Posted on 06/19/2009 3:54:08 PM PDT by alpha-8-25-02
Who were the Huguenots?
John Calvin (1509 - 1564), religious reformer. The Huguenots were French Protestants who were members of the Reformed Church which was established in 1550 by John Calvin. The origin of the name Huguenot is uncertain, but dates from approximately 1550 when it was used in court cases against "heretics" (dissenters from the Roman Catholic Church). There is a theory that it is derived from the personal name of Besançon Hugues, the leader of the "Confederate Party" in Geneva, in combination with a Frankish corruption of the German word for conspirator or confederate: eidgenosse. Thus, Hugues plus eidgenot becomes Huguenot, with the intention of associating the Protestant cause with some very unpopular politics. O.I.A. Roche, in his book The Days of the Upright, a History of the Huguenots, writes that "Huguenot" is "a combination of a Flemish and a German word. In the Flemish corner of France, Bible students who gathered in each other's houses to study secretly were called Huisgenooten, or "house fellows," while on the Swiss and German borders they were termed Eidgenossen, or "oath fellows," that is, persons bound to each other by an oath. Gallicized into "Huguenot," often used deprecatingly, the word became, during two and a half centuries of terror and triumph, a badge of enduring honor and courage." As nickname and even abusive name it's use was banned in the regulations of the Edict of Nantes which Henry IV (Henry of Navarre, who himself earlier was a Huguenot) issued in 1598. The French Protestants themselves preferred to refer to themselves as "réformees" (reformers) rather than "Huguenots". It was much later that the name "Huguenot" became an honorary one of which their descendants are proud
A general edict which encouraged the extermination of the Huguenots was issued on January 29th, 1536 in France. On March 1st, 1562 some 1200 Huguenots were slain at Vassy, France. This ignited the the Wars of Religion which would rip apart, devastate, and bankrupt France for the next three decades.
St. Batholomew massacre, 1572 Click on image above for an enlarged view
During the infamous St Bartholomew Massacre of the night of 23/24 August, 1572 more than 8 000 Huguenots, including Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, Governor of Picardy and leader and spokesman of the Huguenots, were murdered in Paris. It happened during the wedding of Henry of Navarre, a Huguenot, to Marguerite de Valois (daughter of Catherine de Medici), when thousands of Huguenots converged on Paris for the wedding celebrations. Catherine de Medici It was Catherine de Medici who persuaded her weakling son Charles IX to order the mass murder, which lasted three days and spread to the countryside. On Sunday morning August 24th, 1572 she personally walked through the streets of Paris to inspect the carnage. Henry of Navarre's life was spared when he pretended to support the Roman Catholic faith. In 1593 he made his "perilous leap"and abjured his faith in July 1593, and 5 years later he was the undisputed monarch as King Henry IV (le bon Henri, the good Henry) of France. When the first rumours of the massacre reached the Vatican in Rome on 2 September 1572, pope Gregory XIII was jubilant and wanted bonfires to be lit in Rome. He was persuaded to wait for the official communication. The very morning of the day that he received the confirmed news, the pope held a consistory and announced that "God had been pleased to be merciful". Then with all the cardinals he repaired to the Church of St. Mark for the Te Deum, and prayed and ordered prayers that the Most Christian King might rid and purge his entire kingdom (of France) of the Huguenot plague. Pope Gregory XIII
On 8 September 1572 a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome, and the pope, in a prayer after mass, thanked God for having "granted the Catholic people a glorious triumph over a perfidious race" (gloriosam de perfidis gentibus populo catholico loetitiam tribuisti).
Gregory XIII engaged Vasari to paint scenes in one of the Vatican apartments of the triumph of the Most Christian King over the Huguenots. He had a medal struck representing an exterminating angel smiting the Huguenots with his sword, the inscription reading: Hugonottorium strages (Huguenot conspirators). In France itself, the French magistracy ordered the admiral to be burned in effigy and prayers and processions of thanksgiving on each recurring 24th August, out of gratitude to God for the victory over the Huguenots.
Henry IV, himself a former Huguenot (as Henry of Navarre) The Edict of Nantes was signed by Henry IV on April 13th, 1598, which brought an end to the Wars of Religion. The Huguenots were allowed to practice their faith in 20 specified French "free" cities. France became united and a decade of peace followed. After Henry IV was murdered in 1610, however, the persecution of the "dissenters" resumed in all earnestness under the guidance of Cardinal Richelieu, whose favourite project was the extermination of the Huguenots.
Richelieu, who relentlessly persecuted the Huguenots. Henry IV's weakling sun, Louis the Thirteenth, refused them the privileges which had been granted to them by the Edict of Nantes; and, when reminded of the claims they had, if the promises of Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth were to be regarded, he answered that "the first-named monarch feared them, and the latter loved them; but I neither fear nor love them." The Huguenot free cities were lost one after the other after they were conquered by the forces of Cardinal Richelieu, and the last and most important stronghold, La Rochelle, fell in 1629 after a siege lasting a month.
Louis XIV Louis XIV (the Sun King, 1643-1715) began to apply his motto l'état c'est moi ("I am the state") and introduced the infamous Dragonnades - the billeting of dragoons in Huguenot households. He began with a policy of une foi, un loi, un roi (one faith, one law, one king) and revoked the Edict of Nantes on 22 October 1685. The large scale persecution of the Huguenots resumed. Protestant churches and the houses of "obstinates" were burned and destroyed, and their bibles and hymn books burned. Emigration was declared illegal. Many Huguenots were burned at the stake. Many Huguenots who did not find their death in local prisons or execution on the wheel of torture, were shipped to sea to serve their sentences as galley slaves, either on French galley ships, or sold to Turkey as galley slaves. A vivid account of the life of galley-slaves in France is given in Jean Marteilhes's Memoirs of a Protestant, translated by Oliver Goldsmith, which describes the experiences of one of the Huguenots who suffered after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes.
Every Huguenot place of worship was to be destroyed; every minister who refused to conform was to be sent to the Hôpitaux de Forçats at Marseilles and at Valance. If he had been noted for his zeal he was to be considered "obstinate," and sent to slavery for life in such of the West-Indian islands as belonged to the French. The children of Huguenot parents were to be taken from them by force, and educated by the Roman Catholic monks or nuns.
Scenes like these were common during the persecution of the Huguenots in France during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Click on picture above for enlargement. At least 250 000 French Huguenots fled to countries such as Switzerland, Germany, England, America, the Netherlands, Poland and South Africa, where they could enjoy religious freedom. As many were killed in France itself. Between 1618 and 1725 between 5 000 and 7 000 Huguenots reached the shores of America. Those who came from the French speaking south of Belgium, an area known as Wallonia, are generally known as Walloons (as opposed to Huguenots) in the United States.
The organised large scale emigration of Hugenots to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa occurred during 1688 - 1689. However, even before this large sscale emigration individual Huguenots such as François Villion (1671) and the brothers François and Guillaume du Toit (1686) fled to the Cape of Good Hope. In 1692 a total of 201 French Huguenots had settled at the Cape of Good Hope. Most of them settled in an area now known as Franschhoek ("French Corner"), some 70 km outside Cape Town, where many farms still bear their original French names.
A century later the promulgation of the Edict of Toleration on 28 November 1787 partially restored the civil and religious rights of the Huguenots in France.
He also had a contingent of Dutch Catholic troops too. The other side apparently didn’t have the favor of the Pope at the moment
And Palatine Germans who settled in Ireland...
Many came here and Canada from Ireland
Irish ancestors could have German ancestors...
Or Spanise ancestors from the survivers of the Spanish Armada whho were shipwrecked on the Irish coast and not clobbered as intruders...
James Michener’s novel “ The Covenant” dealing with the settlement of So. Africa refers at length to the immigration of the Huguenots to that part of the world in the aftermath of the revocation of ‘The Edict of Nance” in 1685. From my reading of US history if you are of some French extraction with ancestors who settled in the mid-south you are probably of Protestant heritage. If your ancestors settled in New England, then your heritage is probably Catholic.
DeMolay was a Knight Templar and a forerunner of modern Masonry. That's why the Masons name their youth order the Order of DeMolay. I have pinged Mean West Texan who is probably better informed on this than am I and who is a Mason as I am not.
From France's point of view, bringing the papacy to Avignon from Rome for what turned out to be nerly 100 years (the Babylonian Captivity as it is known in Church circles) was rather significant. Philip fought wars against Longshanks, patronized William (Braveheart) Wallace as an ally, sent his daughter into her unfortunate marriage for dynastic reasons, was also the target of his grandson Edward III who began the Hundred Years' War against France. While this was going on, it facilitated Robert the Bruce peeling Scotland off of England at the Battle of Bannockburn.
It is claimed that Isabella and her lover took Edward II off his throne and transported him to a castle several miles outside London where he was literally sliced to death, like a salami only from the toes up. It is said that his screams could be heard all over London several miles away and that his killing was done at a leisurely pace over several days. It may be that a hot poker was used as well but that some reporters are a bit squeamish as to detailing the use of that poker.
I confess that I know less than I should about Edward III. I know that he took the throne at about 18 years of age, replacing his mother who had been regent and clamping her in house arrest. Thereafter, she became a nun. Her lover, the French knight and probable father of Edward III was summarily executed by Edward III for participating in in the killing of Edward II. It would have been most impolitic for either Isabella or Edward III to admit Edward III's paternity by a non-royal although Edward II's exclusive faggotry could not have escaped the notice of many.
I am no monarchist but democracy has its limitations too. See Hussein the Insane in the White House.
I think that the Huguenots were treated as they were not because of a ruler's power but rather because their very existence threatened Christendom, a concept of combining Catholic monarchy with Catholic ecclesiastical authority. For example (a totally inadequate one) the Inquisition (a Church institution) inquired, investigated, tried an alleged criminal, made its judgment and turned convicts over to the state for punishment (contrary to general modern opinion). It is for this reason that our generally Protestant Founding Fathers guaranteed freedom of worship and that no religious denomination could be "established" as the official religion of the central government (see Anglicanism in Henry VIII's England and afterwards or Catholicism in Spain).
Of course, freedom of worship guaranteed that the federales need not squabble between Virginia's Anglicanism, Connecticut's Congregationalism, South Carolina's Huguenots, Rhode Island's Baptists, etc., as to which would be the established religion of the federales.
Oh, and Bravheart is a great movie but an ahistorical nightmare. Isabella was about 5 years old when Braveheart was murdered by the Crown and thus Edward III is certainly not Wallace's son as the film suggests. Neil Wallace who wrote Braveheart freely admitted in his Preface that he did not claim it to be historically accurate: a story not of what actually occurred but of what might otherwise have occurred in a parallel universe. Great book. Great film.
If your ancestors settled in New England, then your heritage is probably Catholic.
_________________________________________
HUH ??? 1600s
Only fur trappers in the mid-south...
The Europeans were still on the shore..
The Irish didnt come here to MA and NYC till later...
New york City and New Rochelle ???
Long Island and Staton Island ???
All Huguenot
The first settlers to NYC outside ofd Indians, and fur trappers were Walloons, Protestants from France and Holland, 1623
At that time many French Catholics were going to Canada..
Huguenots were not allowed to go to Canada (French) and who would want to go at that time...
Maryland was Catholic later
New York is not part of New England.
New England had very few Europeans in the 1600s
Who cares? New York is not part of New England.
ROFLMBO
This thread is about the Huguenots...
Why bother with New England if they werent there ???
Your logic is creative at best.
I should have clarified by referring to immigration from Quebec to No. New England. As you correctly point out only Catholics could immigrate to French Canada. A substantial part of the population in No New England is of French Canadian extraction and of Catholic heritage. On the other hand French immigrants further south including the NYC area around the 17th century would have been largely Protestant.
Indeed, Isabella would not have disclosed the French knight as Edward III's father. Her adultery would have amounted to treason punishable by death (although one can well sympathize with her undoubted rage against the fraudulent faggot to whom she had been married off. There was no Edward Wallace but William Wallace was hanged, drawn, quartered and dismembered at the Tower of London for his virtues.
Finally, you can bet that Edward III well knew what his "father" (Edward II) was sexually by at least reputation. He probably also knew that the knight was his father but admitting it would have cost him his crown since he was therefore NOT a Plantagenet. It is good to be king and Edward II's perversions coupled with Isabella's normality and the knight's willingness should not deprive Edward III of a god thing like being king (at least in Edward III's judgment).
As to the Knights Templar, there is plenty of evidence that they were not good guys. In those days, the RCC played some of the more benign roles of international organizations today. I would rather have the papacy as an international moral force without an army of its own than submit to the tyranny of the UN, Tri-Laterals, Bilderbergers and their ilk. I would rather the US be a separate and quite sovereign nation with no formal control over it and as few treaty obligations as possible. I would rather that the US be a separate and sovereign nation and not a Catholic nation as such because those not Catholic have so welcomed us here and have demonstrated the wisdom of their vision of religious freedom that we Catholics should honor them by cherishing and protecting the religious freedom they created here with no demands other than our share of that freedom.
I believe that the Templars were trying to become an international financial and political and MILITARY power to rival or surpass the Vatican in those respects. The Vatican responded by demanding of Philip the Fair the execution of the Templar leaders to nip their threat to the existing order in the bud. Most opposing groups in that age executed their enemies freely when they had the chance. We can study history and understand history and make our own history. We cannot revise history.
Informative post, thanks.
Indeed, Isabella would not have disclosed the French knight as Edward III’s father. Her adultery would have amounted to treason punishable by death (
____________________________________________
Treason yes...
and the Brave Heart story is cute...
Especially when she tells the king that shes preggers and no heir of his son would sit on the throne...
Apparantly in the US the Knights Templars are connected to the zyork ZRite Freemasons
York Rite Freemasons
***There is nothing in western culture remotely close to the Cathar culture for us to see and experience in order to understand why they were a ‘heresy’. But the facts speak for themselves and the Cathar world was a cancer that was metastasizing itself on the body of western tradition.***
A good and accurate summary.
My Huguenot ancestor was a Count - (something or other) de Richebourg.
My mom did all the research many years ago.
de Richebourg.
Many Huguenots were of noble families, even royalty
That name is not listed among the French Huguenots...
It sounds like a German name...
Maybe there was a French variation of the name ???
Or his wife or descendant ???
Do you have another family name ???
I found it on the website you linked above here. Click on the D and scroll down. (Surname - de Richebourg, Christian Name - Claude Phillippe)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.