Restoration of the Original "Knights Templar" Order Direct Succession & Legitimacy from the Founding Grand Mastery

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgThe Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon is the only chivalric Order with legally documented direct succession from the original “Knights Templar”, with full legitimacy as the authentic historical institution of the Templars.  This was accomplished through three sources of Magistral Succession:

Magistral Succession of the original Grand Mastery, with sovereignty as an independent non-territorial Principality, was initially restored by Royal recognition and Tutela Protection in perpetuity from a legalized descendant of King Fulk of Jerusalem. This helped to reconnect the Order with its own inherent and irrevocable sovereignty and independence, recognized by a Papal Bull of 1139 AD, as its historical and primary source of Magistral Succession. That primary source enabled the reunification and restoration of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, as the third source of Magistral Succession of the original Templar Order.

Proprietary Research – This site presents new and original research, which is proprietary, from primary sources in the historical record. The numbered source references are the verifiable evidence of all relevant facts. The Templar Order now shares this with the general public for the first time, as part of its core mission of restoring venerable traditions as the pillars of civilization.

 

Vatican Outreach & Support Inspired Restoration of the Templar Order

 

Vatican Chinon Parchment & Knights Templar Trial Records

Vatican Chinon Parchment & Knights Templar Trial Records

W (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgWidely repeated in ordinary history books is the misconception that the Order of the Temple of Solomon of the Knights Templar was supposedly “dissolved” by the Vatican Holy See of Rome. This popularized idea, and its misleading implication that the Order could not be restored in the modern era, is proven false by clear evidence in the historical record.

Opposing the French King Philip IV who persecuted the Templar Order, Pope Clement V made all possible efforts to protect the Templars [1], and Vatican theologians at the University of Paris declared the King’s persecution to be in violation of Canon Law, stating that it was a secular abuse of the local French Inquisition under duress by the King, and was not sanctioned by the Vatican [2].  The Chinon Parchment Papal decree of 1308 AD dismissed the “confessions” to the French Inquisition under torture, and exonerated the Templars of all accusations, “restoring” and “reinstating” the Order in communion with the Church [3].

Although the Papal Bull Vox in Excelso of 1312 AD has been misinterpreted as supposedly “dissolving” the Order, it was only an administrative measure, “by way of provision and ordinance”, and the order was “suppressed” only within the Vatican’s internal jurisdiction, stating that it was “not by definitive sentence“. [4] It had no authority to dissolve the prior Royal Patronage from the Kings of Jerusalem, and indeed reconfirmed the vindication and protection of the Chinon Parchment by indirect but clear legal reference. As a result, the Vatican only suspended its own supplemental Ecclesiastical Patronage of the otherwise inherently sovereign Templar Order.

Vatican Secret Archives Chinon Parchment & Knights Templar Trial Scrolls Set

Vatican Secret Archives Chinon Parchment & Knights Templar Trial Scrolls Set

In October 2007, in memoriam of the 700 year anniversary of the Knights Templar persecution, the Vatican Secret Archives released numbered limited edition authenticated replica copies of the Chinon Parchment to recognized Templar historians and descendants of Templar nobility. Social leaders of cultural Templarism interpreted this as a grand gesture of implied apology, and a diplomatic signal of proposed reconciliation.

The reemergence of the Chinon Parchment, made available for the first time to prominent cultural Templars of the modern era, inspired a group of Templar historians to undertake the full restoration of the original Order. This began a major project to reestablish the authentic Magistral Succession of the Order to full legal legitimacy. Under the leadership and sponsorship of Prince Matthew of Thebes, a group of Western European university historians were assisted by Eastern European geopolitical strategists, and supported by Vatican scholars, further assisted by international law firms.

The Grand Mastery of the Order of the Temple of Solomon possess two of the rare, cherished, registered “museum reproduction” copies of the Chinon Parchment scrolls and book sets from the Vatican Secret Archives, being authenticated historical documents. In November 2007, both sets were entrusted by the Vatican to Prince Matthew, who at that time was the historian and advisor to descendants of the original Order of the Temple of Solomon, which survived as an underground network prior to its restoration with official sovereignty and its later public reemergence.

 

Recovering Magistral Succession of the Founding Grand Mastery

 

King Fulk d'Anjou of Jerusalem (ca.1090-1143 AD), founder and royal patron of the Knights Templar

King Fulk d’Anjou of Jerusalem (ca.1090-1143 AD), founder and royal patron of the Knights Templar

A (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgA group of university historians and archaeologists of medieval Templarism, based in London, had traced the lineage of the most historically important dynastic Royal House of the key founder of the Knights Templar, King Fulk of Jerusalem. Count Fulk of Anjou (ca. 1090-1143 AD), the King of Jerusalem (who succeeded King Baldwin II), was one of the initial founders of the Order (as the silent 10th founding Knight) [5] [6], who gave original Royal Patronage to the Templar Order starting with its first 2 Grand Masters. He was also the Regent of Antioch and dynastic Royal Patron of the Templar Principality of Antioch.

When King Fulk died in 1143 AD, the sovereign dynastic Fons Honourum authority of the Kings of Jerusalem survived through the royal line from King Fulk’s first wife (Ermengarde of Maine, who died 1126). Fulk was succeeded by Count Geoffrey V of Anjou (1113-1151), the father of King Henry II of England (1133-1189), then King Richard the Lionheart (1157-1199), then Kings Henry III (1207-1272), Edward I (1239-1307), Edward II (1284-1327), Edward III (1312-1377), and seven generations later Prince George Stanley (1460-1503).

From this research, supported by official records in the archives of the Anglican Church, the Templar historians identified the legal general heir of the King Fulk line, a direct descendant of the British “Stanley Kings” of the Isle of Man.

Queen Elizabeth II, painting (ca.2007)

Queen Elizabeth II, painting (ca.2007)

Barristers arranged and supported by the Templar historians succeeded in obtaining Royal Assent of Queen Elizabeth II and official recognition and legalization by the British Crown of the descendant of King Fulk as the King of Mann. This irrevocably established the legal fact of the existence of the sovereign “Independent Kingdom of Mann”, including “Fons Honourum” rights to reestablish Magistral Succession of the Templar Grand Mastery, by granting sovereign recognition with Royal Tutela Protection of permanent independent sovereignty to the Templar Order.

In January 2007, Her Majesty (H.M.) Queen Elizabeth II of the British Crown, with experts from Buckingham Palace, conducted a full month of legal and political review of a requested public legal notice, prepared and certified by the Barristers, as required to assume titles of royalty or nobility under UK law. As a result, with full knowledge and understanding of all issues involved, Queen Elizabeth II gave Royal Assent, and made official Royal Proclamation, to legalize the legitimate royal status of the Templar descendant of King Fulk. [7]

That act of Royal recognition was performed by means of publishing legal notice in the London Gazette on 16 January 2007 (called “Gazetting”) [8].  Such notice, by law, cannot be printed without the prior approval of the legal department of the British Crown, and thereby constitutes a “royal proclamation” when published, as evidenced by the British Crown Office Act of 1877, Section 3.3. [9]  That act of prior approval thus created a binding legal fact of public law, by force of law, as follows:

Prince George Stanley (1460-1503 AD) of the Stanley Kings of Mann

Prince George Stanley (1460-1503 AD) of the Stanley Kings of Mann

The official royal notice legalized “rights to the independent Kingdom of Mann, together with Fons Honorum” rights. It established that “the incorporeal hereditament rights in this case have descend to the heirs general”, specifically to the King of Mann from the King Fulk line, as a “descendant of Sir John Stanley… according to the course of the common law”.

John Stanley I (1350-1414 AD), King of Mann and the Isles, the first of the British “Stanley Kings”, acquired the Kingdom of Mann from King Henry IV (in 1405 AD). He was succeeded by King John Stanley II (1386-1437 AD), King Thomas Stanley I (d.1459 AD), and King Thomas Stanley II (1435-1504 AD), followed by George Stanley (1460-1503 AD) of the “Stanley Kings”.

The Royal House of Mann is additionally genealogically related to three of the Templar Provincial Grand Masters of England (called “Masters of the Temple”, analogous to “Grand Prior”), Richard de Hastings (1155-1185), Robert de Mounford (ca. 1234), and Robert de Saundforde (1231-1247). This demonstrates that the Royal line has been actively and prominently involved in the activities and leadership of the Order throughout history, continuing the tradition of King Fulk of Jerusalem.

As a result, the historians and law firms, representing a movement of cultural Templars and Templar descendants, succeeded in reestablishing the Royal line of the Templar King Fulk of Jerusalem, as the original source of Royal Patronage of the Order. By this historic accomplishment, the direct juridical lineage of Magistral Succession of the historical Grand Mastery was recovered, and positioned to be permanently re-vested in the Order of the Temple of Solomon.

Noseley Hall - Templar Chapel (13th Century)

Noseley Hall – Templar Chapel (13th Century)

In October 2007, a special gathering for the purpose of restoring the original Knights Templar was hosted at the historic site Noseley Hall in Leicestershire, England, which features an authentic 13th century Chapel built by the original Knights Templar. (Noseley Hall is the estate of the Hazelrigg nobility family since 1419 AD, a line of Lord Barons established in the British Peerage in 1622 AD.) This private event attracted some media publicity, which misidentified the group as an unspecified “secret society” which became known as the “Noseley Group”.

At this historic meeting, the future Grand Master Prince Matthew was established as the historian and Curator of the Templar Order, and the King of Mann was established as its Royal Patron for the restoration stage. The Curator and Patron were introduced to each other, and both reinstated the Temple Rule of 1129 AD and swore the Templar Vow of Chivalry in the sacred 13th century Chapel.

Noseley Hall Estate of Lord Baron Hazelrigg (ca.1419 AD)

Noseley Hall Estate of Lord Baron Hazelrigg (ca.1419 AD)

A 7-year plan was developed for the full restoration of the original Order of the Temple of Solomon. (Already begun by the Templar network in January 2007, the plan was targeted for completion by December 2013.)

That plan was successfully implemented by April 2013, ahead of schedule, in fulfillment of the medieval “Cathar” Prophecy of 1313 AD based upon the ancient Prince Melchizedek Scroll of the Essenes.

At that point, the Curator Matthew was elected and installed as Prince Grand Master by Royal recognition, and the temporary Royal Patronage was upgraded to permanent Royal Protection of full sovereignty with independence. The Order of the Temple of Solomon thus remains separate, as an autonomous Templar Principality with statehood, with legitimacy of Magistral Succession directly from the primary Royal source of its original Grand Mastery.

The Templar Order is wholly independent as a sovereign subject of international law in its own right, the Independent Kingdom of Mann has no authority over the Order, and the Royal House of Mann is not involved in any policies, operations or activities of the Order.

The dynastic line of King Fulk legally and effectively carried the heraldic patrimony of the founding Fons Honorum of the Templar Grand Mastery [10] [11] [12], and possessed full legal capacity to validly convey that Fons Honorum to the Order, as a recognized deposed Sovereign House [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].

A first official Royal Letters Patent (3rd April 2013) from the Kingdom of Mann reestablished the “Prince Grand Master of the Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon”, creating and recognizing an autonomous Grand Mastery “in accordance with constitutional rules of succession of the Order of the Temple of Solomon” [18].

Legitimacy of Magistral Succession was thus restored, and the Grand Mastery reestablished from abeyance, in accordance with legal and canonical precedent [19] [20], properly establishing a “Prince Grand Master”, as authentic and necessary to an autonomous sovereign chivalric Order [21] [22] [23] [24] [25].

A second official Royal Letters Patent (3rd April 2013) from the Kingdom of Mann granted to the “Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon… Royal Tutela Protection and Autonomous Sovereignty”, recognizing its “status as a subject of international law in perpetuity” [26].

A subsequent legal Act of Completion and Cooperation (1st January 2015) reconfirmed the “permanent grant of Royal Tutela Protection of autonomous sovereignty with full independence, and Magistral Succession of the original Grand Mastery of the Knights Templar… in perpetuity as stated in the relevant Letters Patent.” (Sections 3.3, 4.5) [27]

Legitimacy was thus restored by the necessary Tutela Protection and sovereign recognition [28] [29] [30], thereby permanently vesting the Templar Order with its own inherent and independent Fons Honorum [31] [32], establishing its own autonomous Crown authority as a non-territorial Principality, directly from the lineal source of its original founding Royal Patronage.

 

Reconnecting with Original Independent Templar Sovereignty

 

K (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgKing Fulk had intended to upgrade the Knights Templar from sovereign “Patronage” (chivalric sovereignty dependent upon remaining under the King) to full Tutela “Protection” (permanent grant of independent sovereignty in its own right). The fact that the Kings of Jerusalem had planned to do this, is evidenced by King Baldwin II in 1119 AD making sure to remove the Templar Order from ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Holy Sepulchre [33].

Only 8 years after King Fulk became King of Jerusalem in 1131 AD, Pope Innocent II granted the Templar Order permanent and irrevocable Tutela Protection of sovereign independence in the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD [34], which was supported by two other related Papal Bulls Milites Templi of 1144 AD [35] and Militia Dei of 1145 AD [36]. Scholars note that Pope Innocent II rose to the Papacy supported by the Templar patron Saint Bernard de Clairvaux, confirming that this grant of independent sovereignty had always been part of the original plan for the Order [37].

This explains why prior to King Fulk’s unfortunate sudden death (in an equestrian accident) in 1143 AD, he had not deemed it necessary to grant such Royal Protection directly from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as his intentions had already been fulfilled. However, King Fulk’s untimely death was most likely the primary reason why the Knights Templar chose not to publicly assert and overtly exercise their own inherent and independent sovereignty, instead operating mostly under the Vatican in humility.

In 1307 AD, at the time of the French persecution of the Knights Templar, the Fons Honourum of the original Fulk line for the Templar Order had continued to the British royal line, of which King Edward I died the same year. King Edward II (1284-1327 AD), who had just taken the throne, was under intense pressure from the French persecution, and needed to downplay his Templar ancestry of King Fulk, such that he was able to do little to protect the Knights Templar even in England.

During the persecution of 1307-1313 AD the Templars were not prepared to effectively assert their de jure status of full and independent sovereignty, based upon their own ecclesiastical authority of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, because it had been kept mostly “secret” as they had chosen to actively support the Catholic Church instead.

The primary seven-year restoration of the Order of the Temple of Solomon (2007-2013) established Magistral Succession from the original Grand Mastery. This enabled the Order to reconnect with its own inherent and irrevocable sovereign independence from the three Papal Bulls featuring Omne Datum Optimum of 1139 AD. That Vatican Papal Bull specifically recognized sovereignty of the Templar Order based upon its inherent ecclesiastical sovereignty of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, which the founding Knights had recovered and restored from the Temple of Solomon.

By reconnecting with the original Papal Bulls through establishing legitimacy and historical continuity, the Order thereby effectively restored an alternative and additional source of sovereignty, as its primary and historical source of independent sovereignty.  This Ecclesiastical sovereignty has juridical primacy and supremacy, thereby surpassing and superseding the sovereignty from Royal Protection, such that the chivalric function of the Order is annexed to its inherent Ecclesiastical authority [38].

To further strengthen that separate basis of independent sovereignty under international law, the modern Templar Order also recovered and restored the original ecclesiastical authority of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon. This resulted in reconnecting with additional Magistral Succession through the authentic Templar Priesthood, by reuniting and consolidating the Priesthood, thereby reestablishing the inherent Pontifical authority of the Order, as its third separate source of sovereignty. This also marked the first time in history that the Templar Order publicly presented and asserted its own ecclesiastical sovereignty from the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon.

 

Restoring Doctrinal Succession and Historical Continuity

 

R (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgRestoration of the 12th century Order of the Temple of Solomon was not based on mere “claims” supported by some legal “technicalities”, but rather was firmly rooted in – and only made possible by – possessing the full and authentic substance and heritage of the historical institution. Every stage of its legal restoration was driven by documented facts and evidence from the historical record, in fulfillment of all related rules and protocols of customary international law which govern such historical institutions.

Legitimacy of the Templar Order was further restored by ensuring the necessary Doctrinal Succession [39], through strict adherence to the principles of the Temple Rule of 1129 AD, active pursuit of the authentic missions of the Order [40] [41], and continuing its original teachings and practices [42]. This established Juridical Continuity of the same legal identity of the original Templar Order, based upon possessing the full scope of its original substance [43] [44].

Legitimacy was restored by the necessary Historical Continuity, since the modern Order continues to be governed by the original Temple Rule, which itself mandates that the Order must be perpetually continued and provides that it can be restored (Rule 2, Rule 8) [45], thereby further establishing Juridical Continuity [46]. (The Constitution governing the modern Templar Order as a Principality of statehood preserves the original Temple Rule as the primary charter governing the Order as a chivalric historical institution.)

Legitimacy of Historical Continuity was further established because the reconstitution and restoration of the Order was accomplished by the collective efforts of hereditary and initiatory successors and descendants of the Order, through related and supporting surviving historical institutions, both directly and indirectly [47].

 

Effective Restoration of the Templar Order to Full Legitimacy

 

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgThe Order of the Temple of Solomon, as the 12th century historical institution of the original “Knights Templar”, is unique, possessing multiple and alternative sources of legitimacy. The massive multinational restoration project, driven by a profound sense of responsibility for preserving the genuine traditions and values of the Templar Order, was so effective that it resulted in not only restoring its original sovereign authorities, but even surpassing them, achieving unprecedented new heights of legitimacy of the Order.

The modern Templar Order has recovered, reassembled and restored all aspects of its original sources of sovereignty and legitimacy, as evidenced in the historical record. This restoration was diligently implemented to ensure that it fulfilled – and even exceeded – all of the strictest requirements of the highest standards of the most conservative rules and protocols, doctrines and criteria of chivalric law, nobiliary law, heraldic law, and canon law, all under substantive customary international law.

Magistral Succession was restored from the original founding Grand Mastery, by the same official method as the historical precedent of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), which restored 587 years of de jure abeyance (1291-1878 AD) and at least 12 years of de facto abeyance (1805-1817 AD) of its Grand Mastery because the Pope “reestablished” it by recognition in 1878 AD. The Templar Order’s restoration of Magistral Succession and reestablishment of the Grand Mastery by Letters Patent from a Sovereign in 2013 was thus sufficient and legally effective to overcome its 700 years of abeyance. [48] [49]

Doctrinal Succession was established by diligent recovery and restoration of the substantial body of written principles, practices, traditions and heritage of the original Templar Order, and reestablishing strict adherence to its authentic doctrines. That restoration of Doctrinal Succession was thus separately sufficient and legally effective to overcome the prior abeyance of the Order. [50]

Historical Continuity was established by reintegrating the original royal and nobiliary status and heritage of the Order, and reconnecting with three Papal Bulls of its permanent sovereignty, providing a Juridical Continuity further supporting Doctrinal Succession. That restoration of Historical Continuity was thus additionally sufficient and legally effective to overcome the former abeyance of the Templar Order. [51]

As a result of all of the above historic events and official achievements, the authentic Grand Mastery of the Order of the Temple of Solomon is no longer in abeyance after approximately 700 years. Finally, it can now publicly assert triple authority as an independent sovereign non-territorial Principality by force of international law, backed by double legitimacy of Magistral Succession, as a sovereign subject of international law in its own right.

Therefore, the Order of the Temple of Solomon possesses the most complete and unbroken connection to the founding roots of the 12th century Order, carrying its full substance and heritage, as the direct continuation of the original “Knights Templar” from 1118 AD. The Templar Order has thus been restored to full chivalric and nobiliary legitimacy in the modern era, and shall never be suppressed again.

On the basis of time-tested fundamental principles of Public Law, the restored Order of the Temple of Solomon holds legally documented and verifiable legitimacy in its own right, as the original historical institution, irrespective and without requirement of any other recognition from any external entity [52] [53].

As a non-territorial sovereign Principality of independent statehood in its own right, the Order legally holds the status of a “sovereign subject of international law” [54] [55], based upon its institutional substance and functional infrastructure with capabilities to advance its historical purposes internationally [56].

The Order also holds registered United Nations non-governmental organization (NGO) status, through its subsidiary non-profit Foundation. A sovereign historical institution itself is not subject to registration or incorporation in any country jurisdiction, which would contradict and undermine its own legitimacy of statehood. However, two popular “revival orders” of 19th century nobility patronage gained acceptance by obtaining UN NGO status, thereby creating a new public opinion that this supports chivalric legitimacy.

To satisfy that popularized modern expectation, the Templar Order created the separate subsidiary “Order of the Temple of Solomon Foundation”, registered as wholly owned by the Order, and the Foundation obtained and holds the desirable UN NGO status on behalf of the sovereign Templar Order.

 

Modern Reflections of Historical Beliefs

 

T (100) Knights Templar Illuminated Letters www.knightstemplarorder.orgThere does exist a curious fact of two ancient documents in the historical record, which medieval clergy believed to contain “prophecies”, and to this day are recognized by many ecclesiastical scholars at least as “predictions”, specifically about the restoration of the original Templar Order. Both predictions came from surviving descendants of the Cathar Priesthood, a denomination of early Christianity including teachings of the Essenes, who had survived through the Templar Order [57] [58], and later survived within the Vatican itself.

In the context of this little known history of “Cathar” predictions about the Templars, it is interesting that events and circumstances in the modern era have converged, in such as way as to closely reflect the specific words of both medieval texts (as interpreted by the clergy at the time).

No discussion of the reemergence of the Templar Order would be complete, without at least acknowledging this intriguing apparent synchronicity of how the modern events have formed a reflection of the deeply held beliefs and hopes of its ancestors from the original Order.

Gnostic 'Melchizedek Scroll' possessed by Cathars, before other copies were later re-discovered in Egypt

Gnostic ‘Melchizedek Scroll’ possessed by Cathars, before other copies were later re-discovered in Egypt

In 1313 AD, when Pope Clement V had suspended Vatican patronage of the Order of the Temple of Solomon, the Cathar Priesthood (who had previously merged into the Templar Order) associated this event with a “Cathar scroll” containing a prediction that “in 700 years, the Laurel will grow green again”, interpreted as happening in the year 2013.

In March 1513 AD, when Pope Leo X was elected, clergy who were descendants of the Cathar Priesthood (surviving from the Templar Order within the Vatican) associated this event with a different related Coptic scroll from the Essenes (later re-discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt with other “Lost Gospels”) called the “Prince Melchizedek Scroll” (artifact: 11Q13). This gave rise to the prediction that “In 10 Jubilees Prince Melchizedek will rise as the [fearsome] Judge”. Ten “Jubilees” is exactly 500 years, which was thus interpreted as occurring in the year 2013, also making the indicated date 700 years after the suppression of the Order.

Ecclesiastical scholars and historians have traditionally interpreted the “Cathar” predictions based on both scrolls to mean that the original Order of the Temple of Solomon would “rise again” in the year 2013, in the context of involvement of a facilitating figurehead of princely nobility who would cause that event to be accomplished. [59]

Melchizedek stained glass, labeled 'King of Salem', St Michael's Church, North Gate, Oxford

Melchizedek stained glass, labeled ‘King of Salem’, St Michael’s Church, North Gate, Oxford

The medieval Order of the Temple of Solomon was founded on the ancient tradition of the Biblical “Order of Melchizedek”, the “King of Peace”, which in ancient linguistics is “King of Salem”, the same name (actually a title) of King Solomon. The reference to “Melchizedek” in the scroll thus indicated that it is the original Solomonic Order which would return, and that the enabling figure of nobility would be representing or supporting the original Templar Order, thus causing them to “rise again”.

For interpretation, it is highly significant that the Biblical Melchizedek was always called “King”, and never referred to as “Prince”. The announcement of a future “Prince Melchizedek” (a Solomonic title) is therefore interpreted to indicate that the figure of nobility supporting the Solomonic Order would literally be an actual “Prince” from legitimate dynastic royalty.

As it happened, an unexpected convergence of events and circumstances resulted in the contributions of Prince Matthew of Thebes causing the full restoration of infrastructure and legitimacy for the original Solomonic Order, being accomplished and completed during the year of 2013, precisely as predicted in both ancient scrolls of the medieval Cathars.

Prince Matthew was officially elected and legally installed as the “Prince Grand Master” of the Templar Order, by proper Royal Letters Patent from the dynastic line of King Fulk. He was also canonically established as “Pontifical Prince” (Princeps Pontifex) of the Ancient Priesthood of Solomon, by Episcopal authority of independent Bishops, and is thereby associated with “Melchizedek”. He is a highly decorated 15-year national security veteran of various countries, and thus could be considered “fearsome”. As a Doctor of International Law, he was officially registered and accredited as an International Judge by a Ministry of Justice to serve as “Judge” in governmental and international Courts of Law.

Therefore, objectively, it can be truthfully said that in fact, as metaphorically described by the medieval copies of ancient scrolls preserved by surviving Templars, the “Laurel has grown green again”, and “Prince Melchizedek has risen as the fearsome judge” reestablishing the original Solomonic Templars, in the year 2013, through the Grand Mastery led by Prince Judge Matthew of Thebes.

Increasingly, more people are inclined to consider the role of synchronicity in our lives, as potential indications of the existence of a greater esoteric “God’s plan”. For those seeking esoteric meaning in modern events, the above facts, of how modern events have manifested as reflections of the medieval beliefs of the original surviving Templars, are offered to provide some inspiration and motivation to pursue their spiritual path to enlightenment.

 

Suggested Topics Related to this Information

 

Click to learn about the Foundation of the Order as bases for its restoration.

Click to learn about the Survival of the Order continuing into the modern era.

Click to learn about the Legitimacy & Restoration Rules of historical institutions.

 

© COPYRIGHT NOTICE – Copying whole sections or pages is prohibited, and subject to civil and criminal liabilities by law.  Smaller parts can be used only with Attribution Credit and a Link to this website.  Please see Legal and Attribution information in the Footer (bottom of this page).

 

Academic Source References for this Topic

Full Public Evidence Proving All Facts – All facts in these materials are abundantly proven publicly, directly from primary sources of the historical record and authoritative scholarship, presented as verifiable academic source references, in hundreds of numbered footnotes, consisting of conclusive evidence provided for the world to see.

Color Coded Quotes Indicating Sources – Quotes directly from verifiable sources are color coded, for convenience of visual reference, as follows:  Brown quotes indicate historical sources; Blue quotes indicate scholarly sources; Purple quotes indicate Canon law sources; Red quotes indicate Royal sources.

[1] Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Boswell Printing & Publishing (1924), p.53.

[2] Frank Sanello, The Knights Templars: God’s Warriors, the Devil’s Bankers, Taylor Trade Publishing, Oxford (2003), p.129.

[3] Pope Clement V, Chinon Parchment (1308), Vatican Secret Archives, “Archivum Arcis Armarium” D 217-218; Replica Parchments, Processus Contra Templarios, Scrinium, Venice, Italy (2008).

[4] Pope Clement V, Vox in Excelso, “Voice from on High” (22 March 1312), Regestum 7952; translated in Karl Joseph Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents (1896), Classic Reprint, Forgotten Books (2012), reprinted in Norman P. Tanner (Ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Georgetown University Press (1990), Parts 10, 12, 13.

[5] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.5-6.

[6] M. Chibnall, The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1978), Vol.6, pp.308-311.

[7] Barrister’s Opinion, In Re The Kingdom of Man and the Isles, Pratchetts Solicitors, Peterborough (03 April 2007), witnessing that “before the [London Gazette] notice was published it was passed up to the Queen of England’s desk where it sat for four weeks until it was finally granted approval”.

[8] The British Crown, The Gazette (London Gazette), Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London (16 January 2007), Issue No. 58221, p.541, “Other Notices”, Notice No. 999.; The London Gazette, published by royal authority of the British Crown, is legally “the official public record” of the United Kingdom since 1665 AD.

[9] United Kingdom Parliament, Crown Office Act of 1877, Regnal 40 & 41 Victoria, Chapter 41 (10 August 1877), Section 3.3, evidencing that prior approval of a Gazetting Notice by the legal department of the British Crown constitutes a “royal proclamation” establishing a legal fact.

[10] Hyginus Eugene Cardinale, Orders of Knighthood Awards and the Holy See: A Historical, Juridical and Practical Compendium (1983), p.119.

[11] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.291-292.

[12] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.

[13] G. C. Bascape, Casa Editrice Ceschina, Milan (1940), p.263.

[14] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.

[15] Michael Richard Brett-Crowther, Orders of Chivalry Under the Aegis of the Church, Lambeth Diploma of Student in Theology Thesis, London (1990), pp.80-90.

[16] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.36.

[17] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 2, Principle 3.

[18] Royal House of Mann, Royal Letters Patent: Prince Matthew of Thebes, Independent Kingdom of Mann (03 April 2013).

[19] Ambassadeur Géraud Michel de Pierredon, Histoire Politique de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem (Ordre de Malte), Paris (1926), Tome 5.

[20] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Regular Orders of the Holy See, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 4, “The Order After the Loss of Jerusalem to the French”.

[21] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.

[22] Noel Cox, The Sovereign Authority for the Creation of Orders of Chivalry, “Arma” Journal, Heraldry Society of Southern Africa (1999-2000), pp.317-329.

[23] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), p.294.

[24] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.

[25] The Vatican, The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912), The Encyclopedia Press, New York (1913), Volume 14, “Teutonic Order”, p.542.

[26] Royal House of Mann, Royal Letters Patent: Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon, Independent Kingdom of Mann (03 April 2013).

[27] Royal House of Mann, Act of Completion and Cooperation, duly executed and ratified as a binding legal contract and sovereign treaty, Independent Kingdom of Mann & Sovereign Magistral Order of the Temple of Solomon (01 January 2015).

[28] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section III, “Legal Definitions of Orders of Knighthood”.

[29] G. C. Bascape, Casa Editrice Ceschina, Milan (1940), p.263.

[30] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Independent Orders as Seen by the Canon Law and Italian Public Law, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 2, Part 2.

[31] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.36, 423.

[32] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 1.

[33] Ernoul & Bernard, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tresorier (ca. 1188), Ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris (1871), Chapter 2, pp.7-8.

[34] Pope Innocent II, Omne Datum Optimum (29 March 1139), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.59-64.

[35] Pope Celestine II, Milites Templi, “Knights of the Temple” (5 January 1144), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 64-65.

[36] Pope Eugenius III, Militia Dei, “Knighthood of God” (7 April 1145), translated in: Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), pp.8, 65-66.

[37] Malcolm Barber & Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources, Manchester University Press (2002), p.8.

[38] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, The Chivalry: Classification of the Orders, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 2.

[39] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.32, 34.

[40] Donald S. Armentrout & Robert Boak Slocum, An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, Church Publishing (1999), “Apostolic Succession”, p.25.

[41] Eric G. Jay, The Church, John Knox Press (1980), p.229.

[42] Arthur Michael Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, translated from Spanish edition, Dominican Republic (1964), p.134 et seq.

[43] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, B-2, “Identity and Revival”.

[44] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.289-290.

[45] Henri de Curzon, La Règle du Temple, La Société de L’Histoire de France, Paris (1886), in Librairie Renouard, Rule 2, Rule 8.

[46] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part B-1, “Historical Continuity: Military-Monastic Orders”, “Historical Continuity: Time Gaps”.

[47] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.40, 47, 416.

[48] Ambassadeur Géraud Michel de Pierredon, Histoire Politique de l’Ordre Souverain de Saint-Jean de Jerusalem (Ordre de Malte), Paris (1926), Tome 5.

[49] Saint Michael Academy of Eschatology, Regular Orders of the Holy See, West Palm Beach, Florida (2008), updated (2015), Free Course No.555: “Chivalric Orders”, Lesson 3, Part 4, “The Order After the Loss of Jerusalem to the French”.

[50] E.A. Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, James Clarke & Co. (1960), p.389.

[51] François Velde, Legitimacy and Orders of Knighthood, Heraldica (1996), updated (2003), Section I, Part C, “Conclusion”.

[52] Hans J. Hoegen Dijkhof, Hendrik Johannes, The Legitimacy of Orders of St. John: A Historical and Legal Analysis and Case Study of a Para-religious Phenomenon, Hoegen Dijkhof Advocaten, Universiteit Leiden (2006), pp.415, 424.

[53] International Commission for Orders of Chivalry (ICOC), Report of the Commission Internationale Permanente d’Études des Ordres de Chevalerie, “Registre des Ordres de Chivalerie”, The Armorial, Edinburgh (1978), Gryfons Publishers, USA (1996), including: Principles Involved in Assessing the Validity of Orders of Chivalry (1963), Principle 2.

[54] Rebecca Wallace, International Law: A Student Introduction, 2nd Edition, Sweet & Maxwell (1986).

[55] United Nations, Convention on the Law of Treaties, Registry Vol. 1155, No.18232, Vienna (1969), Article 3.

[56] Vatican, Tribunal e Cardinalizi o Constituito con Pontifico Chirografo (10 December 1951), Acta Apostolicae Sedis (24 January 1953), XLV (15): 765-767.

[57] Keith Laidler, The Head of God: The Lost Treasure of the Templars, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1998), p.199.

[58] Piers Paul Read, The Templars: The Dramatic History of the Knights Templar, the Most Powerful Military Order of the Crusades, 1st Edition, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London (1999), Phoenix Press, London (2001), Orion Publishing Group, London (2012), p.306.

[59] Howard Ratcliffe, “Pope’s Resignation Due to Impending Arrest”, Standard-Examiner (standard.net), Ogden, Utah, 19 February, 2013.