The Causes of the Hundred Years’ War
In France, a reaction to the desire for royal absolutism is found in the hundred-year war that hides behind a succession dispute over the French throne, a deeper one.
The English monarchy remains Anglo-Saxon
After the conquest of England by the Knights and the Norman fleet descending from the Vikings, an army led by the Benedictine monks of Normandy, the English monarchy took a constitutional form closer to a network organization than to an absolute monarchy. These are ancient political practices that date back to the Anglo-Saxon invasion and the political organization of their tribes.
The Anglo-Saxon invasions eliminated the culture of the Roman Empire.
By the 1930s, the Irish and Scottish monks were marrying the traditions of the Celtic druids with the teachings of the Gospels practicing the spirituality of the first church in Jerusalem. They rejected slavery and the abuse of power by the kings of other peoples and had made Ireland a world apart with fraternal communities and without social inequalities. This organization was unique to Ireland and Scotland, and had spread to England where it met that of Roman Christianity, resulting in a number of theological and political conflicts.
This example was unbearable for the Saxon kings who conquered England as early as the 1940s and were unwilling to submit to Roman Catholic rule, Irish monasticism, and Celtic Christianity. The war against the “commons” was first and foremost a war of religion and the total destruction of this example of Irish Catholic communities. It was the first destruction of the commons in England.
“In England, from 450 onwards, the Angles settled from Lower Germany. The Anglo-Saxons did not just subdue the Bretons, they exterminated them. The struggle between the invaders and the invaders had the character of a war of peoples of different origins and a religious war; so it was atrocious. The history of this struggle, very little known, is surrounded by many legends (Round Table Cycle). Therefore the mores, institutions, laws of the Anglo-Saxons are first on British soil the faithful image of what existed, before the conquest, on the soil of Lower Germany.”
The influence of the Roman Empire was thus eliminated by the massacre of the population of Great Britain during the first Anglo-Saxon invasion in the 430s and later.
After a new Christianization of the country organized from Rome during the 7th century, at the time when Charlemagne ruled a good part of Europe, after 835, the Viking and Danish invasions resumed.
The failure of the Norman Viking invasion
We have seen how on the European continent Benedictine monks and their military orders developed the time of cathedrals. Before the conquest of Palestine, the Benedictines with the Vikings of Normandy had managed to conquer England, but after the military victory, their political power failed to establish itself permanently.
The Vikings established in Normandy converted to Christianity and now supported the Benedictine monks and their abbeys, convents, schools, common goods, etc. But in England, the Anglo-Saxon organization was also a force of resistance during the Norman conquest and the Benedictine monks’ project to develop a more humanistic medieval society since freed from feudalism and quarrels between frank lords in France, would not see the light of day.
The Templar Fleet retains its bases in Scotland.
In Scotland, there is an ancient base of the Order of the Temple allied with the Viking colonies and serving the Viking and Templar Transatlantic Fleet.
Both Scotland and Ireland would continue their wars of independence from the Anglo-Saxon royal power of England and would gladly ally with the King of France as soon as possible. Hence the repetitive wars between these two countries and the English monarchy.
Disputes over succession to the French throne
The domination of the lords and the English nobility set up a system of royal power but had to contend with the tormented history of the country. In order to reach agreement between the Anglo-Saxon lords, the free cities and the abbeys set up by the Christian Vikings of Normandy, vassals of the King of France, English constitutional practice used Charters that the King had to guarantee before his people. So nothing to do with the French monarchy’s desire to develop royal absolutism.
“Indeed, the conquest of Great Britain was carried out by William, Duke of Normandy, called “the Conqueror” following the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Normandy is a fief whose lord is vassal of the King of France, as Duke of Normandy. This situation is not settled by William the Conqueror (or his descendants) who wishes to compartmentalize the English administration on the one hand and the French administration on the other. As the centuries settled, the English vassal increasingly wanted to detach himself from the French suzerain and gain his autonomy, while the French king wanted to develop his grip on Guyenne, a territory that crystallized tensions between the two countries and illustrated the feuodo-vassalic problem: Guyenne is a fief, the English king is the vassal, the French king is the suzerain.
The dynastic conflict is expressed in a problem of succession at the death of Charles IV the Bel and in a problem of interpretation of the Salic law which provides for the division of the inheritance of the deceased among all his male heirs. When Charles IV the Beautiful died in 1328, he was the last of the direct Capetians. He died without an heir.
The rule is clear: a woman cannot ascend to the throne and therefore cannot in fact pass on the right to ascend to the throne. It was Philip VI who came to the throne after a consensus to prevent the crown from slipping over the head of a “stranger”. Philip VI was the son of the younger brother of Philip IV the Beautiful, father of the late Charles IV. Edward III of England, himself nephew Charles IV the Beautiful claims to be the legitimate heir to the throne of France and disputes the rules of succession. His claims to the French throne can be seen as a good pretext for the outbreak of the conflict in 1337.
source name: Learn more about:
Let us leave here the historical account of this Hundred Years’ War to arrive at the moment when this conflict is tilting towards its end. Joan of Arc’s intervention contrasted with the quarrels between the kings of France and England. It intervenes with a message of different origin in the interest of the people of France. This is the message that interests us.
Joan of Arc intervened to end the conflict and expel the English.
At the trial of Joan of Arc in 1431, all this history, all these causes of the conflict between the King of France and the King of England came back. Joan of Arc will defend other interests that these two kings and their administrations will recognize and finally fight together or rather not to discover and compromise with the history of their own monarchy, together they will prefer to leave the decision to get rid of it to the court of the Roman Church.
And this choice is far from innocent, because all three of those involved in the Hundred Years’ War, King of France, King of England and Pope of Rome, quickly understood who they were dealing with with Joan of Arc and they did not want any more of this. They did not want it to happen again!
Resistance to royal absolutism
Joan of Arc, the emissary of the former Templar Order
The fact that English vassals of the King of France refused to submit to the dictatorial pretensions of the King of France and recognized the rights of a woman to become Queen of France is therefore logical. This Hundred Years’ War is more about a resistance movement against the will of a French absolutist royal power than about a war between two peoples.
In the midst of the situation, the intervention of a Joan of Arc becomes clearer.
When she decided to consecrate the King of France to Reims in the presence of his beauséant with the effigy of the Templar Cross, the coronation marked a moment of national reconciliation between the king’s supporters and the resistance to royal absolutism who took as a rallying sign the emblems of the former Templar Knights, symbol of the organization in networks of the time of the cathedrals. The king accepted the coronation with difficulty. This is understandable.
This young girl who offered him this sacrament in Reims was indeed the emissary of the old order of the Templar and of this organization of society in monastic networks and knights. The mystical origin of this girl’s vocation could be used by the various resistance movements to the royal order: the movement of the Templars and Abbeys as the even older movement that defended the filiation of the kingdom of France with God through the royal lineage of David who had settled in Roussillon during the destruction of Jerusalem. It is likely that attempts to recover this popular fervor in Joan of Arc were numerous and complex.
Reminder of the rules of the time of cathedrals
Let’s stick to the resistance movement from the time of the cathedrals, the most powerful then. As if by provocation, this movement of resistance to royal absolutism, sent him not a male but a female warlord.
This symbol has at least two meanings:
- the first meaning reminds us that if the knight men templiers have perished or exiled, women can take over because this network movement is very popular, men and women together.
- The second meaning proves that if the monarchy excludes women from the succession of the throne, women can have another more equal condition in a network organization.
Jeanne comes to remind the royal court that the rules enacted since Philip the Fair are not those of the time of the cathedrals and that the latter have not disappeared. Jeanne carries them on her shoulders.
Sacrificing a king is not a sign of submission to networks of resistance. On the contrary, these networks propose to the king the only possible solution to get the country out of the major crisis generated by Philippe le Bel: the monastic organization is still powerful, allied to the Third State, the clergy and the representatives of the people have the majority in the States-General against the nobility.
By restoring the functioning of the monarchical system, the people and the clergy can better defend their interests than through the endless civil wars that crush them. The coronation of the king in Reims is also the mark of this new functioning of the monarchy. It is the clergy and the people organized according to the networks of the time of the cathedrals that make the king sacred. The nobility is a minority in this case.
Joan of Arc behaves like a warlord, but a Templar leader.
It sets out to liberate cities, but not on behalf of the King of France, for France, yes, but a France organized in networks, networks of communities of knights and now also networks of free cities.
In the Holy Roman Empire, at that time, several free cities had been associated in a network. In Alsace, they formed the Decapolis, an association of ten free cities since 1354.
Some cities welcomed him, others refused to open their doors to him.
Between the city’s outright independence or the possibility of negotiating the rights of a free city when the king stood at the gates, the possibility of joining an organization of federation of cities under the tutelage of a young woman sent by the successors of the Templars or at least by a movement of resistance to royal absolutism, the choice was not obvious to the leaders of these cities.
Many of the cities had been free from the time of the cathedrals managed by the Order of the Temple and had to submit to the will of the King of France. Accepting Joan of Arc’s offer was to disobey the King of France, but there was no longer any network organization or order of the Temple, and Joan of Arc was not the head of the royal army or the head of a new army of the Temple. His army of armed men had the prestige of past victories, but not the military might to carry out such a political mission.
Jeanne’s mystical power against the political weakness of the Temple
Once the king was crowned, resistance movements would find a interlocutor with whom to negotiate. Joan’s rides, supported by popular fervor, became politically useless, especially as it seemed that the young woman was continuing her mystical journey, and this personal initiation did not correspond to the initiation conducted by the network of abbeys and monks.
The vision of God and Jesus in Joan of Arc had not been enriched by the knowledge brought back from Palestine and Egypt and which had been worked at Cluny, Cîteaux and Clairvaux and in the abbeys of these monastic orders. His faith was simple, exalted, it did not have the backing of initiates who completed their involution and are looking for ways to translate it into evolution.
Did she understand anything about cathedral times and the extent of her commitment?
The fact is that she found herself totally isolated, especially when she decided to enter Paris by force and came to attack Compiègne.
To put an end once and for all to royalty on French soil
Faced with the king’s indecision, had she dared to do what the Templars had never dared to do?
Was it necessary finally to avenge the Templar order and to remove the successor of Philip the Fair who since his coronation was so disappointing?
Could it ensure that Paris became a free city and thus could no longer be the capital of a kingdom dominated by an absolute monarchy? Did she have the right?
Wasn’t she the one who had it consecrated to Reims? Jesus, the gentle Lord, had completed the work of Moses. Before God she was able to take this right and accomplish what the order of the Temple had not dared to complete: put an end once and for all to royalty on French soil!
Jeanne the Nazarene, daughter of Gamala
Even better: by conquering Paris and installing a power directed by God himself, it simply abolished the royal power of human and earthly origin.
Did she know the history of the Gamala Republic, the Nazarenes, the first Christian communities? Did she know what it meant for Jesus, the gentle lord, to complete the work of Moses?
At that time, Joan of Arc was quickly captured and perhaps it would have been preferable to see her killed in battle
The University of Paris supports the burning of Joan of Arc
The intervention of the University of Paris to support the burning of Joan of Arc, is clearly apparent from the will of the supporters of the King of France to reject once again any movement towards a network organization of society as in the time of monastic communities and knights.
The university, headed by a bishop in the Pope’s pay, decided the dilemma.
The arguments of both sides at the trial of Joan of Arc
The French king had few arguments to suppress the one who had sacred him. Remaining a lieutenant of God to rule the kingdom could be a consolation gift, however enviable, and it was certainly a gift received from a new prophetess, but this only repeated the tradition of establishing the kings of Israel or even the pharaohs.
The English were led by knights guardians of the Temple tradition and taking Joan was only a way of putting her in secret, even completing her Temple education in a much more realistic way and far from any inappropriate mysticism.
Only the papacy had a fundamental interest in eliminating a double danger: that of a mystical leader able to recall the human history of this Jesus linked to the Gamala republic and that of a resistant leader born from the templier movement, restorer of the time of the cathedrals and of the social network organization.
The University of Paris also defended the prestige of the city, becoming even more the capital of the kingdom after the Hundred Years’ War. The university, in order to defend its prestige, could well commit such perjuries before the Christian faith.
As for the English, it is logical that they had no interest in killing Joan of Arc unless Joan’s Community enterprise was able to upset Europe, but the situation was far from having reached that stage. For them, it was necessary to stop the popular momentum raised by the campaigns of Joan of Arc and more certainly by the resistance to the system of royal power because this young woman came to disturb their political game led elsewhere also by the successors of the Templars.
Follow Christ who lives in us
The cat-and-mouse game between the papacy, the University of Paris and the English who held the prisoner complicated the trial, and Joan’s attitude of refusing to renounce her faith shows that if she could have shortcomings in the Temple culture, she did not have any on the faith of the first Christian communities in Christ and Jesus.
Faced with the obligation to renounce her faith and statements about her relationship with God and the saints, did she understand that she had reached the same stage as Jesus when she was falsely tried before the leaders of the Jewish religion?
It is clear that at this stage, for the insider, the choice is of exhilarating simplicity: to follow Christ who lives in us, to follow the original spiritual teaching attributed to Jesus, to follow the initiated great masters, not to betray his translation of the mysteries in favor of human lucubrations ignobly distorted by the game of materialist interests and scandalous politicians. The resurrected initiate to life from his earthly existence, and indeed from beyond the grave, is already the victor of the executioners who kill his carnal body. If Joan of Arc had to be labeled a Nazarene at all costs, she would look like a glove!
The historical research on the formation of Joan of Arc before starting her political mission in the service of her country.
Historians have mentioned, demonstrated, the initiation and preparation of Jeanne in the community of Zion near Nancy or by one of its members, whose roots plunge directly into the Jewish community that came to settle in the region of Perpignan after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Here we are only referring to this hypothesis which remains consistent to explain the fact that Jeanne defended templier values while having her own spiritual path and political evolution at the sole service of God, without any political compromise.
The Templars’ oath made the pope not to take arms against Christians, Joan abandoned him after the betrayal of Philip the Fair and the destruction of the Temple Order.
We will also mention the hypothesis that Joan was of royal blood, which justified her special place with the king. This version has the merit of rejecting all the mystical elements relating to the faith of Joan.
The poet prefers to recognize the strength of words, of example, the strength of this sacred teaching which since the dawn of time has established a new covenant between God and human beings to the extent that it is possible to place God at the heart of the social organization then led by a couple of initiates, one working in the higher world, the other on earth with the help of the powers of the double world.
This was the heart of the organization of Egyptian civilization, especially before the rite of appointment of the Pharaohs was lost. It was Moses’ challenge to revive an organized people on these restored bases. It was Jesus’ challenge to make this new covenant unquestionably alive.
The strength of this global knowledge is enough to explain the story of Joan of Arc, but it must be rid of the prohibitions and taboos pronounced by the ruling minority who rules an economic, political and social system and who, in order to establish a legitimacy capable of defending his private interests, must eliminate this global knowledge, must eliminate the first source of knowledge in order to keep only the second source: the production of intellectual knowledge measured today in terms of scientific materialism.
Once the King of France was returned to the kingdom and the development of royal absolutism resumed, the real conflict moved to other lands.
The Second Commons War in Britain.
Britain is going to have a second Commons war. This war will be waged by political and economic leaders against the people to eliminate the remains of the medieval period and especially the common property with its common goods. These common goods are an obstacle to the development of private enterprises and that of the future capitalist system. This civil war will be far more horrific than France’s Hundred Years War.
In England the successors of the Templars can understand the scope of Joan of Arc’s political mission.
The successors of the Templars in England, Scotland, Ireland, in Portugal, never stopped their voyages to the New World and the Inca civilization that ships left La Rochelle the day before the arrest of the order, had joined.
These new Scottish, English, Templars or Freemasons had certainly not taken power at home and they were hiding the sources of their knowledge.
Fighting the English, could he mean for the followers of Joan of Arc, after having installed in France a king who was subject to them, to install in London also a king favorable to the old Templar movement and to a network organization? She was attacking head on, they had to rise up from the inside? In any case, the English royalty took Joan of Arc very seriously and actively pursued her loss.
Unfortunately for Britain, Joan of Arc’s intervention had no influence. The conflicts between England, Scotland and Ireland have not ceased.
The second Commons war of the sixteenth century was even more terrible.
The new traders and artisans who developed their businesses needed the land that had previously been managed as common property, especially to raise sheep whose wool was used for the new textile industry. Cromwell is a puritanical rigorist. The Puritans, who were recruited mainly from the rural nobility and the petty bourgeoisie, believed in predestination, advocated a return to evangelical sobriety and denied the clergy the right to interpret the faith on behalf of the faithful.
Cromwell and the Puritans claim to be predestined to rule the world.
Cromwell would fight the king and the nobles and establish a short-lived Republican dictatorship. He is not an initiate to the spiritual process, he seeks power through economic development and especially trade with the English colonies. For him, slavery was necessary for the development of settlements. In other words, they are predestined to rule the world and especially the people predestined to be slaves… a very criminal program.
Chased from England, these Anglo-Saxon Puritans landed on the Mayflower in 1620 in the English colonies of North America. Predestined to govern the world, they acted with the same cynicism and cruelty as during the Second Communist War, to take power and retain it since in the present world government of the Anglo-Saxon financial oligarchy.
Can we defeat our ever Anglo-Saxon and Puritan enemies without remembering the fight of Joan of Arc?
A world government that also submitted France and its affiliated governments.
It seems that a former prime minister of Mitterrand once said that the lifting of the taboo on the destruction of the Temple Order was in France capable of blowing up several republics. He is also capable of blowing up the world government from this mafia of Anglo-Saxon puritans.
In France, we did not experience the atrocities of a Communist war in the 16th century, we had the equally terrible religious wars. The former common goods were more or less preserved by the aristocracy, nobles and the secular clergy under the power of the cardinals and bishops sons of the nobility. They were sold as National Property after 1790 to future young capitalists and industrialists.
Common property has been prohibited in our country since 1789 and the Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights. Only private property has been sacred in this Declaration, which is repeated in all the Republican Constitutions, as our political and economic leaders of the new bourgeoisie reject the standards of life of the medieval period with its direct local participatory democracy, its common goods and communal assemblies, its free cities.
Is this also the defeat of Joan of Arc, to be loved by the people of France and always hated by their civil and religious leaders?
As we chase the Anglo-Saxon Puritan world government out of France, can we do so without remembering its struggle?