance with King Edward Ist.
• In 1299. France and England were against Flanders. Treaty of Montreuil.
• In 1300. France and Flanders were against England.

 

In such a situation, what was for King John II Balliol the safest way to stay safe (sic) ? Was he not closely connected to all parties? Placed in a similar situation, where would we decide to spend the rest of our live and stay, at the same time, out of trouble?

 

It is said that King John II Balliol, liberated from the Tower of London, has been escorted to an English seaport to embark for the continent! My opinion is that leaving the city of London by horse “...with all his belongings plus gold and silver...”* to reach the seaport of Folkestone some 110km away or Dover, some 120km away, could pose, even with a good escort, a very serious security problem.

 

We should not forget that at this time, King John II Balliol was no longer a prisoner of England. He was a free top ranking European personality whose liberation was monitored by Kingdoms, Church, Nobility, Knight Orders and Dynasties.

 

The English authorities were not allowed to take a single risk. They were fully responsible for King John II’s security on land and at sea. Responsibility that would end as soon as he left England’s territorial waters. From that moment on, his security was solely in the hands of his own trusted people.

 

The safest way to leave the Tower of London was to embark right there, at Tower Bridge, and sail down the Thames River. After some 65km the ship would reach the waypoint of Prittlewel (a small and insignificant fishing settlement) left of the Thames Estuary (where the river Thames flows into the North Sea).

 

Sailors had, from here on, two alternatives: either to cross the Channel straight or to go around the English coast to reach a place where they could cross the Channel at its shortest distance.

 

• Crossing the Channel straight would bring them directly to the coast of Flanders near Bruges. Distance some 180km.
• Sailing around the Isles of Thanet (Margate, Ramsgate) and proceeding along the English coastal waters to the port of Deal (1) or Dover (2) would allow them to cross the Channel heading to the Flanders seaports of Calais which belonged to the Flemish ship of the “de Guines” (3) or Boulogne which belonged to the Flemish ship of the “van Bonen”. Respectively 42km and 49km away from England.

 

(1) Deal was a 'limb port' of the “Cinque Ports” in 1278. Due to its position on the Downs, the town quickly became, for a while, the busiest seaport in England. Was it still as busy in 1299 ?

 

(2) Most of Dover burned to the ground, because of the great raid of 1295 when some 10,000 French besieged the city. This happened 4 years before King John II Balliol presumably departed from this place to go to Flanders. Was Dover’s seaport rebuilt at that time?

 

Note: It is reported that King John II Balliol arrived indeed at the Port of Dover. Remember the episode with his “many” vessels of gold and silver, described earlier!

 

If these two seaports were operational or not, would have no effect on the “transfer operation” from England to Flanders. King John did not have to embark there; he did at Tower Bridge. These locations were only used as topographical beacons from where the skipper changed course and started to cross the Channel.

 

(3) Some other sources want to have Calais as an estate of the Count of Artois, who was pro King of France. One thing is sure: Philippe le Bel, King of France, erected in peerage the county of Artois by royal letters of September 1297. This was two years prior the arrival of King John II Balliol on the continent. The oldest record we have of an important personality arriving at Calais from England is dated 11 December 1189. It was King Richard Lion Heart. Therefore, Calais must have been an “operational” seaport in 1299. Seaport that was fortified some 73 years earlier by the Count of Boulogne.

 

Once sailing across the Channel, King John II Balliol was on its own, obviously with his crew!

 

In my opinion, the safest place for him to disembark must have been the seaport of Boulogne (Bonen) and this for evident reasons we will develop subsequently in this Chapter. It is almost certain that, as soon as King John II Balliol arrived on the continent, he received help and protection. His still powerful family in Flanders but also other very influent Flemish families, the “van Bonen” lineage included, stood unconditionally behind him. Remember the strong ancestral bounds that existed since the early Merovingian times between these big Lineages. Help may have come from the Templar Knights from Flanders as well!

 

Let us now analyse the more practical aspects of this transfer. The current mechanics of the Channel is very complex. Water streams in from two directions: from the North and from the South. Both currents hit together at the shortest point between England and France (Hastings, Dover, Calais, and Boulogne).

 

At low tide, the Northern current flows southwards until about Boulogne with a surface speed from about 0,80 until 1m/s (3,6km/hour). Boulogne is the area where the Northern current meets the Southern current and where their forces amplify or oppose each other.

 

At high tide, the Northern current flows northwards until about Leeuwarden (Netherlands). One hour after the High Tide, the current force is at its strongest level (between 0,80 and 1m/s).

 

Sailing off the Thames Estuary toward Bruges, a ship will have difficulties to keep the heading east due to the strong current coming either from the North or from the South. For covering the distance of 180km, at a vessel speed of 10km/h, the ship will need some 18 hours to cross the Channel. Enduring 18 hours a side current of almost 4km/h means the ship will be deported some 72km north or south. And this is without taking account the dominant wind factor.

 

On the other hand, sailing around the Isle of Thanet, the ship may use the current to its advantage. Leaving the Thames estuary, it will drift south. Reaching the area of Dover, it will then only have to cross the some 47km (instead of 180km) left to reach the seaport of Boulogne.

 

The “van Bonen” Lineage may have intervened very discretely, if not secretly, even before King John II Balliol stranded in Flanders. Once King John II Balliol was in the “van Bonen” estates, the van Bonen may have brought him safely out of Flanders.

 

We know that Godefroid de Bouillon was also Duke of Bouillon and that he owned a large castle in the Belgian Ardennes, on the Semois river (the castle still exists and can be visited). In fact, Godefroid de Bouillon, son of Ide d'Ardennes, received the castle and seigneury of Bouillon from his maternal uncle Godefroid le Bossu, Duke of Lorraine.

 

This was a hard-to-reach region surrounded by dense forests and steep cliffs. King John II Balliol´s anonymous stay in this inhospitable region may be one of the explanations why there is not a single record of him, not in Flanders, nor in France and of course not in England and a fortiori not in Scotland!

 

Godefroid of Bouillon, to finance his Crusade to the Holy Land sold his castle of Bouillon to Otbert, Prince Bishop of Liège (Belgium), for a small fortune in those times: 1.300 marcs of fine silver, 3 marcs and a pound of gold. In other words, at the time of King John II Balliol, the Castle of Bouillon belonged to the Prince Bishops of Liège.

 

Note that the castle, at the time of Godfrey de Bouillon, was nowhere near as large as the one you can visit today. It consisted of a large, powerful square tower surrounded by solid wooden palisades. But its location within a loop of the Semois, flanked by impregnable vertical walls lost in the vast expanse of the Ardennes Forest, made the peninsula an almost impregnable natural fortress.

 

The Duchy of Bouillon was relatively small (some 400km²). This would not deter King John II from living there. It is, however, less probable that King John II lived in the castle of Bouillon, because it was too often frequented. He might have chosen another, less important castle farther from the main commercial and/or military routes. In any case, the wild nature of the Ardennes was the ideal place to live discretely away from the political turmoil of the time.

 

Dinner at the Hôtel de la Poste (Bouillon) with Bouillon site manager Mr. Barras and his wife.

 

Fra. Heiko Bels and Fra. Robert Adelsohn Bels, dined as an aside with the director of the Bouillon historic site, Mr. Barras and his wife, invited as a token of thanks for the special welcome always extended to the Ordo Balliolensis at the Château de Bouillon.

 

During our talks, Mr. Barras got to know our Order, and more particularly the history of our dynasty. After very constructive and convivial discussions, he assured us of his full support for our future projects at the castle. The ordo balliolensis has now exclusive access to it.

 

King John II may also have decided to spend his life in other parts of the region such as in the County of Namur, of Chiny, of Arlon, of la Roche, in the Principality of Stavelot or even further north, in the County of Looz. All estates situated in Lower-Lorraine and in the Bishopric of Liège. King John II was safe as long as he remained in the Roman German Empire.

 

He might also have spent the rest of his life in one of the beautiful and rich Abbeys of the bishopric of Liège. This bishopric counted no less than thirty of such islands of peace, culture, music and devotion belonging to different abbatial Orders such as:

 

• The Cistercian (religious Order reformed in 1098) based upon the rules of St. Benedictus. (Anno 559). The reformation happened under the direction of the Monks Etienne Harding and Bernard de Fontaine, in the Abbey of Cîteaux.
• The Clunisian (religious Order reformed at the beginning of the 10^th century) based upon the rules of St. Benedictus. (Anno 559). The reformation happened in the Abbey of Cluny (F),
• The Prémontrés (religious Order formed in 1120, based on the rules of St. Augustinus).

 

Periodically, the primitive monasteries were reformed and reorganized to be more observant of the "Rule" or to adapt to a permanent changing world.

 

The Benedictine Order may have been contacted to arrange accommodation for King John II in one of their Abbeys. The reason might have been the debt this Order had toward the “van Bonen” Lineage.

 

“At the demand of Arnould of Chiny, Benedictine monks, coming from Calabria, in the south of Italy, arrived in 1070, guided by a certain "URSUS", about the cold and wild region of the big forest of the Ardennes, that was part of the estates of Godefroid van Bonen.

From the time of their arrival, they were under the protection of Mathilde of Tuscany, Duchess of Lorraine, the aunt, and adoptive mother of Godefroid. They received an estate in Orval (B) where they immediately erected an Abbey. They abandoned this Abbey 38 years later, in 1108, to vanish without a trace and to resurface in Jerusalem, in the Abbey of Notre-Dame de Sion, built on Mount Sion on the orders of Godefroid van Bonen”. Source: Robert A. Bels. Seigneur et Chevalier” anno 1996.

 

But there is more to it than the Benedictine Links via the Ardennes and Jerusalem. There is the Priory of Sion in which Godefroid van Bonen played a key role… It is therefore not misplaced at all to speculate about King John II staying in an Abbey, that could offer him to live peacefully and secretly.

 

Any other place welcoming and harbouring a King of Scotland, even dethroned by whatever intrigue or plot, would have attracted chroniclers who would have reported the event in their logbooks. The lack of any traces of King John II, is the proof that he settled “incognito” in a region where nobody even though he would hide and where nobody knew where he was (except of course for some of his high-ranking protectors).

 

The help he needed could have come from carefully selected surrounding lords, by order of his own lineage, the "van Bonen" lineage, the monks themselves (living in autarky) and perhaps the Church, via the prince-bishops.

 

After the departure of the Benedictine Monks, the Abbey of Orval, that played such an important role in the Middle Age, was soon taken over by Cistercian Monks.

 

This makes it very interesting for us! Was it not, in anno 1273, that Lady Devorguilla of Galloway had, in memory of her husband, the Cistercian Sweetheart Abbey (Dulce Cor) built in Scotland? There is thus a direct “extremely” close link between these two Abbeys although 1000km distant from each other.

 

Moreover, there is another coincidence. If the Sweetheart Abbey is directly linked to our Barnard Balliol Castle via Devorguilla de Galloway, the Abbey of Orval is directly linked to the Bouillon Castle, the seat of the duke Godefroid. Distance: less than 40km and even deeper in the Ardennes woods, direction Luxemburg. An important strategic detail, as we will see subsequently.

 

Did the Abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Sweetheart Abbey intervene to the Abbot of the Cistercian Abbey of Orval, to let King John II spend secretly the rest of his life in their Abbey? As a permanent free high-ranking guest?

 

Who would ever search for a King in an Abbey that had been destroyed by a big fire around anno 1252? Even if its rebuilding took some 100 years, the Abbey must have been perfectly habitable, at the time King John II Balliol reached it, sometime in the summer of 1299, forty-seven years after the ravaging burn.

 

We have seen that the Pope himself intervene to King Edward I^st of England to set King John II Balliol at free: “…a three front was involved in securing support for the Scottish cause against the English overlordship and for Balliols restoration: The Comyn´s in Scotland who negotiated unsuccessfully with Edward Ist, Wallace and his entourage in Paris hoping for support from King Philip IV; and other Scots (and perhaps Wallace) at Rome attempting to gain papal arbitration from Boniface involvement concerning negotiations for Balliols liberation, reveal the importance of King John II Balliol in medieval European politics…”. (James Elton Bell).

 

Did the Pope even go farther by arranging a secret retreat for him in an Abbey on the Continent? The secret Archives of the Vatican certainly have interesting data on this subject.

 

The very close proximity of the Duchy of Luxembourg does not exclude the possibility of having King John II settled in the Ardennes. On the contrary, the region where King John II decided to stay had to be strategically as good as possible. The dense woods of the Ardennes are such a perfect region. It runs from Belgium through Luxembourg into Germany. If for any reason the King of France would get the fancy idea to search for him in the Ardennes, King John II would be able to escape safely, via the nearby Duchy or deeper in Germany, by crossing the Mosel River and eventually the Rhine River. The King of France would never have taken the risk to set out to get him in the German Empire.

 

Based on all these factors, I believe that King John II Balliol may have secretly sought refuge with the monks of Orval Abbey. It was and still is a place totally isolated from the world, lost in the immensity of the Ardennes Forest, a vast primary forest straddling France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany (the Eifel). I think this was also the plan of King Louis XVI and his family when he wanted to escape the troubles in Paris.

 

Taking refuge in an abbey has some very serious advantages. Among the most important are their isolation and self-sufficiency. It's a community, an economic entity, living off its own resources. From ploughed land, it has wheat to make the panem quotidianum. From the hortus medicus, or herbularius, it draws its pharmacy. Vegetables and hops come from the garden. From the fields come ruminants that provide milk, cheese and by-products, meat, and charcuterie.

 

From the forest, inexhaustible quantities of firewood, plenty of game and life-saving honey. From the rivers, fish, and shellfish. Crystal-clear, inexhaustible springs, the water essential to life and the production of abbey beers. The air is pure, the silence omnipresent, the peace and security assured by permanent indoctrination inducing a sense of joy and fulfillment. Long live holy beatitude, the drug of dogma. And all under the infallible protection of the Church.

 

During the French Revolution, King Louis XVI fled Paris on the night of June 20-21, 1791. As we all know, the escape unfortunately failed when the king was recognized in Sainte-Menehould, by the postmaster, Jean-Baptiste Drouet.

 

The royal family thought they were unrecognizable: Louis XVI was disguised as a valet, Marie-Antoinette as a governess, the dauphin as a daughter and the king's sister as a chambermaid! In addition to the king and queen, Madame Elisabeth, the king's sister, posed as his nursemaid. The children's real governess, Madame de Tourzel, whose escape we know from her memoirs, mimicked the mistress of the traveling company under the name of Baroness Korff. In addition, three bodyguards were part of the trip, Moustiers, Malden and Valory.

 

The plan was to join the troops of the Marquis de Bouillé in Metz, a loyal Royalist. Wasn't it rather a question of troops from the Metz region joining the king, in order to march north together?

 

We know from historical sources that Queen Marie-Antoinette's lover, Hans Axel von Fersen, organized the escape and that:

 

"...under some pretext, he had cavalry posts and exchange horses placed at regular intervals between Paris and Montmédy...".

 

And there you have it!

 

Indeed, it seemed logical to me that the royal family, leaving Paris for the east, should have bypassed the city of Reims to the south. It would have been far too dangerous to pass through this city, so close to Paris! So, the route they took was directly to Châlons. From there, logic dictated that the route should continue to Metz. But this city, too, had to be avoided. It had to be bypassed, but this time in the north, to reach Germany as quickly as possible - the country the king, was rumored, wanted to reach.

 

The fastest and safest route would have been from Sainte-Menehould to Verdun, Diedenhofen (where the Treaty of Verdun was signed in 843), Schengen (where the 1990 EEC Schengen Agreement was signed), Merzig or Saarlouis.

 

We know that the king was arrested in Varennes, a village some 28 km north of Sainte-Menehould. What was he doing outside the Paris-Reims axis? Why did he suddenly head north? Where did he want to go? On the face of it, this sudden change of course makes no sense.

 

Ironically, or as a metaphysical sign of intergenerational justice, the king's route to Orval would have taken him to the village of Charmois after just 28 km. This is less than 3 km from the spot where King Dagobert II was killed 1100 years earlier, while drinking from a fountain during a hunting trip in the Woëvre forest.

 

What's also a wink of history is that this murder was planned and committed on the orders of a Mayor of the palace... who was none other than a Capetian, direct ancestor of King Louis XVI! But the fog lifts and the intentions are suddenly revealed when we pay attention to the following text:

 

"...Hans Axel von Fersen, had cavalry posts and exchange horses placed at regular intervals between Paris and Montmédy...".

 

Judging by his first name "von Fersen" (to be on someone's heels), he must have felt quite comfortable organizing such an escape (sic)!

 

It's absurd to want to enter this immense, deep, wild forest, of which Montmédy is one of the gates. A royal family can't entertain the far-fetched idea of hiding somewhere in the forest, without having another, more realistic and circumstantial idea in the back of its mind.

 

And this idea is, in my opinion, the ideal momentary refuge provided by the world-isolated site of the Abbey of Orval (Belgium), a sylvan oasis just 16 km from Montmédy. Momentary, until help arrives from France or Germany. Some historians have speculated that the French King Louis XVI, the Queen Marie-Antoinette and their immediate family, attempted to reach the Royalist stronghold of Montmédy, from which the King hoped to launch a counter-revolution.

 

I also believe that, in addition to the version of the postman Jean-Baptiste Drouet, there was at least one other betrayal. How can we explain the fact that a courier left Paris some 7 hours after the discovery of the King's escape, and reached Sainte-Menehould just one hour after the fugitives had set off again for Varenne, to inform whoever is entitled to the escape?

 

How can we explain this astounding precision in time and space? Why weren't letters dispatched to the four corners of France to warn the thousands of postmen and stagecoach relays spread across the country? Why didn't they warn postal workers in Arras in the north, Laon in the northeast, Rennes in the west, Angers in the southwest, Bourges in the south or Dijon in the southeast?

 

How to explain this perfect targeting other than by a betrayal in Paris itself?

 

It's also interesting to note the king's attitude of moral surrender. We know that at around one o'clock in the morning, the young Duke de Choiseul-Stainville, who was aware of the escape plans, presented himself to the king and offered to rescue him and his family with his forty hussars, but Louis refused.

 

Later, Captain Deslon, who had waited for the King in Stenay but failed to see him arrive, went immediately to Varennes with sixty hussars. He asked the King what his orders were, but the King replied that, as a prisoner, he could not give orders (sic).

 

This confirms the king's flight northwards from Sainte-Menehould, towards Stenay and Montmédy. As is the king's refusal to be rescued, along with his family and retinue. So, I was right, long before I had the details of this incredible escape, but so significant for the future of France.

 

 

As Orval abbey lies on the only road linking the north of Montmédy to the medieval fortress of Bouillon (53 km away), this makes the hypothesis of an escape to the king's momentary refuge plausible, which could only be Orval abbey, or, in the worst case, the medieval fortress of Bouillon. The only civilized places in the vast wooded expanses of the Ardennes.

 

To conclude this hypothesis, we may reasonably put forward that king Louis XVI, or at least some of the learned people in his entourage, knew about the Orval site. The idea that a king living in one of the most beautiful castles in the world, that is Versailles, would take refuge, even temporarily, in an abbey, seems far-fetched. However, if it is a question of survival, then the idea may not be as far-fetched as it first appears.

 

It may have been an excellent hiding place. One thing is evident, no one has ever traced our dynast, king John II Balliol, when, after leaving the river Thames, freed from the Tower in London, he embarked for Flanders to join the core of his family. From the Thames River mouth, the shortest way to Flanders was to cross the North Sea Channel, heading east. Once in Flanders and with the support of his family, he would have quickly and easily blended into the vastness of the Ardennes Forest, whose western edge began in the Terwaan region.

 

Let's not forget the story of King Dagobert II. Hiding in the Abbey of Slane, in Northern Ireland, near Dublin, he later moved to York, in northern England, where he came under the protection of Saint Wilfred, the Bishop of York. By that time, he was already married to the Celtic Princess Mathilde.

 

Some time later, he left York by sea. The most direct maritime route is to round the eastern heel of England and then head straight for Flanders, by crossing the North Sea Channel. Once in Flanders, king Dagobert II descended to the south of France, to Rennes-le-Château. As we saw earlier in this Essay, his journey was incognito and protected by a handful of Knights from some of influential Flemish families who remained loyal to him.

 

As so often encountered in this Essay, there seems to be nothing new under the sun. King. Dagobert II hid in abbeys, as probably did John II Balliol, since there are nowhere any traces of him to be found.

 

A king, freed from exile, does not disappear without a trace. Neither is he abducted by Elohims, as was the patriarch Henoch, father of Mathusalem, and great-grandfather of the mutant from which we all descend: Noah. These kinds of stories are from other times, but have today and for our future, incalculable consequences. This theme, I will develop in my Essay Number 2.

 

Was it also the intention of King Louis XVI to hide in the abbey of Orval, if he had not been betrayed, arrested only 60 km away from it? We will probably never know for sure, but the heading of his escape is more than significant. This conjecture, nobody can dismiss as pure fantasists’ speculations.

 

Let's now return to the main thread of our presentation, deliberately interrupted to demonstrate the importance of abbeys in history.

 

Recently I visited the ruins of a huge Castle in Germany (Rheinland Pfalz). It is situated a few kilometers west of the city of Bad Dürkheim. The castle is called “Schloss Hardenburg”. This name remembered me of an Aardenburg, in Flanders (today in The Netherlands). It was called, in the Middle Ages “Aardenborch” (in green on the map) and is located some 18km Northeast from Bruges (Flanders). Aardenbourg was, before the end of IXth century, the principal city of Flanders coast before Bruges took it over at around anno 893. It is even reported as having been Flanders old capital.

 

There is another place located some 10km SE of Oostende (Flanders) called Oudenburg, Audenbourg or Aldenburgum (Yellow) in the Middle Ages. This ship belonged to our Lineage via Gerardinis II (Gerardus) of Balliol, born in 1166, (x Verginia N) Viscount and Châtelain of Oudenbourg.

 

In an old document, we found out that Gerardinus II of Balliol (also called Gérardus de Belle) from Oudenburg or Ardenbourg (sic) signed different treaties and charters for the Counts of Flanders, Philippe of Alsace and Baulduinus IX.

 

And here comes a new mystery. My Essay seems to like them or at least to attract them!

 

“…Maurits van Nassau wins a battle on the beach of Nieuwpoort (Flanders) in 1600. In 1604, he retakes the cities of Duinkerke, Sluis (Slusa, in Blue) and Aardenborg. In 1605 an attack on Antwerp fails...”. Map by Guicciardini Ludovico, Anno 1567.

 

In Germany (State of Thüringen) there is a city called Altenburg that means “Oudenburg” in Dutch, what is a perfect literal translation. But here comes the surprise. Not only have the names an identical meaning (old castle), the places, although separated by some 750km, are also linked together, and as so often the case in this Essay, the link hint is given via the Heraldry.

                   

Looking at the blazon of the city of Altenburg (under left), we can clearly and without any doubt, identify the blazon of … the Counts of Flanders!

 

On a drawing created around 1650 by Matthäus Merian and called “Die Fürstliche Residentz Stadt Altenburg” we can clearly see the identical blazon as its counterpart in colour. That means that the blazon is not from a recent fashion but dates at least from the XVIIth century.

 

That there is a formal link between Altenburg and ldenburg is a fact. But how this link was created in the first place is, for the time being, a mystery.

 

Since there is not the slightest phonetic difference between “Ardenburg” and “Hardenburg” and only a slight variation between Aldenburg and Hardenburg and since Gerardinus II seems to have been very active in a place that is called either Oudenburg or Ardenburg, I wondered how these new coincidences could happen?

 

The Counts of Leiningen lived, in the castle of Hardenburg (Germany) for five centuries. The ancestor of the lineage, Emich II of Leiningen (+1138), lived in the castle of Leiningen (today Alteinigen, near Bad Dürkheim, in Germany). His descendants became Counts and later Princes. Today the Head of the House of Leiningen is the H.E. Andreas zu Leiningen (*1955). 8^th Prince of the Dynasty.

 

Count Friederich Ist von Leiningen received from King Philip von Schwaben, anno 1205, the Bailiwick of Speyergau and the one of the nearby Benedictine Abbey Limburg. The Abbey was built on top of a hill between Bad Dürkheim and Hardenburg, may be 2km away from the castle. A horn sound at the castle could reach the Abbey.

 

The building of the castle started around 1214 and its purpose was to control the road going from the Rhine valley to Lotharingia via the city of Kaiserslautern. This road snaked its way, along Rivers, through the very dense wood of the Pfälzerwald (wood of the Palatinate) and steep valleys.

 

Interesting is to note that the Count Friederich of Saarbrücken was nephew from Count Friederichs Ist of Leiningen as son of the marriage from his sister Lukardis of Leiningen with Count Simon II of Saarbrücken.

 

The ship of Saarbrücken is some 185km southeast of the Duchy of Bouillon but is less than 60km away from the Mosel River that separated it from the Duchy of Luxemburg. Were these lords in contact?

 

And what about the links of the Benedictine monks of the Limburg Abbey to the Counts of Leiningen? And why was this Abbey called “Limburg”?

 

In the German Roman Empire, we encounter only one place called “Limburg”. It is in the federal state of “Hesse” and the location is called Limburg-Tan-der-Lahn, near Coblenz. Since this place has a cathedral built around 1225, I wondered if it had something to do with the Abbey of “Limburg”. Therefore, I contacted the Religious Order on spot that told me that there is absolutely no link between this Limburg-an-der-Lahn and the Abbey “Limburg” near Hardenburg. That leaves us with only two more possibilities to locate a “Limburg”:

 

• The village of Limburg, some 8km east of Verviers (Belgium).
• The Duchy of Limburg (Belgium) that bordered the principality of Liège to whom Godefroy of Bouillon sold his castle.

 

I do not want to search hopelessly after links by creating some that did not exist or could not have existed. I only observe with an open mind looking for singularities and coincidences of places, names, events, and the time they appear. This kind of approach together with the helping hand of the heraldic science helped me, repeatedly, to solve several mysteries in connection with these very distant Lineages.

 

In short, the Lineage of the Counts (and later Princes) of Leiningen may, after all, have absolutely nothing to do with ours.

 

On the other hand, looking closer at King Philip von Schwaben for any clues that could help me to explain the strange coincidences of these two “(H) Ardenburg“and of these two “Limburg”, I realised that Flanders must have had links to Bavaria. But what were they?

 

Henry, the second son of the Count of Flanders, Balduinus V (de Lille or le Débonnaire 1036-1077) had two daughters: Matilda, wife of William the Conqueror and Judith, wife of Toston, brother of Harold, King of England. She married subsequently Guelf, the Duke of Bavaria!

 

This is an additional proof for the narrow contacts that Flanders held with Bavaria in those remote times. We should also remember that at the end of 1339, King Edward III, being in Flanders due to troubles with France, made an Alliance with King Ludwig IV von Bayern (of Bavaria). These facts may help to explain some links we discovered, these two (H) Ardenburg, and two “Limburg” both in Germany and in Flanders. With this new element, the strange coincidences become less strange!

 

I remembered also that several ancestors of the van Bonen (de Bouillon) Lineage are said to be of Merovingian origin. For instance, certain Sigibert II (+656) who married Chimnechild von Schwaben (ancestors of the Hohenstaufen).

 

And the Merovingian Mary-go-round continues dragging the Bels, the Belle and the Balliol in its thousand year’s adventure.

 

Note:

 

I wrote earlier: “…The Earl of Bonen, Eustachius II embarked in 1066, together with other Balliol lords, for the battle of Hastings, on the side of the Duke of Normandy...”.

 

I found in “l´Héroïque Légende de Guillaume le Conquérent”, by René Herval, what follows:

 

 “… At daybreak of October 13, 1066, after the Mass of the bishop Odon, the army comes out of its camp in three parallel columns:

 

•  The first one is formed of “roaders” of the county of Boulogne (Flanders) and of Ponthieu.
•  The second is composed Breton, Manceaux and Poitevinses auxiliaries.
•  The third - the sacred legion, the iron division - that constitute this admirable Norman cavalry.

 

Next to Guillaume ride his brothers and two of his better knights: Toustain le Blanc and Eustache de Boulogne. The first carrying the flag of Normandy, the second papal gonfalon…”.

 

This text tells us:

 

1. That Count Eustache de Boulogne, father of Godefroid de Bouillon, was one of the two most warded Knights of the whole army of Guillaume the Conqueror. Only these two were authorised to flank him and his brothers. This gives us the importance and the esteem this Flemish Count had at the court of Normandy. Since the Count Eustache was Flemish, as were the Balliol and according to the very close ties both Lineages had, it becomes quite understandable why the Balliol were, in turn, also highly esteemed so that they even would become the Count Guillaume´s right arm!

 

2. That Count Eustache de Boulogne raised the pontifical gonfalon. This means that the relation between the pope and the Count Eustache was one of the highest levels. The relation with another pope, some 130 years later, will be even more intense when Count Eustache´s son, Godefroid de Bouillon, leader of the First Crusade, freed Jerusalem and was offered its Kingdom. Christianity marked a very serious point there thanks to the “van Bonen” Lineage. These facts are interesting for our theory wanting the Counts of Boulogne Lineage intervention in John II, Balliol whereabouts after he left the Tower of London.

 

Did the Pope secretly intervene, via the van Bonen lineage, in the safeguard of King John II Balliol as he did for having him freed from the Tower of London? If not, who did?

 

After reading all the above information, we realise that the case of King John II. Balliol is far more complicated than the very simplistic statements made in current encyclopaedias.

 

I am astonished to see that even the French, worldwide known for their natural propensity to rebel about any preconceptions, follows obediently the same current of ideas! They write in their latest Edition (2016) of  “Le Petit Robert des noms propres” :

 

"...Balliol or Bailleul. noble Family of Great-Britany, native of Normandy, whose founder, Guy de Bailleul, was a companion of William the Conqueror. Guillaume II. The Red-haired gave him (Guy) some fiefs in Northumberland. His grandson, John II Balliol established the Balliol College in Oxford (1263). John (of) Balliol (*abt 1249 - Chateau-Gaillard on 1314)... He remained a prisoner until 1302, date in which he was allowed to leave England for Normandy...".

 

In the above few sentences, we encounter once more the classical inconsistencies:

 

1. Balliol (Baliol) was the name of this family and not “Bailleul” which is the French version of the name that appeared much later, in France!
2. The Family originated in Flanders and not in Normandy.
3. There is, mistakenly or purposely, not a single mention of John I^st Balliol who was Regent of Scotland before his son John II became King of Scotland.
4. It is not King John II Balliol who established the Balliol College, but his wife Devorguilla of Galloway, in his memory!
5. There is evidence that John II left England but not a single proof that he left for Normandy.
6. The mention that King John II died in Château-Gaillard, in 1314. is a most questionable statement. Most modern historians do not accept this statement.

 

This series of mistakes is unacceptable for an instrument intended to inform and to educate ten thousand of millions of French speaking people across the world!

OTHER POSSIBILITIES

 

Here are some (non-limitative list) other big Lineages directly linked to the Balliol via the marriage of the heirs of Scotland that might have played an important role in the retreat of King John II Balliol.

 

The       “Wallace” William (Braveheart)

The       “of Lindsay of Lamberton”

The       “of Coucy”

The       “of Guines”

The       “of Burgh”

The       “of Grosley”

The       “de la Warre”

The       “of Holland”

The       “Fitz Walter” ?

The       “Marshall of Tye”

• Marguerite Balliol eldest daughter married N. de Multon. Without heirs.

• Ada Balliol, second daughter of the Regent of Scotland John Ist and sister of King John II was co-heir principal to the Scottish throne. She married Will of Lindsay of Lamberton (Limésy, F). She died in 1288. Her husband family was Lord of Limésy that lies in some 185km away from Boulogne (Flanders) but only 41km from the French seaports such as Dieppe (F) and 47km from Fécamps (F).  Will’s blazon (Nr 51) has the indelible mark of the Balliol of Scotland.

• Their daughter, Christiane (+1335), married x in 1285, Ingelram of Coucy (fourth Lord of Coucy) and of Gynes. Coucy lies less than 80km southwest of Bouillon (the Duchy of Godfroy of Bouillon) and Gynes (Guines) is only distant from Boulogne by 27km. This Lineage of Guines had already a link to ours via the wedding of Christine of Guines who married Salomon Belle, the powerful Lord of Ypres (Flanders). Lady Christiane had with her first husband a son, William de Coucy, Lord of Coucy (*1286 +1335).

• William´son, Ingelram II de Coucy, 6th Lord of Coucy (+1344) married Catherine d´Autriche (+1349). The son of Ingelram II, Ingelram III, Count of Bedford and of Soissons, Lord of Coucy (+1396) married Isabelle d´Angleterre, fa. of Edward III, King of England. From there on the marriages reached the highest crowned heads of Europe such as members of the following Dynasties: de Bar, de Bethune, Louis de St. Paul, de Savoie, de Bourbon, de Romont, d´Alençon, de Valois, de Medicis, d´Autriche, d´Aubigne, de Bavière, Leczinski de Pologne, d´Espagne, de Saxe et de Pologne, de Naples, de Parme.

• Lady Christiane married in 1311 (probably in second wedding) x Isabel (?) de Chatillon St. Paul with whom she had a son Raoul de Coucy, Lord of Montmirail and of Balliol. This data needs to be rechecked.

• Cicely Balliol, third daughter of Regent of Scotland John Ist and sister of King John II, second heir of Scotland was married to John de Burgh (some 22km North of the English seaport of Old Felixstowe). The Flemish coast lies just at the other site of the Channel and the most important medieval port of Bruges (Flanders) is only distant from 150km.

She had (First Branch) Hawyse x Thonias of Grosley. Grosley lays some 50km southwest of the city of Rouen (Normandy) and is distant from 70km from the Bay of the Seine (Normandy).

 

They had Jeanne of Greslay (Grosley) who x John II de la Warre. They had John III who x Marguerite of Holland.

 

She had (Second Branch) Devorguillia of Burgh who x Fitz Walter. They had Christiane, heir to her mother, who x Jola the Marshal of Tye.

 

This list of links is, as said, not limitative. I only stop it here because I do not wish to launch myself into a countless enumeration of Lineages of Flanders, of Normandy and from elsewhere who might have played a role in King John II Balliol retreat. However, I will keep them all in mind all along my research.