Thursday, 31 May 2012

Stuart Hearts, (a brief overview)

Left, an illuminated ' Dot Hetherington' sings through the tender light of shed blood at the Old Bedford.

Below, the Monument to Bonnie Prince Charlie's mother Maria Clementina Sobieska in St Peter's Basilica, Rome ( 'The Vatican') . It is just inside the main entrance. Maria holds her heart in her outstretched arm.  Stuart heirs proclaimed that they had 'divine right' as Kings, and that usurping their place (as Britain did) was flouting God. Exiled Stuarts with 'divine right' were, by their own decree, buried separate from their hearts while in exile. The symbolism denotes the Stuart's 'generous, broken bleeding heart' and martyrdom. The same symbolism is demonstrated in 'Pelican' heraldry used of the Stuarts, where the Pelican mother, who is portrayed naturally Christlike, plucks a continuous stream of fresh blood out of her heart for her evergreen young. The burial tradition is the complete antithesis of Catholic observance, it is flagrant Stuart Freemasonry. Yet not one Pope ever refused to countenance it, such was the Vatican's compassion in respect of the Stuart cause. 
Below Marie Clementina's statuette, just above the doorway, two distinct cherubs hold the symbol of a heart shaped urn between them, containing Maria Clementina's actual heart. The forbidden burial tradition is exemplified and celebrated in the Monument inside the entrance of St Peter's Basilica ( 'The Vatican').
These cherubs were a particular favorite of Henry Stuart,  he commissioned them all over his Italian properties. Note their appearance carefully.


Below, one of Walter Sickert's sketches of the 'Old Bedford'. And supposedly of cherubs on one of that Music Hall's balconies . Look again: the cherubs are not cherubs belonging to the old Bedford at all, are they. They plainly are the two cherubs that can be seen beneath the monument to Maria Clementina Sobieska, the exiled Stuart Queen, sketched by Walter Sickert in his Old Beford series and disguised as a part of the old Music Hall.
They're holding a harp rather than a heart, ( below) but it clearly is the same cherubs we have here. See the little boy in the balcony with the little cap on, this will be a 'little Stuart boy' ( presumably depicted with Walter Sickert, or some other guardian).


They're not holding a harp rather than a heart in the sketch below, they're holding both, look carefully. They've been sketched in the inverse by Walter Sickert below, exactly though they're appearing in a mirror ( typical of art containing stories relating to Stuart Freemasonry). The heart shape, shaped like the urn beneath Maria Clementina's Monument, held by one of the cherubs ( in the sketch below) is in the right place, if you consider that they are the Monument cherubs shown 'a l'inverse', as if seen in a mirror......


In the exquisite painting of little Dot Hetherington below, depicted much younger in appearance than in the painting shown at the top of this page, she is shown pointing up at a balcony, or rather at a slightly disguised image of the two Stuart Cherubs who hold Maria Clementina's heart in the St Peter's Basilica. Beneath the cherubs, a young prince Eddy is seen behind an animated looking curtain. Another figure behind a curtain stage left, looks in at little Dot. Princess Alexandra, evidently. This painting is called 'The boy I love is up in the gallery' or 'Little Dot Hetherington at the Old Bedford Music Hall.' 


There is nothing incidental about the way this ethereal little girl is pointing up, is there. And she is not wearing a back street Music Hall dress by any stretch of the imagination. She is wearing the dress that children serving the Vatican Cardinals wear, when carrying the incense through the pews up to the altar. She is pointing up at the Stuart Heart. 

The gallery little Dot is pointing to visibly contains, in other connected paintings, a little boy, (usually depicted wearing a flat cap when at the Music Halls.) The implication is that this boy is a little Stuart Prince. Here he is, (left) with Mary Kelly and Annie Crook. He's smiling. Can you see him?  He is behind Mary Kelly, who is wearing a plumed hat.

Bonnie Prince Charlie's heart is buried in a small Cathedral ( having the appearance of a Church) in Frascati, separated from the rest of his human remains. Bonnie Charlie died in Rome on 31 January 1788. He was first buried in the Cathedral of Frascati, where his brother Cardinal Henry Benedict Stuart was Bishop. His heart was placed in an urn there, and his partly desecrated human remains were placed in a separate case. At Henry's death in 1807, by order of the Pope, who would only put up with so much Stuart Freemasonry, most of Charles's remains were moved to the crypt of Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican where they were laid to rest next to those of his brother and his father ( James III). Bonnie Charlies' mother is also buried in Saint Peter's Basilica. Bonnie Prince Charlie's heart was not moved from Frascati to the Vatican when his other remains were moved; it is still there, beneath a large marble plaque on the wall that informs visitors of what lies beneath the slabs.
There are no separated Stuart hearts enshrined in the Vatican besides that of Cementina, the Popes will not put up with it. Not publicly, anyway. (This by the Bishop of Frascati last time I was there). They won't 'touch the Blackbird of Paradise' anymore than they have to, as it were.

The deposed King James II, Bonnie Prince Charlie's ancestor , died September 16, 1701, at the Château of St. Germain-en-Laye, when, according to Jacobite resistance, he was succeeded in all his British rights by his son James ( Bonnie Prince Charlie's father, shown left, as a boy). His body was lain (in a coffin, but not buried) in the Chapel of Saint Edmund in the Church of the English Benedictines in the Rue St. Jacques, Paris. His brain was sent to the Scots College in Paris, his heart to the Convent of the Visitandine Nuns at Chaillot, and his bowels divided between the English Church of St. Omer and the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye. James' body remained in the Church of the English Benedictines, waiting translation to Westminster Abbey, until the French Revolution when it was desecrated by the mob and lost. Lost also during the Revolution were his remains at the Scots College, the Visitandine Convent of Chaillot, and the English Church of St. Omer. The praecordia which had been placed in the parish church of St. Germain-en-Laye, however, were rediscovered in 1824 and remain there to this day.

We know about the punishments for breaking Hanoverian Freemason allegiance that were distributed by Hanoverian Freemasons in the 19th Century, they have been well documented and compared against the pictures drawn by Hogarth, who spent half his life pointing a satirical, sharp finger at British Hanoverian Freemasons. In Hogarth's picture 'The Reward of Cruelty', one of their assassinations is ostensibly performed ( and figures of educated society such as judges, lawyers, philosophers and medics are suggested.) Wiki link to Hogarth's picture series here. There is not much need to repeat detail about Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution and punishments here, suffice to say an entered apprentice or initiated Hanoverian Freemason made different vows at different levels, and expected to be punished for unfaithfulness by such as having his 'eyes gouged out', his 'toungue torn out by its roots' and 'his throat cut from ear to ear', and his 'lung removed and placed over his shoulder' , his 'thumbs cut off', and his face 'marked with squares and angles'. Second degree involved self invoking curses to the heart and chest on the instance of  betrayal of the brotherhood; the Hanoverian Royal Arch degree vows also involved invoking curses on the stomach and womb area of women in the family, should the participant break bonds with his fellow Freemasons. The York rite stated that a 'traitor' 'shall have his breast torn apart, and his vital organs removed and exposed to rot on a dung hill.'

Thus the Stuart Freemasonry tradition is deemed to be retaliative; the heart of the exiled Stuart is removed expressly by Stuart Freemasons and treated as a supposed powerful symbol of divine martyrdom in exile, and other vital organs of the deceased are carefully preserved separately. ( Left,  Pelican Heraldry, showing the Pelican plucking blood from her heart for her young.)
Bearing in mind all the above, not half of it, take another look at the supposed desecration of 'Mary Jeanette Kelly' whose remains were reportedly found in Miller's Court ( Forensics evidence Jack the Ripper case, main extract):

"...The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed, the shoulders flat but the axis of the body inclined to the left side of the bed. The head was turned on the left cheek. The left arm was close to the body with the forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen. The right arm was slightly abducted from the body and rested on the mattress.

............The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed and the abdominal cavity emptied of its viscera. The breasts were cut off, ( this will have been in an effort to get to the heart) the arms mutilated by several jagged wounds and the face hacked beyond recognition of the features. The tissues of the neck were severed all round down to the bone.

..The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.


..The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall was by the right side of the bed and a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in several places. ( apparent assassination via the throat).

..The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed. The lips were blanched and cut by several incisions running obliquely down to the chin. There were also numerous cuts extending irregularly across all the features.

..Both arms and forearms had extensive jagged wounds.
..The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about one inch long, with extravasation of blood in the skin, and there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition.

..The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cartilage.

..On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken and torn away. The left lung was intact. It was adherent at the apex and there were a few adhesions over the side. In the substances of the lung there were several nodules of consolidation.

..The pericardium was open below and the heart absent.   ....... " ....

Presumably the heart was absent having been sent to the Stuarts associated with the woman 'Mary Kelly'?  

( The full forensic version here via Wiki, I have selected the most relevant, which is nearly all of it)

The supposed body of 'Mary Kelly' contained  evidence of Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution that can be found in  Hanoverian rites that derive from almost all  its different lodges. This would suggest her apparent status was deemed a very significant outrage and insult within the governing hierarchy of Hanoverian Freemasonry. The desecration of Cathrine Eddowes was the second most significant of all the 'Jack the Ripper' victims in terms of Freemasonry, ( her status as a Special branch police spy who betrayed them and betrayed Hanoverian Freemasonry is relevant to that) and yet her body was less marked with symbolism than the supposed corpse of 'Mary Kelly'.
 
That forensic display is denotes one of four possibilities in its epoque: 1, Hanoverian Freemason retribution on a Stuart princess for her liaison with a Hanoverian Prince, 2, Stuart Freemasonry retribution on one of their own for her liaison with a Hanoverian Prince, 3, a display of Hanoverian Freemasonry retribution on a corpse that was after all not that of Mary Kelly', which was carried out in order to devastate Jacobites and Fenians in London, give them the impression that their plans were truly over, and get the girl away to safety after her fake death. 'The face was hacked beyond recognition of the features.'

Possibility 2 is the least likely, because it was in Jacobite interests to form a link with the throne; possibility 3 will have had to have involved negotiations between the Royal family and Special Branch police... Walter Sickert's secret sketches ( to be shown on my coming website) denote that there were negotiations between the Royal family, certain aristocrats, and Special Branch police in late 1888.


In 2003 the ripperologists, Bonnie Prince Charlie being the very last thing on their minds, forensically constructed a replicate of beautiful 'Mary Kelly' from photographic evidence available.


The video linked here, is set to the Music Hall song that 'Mary Kelly' was heard singing, by several Inquest witnesses, on the night she died - or disappeared, never to return to England.  She seems to have been singing it for her little boy, the 'Lost Prince'. Her son by Prince Eddy ( Albert Victor Christian Edward). 'Only a violet I plucked when but a boy, and oft times when I'm sad at heart, this flow'r has given me joy, so while life does remain, in memorial I'll retain, this small violet I plucked from mothers grave. Mary Kelly seems to have been expecting herself and her son to be rescued and simultaneously separated.( Below, the lost Prince by Walter Sickert, it's one of a number of pictures of him).



Two coaches appear to have been seen outside the little ground floor room in Miller's Court that night, according to Inquest witnesses.

 Painting below: evidently a 'violet plucked from mother's grave', by Walter Sickert. He called the painting 'Violets'.



Another Inquest witness specified that she had seen on the evening of the night Mary Kelly was lost to England, a little boy's clothes and those of a little girl's lain over the back of a chair in that little room in Miller's Court, inside Dorset Street. It does seem that there was a plan to get 'Mary Kelly,' Alice and the little prince 'Joe' out of Whitechapel that night. 'Mary Kelly' was eager to borrow 'sixpence' that night, from the lookout, Hutchinson, according to the man himself. ( at the Inquest).

. ..'Sixpence' was the price of the Evening Standard Newspaper in that year, 1888. Mary Kelly was undoubtedly trying to look in the personal ads for updates midway through the evening. She was clearly expecting rescue.

"...this small violet I plucked from mother's grave".... Knowing the Stuarts as we do, this 'violet' flower that Mary chose to sing about perhaps has some significance. In the collection of secret sketches that Walter Sickert drew for the little prince (to show the little prince his beautiful Stuart ancestry and to illustrate what a 'rotten and usurping lot' English Hanoverains are) there is a small collection of imaginative sketches of the French revolution. Featuring people in obvious disguise with joyous faces leaping out of fake coffins and caskets, and so on.

Here are some of Walter Sickert's lovely 'Scarlet Pimpernel' sketches drawn for the little prince- an advance preview! 


Look at the fat queen, Marie Antionette, being hauled along by the man who's holding her captive- she's been eating too much cake apparently. Her crown is French- see the French crown jewels below:


But who is the man drawn beneath, with the truck, wheeling it along- oh no, is that a truck full of heads decapitated by Madame La Guillotine?

Or is it a Stuarts or a Jacobite- are they sneaking aristocrats off who are hidden inside the truck?

The man pulling Queen Marie Antoinette along-  he seems to be wearing some sort of a diadem- is he a Stuart? Is he trying to get Marie Antoinette to safety? Perhaps the Stuarts had to stop saving her because she was such a heave ho to pull along, with all that cake she had eaten.

Oh! It's King Louis, isn't it, pulling his wife Marie Antoinette along- look at the diadem beneath his crown in the picture of the French crown jewels, and compare it against the one in Walter Sickert's picture. It's King Louis- he is trying to haul his wife to safety! And what a heave ho she is. ( That's very Sickert isn't it.)

And below, look at the poor French aristocrat being pulled out of a coffin in which he has been hidden in order to sneak him away away from Madame La Guillotine!


 And there are more beautiful pictures.

Walter Sickert seems to have been implying ( in the whole of his pictures) that Stuarts and Jacobites organized the escape to England of a handful of the French aristocracy, and he seems to have been telling the little prince about it.
One doesn't immediately think of the Stuarts as being behind the hearsay and legend relating to what is now known as the story of the 'Scarlett Pimpernel', because of course George III of Hanover, hated of the Stuarts, was presiding ( if you can call it that) over England at the time of the French revolution. And yet, 'needs must'. The Stuarts may well have got their Catholic French aristocrat friends over to England- of course they had contacts who aided exiled aristocrats, who better to have organized it all?
An interesting theory of Walter Sickerts. 

The Baroness Orczy  was living in Fitzrovia in the 1880's. In Great Portland Street. As a student of fine art she will undoubtedly have had significant contact with the artists of West London's Cleveland Street, including Walter Sickert. It may be that Walter Sickert's theories or knowledge about the Stuarts and Jacobites helping French counter revolutionaries and aristocrats to escape the violent purges of revolutionary France inspired the Baroness to write her novel, 'The Scarlett Pimpernel.' Certainly, some of the characters in her book, including the more fleeting, amusing ones, are very like some of Walter's personal sketches ( his sketches incorporate characters from Cleveland Street).


Perhaps the theory that the 'league' that helped the French aristocrats escape were Stuarts and Jacobites was held by all the 'Stuart Masons' of the late nineteenth century. Perhaps, inside Stuart Freemasonry, it wasn't just a theory. Perhaps the Stuarts and their confederates got extremely close to George III, close enough to spy on his every move, perhaps they were inside his court as the 'league' that was later widely known as 'The league of the Scarlett Pimpernel' and were spying on him and simultaneously helping French aristocrats , and having a grand time.

King Louis and the Stuarts were united in their abhorrence of George III.

Whatever the secret case may have been, Walter Sickert's sketches of the escaping French aristocrats are utterly lovely. They are a combination of eighteenth century portraiture and kindly caricature.

The 'Violet' flower, it is widely reported, was sold in the markets during the French revolution. Here, 'Violets in legend and lore'. It is very like a 'Pimpernel' in appearance and perhaps it was a counter revolutionary symbol of some kind that the aristocrats used? "Only a violet I plucked when but a boy, And oft' times when I'm sad at heart, this flow'r has given me joy, But while life does remain, in memoriam I'll retain, This small violet I plucked from mother's grave". The meaning that Mary Kelly gave to the song she sang to her little boy perhaps being that the little Violet flower should in the future signify to her little son, the little prince, that she was alive and well and not the corpse that had been found in Miller's Court.

Below, a lovely rendition of Baraness Orczy's  send up of the revolutionary French Agents of National Security, where Chauvelan is  is delayed in ambushing aristocratic confederates by a ridiculous jig. ( With Lady Hamilton?) Helas, couriers  in 1880's Whitechapel were ostensibly not so lucky.



Is it just Stuart hearts that are removed on death when in exile or does the Freemason tradition belong to all Catholic royalty in such circumstances? The matter of the missing heart in the room in Miller's Court, ( if we assume  'Mary Kelly' herself was a Stuart, and her heart a Stuart heart, as it appears to have been) and the matter of a possible switched identity- a corpse being placed in the room in Miller's Court and disguised to look like that of 'Mary Kelly', with the corpse's heart removed- is remarkably similar to the stories of the lost Dauphin of France, Marie Antionette's son. .The Wiki on that matter here. 'The Dauphin: Prison and rumours of escape.'

Some affirm that Louis Charles Capais died in prison during the French revolution; others insist that a substitute body was put in his place, and he was spirited away to safety.. Compare the the Dauphin's story with the Stuart's story:

Philippe-Jean Pelletan was one of the doctors who attended Louis-Charles shortly before his death and subsequently Pelletan performed the autopsy. He removed the heart and this was not interred with the rest of Louis-Charles's body. Philippe-Jean Pelletan tried to return Louis-Charles's heart to Louis XVIII and Charles X, both of whom could not bring themselves to believe the heart to be that of their nephew. It is not known if Pelletan tried to approach Marie-Thérèse, Duchess of Angoulême.

The heart was stolen by one of Pelletan's students, who confessed to the theft on his deathbed and asked his wife to return it to Pelletan. Instead, she sent it to the Archbishop of Paris, where it stayed until the Revolution of 1830. It also spent some time in Spain. By 1975, it was being kept in a crystal vase at the royal crypt in the Saint Denis Basilica outside Paris, the burial place of Louis-Charles's parents and other members of France's royal family.
In 2000 Philippe Delorme arranged for DNA testing of the heart as well as bone samples from Karl Wilhelm Naundorff. Ernst Brinkmann of Münster University and Belgian genetics professor Jean-Jacques Cassiman of Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, conducted mitochondrial DNA tests in 2000 using samples from Marie-Antoinette, her sisters Maria Johanna Gabriela and Maria Josepha, their mother, Maria Theresa, and two living direct descendants in strict maternal line of Maria Theresa, Queen Anne of Romania and her brother, Prince André de Bourbon Parme. The tests proved that Naundorff was not the dauphin, and the heart was that of Louis-Charles. It was buried in the Basilica on 8 June 2004.[8]'

This DNA evidence is disputed, with many carrying on about how unreliable a latter day test is ( fair enough), how mitochondrial DNA does not prove the identity of any one individual, ( true) and how the body that was reportedly found and identified as the Dauphin's in the dreadful Temple prison was ostensibly older than ten years old- its owner had for example cut wisdom teeth, and seemed to have been a teenager of about fourteen. Many thus argue that the French Dauphin never died in the prison after all, and may have been got away to safety.

No comments:



The outline of the current situation in respect of the libel campaign against me and the legal stuff (click).