by Miles Mathis
First published June 15, 2016
As usual, this is just my opinion based on private research.
In previous papers, I have shown you that various Jewish families were able to infiltrate not only the Vatican, but the thrones of Sweden and France. Here I will show you how they also infiltrated the throne of England.
You might say, "Why 'infiltrated'?" What's wrong with Jewish families being in royal lines? Nothing, on the face of it. Except that "infiltrated" implies clandestine methods, and that is what we will see. These families didn't honestly join the lines and households, announcing their presence. They changed their names and entered under assumed identities, denying all along they were Jewish. They still do.
The Papacy was bought several times by the Medicis, as is known. I showed the Medicis were most likely Jewish. The same family then got to the throne of France, via Catherine and Marie de' Medici. The throne of Sweden was infiltrated by Catherine Jagiellon, daughter of Barbara Radziwiłł of Poland and Lithuania. Before we move to England, let us pause and show that the two infiltrations of France and Sweden are connected—indicating a probable link between the Medicis and the Radziwiłłs.
Catherine de' Medici's fourth son became Henry III of France in 1574. He was supposed to marry Queen Elizabeth of England, but since they were both gay, it never happened. Anyway, a year before he became King of France, Henry was mysteriously "elected" King of Poland and Lithuania. Since when were Kings elected? Supposedly the "electors" invited him to rule their country, although he had no former connection to it. Right. We are told it was because they needed France's support against Russia, but that makes no sense. In such a case you sign treaties, you don't put a Frenchman on the throne of Poland. The reason they "elected" Henry as King of Poland is that he was the son of a Medici, and therefore Jewish. Which means those running Poland at the time and rigging the elections were Jewish. In support of that, we find that Lithuania boycotted the election. That is understandable, since they had no electors and therefore no vote.
In becoming King, Henry was supposed to marry Anna Jagiellon, who I showed in a previous paper was probably the daughter of Barbara Radziwiłł, and therefore also Jewish. However, that marriage also didn't come off, Henry reneging on the agreement. But this is our link, because Anna Jagiellon was the sister of Catherine Jagiellon, who became Queen of Sweden and mother of Sigismund III Vasa. This is further indication that everything was being controlled by Jewish interests in all those countries back to the 1500s. We will look at this again below.
But first to England. The throne of England was overtaken through Marie de' Medici, who married Henry of Navarre. You will say he was Henry IV of France, but pay attention. Her daughter was Henrietta Maria, and she married Charles I of England.
You will then tell me that infiltration of the throne of England didn't last long, because Charles was beheaded by Cromwell. But wait. Their daughter was Mary, and she married William of Orange. Their son was William III, who became King of England in the Glorious Revolution. Since in Judaism, the line is matrilineal, you can see that it didn't take long for the Medicis to get a Queen back on the throne. By their reckoning, both Henrietta Maria and Mary were Medicis. So was Mary's daughter Anne, who became Queen of England after William III.
When Anne died, George of Hanover became King George I. You might ask how that happened, since they admit 50 people had a closer relationship to Anne than George. Well, it happened because those fifty aristocrats were all Catholic. Those actually running the country in 1701 didn't want a Catholic as King, so they passed an Act of Settlement, outlawing a Catholic King. They set up Sophia of Hanover as next in line to the throne, although she was of a very junior line. When she died just before Anne did, her son George became first in line, and he became King a short time later.
But why did these people pick Sophia of Hanover? All we have to do is follow the matrilineal line again. Her mother was Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia. Her mother was Anne of Denmark. Her mother was Sophie of Mecklenburg-Gustrow. She was the daugher of Elizabeth of Denmark, and she was the daughter of Sophie of Pomerania. And she was the daughter of Polish princess Anna Jagiellon. That name should make you clap your hands and stomp your feet. She is the sister of Catherine Jagiellon, who started the house of Vasa in Sweden and infiltrated that throne for the Jewish Radziwiłłs.
What that means is that those running England in 1701 knew the only way to keep the Jewish influence on the throne of England was to ditch the Medici line for the time and switch to the Radziwiłł line. Which means those running England in 1701 must have been Jewish.
I will be told I have this Anna Jagiellon mixed up with a later Anna Jagiellon. But I don't think it is me that is mixed up. I propose the history has been finessed to hide these links I am showing you. I have already shown that with Catherine Jagiellon, who was too old to have done the things she did. I proposed in that earlier paper that she was 20 years younger than we are told, and a daughter not of Bona Sforza but of Barbara Radziwiłł. I propose a similar thing with Anna Jagiellon. She was about 20 years younger than we are told, young enough to have children. According to the given history, this Anna Jagiellon, Queen of Poland and Lithuania, was elected at age 52 to be Queen, but she needed a King. So Stephen Báthory, Voivode of Transylvania, was proposed as her husband. Lithuania refused to recognize the "election", and again did not even take part in it.
As with the "election" of Henry III two years earlier, none of this makes any sense. It reads like a poor fabrication. If these electors wished for Anna Jagiellon to be Queen, why didn't they insist two years earlier that Henry III marry her before he became King? We are supposed to believe they just missed that, and that he was able to wiggle out of it? Things don't work that way. I guess they want you to think that Kings are put on thrones by word of mouth, but they aren't. In the case that Kings are "elected", we would expect contracts to be written. Henry III didn't conquer Poland, he was invited in. He would be expected to follow their terms in that case. So this business about him refusing to marry Anna Jagiellon, or worming out of it, is just hooey.
As is this business about her needing to marry Báthory. Why would she need to do that, if she was 52? There is no way they could have expected her to produce an heir at that age, although the historians hedge by saying she may have not gone through menopause. What a joke. How in hell would they know? If you are going to guess, you guess based on evidence or at least probability. The probability a 52-year-old woman in that century would be fertile is very near zero.
So the stories we have to read about this are nothing but a huge red flag pointing at a hoax. History is being fabricated to hide something. Given what I have discovered, the most likely thing being hidden is that Anna Jagiellon was of a Jewish line, and she was elevated by the merchants and bankers running the country due to that fact. Also being hidden is that, like Barbara Radziwiłł, Anna Jagiellon did have children. Being 20 years younger than the charts say, she was perfectly capable of having children. And I suggest one of these children was in the line of Sophia of Hanover. In other words, the line ends at this Anna Jagiellon, not the earlier one. They have purposely mixed the two to throw you off the scent, but my nose is too good.
Before we move on, let us pause to look at Catherine de' Medici. She was Queen of France from 1547 to 1559. Note the first date, and the number 47. King Henry II died in mysterious circumstances in 1559, at age 40. We are told he died in a jousting match with a captain of his Scotch Guards, Montgomery. He is said to have been hit in the eye by a fragment of Montgomery's shattered lance and died from infection, but that story looks manufactured. To start with, jousters wore eye protection to prevent just that. Next, we find Catherine wouldn't let anyone see the King on his sick bed, so there was no way to confirm this diagnosis or cause of death. All she would have had to do is pay off a doctor. The King was more likely poisoned. We have already seen several rumors of poisoning from these families, and it was a common ploy at the time. For more evidence the story is false, we find a strange reaction from Montgomery, who had up to that time been savagely repressing Huguenots in the Scotch Guard: he joined them and waged war against France. I suggest he was chosen as a scapegoat for the King's death and didn't appreciate it. I also suggest that with the murder of his King, he became aware of what the Medici faction was up to: it had just performed a successful coup through the Queen. So Montgomery's war wasn't against France, it was against the Medicis. He should be seen as a hero.
This means the religious wars of that period have been sold to us under a false pretext. We are told it was between the Catholics and the Protestants. But seeing that Paris was ruled by the Jewish Medicis, we see it was a war of the Medicis against the Christian Church more broadly. Catherine ordered the rich Huguenots murdered in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre not because they were Protestant, but because they were prominent aristocrats and Christian. Also, at Wikipedia we are told
Throughout Europe, it "printed on Protestant minds the indelible conviction that Catholicism was a bloody and treacherous religion".That's convenient for the Medicis, right? We see that these religious wars did double duty: 1) getting rid of rich aristocrats whose properties could then be seized, 2) blackwashing Catholicism by making Catholics look like the bad guys. But we have just seen it wasn't really Catholics ordering the Huguenot genocide: it was the Medicis. The history of France has been rewritten by Jewish "scholars".
In support of 1), we find that when Montgomery was captured and beheaded, his properties were seized and his entire line removed from the peerage. As with the later French Revolution, this was a war against the aristocracy, and the fact that some of them were Protestant had little or nothing to do with it.
We have even more evidence of the Jewish conspiracy when we find that the urn containing the remains of Henry II was destroyed during the French Revolution. That's curious, wouldn't you say, especially considering what we learned about that Revolution in my recent paper?
Catherine had even more power when her young sons took the throne after the murder of their father. We are told the house of Guise ran the country during the reign of her young son Francis II, but that is misdirection. You can be sure it was run by the Medicis. Francis also died at age 16 under mysterious circumstances, and that death is often attributed to Protestant assassins. . . but that is obvious misdirection as well. They had no access to him. It is more likely that he was offed by his own family, simply for being such a pathetic creature. He was about five feet tall, sickly, could hardly speak, and may have been infertile. We are told he had undescended testicles. That should tell you how good the blood of these Medicis really was.
His 10-year-old brother Charles IX succeeded him, with Catherine again as the real ruler. She remained the true ruler of France until her death in 1589. Or, she was the front for the Medici rulers behind her. Also remember that when she married Henry II back in 1533 (note the date), the Medicis also owned the Vatican. Pope Clement VII was really Giulio de' Medici. It is no accident that the sack of Rome and the English Reformation took place under his rule.
You see how realizing the Medicis were Jewish changes everything. All of this history has to be rewritten with that in mind.
But back to England. If what I have proposed above is true, it means the Stuarts and Hanovers were infiltrated by these Jewish lines, but the current Windsors are not Stuarts or Hanovers. They are Saxe-Coburg-Gothas from Germany. So did the Jewish lines infiltrate them as well? Yep, in the same way and through the same lineage. Start with Ernest I, Duke of Saxe-Gotha in around 1672. His wife was Elizabeth Sophie of Saxe-Altenburg. Her mother was Elisabeth of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel, Duchess of Saxe Altenburg. Her mother was Elisabeth of Denmark, which puts us on the same track to the Jagiellons I showed you above. First we hit Sophie of Mecklenburg-Gustrow again, and then another Elizabeth of Denmark, and then Sophie of Pomerania, and finally Anna Jagiellon. This connects us back to the Radziwiłł line in Lithuania, as well as the Vasa line in Sweden.
We have another link to the same line through George V. But since he ruled until 1936, we have to go further back. Pay attention: his mother was Alexandra of Denmark, her mother was Louise of Hesse-Kassel, her mother was Princess Charlotte of Denmark, and then Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Anna Sophie of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, Anna Sophie of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg, Magdalena Sibylle of Saxe-Weissenfels, Anna Maria of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Anna Maria of Ostfriesland, Anna of Holstein-Gottorp, Christine of Hesse, Christine of Saxony, and finally Barbara Jagiellon. She is supposed to be the aunt of Sigismund II Augustus, who was married to Barbara Radziwiłł. So they assigned another of Barbara's ghost children and grandchildren to the wrong mother, to hide this Jewish link. This would mean Anna of Holstein-Gottorp may be the daughter of either Anna Jagiellon or Catherine Jagiellon, not the great-granddaughter of Barbara Jagiellon.
You may think this speculation is a stretch. Who am I to question history? Well, just ask yourself if it makes any sense as given in the history books. Why would the genealogy of George V go back to any Jagiellon? Finding any Jagiellon here is a red flag, so if you don't buy my theory you are put in the position of explaining why the ancestry is what it is. If you don't know what I mean, check Barbara Jagiellon's Wiki page, where it says she married George, Duke of Saxony, a German. They tell you this marriage was part of maintaining good diplomatic relations between Poland and Germany. What? When have Poland and Germany ever had good diplomatic relations? It makes no sense, because up to that time, it was not Germany and Poland intermarrying, it was Poland and Lithuania. Just check the Polish royal marriages before and after Barbara Jagiellon. No one was marrying Germans, especially Saxons. Saxony was right on the border of Poland, near Cracow. For this reason, it would have been dangerous for a Duke of Saxony to marry a Polish princess: it would give Poland a reason to absorb Saxony, or at least that part of it. If you don't believe me, check the marriages from the German direction in those centuries for all the Dukes and Electors of Saxony, in all lines. I did. Not one married a Polish woman. Also notice that this Duke produced no sons that survived him, with the title going to his brother after him. This made it easier to insert a fake at this point: otherwise it didn't matter.
So both the Hanover line and the Saxe line (Windsor) have a common ancestor with Sophie of Mecklenburg-Gustrow. Each is infiltrated by the Jewish line from Poland at that point.
We see a similar thing applies to Ernst Friedrich, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, five lines down in the genealogy below George V. His maternal grandmother is Anna Sophie, daughter of Magdalena Sybille, daughter of Anna Maria, daughter of Anna Maria, daughter of Anna of Holstein-Gottorp, and so on to Barbara Jagiellon again.
Even Queen Victoria hails back to the Jagiellon dynasty, through Anne of Bohemia, her 9x-great grandmother. Anne is the daughter of Casimir IV, King of Poland, which makes her a Jagiellon. She is actually Anne Jagiellon, sister of Barbara Jagiellon.
Curiously, with more research I find this dynasty may have been infiltrated before Barbara Radziwiłł. The founder of the Jagiellon dynasty was Władysław II Jagiełło, around 1400, and his grandmother is given as only as Jewna. Wikipedia translates that into Lithuanian as Jaune, which means young woman. But since Jewna is already Polish, Belarusian or Ruthenian, why translate it into Lithuanian, especially into a word like Jaune that resembles it not at all? We see the misdirection even in the short page at Wiki:
There are considerable doubts about how many wives Gediminas had. The Bychowiec Chronicle mentions three wives: Vida from Courland, Olga from Smolensk, and Jewna. Some modern historians suggest that Gediminas had two wives, one from local pagan nobles, and Jewna, an Orthodox. S. C. Rowell claims that Gediminas had only one wife, an unknown pagan duchess. He argues that an important marriage to a Ruthenian or Polish princess like Jewna would have been noted in contemporary sources.First of all, they go out of their way to call Jewna "Orthodox", while doubting her very existence. If they have no documentation on her religion, why assume Orthodox? Smells like misdirection. The same can be said for Rowell's claim that Gediminas had no wife named Jewna. His argument that an important marriage to a Ruthenian or Polish princess like Jewna would have been noted is a strawman argument, since there is no evidence she was either Polish or Ruthenian. What if she was a Jewish princess? Then there would be every reason for this not to be noted in contemporary sources. In fact, there would be every reason for it to be hidden in contemporary sources, and it would explain all the mystery surrounding her. It would also explain the name, would it not? And finally, it would explain why the youngest son of Gediminas would be chosen to succeed him, and why this youngest son was deposed after the death of Jewna. If there were three wives, then only the third son may have been Jewna's son. Jewna convinced Gediminas to name this son as his successor, or made the decision herself. But as we saw later with Barbara Radziwiłł, perhaps this elevation of a known Jew to the throne was extremely unpopular, making it easy for his Gentile brothers to depose him once Gediminas died.
Are the Windsors also infiltrated by the Medici line? Well, it's hard to say, but the current Queen's genealogy is very strange, and something important is being scrubbed. As we have seen, the genealogies of these royals normally go back many centuries. But her genealogy mysteriously hits a dead end with a woman named Frances Webb. Queen Elizabeth's g-great-grandmother was Anne Caroline Salisbury, not of the peerage, which is already strange. Her father was a solicitor and her husband was a Sheriff of Leicestershire. Her mother is listed as Frances Webb, and the genealogy ends there. Since this woman died in 1862, we have not gone far back in history at all. And it is not just Wikipedia that is scrubbed. Geni.com tells us of a Frances Webb (Skey), but it is the wrong woman, apparently her paternal grandmother. Edward J. Davies tell us that Frances Webb was the daughter of Francis Webb and Mary Garritt.
I encourage you to study the Queen's genealogy yourself. We only have to go back to her great-grandparents to find very strange things. Where we expect to find princesses and dukes, we find Frances Dora Smith. Who in hell is she? Well, her father is Oswald Smith, seemingly another commoner, since Wiki has nothing to say about him. But her grandfather is George Smith. His genealogy begins to tell us what is going on here. He was a banker and director of the East India Company! Red flags should be blanketing you about now. The East India Companies have always been run by wealthy Jewish interests. His father Abel Smith was also a wealthy banker. Note the first name. I would bet my life we are looking at crypto-Jews here. This bank was Smith's Bank, founded by Thomas Smith in 1658 in Nottingham. It later expanded into London as Smith and Payne. This Thomas Smith has no ancestry past his father, and his mother has no ancestry, although she may have been nee Garton.
Another great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth was Caroline Burnaby. Again, what? Her father and grandfather were named Edwin. Neither their wives, mothers or grandmothers go anywhere, all being scrubbed. The Burnabys go way back, but none of their wives have any ancestry listed. However, it is interesting to find the Geni.com pages on this family compiled by a Michael Rhodes. Ask yourself why a Rhodes would be compiling these pages.
Also ask yourself how this "unexceptional" marriage of Reverend Charles Cavendish-Betinck to a commoner led in just two generations to the throne of England. Caroline Burnaby's granddaughter was the Elizabeth that married George V, becoming Queen consort. There is something we aren't being told about these Burnabys, and my guess is that it is hidden in the maternal lines that have been scrubbed. One of them was a hidden Jewish princess of some sort, like Frances "Smith" above.
Another great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth was Princess Alexandra of Denmark. Her maternal line ends in Barbara Jagiellon, like the others we saw above.
So this means three of the current Queen's four great-grandmothers may have been from Jewish lines.
We find more strangeness a bit earlier, with Mary Bowes marrying the Earl of Strathmore in 1767. Who was Mary Bowes? Although not of the peerage, she was the wealthiest heiress in all of Europe, inheriting the estate of her father George Bowes. He was a coal magnate, one of the richest men in England. His wife was Mary Gilbert, and his mother was Elizabeth Blakiston. Strangely, his great-grandmother was also named Mary Bowes, and we see at least two rounds of incest or near-incest in the family (also see Anne Hilton). That, or a finessed ancestry. Stranger still, this earlier Mary Bowes was a de Laval. This is strange because in this century there is another line of de Laval in the genealogy of Queen Elizabeth, but it is the de Lavals of Brittany, not of Britain. Was Sir Ralph de Laval related to Charlotte de Laval of France? We aren't told. Anyway, George Bowes is another strange person to find in the ancestry of the Queen, since he was not of the peerage. His wife Mary Gilbert is a ghost. So is his paternal grandmother Anne Maxton, although she is listed as Scots.
We have even more problems if we look closely at Charlotte de Laval. The ancestry of Queen Elizabeth at Wikipedia doesn't go back that far, but on Charlotte's page we are told she was a direct ancestor of the current Windsors. Problem is, her ancestry at Wiki doesn't match her ancestry at genealogieonline.nl and other sites. At Wiki, we are told her mother was Antoinette d'Aillon, daughter of Jacques d'Aillon and Jeanne d'Illiers. Her father is given as Guy XVI de Laval. But at genealogieonline.nl, this same Antoinette married Louis de Maidallan d'Estissac, and their only daughter was Charlotte de Maidallan d'Estissac. Fabpedigree, myheritage, and myfamilytree.scot confirm this. According to a map, Laval and Estissac are nowhere near one another. So why has Charlotte de Laval's ancestry been joined to Charlotte d'Estissac? Could it be because Charlotte de Laval is an ancestor of the current Windsors, and because there is something to hide there?
We will circle back around to that soon, but back to the original question: did the Medicis ever infiltrate the Windsors? Not according to the given histories, of course. We are told the Medicis died out in the mid-1700s. But that is more misdirection. We will start with Marie de' Medici. Her daughter was Christine of France. Her daughter was Princess Henriette Adelaide of Savoy. And her daughter was Duchess Maria Anna Victoria of Bavaria. The maternal line dies out there, but this Duchess Maria was the mother of King Philip V of Spain and grandmother of Louis XV of France. So to say the Medici line died out is a huge overstatement. Or, it is simply a lie.
Remember, Louis XV was also descended from Marie de' Medici a second time, through his mother, Marie Adelaide of Savoy. Her g-great grandmother was also Marie de' Medici. So both the father and mother of Louis XV were descended from Marie, doubling the amount of "blood". Louis XV was also a descendant of Catherine de' Medici, since Princess Henriette Adelaide of Savoy (above) was of her line through her father, Duke Victor Amadeus. Louis XV then married Marie Leszczynska, of the Jewish line from Poland we saw above. So his children were Jewish in at least four lines.
Napoleon's second wife Marie Louise was also descended from the Medicis, through Philip V of Spain. Her great-grandfather was Charles III of Spain, son of Philip V.
The current Prince Philip is also from Jewish lines. His great-grandmother is Julia Hauke, and even Wikipedia admits she is "rumored to be of Jewish descent". However, they have no link or page for her mother Sophie Lafontaine. You have to go offsite for more information. At Wikia we find she is Polish, with a mother named Kornely. On her father's side we find the names Mayer and Zeitzler, but her mother's side is scrubbed. No info on Kornely. But on this page at ancestry.com, we have a claim that Kornely was originally Adelkindt, a Jewish family from Venice.
The best is yet to come, however, and we find it with even more digging at fabpedigree.com. A chart there tells us Lafontaine is descended from William the Silent of Orange-Nassau. Curiously, the lines between William and Johan de la Fontaine are missing. That is a huge red flag, though most will not see it. Of course those lines may include a Medici, since William's grandson William II married a Medici, Mary of England. We are told their only child was William III, but this strange chart at fabpedigree may indicate something very big being hidden.
In answer, I will be told William the Silent had 16 children. So why would I assume his last child, Frederick Henry, is the line being hidden in the charts? Well, several reasons. One, ten of those 16 had no issue. Two, none of the other five leads to a Lafontaine. Three, William the Silent's last wife, by whom he had Frederick Henry, was Louise de Coligny. She ties us back to the Charlotte de Laval mystery above, since she was the daughter of Charlotte. They were hiding something with Charlotte, and it is probably the same thing they are hiding with Kornely and Lafontaine. They misdirect you into thinking Julia Hauke may be Jewish, even admitting the possibility. But then they channel you into the Kornely controversy, so that you will miss the bigger controversy I just uncovered. That being that the Medici line may enter the Windsor line in the place you would least expect it: with Prince Philip.
You will say, "OK, so you are proposing William III had a sister, since scrubbed from the history books. So why didn't she become queen after Anne?" Because the Jewish bankers who ordered the Act of Settlement passed didn't want her to. Maybe they didn't want to have back-to-back queens, maybe she wasn't presentable or salable, I don't know. But this is the precise time they began selling the idea that the Medicis were dying out. I suggest that, due to unpopularity—and perhaps the blowing of their cover—they felt they needed to go underground for a while. This is another reason they gave up on the Medici lines and brought in the Jagiellon/Vasa lines with George I. The Medici lines had become too prominent and they were feeling backlash. They needed to exist again in the shadows, where they felt most comfortable and always did the most damage.
If you don't buy that theory, you tell me why the ancestry is so conspicuously scrubbed between William the Silent and Johan de la Fontaine. Why are things that should be known, like the interceding genealogy, mysteriously unknown, or denied? And why the adjoining mystery of the Lavals and Colignys? If nothing is being hidden, why all the apparent misdirection?
I can already tell you several people will be hired to say I haven't proved anything here, at least regarding the Medicis and Windsors. Of course I haven't. That is why these things are scrubbed: to prevent documentary proof. That leaves us only a compiling of surrounding evidence, measuring the width of the holes they have left and trying to reconstruct the most likely scenarios. That is all I have done and all I have claimed to do.
But remember, much of the rest of mainstream history is compiled that way as well: building the most likely scenarios from the incomplete evidence that has come down to us. So I am actually proceeding exactly like a tenured historian would. It is these manufactured and embarrassing histories that are fed to us that are ahistorical and illogical, since they try to turn us to least likely scenarios, constantly torturing logics, odds, math, and common sense to lead us where they wish us to go.
I would like to conclude by suggesting that, along those lines, we should consider the possibility the Jagiellon/Vasa lines are blood-linked to the Medicis, sometime before the 15th century. As a teaser in that direction, remember the parent house of the Jagiellons was the Gediminids. On the page the two words don't look that much alike:
de MedicisBut say them out loud.
The history of Gediminas also gives us teasing clues, in that he was said to have been the groom of a Grand Duke, killing him and stealing his identity and lands. Given what we discovered above, that "stealing his identity" is very suggestive. As is the fact that Gediminas allied himself with the Tatars (Turks or Mongols) against the Teutons (Germans). The early Jews did the same thing, allying themselves to the Ottoman Empire to punish the Holy Roman Empire. I showed you much evidence of that in earlier papers. Plus, the Jagiellons were doing the same thing in the north that the Medicis were doing in the south: quickly infiltrating all the power structures.
As just one colorful example of that synchronicity, we find that Isabella Jagiellon was born the same year as Catherine de' Medici, and both became queens, Isabella of Hungary and Catherine of France. Their Kings were both fighting the Habsburgs, but France from the west and Hungary from the East. Both Kings died under very curious circumstances. We have seen the death of Henry II above. Isabella's husband was King John Zapolya, and a year after he married her she produced a son and heir. Two weeks later Zapolya was dead, age 53, allegedly of cerebral hemorrhage. That normally comes from a blow to the head. Isabella was the daughter of Bona Sforza, from Milan. Both the Sforzas and the Medicis originally came from Romagna, now Emilia-Romagna, an area north of Florence and south of Milan. Also, the Sforzas and Medicis were allies. See Wikipedia:
After Visconti died in 1447, Francesco Sforza, backed by Lorenzo de' Medici, entered Milan in triumph (May 1450). [e] Two coalitions now formed: Sforza Milan allied with Medici Florence on the one hand, faced Venice and the Aragonese Kingdom of Naples on the other.But back to Isabella. When the King died, Ferdinand of Austria invaded Hungary, but Isabella and her baby were protected by the arrival of Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan of the Ottomon Empire, and his army. So once again, we see the descendants of Gediminas protected by the Turks.
The next thing we find of interest on Isabella's page is this painting:
It is by Sandor (Alexander) von Wagner, and is called Queen Isabella's farewell to Transylvania. It is from about 1860. Since the real event was 300 years earlier, and Wagner was from Budapest, Hungary, not Transylvania, we have to ask why he chose this subject. Yes, he was a history painter, but still it was a rather uncommon subject for the time. In those years, Wagner was in Munich, where no one had ever heard of Isabella. So why would he paint it? Well, would it help if I told you he was Jewish? As usual, Wikipedia has scrubbed his bio, but at revolvy.com we find more information. Wagner ran in the circle of Franz Schubert, Jewish. He was a student of Henrik Weber and one of his top students was Emil Wiesel.
As we saw with Barbara Radziwiłł in a previous paper, 400 years of Jewish artists have returned to these themes. Why? Because this is their history in Europe. Works like this simply confirm that the Jagiellons were Jewish.